Democrats Promise Councilwoman Position

It’s no secret that Diana Juettner will not be seeking another term as a Town Council member. We originally thought, “Finally, maybe we can get a breath of fresh air, some new thinking and innovation!” Juettner, a Village of Ardsley resident served on the Board almost as long as the Supervisor. She was also part of the “Feiner-crew” that was found guilty on seven counts, along with Mr Feiner, Westchester County government’s  Steve Bass, Eddie Mae Barnes and Timmy Weinberg (deceased) in the Fortress Bible Church Federal discrimination case. One would think that being convicted of any crime would be enough to force a politician to be removed from office. Not in “Bizaro Greenburgh”, where a guilty conviction seems to embolden them with more anointing of tenure.

Speaking of anointments, with Juettner leaving, the Greenburgh Democratic Party has already blessed and promised the Juettner seat to Ellen Hendrickx, former Hastings Democratic Chair and “fill-in” Council woman upon the death of Councilman Kevin Morgan. Can you say, “Done deal?” So much for fresh ideas, new thinking and such. It’s her turn after stepping aside to let Gina Jackson have a seat on the Board. This is significant for several reasons. First, Juettner is a Village of Ardsley resident and Hendrickx was a Village of Hastings resident. This matters because it’s the Villages that support Mr Feiner and ultimately bring him the votes he needs to stay in position as Supervisor. Also, the minuscule portion of the Village resident’s tax bill isn’t high enough for those residents to complain or even follow the illegal and unjust actions of Mr Feiner.

Second, we seriously doubt any Democrat would challenge the party decision-makers and try a run for this seat after it has been blessed for someone else. We saw how well this fared for several past challengers to those in existing positions within the party, the most recent being Democrat Eric Zinger, who ran for Town Board against Councilman Ken Jones and Gina Jackson. While there were those who disagreed with some of his positions and inflexibility toward them to compromise, he was a viable and preferred alternative to Mr Jones and did have some different ideas toward running the Town. 

Third, since the Town of Greenburgh’s Republican Chair is a Feiner fan and committee appointee, he is content to not even try to put a Republican candidate up against a Democrat running for elected office in the Town. Additionally, there had been interest from some of the existing Republicans in Town as well as the Villages, in forming a Republican Club to begin raising funds and cultivating candidates for the Town and Villages since the Westchester Republican Party refuses to do so. In fact, Westchester Republican Chair Douglas Colty has said numerous times that he has written Greenburgh Republicans “off.” We’ll wait and see if, and how, that pans out.

Fourth, since the Villages are insulated from any fines incurred by the Town or Mr Feiner and his various Boards, such as the $6.5 million dollar guilty verdict and fine in the Fortress Bible Church Discrimination Lawsuit, why would they even care if Mr Feiner stays in office or not? And, why would they care if he has been in office for 29 years thus far? There are no negatives for them. But there are plenty of negatives for the residents in the Unincorporated portion of the Town, as the Villages have Mayors and Village Boards protecting them – a luxury we will never see with any Feiner administration.

In fact, the Fortress Bible Church Discrimination lawsuit payments originally included all of the Villages but at the last minute Mr Feiner and his Town Board removed them off the resolution. Years earlier, the Villages were very angry when they were included in the payments dealing with a lawsuit over Town property - a fallen tree that killed a man & paralyzed his wife. Because the town was “under insured,” all residents had to pay the remainder of the settlement. The Villages threatened to leave Greenburgh! Mr Feiner promised them that if they stayed, the villages would not be included in any future lawsuits dealing with Unincorporated Town property. That was an incredibly good deal for them.

Fifth, looking at a small issue to begin with, Mr Feiner has mandated that the Town will not send out this year’s garbage and trash pickup calendars*. His excuse is that he can save the Town $5,000 by not printing and sending them out. What?! So, with a TOV budget that is roughly $88+ million dollars, which includes funds for him to do his many campaign mailings, we believe the $5,000 needed to keep our residents informed is well worth the expense. If he were truly looking to cut down printing and mailing expenses, stop the campaigning with all of the duplicitous mailings throughout the year and use that money for the garbage/trash pickup calendars. Or, offer to print the calendars on the office copiers at Town Hall on demand and have the residents come in and pick them up.

Sixth, if we move on to the larger issues, we find the Supervisor and his feckless Board granting every developer just about anything and everything they request . Case in point, the Battery Energy Storage System at the Knollwood Country Club, or the Brightview Continuum Care Facility at the Metropolis Country Club, or the ShopRite Supermarket at the old 9A Multiplex Theater complex or the Townhouses at the Elmwood Country Club bonanza that Mr Feiner keeps pushing for approval. These developments have too many unresolved issues. And yet, after going through the motions of listening to the impacted communities, Mr Feiner and his Board simply ignore the public and do what he wanted anyway. 

It seems that every project becomes a “done deal” whenever a developer walks into Town Hall. In addition to the above-noted examples, there are other projects, such as: the Shelbourne Assisted Living Facility which is currently in litigation, and the Westchester Power - ESCO that Mr Feiner automatically enrolled every resident and small business into. Yes, there are exceptions, especially when a development involves  “the quality of life” of a Town Board member or Town Official. For example - the Jefferson project in the Ardsley area [affected: Supervisor Feiner and Councilwoman Juettner] or the Ferncliff Cemetery  project, [affected: Councilman Sheehan] or another assisted living facility off of Payne Street, [affected: Councilman Morgan and Town Attorney Lewis] . All shot down! 

Another ridiculous idea from the Supervisor, who has no business experience or knowledge, is that he has decided the Town needs another crony to be his Economic Development Czar to help fill the empty retail stores throughout the Town. First, the ground floor retail store, with apartments or other businesses above them, is a failed model and should simply be immediately abandoned. Second, while Mr Feiner believes in over-taxation, he fails to recognize that landlords pass his tax increases to their tenants, who in turn pass them on to the consumer or end-user. While this model has always worked to some degree, the more-than-usual vacancies throughout the Town prove that his taxation policies are continuing to kill retail in particular and business in general throughout our Town. Since he only sent this notice about this new position to residents who are online, many of the Town’s residents are unaware that this “fast one” is being done to them.

Going back to where we started, the same old stale Town Board thinking may be changing players unless Ms Juettner changes her mind again and decides to stay in her anointed lifetime position. Should she leave, the Democratic Party will do their members and the Town residents at large a grave disservice, by not offering better potential candidates and by meting out positions from Westchester’s Tammany Hall. All because someone was a good soldier by stepping down to anoint Gina Jackson a position. This is not the way the government was intended to be run, even in Bizarro Greenburgh and has to end. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

* One of our staffers mentioned that they just received a robocall from Mr Feiner stating he would be sending out the calendars after all.

Solving A Problem That Doesn’t Exist Benefits One Business

Once again Mr Feiner has pinned a new problem to his publicity-stunt circus cadre of ‘issues’. His claim this time? Installing cell towers in East Irvington will help the people who have complained about poor cell service will now have better service. According to conversations ABG has had with Irvington residents, a) there are no cell reception issues and b) they do not want cell towers installed in their neighborhood. Besides, if we responded to everyone that’s ever had poor cell service, we’d probably give up using cell phones. This move seems to be nothing more than another disregard for resident’s safety and granting Homeland Towers, LLC, access to phone poles for financial gain. This time, however, the contract will be for 55-years! Talk about not understanding the Art of the Deal!

In a post we previously wrote from Monday, December 12, 2011, entitled Increasing Cell Tower Radiation in Town, we discussed how Homeland Towers, a cell tower company, intended to erect two 108 foot cell towers in the Town. The proposed locations were one on Taxter Road and one on Tarrytown Road. We discussed how you could see what one would look like by going southbound on the Hutchinson River Parkway from Westchester Avenue eastbound. At the time, there was another company, looking to put cell towers on existing utility poles.

Then, in another article, from Saturday, July 27, 2013, NextG: Another Guilty Verdict,

we wrote that the courts found in favor of the plaintiff, Crown Castle NG East, Inc., the “new” parent company of NextG Networks of New York, and against the Town. The original petitioner sought to install cell towers on phone poles throughout the Town. Their lawsuit alleged the protracted process began in 2009 with their cell tower installation applications to Mr Feiner and the Town took an unreasonable amount of time to make a decision, based on The FCC’s “Shot Clock” order.

The “Shot Clock” was supposedly an important step enacted by Congress to encourage the expansion of wireless networks throughout the nation. The ruling provides that a local jurisdiction must act on an application for the location of additional antennas to existing infrastructure within 90 days and an application for the construction of new infrastructure within 150 days. And, at the same time it claims to allow local control, but it really does not seem the “locals” actually maintain control.

The taxpaying public is required to once again weigh-in on the cell tower proposals and should insist Mr Feiner and his Board allow the Antenna Review Board and the Zoning Board address the issue of a proposal, which would take the onus off of Mr Feiner and the Board and place it where it belongs. We haven’t heard if Mr Feiner is allowing the Antennae Review Board use of a meeting room in Town Hall again, after he stopped allowing them to meet at Town Hall long before he stopped allowing any Greenburgh groups access to meeting rooms. After almost inciting a riot at Town Hall when he allowed a Hamas group use of Town Hall for an anti-Israel rally, Mr Feiner instructed his Town Board to no longer allow Greenburgh taxpayers the use of their building.

Cell towers in Greenburgh may be the right thing to do if it’s in the correct location. When it’s not, it should not be entertained by this administration and in fact, struck down immediately. We have an Antenna Review Board that can address this and is the proper agency to turn  to for these types of review. We doubt that will happen. Appointing many “Feiner-friendly” residents to these different Boards becomes more and more indicative of Mr Feiner’s policy of stacking the deck to acquire rulings he seeks. It has to stop. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

Hydrant Flushing Coming to Your Neighborhood

The Greenburgh Water Department announced their annual maintenance program to operate and flush fire hydrants for the week beginning Monday, October 17, 2016 thru Friday, October 21, 2016 beginning in the Knollwood Area.This action is necessary to make sure the fire hydrants are in good working order in case of emergencies and to help flush sediment out of the distribution system.

The hydrant flushing and operating action will take place during the day from 9:30 A.M. to 2:30 P.M. Greenburgh Water District Customers in the neighborhoods listed and the immediate vicinity should expect temporary periods of discolored water and lowered pressure resulting from this maintenance operation. This discoloration consists primarily of harmless silt and air and does not affect the safety of the water. For further information, customers may contact the Greenburgh Water Department at 914-989-1900 or visit the Town websitewww.greenburghny.com.

- KNOLLWOOD AREA
- MAYFAIR ACRES, including roads near Knollwood Road, Manor Drive, Buena Vista Drive and Chelsea Road.
- PARKWAY HOMES, including roads near Hillside Avenue, Old Tarrytown Road, North Road, South Road, Maryton Road, Lawrence Drive, Virginia Road.
- VALIMAR
- WYNDOVER PARK, including roads near Old Kensico Road, County Center Road, Winnetou Road, and The Woodlands.

Please be advised that flushing may cause water pressure variations and discoloration of water. This does not represent a health hazard. However, customers are cautioned to determine if the water is clear before washing clothes (or any other processing) as staining may occur. If you experience discoloration in your water after crews have been flushing in your neighborhood, clear the pipes in your home by running cold water faucets for a few minutes. The water is absolutely safe. However, to avoid any inconvenience, we suggest you monitor the water before doing any laundry and keep water in the refrigerator for drinking and cooking.

Opposition to Zoning Change Increases

On Wednesday, June 17, 2015, Hartsdale Park Association (hartsdalepark@yahoo.com) sent a letter to its membership regarding the important zoning change the Town Board is considering to benefit GameOn 365, a for-profit commercial entity. It details many of the aspects this decision will have as it will negatively impact the entire Town, not just the Dobbs Ferry corridor.

Dear Hartsdale Park Residents:
Much of the discussion in the case of Game-On's request for special rezoning seems to be focused on the Game-On use of the Vizioli property, the former golf driving range. That is only part of the proposal before the Town Board. Their proposal is to insert a commercial use ( indoor/outdoor recreation center) into a residentially zoned area by special permit. Its impact goes far beyond the Vizioli property.

The amendment to the Zoning Ordinance proposed by David Steinmetz, attorney for Game-On, requires the Town Board to grant a special permit if the applicant meets certain conditions. There is no discretion involved. If the applicant meets all of the conditions spelled out in the code, the permit becomes a right.

The problem is once you allow any commercial entity in a residential zone, there is nothingto stop that use from being expanded OR for it to happen anywhere else in Greenburgh! This is a VERY dangerous precedent to set.

Suppose Game-On receives approval and builds a 107,000 sq.ft. building, then is sold or goes out of business. The community would have a huge empty building with 300 parking spaces and other infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, etc.) in place. Any number of fairly low-traffic-impact businesses might want to locate there, and depending on the financial standing of the Town, such commercial use might be encouraged. Also, there is nothing to stop other commercial uses from seeking entry into OTHER residential districts. If the Town does it once, other commercial uses will seek approval.

Paul Feiner argues that Dobbs Ferry Road is already a recreational and/or commercial corridor - Frank's, East Rumbrook Park, Carlson's Nursery, Elmwood Country Club, Elmwood Day Camp, Fairview Fire House. All of the uses cited (other than Frank's Nursery) -- parks, farms, membership clubs, camps, firehouses -- are allowed in one-family residence districts as permitted uses or by special permit. They are listed as the residential and related uses Zoning Ordinance. Fully enclosed commercial recreational facilities are differentiated and listed as "commercial.”

The focus of our opposition must be on not introducing any kind of commercial use into residentially zoned districts. Once they get a toe in the door, there is no going back!
Some may argue that we already have done this when assisted living facilities were introduced into residential zones. However, "health care facilities” have been Special Permit uses for more than two decades and these are residential uses. The principal change in recent years was to allow them on lots of four acres instead of requiring ten acres.

Creating a new zone is a discretionary act by the Town Board. If the Board chooses not to entertain a requested rezone, there is nothing an applicant can do. In other words, the Town cannot be sued in court.
The proposed change is not only about the Vizioli property. It affects all properties zoned R-30 that are greater than 20 acres on a state road. Thus, the Elmwood Country Club Property across from the Vizioli properly on Dobbs Ferry Road and the Knollwood Country Club property on Knollwood Road would also be able to request special permits if the code amendment is approved. Furthermore, if this code amendment is approved by the Town Board properties that are not 20 acres or are not located on a state road could seek variances from those provisions. Sunningdale Country Club on Underhill Road is a good example, though it is more than 20 acres in size. As an example, Mr. Steinmetz was successful in getting a code change to permit assisted living facilities (Brightview) on properties of four acres or more located within 200 feet of a state road.

I attended and spoke at the April 8, 2015 Town Council meeting. I was present for the entire meeting, which lasted for over 3 hours. During the public comment portion the ONLY people to speak IN FAVOR of Game-On were soccer coaches from Tarrytown!

As President of your Hartsdale Park Civic Association I am urging you to contact Supervisor Feiner and the Town Council Members immediately if you object to Game-On’s request for this “special consideration.”

Game-On is welcome to come to Greenburgh, BUT NOT on Dobbs Ferry Road. There are many other sites, including several in Tarrytown, already zoned for commercial use where this type of facility is more appropriate. We say, “Game-On please GO THERE!”

Here are the Town Officials’ email addresses for your convenience:
Supervisor Paul Feiner - pfeiner@greenburghny.com
Town Council Members: 
Kevin Morgan - kmorgan@greenburghny.com, 
Ken Jones - kjones@greenburghny.com, 
Francis Sheehan - fsheehan@greenburghny.com, 
Diana Juettner - djuettner@greenburghny.com

This is an extremely important matter to all of us. Your support is needed and much appreciated.

Yours sincerely,
Celia P. Novo, President
Hartsdale Park Civic Association

A Letter To The Planning Board

Former Justice and Attorney Herb Rosenberg recently sent a letter to the Planning Board and its members discussing why the Zoning Change proposal, veiled as the "GameOn 365 proposal" on the Visioli's Golf Driving Range property, is wrong for the Town, our residents, unfairly represented, and in our view, seemingly a done-deal. ABG believes it is a done-deal for several reasons. A) Mr Feiner has continually stumped for GameOn 365 amidst a 5-year public outcry against the proposal. B) Mr Feiner has attempted to violate the law to help these outsiders and ignore and disrespect the residents throughout the Town. C) Mr Feiner has adopted and used often his newest catch phrase, which is that people should have, "confidence in the process" (they don't); and finally, we believe Mr Feiner instructed Messrs. Morgan and Jones to tow his line or be "Sonya'd". Councilpersons Juettner and Sheehan are against the proposal for numerous reasons which we'll get into in another article. 

Here is Justice Rosenberg's unedited letter:

6/4/2015 12:14:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: Game On/Planning Board

To the Planning Board

My name is Herbert Rosenberg. I am retired lawyer and a former judge. I am a stranger to you all except to Fran McLaughlin, who I have met before and we have had some limited contact. You may recall an Op-Ed article that I wrote that was published in the Scarsdale Inquirer on April 17, with the title A GameOn 365's plans set a dangerous precedent in town of Greenburgh, (the title was written by the editor, not by me, though I agree with it).

I attended last evening's Planning Board meeting because I am interested in the Game On matter. Please don't take this personally, but I was quite astonished and disappointed at what I saw. This long letter will explain why.

Let me put aside the question of whether there should or should not have been a pre-submission conference on the Game On application. What I am saying is that what took place was the wrong discussion. The application is for a zoning change to Code section 285-11 that cuts across all of unincorporated Greenburgh, yet the proposed zoning change was not discussed at all. What is not before you is the approval of the Game On project (which would be a site plan approval) and such an approval can be considered only if and after a zoning change is adopted, yet the Game On project was the only thing that was discussed.
 
This is what happened.

1. Mr. Steinmetz and his colleagues presented an extensive and detailed description of the proposed Game On business. It took more than one hour. As one would have expected, he painted a glowing picture, with much overstatement of what will actually happen there, some attractive photos of the site and films of traffic movements that were quite unreal, and with no mention of the weaknesses and problems that will occur at the site and affect the neighboring communities. He even made an incorrect statement on an important point. One Planning Board member asked whether Game On had considered another location, and Mr. Steinmetz answered that there is no other available site in Greenburgh. That is not true. Landmark at Eastview has made it plain that they would like to have a recreational facility such as a sports facility at its site, and Landmark is in Greenburgh. Mr. Steinmetz spent about fifteen seconds on the subject of the zoning change, making the short statement that if the zoning application is adopted, it will also include the Elmwood Country Club and the Knollwood Country Club.
 
2. Several members of the Planning Board asked some questions about the project, how could it be made better for local kids and seniors, whether another site had been considered, etc. Not a single question was asked about the zoning change and its consequences and effect upon the rest of unincorporated Greenburgh.
 
3. At the end one community resident was given a very short time to speak -- not at all sufficient to discuss the issues involved.

But there is an overriding question, and that has to be addressed and answered before the Game On project can be considered. That overriding question is whether there should be a zoning change that would permit commercial uses on all R-30 residential districts that fit the specifications -- not less than 20 acres, with 400 feet frontage, on a state road. It is the overriding question because the proposed zoning change is not limited to the Dobbs Ferry Road site, but applies to many other areas of unincorporated Greenburgh. And it is the overriding question because the Planning Board has to first conclude that such an unincorporated area-wide zoning change is desirable for the Town before it can consider whether the Game On project is a good one. Indeed, even if the Game On proposed project were not controversial, the question of whether to change a zoning change that applies to all R-30 zones in unincorporated Greenburgh would have to be considered.
 
What surprised me last evening was that no member of the Planning Board asked any question about this zoning change. All the questions were about the Game On project. I commend Mr. Steinmetz for his skill in focusing complete attention on the project to the exclusion of the zoning change issue. His presentation was so well done that to the listeners in the audience it seemed that the Planning Board was unaware of the fact that this hearing involved an unincorporated area-wide zoning change rather than a site plan review of the Game On project. Had Mr. Steinmetz and his colleagues not taken up almost all the available time, and had some members of the group opposing the zoning change been permitted to speak, the zoning change would have been introduced and discussed, to the benefit of the Planning Board.

Mr. Steinmetz asked you for an indication of how the Planning Board was leaning. He said, or indicated, that if the Planning Board is negative, then he and his client would not waste the large sum of money incurred in doing all the environmental and related work. (Similarly, the Town would be spared the significant expenses that are involved in continuing the exploration of this zoning change.) I think that it is fair to say that the comments of the Planning Board members strongly communicated to the listeners that with few tweaks the Game On project will be approved, almost as though there was no zoning issue at all. By the Planning Board not even discussing the proposed zoning change Mr. Steinmetz is entitled to presume that zoning will not be an issue or a deterrent, and so both Mr. Steinmetz and his client will incur heavy costs proceeding with the effort, and so will the Town.

Is that really the message that the Planning Board wants to convey? Have you already concluded that the zoning change will not be an issue and does not need to be discussed? Have you concluded that other R-30 zones will not be subject to the possibility, perhaps likelihood, of commercial uses? That other R-30 districts, and R-40 districts, will not be added to the list of eligible sites for commercial use by variances regarding size and other business uses? Mr. Steinmetz mentioned the Elmwood and Knollwood Country Clubs, but he gave more away -- in a letter to the Town Board dated May 21, 2015, relating to abutter petitions, he raised the possibility that Ato the extent that parcels can be assembled in the R-30 District that satisfy the locational criteria of the draft Zoning Text..."a such assembled parcels would be free to introduce commercial uses under the zoning change." Mr. Steinmetz knows, but he is not telling you, that the possibility of commercial uses being introduced to R-30 one-family districts goes far beyond Elmwood and Knollwood Country Clubs. Real estate developers are not shy or timid.

If you have already concluded that the zoning change will not be an issue that has to be addressed and considered then what you did last evening was alright. I don't think that you have reached that conclusion, but in all fairness you have given that impression. If Game On believes that you have reached that conclusion, as they have good reason to assume, then you have to correct that assumption. You need to do it so that Game On, and also the Town, do not incur the large expenses that are inherent in the application.
 
I suggest that the way to do it is to notify Game On that at the next meeting of the Planning Board you would like them to attend and discuss the zoning issue, and that you permit some comments by persons who are knowledgeable and who oppose the zoning change. I believe that this is the only way now to be fair to all the parties who have an interest, and also to the Town of Greenburgh.
 
I should add that the change of zoning, unlike the Game On project, involves policy and not facts. Hence, if you decide not to change the zoning, you can make that decision without hearings, studies, etc. It is what courts call a question of law, not a question of facts, and thus needs no hearings. It enables you to conclude, if you wish, the matter without having to consider the Game On project -- unless, of course, Game On decides to build its project elsewhere in Greenburgh, as it can if it chooses to do so.

Sincerely,
Herbert Rosenberg

State of The County Address

County Executive and gubinatorial candidate Rob Astorino gave his mandated yearly State of The County address Thursday night. Joined in the front row by his wife and three children, this invitation-only event was a who’s who of Westchester County government and Republican party members. Although, numerous Democratic representatives were absent for this event, several of the Democratic representatives were in attendance. He covered numerous topics affecting the County and either had memorized his speech or utilized a prompter. Regardless, he appeared relaxed, polished and confident as he spoke.

Of particular interest to ABG was the proud announcement of the “great partnership” with the New York Knick’s developmental team, who would be using the County Center for their home games. In general, this is good news, except for Fulton Park, the small community that has been besieged by or abused and ignored by Mr Feiner and the County for years. It reminds us of when political leaders brag about the deals they make for tax savings and incentives they offer big businesses to stay in our county and towns. He made mention of that as well. They never discuss how the residential taxpayer must offset that money. Nor do they ever discuss or seem to help struggling small businesses with similar deals.

The County had used the former King’s Inn Motel for homeless and then a transitional prisoner release location for years, adding to a crime and general lower quality of life for the neighborhood. ABG has recounted the tales of “quickie” sex in cars parked nearby with hookers, empty crack vials and “baggies”, depleted alcohol bottles and used condoms on neighborhood lawns. The County’s solution to these issues was to park a County police car on the street outside the facility. Since then, Mr Feiner “gave” the property to Westhab, as well as the former Fulton Avenue, the increase in traffic for this neighborhood has been staggering.

Now that the Knicks will arrive, the street congestion promises to increase as the $7 parking fee is easily avoided on the north side of the building. With this free parking on the streets in their neighborhood, the Fulton Park Civic Association has reached out to the police department in hope of ameliorating this situation before it gets even worse as the Knicks arrive. The County, along with our Town, doesn’t appear to look beyond the immediate gratification and publicity of new deals.

Astorino mentioned that ticket prices will be only $10 and not require a second mortgage to take your family to a game. So while the $10 ticket price is attractive, and the $7 parking fee is not a killer, traffic and parking issues in this already congested area get worse when there is an event at the County Center. The effect of these events is that roadways backup in all directions, frustrations increase, automotive accidents happen and the event impacts more than just the immediate area. The solution for the County is to spend overtime and place County Police officers to direct traffic. The last time we checked, the County Police’s overtime budget was $8 million.

There was quite a bit said regarding the HUD settlement by Mr Astorino, which elicited not only applause, but several standing ovations. He focused on his actions being driven by the law and legal standing. He also announced a new initiative for the County in that they will replace the HUD money themselves so as to not be held to HUD mandates and standards, maintaining control of what we do in the County under “Home Rule”. An interesting idea whose time may have come under duress, Mr Astorino claimed the cost to residents would be $1 each.

He discussed the increasing Hispanic population to Westchester, speaking a brief time in Spanish and announcing that his Deputy Chief of Staff, Katie Delgado would be starting in an additional new role of Immigrant Services Liaison. He touched on her family’s background and thanked her in Spanish, saying, “Katie, pro favor, levantese (get up).” Whether this was a cheap parlor trick or Mr Astorino actually speaks Spanish remains a mystery.

Mr Astorino took the opportunity to brag about the contracts his administration has worked out with seven of the eight unions of the County’s workers. Then he highlighted the one union that failed to ratify their contract, the CSEA. He thanked the others as they made the concession to pay into their health benefits as everyone else does. He discussed the findings offered by an independent fact finder that the union and how he disagreed with some of the findings but was willing to accept and agree to it. The CSEA apparently was not and has still refused to ratify the contract – “We will continue to negotiate.”

Finally, Mr Astorino discussed his “run” for governor. He discussed that 85% of the Westchester Tax levy will go to Albany to pay for nine NYS unfunded mandates. The County taxes paid to NYS amount to $450 million and the County receives back about $250 million. He referred to this as “Albany math” that is compounded by the crippling 2% NYS Tax Cap. The time to act is now. He said, “The issues of Westchester and New York State are one in the same. Jobs, taxes, education, the environment, preserving the social safety net and bringing some sanity to the burden of unfunded mandates all desperately need attention right now.”

Obviously, this was a receptive and friendly crowd for Mr Astorino. Not everybody applauded or participated in the several standing ovations. His message touched on all of the major points but revealed little unknown information. Acknowledging numerous members of the audience, Mr Astorino played the crowd as good as anyone could. He is correct that he had lowered taxes by 2% in his first year and held the taxes at a 0% increase since then. Eventually, as everyone knows, everyone’s taxes will go up. The hopeful news is that we can get other politicians to follow Mr Astorino’s lead and work to hold taxes at “no-increase” level. We certainly need this in Greenburgh. If and when this happens, we’ll start to see A Better Greenburgh!

NextG: Another Guilty Verdict

Lately, going to court seems to have a foregone conclusion for Mr Feiner and our Town Board. Perhaps the courts have finally gotten wise to his behavior or his “woe is me” is wearing thin. The majority of the electorate has not paid enough attention to his bad behavior – yet. The mother of all decisions against Mr Feiner, is that of the Fortress Bible Church guilty verdict. Ironically, we await the total sum of damages from this suit against him and his criminal partner Town Board member Diana Juettner. They continue to run for office as though nothing is amiss in the now evolving “Bizarro Greenburgh.” His previous Town Board’s cumulative illegal behavior points to those now absent from our local government, having passed away or been bestowed with a promotion. It’s more proof that bad politicians don’t get voted out, they get promoted and rewarded.

This Fortress Bible Church decision has many residents outraged over the Town’s behavior and actions toward this African-American Church from Mount Vernon, and rightfully so! You’ll recall the church purchased property in Greenburgh, literally in then-County Legislator Tom Abinanti’s backyard. Mr Feiner, Ms Juettner and other Greenburgh politicians led the rally against the Fortress Bible Church to keep them from building their new house of worship and coterminous school on their newly purchased property. This seems to be a case of not in Mr Abinanti’s backyard. Apparently, its not acceptable for the average resident to protest a development in their backyards but those same standards don’t apply to politicians. It may be why Assemblyman Tom Abinanti moved – to distance himself from this neighborhood’s failing NIMBY-ism and Mr Feiner and Ms Juettner’s impending guilty verdict?

Subsequently, Mr Feiner and Ms Juettner were found guilty as Town Supervisor and Board for violating the rights of a church to the free exercise of religion and not receiving equal protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. He was also found liable for destroying documents. The federal judge who hasn’t sat in on any Town Board or Work Session meetings and listened to Mr Feiner testify found him to not be a credible witness. Had the judge sat in on a Town Board meeting, or any other meeting with Mr Feiner, he would have already known this.

So, now we learn another decision handed down against Mr Feiner and the Town, that will again be paid for by the taxpayers. This time the courts found in favor of the plaintiff, Crown Castle NG East, Inc., the “new” parent company of NextG Networks of New York, and against the Town. The original petitioner sought to install cell towers on phone poles throughout the Town. Their lawsuit alleged the protracted process began in 2009 with their cell tower installation applications to Mr Feiner and the Town, and took an unreasonable amount of time to receive a decision, based on The FCC’s “Shot Clock” order.

The “Shot Clock” was a supposed important step enacted by Congress to encourage the expansion of wireless networks throughout the nation. The ruling provides that a local jurisdiction must act on an application for the collocation of additional antennas to existing infrastructure within 90 days and an application for the construction of new infrastructure within 150 days. And, at the same time it claims to allow local control, it really does not seem the “locals” actually maintain control. 

The parameters of what the Town needed to do to address the NextG applications from the very beginning seem to have been misplayed by Mr Feiner and to a complicit degree, the Town Board. Based on past performances from Mr Feiner, we’re not surprised. While past performance does not guarantee future results in the financial world, it’s fairly accurate with Mr Feiner’s world and “Bizzaro Greenburgh”.

From the onset, NextG applied to install cell towers consisting of “a small, low-powered antenna, laser and amplifier equipment for the conversion of RF signals to optical signals that is connected to the antenna, fiber optics lines, and associated equipment such as power supplies” on phone poles in November of 2009. The Town insisted that NextG was not a cell provider and consequently did not qualify for approval. But, whether qualified or not, Mr Feiner received communications of application from NextG which he simply chose to ignore and do nothing about.

The decision for the plaintiff (NextG) against the defendant (Town/Feiner) was issued in the beginning of July. Yet, no one from the Town or the public knew anything of it. Why not? Simple. Mr Feiner received the information of the decision and decided not to share it with either his colleagues or the public! Again, why not? Could it be Mr Feiner trying to minimize the negative impact during his re-election campaign? Or, could it be because he has a formidable Democratic Primary opponent with Mr Robert Berstein? Could all the lawsuits coming to fruition at the same time as this election be his motivation to try to keep this secreted from the public? Regardless of his motivation, it’s another in a long list of examples of the phony open government scam Mr Feiner has perpetrated on the public and endorsed by the lame-stream media.

The same taxpaying public that weighed in on the cell tower proposals and insisted Mr Feiner allow the Antenna Review Board and the Zoning Board address the issue of a proposal were also ignored by Mr Feiner and the Board. Mr Bob Bernstein also suggested that the Town allow the laws we have in place be the determinant with the application and that they would provide us with legal validation for cell towers. Issues of public safety, visual appearance, a lack of safety information and specifically a need to fill a gap for coverage all came up in the numerous conversations. Interestingly, the decision handed down and hidden by Mr Feiner in hopes of who-knows-what-?, was made public by Mr Bernstein! Only after Mr Bernstein published a PDF of the decision did Mr Feiner offer it to anyone who sent him an email. 

ABG requested a copy of the verdict from Mr Feiner. In a very deft move by Mr Feiner, he sent a link to his email message as opposed to sending the file as an email attachment, ensuring the inability of accessing his Microsoft Outlook email account and getting the file. When we responded and told him the link didn’t work, he forwarded our email to Town Attorney Lewis where the request has languished for over a week and remains in the veritable Feiner Black Hole, never to be seen again. Open government? Transparency? The public’s right to know? These are empty platitudes bandied about by Mr Feiner and the Board when it’s convenient for a nearby reporter seeking a sound-byte. The reality in Bizarro Greenburgh is something quite different.

In reading the decision by the courts, there was a pattern of consistent delays over three or so years from Mr Feiner and the Town. The chronological actions taken or not taken are detailed below and summarily highlight the lack of a decision for NextG that was the predominant point of their lawsuit.

1. November 13, 2009; Right of way use agreement letter submitted to Town Supervisor. Unanswered.
2. Follow-up letter sent several months later. Unanswered.
3. March 22, 2010; Attempted to meet with Public Works Staff; Unsuccessful.
4. March 25, 2010; Permit Applications sent to Public Works Commissioner; Unanswered
5. March 30, 2010; Met with Town to discuss above mentioned letter.
6. June 7, 2010; Reminded Town of need to meet for negotiation. Unanswered.
7. June 7, 2010; Plaintiff sent a follow-up letter to Town Public Works & Building Commissioners; Unanswered.
8. June 16, 2010; Antenna Review Board (ARB) announces Public Hearing for June 28, 2010.
9. June 29, 2010; ARB rejects Plaintiff application as incomplete. 
10. July 10, 2010; Plaintiff representatives meet with Thomas Madden regarding materials submitted.
11. September 8, 2010; Plaintiff applies to Building Dept., for permits.
12. September 10, 2010; Building Inspector acknowledges receipt of application; Refused.
13. November 10, 2010; Materials submitted determined to not be valid application.
14. October 5, 2010; ARB Chair states Madden doesn’t have authority regarding application.
15. October 19, 2010; Plaintiff requests sample application from ARB. 
16. November 23, 2010; Plaintiff submits second round of applications.
17. December 14, 2010; Plaintiff complains ARB took no action of their applications.
18. February 8, 2011; Plaintiff sends letter asserting Town’s Antenna Law doesn’t apply to their application.
19. March 15, 2011; Plaintiff submits application “template” to facilitate approval process. ARB issues letter of incompleteness without specifically addressing deficiencies. Months of back and forth take place with no resolve.
20. April 4, 2011; ARB identifies deficiencies in template application.
21. May 17, 2011; 7 applications discussed at ARB public meeting. Determined deficient.
22. June 27, 2011; 2nd set of revisions discussed at public ARB meeting.
23. October 26, 2011; 16 of 20 Plaintiff applications deemed complete by ARB. 
24. November 1, 2011; Letter stating same from ARB Chair to Building Department sent.
25. November 15, 2011; Final 4 applications submitted to ARB.
26. November 15, 2011; Plaintiff submits completed versions of applications to Town Board. 
27. November 25, 2011; Letter stating same from ARB Chair to Building Department sent.
28. November 30, 2011: Town Board holds Public Hearing. No vote taken. Adjourned until December 14, 2011. 
29. December 3, 2011; Receipt of letter confirmed from ARB to Building Inspector.
30. December 14, 2011; 2nd Public Hearing held. Town-hired engineering firm submits Engineering Report concluding gap in service. No vote by Town Board taken.
31. January 17, 2012; Town Board discusses Plaintiff request for a special permit in Work Session. Plaintiff agrees to adjourn from the January 25, 2012 meeting until February 7, 2012.
32. February 7, 2012; 3rd Public Hearing held. Plaintiff attends Work Session. No vote on Plaintiff’s request/application.
33. February 23, 2012; New questions arise as to alternate locations for installation.
34. February 29, 2012; Town Board holds Public Hearing. Indicates they would vote on March 20, 2012.
35. March 20, 2012; Town Board decides to hold over the vote for a date to be determined. Town Attorney Tim Lewis tells Plaintiff he expects a decision at the April 11, 2012 meeting.
36. March 30, 2012; Final Public Hearing held. No vote taken.
37. April 10, 2012; Crown Castle acquires NextG.
38. April 11, 2012; NextG applications not on the Town Board agenda. Town Board decides to turn the request over to the Town’s Conservation Advisory Council (CAC). 
39. April 11, 2012; Plaintiff not invited to CAC meeting.
40. June 7, 2012; Plaintiff threatens lawsuit if no meaningful action was taken with their application.
41. June 20, 2012; Town requests additional information from Plaintiff, promising decision in 30 days proving NextG offers telecommunications service, the installations meet the minimum height and aesthetic intrusion requirements.
42. July 24, 2012; Town denies Plaintiff’s applications stating no service gap was demonstrated or that NextG offered telecommunications service, the installations meet the minimum height and aesthetic intrusion requirements.

Motions to dismiss by the Town (defendant) and motions for summary judgement by the NextG/Crown Castle (plaintiff) were subsequently made. The courts ruled for both parties on partial points of the suit. In the end, however, the victor seems to be NextG/Crown Castle. The decision affecting the residents beyond the financial aspects of the suit mean that primarily Edgemont and Scarsdale will soon be seeing these cell towers on 20 or so phone poles throughout their communities. 

An interesting subtext throughout this entire episode is one that continues to be present but seemingly never referenced. About two years or so ago when Ms Sonya Brown was still a sitting Town Board member, the Town Board discussed cell coverage throughout the Town ad nauseum. In fact, after the poor cell coverage issue was highlighted in one particular meeting, each Board member seemed to try to top the other with their own tales of woe as to the spotty cell coverage users might experience throughout the Town. Mr Feiner even said there are times he is driving on the Knollwood Road area of the Town and unable to get a cell phone signal. Perhaps driving should have been more his focus and not phone use. Beyond that, it would have certainly assisted making the case for NextG/Crown Castle. Opportunity lost? Maybe, but the outcome was the same.

ABG is not in favor of the cell tower installations as originally proposed by NextG. There was a proper vehicle in place to handle their application, but Mr Feiner and his Board knew better. While the outcome might have been different had the Town simply let their laws protect us, Mr Feiner again dictates what he wanted and failed. It seems that Mr Feiner attempted to stall* the applicant the same way so many small developers and residents typically encounter from the Town with their smaller projects. Only residents don’t have a Shot Clock law on their side, only against them. Big brother? You decide.

Had NextG mentioned several buzz-words in the application, things would have certainly progressed more quickly for them. Future applicants should consider incorporating some of these buzz-words to ensure Mr Feiner’s help and even promotion: homeless, affordable housing, workforce, developmentally disabled, tax generating, for the children, revenue to the Town, more votes, transparent, Fairview, create jobs, Section 8 and so on. The list is endless. Apparently, so are the lawsuits and guilty verdicts!

* From the decision’s document. Bold text is made by ABG. “The Town Board held public hearings on the applications on November 30, 2011, December 14, 2011, February 7, 2012, February 29, 2012, and March 20, 2012, and did not issue its written decision denying Plaintiff’s applications until July 24, 2012 – 252 days from the submission of the complete applications. This is well beyond presumptively-reasonable 150-day time period set by the Shot Clock Order, and does not even include time spent during the completeness review, at least some of which should arguably count towards the application processing time given that the Shot Clock Order only excludes time that it takes the applicant to respond to requests for additional information. See Shot Clock Order, 24 F.C.C. Rcd. at 14015. The Town has proffered no real explanation as to why its process took so long that would suffice to rebut the presumption. Indeed, from the close of the public hearings, it took over four months for the Town to render its decision, after conducting public hearings on the matter for close to four months. Further, putting the presumption aside, the bureaucratic hoops through which Plaintiff was put, along with the rest of the record, suggest that the Town would be no more interested in a prompt disposition now than it was beginning in 2009. This is a paradigmatic case where remand would only further and unnecessarily delay the processing of Plaintiff’s siting application. Accordingly, the appropriate remedy in equity is an order requiring the issuance of the special permits sought.”