Yorktown board says compromise will let developer build while protecting history

Yorktown's Town Board has approved an agreement that it says prohibits demolition of the Underhill Farm property’s Italianate-style main building, and commits a developer to submit rehabilitation plans for the structure.

It’s part of the developer’s plans for 80 condominiums, 68 apartments and 8,100 square feet of retail on parts of the 13.8-acre, 370 Underhill Ave. site in Yorktown Heights.

A news release said the restrictive covenant, adopted by the board in February, means the developer would have to get approval from the board to demolish the main building or alter surrounding vegetation, a pond and an entry gate. The developer must also create an exhibit about the site’s former Underhill estate in a publicly accessible place.

But the decision come after the board on Feb. 6 rejected a proposal to designate various features of the property a historic landmark, as put forth by the Yorktown Heritage Preservation Commission. The property has been vacant since the private Soundview Preparatory School closed in 2020, but what happens to the site has touched off public debate in recent years.

“This decision was well-reasoned and protects the key features that most people know and want preserved,” Deputy Supervisor Ed Lachterman said in the statement about approving the covenant. “The covenant gives the Town Board definitive oversight over any deviation from the approved plan. This agreement is a product of an extensive and inclusive public debate that carefully weighed the input from all parties in our community.”

The board described the decision as a compromise meant to take into account the property owner's rights.

Yorktown residents discuss restrictive covenant for Underhill Farm

Resident Susan Siegel, who was among those who spoke at a recent hearing in favor of landmarking, expressed concerns the covenant won’t deliver the sort of protection landmarking the property would have. She said the covenant’s language means a property owner can come to the board, argue there’s a hardship in developing it, and seek permission to demolish.

“Landmark status is not a 100% guarantee, everyone acknowledges that, but it certainly provides an extra level of protection — you’d be a little more cautious about demolishing something that has been declared a landmark,” said Siegel, a former Yorktown town supervisor.

In an earlier news release about the board deciding against landmarking, Lachterman expressed confidence in the developer preserving the main building and other elements. “He's followed this path for four years without any change of the path," Lachterman said.

People spoke on various sides of the landmarking debate during a January hearing. The town Heritage Preservation Commission chairperson told the Town Board the property met four of five provisions for being granted landmark status; a lawyer for the developer/property owner disagreed. One resident spoke of the need to preserve places and recalled historic homes in town that are now long gone.

Another resident said the developer/property owner had gone through the process with the town and state, that the property is overgrown and dilapidated, and it was time to let the developer move forward. A town building official said that while the main house is in good shape, several structures deteriorated to the point that they were condemned.

Yorktown Heights sees lingering commercial vacancies

The Underhill Farm property is within an overlay district that town officials approved in recent years, saying that overlays are a tool to encourage mixed-use development in or close to downtowns of various hamlets in. Yorktown Heights is in the town's east.

As has been the case in some Westchester localities, officials' rationale is that business districts beset with store vacancies need more people downtown to rejuvenate businesses hit by the shift to online shopping. Yorktown Heights has experienced vacancies, such as in the Yorktown Green shopping plaza.

Aside from whether to grant it landmark status, the overall question of developing the property has drawn a mix of views. At a town Planning Board hearing last year, some people expressed support for the development as vital for older residents who are ready to downsize from houses, as well as to improve a property that's been deteriorating. But others expressed concern the additional homes and other features would worsen traffic congestion, bring additional schoolchildren, and sidestep the building’s historical significance.

Michael McKinney covers growth and development for The Journal News/lohud.com and USA Today Network in Westchester County and the Lower Hudson Valley.