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.
Showing posts with label Mayfair. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mayfair. Show all posts
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Friday, May 2, 2014
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!
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!
Saturday, July 27, 2013
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.
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.
- November 13, 2009; Right of way use agreement letter submitted to Town Supervisor. Unanswered.
- Follow-up letter sent several months later. Unanswered.
- March 22, 2010; Attempted to meet with Public Works Staff; Unsuccessful.
- March 25, 2010; Permit Applications sent to Public Works Commissioner; Unanswered
- March 30, 2010; Met with Town to discuss above mentioned letter.
- June 7, 2010; Reminded Town of need to meet for negotiation. Unanswered.
- June 7, 2010; Plaintiff sent a follow-up letter to Town Public Works & Building Commissioners; Unanswered.
- June 16, 2010; Antenna Review Board (ARB) announces Public Hearing for June 28, 2010.
- June 29, 2010; ARB rejects Plaintiff application as incomplete.
- July 10, 2010; Plaintiff representatives meet with Thomas Madden regarding materials submitted.
- September 8, 2010; Plaintiff applies to Building Dept., for permits.
- September 10, 2010; Building Inspector acknowledges receipt of application; Refused.
- November 10, 2010; Materials submitted determined to not be valid application.
- October 5, 2010; ARB Chair states Madden doesn’t have authority regarding application.
- October 19, 2010; Plaintiff requests sample application from ARB.
- November 23, 2010; Plaintiff submits second round of applications.
- December 14, 2010; Plaintiff complains ARB took no action of their applications.
- February 8, 2011; Plaintiff sends letter asserting Town’s Antenna Law doesn’t apply to their application.
- 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.
- April 4, 2011; ARB identifies deficiencies in template application.
- May 17, 2011; 7 applications discussed at ARB public meeting. Determined deficient.
- June 27, 2011; 2nd set of revisions discussed at public ARB meeting.
- October 26, 2011; 16 of 20 Plaintiff applications deemed complete by ARB.
- November 1, 2011; Letter stating same from ARB Chair to Building Department sent.
- November 15, 2011; Final 4 applications submitted to ARB.
- November 15, 2011; Plaintiff submits completed versions of applications to Town Board.
- November 25, 2011; Letter stating same from ARB Chair to Building Department sent.
- November 30, 2011: Town Board holds Public Hearing. No vote taken. Adjourned until December 14, 2011.
- December 3, 2011; Receipt of letter confirmed from ARB to Building Inspector.
- December 14, 2011; 2nd Public Hearing held. Town-hired engineering firm submits Engineering Report concluding gap in service. No vote by Town Board taken.
- 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.
- February 7, 2012; 3rd Public Hearing held. Plaintiff attends Work Session. No vote on Plaintiff’s request/application.
- February 23, 2012; New questions arise as to alternate locations for installation.
- February 29, 2012; Town Board holds Public Hearing. Indicates they would vote on March 20, 2012.
- 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.
- March 30, 2012; Final Public Hearing held. No vote taken.
- April 10, 2012; Crown Castle acquires NextG.
- 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).
- April 11, 2012; Plaintiff not invited to CAC meeting.
- June 7, 2012; Plaintiff threatens lawsuit if no meaningful action was taken with their application.
- 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.
- 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.”
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.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)