Leadership Remains Stale as Ideas and Creative Thinking Wither

As the Shelbourne assisted living saga continues to drag out with both sides knowing the probable outcome after all of the lawsuits, we’re faced with other construction proposals elsewhere. By the time the public learns of these other projects, we usually uncover that Mr Feiner has had secret meetings with them long before the breath of public knowledge. They pitch their ideas in the corner office, seeking help, advice and strategies. Such was the case with GameOn 365, friends of Mr Feiner who would be positioned by him for a windfall property gain at 715 Dobbs Ferry Road, the former Frank’s Nursery property. Regardless of the tactics employed by Mr Feiner, the neighborhoods surrounding the property were able to beat him at his own game, stood united and thwarted the illegal deal he made with them.

Now we have the Shelbourne assisted living proposal that has already visited the halls of justice. Mr Feiner openly stated he was for the assisted living facility before the Edgemont community protested and then he was against it. It also appears that Mr Sheehan has publicly stated he is against the variances that were granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. You may also recall Mr Sheehan chaired the questionably received Town Comprehensive Plan, making it nothing more than a weak politically correct statement of current events – none of which can be certified scientifically – and not a vision for the Town’s future. It was a golden opportunity whose capital was squandered away for a brief moment of political acknowledgement. Sadly, this seems to be what our past 25 years of stale leadership is providing the Town. If misery loves company, we’ll not alone.

After some 20-years of dormancy, the former General Motors assembly plant site in Sleepy Hollow, seems poised to begin construction of the Edge-on-Hudson mega-development. After completing remediation (none of which Town Attorney Tim Lewis offered to provide estimates for) the below-ground infrastructure needs were addressed. With that completed, vertical construction should finally proceed at an estimated $1billion cost. It is a joint venture between two developers, SunCal of California and Diversified Realty Advisors of Montvale, New Jersey. But what are they proposing to build at the end of Beekman Avenue that Toll Brothers, a Pennsylvania company, will be constructing?

Once again, this mega-development will include 1,177 units of condominiums, townhouses and rental apartments; a 140-room boutique hotel; 135,000 square feet of retail space and 35,000 square feet of office space. This proposal has the hallmarks of touching every issue for any community that entertains a developer’s vision: increased traffic, flooding, increased school enrollment, increased emergency services call volume for police, fire and ambulance, the need for more parking, bus and taxi services, undersized roadways and traffic systems to name a few. They’ll also include millennial favorites such as a state-of-the-art exercise facility, a pool, community room and a coffee shop. There will be limited parking as the developers will insist these same millennials do not drive – usually disproved as the sales and rentals steadily increase. How long will it take before we start seeing For Rent signs in these new vacant retail spaces that becomes the status quo?

Every developer we’ve ever listened to provides a traffic study after their initial proposal utilizing the state’s figures for the size of the development. What it doesn’t account for is the fact that Sleepy Hollow, like all of the other river towns, can only have 180 degrees of access as it has the Hudson River utilizing the other 180 degrees of that travel circle, effectively halving their span of attraction, a factor that all river town businesses suffer from. Consequently, Edge of Hudson begins its struggle with a half-capacity for traffic relief right out of the gate. But, not to worry – millennials don’t own cars or drive. Regardless, the traffic study will reflect what the developer needs it to be: a marginal increase in traffic during the 7am through 9am and the 4pm through 6pm rush hour periods.

Most of the developments nowadays appear to have first floor retail space on most, if not all of their ground floor buildings. Why stay with this staid and non-functioning model if brick-and-mortar retail is dying? It’s simply because first floor units are the least desirable to live in. Hence, the use of the old standby for retail space. So more coffee shops, nail salons, dry cleaners, Subway-like fast food businesses and dollar stores. It’s absurd! Yet community leaders will continue to discuss the changing landscape of retail – while having absolutely no experience or direct knowledge of running a business for profit – and tell us how the internet is changing the shopping paradigm. With this being the case, shouldn’t we look for a different and more viable plan? Of course we should.

The office space seems like a fairly innocuous offering. Are zoning changes being made to accommodate these retail and business inclusions into this residential housing? Are they really necessary? While 35,000 square feet isn’t that great a space, what happens to it if it cannot be rented out? And what of the hotel that will be constructed on the property? What will be the daily impact of its operation to the area? Will traffic conditions affect the flow of traffic in just Sleepy Hollow or will it also attack Tarrytown, Elmsford, Pocantico Hills, Scarborough, etc.? We’ve been told repeatedly that millennials don’t drive. If they do own a car will they drive their cars back and forth to work? Will the hotel have customers walking to them or only taking their shuttle from outer points because it doesn’t allow or have enough parking? Will there be docks that boaters can use? If there are, who will oversee them?

This project isn’t in Greenburgh per se. However every project done in one location can be easily cannibalized and imported to another. Just look at the Shelbourne project on the heels of the Brightview assisted living monstrosity that was inflicted at Benedict Avenue and Rt 119. If it happens in one neighborhood, it can happen in yours. A true Comprehensive Plan could have spared us this type of real estate debauchery. Instead, we were given platitudes about global warming and 500-year storms that are happening every year. This stale thinking needs to change – everywhere. But it needs to start here and then be moved to other neighborhoods just like the bad developments have. Only then can we get A Better Greenburgh.

Greenville Fire Commissioners Meeting “Follows Protocol”

It started off like every other Fire Commissioners’ meeting. Discussions about expenditures, balancing budgets, training and the like. The difference this time is that it was at the Greenville Fire District’s public meeting room in the basement of the Greenville firehouse but the room was full, with several residents standing along the side of the room. The five commissioners were all in attendance. They are Helene Orce, the Chairperson, whose term expires December 31, 2021; Robert Bruckenthal, whose term expires December 31, 2017; Jonathan Faust , whose term expires December 31, 2020; Walter Groden, whose term expires December 31, 2019; and Michael Rappe, whose term expires December 31, 2018. Of course, the fire chief and the district’s secretary were also present.

After the regular order of business had transpired, the floor was opened for questions and comments from the audience members. Most of the room seemed to be concerned Edgemont residents, but we don’t believe it was entirely so. There were two representatives from the Formation Shelbourne project, although only one spoke during the entire event. This meeting was advertised as one where Shelbourne would be making a presentation to the Greenville Fire Commissioners. The prevailing thought being that they would finally be addressing questions that had been raised and sent to Shelbourne. The audience was told that this was not the case and no presentation would take place tonight.

Edgemont Community Council President Robert Bernstein asked the Board of Commissioners if they had received any resolution to the questions they raised about the Formation Shelbourne project they seek approvals for to build on Underhill Avenue. This location is currently the site of the Sprainbrook Nursery, owned by the Krautter family and has been for a long time, stating at one point that this site was their retirement nest-egg. In fact, they had many friends and relatives come to assorted Town Board meetings and bemoan that point. While we understand and appreciate this fact, we still disagree with the sale to Shelbourne; not because we don’t want something built on the property, rather, we want something appropriate to be built on the site conforming to current zoning, needs no variances and will now blend into the neighborhood. 

During the course of back-and-forth with the audience and the Board, the representatives from Shelbourne often said they followed the procedure. One resident asked about simply sending an answer to the Board, regardless of procedure, and asked why it was seemingly so hard to do? The Shelbourne representative then described the procedure. Really? Since the Fire Commissioners' questions appeared simple enough to answer, why not just answer them in a simple response directly to them? Perhaps one of the Shelbourne representatives could send a simple email answering the questions that were raised?

One missing link not mentioned by either side was that of being a “good neighbor” and trying to do the right thing, especially Shelbourne working with the Fire District. We understand why Shelbourne has circled their wagons against the Edgemont community as they have been vociferously against the proposed facility. But the fact remains that should this project get approval, they are going to need the fire district and fire department as an integral part of the facility’s operation.Additionally, wouldn’t every developer hope that by establishing an open and constructive dialog, they would be more able to streamline the process for their advantage? While this may a good strategy from our perspective, Shelbourne’s representatives seem more concerned with following protocol, which does not include open communication to a major, interested agency. This needs to change. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

The questions that remain unresolved are these, as taken directly from the Greenville Fire District’s website*:


WATER BURDEN
The District wishes to ensure adequate and reliable fire protection water supply (both pressure and volume). GFD has not seen the proposed plan to connect the two area water mains. We request projections of the water flow statistics for review. In addition, we ask for the statistics after the interconnection is complete.

The CND’s proposal that one hydrant be relocated (p. 9) does not appear adequate. An additional hydrant is needed. The District wishes to be involved in discussions regarding the relocation of the existing hydrant and new hydrant.

INACCURATE UNDERSTANDING OF DISTRICT SERVICES
Initially, the CND states on page 7 that: “From a medical emergency perspective, when there is no trained life saving staff (i.e. LPN or RN) present at a site, the Greenville Fire District provides supplementary certified first responder (CFR) and Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) services to supplement the transport, ALS and BLS service provided by the Town of Greenburgh Police Department and paramedic/EMT units.” This statement is incorrect and misunderstands the role and operations of the District. In addition to fire and other emergencies, the District is dispatched by Westchester County's 60 Control to situations requiring an EMS response. We have an Inter-Municipal Agreement (IMA) with the Greenburgh Police Department (GPD) through a tiered EMS System. This IMA requires that the District respond to EMS calls. GPD resources have primacy, and the District provides Basic Life Support (BLS). If District firefighters are first on the scene, we have primary medical responsibility until relieved by a higher level of care. GPD is responsible for transports, but a District firefighter may accompany the GPD transport in exigent cases. To reiterate, we provide an EMS response to all sites in our service area, irrespective of the presence or level of any on-site staff training. To that end, we are a complementary, albeit non­ transporting, BLS response.

The ZBA’s fundamental misunderstanding of our role necessarily means that the CND does not correctly identify impacts the Project may have on the District, or the effect of the proposed mitigation measures. (See the discussion below).

INSUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTED EMS RESPONSE DATA
First, the validity of the annual number of anticipated emergency caJJs assumed by the CND -an essential data point -- is unclear. CND page 8 states:

“The applicant has supplied data from other comparably-sized facilities, indicating that approximately 100 annual emergency calls will be generated (Police and/or Fire-related). Because there has been much debate over the number of potential additional EMS trips the ZBA analysis assumes that 115 calls/year will be generated by the proposed facility.”

It is our understanding that this essential data point is based on your accepting the 100-call figure supplied by the applicant, despite the absence of any indication as to which (or how many) comparably sized facilities were used in the applicant's sample, the percentage occupancy of such facilities at the time of the tallies, or whether those other facilities are purely assisted living in nature or mixed-use with nursing staff. The CND then increases the analysis to 115 calls/year using a methodology that remains unclear to us. We expect that a proper and independent study of this issue would rely on a more statistically rigorous, corroborated, and independently validated data from “comparably-sized” facilities regarding likely added EMS call volume. Indeed, there may be pre-existing industry data available.
Second, the CND states that “115 additional EMS-related trips are less than the number of trips that are expected to have been generated by the existing nursery use (477), which had no trained medical personnel on-site.” We simply do not understand the utility, validity or predictive value of comparing the 115 assumed anticipated emergency trips to an assisted livingfacility as against the 477 non-emergency trips to a nursery during presumably peak usage (we understand that the 477 figure was based on a June study; nursery visit in winter presumably are much lower). So, the nursery trips used as a “comparable” for purposed of the CND’s analysis is inflated and irrelevant. The foregoing apparent flaws in the analysis methodology underscore the need for a thorough and independent traffic study in order to more properly identify and quantify potential impacts. This will provide you (as Lead Agency) and us (as an Interested Agency) with the data we need to assess the number and effect of any additional calls.
 
FAULTY ASSERTIONS ABOUT EFFECT OF ON-SITE LPN/RN 
The CND notes at page 8 that the applicant has agreed to provide an LPN or an RN and states: “The 24/7 presence of a LPN or RN at the site would reduce the volume of response to the facility because such staffing reduces the need for secondary non-transporting response from the Greenville Fire District, which otherwise would act to supplement (with fire trucks) Town of Greenburgh EMS response, for non-fire related calls.” The CND notes, however, that actual EMS calls will remain the same (115) even with an on-site LPN or RN.

However, the proposal to mitigate impacts on the District by requiri ng an on-site LPN or RN is entirely incorrect and ineffective because it is based on the above-described misunderstanding of the District 's EMS role -- the District is not a "secondary" or "supplementary" EMS provider; rather, we respond to all calls. Since the CND concedes that the presence of an LPN or RN will not reduce anticipated EMS call volume, the impact on the District is unchanged. Moreover, the proposed mitigation method is not supported by any data or independent study. It is entirely possible that an on-site LPN or RN will lead to more calls to the District as Project residents take advantage of readily accessible staff to seek medical assistance more often. A substantiated assertion would compare call volumes at similar facilities with and without a single onsite LPN or RN. We would welcome such a third-party analysis; we cannot accept ipse dixit. Separately, we note that an LPN or RN likely would call the District for “lift assists” to safely handle frail patients that have fallen.

The CND's premise that the Project will require less District coverage because it will have an RN or LPN is highly problematic on another level: it creates a scenario of differing levels of response/service within the District. That is diametrically opposed to our mission of providing all residents with the same consistent level of care. Besides being antithetical to the foregoing principle, it is possible that rendering dissimilar services may expose the District (and its taxpayers) to liability.
 
ROADWAY CONDITIONS
The ZBA correctly notes the “curvilinear and sloping portion of Underhill Road.” But neither the Applicant nor the ZBA has provided, or offered to provide, any study that would assess the danger present and the extent to which the proposed alterations will impact on the safety risks for both District employees and other motorists. The CND simply assumes that the conditional improvements proposed would materially reduce the safety risks of running a substantial increase of emergency traffic along the identified dangerous road segments. An independent study must be completed which: (a) measures both the risks of the road condition and the utility of improvements (whether proposed or other available options); (b) analyzes existing road conditions against the benchmark for road conditions expected for a facility like the Project (e.g. county road or collector road). The District has not, and will not, take a position on the overall merits of the Project or its propriety for the community. Such matters are outside our mandate. However, we are compelled to take issue with the CND insofar as it lacks adequate analysis, is based on erroneous assumptions, and proposes solutions that are based on unsound footing.

* http://fdgreenville.com/
Terminology: 
GFD - Greenville Fire Department
ZBA - Zoning Board of Appeals
CND - Conditional Negative Declaration
ALS/BLS - Advanced Life Support/Basic Life Support (Paramedic/EMT respectively)
LPN/RN - Nursing staff deliniations
EMS - Emergency Medical Services
EMT - Emergency Medical Technician (as a rule not able to do injections/intravenous)
Paramedic - Medically superior to EMT (able to inject, do IV’s) 
CFR - certified first responder 

Formation Shelbourne Case Adjourned By Zoning Board of Appeals

As seen on the Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda:
Case No. 16-06 – Formation Shelbourne Senior Living Services, LLC, for property located at 448 Underhill Rd., (P.O. Scarsdale, NY).  Applicant is requesting variances from Section 285-10(A)((4)(f)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance to decrease the minimum lot area from 4 acres (required) to 3.79 acres (proposed); and from  Section 285-10(A)(4)(f)(14) to allow the site to be more than 200 ft. from a state or county right-of-way, in order to permit development of an assisted living facility on the property.  The property is located in an R-40 One-Family Residence District and is designated on the Town Tax Map as Parcel ID: 8.330-242-9

As Chairwomen Eve Bunting opened the meeting, she explained that Formation Shelbourne was the first case on the agenda. She continued that because Formation Shelbourne has an Article 78 case challenging the decision of the Town Board's decision to rescind their original Negative Declaration ruling stating there would be no negative environmental impact to the area due to this project, that upon advice from Counsel, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) Board decided to postpone their case. She said they would adjourn this case to see what other actions might have to be taken by the Zoning Board of Appeals.

You'll recall we previously wrote about this case stating that the average taxpayer was unaware Formation Shelbourne initiated and then withdrew their original law suit against the Town, several civic associations and numerous residents who took positions against the project. What most would also not know was that Formation Shelbourne’s representative threatened Mr Feiner and the Town Board with another lawsuit at a Work Session if the Board rescinded their NegDec. Regardless of that threat, the Town Board rescinded it and soon afterwards, Formation Shelbourne's attorney, Mr Lino Sciarretta did in fact bring suit against the Town on August 18, 2016!

Ms Bunting asked if there was anyone in the audience who would be unable to return at a later date when she believed they might be hearing this case. Apparently only one audience member would be unable to attend but agreed to submit their point of view in writing to the ZBA. At that point Ms Bunting allowed Formation Shelbourne's attorney, Mr Lino Sciaretta to speak. He protested the fact that the ZBA refused to hear this case and that the owners of the Formation Shelbourne organization had flown here from Atlanta specifically for this meeting. Ms Bunting further explained that upon advice of Counsel, a decision was made in executive session by the ZBA members to postpone this case only prior to this meeting.

The ZBA postponement is constraining Formation Shelbourne from proceeding based on assurances made by Mr Feiner behind closed doors. The added difficulty for Mr Feiner and his Board was Formation Shelbourne’s admission that Greenburgh officials had secretly agreed to support the Formation Shelbourne application with the Town Board’s issuance of the NegDec as part of their agreement! These types of backroom deals were thought to be eliminated after the abolition of the Tammany Halls days of old. Apparently, not in Greenburgh. This latest setback for Formation Shelbourne was initiated by Formation Shelbourne when they chose to sue the Town. It remains unclear what their next move might be?

If Formation Shelbourne withdraws their suit against the Town Board, the ZBA may be in a better position to make a determination on the Formation Shelbourne case. If they proceed with the suit and it proceeds through the holidays, the Article 78 lawsuit may drag this out for months. Mr Feiner and his Board have tormented this Town again by not following the process, the rules that should apply to all or abide by an ethical and moral compass. Sadly, the Unincorporated Town taxpayers are the real victims. And yet, every election finds these same people running unopposed and getting re-elected. This is further proof of why we need term limits. It must end. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

“If You Don’t Like What I’m Doing, Sue Me!”

On Saturday, July 2, 2016, ABG posted a story about Mr Feiner and his Town Board working, and we believed even then in secret, with Formation Shelbourne, a developer looking to build a 94-bed assisted living facility at the current Sprainbrook Nursery location. That article was titled:

Like A Good Neighbor, Formation Shelbourne Sues Everyone Hoping To Stop Free Speech, Then Realizes Their Blunder. This article explained that Formation Shelbourne decided to sue numerous groups, individuals and of course the Town for rescinding their NegDec ruling which would have easily opened the doors to “the process” for Formation Shelbourne to proceed with their project. After rescinding the NegDec, Formation Shelbourne would be forced to start the process over again. 

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016, in our article entitled:

Shelbourne Decides Not to Sue, we explained that after the furor we and others created, Formation Shelbourne issued a press release stating that their initiation of lawsuits against the citizens and civic groups questioning their project was a mistake and they would withdraw their lawsuit – without apology.

 

On July 9, 2016 we wrote another article entitled Embarrassed Town Leaders To Vote To Undo Scam, explaining the move being contemplated by Mr Feiner and the Town Board to reverse the NegDec vote that had foolishly made to push the Formation Shelbourne project forward as promised. You see, promising constituents and taxpayers something and then doing something else can usually be done with little or no consequence. But when you go up against a multi-million dollar entity whose resources are almost immeasurable, the consequences can be severe. 

On Saturday July 16, we posted yet another article entitled: Town Board Threatened, Delays "NegDec" Cancellation Vote and described how Mr Feiner and his Board had decided to reverse their NegDec ruling. While this was brought about by public pressure as well as websites such as this one and others, Mr Feiner cleverly decided to explain his improper actions as a mistake and that the Zoning Board of Appeals should be the one reviewing this, not he and the Town Board. 

Unbeknownst to the average taxpayers was that Formation Shelbourne initiated and then withdrew their law suit as we had written earlier. What most would also not know was that Formation Shelbourne’s representative, threatened Mr Feiner and the Town Board with another lawsuit at a Work Session if the Board rescinded their NegDec. They rescinded it and soon after Mr Lino Sciarretta did in fact bring suit against the Town on August 18, 2016! 

Not only did most residents and taxpayers not know another lawsuit was brought against the Town because of Mr Feiner and his Board’s (illegal?) actions, the Town officials intentionally kept it under wraps and did not inform the public of this action! Ironically, Town Attorney Tim Lewis had informed the Town officials that they had been warned there would be a lawsuit even after he explained to them that he believed they had acted improperly by rescinding the NegDec. Mr Feiner always says, "If you don't like what I'm doing, sue me." So they are; now for a second time!

In reviewing the lawsuit, the petitioners state numerous times when a NegDec can be reversed or withdrawn. Those would be a) substantive changes to the plans; b) newly discovered information, or, c) changed circumstances that the rescission could be based. Added difficulty for Mr Feiner and his Board was the Formation Shelbourne’s admission that they and Greenburgh officials had secretly agreed behind closed doors to support the Formation Shelbourne application, the Town Board’s issuance of the NegDec as part of their agreement!

Apparently, the ethically challenged Mr Feiner and his Board believe they can do whatever they want without consequence. Perhaps because they always seem to run unopposed at election time feel invincible? Perhaps they believe their own hype that they have the toughest ethics law on the books and revel that other communities want to emulate it? Perhaps it’s because Mr Feiner appoints and his Board approves all members of the various Boards, including the Ethics Board? Following the Town’s ethics law is a whole other story. Actions such as these prove of why we need term limits and engaged constituents. Only then will we see A Better Greenburgh.

The Town's Largess Is Costing All of Us

There are several bulk mailing rates that the Town uses for their snail-mail mailings. One piece of mail in a business envelope goes for $.23; another goes for $.46.5. This costs all tax payers a lot of money during the course of a year each time a mailing is done. Why are these mailings done and why so often you may ask? Simply, it’s politics. It’s a cost free way for Mr Feiner, albeit the Town Board, to campaign without using his/their own money, campaign funds or donations. As long as it can be done under the pretext of providing information to the public, there are no campaign finance laws broken nor are any election bank accounts emptied, drained or depleted.

When there is an issue Mr Feiner wishes to promote, you might receive almost daily mailings arriving to you at either rate. We witnessed this numerous times in the past. One recent proposal has been Mr Feiner’s push for the ill-conceived and zoning deficient assisted living facility by the Formation Shelbourne organization where the current Sprainbrook Nursery sits. They are seeking to build a four-story, 94-bed facility on less than four acres of property and roughly 6,000 feet from a County of State right-of-way roadway – requirements under the two-year old zoning law recently adopted by Mr Feiner and his Town Board.

Mr Feiner has taken to endorsing projects that are primarily commercial by nature, regardless of whether they are built in a commercial or residentially zoned area. There are several examples that come to mind. The first was Westhab which he suggested to then County Legislator Lois Bronz be built on the former Kings Inn Motel site in Fulton Park. That was a transition parcel of land that was zoned half commercial and half residential.  But he didn’t care about zoning. By making the Town Board the lead agency for the project, they were able to disregard any and all legal standings previously maintained and allowed building to proceed. Mailings were done throughout the Town seeking support of this project. People sympathetic to Mr Feiner in the neighborhood also received these mailings. The rest did not. However, the multiple mailings cost us a significant chuck of money. Shouldn’t the Supervisor remain neutral about any projects?

Another project was the GameOn 365 proposal in the former Frank’s Nursery property on Dobbs Ferry Road. Emails acquired under the Freedom of Information Law confirmed Mr Feiner promised in private meetings with the GameOn 365 principals that he’d push the project through. When the area neighborhoods learned of the proposal, they revived their civic association to fight the 8-story sports bubble Mr Feiner felt was okay to build in this residential neighborhood. You see, the zoning had been allowed for a commercial establishment years ago. When Frank’s Nursery defaulted on the mortgage, they went into foreclosure and the Town acquired the property. Instead of selling it within the first 6-months of acquisition, as required by County and State law, Mr Feiner decided to hold onto it. Consequently, the zoning for the land reverted back to residential zoning. Had he not begun playing politics with the property and simply sold it, it would have been “grandfathered” to remain commercial. Not only were there multiple mailings supporting this project, he did separate mailings about holding a referendum, poorly written by his administration, in hopes of getting a passing vote. It worked but he ultimately lost because all of the neighborhoods stood united to only have residential housing built there. There were so many mailings for this project it’s actually hard to tally it all up.

Next up was the Brightview Assisted Living facility at Rt 119 and Benedict Avenue in the Glenville section of Unincorporated Greenburgh. This small tight knit neighborhood would soon be overwhelmed with a building that a) doesn’t fit the neighborhood; b) looms over Rt 119 and the beginning of Benedict Avenue; c) does not allow the average Greenburgh senior citizen on Medicare to live there; and d) could wind up following suit as so many other assisted living facilities and go bankrupt and need to repurpose itself into a condominium or co-operative apartment. Could this entire assisted living facility be a pretense to build an assisted living facility where apartment buildings would not be allowed due to zoning? We don’t know but wonder. There were numerous mailings from the Supervisor pushing the Brightview project. All we wonder is at what cost was all of this done and why was the Supervisor so invested in promoting it?

Beyond the major projects such as mentioned above, and there are more, he goes out of his way to do mailings vis-à-vis advertising for private companies and corporations. The latest recipient of Mr Feiner’s largess is the Hartsdale Kumon Center. While this may be a terrific business doing great work with kids needing additional help with their schoolwork for a fee, it is not the job of the Town to do a mailing or advertising blitz throughout the Town for private, for profit businesses. At $.46 per piece mailed, this is an unnecessary expense for taxpayers to bear and must stop. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

Town Board Threatened, Delays "NegDec" Cancellation Vote

Stating that they have followed the process for over a year and a half, the attorney for Foundation Shelbourne spoke at the Town Board Work Session, stating that taking a vote on the already approved NegDec to rescind it was strictly political! He also stated he would not be able to attend the Town Board meeting Tuesday night but the owners might attend and speak. Mr Sciaretta claimed that this was quite a surprise that the Town would vote to rescind a NegDec that was vetted from the traffic and planning departments. He claimed it was illegal, improper and a slap in the face to them. While we are against the Shelbourne project because it does not meet the zoning code recently adopted, we believe he was right!

The Town voted prematurely to approve the NegDec regarding the proposed Formation Shelbourne Assisted Living Housing facility that would replace the existing Sprainbrook Nursery. Opponents had said that approving the NegDec prematurely was not following the process that Mr Feiner and his Board can’t wait to espouse at meetings. More importantly, opponents stated it would have made everything fall into place more easily for the developer, claiming there was no fact-finding done, no reports of conditions had and no studies performed by those normally engaged in such actions. Because Mr Feiner wanted this project to go through, facts, figures and real information didn’t matter! His compliant Town Board voted the NegDec through. Is it any wonder that residents no longer have faith in the process, the zoning codes or the Town administration?

The real problem is that while the attorney for Formation Shelbourne didn’t say it outright, he alluded to the fact that while this had never been done before, it appeared to him to be setting a precedent and his clients might be prepared to sue the Town over this. We all know Mr Feiner has always said, “If you don’t like what I'm doing, sue me.” And many have. But, as we have said before, this is not about Shelbourne per se, or the Krautter Family who owns the property and operates the Sprainbrook Nursery at that location. It’s about publicity for Mr Feiner as well as leveraging Edgemont from incorporating into a Village and having the Town lose their chunk of revenue for the Unincorporated budget!

We’ve written before about how many in Edgemont are disappointed and dismayed with Mr Feiner’s actions and the actions of his Board toward them. So much so, that there have been talks and meetings about Edgemont incorporating to get out from under the Town’s, and more specifically, Mr Feiner’s control. Many communities feel the same way but are without the resources to act upon it. Regardless of whether or not Edgemont moves to incorporate, the Town Board’s disingenuous acts are now coming home to roost. The Town Board should have waited to make a decision after the Zoning Board of Appeals either granted the variances requested by Shelbourne or not. That would have been correctly following the process. The NegDec they approved was a blatant political move by Mr Feiner and his Board. We still believe it was a setup to appease Shelbourne and then to rescind and appear to be appeasing Edgemont. But all of this may have backfired on Mr Feiner.

There are variables in play here that will have long-term ramifications on Unincorporated Greenburgh. In effect, Mr Feiner has blessed the Shelbourne and consequently, all other commercial projects in all residential neighborhoods. He tried to do this with an 8-story inflatable bubble for his friends from GameOn 365 on Dobbs Ferry Road. Once this is allowed to begin, it sets the precedent to allow it in other neighborhoods. Mr Feiner was successful in doing this in the Glenville section with the Brightview Assisted Living facility. Brightview was the author of the Town's Assisted Living Zoning Code that is about two years old. By allowing them to write the code, they accommodated everything they needed. Now, the Town Board and the Legal Department’s laziness has resurfaced and is creating this issue. 

Shelbourne is too large a facility for the size of the property and it is not within 200 feet of a state or county right of way. Those two conditions were put in the zoning code by Brightview and agreed to by Mr Feiner and his Board when they approved the Zoning Code change. Had the Town written the law, overseen the writing of the law or at least been involved with its authorship, perhaps this wouldn’t be happening. This is more proof that we need term limits to aid us in stopping laziness and unconditional and unchallenged decisions from Town Hall. It's no wonder Edgemont continues to discuss incorporation. This madness has to change. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

Embarrassed Town Leaders To Vote To Undo Scam

A campaign was recently mounted against the latest actions of Mr Feiner and his Town Board. You’ll recall they previously pushed through a Negative Declaration statement regarding the proposed Formation Shelbourne Assisted Living Housing facility that would replace the existing Sprainbrook Nursery. Opponents to this scam said that would have made everything fall into place more easily for the developer, claimed that there was no fact-finding done, no reports of conditions had and no studies done by those normally engaged in such actions. Because Mr Feiner wanted this project to go through, facts, figures and real information didn’t matter, what he wants is all that does! Naturally, his compliant Town Board will vote however he instructs them because they know to stay in the position, they must go along to stay along - or be “Sonya'd”.
 
Now, finally, after weeks of all of us trumpeting the injustice done, Mr Feiner has acquiesced and decided to undo, at least temporarily, the damage he has inflicted on all those involved. Sneak a peak at the upcoming agenda and you’ll find this:


Opponents of the project cite numerous issues that are no surprise to anyone following this project with the size and scope of this proposal. And, that’s all it would normally be in any other community, a proposal. But in Bizarro-Greenburgh, the Town Board votes themselves in as the Lead Agency, and then either ignores or dismisses any objections to a particular project Mr Feiner favors. But there is another “game” in play here and as such we see Mr Feiner as the Town Chessmaster, who is calculating his closing moves even as he unleashes the start of another publicity sting somewhere else and over something else. By the way, the next step in the process for Shelbourne is a continuation of the Public Hearing before the ZBA on July 21, 2016.
 
As we’ve mentioned numerous times, Mr Feiner will do whatever the Edgemont Community wants him to do. Edgemont is against this project. Simply, he cannot afford to lose the income accumulated for the Town from the Edgemont section of Greenburgh. If Edgemont were to secede from Greenburgh and incorporate as a Village, Mr Feiner would have no power over them. It’s kind of like when we as a Country went against the British monarchy by declaring independence. The difference is that once Incorporated as a Village, numerous services would need to be established or contracted for. It is unknown what those expenses might be either in total or per household, but the Village of Edgemont would need to accommodate police, sanitation, sewer, water, highway and a Village Clerk’s office, where hopefully the Village Clerk doesn’t speak during meetings unless requested to, to name a few things. Insurmountable? Not at all. But invariably these contracts would be established with the Village of Edgemont’s newly elected Mayor and Village Board, unless they hire a Village Administrator, and Mr Feiner. So they don’t get away “Scott free” with having to deal with him.
 
Back to Bizarro-Greenburgh. Mr Feiner has been in favor of this project, hands down, all-in! He will now announce at the next Town Board meeting that he has changed his position and is now against the NegDec. Naturally, his Board will be against it as well. He’ll pontificate that he spoke with so-and-so in the whatever office at Town Hall, he got emails from more residents who are slowly convincing him that he was wrong to support this and so on. He may even say we need to follow the process. This was his plan all along. He needed the publicity and what better way to get it than to pit two groups against each other, for and against? One of the Board members, and we’re not sure whose turn it is this time, will comment that he/she too has been getting feedback and realizes now that they were mistaken to move forward with the NegDec, but now we have a chance to undo this mistake, and so on.
 
In the end, the property’s zoning does not allow an assisted living facility to be built at this location. It is strictly based on the 2-year old zoning law this same Board voted for. To blatantly disregard it and slap the residents in the face with it is wrong. It is also wrong to lead a developer on for his own political gain or publicity. Mr Feiner owes the community, the developer and the Krautters a public apology for stringing them along. Until then we can only strive for A Better Greenburgh.

Shelbourne Decides Not to Sue

Formation Shelbourne finally made a decision to cease trying to sue individuals that were against the assisted living facility they have proposed to build at the current site of the Sprainbrook Nursery location. Mr Feiner claims he intervened and convinced Shelbourne to withdraw the lawsuit. The Edgemont Community Council, residents in the Sprain Road & Deer Hill Lane area as well as the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations were named in the lawsuit. We believe the organizations and the individuals should not have been sued simply because they exercised their right to free speech protestation. Everyone that was served papers has yet to be notified that the lawsuit has been withdrawn, only that Shelbourne has agreed to withdraw the suit. ABG has just learned that Shelbourne says it filed a Notice of Discontinuance today, July 6^th.

Mr Feiner favors this development and has gone out of his way to stack the deck on behalf of Shelbourne. To insure a better outcome for the developer, Mr Feiner and his Board unnecessarily advanced through a SEQR study or negative declaration for the proposed parcel. It was his attempt to influence the other Boards, whom he appoints, to follow his lead and approve the project. While many people protested the proposal at various Town Board meetings, there were others who favored it. However, the impression we got was that those in favor didn’t necessarily favor the proposal as much as they did the sale, which would benefit the Krautter family.

You’ll recall that Shelbourne has proposed building their assisted living housing on what will revert back to residentially zoned property once the Sprainbrook Nursery property is sold. The area is zoned residential, but Mr Feiner has given the nod to Shelbourne and that has emboldened them to push forward.

The developer wants to build in a residential zone without having the 4 acre minimum and not being 200 ft. from a State or County Right-of- Way. The Shelbourne proposal is 6,000 ft. from a State or County Right-of-Way (Central Park Avenue). The ZBA would have to grant them a 3,000% variance. The Assisted Living Facility that is being proposed for Frank's Nursery property does not need any variances.

What’s also troubling is that after reviewing the Neg-Dec document, there were numerous errors. Yet Mr Feiner and his Board thought it perfectly acceptable to approve as though there were no problems. Again, they will tell the public to have faith in the process, to trust the process, they are doing their due diligence but then they pull a stunt like this. It’s difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to have faith in this Board when they routinely pull these kinds of shenanigans.

James Kane offered an apology on behalf of Shelbourne. He claims Shelbourne didn’t know it was filing a lawsuit against private citizens and that they just received bad advice from its legal team. We find that extremely difficult to believe. He claims Shelbourne has never filed a lawsuit and was able to make its case successfully in other towns.  Court records show Shelbourne sued the ZBA in Waldwick, New Jersey last year when the ZBA denied variances to build an assisted living facility. Apparently, we aren’t the only ones saying, “No” to them. He claims Shelbourne is not a “litigious corporate bully” but just “a small group that provides senior living services.” Shelbourne’s website boasts it has been “involved in the development, operations and ownership of over 180 senior living communities in the United States and Canada with an aggregate value of over $2.7 billion.” This hardly seems to be the resources of a small or even medium sized company!

We are convinced that Formation Shelbourne has been working very closely with the corner office in Town Hall. We’re also convinced the lawsuit may have been at the suggestion of the same corner office. If Shelbourne was actually as small as they claim and do not routinely sue, why would they initiate a lawsuit before “the process” had really begun? There is no developer that Mr Feiner doesn’t like or want to work with. Subsequently, there are probably none that his Town Board wouldn’t work with. This kind of behind the scenes activity is what makes so many people mistrust government. It needs to change. It’s also a proof of why we need term limits. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

Like A Good Neighbor, Formation Shelbourne Sues Everyone Hoping To Stop Free Speech, Then Realizes Their Blunder

About two years ago, of course with Mr Feiner and his Board’s assistance, Formation Shelbourne (Shelbourne) proposed an assisted living facility on the piece of property that is currently owned and operating as the Sprainbrook Nursery by the Krautter Family. Assisted Living, also known to include Senior Living, are the latest buzzwords in the housing development debacle running amok throughout Unincorporated Greenburgh. Sadly, instead of letting the process run its course and either grant or deny the project legitimately, Mr Feiner continues to be the shill for Shelbourne.

Even though it was not time in the process for a SEQR study, Mr Feiner pushed his Board to approve the premature SEQR findings. These findings, known as a Negative Declaration or Neg Dec, were adopted by Mr Feiner and his Board without any studies, facts or information being provided. The intent was clearly to sway the Zoning and Planning Boards into approving this project. The Zoning Board previously found that variances were required under Greenburgh’s zoning code. The building inspector’s determination that no variances were required was objectionable to many, including most civic associations. Bob Bernstein, President of the Edgemont Community Council, led the charge and filed an appeal of the decision. He also paid an outlandish fee instituted in Town Hall as a deterrent for future appeals by civic associations and community groups which were never charged previously.

The Shelbourne lawsuit claims that the zoning board’s determination that variances were required under Greenburgh’s zoning code was arbitrary and capricious and should be reversed. The zoning code requires that assisted living facilities be located within 200 feet of a state or county right-of-way, excluding interstate highways and state parkways. This requirement was put into the Town’s two-year old Zoning Code change to accommodate the Brightview Assisted Living facility at Rt 119 and Benedict Avenue. Additionally, that particular provision was to ensure residents would not have emergency vehicles driving through their neighborhoods with lights and sirens.

Approximately two years ago with the aid of Greenburgh officials Shelburne sought to build an 80-unit, 94-bed assisted living facility at the corner of Underhill and Sprain Roads in Edgemont. The zoning variance point of discussion is that the proposed facility is over a mile from the area where such facilities may be located under the Greenburgh’s zoning code. It is somewhat coincidental that Shelbourne proposed this facility about two years ago and the Zoning Code change was enacted about two years ago as well. And, Mr Feiner is fighting to allow Shelbourne to build their inappropriate facility where it doesn’t belong. What’s next? There will probably be a push by Mr Feiner and Shelbourne to “grandfather” the proposal to a point before the zoning code change was adopted.

Formation-Shelbourne Senior Living Services, LLC., filed a suit in Westchester State Supreme Court on June 9, 2016 against the zoning board, the Edgemont Community Council, the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations, and 19 neighboring residents. They went after everyone involved with the appeal because they were united with the ECC in appealing the Town’s former building inspector's decision last July that the Shelbourne facility did not need any variances. Yet, if they follow the zoning code, they do need variances!

In an email blast from Mr Feiner, utilizing the GBList that he was ordered by court decree to release to the Worthington Woodlands Civic Association but refused, Mr Feiner said, “I just learned about the lawsuit today when I received some e mails [sic] from residents who live near the proposed facility. Am very upset.”

In a new twist to this story, we received a copy of an email to Mr Feiner from Shelbourne announcing they were dropping the lawsuit. Perhaps they realized the futility of suing what might become their future neighbors. Perhaps as they realized that the limited support they had in the area was turning against them as neighbors were being penalized for expressing their opinion - still a legal right even here in Greenburgh - that they should change their tact.

Here’s what it said:

From: Jim Kane
Date: July 1, 2016 at 12:01:50 PM EDT
To: Paul Feiner <pfeiner@greenburghny.com>
Cc: Mark Maberry
Subject: Shelbourne Senior Living

Paull,
Attached you will find the follow up response to our discussion of yesterday. As I mentioned we have decided to withdraw the Article 78 proceeding and focus our attention our current application for variances before the Zoning Board.
Jim
James W. Kane III|Shelbourne Healthcare Development Group LLC

This is a plausible project for someplace else, not Unincorporated Greenburgh! Ironically, several members of the Feiner administration had insisted after the passage of the new Assisted Living facility Zoning Code change that allowed Brightview to be built, that there were no other locations in Unincorporated Greenburgh that would accommodate another Assisted Living facility. Apparently, if this proposal is approved by Mr Feiner and his Board, which they appear to be ready to do, it will again prove they lied to the public for the benefit of a developer. Sadly, this seems to be a hallmark of this administration. It must end. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

Shelbourne Sues Wrong Groups

Below is a letter printed with permission from the Secretary of the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations regarding the lawsuit brought against many organization:

I am writing to keep you informed. In case you haven’t heard, the CGCA as well as the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), the Edgemont Community Council (ECC) and a number of residents living in the Deer Hill Lane/Sprain Road area have been named in a lawsuit filed in Westchester County Supreme Court on June 9, 2016 by Formation Shelbourne Senior Living Services, LLC. Shelbourne is the firm seeking to build an 80-unit, 94-bed assisted living facility on the Sprain Brook Nursery property at 448 Underhill Road.

As you may recall, last August the ECC/CGCA filed an application with the ZBA appealing the Building Inspector’s decision that Shelbourne required no variances to build. The Zoning Ordinance requires that assisted living facilities have a minimum lot size of four acres and be located within 200 feet of a state or county right-of-way. The nursery property is only 3.79 acres and is more than 6,000 feet from the nearest state road, Central Avenue.

At its April 21, 2016 meeting, the ZBA ruled in favor of the ECC/CGCA appeal regarding the 200 feet from Central Avenue requirement but reserved decision on the necessary four-acre provision since Shelbourne was advised it could seek a special permit from the Town Board on that issue.

Before the ZBA even announced its ruling, on April 8, 2016, Shelbourne filed an application with the ZBA seeking variances from both requirements. The ZBA has held Public Hearings on the application at both its May and June meetings and is scheduled to continue the hearing at its July 21, 2016 meeting.

Regarding the lawsuit, the Town has not provided the CGCA with information on when it was served with the legal papers, but we know early Saturday morning, June 25, 2016, neighbors in the Deer Hill Lane/Sprain Road area were served with the approximate three-inch thick piles of papers stating they were named in the lawsuit. Bob Bernstein was served with papers on Monday morning, June 27, 2016. To date, no one from the CGCA has been served with papers.

The lawsuit against the ZBA is premature (not ripe) since Shelbourne is seeking the variances. The lawsuit against the ECC, the CGCA and the individual neighbors who joined in appealing the Building Inspector’s decision is frivolous and meant to intimidate and deny our First Amendment rights of free speech. The ECC and CGCA will respond in court to this frivolous lawsuit. Bob Bernstein has graciously offered to prepare and file the necessary legal papers.