The Town Board Should Reject the Sam's Club Gasoline Proposal

 Below is a letter that was sent to the Town regarding the opposition of the Sam’s Club application to install a gasoline depot at the Sam’s Club location on 9A/Saw Mill River Road:

Re: Sam's Real Estate Business Trust
333 Saw Mill River Road (Section 7.18, Block 52, Lot 32), Greenburgh, NY Verified Petition for Zoning Text Amendment to Permit Automotive Fuel Station

Dear Supervisor Feiner:

Introduction

This office represents numerous local small business owners and others in connection with the above-captioned petition by Sam's Real Estate Business Trust (“Sam’s Club”), which asks the Greenburgh Town Board to amend the Greenburgh zoning ordinance to allow exactly that which the zoning ordinance prohibits: the installation and operation of fuel pump islands and related gasoline dispensing facilities at the above-captioned retail location located in the Town's “DS” zoning district. The instant application by Sam’s Club comes after its past unsuccessful attempt to overturn the Greenburgh Building Inspector’s earlier determination that a “gasoline service station,” was not a use accessory to Sam's Club’s retail operation. The Zoning Board of Appeals agreed with the Building Inspector in that regard and denied the Sam’s Club appeal.

Undeterred by the foregoing, Sam’s Club’s latest attack on the zoning ordinance (and the land use planning concerns that inform it) comes in the form of a petition seeking a customized self-interested re-write of the zoning ordinance which, if implemented, would effectively create a new, never before contemplated, “Big Box with Gas” land use in the DS zoning district, with potentially deleterious effects on local traffic, parking, and economic development.

During the public hearing on the Sam’s Club application on February 10, 2022, which I observed, there was a brief colloquy ostensibly on the subject of prohibited “spot zoning” and how that legal principle should apply in the context of this Sam’s Club lobbying effort to change the zoning ordinance. Because certain of the parties to that colloquy seem to labor under a misunderstanding of applicable law and how it applies here, this correspondence will focus on that particular issue. In all other respects, my clients rest on the administrative record, the comments at the public hearing(s), and reserve all of their rights at law and/or in equity relative to these matters.

Background
A. Applicable Zoning Ordinance Provisions.

Sam’s Club is before the Town Board seeking certain amendments to Chapter 285-28 of the zoning ordinance, titled “DS Designed Shopping District.” For decades, allowed principal uses in the DS zoning district were limited to “[F]ully enclosed stores for the retail sale of consumer merchandise,” and “fully enclosed service establishments.”1 The uses currently permitted in the DS district by special use permit follow the same theme, allowing “[F]ully enclosed commercial recreation facilities.”2

The DS zoning district definition also includes certain prohibitions, which reflect the Town Board’s legislative determination that these enumerated land uses are inconsistent with the designated principal uses. For example, in the DS zoning district “[T]here shall not be permitted therein an automobile sales lot, motor vehicle salesroom, public garage, gasoline station . . . [or] car washing establishment.”3 As pertinent here, the zoning ordinance defines “Gasoline Service Station,” as “[A]ny area of land, including structures thereon, or any building or part thereof that is used for the sale of automotive fuel, related petroleum products and other motor vehicle accessories and which may or may not include facilities for washing, lubricating or otherwise servicing motor vehicles, but not including the painting thereof by any means.”4

Accordingly, the enumerated purposes of the DS zoning district are to provide Town residents with access to a retail-oriented shopping zone in “fully enclosed" stores or other facilities, unburdened by the presence of, among other enumerated incompatible land uses, “Gasoline Service Stations,” and/or any other use that would be offensive, obnoxious or detrimental to the surrounding area by reason of noise, gases, fumes, smoke, odor, dust or vibrations.”5

As we understand it, all these essential zoning classifications and restrictions were in place when Sam’s Club acquired the Saw Mill River Road parcel that is the ostensible (and perhaps sole) beneficiary of the zoning amendments Sam’s Club now proposes.

1 Zoning Ordinance § 285-28(A)(1)(a).
2 Zoning Ordinance § 285-28(A)(2).
3 Zoning Ordinance § 285-28(A)(1)(a)(2). 4 Zoning Ordinance, § 285-5.
5 Zoning Ordinance, § 285-28(A)(1)(a)(1).

B. Sam's Club's Unsuccessful Attempt to do as of Right that Which it Now Seeks to do by Zoning ordinance Amendment.

In or about mid-2003 and faced with the above unambiguous zoning restrictions and prohibitions, Sam's Club adopted an audacious strategy: claiming that its particular mode and method of fuel sales was not the textually prohibited “Gasoline Service Station” use in the DS zoning district, but instead was a use "accessory" – or customarily incidental and subordinate to – its permitted retail use. The Town Building Inspector, and then the Zoning Board of Appeals on a full administrative record, rejected this highly novel interpretation of the zoning ordinance in April 2004.

Given these determinations, Sam’s Club could only add gasoline service to the Saw Mill Road site if it obtained a use variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, or, as here, sought fundamental legislative changes to the zoning ordinance text, custom-made to overcome these prohibitions and allow Sam’s Club’s preferred use either as of right or by special use permit. Given that Sam’s Club purchased the land subject to these land use restrictions, a use variance is out of the question, as a matter of law.6 The instant application for a “zoning text amendment” followed.

C. The Instant Proposal for a Zoning Text Amendment.

In July 2019, Sam’s Club deployed a new strategy of lobbying the Town Board to amend the actual text of the zoning ordinance to clear away any regulatory hurdles in the way of its planned gasoline service station use. This latest effort would require the Town Board to amend Section 285-85 of the zoning ordinance to create a brand-new land use, titled “Automotive Fuel Station,” to be authorized in the DS district by special use permit. The only difference between this newly fashioned “Automotive Fuel Station” use and the prohibited “Gasoline Service Station” use is that Sam’s Club proposes to eliminate, not the outdoor (i.e., unenclosed) sale of fuel, which is the definitions’ main focus, but the ancillary services under the definition, “which may or may not include facilities for washing, lubricating or otherwise servicing motor vehicles.”7

6 Without belaboring the point, under New York law a local zoning board of appeals may only grant a use variance if the applicant demonstrates that zoning regulations it seeks to vary have caused "unnecessary hardship." To prove unnecessary hardship, an applicant must demonstrate that for each and every permitted use under the zoning regulations for the particular district where the property is located: (i) the applicant cannot realize a reasonable economic return; (ii) that the alleged hardship is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the zoning district; (iii) that the requested use variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and, as pertinent here, (iv) the alleged hardship was not "self-created," meaning in existence when the applicant purchased the property at issue. See, e.g., NY Town Law § 267-b(2); see also Clark v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 301 NY 86, 91 (1950) ("Nothing less than a showing of hardship special and peculiar to the applicant's property will empower the board to allow a variance."). Sam's Club obviously could never satisfy this stringent standard. Hence, the instant application to rewrite the zoning ordinance instead. 7

Remarkably, Sam’s Club has provided the Town Board with the exact language it wishes to see legislated:

Automotive Fuel Station shall mean the use of any portion of a parcel of property that meets the standards set forth in Section 285-28(h) of the Zoning Ordinance, as evidenced by the grant of a special use permit by the Town Board, for the operation of up to ten (10) fuel pumps (i.e., 20 fueling positions) for the sale of automotive fuel. The portion of said tract of land utilized as an Automotive Fuel Station shall be exclusively limited to the sale of automotive fuel and specifically prohibited from selling any and all other goods or services including, without limitation, motor vehicle accessories, car washing, lubricating, painting, mechanical repair or otherwise servicing motor vehicles by any means.

In other words, Sam's Club has tailored its proposed new land use classification to the specific and unique nature of Big Box gasoline sales: because Big Box retailer gas sales are used as an enticement to its retail sales, Big Box retailers (unlike nearly every small business owner in the local gasoline market) need not offer any of these ancillary or related sales or services to sustain their business model. All they require are pump islands and a single employee to oversee them.

The disingenuousness of Sam’s Club’s position, including its attempt to use the alleged absence of ancillary sales and service at the point of dispensing as an enticement to the amendments it seeks, is revealed the minute one steps through the door of the Sam’s Club retail store. While inside, one can purchase a wide variety of the ostensibly prohibited (under the Sam’s Club proposal) “motor vehicle accessories,” including windshield wipers, lubricants, cooling fluids, and the like, and can obtain other (again ostensibly prohibited) automotive repair and/or maintenance services, including a set of new tires, mounted balanced, and installed.8 The materials Sam’s Club has before the Board, while voluminous, never disclose this key fact: regardless of any limitation in the proposed amendments or other prohibitions, Sam’s Club is selling ancillary automotive supplies and services and will continue to do so. Thus, even under the proposed amended zoning text, the addition of gasoline dispensing at Sam's Club would render it completely indistinguishable from the “Gasoline Service Stations” that are prohibited in the DS zoning district.

The above definition is thus of no benefit to any gasoline retailer other than a Sam’s Club type operation, based on the unique nature and configuration of its gasoline sales business model. On the other hand, its adoption would mean that any parcel in the DS zoning district that meets the 5-acre minimum area standard would be eligible for a special use permit authorizing the same kind of “Automotive Fuel Station” use. Therefore, in all material respects the proposed amendments create a new “Big Box with gasoline” land use. Sam’s Club tried unsuccessfully to get this in the past, and now simply have decided to try again but by using a different method.

Controlling Legal Principles

At the February 10, 2022, public hearing, certain of the comments, in particular those of a Town Board member and the applicant's representative, seemed to suggest or otherwise claim that because Sam's Club has not sought a zoning map amendment, but has instead sought to achieve the same goal by lobbying the Town to adopt fundamental changes to the underlying zoning scheme, the present application is somehow shielded against claims of improper “spot zoning.” But this contention, which elevates form over substance in the extreme, is mistaken as a matter of law.

A. Spot Zoning Law and Doctrine Applies Here and Prohibits Enactment of the Sam's Club Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.

In New York, a bedrock principle of zoning law is that a local government's zoning must be "made in accordance with a comprehensive plan."9 Indeed, nearly a half-century ago the New York Court of Appeals explained that a comprehensive plan is the "essence of zoning," without which “there can be no rational allocation of land use.”10 By the same token, Town Law § 265 authorizes Town Boards to amend local zoning regulations, stating “[S]uch regulations, restrictions and boundaries,” i.e., those adopted under Town Law § 263 and which must therefore be “made in accordance with a comprehensive plan,” may “from time to time be amended.”11

Give the above statutory structure and language, any contention that the initial adoption of a zoning map and/or zoning regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan, but amendments thereto made at the behest of a private landowner are not, misses the mark entirely. Amendments to local zoning, even those which (as here) do not include changes to the zoning map or reclassification of an entire district, are subject to claims of impermissible spot zoning.12 That logic is particularly applicable where as here, the proposed amendment adds an entirely new land use classification and is thus the functional equivalent of and therefore indistinguishable in effect from a rezoning.

And as to spot zoning, New York courts consider “whether the rezoning is consistent with a comprehensive land use plan, whether it is compatible with surrounding uses, the likelihood of harm to surrounding properties, the availability and suitability of other parcels, and the recommendations of planning staff.”13 But, ultimately, the issue distills to “whether the change is other than part of a well-considered and comprehensive plan calculated to serve the general welfare of the community.”14

9 See NY Town Law § 263 ("Such regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan . . .").
10 See Udell v. Haas, 21 NY2d 463 (1968).
11 See NY Town Law § 265(1).
12 See, e.g., Matter of VTR FV, LLC v. Town of Guilderland, 101 AD3d 1532, 1534 (3d Dep't 2012) (applying spot zoning analysis to proposed local law amendment which expanded the definition of "nursing home" to include an assisted living facility and/or memory care facility but concluding that the amendment (unlike here) was "part of a well-considered and comprehensive plan calculated to serve the general welfare of the community") (citations omitted); Accord Kravetz v. Plenge, 84 AD2d (4th Dep't 1982) (applying spot zoning doctrine to amendment seeking to allow hotels in the existing zoning district).

13 See Save Our Forest Action Coalition v. City of Kingston, et al., 246 AD2d 217 (3d Dep't 1998) (citing 3 Rathkopf, Law of Zoning and Planning § 28.04 [4th ed.]) (held, no spot zoning where "the primary motivation for the zoning amendment was to support local economic development through retention of the City's largest employer and reap associated economic and tax benefits in connection with the development of a business park.")..

14 Id. at 221 (citations omitted).

Obviously, the current Sam’s Club zoning amendment proposal did not arise from any local comprehensive planning processes, nor does it represent a response to any changed circumstances in the relevant zoning district requiring an areawide change. Instead, it represents a proposal for legislative action by the Board to benefit one party - Sam’s Club. The proposal is specifically tailored to allow a kind of gasoline dispensary business model that is economically unsustainable except for in the big box retail context. Put another way, no local small gasoline service station owner could seek to expand into the DS zoning district under the Sam’s Club definition because they rely on ancillary sales and services to survive, not the enticement of lower retail prices in an adjacent store, and the Sam’sClub proposal prohibits such ancillary sales and services. The Board is thus being asked to customize the zoning ordinance to meet the needs of a single class of landowner. That is not zoning as that term is understood in New York; it is the very antithesis of zoning.

Notwithstanding this more recent tack, the record shows that Sam’s Club had spot zoning concerns specifically in mind when it filed the application for a zoning text amendment. For example, Sam's Club dedicated an entire section of its petition to what it describes as “Consistency with the Town Comprehensive Plan,” claiming that adoption of its customized Big Box with gasoline zoning classification will somehow “enable more consistent and efficient use of appropriate commercial property within the DS Zoning District.”

But the Sam’s Club analysis of comprehensive plan consistency, such as it is, suffers from a number of fatal flaws. First, the general thrust of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan when it comes to retail access is the preservation or enhancement of open space and establishment or maintenance of walkable shopping centers. The Sam’s Club proposal achieves neither of these goals. On the contrary, it turns the existing zoning ordinances focus on “Fully enclosed” retail services on its head by creating a single idiosyncratic land use (unenclosed gasoline pumps with no ancillary sales or services) allowed by special use permit.

Next. Sam’s Club attempts to shoehorn its proposed use into that part of the Comprehensive Plan seeking to “implement economic development strategies that take into account the changing nature of retail.”15 But the text of that section of the comprehensive plan makes plain that the “changing nature of retail” it refers to has nothing to do with permitting gasoline sales at big box stores, but instead merely refers to the shift to “ever increasing online sales,” and the need for the community to adapt to that change from traditional “brick and mortar” retail, to online sales and services. It provides no traction to Sam’s Club in this instance.

Continuing this pattern of selective citation, Sam’s Club claims that its proposal is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s statements and policies encouraging “innovative and flexible regulations that facilitate identified site improvements” and/or which “support flexible parking.” But here again Sam’s Club has completely divorced those values from their context: in both cases, those statements were made in furtherance of the overall planning goal of creating new, walkable, and livable retail areas. Indeed, the first policy set forth under that broad heading is to “Support the attributes of successful suburban business districts that promote pedestrian orientation and high quality of public space.”16 In other words, to the extent flexible zoning

15 Comprehensive Plan, Policy 11.2.1.6. 16 Comprehensive Plan, Policy 11.5.1.1.

standards might further other stated comprehensive plan goals, they are to be encouraged. However, nothing in the comprehensive plan suggests that flexible zoning standards should be used to grant existing retail landowners' permission to impose fundamental changes to an existing zoning scheme that serve no other purpose than economic gain to the applicant.

On the other hand, the Comprehensive Plan has an entire chapter dedicated to “Sustainability,” including smart growth principles and other necessary responses to climate change.17 Section 3.6 of the Comprehensive Plain in particular focuses on, among other things, “Alternative Vehicle Technology.”Apart from vague promises to discuss the possibility of electric vehicle charging stations at an indeterminate point in the future, the Sam’s Club proposal offers absolutely nothing that is consistent with or otherwise furthers any of the Town's sustainability and global warming concerns. If anything, the proposal as currently fashioned only serves to exacerbate those concerns by adding a 14-pump gasoline service facility with no corresponding offsets for the greenhouse gas effects that facility will create – not even a promise of a single electric vehicle charging station.

In summary, it is indisputable that the Sam’s Club proposal neither arises out of nor is compatible with the values expressed in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal did not come to the Town Board by the petition of a group of interested residents or businesses collectively seeking change to improve their quality of life. The proposal did not derive from any organic internal Town planning process, or to update the zoning ordinance or respond to changed circumstances. It constitutes a naked attempt by a single economic actor to enhance its own profitability at the expense of a carefully crafted zoning scheme by adding exactly that which the existing zoning ordinance prohibits. If that is not prohibited spot zoning, then nothing is.18

B. The Special Use Permit Process Affords Little Protection Here.

Along the same lines, there appeared to be some suggestion at the recent public hearing that the overwhelming public concern and outrage over the Sam’s Club proposal should somehow be attenuated by the fact that Sam’s Club must, if the Board adopts the proposed amendments, “come back” to the Town Board for a special use permit. However, “the inclusion of the [specially] permitted use in the ordinance is tantamount to a legislative finding that the permitted use is in harmony with the general zoning plan and will not adversely affect the neighborhood.”19 Thus, while the “Town Board still retains some discretion to evaluate each application for a special use permit to determine whether applicable criteria have been met,” its ability to consider the broader context, including the broad socio-economic and land use compatibility issues raised on this record by local small business owners and others, will be severely constrained if not eliminated altogether if it adopts the requested zoning text amendment.20

17 Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 3.0.
18 And given the overwhelming public opposition to the Sam's Club proposal, as documented now in numerous print, online and television broadcast news stories, Sam's Club's representation of "overwhelming public support for the Project," rings hollow and should be rejected. See Applicant's Correspondence to Town Board dated July 28, 2021.
19 See Matter of North Shore Steak House, Inc. v. Bd. of Appeals of Inc. Vill. of Thomaston, 30 NY2d 238, 243 (1972).
20 See Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v. Yevoli, 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 (1997) ("the board may not base its decision [on a special use permit] on generalized community objections.").

Accordingly, while the special use permit process is not entirely chimerical, it offers little to no protection against the incompatibility with the Comprehensive Plan of the Sam’s Club proposed zoning amendment that is now set forth on this record. No rational person could rely on the special use permit process to cure or ameliorate the harsh, widespread, and inevitable impacts of the Sam's Club proposal on the local planning process. That process thus offers little in mitigation of the otherwise significant impacts the proposed amendment would have on the DS zoning district.

Conclusion

For all the foregoing reasons, and for those set forth on the administrative record and/or otherwise stated during the public hearing process, we respectfully submit that the Sam’s Club proposal seeking to dictate how the Town Board utilizes its zoning power should be rejected. The Greenburgh zoning ordinance is not some playground toy to be molded at the whim or behest of an affluent or powerful resident seeking to maximize profits. It is the expression of a fixed set of sound planning principles intended to ensure consistency and compatibly amongst nearby land uses and ensure the continued high quality of life that Greenburgh residents deserve and have become accustomed to under this and previous Board’s stewardship. Allowing a carefully balanced zoning scheme to be upset in order to satisfy the economic desires of a single district landowner would be an unfortunate outcome, indeed. To the extent you have been counseled that Sam’s Club’s application is not spot zoning, such counsel is wrong. We ask you to maintain and protect the integrity of the zoning law.

The Town Board should reject the Sam's Club proposal.

Respectfully submitted, YOUNG / SOMMER, LLC

William A. Hurst

cc: Members of the Greenburgh Town Board; David R. Fried, Esq., First Deputy Town Attorney; Gerald Bunting, Esq.

Community Stands United Against Sam’s Club Plan

There was a rally attended by about 60 or so concerned members of the Greenburgh community including owners, employees, and family members of women and minority-owned small businesses, environmental advocates, civic leaders. Also in attendance were Assemblyman Abinanti, Westchester County Legislators Shimsky and Williams Johnson. Everyone’s message was clear: Greenburgh’s Town Board must not approve a zoning change that would allow Elmsford’s Sam’s Club to build a mega gasoline station center. Hundreds of signatures from regular customers and local residents have been collected by the stations opposing the zoning change. 

A recent environmental review by DT Consulting Services, Inc. concluded that the area proposed for petroleum bulk storage at the Sam’s Club site sits in a special flood hazard area and is within close proximity to three bodies of water, the Saw Mill River, Mine Brook, and an unnamed tributary which all feed into the Hudson River. The study concluded that “granting approval of an auto fuel center within this area could cause undue risk.” Not only is this move risky, but the inaction and complacency of the ineffective and incompetent Town Supervisor and his Board, the County Legislators and State representatives regarding the horrendous flooding conditions they condone of both the Bronx River and Saw Mill corridors – the only exits for water out of the County and in particular, the Town – make this project impossible to approve! Fix the flooding before aggravating the situation with more bad decisions!

“If the Town Board approves Sam’s Club’s request for a spot zoning change, this would have an immediate and drastic impact on 200 local small business employees and the environment,” said Gerald Bunting, an attorney challenging the zoning change on behalf of the business community. “We are here to say ‘No’ to Sam’s Club’s plan and ‘shame on Town Hall’ for even contemplating this proposal that would store underground tanks holding 60,000 gallons of fuel within close proximity to the Saw Mill and Hudson Rivers. This is an environmental risk at best, and a potential catastrophe at worst.”

Leo Zulfikar, owner of a BP station on Saw Mill River Road which features an outdoor iconic 20-foot-tall Paul Bunyan statue, shared: “For 25 years I’ve put blood, sweat, and lots of equity into this station, and it feeds the families of 10 of my employees. I watched as Sam’s Club tried pushing this very same plan forward in 2004 and it was smartly denied by the Greenburgh Zoning Board of Appeals. I don’t know why now, 18 years later, our local government would want to hurt us – they are supposed to support us to build and grow to better the community, not stack the deck against us.”

The proposed change, titled “Local Law amending Section 285-28 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled “DS Designed Shopping District” as it relates to Automotive Fuel Station Uses” will hear public comment tonight at 7PM via Zoom. The Greenburgh Town Board is not allowing in-person attendance using the Covid-19 excuse that has conveniently allowed Mr Feiner and his Board to keep residents and taxpayers at bay. This is a blatant maneuver to initiate Spot Zoning (again) for a particular applicant under the guise of being a Town-wide change. Open government our a$$!

The zoning law change is being met by vigorous opposition by many local civic groups. A resolution was read that had been sent by Madelon K. O’Shea, chairperson of the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations: “At a Council of Greenburgh Civic Association meeting held by Zoom on January 20, 2022, representatives discussed the application seeking an amendment to the Greenburgh Zoning Ordinance which would permit the Sam’s Club membership warehouse on Saw Mill River Road to sell automotive fuel. By majority vote CGCA representatives adopted a resolution to oppose the requested zoning change and to support the numerous independent gas station operators and their employees in Greenburgh who would be negatively impacted if the requested zoning change was permitted.”

Vince Ferrandino, an Elmsford-based planner and principal of Ferrandino & Associates Inc. reported, in a traffic review of the project, that the 16 new fueling stations would have a significant negative impact on traffic and parking at the Sam’s Club site and along the Rte. 9A corridor: “Sam’s Club intends to eliminate at least 113 parking spaces to make way for their proposed gas station, and that would be particularly onerous during holidays and on weekends. Additionally, the proposed fueling facility will negatively impact circulation throughout the parking lot, and along adjacent streets on both Rte. 9A and Warehouse Lane. For these and other reasons, we recommend that the Town deny the application.”

The Year In Review Part 2

Each year Mr Feiner publishes his accomplishments for the year on various Feiner-friendly websites, sends out numerous email blasts and snail-mail mailings (the latter at a significant cost to the tax-payer). Coincidentally, we publish the “rest of the story” to quote the late Paul Harvey, as Mr Feiner, convicted of lying under oath in the Fortress Bible Church Federal discrimination case, can’t always be relied upon to present accurate and transparent information. Here’s Part 2 of our year in review. This year, Mr Feiner has changed his Accomplishment List to a Highlights List. Staffers have thrown around numerous thoughts as to why the change. Because short of slowing down the Edgemont community’s incorporation efforts, there haven’t really been many new accomplishments. Mr Feiner’s info is in blue, ours in black.

DISABLED

Metro North announcing plans to build elevator at Hartsdale train station- work to start in 2020. 

Whether or not MTA builds an elevator at any of their locations or not is totally up to them. While we’d prefer every site have everything it needs, this is an entity that usually asks for rate increases right after getting rate increases and cannot manage the money they have.

Reactivating disabled advisory committee. Why was this ever discontinued?

RECREATION- CRICKET!

Greenburgh opened up Westchester County's first cricket field at Richard Presser Park in Hartsdale.  Encouraging the county and other municipalities to recognize how much people love cricket. 

Hard to get excited about this when pedestrians are being struck at an alarming rate; our roads are in such disrepair; flooding is being ignored and traffic congestion is out of control as Mr Feiner and his Board green-light massive construction projects without accommodating any changes in our infrastructure.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

The abandoned WESTHELP[sic] homeless shelter is now being renovated for affordable senior housing. It's exciting to see the WESTHELP [sic] parking lot fill [sic] of cars--contractors doing the renovations.  The affordable senior housing will open up in 2021. 

Wow! This condition was CREATED by Mr Feiner and his Board when they ignored repeated attempts by the County to renew the contract for WestHelp. He instructed Town employees to leave the facility open and unoccupied so as to condemn it and force it to be torn down by the County to build a new school for a handicapped school in Yonkers. The facility was supposed to be transitioned into a senior living facility. It's a shame that he is taking credit for a horrendous condition that needn't have happened. So he forfeited with a nod from his Board a guaranteed contract promising $1.2 million dollars a year for the Town.

NEW POLICE CHIEF AND COUNCILPERSON TRANSITIONS

A smooth transition of Police Chiefs--Brian Ryan is our new Chief, replacing Chris McNerney who now is Chief Investigator for the DA. 

We wish Chief Ryan well and thank Chief McNerney for his hard work.

EDGEMONT

NY Court of Appeals upheld my interpretation of Edgemont incorporation petition. Appellate division had previously found that the petition for incorporation did not comply with statute requirements. A second petition was filed. I found that the 2nd petition also did not comply with the statute. Those who filed the petition have filed a lawsuit which is pending. 

Mr Feiner’s sole responsibility is to sign off on the petition. He didn’t do that. He decided, along with Councilman Jones, to politicize the issue, publicly saying that they didn’t want it and would not work with the Village of Edgemont should the referendum pass – which would ensure the Unincorporated budget not lose as much money as it might. They are supposed to remain neutral. HE hired people who hired more people to dupe Edgemont residents into signing another petition to negate their original petition signature. But in Greenburgh, ethically challenged politicos never have their feet held to the fire, lose their jobs or go to jail. They just get re-elected. Shame on them.

POLICE AND COURTS

A shooting at an Ardsley Motel resulted in no fatalities of innocent bystanders or police. Our SWAT team responded quickly, a Greenburgh police officer who was shot at was wearing a bullet proof vest and is OK. Highlights the importance of being trained and prepared. 

A suspect in an FBI raid was killed and two SWAT Team officers were injured during the shootout at the Ardsley Acres motel. The FBI said members of the FBI Westchester County Safe Streets Task Force were at the motel assisting the FBI New Haven (Connecticut) Safe Streets Task Force. One of the SWAT Team officers who was shot, a Greenburgh police sergeant, was saved by his bulletproof vest. The other injured officer, a Dobbs Ferry sergeant, may have been struck by a ricochet. They were treated at a hospital and released.

We have saved over 12 million dollars so when we sell the current court house/police we won't have to borrow as much --enabling us to address infrastructure in an affordable manner. 

We had a hard time deciphering this sentence as we haven't saved anything until the building is remediated, which is almost a guaranteed necessity due to its age, and then sold. We think he meant that $12 million was put in a reserve fund from money already collected from taxpayers. But the $49 million dollar bond (or $37million) will still negatively impact the Unincorporated residents. Once the Greenburgh School Board puts their new bond up, it will be a double-whammy against the taxpayers.

Town hired CBRE and Lothrup to help us review real estate options and design. We hope to present the community with a proposed plan for the court house and police station in 2020. And, will be conducting tours of our existing facilities and community meetings before we finalize any decision. 

This is Feiner-speak for, “We’re moving forward with the construction bond for a new police station and courts, regardless. Rather than legally follow the process, we'll be doing what we want by getting everything in place.”

NYS STARTED TO REPAVE SAW MILL RIVER ROAD IN ARDSLEY

NYS started repaving Saw Mill River Road in Ardsley –a road fill of potholes. Work to be completed next year. 36 student interns had lobbied for the road repaving in 2018. NYS promised to repave Hillside Ave but the company went under so there were delays with the project. The state did start some sidewalk, drainage work and will complete the road repaving in 2021. 

Funny, the Village of Ardsley gets what the Village of Ardsley wants because their Mayor and Village Board actively petition other governmental branches when there is something they seek, such as sidewalks. While the Town relies on interns to do the heavy lifting, the public still mistakenly believes Mr Feiner and his Board are doing this. Just look behind the curtain periodically and you'll be very surprised and dismayed. As a side note, every time there is something close to home for the Supervisor or his Board, things get done. This time benefitting Mr Feiner and Ms Juettner.

RECYCLING and food scraps

We increased recycling of paper and plastics from every other week to every week. 

This is a good thing even if studies show that recycling costs us more than we’re saving.

We obtained a grant from NYS for $250,000 to purchase trucks to begin curbside recycling of food waste. Trucks to be ordered in 2020. Service to be offered to villages and unincorporated Greenburgh. 

The one grant doesn't include maintenance or replacement. So, the grant which we pay for with even more of our taxes, is not a freebie.

We have started seriously considering the possibility of opening up a food scrap composting site on Taxter Road ---currently food scraps from around the region are sent out of county. 

Apparently, Taxter Road needs more truck traffic as it is already used as a vehicular cut-through. Surely there are other places this can be done. Greenburgh needs more than just scraps.

ASSISTED LIVING  DISCOUNTS

The Chelsea Assisted LIving Facility is offering discounts to Greenburgh residents--they hope to open in 2020 on Dobbs Ferry Road. They also have some affordable units for those who meet income guidelines. They expect to open in 2020. 

So instead of paying $8k a month rent, it will be reduced to $7k? The few affordable units allotted here won't make a dent in or for the Greenburgh population.

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS

Brightview seeks to build independent living, assisted living facility at portion of Metropolis. Plan under review.

Maplewood is seeking approval to sell their swim and tennis club on W Hartsdale Ave to an assisted living facility. We are reviewing traffic, neighborhood concerns.

We created land use advisory committees around town involving residents impacted by proposed developments in the land use review early on. These land use committees also help us select the traffic and environmental consultants we hire to review the application.  We want the community to be involved in partnering with the town government.

This is pure BS. The neighborhood residents requested land use committees for Brightview (Metropolis CC), Maplewood, ShopRite & Sam's Club gas station developments but were refused by everyone at the Town!

SOME SMART PEOPLE—INCLUDING A NOBEL PRIZE WINNER

A Tarrytown man won the Nobel Prize in Medicine. Gregg Semenza attended Sleepy Hollow HS, one of the schools serving the Greenburgh community. No disrespect intend toward Gregg Semenza, but this really a a stretch by Mr Feiner.

GRANT FROM STATE FOR NEW AMBULANCE-ARDSLEY SECOR VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE CORP

Mayor Nancy Kabbolian and I met Senator Andrea Stewart Cousins two years ago seeking state funding for a new ambulance for the volunteer ambulance corp. Senator Cousins  recently announced that NYS will fund the new ambulance for the volunteers. 

Good for Ardsley-Secor Ambulance Corps. Keep in mind, these grant monies are grants that we all pay for.

VOTING

First time Early Voting was tried in Greenburgh during the town elections. Voter turnout was higher than usual in an off off year election. 

The verdict is still out as to whether this ploy to get early votes actually contributed to election fraud or not.

TECHNOLOGY

Progress  being made - implementation of a work order system in the Department of Public Works. Will enable the town to better track complaints and work requests. 

Perhaps Supervisor Candidate Lucas Cioffi was correct and Mr Feiner IS the bottleneck for all the work that is being or needs to be done in the Town. Mr Feiner’s goal to develop a system is 30 years overdue. You can’t say you’re a visionary with this kind of track record.

Town Board approved funding for enhanced social media initiative –want to get our message out to those who don’t subscribe to traditional media. 

We’re pretty confident that this isn’t about enhancing anything. This is to ensure Mr Feiner has a way to disseminate information of his choosingto residents of his choosingwithout having to share the lists he maintains. He had been able to do this until he was sued and ordered by the courts to share his list.

Taking steps to formalize an official Technology Committee that can help the town keep up to date with technology. 

Another committee that will be able to talk about something but impotent to act. Mr Feiner needs to be able to say, “I’ll turn that idea over to the Technology Committee to investigate and get back to me with a recommendation” – which will never actually happen. It's another black hole for Mr Feiner to use at his discretion.

HOT ASPHALT MACHINE ENABLES TOWN TO REPAIR POTHOLES IN WINTER

Greenburgh is one of the few communities around that has purchased a hot asphalt machine to repair potholes in the winter months. The asphalt companies don't operate in the winter months and most communities use cold patches to repair potholes. These pothole repairs don't last long. This investment enables us to repair potholes efficiently and for the work to last. 

We don't know enough about asphalt to know if this is a good thing or not. At face value, however, if the industry shuts down for the winter, there must be a good reason for it.

The Year In Review Part 1

Each year Mr Feiner publishes his accomplishments for the year on various Feiner-friendly websites, sends out numerous email blasts and snail-mail mailings (the latter at a significant cost to the tax-payer). Coincidentally, we publish the “rest of the story” to quote the late Paul Harvey, as Mr Feiner, convicted of lying under oath in the Fortress Bible Church Federal discrimination case, can’t always be relied upon to present accurate and transparent information. Here’s part 1 of our year in review. This year, Mr Feiner has changed his Accomplishment List to a Highlights List. Staffers have thrown around numerous thoughts as to why the change. Because short of slowing down the Edgemont community’s incorporation efforts, there haven’t really been many new accomplishments. Mr Feiner’s info is in blue, ours in black.

TAXES WON’T GO UP…AND FINANCIALS

A tax rate reduction and a tax levy freeze in the 2020 town budget.
We have previously written about this. Returning Edgemont resident Lucas Cioffi, ran against Mr Feiner in this last election. One of his campaign promises was to have a two-year tax freeze if elected. A week after Mr Cioffi made that announcement, Mr Feiner started saying that he would promise a 1-year tax freeze. When asked about the tax levy, Mr Feiner was unable to answer the question. Part of the reason that he can do this – and why for only one year – is that there have been a number of people who have left the Town's employ and whose positions will not be filled.

We are tightening many of our management procedures. Department heads are being asked to develop step by step work plans so we can review tangible measurable goals. We are working with department heads on developing cost benefits for each new project. 

It's surprising to learn that these management principals – basic management principals – haven't already been implemented. After all, after ten terms as Supervisor and countless interns, citizens groups and advisors, surely someone must have told you how to do this?

At our last Town Board meeting the Board voted to install GPS systems in all town vehicles. 

Several vehicular points here. First, if there is a vehicle policy? Second, why weren’t GPS systems already installed? Third, If there is no policy, why did it take so long to develop one? Fourth, what was the cost to retrofit all of the Town vehicles? Finally, what happened to cause this decision to be made? Did someone go joy-riding with a Town garbage truck that was found abandoned somewhere because somebody forgot to lock the truck door or the yard's fence?

We continue to conduct independent reviews of different departments --looking for ways to make government more efficient. 
Who is conducting these supposed reviews? What have they found so far and how do we access this information? 

We implemented consultant recommendations dealing with the courts a few years ago and are implementing recommendations from DPW consultants--a work order system for DPW and a health and safety initiative for employees.

We'll be kind and just assume this is correct. Again, Lucas Cioffi had said that all the work orders should be able to be filed by residents online and then trackable by residents online to see at what stage their resolution might be. This was a great idea as Mr Cioffi highlighted (no pun intended) that the one choke point in our Town lies with Mr Feiner as people email him directly and only he knows what the constituent's issues are.

Maintaining Aaa bond rating by Moody's and Standard & Poor's --bond rating increased 3 times during my tenure to highest rating possible. 

Having a good bond rating is good if and when you float bonds – don't worry, one is coming to us soon to the minimum tune of $49,000,000 for a new court and police station. Mr Feiner backed off of this bond as the Greenburgh School District was trying to get the taxpaying public to buy-in to their $200,000,000 (principal and interest) Consolidation Bond. With the election looming, even Mr Feiner was nervous to propose it, stating openly that he was against the Consolidation Bond proposal. With the democratic change in the bail laws under the guise of reform, aptly referred to as “catch and release”, shouldn't the courts workload and demands be less? Maybe another already existing location could work instead of building something new.

We had two auctions of foreclosed properties-the last auction generated 2.7 million dollars.  We have started using a professional auctioneer to help us maximize revenues from auctions. 
The Town has maintained a lackadaisical approach to foreclosures with Mr Feiner's excuse being that he doesn't want people to be kicked out of their homes. That's understandable, however, we've seen the law ignored and foreclosures sit idle for IE., 7 years.

Forming committee to review proposed requests for proposals to maximize competition from bidders. 
Great, another committee so we can talk about something instead of dealing with it.

HISTORY--the Odell House and 9-11

We received a $600,000 grant from NYS to restore the historic Odell House on Ridge Road, Hartsdale.  We hope to turn the building into a museum. This house played a major role in the Revolutionary War.  At long last – we’re close to getting the Odell house transferred from the Sons of the American Revolution to the town. Last week the NYS Attorney General's office authorized the SAR to transfer the property to the town--which will happen in early 2020. 

It's interesting how Mr Feiner has bent over backwards to tranquilize the Hartsdale community after there was talk of incorporation by them, contingent with the Edgemont incorporation. So much so that he purchased two homes costing about $400,000 for a possible Central Avenue project. Now the Town will also be on the hook to demolish and provide any asbestos and other remediation before they can do something with the property. We do want to see the Odell house preserved but given the Town's track record as a landlord (WestHelp is one that comes to mind), we're not sure this is the best direction for this historic property.

We started the 9-11 Living History stories--video interviews of those impacted by the 9-11 tragedy. The interviews air on public access TV and can be accessed on the web. The 9-11 living history stories is modelled[sic] after the Veterans living history initiative (about 150 veterans of World War II, the Korean conflict have each participated in half hour interviews). We have no issues with this.

PEDESTRIAN AND MOTORIST  SAFETY

New sidewalks completed at Columbia Ave, Fair Street, Lawton, a small portion of N Washington Ave and Glendale Road. Construction of new sidewalk to begin shortly on Central Ave between Marion and West Hartsdale Ave.  About six miles of new sidewalks have been built or funded in recent years --with more to come! In April the town received some more good news: We received two grants (from NYS and from CDBG) totaling $1.2 million dollars to build a new sidewalk on Hillside Ave and on Old Tarrytown Road.  Residents will be able to walk from Route 119 to the Parkway Gardens/Homes neighborhood and from Town Hall to Knollwood Road! 

While these sidewalks are good to have, the Town only recently began seeking grant monies for sidewalks even though the money has existed for years! The sidewalk policy has been all new construction developers add a sidewalk at that property. This is a good idea for new construction but does nothing for roadways that will never have new construction. While walking on Hillside as well as Old Kensico Roads can be terrifying, especially in the dark, we're told we have to accept something as better than nothing. Tell that to the person recently struck by a car on Old Kensico Road.

5 different pedestrian accidents around town. Town Board includes substantial funding in 2020 budget for pedestrian safety improvements. 

Specifically such as what? 

We also are studying the possibility of either building a sidewalk on Ft Hill Road or making road one way ( a suggestion raised by residents). A community meeting has been scheduled with a local Edgemont civic association in January to discuss plans to hire a traffic consultant to review options. 

Mollifying the Edgemont community seems to be Mr Feiner's main focus since turning down their Incorporation petition; as well as placating the Hartsdale community.

There are other safety concerns on streets around town. We will use funding that has been approved by the Town Board for digital speed boards and other traffic calming devices. 

We don’t need digital sign boards and have no idea what traffic calming devices are, but what we need is police enforcement. Currently, the police department is not doing traffic enforcement on local roads. 

The town has offered to pay for a traffic light on Central Ave in front of Sacred Heart Church if NYS allows us to install a light at this location--where there was an accident earlier this fall. NYS said they don't have funds in their budget for the safety improvement. 

This location has literally been an accident waiting to happen – and it finally did. This is on Mr Feiner and his 30 years in office focusing on giveaways and vote purchasing rather doing what the Town needs.

Starting to review need to improve traffic flow on E Hartsdale Ave. Board agrees to study upgrading of traffic lights. Sensors, synchronizing lights to reduce congestion and to increase traffic flow. 

What does “starting to review” mean? This is a not a DOT controlled road. As the top elected official in the Town, he should have been all over this for years! It wasn't until the Hartsdale Neighbors Association starting pushing for changes in that area coupled with Edgemont's Incorporation did Mr Feiner agree to evaluate the area.

We enhanced crosswalk at Edgemont and Ardsley Road. Enhancement completed just a week ago.

We added a crossing guard to Ardsley Road/Fort Hill Road--making it safer for children to crossduring school hours. 
Again, placating Edgemont in hopes that they will drop their movement to Incorporate this time under the guise of “for the children.” For the uninitiated, Mr Feiner is very much about quid pro quo and should be impeached.

We awarded the bid for a traffic light at Ardsley Road/Sprain Road. We expect installation to be completed in the spring of 2020. This location will be much safer.

We selected a consultant to review the proposal to revitalize the 4 corners in Hartsdale--and will address stormwater[sic], traffic issues. 

A review should indicate that there are both flooding and traffic issues at that location. The irony, and ultimately failure, of the study is that it will focus in that one specific area while the problem exists due to local, County and State government failure to address it for the entire Bronx River corridor. Again, why fix it when we can talk about it. Public Works Commissioner Victor Carosi sits on the County Flooding committee chaired by County Legislator Alfreda Williams. Ask any of them and they will say that they haven't met and done anything to even begin to address flooding. Go take a look at any section of the Bronx River and you'll see the entire river is clogged with debris and overgrown vegetation. Maintenance is not sexy so no one addresses it.

Building a sidewalk, installing lights  or enhancing crosswalks takes a lot of work. Our town professionals have to coordinate with other government entities if work is going to take place on state or county roads. We have to coordinate with Con Ed -moving utility poles. We need to make sure that we're in compliance with ADA requirements dealing with the disabled and have to make sure that the work we do does not create drainage related problems.  The crosswalk light fixtures took months to arrrive[sic] at Edgemont and Ardsley Road. After we awarded the bid for a traffic light on Ardsley Road/Sprain we were advised that it takes 4-6 months for the special fixtures to arrive.  Most people are not aware of all the details that go into designing and implementing safety improvements. 

It sounds like he's describing them doing jobs, which they get paid very well to do, including excellent benefits.