Relocation of Family Court in New Rochelle Sparks Opposition
By Dan Murphy
Usually, opposition from a neighborhood to a facility comes against a drug rehab or a halfway house. But in the City of New Rochelle, the Sound Shore community of the city along Pelham Road has expressed its opposition to a relocation of the Westchester Family Court, from its current location at 420 North Ave., to a former supermarket along Pelham Road.
That opposition now includes New Rochelle Mayor Noam Bramson, members of the New Rochelle City Council and County Legislator Terry Clements, who all oppose the relocation. This puts Westchester County, which must come up with an alternative location after not having its lease renewed at the current location on North Avenue, in the difficult spot of finding a suitable alternative location in New Rochelle – or moving this branch of the Family Court to another Westchester City.
In the middle of this discussion is the Office of Court Administration for the New York Court system, which must approve any location. OCA has identified the key elements required for a new court site. They include: a minimum of 32,000 square feet of space (maximum of 35,000); safe and secure off-street parking to accommodate clients and visitors, and private and secure access and parking for judges and staff; access to public transportation; a location within the City of New Rochelle; and it must be a fiscally responsible cost for county taxpayers
Two documents from Westchester County provide insight into the matter, and the small number of alternatives available. First is a document from Westchester County Real Estate Director Gary Friedman, who has attempted to find a suitable new location for Family Court in New Rochelle – which is the smallest of the three family court locations in Westchester County, and only handles cases from New Rochelle, Pelham and Mt. Vernon.
The Family Court system in Westchester is tasked with hearing cases of adoptions, custody and visitation of children, guardianship, child support and paternity, domestic violence, PINS and juvenile delinquency matters. No criminal court cases are heard in Family Court. In Westchester, it is the only superior court (above the city/town/village court level) that is regionalized, with courts in Yonkers and White Plains, as well as in New Rochelle.
The Family Court operates weekdays from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. It is closed weeknights, overnights, weekends and on holidays.
The court is currently staffed by 60-plus employees, mostly court staff, and half of those are sworn peace officers that provide security for the court.
The court is currently located at 420 North Ave., and the current conditions of that facility have been deemed insufficient to maintain the court’s presence there. In 2010, a report highlighted the facilities’ deficiencies, and urged relocation of the court. In addition, the current owner of 420 North Ave. wants the Family Court to leave the facility as soon as possible, and has refused to sign a long-term lease, so he can demolish the existing building and re-build on that site.
The owner does not wish to have the court return to that location.
County government is charged with constructing and maintaining adequate facilities for the court, and has been on notice for nearly a decade to seek a relocation site. “Prior to our taking office on Jan. 1, 2018, very little was done to survey alternatives for that relocation; ideally, had plans been put in motion three or four years ago, they would have come to fruition by now with a new state-of-the-art court,” said Friedman. “Therefore, we face a time crisis as both the owner of the current site, and the State Office of Court Administration want immediate action.”
Friedman and representatives from OCA have visited and reviewed more than a dozen locations in New Rochelle, most of which either did not have enough square footage, had too much square footage and could not be subdivided, or did not have enough on-site parking.
A review of Freidman’s report shows that the 366 Pelham Road location, while not perfect, appears to be the most viable. The site, located in the south end of the city, formerly housed an A&P supermarket, and has been vacant for a few years.
Advantages: It has sufficient square-foot space, in an open floor plan, to accommodate court and administrative functions; it has off-site parking that can provide proper security for judges and court personnel, as well as clients and visitors; public bus transportation is available (adjustment of current routes would be required); it is vacant at present, and offers the fastest site to retrofit and establish court usage; and it is the least expensive site to develop of all those visited.
Disadvantages: It is not located downtown and not accessible to train transportation; and city government and neighborhood activists oppose this site’s usage.
“We will continue to investigate any other site that is identified as a possible relocation alternative,” said Friedman. “Based on the sites reviewed to date, 366 Pelham Road is the site with the most advantages and least disadvantages, based on OCA requirements. We also recognize the significant opposition to this site from a community standpoint; that opposition appears to be based on the usage of the location for the Family Court, although some site-related arguments (traffic, transportation) may be made as part of that opposition.”
County Executive George Latimer issued a letter to Director of Operations Joan McDonald about the search for a new Family Court location.
“I’ve reviewed Gary Friedman’s analysis of possible sites for the New Rochelle Family Court, and I would like you to discuss some key issues with OCA,” he wrote. “We are at a difficult point here; clearly, the mayor and City Council of New Rochelle do not want the site at 366 Pelham Road for the court. There is rising opposition to that location from within the community that must be respected and taken into account. However, the choices before us are quite limited. The other existing buildings that would be retrofit into court usage are not physically desirable, based on OCA requirements, for one reason or another. The alternative of new construction on an empty parcel involves much more county taxpayer cost and a much longer time frame to design and complete than an existing building retrofit.
“Further, the rhetoric in the community against the Pelham Road location is not merely an argument against a specific site, identifying problems for this one location, but an argument against the use of a Family Court facility itself, identifying problems that would surface at any location. Concerns articulated about who uses the court, the safety of neighbors, speculation about disruptive behavior and worse, if it becomes locked into general public opinion, would ensure local opposition to the court in any location – in any neighborhood, or even in downtown, where businesses are the neighbors.
“The fear factor argument would not be limited to the site at 366 Pelham Road, and that may make placement nearly impossible anywhere in New Rochelle,” continued Latimer. “The court has historically been located in the city as a convenience for those who work at or access the court in that corner of the county, but its past history of safety in its present location in New Rochelle is not part of the discussion at present; South End neighbors and their advocates have become energized about the possibility of future problems and predicted the same if the court is in their neighborhood. The opposition of the mayor and council give support to their claims.
“The county will have to figure how to budget whatever OCA deems appropriate. The fact that such decisions have been delayed prior to our taking office is not relevant to OCA – they view the county government as a corporate entity, regardless of who is in charge. We inherit whatever work has or hasn’t been done previously. The neighbors do not care much about where we place the court as an alternative as long as it is not in their backyard,” wrote Latimer.
One way to resolve the lack of public transportation to the Pelham Road site would be to provide shuttle service from the number-seven Bee Line Bus at Lincoln Avenue and North Avenue.
Many New Rochelle residents who live on or near Pelham Road oppose the Family Court at the site of the empty supermarket, which has remained vacant for some time. At issue is the fact that the many residents who live along Pelham Road don’t want the court in their backyard.
This is, many believe, NIMBY’ism gone wild. This is not a criminal courthouse: it is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays and closed at night and on weekends. Half of the staff in the courthouse are peace officers and police personnel. Most of the visitors are family members dealing with visitation or issues concerning their families, not violent offenders or drug offenders or criminals.
This appears to be another inherited problem for County Executive George Latimer to clean up, but if the current location of the Family Court is in New Rochelle, then all efforts should be made to keep it in New Rochelle. To build a new facility in the middle of this county budget crisis and with so many vacant properties doesn’t make sense.
There is no backroom deal, or diabolical decision to move the Family Court to Pelham Road.
Simply put: It is the logical place for it to go. We agree with the county executive and his staff, who have recommended the Pelham Road location.
One New Rochelle real estate professional explained that opposition coming from elected officials in the city was “because of a lack of support for any location. What’s in it for the mayor, council or County Legislature to be in favor of a new family court location?” that person asked. “This is a project without an interest group that speaks up.”
New Rochelle Mayor Noam Bramson said: “Pelham Road is the wrong location for the Family Court, which can better serve our community and region at a more central site with easier transit access… We have no direct authority in this matter, and the decision is ultimately the county’s to make.”
Bramson is inaccurate in his statement; the decision is actually up to the NYS Office of Court Administration.
