A 140,000 square foot "upscale Lifestyle/Destination Center" of new buildings erected along Secor Lane or along the Eastchester Creek is the plan of developers in a second proposal for the underutilized Canal Road parcels. The proposal, which was received shortly after the June 29 deadline, will be presented to the Village of Pelham Manor Board of Trustees by the developers at the Board's only August meeting on Monday, Aug. 17.
A copy of the proposal, obtained by The Pelhams - Plus from the Village, has few details about the tenants that would rent the space. It says only that the "mixed use commercial development" combines the traditional retail functions of a shopping center with leisure amenities towards upscale consumers. It adds: "This 'Boutique' center will cater to a sector of the market which currently does not exist in affluent areas like Pelham and surrounding towns, taking advantage of the highway access."
The proposal was submitted by Secor Lane Development Partners, a to-be-formed Limited Liability Company comprised of JMF Properties, Glenco Group LLC and MDF Capital. It estimates the total cost of the project at $52.1 million and said the design of the proposal is inspired in large part by the redevelopment area of South Norwalk, CT (the SoNO district). It names Beinfield Architecture PC as its design architect, Cuddy & Feder as its land use counsel, JMC Engineering as its land planning, civil engineering and surveying firm, Munz Associates Landscape Architecture as it landscape architecture firm, and Ripco Real Estate as its retail leasing and marketing firm (which currently represents the center anchored by BJ's).
Secor Lane Development Partners does not have control of any of the Canal Road parcels.
The other proposed development presented to the Village, calling for construction of a home improvement store as well as two smaller restaurant buildings, was made by Fisher Brothers and Robert C. Beyer of B/D Capital Management LLC which controls nearly half of the property.
Village officials have said that they would proceed with eminent domain action if private owners of all the parcels did not reach agreement to enter into a single development proposal.