Comprehensive Plan Offers Little Foresight

Rather than making political statements, such as global warming is a threat and fostering a position on a subject that can be subjectively argued for or against, the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee (CPSC) should have stated simply that they wish to support all forms of what is today considered alternative energy sources in new and remodeled construction. Instead, they devoted an entire chapter on making environmental statements that only acknowledge what is being said by some. Golden opportunity missed.

During the third and probably final hearing, suggestions were made by residents as well as more questions raised. One resident asked why we have three fire districts and spend so much on them and how can we consolidate them to cost less? Chair and Councilman Sheehan politely explained that this was not the venue for that discussion. Obviously, this resident had been absent approximately a year ago when Mr Feiner deflected attention away from being found guilty in Federal court of discrimination, lying under oath, destroying evidence and four other counts in the Fortress Bible Church discrimination case, while going after the Fairview Fire Chief and touting fire district consolidation.

Another resident suggested having a "resident component" through a Civic Association that has one vote on all zoning changes.  When the the members of the CPSC questioned how he would implement it, he said he hadn't thought it through but was willing to meet with others to try to formulate a plan. The proper time to develop this is while the plan is in the formative stage. He also stated that the members of the Zoning and Planning Boards are handpicked and appointed by Mr Feiner and voted in confirmation through the Town Board, controlled by Mr Feiner. There should be one equal community vote that gets cast at a Town Board zoning change decision vote. In the event of a tie, only then would Mr Feiner vote.

Theresa Mae Tori, Conservation Advisory Council Chair and long time Hartsdale resident, stated the CPSC struggled with how to include the public and that was the goal with charrettes. A charrette is a supposed collaborative meeting with all stakeholders: Town, Developer, Neighborhoods. The problem that was pointed out by many is that a developer has the resources to meet anytime and members of the community do not. As such, a couple of meetings without public participation simply due to other obligations, lack of publicity or advertisement, etc., would almost guarantee a developer's project go through as they wish. We see this today with the archaic posting of notices on telephone poles.

Another deletion to the proposed Plan was the use of nodes. The Edgemont Community Council and others protested the "corner-nodes" throughout the Central Park Avenue corridor. Simply, a four-story building would be constructed with retail on the bottom floor and three floors of residential (probably low-income) housing. No parking would be provided for those retail or residential apartments. Shoppers to the retail establishments would use limited on-street parking. Prospective residents, discussed mostly as "Millennials" typically do not own cars so parking for them, their visitors or guests would not be an issue. Also, not accounted for is the change in the retail environment as brick and mortar establishments counteract the difficulty of maintaining any kind of retail presence given that same generation's proclivity to purchase via the Internet. Again, no input in the Plan to address adaptations for shifts in the future.

One resident spoke at length about how the Plan actually lacked little, if an,y real planing for the future of our Town. He lamented that the CPSC never reached out to many qualified residents for input to help shape a plan that addresses the Town's future design. In fact, of all the work done to this point, this was merely a report of how the Town exists now, highlighting more the status quo than projecting into the future. Sadly, while it may already be too late to change this multi-year offering into a real tool for shaping the Town's future, the reality is that the CPSC is probably content to accept it as is and be done with it. Perhaps the problem with having leadership that comes from the existing leadership committees is a culmination of the failures of Greenburgh's leaders?

We are appreciative that many agreed to work on this committee. Noticeably missing was it's chief architect, our former Town Planning Commissioner, who bailed to take a similar position in Stamford Connecticut. It was he who insisted on the "Nodes" and "Charrettes" ill-fated concept. Perhaps we are better off without the urbanization ideas of what he and Mr Feiner see as the "next" phase for Greenburgh. Perhaps there is still time for this committee to revamp what they have put together and truly offer a future vision for Greenburgh. Only then will we see A Better Greenburgh.