Elmwood Preserve — Honor Promises to the Community

As Town Board members, I trust you will be discussing in public all of the issues before arriving at a decision regarding which Alternative should be approved for development at the site of the former Elmwood Country Club. The public deserves to know how and why the Board arrived at its decision regarding this application. Executive Session discussions would be inappropriate.

The community learned on April 5, 2022 that the applicant is now urging your Board to adopt Alternative 1 “as the best and most viable alternative.” Alternative 1 would include 159 townhouse units, sold as “fee simple,” with 15 units set aside as affordable and 14.2 acres of land dedicated to the town for recreational purposes. It would be helpful for the public to know whether it was the Town Board who urged the applicant to include an alternative with affordable units, since the applicant summarily ignored the public’s request in the Scoping Document to study the possibility of affordable units and totally dismissed any discussion in the DEIS. It would also be helpful to know why affordable housing units were not introduced in the other Alternatives.

In its March 14, 2022 letter, the Westchester County Planning Board stated it supported Alternative I, in part, because of the inclusion of affordable units. However, Alternative I was not the County’s first choice. The letter made it very clear “we would have preferred that Alternatives C, D and F could continue to be considered.” The County’s letter also questions the number of affordable units and notes that work is necessary to ensure these units are properly marketed and integrated. In fact, Greenburgh has no regulations in place to deal with marketing or integrating affordable homes in One-Family residential zoning districts or in Planned Unit Development districts. The way the applicant has placed these proposed affordable units in three buildings of five units each while all the other buildings of luxury housing contain four units shows a total lack of integration and any understanding about how not to stigmatize those who would be living in these affordable units if Alternative I were adopted.

We learned on April 6, 2022 that the Planning Board is now stating that Alternative I “provides the greatest overall benefit to the Town.” Interestingly, the Planning Board’s recommendation doesn’t ring 1000% in favor of Alternative I, and it readily endorses Alternative H (113 one family homes) as a second choice. The Planning Board’s recommendation makes very clear “its disappointment that only one of the five alternatives contains affordable housing.” The Planning Board “strongly recommends that affordable housing be included in any approved alternative.”

We noted with interest the email to CD&C Commissioner Garrett Duquesne, dated April 5, 2022, from the Westchester County Department of Planning mentioning that all of the FEIS Alternatives “would generate more than 150 gallons per capita per day” which is the limit defined in the County’s sewer law. The public needs to know how this issue will be addressed.

We are also aware of the New York State Department of Transportation letter, dated April 7, 2022, regarding the Elmwood Preserve project. The DOT letter refers to traffic issues with each of the Alternatives in the FEIS and indicates six mitigation measures which have not been addressed. The letter states: “It is critical that these mitigations be included in the SEQR process prior to final determination.”

How can the Town sign off on the SEQR process if issues with sewage and traffic have not been adequately addressed?

As a multi-decade resident of Greenburgh, I believe “planning and zoning” are the foundations of a community. That is why from the date of being appointed to the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee (CPSC) in March 2007 until the plan was adopted in September 2016, I had unmatched attendance at CPSC meetings and devoted an untold number of other hours working with CD&C Commissioner Duquesne to refine the plan. The CPSC made promises to the community. When the Town Board adopted the Comprehensive Plan, it too made promises to the community.

I urge the Town Board to uphold the promises made to the community. Do not downzone the existing zoning on the former Elmwood Country Club property and permit increased density and multifamily housing in this one-family residential neighborhood. Please uphold the existing zoning on the site and permit only one-family housing to be built with necessary land transferred for recreational purposes.

Members of the surrounding community have already publicly stated that they would support workforce one- family housing being built on the Elmwood site. Appoint a committee to amend the Zoning Ordinance to require workforce housing in one-family zoning districts. The amendments could be in place before subdivision plans are submitted for this property. Any reputable developer would accommodate building workforce homes.

The current owner, Jonathan Grebow bought the Elmwood property knowing what the existing zoning permitted. And it is not the first time he didn’t get everything he wanted. A Journal News article from 2017 noted that in 2014 Mr. Grebow bought a 108-acre former country club property in New Jersey for $10.4, planning to build 34 single family homes on the Mahwah site and 353 multifamily homes, including 71 affordable units on the Saddle River site. After long negotiations Mr. Grebow agreed to build 44 single family homes. After obtaining approvals he sold the project to Toll Brothers which paid $20 million more than he had paid for the property. Not a bad profit!!

– Ella Preiser

It Needn't Take Eight Years

Whether you call it a Comprehensive Plan, a Master Plan or something else, it’s an idea whose time is long overdue for our Town. In Greenburgh, a Comprehensive Plan already exists that was created numerous years ago by many forward thinking leaders. Most residents don’t know of it because Mr Feiner and his Board have allowed pretty much any design or proposal to be built, regardless of whether it blended with the surrounding area or not. However, eight years ago an effort was undertaken to create a new Comprehensive Plan for the Town, citing a need for a plan for the Town’s future.

Many residents, including ABG and the G10 favored this idea. But we favored it for more selfish reasons. We wanted a Comprehensive Plan in place to slow Mr Feiner and his Board’s spot-zoning explosions throughout Unincorporated Greenburgh. You see, when there is a Comprehensive Plan for a Town or Village, it makes rezoning more difficult to do according to NYS law and sets some ground rules in place that must be followed. The ground rules in Greenburgh are pretty much “anything goes” and it shows.

In Fulton Park, for example, Mr Feiner championed the Westhab low-income apartment building that has been referred to by most who see it as The Gulag, a hideously designed building mostly of exterior grey slabs that add no warmth, feeling of neighborhood or community to it and stands out like a sore thumb. It reminds many of the drab Russian buildings seen in the 1960’s and 1970’s, hence the name, The Gulag. In fact, residents were ignored when they asked for a more attractive and conducive structure to be built, being told it was patterned after area buildings, specifically the old Nynex phone company building across the street. Even it, designed and built in the 1950’s shows more character. Now that it is being leased to the County for DSS services, it will never be given a fresh look.

Another example is the Greenburgh Library, often referred to as “The Ski Slope”, an apparently award-winning design. But that matters little after the lead agency approved it and then tried to cut corners. Who was the lead agency? Mr Feiner and his Board, of course. And, they approved the design even after Mr Feiner said he didn’t like it – he was hedging his bets and was “playing” the public by doing his typical rope-a-dope, “I like it, I don’t like it.” While the old library offered more space and utilization even though it may not have won any awards, there were immediate issues with the new addition, overseen by Mr Feiner and his Town Board sans planning, building or construction experience.

The thermal heat pump HVAC system that was supposed to be put on the south side of the building where the drive and employee parking is, was not put there because the lead agency didn’t do their due diligence, their homework, or ask the correct questions of the plans. Had they correctly followed the process they often brag about, they might have learned that moving it to the other side of the building – which they authorized – and only going half as deep as they needed, would prove ineffective and be a waste of time, money and resources. Other issues continue to plague this facility: leaks in the roof, failed boilers for heat, inadequate and failed air conditioning units, lack of community room space, frozen sprinklers and leaks every year and more. Is it any wonder the Library was unable to stay open on weekends several years ago?

At the last Town Board meeting, another hearing for the proposed Comprehensive Plan was on the agenda. The watered-down and almost ineffectual newly proposed Comprehensive Plan was more proof that this has been shaped into a political agenda and wreaked of a lack of open government from 177 Hillside Avenue. Town Councilman Francis Sheehan and then Planning Commissioner Thomas Madden were leading this project. Members from different Boards were also members of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee. You must keep in mind that all Board members for Building, Zoning, Planning and others are appointed positions by Mr Feiner and ratified by his Board. All of those Board members know they must tow the Feiner-line or risk being “Sonya’d”. So the shapes of these Boards along with their decisions are easily influenced and results had by Mr Feiner. His Board just knows to go along or be jettisoned in the next election.

Speaker after speaker as well as community leaders all bemoaned the changing of so many sections and how the document no longer reflected the will of the people who were given several opportunities to not only provide initial creation input, but to review various iterations of it at 5 road-show meetings. The people were clear. They wanted more green space, less traffic, smaller buildings, bike and walking paths and cohesive designs so buildings create a beautiful community, not a disjointed, ad hoc corridor of competing designs. Why did the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee summarily dismiss the will of the people? ABG staffers believe Mr Feiner told those he controls that it was what he wanted. Why do we think this? Because almost every time Mr Sheehan would report at a Town Board meeting that the committee was wrapping up its proposal for public consumption, Mr Feiner would throw another task at them that would delay them, sometimes for more than a year! He does not want a Comprehensive Plan because it will stunt his ability to help his developer friends.

Eight years is a long time for any committee to exist and not provide any substantive and positive conclusions. In fact, in Pleasantville, they are undertaking the updating of their Master Plan for themselves. Smartly, they have hired BFJ Planning to assist them with this undertaking and are already making headway. Their existing plan dates back to 1995 and they thought it time to refresh it as they have so little developable space left. One resident said he favored seeing more retail space in the center of the Village and a green gathering space instead of parking spaces. Obviously, he doesn’t get it. If you have retail, a) you must accommodate parking as to attract shoppers; b) short of restaurants, nail salons, pizza parlors and such, how much “downtown” shopping would be generated?; c) with current taxes, vis-à-vis rents, what kind of retail operation can afford to maintain their business especially if there is limited parking? Sadly, the retail they will get is limited mostly to large retail chains that small Towns and Villages seem to resist.

Having a plan for almost anything is a good idea. Undertaking such an intensive project is not for the faint of heart. The Greenburgh Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee took on a big task. They got sidetracked with city development planning terms like “charrettes” and “nodes” thanks to Thomas Madden and perhaps others. They wasted time on Climate Change when they could have used one line to say, “they would strive to have developers and the Town participate in the most ecologically sound practices to preserve our resources and environments.” In fact, the Town Board adopted LEEDS certification requirements that they never enforce that could work toward that end. The committee watered down other areas, which would allow extremely loose interpretation on zoning change requests by developers, giving Mr Feiner the carte blanche he currently has with spot-zoning changes he wishes to make.

The Greenburgh Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee needs to ask for a “time-out” and go back to the drawing board and construct a plan that is actually forward-thinking for the future and does not just explain what we currently have. This golden opportunity missed can still be salvaged. If the pressure from the corner office is too great, perhaps it’s time for a change in the committee and especially at Town Hall. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

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.