By JEFF MORRIS
A proposal brought to the town board Oct. 10 to place a sculpture on temporary display at a site on the Parkway green in Katonah appears to be stalled.
The proposal again came before the board at its Nov. 7 meeting. But the approval that had been anticipated did not come to pass.
A steel abstract sculpture called “Punch” by Fitzhugh Karol was proposed to be placed on a dirt patch on the green, an installation that would last for six months. Christopher Brescia, former owner of CB Gallery, had presented the idea on behalf of the Katonah Village Improvement Society. Brescia had asserted that all residents of the immediate area had been contacted and approved of the installation, as did multiple organizations including the Katonah Historic District Review Commission and Katonah Chamber of Commerce.
The matter had been left open at the last meeting in order to allow time for input from the public, since it had been added to the agenda only four days prior to the Oct. 10 meeting. A resolution to approve the proposal was on the Nov. 7 agenda.
However, said Supervisor Ellen Calves, after not hearing anything at all during the entire comment period, that day she received “a strong opposition” from both a husband and wife who live in close proximity to the site. She said they felt there might be a better place for the sculpture where it could be more visible to visitors.
After going back and forth with them that afternoon, Calves said, she was “hesitant to approve it, given that someone who lives within sight of it from their house has a problem with it.” She wondered if there might be another location KVIS would consider.
Brescia appeared and reiterated that he had put notices in the mailboxes of everybody in proximity to the site and had not gotten one negative response.
“Is it your position that the vocal minority is going to have a say over what you guys decide?” he asked. “One person?”
Calves responded, “There are only four houses that could see this sculpture from their homes, and this is one of those four. So I wouldn’t say it’s a small minority; I would say it’s 25 percent of the people that you were supposed to get to agree to the location for this statue.”
There was an extended back and forth between Brescia and the board, as he insisted they were allowing a single objection to override what should be the board’s decision. “When we first talked about this,” said Calves, “one of the things I said was that everyone who can see it from their house needs to be on board.” Other members agreed.
“I feel the same way,” said Tom Catoliato. “If my fellow board member said we need approval from the individuals whose views from their home is affected, I stand with that.”
Stephanie McCaine said it was disheartening that at the eleventh hour, someone said they had been disingenuous. “It is challenging to really want to support that sort of behavior,” she said. “On the other hand, we do not want to put ourselves in a position where we’re trying to promote the installation of public art, and people feel like it’s an imposition.” She did not want to have another vocal minority suggesting they should “throw public art anywhere, anyhow, regardless of how people feel.”
Bobbi Bittker concurred with not wanting to go back on the original conditions. She also said she had a concern similar to McCaine’s. “I want to see you able to do this again and again,” she said, and did not wish to have it become the subject of “gossip and chatter” and turn into something negative. Bittker said if they take more time to get things right the first time, it could make the process easier in the future.
Calves asked whether there might be another location on the same green but not in direct view of the one house. Brescia, on the other hand, said he was hoping to change the conditions so that a majority of the neighbors approve, not every one of them. Calves and the other board members agreed that there should be approval from all the neighbors; Brescia pushed back against requiring unanimous approval. While Calves felt the matter was not urgent and they could take the time to do it right, Brescia countered that there were people who thought public art was imperative.
The proposal was tabled, with Calves encouraging Brescia to go back to KVIS and come up with an amended proposal that could move the installation to another location.
In her subsequent weekly newsletter, Calves said due to the lack of unanimous neighbor consent, the board recommended the request be reconsidered in a different location, and that the organizers discuss potential new locations with neighbors in those areas. She said while the board “is interested in piloting public art and encouraging of a policy for temporary installations,” it wants to be “collaborative and cautious with the pilot to learn what the community would like to see, especially those who will see the temporary sculpture from their homes.”