P’ville Residents Urge Rejection of Floating Zone for Assisted Living Project

By Janine Bowen

Pleasantville residents came out in full force last Monday night to heavily criticize a requested floating zone to accommodate Benchmark Senior Living’s proposed assisted living facility.

The three-hour public hearing at village hall focused on the text and map change sought by the applicant to create the zone an 87-unit facility on Bedford Road, just north of the United Methodist Church.

Many residents were concerned that the floating zone concept could be applied to several other locations in the village. Requirements for the zone include that the land be at least a quarter-mile from a commercial area, has frontage on a state or county road and is not within a five-mile radius of other floating districts. A map of all potential floating zone districts is shown on the village website.

“When I hear this clever idea for a floating district, it chills me to the marrow of my bones,” said Richard Vastola, who formerly served on the village planning commission and helped develop Pleasantville’s Master Plan. “If you can put a stake in the [residential] zoning protection, then everything else is up for grabs.”

Vastola told the board that the goal of the original Master Plan was to place residents’ preferences first and asked officials to put the Benchmark decision to a referendum.

Other residents argued that all Pleasantville residents should have received official notice of the hearing because the floating zone could potentially impact other areas of the village. By law, the board is only required to send notice by mail to those residents who live within 500 feet of the site.

Some were also concerned that the notice which was distributed did not make a specific reference to the map change portion of the amendment.

“I don’t think it should move forward without better, more complete notice,“ said Nannyhagan Road resident Joan Horton.

Mayor Peter Scherer agreed to adjourn the hearing until March 24 due to notification concerns and the volume of comments.

Similar to prior meetings, some residents raised questions about how the inclusion of an assisted living facility into a residential area would impact neighborhood character. Maple Hill homeowner Monica Strobel said under the current village code restaurants cannot have outdoor seating past 10 p.m. and gas stations must turn off outdoor lights by that hour. Benchmark, in contrast, will be causing light pollution and traffic 24 hours a day.

Bedford Road resident Pam O’Keefe brought up the potential for increased traffic, something that is already an issue in the village.

“It makes me very concerned that there will be ambulances, and there will be trucks, and there will be a lot more cars and people,” O’Keefe said. “And it’s only in a two-square-mile village, so how much more can we really take?”

Pleasantville Volunteer Ambulance Corps (PVAC) member Gale Wind said Benchmark would place added burden on the corps, which struggles to attract new volunteers.

“This will be a huge impact on us, one that we probably will not be able to handle,” she said.

Benchmark will contract its own ambulance service for non-emergencies, but would rely on PVAC for medical emergencies.

Multiple residents said Pleasantville would lose the elements that has made the village attractive should be the project be built.

“The Village of Pleasantville, by its own definition…is a small, basically residential village,” said resident Bill Stoller. “That’s what we bought into, that’s why we moved here, that’s why we stay here. It’s a different kind of place than almost any other Westchester area you can think of.”

“To do what is being proposed to be done here, to put a large commercial facility in a residential neighborhood in Pleasantville fundamentally changes what Pleasantville is,” he added.

Several residents supported Benchmark at last week’s hearing. Mary Gregorius, a rector at St. John’s Episcopal Church, countered arguments that the facility would alter the village’s character.

“Does the character of Pleasantville change because we allow space for people to grow old in place? I don’t think that that changes our character negatively,” she said.

Lois Somer, a senior citizen who lives on Pleasantville Road, urged the board to approve the zoning because Benchmark would fill a void in the community.

“We all know that Pleasantville has been losing, for decades, friends [and] neighbors who want to stay…many, if not most, would have used a senior assisted living facility to be able to maintain their health and stay in town. This is an opportunity for us to solve a serious problem,” she said.

Scherer said should the project move forward local seniors and families would benefit.

“We know these stories in ways that the rest of the community doesn’t, about seniors who very, very much want to stay in the Village of Pleasantville and who are living in conditions that place them at risk because the desire to stay in Pleasantville exceeds everything else,” he said.

More than 90 letters and emails from residents who support the project have been received compared to 57 letters in opposition, Scherer said.

Benchmark is currently in contract to buy the land from the United Methodist Church pending the approval of the floating zone.

“It is very important to us that we contribute to the community,” Pastor Suhee Kim said. “The church chose to propose an assisted living project to address a longstanding community need and a project that is consistent with our mission.”

Kim noted that Benchmark has already made several modifications to its original plan in response to residents’ concerns and is confident the company will be good neighbors.

Despite the assertions that the senior living facility would address a community need, many residents questioned whether elderly Pleasantville residents would be able to afford the $8,000 a month rent.

Public comments will remain open until the public hearing continues on March 24. The board hopes to vote on the zoning amendment at that time, prior to the retirement of Trustee Brian Skarstad, whose term expires March 31. Scherer said the current board has studied and evaluated the proposal for more than a year and should make the decision.