To the Editor:

In the weeks that have passed since its filing, the Article 78 lawsuit instituted against the Village
regarding the Harmon area rezoning law has generated much commentary at Village Board meetings by
current and former trustees, and in local media outlets by surrogates of the elected officials who voted to
adopt the law last November. Aside from baselessly deriding the lawsuit as a “thinly veiled political
ploy” and unjustifiably accusing the attorney of record of committing an abuse of legal process by even
initiating the action, it seems that the most potent criticism the lawsuit’s opponents can put forth is that the
Article 78 action is a mere “procedural” challenge to the law, and thus, in their view, it fails to challenge
the substance of the law as enacted. Regarding this point, I beg to differ.

The lawsuit sets forth thirteen separate bases on which the law is challenged. Several of the
causes of action are, in fact, based on the Board’s failure to follow required legal procedures in passing the
law. Opponents of the lawsuit seem to be of the opinion that these challenges are less meaningful than
those that question the substance of the analysis that provides the alleged “overarching rationale” for the
law. However, the ubiquitous existence of codes of legal procedure in both federal and state law belie
such an argument, and I personally know of no attorney who would fail to put forth a potentially winning
procedural argument in a case due to its lack of “substance.” Moreover, it is insulting to the citizens of
Croton for our public officials or their surrogates to even suggest that the Board’s multiple violations of
procedural law is insignificant or in any way excusable.

What is most astonishing about this criticism, however, is that it is patently false. Several of the
thirteen causes of action asserted in the lawsuit take direct aim at the unfounded assumptions and faulty
conclusions contained in the studies drafted for the Harmon Economic Development Committee and the
Village Board by consultants paid to provide support for the Board’s chosen rezoning scheme. The very
first cause of action asserted by the petitioners accuses the Board of having conducted an insufficient
review, and of having failed to take the required “hard look” at the potential environmental impacts that
passage of the law would have. Another cause of action charges that the Village Board failed to identify
potential impacts of the new law, in such areas as land use, zoning, aesthetic resources, parking, traffic,
community character, school enrollment, infrastructure support and safety. Yet another cause of action
charges that the substance of the new law stands in direct contradiction to several provisions of Croton’s
Comprehensive Plan. This cause of action charges that the new law “facilitates and incentivizes
development of buildings in excess of the scale contemplated in the comprehensive plan, permits
residential use in substantially greater proportion to commercial use in a commercial district than
contemplated in the comprehensive plan, fails to preserve the small scale and historic character of the
Harmon Gateway District as contemplated in the comprehensive plan, fails to consider the preservation of
historic resources as contemplated in the comprehensive plan, and fails to preserve scenic views that are
highly valued in the comprehensive plan.” These causes of action most certainly offer rather pointed
criticism of the substance of the Harmon area rezoning law that was enacted. The Village’s response to
this lawsuit - which is due this week - will require a substantive defense of its actions. I, for one, wonder
what the Board will have to say in its own defense.

Roseann Schuyler
Croton on Hudson