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

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

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

Dear Supervisor Feiner:

Introduction

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

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

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

Background
A. Applicable Zoning Ordinance Provisions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. The Instant Proposal for a Zoning Text Amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controlling Legal Principles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 Id. at 221 (citations omitted).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Respectfully submitted, YOUNG / SOMMER, LLC

William A. Hurst

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

Community Stands United Against Sam’s Club Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pre-Primary Democratic Candidate Forum

Three ABG staffers attended the Candidates Pre-Primary Forum at Town Hall on Thursday night. It started on time, unlike every Town Board meeting which starts late to the detriment of many audience members or taxpayers wishing to speak or be heard or are being time-constrained by childcare issues or work the following day. Remember this point, you'll see this again. The event was hosted by the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations and moderated by the League of Women Voters. When CGCA Chair O'Shea asked the audience to join in a pledge of allegiance, the apathetic crowd hesitantly and seemed to begrudgingly participate. Pathetic.

The first face-off was between 10-year incumbent Town Clerk Judith Beville and her challenger, Maria Portilla, who is endorsed by Mr Feiner. Having won the draw, Ms Portilla read her opening statement first, saying that the Town Clerks office is in crisis. While it was a good catch-phrase, and may be correct, she used it a little bit too much. However, it also established the core argument for her candidacy and apparently rattled incumbent clerk Judith Beville. Ms Portilla is a Senior Case Worker for the Westchester Department of Social Services and mentioned several innovations that she will implement as Town Clerk. Frankly, they should have been implemented long ago.

When it was Ms Beville's turn, she listed the accomplishments that she has overseen, stressing that she has a Bachelor of Arts degree and a Master's degree in Public Administration, stating that the Town Clerks position is not an entry-level one. That said, elections are about change if warranted or desired by the populace. And yet, Ms Beville started out as the Town Clerk after being elected and did not work her way up through the ranks to become Town Clerk. So it appears that it is an entry-level position after all.

During this brief period of campaigning, we've seen Ms Beville out and about more than usual and heard people discussing her office more than ever. Specifically, that she's had a complete changeover of personnel, disclosed HIPAA information of a former staff member and shredded numerous boxes of files erroneously. She mentioned her Masters Degree in Public Administration several times which is certainly an accomplishment to be proud of and we respect. However, simply having an academic degree doesn't necessary make you qualified in a particular field. A bit of irony was that while Ms Beville was speaking, the buzzer/timer that she usually operates for the Town Board went off and forced her to stop speaking -- another issue people have complained about during her campaign is that she injects herself into discussions during the Town Board meetings.

The next phase was the asking of questions which were all submitted by audience members prior to the event's start. The t-ball questions that were asked were quickly answered at which point the moderator said they were out of questions and then asked the audience if anyone had any additional questions? There was a flurry of activity in the back of the room as audience members submitted more questions, which were mostly a rehash of what had already been discussed, and covered no new ground. It was embarrassing that so little specific issues and actual solutions went unaddressed. 

It was also disappointing that Ms Beville's record remained unchallenged. While she touts improving response times for freedom of information requests, she contradicted herself by saying it's the department heads that don't respond in a timely manner. So while it may not be her fault specifically, she hasn't improved those response times. She boasts about internships and while Mr Feiner also touts and utilizes interns, that hasn't reduced our taxes or facilitated a better operating government. It also seemed that she started each of her answers with a qualifying comment that she was not responsible for this or that. It was always someone else's fault.

Finally concluded with no real enlightenment for Town voters, a short intermission allowed for some unearned back-slapping until the Town Board candidates took to the dais with the same moderator. Those candidates were Eric Zinger of the Hartsdale area, Ken Jones of Parkway Homes area and Gina Jackson, all of Unincorporated Greenburgh. The moderator seemed to struggle reading the questions that were submitted. These questions were now elevated to softball-level questions, a step up from the t-ball questions asked earlier. It should be noted that these are all candidates of the same party so going into this already accounts for a lack of challenges. Again, we had hoped for more.

All three gave an opening statement with Mr Zinger going first, stating that this was the first time in 12-years that voters had an opportunity to vote for challenged seats. That remains to be seen. As an incumbent, Ken Jones enjoys a certain amount of "incumbency lead" that should automatically help him in the primary vote. So, if the voters follow past practices, they'll re-elect the incumbent and elect one new candidate. The real "choice" might only be between Mr Zinger and Ms Jackson. We hope that is not the case and finally breaks the stranglehold at Town Hall.

We expected Mr Zinger to go after Mr Jones and his ethical challenges (read our previous article of Monday, June 10, 2019 - Misdirection, Lies and Ethics). Instead, Mr Zinger discussed his time living in Hartsdale, working in the financial world, and how the Hartsdale 4-Corners has declined for years until he, along with others, formed the Hartsdale Neighbors Association and got more involved with the Town government. He stated he would like to see the Edgemont Community not incorporate and stay within the Town and is willing to work towards that end. He also lamented how frustrating is is for residents to have to wait for an opportunity to speak at Board meetings. And of course, he, as well as the others, said we must make Greenburgh more affordable.

Incumbent Ken Jones opened with the statement that since he has been on the board we haven't had any Fortress Bible Church-type lawsuits. That's one hell of an accomplishment. Perhaps after being surrounded by so much bad that this actually looks good to him. It's not. You'll recall that Mr Feiner and the Town were found guilty of 7-counts of discrimination, including lying under oath, destroying evidence and more in the Fortress Bible Church discrimination lawsuit and fined $6.5 million dollars. $5.5 million of which the insurance company refused to pay (nor has to) because Mr Feiner was found guilty in Federal Court. Mr Jones conveniently neglected to mention the two pending lawsuits currently underway and during his watch: the Dromore Road lawsuit and the Ferncliff Cemetery lawsuit.

Ms Jackson stated that she had lived in Atlanta and moved back to Greenburgh and is living with her mother, "Thanks, Mom." She did say she cannot afford her own home. This seems to be a never-ending complaint of every younger generation. Many of us couldn't afford our own places when we started out so we lived with our parents, got a place with friends and had roommates until we got married or better jobs or both. Sorry, but owning a home where you prefer to live is not a right and is something to strive towards. Government trying to control housing either directly or through legislation never accomplishes much except creating more government jobs and restrictions that keep many of these same generations that it's said to be for unable to move in. That's why there are apartments. However, in this case the argument made her the face of the point which could help her.

One question that was asked of all the candidates was what they would do to increase public participation at Town Board meetings. We've written often about the G10, those ten or so regulars that show up to the meetings and speak. In fact, we've also mentioned how the Town Board actually engages in back and forth conversations with new, uninitiated first-timers. The G10 are never given the same courtesy unless it's to somehow make the Board look good.

Mr Zinger said he would start the meetings on time, have documents that are slated to be discussed or voted on available at least 24-hrs earlier so residents have a chance to study them and treat people with respect. Ken Jones said starting the meetings on time would help. The audience laughed, acknowledging that he is a part of the reason the meetings start late. He also stated he wants to get Dial Democracy working. Keep in mind that Dial Democracy hasn't worked in years and falls under the Town Board's purview. For those unaware because it doesn't work and may note know about it, Dial Democracy is the hypothetical ability of Town residents to telephone directly into Town Board meetings, on air, and ask questions of the Board during the meeting. Mr Jones is the one candidate in the position to do something about this but has not. When the question of creating leaf blower usage legislation came up, he stated there were already leaf blower ordinances on the books but enforcement is difficult as response times after a complaint is made may find the offender finished or gone before the police can get there.Mr Jones apparently can recognize the problems but is unable to solve them even years later.

Ms Jackson would like questions to be able to be submitted online so that more people could be engaged in issues. She also said she is a stickler to start on time. When responding to the question of leaf blowers noise, Ms Jackson clearly didn't know there were already ordinances on the books and suggested we could use ordinances to control the noise. We appreciate that Ms Jackson is newly returned to the area. Perhaps its a bit premature for her to run at this juncture, perhaps not. Even with this faux pas, we need fresh, non Feiner-mandated thinking on the Board. Although, the fact that she is on Team Feiner means she won't really have to worry about what she knows or not.

We'd like to mention one other question that was asked and that was if the candidates supported term limits. Mr Zinger readily said yes, he supports term limits. Ms Jackson said she did not and stated that that was what elections were for. Mr Jones said he would support a three-term limit and gave an obviously well-thought out and yet convoluted answer. He said yes but for three terms of 4-years each (currently at $79k/year plus benefits that, if declined pays them even more money). He claimed that the first term you are learning the ropes and are voting on issues that were not yours. The second term you are starting to work on your issues and the third term you are bringing them to fruition. It was an impressive conveyance of what is wrong with government and many of our elected officials. If you need twelve years to implement anything, but cannot get Dial Democracy working in four, you are the wrong person in that office.

In the end, many people left this meeting disappointed because they didn't learn much if anything they didn't already know. However, we believe Eric Zinger was the strongest of the three candidates and actually offered a few solutions while the other two spoke in generalities and platitudes. Even so, we wish the candidates luck and hope the democratic crowd that will vote in this primary on June 25th will give some thought to this year's vote and consider a different mindset when voting. It will help to make A Better Greenburgh.

Town Board Caught Napping

Citing a failure to accurately report the news and events of Westchester by the Journal News and other smaller area newspapers, ABG has learned that a new weekly local newspaper will be launched in the near future. “When the Gannett Corporation sucked up all the local editions of our community newspapers and put them under one banner as the Journal News, they created a huge paper with a talented staff but never ran it well. In fact, they ran it into the ground,” our source explained. ABG welcomes this new addition if they live up to their promise of not catering to the status quo with politicians and the like by ignoring the real or underlying story.

Case in point? This Monday night at Greenburgh Town Hall will be a public hearing for the re-striping and a few other minor changes in store for the Greenburgh Shopping Center between under the guise of improvements from the landlord seeking to perform re-striping of the existing parking lot, creating more parking for the disabled (re-striping), new crosswalks (re-striping) and stop signs (to coincide with re-striping), new shopping cart carriages, improvements in traffic flow (re-striping) and pedestrian safety enhancements and new ramps by the cinema for the disabled.

Why would this re-striping take an exhaustive plan and presentation from the landlord to the Town Board at the November 24th Work Session? Because the Town's Building Department and the Town Board dropped the ball! About two years ago the shopping center landlords took it upon themselves to re-stripe the parking lot without Town permits, plans or a public hearing, altering the already awkward and outdated driving patterns originated when the shopping center was created.

In true “Deflection Mode”, Mr Feiner claimed at the Work Session that the shopping center is very busy and cited increased activity because Acme supermarket has opened in place of the previous A&P. ABG estimates the activity to be about the same as it was when the A&P was still open and operating there. The changeover between the stores’ ownership, closing, restocking and opening took about two days. What he failed to pontificate on is that he, his Board and his Building Department completely ignored the new striping the landlord “just did” on their own, apparently during the night. So how did they find out about their blunder?

At a regular Town Board meeting, with the help of Ella Preiser and Madelon O’Shea of the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations, Worthington Woodlands Civic Association President and community activist Dorrine Livson brought up the fact that the lot had had been re-striped, possibly creating several driving and pedestrian hazards. The Board remained immobile. Then the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations was made aware of the issue from Ms Livson and got behind her. Together they went to the Commissioner of Community Development and Conservation and the Building Department. Perhaps when Mr Feiner realized the Town might have missed out on a fee or a fine that could be levied against the landlord, the Board began to pay attention.

Ms Livson’s diligence, along with that of the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations, should be applauded for being watchdogs of the Town Board and Mr Feiner. Too often we see Mr Feiner cater to developers and favored landlords with their projects. How one slipped by him is, frankly, astonishing. As a note, you may recall Ms Livson went to court seeking Mr Feiner and the Town release a copy of the frequently used GBList to her. They refused and a judge has mandated it. The Town is appealing that decision. ABG believes more information, unfiltered, needs to flow to the residents and taxpayers and residents. To that end, we pledge to continue doing just that. We also welcome this new newspaper and hope they will add another valuable and serious voice to the mix. It’s what will make for A Better Greenburgh.