In an age of transparency and openness, where so much of what we do is done remotely and online, it is no wonder that some will look to profit from our inability to come together and voice objection to land use deals that don’t serve the people’s best interest.
In the Town of Greenburgh, Sam’s Club has been quietly working the insiders at Greenburgh Town Hall to fast track a zoning change that would mean big things for the local economy and environment if approved. And, not in a good way.
Sam’s wants to create a large automobile gas station that would house at least 14 pumps, 60,000 gallons of fuel stored underground, and a 7,500 sq. foot canopy overhead. To build it out, Sam’s Club will lose over 110 parking spots, and traffic studies show it would be problematic, both on site and on Route 9A.
Now, ironically, 18 years ago, the Greenburgh Zoning Board of Appeals turned down a similar request by Sam’s. The well thought out decision was denied in 2004 by then- ZBA member and now Council member Francis Sheehan. I can’t fathom any good reason why Mr. Sheehan would think the request is any better now.
What makes this troubling for many is the immediate harm it would cause to a dozen small and local women- and minority-owned businesses that employ some 200 people in their independent gas stations and convenience stores along the Saw Mill River Road corridor.
In effect, by allowing Sam’s Club to build their requested gas station center, it would cannibalize all local competition, similar to what occurred in Middletown, NY when they did the same there. Six Middletown gas stations went out of business near that Club and the stations have added only blight rather than income and sales taxes to the community.
I know very personally how devastating this will be for my 10 employees and their families. Additionally, I recognize the great risk of Sam’s Club’s project and its potential impact on our natural environment.
A recent study 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 water bodies (Saw Mill River, Mine Brook, and an unnamed tributary — all feed into the Hudson River). The study concluded that "granting approval of an auto fuel center within this area could cause undue risk."
Now, here’s where the guise of transparency rests: the attorney representing those of us who would lose our livelihoods has been consistently denied access to town records detailing this matter. Town Hall has stymied every FOIL request and shared no economic fiscal analysis report, no environmental impact study, and no current Zoning reviews. Its doubtful if any have been completed by the Town.
We would think that the Town of Greenburgh would act a little more savvy before blatantly lining Sam’s Club and its Walmart owners pockets. But, alas, not.
In the age of Covid where we often socially distance in everything we do, Greenburgh’s officials have chosen to take backdoor deals it to a whole new level, and remove all barriers to question and input in order to expedite projects. Who wins? Not us the citizens.
Please join with us as we hold the line on this fast and sudden deal and try to hold Greenburgh’s Town Board accountable. Sign up (virtually) to speak at the Public Hearing to consider a Local Law amending Section 285-28 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled “DS Designed Shopping District,” as it relates to Automotive Fuel Station Uses, by emailing PublicHearing@GreenburghNY.com and TownBoard@GreenburghNY.com.
Thank you,
Leo Zulfikar
Owner, Elmsford BP
135 N. Central Avenue
Elmsford NY
Showing posts with label Zoning Board of Appeals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zoning Board of Appeals. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 8, 2022
Tuesday, April 18, 2017
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
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
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Edgemont Destiny Continues
Our previous article discussed the meeting Mr Feiner crafted as his unofficial anti-incorporation event. It's no secret that Mr Feiner is against the Edgemont Incorporation although in the next breath claims to not have a position. The last meeting utilized Councilman Ken Jones as Mr Feiner's understudy, making several comments that can only be interpreted as being against the incorporation. Regardless, there is another meeting tonight that promises to be interesting, if not informative.
We believe the tactic for tonight’s meeting will be orchestrated by Mr Feiner, even if he is not present, to somehow accuse the Edgemont Incorporation Group of discrimination. It's not about discrimination. Rather, it is to get out from under the Town’s mismanagement and control. Regardless, once it is refuted by the Edgemont Incorporation leaders, he will need something else to deflect away from his cavalier approach to the incorporation and the Town’s lack of preparedness. He has arranged for Wespac to be present. WesPac, a social activist and anti-Israel group, will give him the added conflict and deflection he desires once the discrimination issue is eliminated. The meeting held Tuesday night is the exact representation of why Edgemont residents are looking to incorporate.
Tonight's meeting begins at 7PM at the Seely School. We urge you to attend. It will make for A Better Greenburgh.
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
The Questions Were Well Written, But The Answers Were Not
The meeting at the Theodore D. Young Community Center (TDYCC) was billed as one of providing information to the Town’s residents regarding the impact on Town operations should the Edgemont Community incorporate and become a Village within the Town. The dais was represented with commissioners from each of the Town’s departments as well as the Town Attorney, Tim Lewis and Town Board member, Ken Jones. The consensus in the audience was that as Mr Feiner’s appointees, they were instructed to be there. Chairs were set up in the gymnasium for about one hundred or so people. Many of the seats remained unused.
André G.
Early, the Commissioner of the Department of Community Resources,
welcomed everyone and turned the microphone over to Don Cannon, a
Feiner-sycophant, who has obediently served his padrone in several capacities.
Tonight, his apparent task would simply be to spread misinformation, false facts and
obfuscate any discernable information to the Town residents, a task he executed
well. And, when he didn’t know how to answer a question, or it was specific to
one of the department heads, they were offered the microphone to give the
seemingly agreed upon answer, “I don’t know.”
The short
presentation made by Mr Cannon regurgitated information Mr Feiner has touted
but never verified, qualified or detailed beyond his typical sensationalism.
Those who follow Town affairs know Mr Feiner typically throws out unrealistic
numbers and bogus information, hoping something “sticks”. Here, it was a
rehashing of the anti-incorporation numbers that he has maintained as accurate.
We might believe him if he would explain and quantify how he arrived at them.
But, he never does…
That leaves us
with the numbers he’s created. At every opportunity Mr Feiner has said the
Edgemont incorporation would mandate drastic cuts throughout the Town. He
claims that Edgemont’s incorporation, parroted by Mr Cannon, will cause the
Town budget to lose $17.5 million dollars, increase taxes to Unincorporated
Greenburgh residents by 30%, layoff 30% of Town employees and cut services by
30%. Our first question, read last, asked how they arrived at these numbers?
Our second question was if the new Village of Edgemont contracts all of the
same services with the Town, how do the numbers change? Mr Cannon answered the
question with a technically correct but invalid answer. He said, “I got those
numbers from the Town budget.” The second question’s answer was brushed aside
with the standard answer, “We don’t know, we’ll have to wait and see.”
The numbers
are important for several reasons. First, the standard answer was always, “We
don’t know or we’ll have to wait and see.” Councilman Jones, an attorney, seems
to have studied at Mr Feiner’s “dance” school. When he didn’t have a tangible
answer, he said an awful lot of “um’s and ah’s” and just kept dancing around
not providing any answers, eventually just turning off the microphone. Second, the 500
pound elephant in the room was simply: how can you tell us we’re going to lose
$17.5 million dollars, increase taxes to Unincorporated Greenburgh residents by
30%, layoff 30% of Town employees and cut services by 30% and then claim you’re
unable to substantiate how you arrived at those numbers? And, since the proposed
Village of Edgemont representatives have consistently stated they always planned to
purchase services from the Town, which they will be paying for, how will these
numbers be changed? “We don’t know, we’ll have to wait and see.”
In speaking
with former Justice Herb Rosenberg after the meeting, he stated, “The questions
were well written, but the answers were not,” referring to the 3x5 index cards
that residents and attendees were required to fill out with their questions.
Sadly, because this meeting was not about sharing and presenting facts to the
residents, the evening turned into a colossal waste of everyone’s time. Many
residents left early as they slowly realized they were being pandered to and
not getting any real information. Many began shouting questions from the floor,
obviously frustrated by the card-controlled questioning process. In fact, the
Journal News reporter who was at the meeting left about halfway through it.
As we were
leaving, we passed Mr Feiner in the lobby area and overheard him asking someone
how the evening went? They asked why he hadn’t been here for the meeting and
his answer was that he was at another meeting. We don’t know if it was about
Edgemont Incorporation or not, but we believe he accomplished his goal of
limiting transparency and obfuscating information against the Edgemont
Incorporation effort. The outcome would have been the same had Mr Feiner been
present, so it’s no loss that he wasn’t in attendance. Again, people wanted to
know why no action had been taken by the Feiner Administration for the Town to
be ready should incorporation proceed long before this meeting. The answer
given by Mr Cannon was that a Citizen Task Force was being formed to address
the incorporation. What’s next, using interns?
There is
another meeting this Thursday night at the Seely School. We hope this will provide real, forthcoming information. The Town officials claim to be neutral in this
entire episode – but they obviously are not. Mr Feiner has invited WesPac, a
social activist and anti-Israel group to the meeting. He’s done this before with them. Last time caused Town Hall to be shut
down earlier in the day about a year ago after Mr Feiner allowed them use of Town Hall for free, costing taxpayers a lot of money for police
overtime and allowing Mr Feiner to subsequently create phony cause to keep
neighborhood organizations from utilizing Town Hall for meetings. Why do we
mention this?
We believe the tactic for this Thursday night’s meeting
will be orchestrated by Mr Feiner to somehow accuse the Edgemont Incorporation
Group of racial discrimination. We honestly do not believe they are doing this to keep anyone out of Edgemont. Rather, it is to get out from under the Town’s mismanagement and control. Regardless, once it is refuted by the Edgemont Incorporation leaders, he will need
something else to deflect away from his cavalier approach to the incorporation
and the Town’s lack of preparedness. This meeting at the Theodore Young
Community Center had a specific intent. It could not be recorded or televised
as it should have been and is why it was not held in Town Hall – which we know was
available since no one is allowed to use it any more. Regardless, WesPac will
give him the added conflict and deflection he desires once the discrimination issue is
removed. The meeting held Tuesday night is the exact representation of why
Edgemont residents are looking to incorporate. This type of bad behavior from
Town leadership needs to end. Only then will we see A Better Greenburgh.
Monday, March 6, 2017
Budget and Personnel Cuts Feed Doom and Gloom
The Hartsdale Neighborhood Association meeting recently
held at the Highview School to inform people about how the impact of the
Edgemont incorporation may affect them may have raised more questions than
answers. It may have also inadvertently pointed to the incompetence of the
Feiner administration with their cavalier approach about the Edgemont
Incorporation.
During this meeting of over a hundred people in
attendance, Jason Muldoon queried the crowd as to how people learned of the
meeting? It seemed the majority were from the email blast sent out by Mr
Feiner. That shows his power to draw his supporters in when he needs them. Many
people showed up at 7PM even though the meeting was scheduled for 7:30PM. Those
same people raised their hands having been notified of the meeting by Mr
Feiner’s email.
Our previous article describes how Mr Feiner showed up
early and was talking about the Edgemont incorporation. When asked to stop, he shouted
at one of the organizers that he had a first amendment right to free speech
even though she asked him to respect that this was their meeting not his,
forcing Police Chief McNerney to intervene and diffuse the situation. As an
aside, residents are permitted and
limited to speak for 3 minutes at a Town Board meeting. If they go beyond the
allotted time, or are part of the G10, he has Mr Lewis interrupt them and shut
them down or they are banned from speaking, such as was done to vocal critic
and resident Mr Hal Samis.
There were rumblings about the upcoming elections by some,
but Mr Feiner knows it’s just talk and is not threatened. He garners 7,000
votes when he runs unopposed and works relentlessly to disqualify ballot
signatures. In fact, to deny culpability, he even utilizes other Board members’
family members to do that dirty work. One time that he did feel threatened was
in a debate/forum in Hastings on Hudson, a normally safe haven for him. The
forum was against Supervisor candidate/challenger Robert Bernstein during a
Supervisor’s race several years ago. He became rattled as Mr Bernstein threw
too many truths at him and he slowly unraveled, with spittle flying from his
mouth and hands shaking as he held up papers yelling, “I have proof of what I’m
saying right here!” Still, he won the election, with his biggest support coming
from those who he does not govern, the Villages, and those that he does,
Fairview. Well played.
During the Q&A period at the end of the meeting Mr
Feiner was asked what contingencies had been put in place should the
incorporation happen? He said none. He was asked if he had talked to the
Edgemont community about what he could do to change their minds and he said no.
However, in all fairness, he had gone to Edgemont Community Council meetings
with some frequency and heard regularly of complaints from their past presidents
and current President Bob Bernstein. In fact, when the Town’s now-adopted
Comprehensive Plan was still being developed, many Edgemont residents chimed in
often complaining of misguided directions the group was favoring. More significantly,
when the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee was holding hearings, an
inordinate amount of Edgemont residents participated, giving feedback that was both
positive as well as negative. Many believe the Comp Plan Steering Committee
listened but didn’t hear what was being said. Please realize that while the
Comprehensive Plan could have provided a valuable road map to the future for the
Town, it became an extremely politicized exercise to the point where two of its
members refused to sign off on final approval! It was adopted in spite of what
many believe were valid objections.
Mr Feiner desperately needed to placate the Edgemont
Community to keep them from or at least slow them from moving incorporation
forward, knowing he could lose millions of dollars for the Town if they
succeeded. He had already lost $1.2 million per year for the Town by illegally and
intentionally breaking the Westhelp contract with the County. That source of
revenue was gifted to the Town requiring minimal effort from the Town. He also
cost the Town $5.5 million dollars when he was fined after being found guilty
in federal court for discrimination in the Fortress Bible Church case.
He continued offering to build sidewalks in multiple
locations, including Seely Place, along with others in Edgemont. What’s ironic here
is that some time earlier he had visited the Seely Place neighborhood telling
those residents they should not ask for sidewalks because they would be
responsible for maintaining them! In
fact, he sent an accusatory letter to Fulton Park residents stating their Civic
Association Vice-President asked the Town to put in a sidewalk on Old Kensico
Road at those residents’ expense and maintain it - which was a lie!
While he was offering Edgemont sidewalks to get them to
put their guard down and feel like he was working with them, he was secretly
making backroom deals with Jim Kane of Formation Shelbourne, LLC., to build an
assisted living facility on the current Sprain Brook Nursery property. The
proposal is not only too large for the parcel of land they seek to build on, it
requires several variances to comply with the two-year old Assisted Living law written
by the Brightview Assisted Living attorneys for themselves that the Town
adopted as its own. One of the variances that Shelbourne needs for this project
is a 3000% variance to accommodate the requirement of being within 200 feet of
a state right of way. It’s absurd to even entertain this outrageous
accommodation.
At the Hartsdale Neighborhood meeting, the uninitiated
took Mr Feiner at his word as being truthful when he said the Town could lose $17
million dollars if Edgemont incorporated, forcing, “Police services, um, you
know taxes, uh, water rates may go up,” and, “it would require major reorganizing
of the Town of Greenburgh.”(http://westchester.news12.com/news/edgemont-residents-meet-to-discuss-incorporation-1.13196407?pts=564454) .
The point here is that if the Edgemont incorporation proceeds forward, several
things will stay the same for Edgemont and several will change. One thing is
fire protection, provided by the Greenville Fire District. Instead of billing
the Town of Greenburgh for fire protection, they will bill the Village of
Edgemont. Sewer districts will remain the same as will costs. Although, we’re
unable to verify if billing will stay the same or change. Public Works
services, such as trash and garbage pickup, snow plowing, road maintenance,
etc., will change in that it will be a contracted service from the Town
(according to what was said by the HNA leaders). Of course, they might
be able to secure a better price and service from Scarsdale or Yonkers. However, if that
doesn’t happen, and the Village of Edgemont seeks to keep the current status
quo with services, the Greenburgh budget may see a slight shift, but nothing as
doomsday-ish as Mr Feiner is saying. If the Village of Edgemont is able to acquire better pricing from Scarsdale or Yonkers for example or a private
company such as Waste Management, then the Town’s budget might take a significant but
not as crippling a hit as has been perpetuated by Mr Feiner.
While we are cautiously optimistic about how this will
turn out and might change the budget and services for Unincorporated
Greenburgh, it’s nice to see more people are paying attention. Several people
in the audience were part of the G10. Most, however, have never gone to a Town
Board meeting to see how the Town is run, residents treated and developers
courted. Perhaps it’s time. Only then will we see A Better Greenburgh.
Thursday, March 2, 2017
Edgemont Destiny
The evening started out as a contentious one when it was
advertised to be simply one of discussion. Upon our arrival at approximately
7PM, we found Mr Feiner already engaged in conversation with another attendee
regarding the Edgemont Incorporation. It was then that Karen Kelly, one of the
organizers, asked him to stop “politicking”. Mr Feiner claimed he had a right
to speak to whomever he pleases. She loudly told him that this was not his
meeting, it was a Hartsdale residents’ meeting and he would be given a chance
to speak. He shouted back that he had a first amendment right to free speech
and she said he should respect that this was their meeting not his. At this
point, Police Chief McNerney intervened and tried to diffuse the situation. It would have been more cordial of Mr
Feiner to have respected her wishes and the organization and stepped outside to have a private
conversation.
The meeting began late as the members of the Hartsdale Neighbors
group that organized it scrambled to find and set up more chairs as the growing
audience eventually exceeded 100 people. Three members of the Hartsdale group
ran the meeting. Dan Weinfeld first explained the ground rules: this was not a night for political discussion, it was not about attacking the Edgemont group
seeking incorporation and that everyone should remain civil to each other. It was an informational session. Mr
Feiner would be given five minutes at the end to make a statement, as would
Edgemont Incorporation member Jeff Sherwin. You may recall that Mr Sherwin made
two unsuccessful attempts the previous week to deliver the incorporation
petition signatures and the $6,000 filing fee to Town Hall, being told that the
only person allowed to receive them was Mr Feiner - who was on vacation!
No other Town Board members were in attendance, although Town
Attorney Tim Lewis and Town Clerk Judith Beville were there. There were several
police officers whether on duty or as community members, one of whom asked legitimate
questions. The standing room only audience remained mostly quiet, respectful of any
speakers, only occasionally asking them to speak louder as there was no
microphone or amplification available.
Mr Dan Weinfeld gave a brief video presentation explaining the
makeup of the Town’s Unincorporated sections of Greenburgh, focusing primarily
on the Hartsdale and Fairview sections of the Town. He explained the makeup of
the river town villages, including Ardsley and Elmsford, populations of both
the Villages and the Unincorporated Town, and the services used by all. It was a
very encompassing presentation and well-received. During his presentation, Mr
Weinfeld stressed that all of this information is on their website (www.hartsdaleneighbors.org) or on
the Edgemont Incorporation site (www.edgemont2017.org).
After Mr Weinfeld concluded his portion of the presentation, Mr Luis Polit presented a breakdown of the financial facts of what is
currently being collected in revenue to the Town, Edgemont’s portion of it and
the projected changes should Edgemont incorporate and become the Town’s 7th
village. Once he concluded, another of the citizen organizers, Jason Muldoon,
stepped in and explained that Mr Feiner and Mr Sherwin would be speaking next,
reiterating that this is not a political discussion. He also did a quick show
of hands to see how people found out about this meeting. Clearly most were
there through Mr Feiner’s GBList email notifications.
He then offered Mr Feiner five minutes to speak. He addressed the crowded room by giving an example of a Village that had incorporated in 2010 without stating it was Mastic Beach. He then proceeded to either find fault with the Edgemont incorporation or say why it wouldn’t work. As is often the case, Mr Feiner deflected away from the topic at hand, changing his story, only to refer to his sheet of talking points to return to his reasons why the Edgemont incorporation was not going to work. After five minutes, Mr Muldoon cut Mr Feiner off, stating his five minutes were up – a bittersweet moment for those who attend Town Board meetings and are only given minutes to discuss anything in front of his Board.
He then offered Mr Feiner five minutes to speak. He addressed the crowded room by giving an example of a Village that had incorporated in 2010 without stating it was Mastic Beach. He then proceeded to either find fault with the Edgemont incorporation or say why it wouldn’t work. As is often the case, Mr Feiner deflected away from the topic at hand, changing his story, only to refer to his sheet of talking points to return to his reasons why the Edgemont incorporation was not going to work. After five minutes, Mr Muldoon cut Mr Feiner off, stating his five minutes were up – a bittersweet moment for those who attend Town Board meetings and are only given minutes to discuss anything in front of his Board.
Mr Sherwin was the last speaker who took the opportunity to
quickly debunk Mr Feiner’s example of Mastic Beach, which had incorporated and then several years later voted to undo the incorporation. Mr Sherwin pointed out that it was
not a fair or accurate comparison as the population of Mastic Beach was 12.8
thousand versus Edgemont’s 7,300 and the disparity in revenues was equally different. Mr Feiner often relies on incorrect information for shock value and doesn’t often encounter immediate and correct informational challenges.
Mr Sherwin proceeded to read a prepared statement, thanking the Hartsdale and Unincorporated residents for allowing him the opportunity to speak. He mentioned that like the Hartsdale group, they were just a group of citizen volunteers seeking to control their community’s destiny as the Town has not worked with them multiple times, citing the Dromore Road and Shelbourne projects as two recent and drawn out examples. The focus was also not as much about saving money for Edgemont taxpayers, although that would be a benefit based on their calculations, but about their destiny, zoning and development considerations.
Mr Sherwin proceeded to read a prepared statement, thanking the Hartsdale and Unincorporated residents for allowing him the opportunity to speak. He mentioned that like the Hartsdale group, they were just a group of citizen volunteers seeking to control their community’s destiny as the Town has not worked with them multiple times, citing the Dromore Road and Shelbourne projects as two recent and drawn out examples. The focus was also not as much about saving money for Edgemont taxpayers, although that would be a benefit based on their calculations, but about their destiny, zoning and development considerations.
Once the speakers concluded, Mr Muldoon opened the floor to
questions. Many of the residents seemed to focus on information as to how they
would be affected financially, through tax increases and personnel cuts should
incorporation move forward. One gentlemen, who is obviously one of Mr Feiner’s
supporters began to raise political points and was quickly shut down. One woman
asked Mr Feiner if this information was on the Town website. Mr Feiner did not
directly answer her and when pushed by others who followed up said he would
have to discuss it with his Board. Mr Sherwin said that the information,
feasibility study and more is on the EIC website as well as the Hartsdale Neighbors
website. ABG would suggest in the interest of fairness that the Town at least
publish a link on the Town’s website to these other two sites.
Occasionally, a question would arise that the Hartsdale
members could not answer and they were very candid and simply said so. Mr
Sherwin seemed well prepared with facts and figures and offered information
numerous times without seeming to be adversarial or confrontational. It was a
relief and pleasant to see both sides working together even though they have
different interests and outcomes at heart. Also in attendance were several
people who claimed to be from Edgemont who did not favor Edgemont incorporation,
including Mr Hugh Schwartz, a Feiner appointed Planning Board member. And while
they were able to make their points behind their rationale, it never became a
tug of war between the two factions.
Several questions were directed at Mr Feiner, asking what contingencies
the Town had planned should the incorporation move forward, as it was obviously
doing? Mr Feiner stated that he sent an email and snail mail out to constituents
asking for volunteers to serve on a Citizen Task Force to work with his
Commissioners on this. Long-time Greenburgh Central School Board President Terry Williams asked
why the Town was not hiring professionals to address this. He said that that may be the
Task Force’s recommendation and direction they go. Several followed up on that and asked why
something wasn’t done sooner. Mr Feiner ultimately fell back to his position
that he didn’t believe the incorporation would happen but never gave an tangible answer.
In the end, this will be decided by only Edgemont residents in the Town who can vote for incorporation. Many believe Mr Feiner will increase his email blasts and snail mail mailings to thwart the EIC's efforts all on the taxpayer dime. Regardless, it promises to be an interesting ride for the next several months. While we too are anxious about how the incorporation will financially impact the unincorporated Town, we applaud both groups for their respective efforts and civility. This is what helps to make A Better Greenburgh.
Friday, September 16, 2016
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!
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?
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.
Saturday, July 16, 2016
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.
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.
Saturday, July 9, 2016
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
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 6th.
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.
Saturday, July 2, 2016
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)