Email: editor@ gcnews.com

Justify Adverse Impact

To the Editor:

The June 2010 St. Paul’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) contains the following findings:

• “demolition of the Main Building will have a significant adverse impact on historic resources”

• “demolition of the Main Building would have a significant adverse impact on the thematically listed A.T. Stewart Era Historic District, as it would result in the removal of one of the monumental contributing resources of the historic district”

• “the St. Paul’s Main Building is an iconic aesthetic resource in the Village…”

• “the demolition of the Main Building would constitute a significant adverse impact on the visual character and aesthetic resources of the Village”

• “the proposed project would have a significant impact on the component of community character relating to aesthetic and historic resources because it would cause a loss of the Main Building…”.

The DEIS attempts to justify the demolition of the Main Building by claiming that the Village would benefit by the addition of 7 acres of “open space.” In another part of the DEIS however, it is conceded that some of the “open space” would remain a parking lot. I suspect that the parking lot will be expanded. The current parking lot consumes approximately two acres of land. Thus, the 7 additional acres of open land is essentially 5 acres of open land with at least a 2 acre parking lot.

Moreover, this open land will be surrounded by Cluett Hall, the ugly gym, a parking lot, the trailers now used by the Recreation Dept. and Seniors as well as the busy intersection of Rockaway and Stewart Avenues. Should we spend over a million dollars per acre for this type of open space?

While the DEIS estimates that it will cost approximately $5.8 million to demolish Ellis Hall and the Main Building, there is no cost estimate for re-designing, re-grading, repaving and expanding the parking lot.

There are other costs in the DEIS that are not included within the $5.8 million estimate. For example, in a certain section of the DEIS it is noted that to avoid “direct physical adverse impacts on [Cluett Hall] an architect who is familiar with the treatment of historic buildings could be retained to design or review the design of the re-building, if necessary of Cluett Hall’s east façade in the location of the basement connected to the Main Building to be removed as part of the Proposed Action.” No effort is made to estimate the cost of this work. In short, the $5.8 million cost will most likely balloon to $8-$10 million when the project is finished.

In reading the DEIS, I searched for any recent study demonstrating the need to spend $8-$10 million for 5 acres of additional open space.

Instead of undertaking a current assessment of the Village’s need for more “open space”, the DEIS instead relies upon a 1993 Village Board finding that there was a “need to preserve additional open space within the Village for use and enjoyment by the Village residents.” As a result of that Board finding, the Village purchased 46.5 acres of land at St. Paul’s. Thus, the Village acquired 39 acres of “open space” or about 20% more open space than it had before 1993. In short, outdated information is being utilized to justify an $8-$10 million expenditure to increase our total open space by only 2%.

Before a decision is made to demolish the historic Main Building more information is required. Spending $8-$10 million for 5 acres of seemingly needless open space does not seem to justify the conceded “adverse impact” demolition will have on this Village.

David J. Sutton