Greenville Fire Commissioners Meeting “Follows Protocol”

It started off like every other Fire Commissioners’ meeting. Discussions about expenditures, balancing budgets, training and the like. The difference this time is that it was at the Greenville Fire District’s public meeting room in the basement of the Greenville firehouse but the room was full, with several residents standing along the side of the room. The five commissioners were all in attendance. They are Helene Orce, the Chairperson, whose term expires December 31, 2021; Robert Bruckenthal, whose term expires December 31, 2017; Jonathan Faust , whose term expires December 31, 2020; Walter Groden, whose term expires December 31, 2019; and Michael Rappe, whose term expires December 31, 2018. Of course, the fire chief and the district’s secretary were also present.

After the regular order of business had transpired, the floor was opened for questions and comments from the audience members. Most of the room seemed to be concerned Edgemont residents, but we don’t believe it was entirely so. There were two representatives from the Formation Shelbourne project, although only one spoke during the entire event. This meeting was advertised as one where Shelbourne would be making a presentation to the Greenville Fire Commissioners. The prevailing thought being that they would finally be addressing questions that had been raised and sent to Shelbourne. The audience was told that this was not the case and no presentation would take place tonight.

Edgemont Community Council President Robert Bernstein asked the Board of Commissioners if they had received any resolution to the questions they raised about the Formation Shelbourne project they seek approvals for to build on Underhill Avenue. This location is currently the site of the Sprainbrook Nursery, owned by the Krautter family and has been for a long time, stating at one point that this site was their retirement nest-egg. In fact, they had many friends and relatives come to assorted Town Board meetings and bemoan that point. While we understand and appreciate this fact, we still disagree with the sale to Shelbourne; not because we don’t want something built on the property, rather, we want something appropriate to be built on the site conforming to current zoning, needs no variances and will now blend into the neighborhood. 

During the course of back-and-forth with the audience and the Board, the representatives from Shelbourne often said they followed the procedure. One resident asked about simply sending an answer to the Board, regardless of procedure, and asked why it was seemingly so hard to do? The Shelbourne representative then described the procedure. Really? Since the Fire Commissioners' questions appeared simple enough to answer, why not just answer them in a simple response directly to them? Perhaps one of the Shelbourne representatives could send a simple email answering the questions that were raised?

One missing link not mentioned by either side was that of being a “good neighbor” and trying to do the right thing, especially Shelbourne working with the Fire District. We understand why Shelbourne has circled their wagons against the Edgemont community as they have been vociferously against the proposed facility. But the fact remains that should this project get approval, they are going to need the fire district and fire department as an integral part of the facility’s operation.Additionally, wouldn’t every developer hope that by establishing an open and constructive dialog, they would be more able to streamline the process for their advantage? While this may a good strategy from our perspective, Shelbourne’s representatives seem more concerned with following protocol, which does not include open communication to a major, interested agency. This needs to change. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

The questions that remain unresolved are these, as taken directly from the Greenville Fire District’s website*:


WATER BURDEN
The District wishes to ensure adequate and reliable fire protection water supply (both pressure and volume). GFD has not seen the proposed plan to connect the two area water mains. We request projections of the water flow statistics for review. In addition, we ask for the statistics after the interconnection is complete.

The CND’s proposal that one hydrant be relocated (p. 9) does not appear adequate. An additional hydrant is needed. The District wishes to be involved in discussions regarding the relocation of the existing hydrant and new hydrant.

INACCURATE UNDERSTANDING OF DISTRICT SERVICES
Initially, the CND states on page 7 that: “From a medical emergency perspective, when there is no trained life saving staff (i.e. LPN or RN) present at a site, the Greenville Fire District provides supplementary certified first responder (CFR) and Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) services to supplement the transport, ALS and BLS service provided by the Town of Greenburgh Police Department and paramedic/EMT units.” This statement is incorrect and misunderstands the role and operations of the District. In addition to fire and other emergencies, the District is dispatched by Westchester County's 60 Control to situations requiring an EMS response. We have an Inter-Municipal Agreement (IMA) with the Greenburgh Police Department (GPD) through a tiered EMS System. This IMA requires that the District respond to EMS calls. GPD resources have primacy, and the District provides Basic Life Support (BLS). If District firefighters are first on the scene, we have primary medical responsibility until relieved by a higher level of care. GPD is responsible for transports, but a District firefighter may accompany the GPD transport in exigent cases. To reiterate, we provide an EMS response to all sites in our service area, irrespective of the presence or level of any on-site staff training. To that end, we are a complementary, albeit non­ transporting, BLS response.

The ZBA’s fundamental misunderstanding of our role necessarily means that the CND does not correctly identify impacts the Project may have on the District, or the effect of the proposed mitigation measures. (See the discussion below).

INSUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTED EMS RESPONSE DATA
First, the validity of the annual number of anticipated emergency caJJs assumed by the CND -an essential data point -- is unclear. CND page 8 states:

“The applicant has supplied data from other comparably-sized facilities, indicating that approximately 100 annual emergency calls will be generated (Police and/or Fire-related). Because there has been much debate over the number of potential additional EMS trips the ZBA analysis assumes that 115 calls/year will be generated by the proposed facility.”

It is our understanding that this essential data point is based on your accepting the 100-call figure supplied by the applicant, despite the absence of any indication as to which (or how many) comparably sized facilities were used in the applicant's sample, the percentage occupancy of such facilities at the time of the tallies, or whether those other facilities are purely assisted living in nature or mixed-use with nursing staff. The CND then increases the analysis to 115 calls/year using a methodology that remains unclear to us. We expect that a proper and independent study of this issue would rely on a more statistically rigorous, corroborated, and independently validated data from “comparably-sized” facilities regarding likely added EMS call volume. Indeed, there may be pre-existing industry data available.
Second, the CND states that “115 additional EMS-related trips are less than the number of trips that are expected to have been generated by the existing nursery use (477), which had no trained medical personnel on-site.” We simply do not understand the utility, validity or predictive value of comparing the 115 assumed anticipated emergency trips to an assisted livingfacility as against the 477 non-emergency trips to a nursery during presumably peak usage (we understand that the 477 figure was based on a June study; nursery visit in winter presumably are much lower). So, the nursery trips used as a “comparable” for purposed of the CND’s analysis is inflated and irrelevant. The foregoing apparent flaws in the analysis methodology underscore the need for a thorough and independent traffic study in order to more properly identify and quantify potential impacts. This will provide you (as Lead Agency) and us (as an Interested Agency) with the data we need to assess the number and effect of any additional calls.
 
FAULTY ASSERTIONS ABOUT EFFECT OF ON-SITE LPN/RN 
The CND notes at page 8 that the applicant has agreed to provide an LPN or an RN and states: “The 24/7 presence of a LPN or RN at the site would reduce the volume of response to the facility because such staffing reduces the need for secondary non-transporting response from the Greenville Fire District, which otherwise would act to supplement (with fire trucks) Town of Greenburgh EMS response, for non-fire related calls.” The CND notes, however, that actual EMS calls will remain the same (115) even with an on-site LPN or RN.

However, the proposal to mitigate impacts on the District by requiri ng an on-site LPN or RN is entirely incorrect and ineffective because it is based on the above-described misunderstanding of the District 's EMS role -- the District is not a "secondary" or "supplementary" EMS provider; rather, we respond to all calls. Since the CND concedes that the presence of an LPN or RN will not reduce anticipated EMS call volume, the impact on the District is unchanged. Moreover, the proposed mitigation method is not supported by any data or independent study. It is entirely possible that an on-site LPN or RN will lead to more calls to the District as Project residents take advantage of readily accessible staff to seek medical assistance more often. A substantiated assertion would compare call volumes at similar facilities with and without a single onsite LPN or RN. We would welcome such a third-party analysis; we cannot accept ipse dixit. Separately, we note that an LPN or RN likely would call the District for “lift assists” to safely handle frail patients that have fallen.

The CND's premise that the Project will require less District coverage because it will have an RN or LPN is highly problematic on another level: it creates a scenario of differing levels of response/service within the District. That is diametrically opposed to our mission of providing all residents with the same consistent level of care. Besides being antithetical to the foregoing principle, it is possible that rendering dissimilar services may expose the District (and its taxpayers) to liability.
 
ROADWAY CONDITIONS
The ZBA correctly notes the “curvilinear and sloping portion of Underhill Road.” But neither the Applicant nor the ZBA has provided, or offered to provide, any study that would assess the danger present and the extent to which the proposed alterations will impact on the safety risks for both District employees and other motorists. The CND simply assumes that the conditional improvements proposed would materially reduce the safety risks of running a substantial increase of emergency traffic along the identified dangerous road segments. An independent study must be completed which: (a) measures both the risks of the road condition and the utility of improvements (whether proposed or other available options); (b) analyzes existing road conditions against the benchmark for road conditions expected for a facility like the Project (e.g. county road or collector road). The District has not, and will not, take a position on the overall merits of the Project or its propriety for the community. Such matters are outside our mandate. However, we are compelled to take issue with the CND insofar as it lacks adequate analysis, is based on erroneous assumptions, and proposes solutions that are based on unsound footing.

* http://fdgreenville.com/
Terminology: 
GFD - Greenville Fire Department
ZBA - Zoning Board of Appeals
CND - Conditional Negative Declaration
ALS/BLS - Advanced Life Support/Basic Life Support (Paramedic/EMT respectively)
LPN/RN - Nursing staff deliniations
EMS - Emergency Medical Services
EMT - Emergency Medical Technician (as a rule not able to do injections/intravenous)
Paramedic - Medically superior to EMT (able to inject, do IV’s) 
CFR - certified first responder 

Town Board Threatened, Delays "NegDec" Cancellation Vote

Stating that they have followed the process for over a year and a half, the attorney for Foundation Shelbourne spoke at the Town Board Work Session, stating that taking a vote on the already approved NegDec to rescind it was strictly political! He also stated he would not be able to attend the Town Board meeting Tuesday night but the owners might attend and speak. Mr Sciaretta claimed that this was quite a surprise that the Town would vote to rescind a NegDec that was vetted from the traffic and planning departments. He claimed it was illegal, improper and a slap in the face to them. While we are against the Shelbourne project because it does not meet the zoning code recently adopted, we believe he was right!

The Town voted prematurely to approve the NegDec regarding the proposed Formation Shelbourne Assisted Living Housing facility that would replace the existing Sprainbrook Nursery. Opponents had said that approving the NegDec prematurely was not following the process that Mr Feiner and his Board can’t wait to espouse at meetings. More importantly, opponents stated it would have made everything fall into place more easily for the developer, claiming there was no fact-finding done, no reports of conditions had and no studies performed by those normally engaged in such actions. Because Mr Feiner wanted this project to go through, facts, figures and real information didn’t matter! His compliant Town Board voted the NegDec through. Is it any wonder that residents no longer have faith in the process, the zoning codes or the Town administration?

The real problem is that while the attorney for Formation Shelbourne didn’t say it outright, he alluded to the fact that while this had never been done before, it appeared to him to be setting a precedent and his clients might be prepared to sue the Town over this. We all know Mr Feiner has always said, “If you don’t like what I'm doing, sue me.” And many have. But, as we have said before, this is not about Shelbourne per se, or the Krautter Family who owns the property and operates the Sprainbrook Nursery at that location. It’s about publicity for Mr Feiner as well as leveraging Edgemont from incorporating into a Village and having the Town lose their chunk of revenue for the Unincorporated budget!

We’ve written before about how many in Edgemont are disappointed and dismayed with Mr Feiner’s actions and the actions of his Board toward them. So much so, that there have been talks and meetings about Edgemont incorporating to get out from under the Town’s, and more specifically, Mr Feiner’s control. Many communities feel the same way but are without the resources to act upon it. Regardless of whether or not Edgemont moves to incorporate, the Town Board’s disingenuous acts are now coming home to roost. The Town Board should have waited to make a decision after the Zoning Board of Appeals either granted the variances requested by Shelbourne or not. That would have been correctly following the process. The NegDec they approved was a blatant political move by Mr Feiner and his Board. We still believe it was a setup to appease Shelbourne and then to rescind and appear to be appeasing Edgemont. But all of this may have backfired on Mr Feiner.

There are variables in play here that will have long-term ramifications on Unincorporated Greenburgh. In effect, Mr Feiner has blessed the Shelbourne and consequently, all other commercial projects in all residential neighborhoods. He tried to do this with an 8-story inflatable bubble for his friends from GameOn 365 on Dobbs Ferry Road. Once this is allowed to begin, it sets the precedent to allow it in other neighborhoods. Mr Feiner was successful in doing this in the Glenville section with the Brightview Assisted Living facility. Brightview was the author of the Town's Assisted Living Zoning Code that is about two years old. By allowing them to write the code, they accommodated everything they needed. Now, the Town Board and the Legal Department’s laziness has resurfaced and is creating this issue. 

Shelbourne is too large a facility for the size of the property and it is not within 200 feet of a state or county right of way. Those two conditions were put in the zoning code by Brightview and agreed to by Mr Feiner and his Board when they approved the Zoning Code change. Had the Town written the law, overseen the writing of the law or at least been involved with its authorship, perhaps this wouldn’t be happening. This is more proof that we need term limits to aid us in stopping laziness and unconditional and unchallenged decisions from Town Hall. It's no wonder Edgemont continues to discuss incorporation. This madness has to change. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

Embarrassed Town Leaders To Vote To Undo Scam

A campaign was recently mounted against the latest actions of Mr Feiner and his Town Board. You’ll recall they previously pushed through a Negative Declaration statement regarding the proposed Formation Shelbourne Assisted Living Housing facility that would replace the existing Sprainbrook Nursery. Opponents to this scam said that would have made everything fall into place more easily for the developer, claimed that there was no fact-finding done, no reports of conditions had and no studies done by those normally engaged in such actions. Because Mr Feiner wanted this project to go through, facts, figures and real information didn’t matter, what he wants is all that does! Naturally, his compliant Town Board will vote however he instructs them because they know to stay in the position, they must go along to stay along - or be “Sonya'd”.
 
Now, finally, after weeks of all of us trumpeting the injustice done, Mr Feiner has acquiesced and decided to undo, at least temporarily, the damage he has inflicted on all those involved. Sneak a peak at the upcoming agenda and you’ll find this:


Opponents of the project cite numerous issues that are no surprise to anyone following this project with the size and scope of this proposal. And, that’s all it would normally be in any other community, a proposal. But in Bizarro-Greenburgh, the Town Board votes themselves in as the Lead Agency, and then either ignores or dismisses any objections to a particular project Mr Feiner favors. But there is another “game” in play here and as such we see Mr Feiner as the Town Chessmaster, who is calculating his closing moves even as he unleashes the start of another publicity sting somewhere else and over something else. By the way, the next step in the process for Shelbourne is a continuation of the Public Hearing before the ZBA on July 21, 2016.
 
As we’ve mentioned numerous times, Mr Feiner will do whatever the Edgemont Community wants him to do. Edgemont is against this project. Simply, he cannot afford to lose the income accumulated for the Town from the Edgemont section of Greenburgh. If Edgemont were to secede from Greenburgh and incorporate as a Village, Mr Feiner would have no power over them. It’s kind of like when we as a Country went against the British monarchy by declaring independence. The difference is that once Incorporated as a Village, numerous services would need to be established or contracted for. It is unknown what those expenses might be either in total or per household, but the Village of Edgemont would need to accommodate police, sanitation, sewer, water, highway and a Village Clerk’s office, where hopefully the Village Clerk doesn’t speak during meetings unless requested to, to name a few things. Insurmountable? Not at all. But invariably these contracts would be established with the Village of Edgemont’s newly elected Mayor and Village Board, unless they hire a Village Administrator, and Mr Feiner. So they don’t get away “Scott free” with having to deal with him.
 
Back to Bizarro-Greenburgh. Mr Feiner has been in favor of this project, hands down, all-in! He will now announce at the next Town Board meeting that he has changed his position and is now against the NegDec. Naturally, his Board will be against it as well. He’ll pontificate that he spoke with so-and-so in the whatever office at Town Hall, he got emails from more residents who are slowly convincing him that he was wrong to support this and so on. He may even say we need to follow the process. This was his plan all along. He needed the publicity and what better way to get it than to pit two groups against each other, for and against? One of the Board members, and we’re not sure whose turn it is this time, will comment that he/she too has been getting feedback and realizes now that they were mistaken to move forward with the NegDec, but now we have a chance to undo this mistake, and so on.
 
In the end, the property’s zoning does not allow an assisted living facility to be built at this location. It is strictly based on the 2-year old zoning law this same Board voted for. To blatantly disregard it and slap the residents in the face with it is wrong. It is also wrong to lead a developer on for his own political gain or publicity. Mr Feiner owes the community, the developer and the Krautters a public apology for stringing them along. Until then we can only strive for A Better Greenburgh.

Shelbourne Decides Not to Sue

Formation Shelbourne finally made a decision to cease trying to sue individuals that were against the assisted living facility they have proposed to build at the current site of the Sprainbrook Nursery location. Mr Feiner claims he intervened and convinced Shelbourne to withdraw the lawsuit. The Edgemont Community Council, residents in the Sprain Road & Deer Hill Lane area as well as the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations were named in the lawsuit. We believe the organizations and the individuals should not have been sued simply because they exercised their right to free speech protestation. Everyone that was served papers has yet to be notified that the lawsuit has been withdrawn, only that Shelbourne has agreed to withdraw the suit. ABG has just learned that Shelbourne says it filed a Notice of Discontinuance today, July 6^th.

Mr Feiner favors this development and has gone out of his way to stack the deck on behalf of Shelbourne. To insure a better outcome for the developer, Mr Feiner and his Board unnecessarily advanced through a SEQR study or negative declaration for the proposed parcel. It was his attempt to influence the other Boards, whom he appoints, to follow his lead and approve the project. While many people protested the proposal at various Town Board meetings, there were others who favored it. However, the impression we got was that those in favor didn’t necessarily favor the proposal as much as they did the sale, which would benefit the Krautter family.

You’ll recall that Shelbourne has proposed building their assisted living housing on what will revert back to residentially zoned property once the Sprainbrook Nursery property is sold. The area is zoned residential, but Mr Feiner has given the nod to Shelbourne and that has emboldened them to push forward.

The developer wants to build in a residential zone without having the 4 acre minimum and not being 200 ft. from a State or County Right-of- Way. The Shelbourne proposal is 6,000 ft. from a State or County Right-of-Way (Central Park Avenue). The ZBA would have to grant them a 3,000% variance. The Assisted Living Facility that is being proposed for Frank's Nursery property does not need any variances.

What’s also troubling is that after reviewing the Neg-Dec document, there were numerous errors. Yet Mr Feiner and his Board thought it perfectly acceptable to approve as though there were no problems. Again, they will tell the public to have faith in the process, to trust the process, they are doing their due diligence but then they pull a stunt like this. It’s difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to have faith in this Board when they routinely pull these kinds of shenanigans.

James Kane offered an apology on behalf of Shelbourne. He claims Shelbourne didn’t know it was filing a lawsuit against private citizens and that they just received bad advice from its legal team. We find that extremely difficult to believe. He claims Shelbourne has never filed a lawsuit and was able to make its case successfully in other towns.  Court records show Shelbourne sued the ZBA in Waldwick, New Jersey last year when the ZBA denied variances to build an assisted living facility. Apparently, we aren’t the only ones saying, “No” to them. He claims Shelbourne is not a “litigious corporate bully” but just “a small group that provides senior living services.” Shelbourne’s website boasts it has been “involved in the development, operations and ownership of over 180 senior living communities in the United States and Canada with an aggregate value of over $2.7 billion.” This hardly seems to be the resources of a small or even medium sized company!

We are convinced that Formation Shelbourne has been working very closely with the corner office in Town Hall. We’re also convinced the lawsuit may have been at the suggestion of the same corner office. If Shelbourne was actually as small as they claim and do not routinely sue, why would they initiate a lawsuit before “the process” had really begun? There is no developer that Mr Feiner doesn’t like or want to work with. Subsequently, there are probably none that his Town Board wouldn’t work with. This kind of behind the scenes activity is what makes so many people mistrust government. It needs to change. It’s also a proof of why we need term limits. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

Like A Good Neighbor, Formation Shelbourne Sues Everyone Hoping To Stop Free Speech, Then Realizes Their Blunder

About two years ago, of course with Mr Feiner and his Board’s assistance, Formation Shelbourne (Shelbourne) proposed an assisted living facility on the piece of property that is currently owned and operating as the Sprainbrook Nursery by the Krautter Family. Assisted Living, also known to include Senior Living, are the latest buzzwords in the housing development debacle running amok throughout Unincorporated Greenburgh. Sadly, instead of letting the process run its course and either grant or deny the project legitimately, Mr Feiner continues to be the shill for Shelbourne.

Even though it was not time in the process for a SEQR study, Mr Feiner pushed his Board to approve the premature SEQR findings. These findings, known as a Negative Declaration or Neg Dec, were adopted by Mr Feiner and his Board without any studies, facts or information being provided. The intent was clearly to sway the Zoning and Planning Boards into approving this project. The Zoning Board previously found that variances were required under Greenburgh’s zoning code. The building inspector’s determination that no variances were required was objectionable to many, including most civic associations. Bob Bernstein, President of the Edgemont Community Council, led the charge and filed an appeal of the decision. He also paid an outlandish fee instituted in Town Hall as a deterrent for future appeals by civic associations and community groups which were never charged previously.

The Shelbourne lawsuit claims that the zoning board’s determination that variances were required under Greenburgh’s zoning code was arbitrary and capricious and should be reversed. The zoning code requires that assisted living facilities be located within 200 feet of a state or county right-of-way, excluding interstate highways and state parkways. This requirement was put into the Town’s two-year old Zoning Code change to accommodate the Brightview Assisted Living facility at Rt 119 and Benedict Avenue. Additionally, that particular provision was to ensure residents would not have emergency vehicles driving through their neighborhoods with lights and sirens.

Approximately two years ago with the aid of Greenburgh officials Shelburne sought to build an 80-unit, 94-bed assisted living facility at the corner of Underhill and Sprain Roads in Edgemont. The zoning variance point of discussion is that the proposed facility is over a mile from the area where such facilities may be located under the Greenburgh’s zoning code. It is somewhat coincidental that Shelbourne proposed this facility about two years ago and the Zoning Code change was enacted about two years ago as well. And, Mr Feiner is fighting to allow Shelbourne to build their inappropriate facility where it doesn’t belong. What’s next? There will probably be a push by Mr Feiner and Shelbourne to “grandfather” the proposal to a point before the zoning code change was adopted.

Formation-Shelbourne Senior Living Services, LLC., filed a suit in Westchester State Supreme Court on June 9, 2016 against the zoning board, the Edgemont Community Council, the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations, and 19 neighboring residents. They went after everyone involved with the appeal because they were united with the ECC in appealing the Town’s former building inspector's decision last July that the Shelbourne facility did not need any variances. Yet, if they follow the zoning code, they do need variances!

In an email blast from Mr Feiner, utilizing the GBList that he was ordered by court decree to release to the Worthington Woodlands Civic Association but refused, Mr Feiner said, “I just learned about the lawsuit today when I received some e mails [sic] from residents who live near the proposed facility. Am very upset.”

In a new twist to this story, we received a copy of an email to Mr Feiner from Shelbourne announcing they were dropping the lawsuit. Perhaps they realized the futility of suing what might become their future neighbors. Perhaps as they realized that the limited support they had in the area was turning against them as neighbors were being penalized for expressing their opinion - still a legal right even here in Greenburgh - that they should change their tact.

Here’s what it said:

From: Jim Kane
Date: July 1, 2016 at 12:01:50 PM EDT
To: Paul Feiner <pfeiner@greenburghny.com>
Cc: Mark Maberry
Subject: Shelbourne Senior Living

Paull,
Attached you will find the follow up response to our discussion of yesterday. As I mentioned we have decided to withdraw the Article 78 proceeding and focus our attention our current application for variances before the Zoning Board.
Jim
James W. Kane III|Shelbourne Healthcare Development Group LLC

This is a plausible project for someplace else, not Unincorporated Greenburgh! Ironically, several members of the Feiner administration had insisted after the passage of the new Assisted Living facility Zoning Code change that allowed Brightview to be built, that there were no other locations in Unincorporated Greenburgh that would accommodate another Assisted Living facility. Apparently, if this proposal is approved by Mr Feiner and his Board, which they appear to be ready to do, it will again prove they lied to the public for the benefit of a developer. Sadly, this seems to be a hallmark of this administration. It must end. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

Shelbourne Sues Wrong Groups

Below is a letter printed with permission from the Secretary of the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations regarding the lawsuit brought against many organization:

I am writing to keep you informed. In case you haven’t heard, the CGCA as well as the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), the Edgemont Community Council (ECC) and a number of residents living in the Deer Hill Lane/Sprain Road area have been named in a lawsuit filed in Westchester County Supreme Court on June 9, 2016 by Formation Shelbourne Senior Living Services, LLC. Shelbourne is the firm seeking to build an 80-unit, 94-bed assisted living facility on the Sprain Brook Nursery property at 448 Underhill Road.

As you may recall, last August the ECC/CGCA filed an application with the ZBA appealing the Building Inspector’s decision that Shelbourne required no variances to build. The Zoning Ordinance requires that assisted living facilities have a minimum lot size of four acres and be located within 200 feet of a state or county right-of-way. The nursery property is only 3.79 acres and is more than 6,000 feet from the nearest state road, Central Avenue.

At its April 21, 2016 meeting, the ZBA ruled in favor of the ECC/CGCA appeal regarding the 200 feet from Central Avenue requirement but reserved decision on the necessary four-acre provision since Shelbourne was advised it could seek a special permit from the Town Board on that issue.

Before the ZBA even announced its ruling, on April 8, 2016, Shelbourne filed an application with the ZBA seeking variances from both requirements. The ZBA has held Public Hearings on the application at both its May and June meetings and is scheduled to continue the hearing at its July 21, 2016 meeting.

Regarding the lawsuit, the Town has not provided the CGCA with information on when it was served with the legal papers, but we know early Saturday morning, June 25, 2016, neighbors in the Deer Hill Lane/Sprain Road area were served with the approximate three-inch thick piles of papers stating they were named in the lawsuit. Bob Bernstein was served with papers on Monday morning, June 27, 2016. To date, no one from the CGCA has been served with papers.

The lawsuit against the ZBA is premature (not ripe) since Shelbourne is seeking the variances. The lawsuit against the ECC, the CGCA and the individual neighbors who joined in appealing the Building Inspector’s decision is frivolous and meant to intimidate and deny our First Amendment rights of free speech. The ECC and CGCA will respond in court to this frivolous lawsuit. Bob Bernstein has graciously offered to prepare and file the necessary legal papers.

Zoning Proposal Nightmare

This past Thursday night, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) met to discuss several applications before them. The first one on the agenda was from Foundation Shelbourne (Shelbourne) – again. They had already been before the Board hawking their proposed assisted living facility at 448 Underhill Avenue, which is the current home of the Sprainbrook Nursery, and were turned down. Their proposal in a residential neighborhood is simple. They will purchase the property from Al Krautter and his family for several million dollars. They will remove everything there and build their proposed 80-unit, four story facility in the middle of a residential neighborhood. According to the lawyers for Shelbourne, they only need a few variances to conform to code. If you don’t listen to the lawyers, the project violates the new Town Assisted Living facility code recently written (by Brightview Assisted Living) and adopted by the Town Board several years ago! According to them, however, they are making a residential proposal.

As mentioned previously, the Assisted Living Zoning code was written by the attorneys for the Brightview Assisted Living facility and custom tailored for their then-proposed Glenville takeover. They specified the height requirement, the acreage needed, the need for a State or County right-of way within 200ft and so on. There are other points, but these are the most salient and what was again being regurgitated to the ZBA this night. To their credit, even though the lawyers droned (more on drones in a moment) on, the ZBA members appeared to pay attention. The ZBA is actually the last line of defense for homeowners to not lose their neighborhoods. However, with the last few appointments made by Mr Feiner, that privilege is slowly being lost.

The fact that Mr Feiner wants this project to move forward for whatever reason and at any cost is more than troubling. This project is very much reminiscent of another inappropriate commercial project in a residential neighborhood that he endorsed and even held a phony referendum for: the GameOn 365. With that project, he claimed an 8-story sports bubble placed in a residential neighborhood was perfectly acceptable! While Mr Feiner enjoys a relatively unscathed lifestyle in his gated community, he has no qualms about devaluing your home or neighborhood to satisfy the financial needs and wants of his developer friends.

During the ZBA meeting many points were made by the attorney’s for Shelbourne, although many if not most were simply their opinion. In fact they showed a flyover video recorded by a drone of the property. They claimed to have unanimous Planning Board and Town Board support. This point is correct. Mr Feiner wants this project and these two Boards’ members know not to go against him or be “Sonya’d”. So they are for it. They claim there will be less impervious space and they are remediating the existing flooding on the northwest corner. Perhaps, but remediation usually entails regrading and altering the terrain, ultimately moving the water from one location to another. A key point, then, is who will get stuck with the water? They plan to extend the sewer lines into the existing ones in the area. New, larger sewer piping will be linked for these 80 units into the smaller existing sewer lines already in place. With a failing infrastructure throughout our Town being ignored by this administration, we don’t think this is a very good plan. Finally, attorneys claimed they worked closely with emergency responders at their other facilities to respond to alarms without lights and sirens. We know this cannot be correct.

The Shelbourne attorney’s tag-team presentation insisted multiple times that the residents for this facility will come from our Greenburgh neighborhoods. They will not be welcome if they are on Medicaid or have no assets to pay their way into this high-end facility. They also claimed to have ten facilities operating elsewhere and three of them are on less than the required 4-acres of property. Yet they have never said where these facilities are. Why does this matter?

Because as you agree to insert any commercial facility in a residential neighborhood, it sets a precedent that then allows any commercial facility to appeal for a variance and build where they want, whether appropriate or not. Likewise, when you have a Town Board who refuses to follow the zoning and dare we say Comprehensive Plan for the Unincorporated Town, you’ll get fractured neighborhoods, lack of continuity with looks, traffic and feel all being compromised. Is that what our homeowners signed on for when they purchased their home? We doubt it.

At issue are the same two points Shelbourne refuses to accept and know they don’t have to, mostly because they have Mr Feiner on their side fighting their fight. But the Town’s Zoning Board of Appeals, as we mentioned before, is the Town’s and its residents’ last line of defense. This proposed facility needs variances because the property is too small at 3.79-acres instead of the required 4-acres and is over a mile away from the State or County right-of-way that is required to be 200ft or less. The Town allowed Brightview’s attorney’s to write the current Town Zoning ordinance. That ordinance was tailor written for their facility at Rt. 119 and Benedict Avenue. It overwhelmed the rest of the neighborhood, is exclusionary to Greenburgh residents on Medicaid or without any money to purchase a space and doesn’t blend in with the surrounding area. 

If you’re not sure that the size really makes a difference, go there and see how their facility looms over the edge of the property and overpowers the area. Shelbourne’s requests for variances will probably be approved by the newer half of the Zoning Board. However, this request is cut and dry. The variances should be refused because the variances are bigger than a simple variance such as moving a set back distance from 50ft to 40ft. Shelbourne is looking to cavalierly overturn Town Zoning code for their financial benefit. This must not be allowed to happen. If Shelbourne truly wants to build an assisted living facility in Greenburgh, they should seek a different location. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

Town Board Makes Mockery of Process

We’ve previously written that Mr Feiner, and naturally his Town Board, favor the Foundation Shelbourne Assisted Living facility proposed at the site of the current Sprainbrook Nursery. Sadly, once Mr Feiner wants something, he’ll do whatever it takes to be successful. He previously tried to stop the Fortress Bible Church of Mt Vernon from building in State Assemblyman Tom Abinanti’s former backyard. He, and ultimately we the taxpayer, was subsequently sued in Federal Court and found guilty of discrimination, lying under oath, destroying evidence and four other counts. Town Councilwoman Diana Juettner was also found guilty in that action. No stranger to violating the law or bastardizing "the process" for his own gain, Mr Feiner and his Town Board has done it again.

At the last Town Board meeting, Mr Feiner prematurely held a public hearing for the SEQRA process, calling the hearing “optional”. The G10, as well as others, were out in force and all of them questioned why this SEQRA hearing was being done? SEQRA stands for State Environmental Quality Review Assessment analysis. The analysis is usually done once a project proposal has been approved. This one was not - except by Mr Feiner, which in bizarro-Greenburgh, is enough.

At issue for the proposed 4-story, 80 unit assisted living facility, is that it does not meeting the zoning requirements for the location and would require numerous variances to be allowed. You may recall several years ago when Brightview Assisted Living proposed their facility overlooking Rt 119 at Benedict Avenue (across from Stop and Shop), they wrote the zoning code for the Town. ABG and others protested it but were overruled when the Town Board adopted it almost verbatim. The code they submitted included every nuance that they had put in the plans for their facility. ABG cannot help wonder why the Town has a legal department that cannot write our own codes, regulations and laws?

This proposal requires a proper use variance. It does not have one. The Zoning Board of Appeals issued a determination on April 21st regarding an appeal by the Edgemont Community Council of then-Building Inspector John Locido’s ruling that the project did not need any variances to build its facility on the nursery’s location. One factor in play here is that the facility must, by the Brightview-written Town code, be 200 feet from a state or county right of way. That condition was easily met by Brightview with Rt 119. Shelbourne’s nearest state/county roadway is Central Park Avenue, which according to the Town Building Department is 6,025 linear feet away. The attorneys for Shelbourne have stated it is less than that if you go in a straight line. Another major issue requires another variance as the property itself is 3.79 acres and the code, again written by Brightview to accommodate Brightview’s own project, requires 4 acres! And, while maximum height shall not exceed 3-stories or 40 feet, this proposal tops out at 56.7 feet. There are several more variances and issues that the project would need to proceed. The Town Board’s myopia at the time Brightview was attempting to take over the Glenview neighborhood didn’t allow them to see any of this as an issue because Mr Feiner wanted Brightview’s project to go through. They all ballyhooed the G10 when these points were challenged. In fact, they went out of their way, as did others in the Town, to stand firm and say numerous times that there were no other parcels that could accommodate an assisted living facility anywhere in Unincorporated Greenburgh!

The Town Board’s myopia at the time Brightview was attempting to take over the Glenview neighborhood didn’t allow them to see any of this as an issue because Mr Feiner wanted this project to go through. They all ballyhooed the G10 when these points were challenged. In fact, they went out of their way, as did others in the Town, to stand firm and say numerous times that there were no other parcels that could accommodate an assisted living facility to be built anywhere in Unincorporated Greenburgh!

At last week’s Town Board meeting, many residents spoke favorably about the the Krautter family and their contributions to the neighborhood over the years. This is exactly why this “hearing” was being done and what Mr Feiner had hoped would happen. It would validate his position to move forward with this project. Others noted that this isn’t about the Krautter family and is about an inappropriate proposal for that particular location. Tor Krautter, the son, spoke passionately about the nursery being at that location long before the homes were built there and that this was his parents one shot to sell the property. We agree that the nursery was there first and will willingly concede them that property as long as it remains a nursery.

Whether good or bad, the zoning and the Town have changed and while everyone seems to support a nursery at that location, the Town should not allow an inappropriate assisted living facility there. While he and others see Shelbourne as their best option, there other developers who may be willing to purchase the property and build within appropriately zoned requirements. If Shelbourne is truly committed to this project in Greenburgh, they can find another location which conforms to the Town’s code. It’s time to stop giving developers carte blanche in our Town. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

Fast Tracking Senior Living Facilities, the Latest Green-Light Buzzword

As a developer, if you want to build in Greenburgh, what could be better than to have unfettered access to parcels of land that are otherwise inappropriate for certain zoned usage? Several years ago the active buzzwords needed for approval morphed from homeless shelters to workforce housing and now to assisted living. This new solution is simply to propose an Assisted Living facility and offer all kinds of tax revenue that Mr Feiner will be able to trumpet on the developer’s behalf. The first meeting will be behind closed doors in the corner office. The next step will be an informal proposal at a Town Board Work Session, followed up with a proposal at a regular Town Board meeting. By then, all of the various departments will have gotten in line and the “sails” will have been raised by Mr Feiner enough for the deal to be ready for Town Board consummation. Such emerges the case with the Shelbourne Formation, Inc., also know as Shelbourne Assisted Living Facility.

Is justification really necessary for the consummation of this project or will a preemptive act with the Town Board’s heavy handed stamp-of-approval suffice?  As this is one of Mr Feiner’s pet projects, approval is not really necessary – it has been mandated and will go through with minimal resistance. We’ve seen when he wants a project to happen, it’ll be the proverbial “done deal”. He will send an email blast from his much-coveted GBList, professing the advantages of approving this project, regardless of the merits or accuracy of the conjectured information. A court has ordered him to share the list with a local civic association but he has still refused to surrender it! Why is this important? Because as he spreads misinformation to residents, the civic association is seeking to inform its members of the rest of the story – something that hasn’t happened in years.

The Town Board will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, May 11, 2016. It is regarding the environmental review process (SEQRA) associated with special permit applications submitted by Shelbourne Senior Living. ABG believes this to be a phony justification hearing strictly for the purposes of slanting the application forward on Shelbourne’s behalf. The assisted living facility is proposed to be built at 448 Underhill Road, the current home of the Sprainbrook Nursery. The Sprainbrook Nursery, which was opened on Underhill Avenue in Edgemont by Al Krautter's parents in 1944, has been struggling for the past few years, reducing its staff from about two dozen employees to just Krautter, his wife Heidi, and a handful of others.

The Shelbourne Senior facility is proposed as a four story, 80-unit, 70,000 sq.-ft. assisted living facility building, with off-street parking, landscaping and related amenities. Numerous approvals are required for this project to move forward. Special permits are needed from the Town Board, which will encounter little, if any resistance and be granted post haste. Area variances from the Town’s Zoning Board of Appeals seem to be in flux now that the Zoning Board of Appeals ruled against the former Town Building Inspector John Locido, who retired last month, overturning his determination that no variances were required to construct the 80-bed facility. New Town code, written and submitted by the Brightview Assisted Living Facility’s attorneys, created a customized path to allow assisted living facilities in residential neighborhoods only if they are within 200 feet of a state or county right-of-way, excluding parkways and interstates. The nearest state or county right of way is nearly a mile away. The code also requires the property to be 4-acres, which this is not. And, while the Planning Board must also approve the site plan and steep slope and watercourse permits, we see little, if any, resistance there. Interestingly, when a homeowner seeks to make small additions to their homes, a years worth of permits and approval processes along with other hurdles often make moving a more viable alternative to remodeling.

Some like assisted living facilities because it offers the chance to encourage elderly family members an option to remain local while seeking to remain independent. Some see that as a win for the school districts as it promises revenue without the school district having to invest in more children. Discussing the tax revenue for the Town and various agencies involved with the operation of the facility within its neighborhood offers conflicting thoughts.

In fact we’ve been promised over a 10 year period that the Shelbourne facility will generate approximately $5 million in total property taxes – which would include $3 million to the Edgemont School District, $500,000 to the Greenville Fire District and $900,000 to the town. Of course, let’s not forget that Mr Feiner promised the Town $5million if we approved the GameOn 365 sports bubble arena in a residential neighborhood – which was proven a figment of his imagination. 

While $3million would be a windfall for the school district, the $500,000 to the Greenville Fire District may turn out to be an inadequate amount of money for the amount of alarms generated by the facility. How so? There will certainly be fire alarms from that location. But there will also be ambulance calls, known as aided cases for that location. Greenburgh Police will provide the bulk of the medical services per se, but the fire department will also respond and assist, as will volunteer ambulance corps (who will receive no money). As seen with the Hebrew Home and the Fairview FD, their responses are almost daily and in fact sometimes more. As with all fire departments, volunteer and career, if there is an alarm, they will respond, regardless of the money generated through taxes.

Other impacts related beyond the projected requests for emergency services, is the location and delivery times coupled with traffic issues during their normal course of a business day. Subsequently, the impacts of the proposal to surrounding properties should be a significant concern.

While the desire to build assisted living facilities appears noble at first blush, the apparent tact here for the developers is nothing more than finding a legal way to construct four-story apartment buildings in inappropriate locations throughout the Town. Additionally, numerous assisted living facilities throughout the state are running into financial difficulties. Sadly, most of the seniors who have moved into them have signed over their estates to do so, leaving them with little or nothing to fall back on should the facility fail. One such facility is operated by the Hebrew Home on Grasslands Road next to the Westchester Community College campus. They, and now their residents, are in financial distress as they are experiencing significant difficulties with their model. Likewise, The Esplanade in White Plains which has failed as an assisted living facility is being converted into a multi-family housing unit. Was that the plan all along?

There is a public hearing this Wednesday on May 11th at Town Hall to discuss whether or not to move forward with the Shelbourne Assisted Living Facility. There are too many issues, questions and problems with this proposal for it to move forward. We hope many residents will recognize this and come out to tell the Town what they think about this. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

Death of The Solana

Much has been said about the Sprain Brook Nursery property. There have been two suspicious fires within the period of time the owner, Al Krautter was looking to retire and/or sell the property. The fires may have been coincidental, but they highlighted the lack of water supply for the area, according to fire service representatives. In fact, he closed the nursery in 2012 to put the property on the market. When he was unable to sell it, Krautter reopened the business as a more scaled down operation focusing on organically grown products..

Enter Formation-Shelbourne, a company interested in developing the 3.7 acre parcel of property into an 80-bed assisted living facility. ABG is convinced that once the assisted living concept gets all the Town approvals, it will get built. Once built, it will flourish as most assisted living facilities appear to do. Then, characteristically, profits will shrink, costs will rise and after all kinds of hullabaloo, their management will announce Chapter 11, Chapter 13 or something threatening the bankruptcy route. Then they will say they need to change their model and become either a co-operative apartment or a condominium complex. We’ve seen this in White Plains (which has lower city taxes) with the former assisted living facility, The Esplanade. We’re also experiencing this currently with the Hebrew Home next to Westchester Community College on Grasslands Road.

Regardless of how Formation-Shelbourne proceeds (or not) with their proposed assisted living facility called The Solana, they will need a number of variances as well as clearing a number of hurdles created by Mr Feiner and his Town Board. You’ll recall when the Brightview Assisted Living management team was pitching their mega-building at Rt 119 and Benedict Avenue, they wrote the ordinance for allowing assisted living facilities in our Town. Never heeding complaints from the G10 or other residents, Mr Feiner and his Board unanimously passed the new ordinance.

Several issues in the new ordinance were specific to Brightview, including size, location and various other requirements. Never to be swayed by public opinion, logic, facts or qualified information, Mr Feiner and his Board did as they always do, ignored valuable information from residents, and plowed through the new ordinance for assisted living facilities. It never mattered that the ordinance restricting the building height matched exactly the  Brightview specifications. It didn’t matter that the footprint was on 4 acres of land – the exact size Brightview purchased. Nor did the need for proximity to a state road of 200 feet. That’s because their building was thought to be 200 feet from Rt 119, a state road. It was discovered in the eleventh hour that the site was actually more than 200 feet from Rt. 119, and wording of the ordinance was changed by the Thomas Madden behind the scenes to read 200 feet from a state right-of-way. Much to the disappointment to many residents, passage of this new ordinance also created a major change throughout the Town by now allowing Assisted Living Facilities to be built in residential neighborhoods. There’s more to this, but let’s go back to The Solana.

The proposal for The Solana, which would be constructed on the current Sprain Brook Nursery property, is required to be located within 200 feet of a state or county “right-of-way”. That does not include parkways and interstate highways as qualifiers of this “right of way”. This requirement was put in place to ensure emergency medical vehicles could get to these types of facilities quickly, and not have to travel through residential neighborhoods at all hours, since assisted living residents are apt to need emergency medical services often.

The Formation-Shelbourne management balked and stated a small strip of land owned by NY State constituted the requisite “right-of-way”. A challenge from the Edgemont Community Council’s President Bob Bernstein to the Building Department’s Building Inspector disagreed, saying only a state or county roadbed or a proposed roadbed, not a small parcel of state-owned property constituted a “right-of-way”.

The building inspector had also ruled last summer that no variances were needed. However, the ordinance states that these type of facilities must be at least four acres in size. Finally, after four public hearings in as many months, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) took a straw vote which is unofficial, yet reasonably representative of the final vote and ZBA members present unanimously agreed that the building inspector was wrong. Now, while everyone was relieved to learn that the ZBA got it correct, the Formation-Shelbourne attorneys and management company can still apply for variances and proceed with their project. Since the approval will fall to the Town Board, and Mr Feiner favors the project, he could instruct his Board to approve it. If it should get approved, the other issues raised can easily be mitigated as well.

While this project can easily be fast-tracked through the process, which many believe have failed them, there is another perspective this time that is in play. Mr Feiner has been exhibiting quite a bit of sympathy and empathy towards the Edgemont Community. In fact, he has gone above and beyond to placate them, even going so far as to apply and receive grant money for sidewalks in Edgemont – something he will not do for less affluent communities! So, he may go to bat for Edgemont again to allay any thoughts they may have about seceding from the Town and incorporating into a Village. It remains to be seen. These kind of shell games must end. All neighborhoods deserve the same treatment from Mr Feiner and his Board. Allowing this type of discrimination, something Mr Feiner has been found guilty of doing in the Fortress Bible Church case, must end immediately. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.  

Tensions Run High In Emotional Protest

Emotion filled the packed room. Overflow was in an adjacent room and the cafeteria. Little did the Ardsley residents know how Mr Feiner operates and he was using them for his benefit. Knowing he would be sworn in this night having been re-elected yet again after running unopposed, he wanted a big crowd. He got it. There were 376 people in attendance. In fact, Police Chief McNerney informed us that after 150 were counted and allowed into the main hall, they began directing people toward others rooms in the building to adhere to the fire code occupancy restrictions.

Mr Feiner worked the Town’s GBList to its maximum. The GBList is the email list Mr Feiner treats as his own even though he continues to violate a court order for him to release its contents under the Freedom of Information Law. Between the proposed Jefferson Apartment complex project and other area construction in the Ardsley, Dobbs Ferry, and Hastings area, neighbors have a lot to be upset about. This proposal is for the abandoned and unused property on Lawrence Street, formerly used and currently owned by the Netherlands-based company Akzo Nobel. ABG is against the over-development of Unincorporated Greenburgh, but recognizes that this proposal is a legal use for this land. The zoning is commercial and Greenburgh zoning for commercial property includes multi-family housing use.

Traditionally, Mr Feiner and his Town Board operate with flagrant disregard of neighborhood concerns and over-sized projects. This clearly falls in that category. There are many examples of where a developer has built too large a project, blessed by Mr Feiner and his Board even after hearing from upset residents at packed meetings. Several, but not all, include Westhab in Fulton Park, Brightview Assisted Living in Glenville, Regeneron in north Elmsford/Tarrytown, Dromore Road and the proposed Shelbourne Assisted Living facility in Edgemont at the former Sprain Brook Nursery and more. The point is, this Town Board routinely favors the developer over the homeowner, taxpayer and resident. So, what will happen?

Speaker after speaker bemoaned numerous points against this project. No one spoke in favor of ithe Jefferson proposal except the developer. Obvious issues with this proposal are increased traffic, increased school enrollment, no tax benefits for Ardsley and our constant harangue of flooding and future increased flooding to the area. Ironically, PO1 on the agenda was for the Town Board to vote for a resolution adopting the 2015 Westchester County Hazard Mitigation Plan update. This is classic Town Board. Why fix the problem on both the Bronx River and Saw Mill River corridors when we can talk about it and say the County has a plan? It will never get better as long as these politicians are in office.

There was also a litany of varied speakers in attendance. They included current and former Ardsley Mayors, Trustees, Ardsley school Board members and several emergency responders from the Ardsley Volunteer Ambulance Corps. The emergency responders stated they have about 30 or so members and while their call volume is increasing, their membership is not. The point being that whenever you increase the amount of residents, the responders’ call volume increases. This was exactly the issue broached by Police Chief McNerney at a previous Town Board meeting when the discussion was about adding another assisted living facility, this time at the old Sprain Brook Nursery site. More personnel would be needed, whether paid or volunteer.

Retired Judge Herbert Rosenberg apologized to the residents of Ardsley as a resident of Dobbs Ferry for the nightmarish construction and disruption caused to them from the Rivertown Square development currently underway. Many have been stuck on area roadways caused by traffic backups, accidents and construction equipment being positioned on the site.

During the proceedings of this “scoping” session, Mr Feiner played the crowd as we’ve seen done before. Most recently he protested the shopping center expansion on Central Avenue only to capitulate. Unfortunately, that's what we believe will happen here. He will postulate often about being against this, injecting sound bite snippets that he will later post on his websites (greenburghny.com, greenburgh.dailyvoice.com) and YouTube. He'll have the Town videographer carefully craft his swearing in, showing the huge crowd and then the scoping session, again, utilizing the crowd. Sadly, we think he'll capitulate again and approve this project. After all is said and done, he knows the Ardsley residents that showed up last night will be reduced to half for the next meeting. In time, he will wear them down until there is no opposition. We hope this won't happen.

The demands currently being made of the developer can be considered reasonable or unreasonable, depending on which side you are on. ABG would like to see a scaled down project on this site if it were to proceed. There may be other ideas in the works for this location. The Town Board usually meets with developers two years before their proposals are made public. One of the former project leaders for this told ABG staffers during a meeting a year ago that they had previously pitched this project to Mr Feiner, who gave them a favorable response back then. Something is going to be built at this location. We’ve seen Mr Feiner go through hell and high water to push the GameOn 365 sports bubble into a residential neighborhood. We hope that doesn't happen here. We also hope that all sides are willing to sit down and work together to create a proposal that all those involved can live with when that time comes. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

Sprain Nursery Fire Could Accelerate Deal

At approximately 9PM on Sunday, a fire broke out at the Sprain Brook Nursery, located at 448 Underhill Road and burned into Monday morning. The building that caught fire at the  nursery literally burned to the ground during the multi-hour event. While the operation was strictly a “surround and drown” operation, no people were injured during the fire. This was the Nursery’s second fire in two years.

In December of 2014 the nursery suffered from a fire and three propane tank explosions. Numerous fire departments were dispatched to the site after 10 p.m. for a blaze of an outbuilding on the property. Back then, explosions of at least three 50-pound propane tanks shook nearby homes and generated numerous 9-1-1 calls. According to accounts at that time, Fire Chief Daniel Raftery said they had received reports from at least a quarter mile away from people who heard the explosions.

The last few years has found many area nurseries struggling to stay afloat. The Sprain Brook Nursery, which is owned by Al Krautter, was begun by his parents in 1944. This past year saw him revamp the operation into an all-organic facility with a much smaller staff. It had been reported that he might be closing due to a tougher-than-usual economic climate. He was closed for a short period of time this year apparently to determine what he would do with the nursery.

The Sprain Brook Nursery property is now under contract with a company called Formation Shelbourne Senior Living Services, to build what is turning into a somewhat controversial 80-bed, 70 square foot, assisted living facility at that location. A poorly and yet specifically written bill, crafted by the attorneys for the Brightview Assisted Living facility and later adopted when presented to the Town Board, has left the door open to allow for a new facility to be built on this postage size plot. However, the controversial aspect of this proposal relates to what is considered normal conditions that must be addressed with any undertaking such as this.

Several reasons Civic Associations and neighbors are against the proposal are due to fire safety, health, traffic, noise and that assisted living facilities do not belong in the middle of residential areas. To those who say that the nursery did not belong there as it is a commercial entity in a residential neighborhood are also right, but it had been grandfathered into the residentially  zoned area, which explains why it was there. The space is covered by the Greenville Fire District, with a paid fire department. It is the one paid fire department Mr Feiner chose to not include when he was pushing fire consolidation amongst the Fairview, Hartsdale and initially Greenville Fire Districts. When the Edgemont neighborhood protested, as well as the Fire District, Mr Feiner realized he had bitten off more than he could handle. He once again risked an Edgemont secession which would negatively affect his bloated budgets. He could not afford to lose that income so he backed down.

More importantly, fire investigators are looking into the cause of this year's blaze. Coincidence? Perhaps. Accidental? Perhaps. Intentional? Perhaps. ABG is not saying there was any foul play. However, with a pending sale, similar timing, hard times and retirement ahead, investigators will have their hands full trying to sift through all of this. We hope that this was another accidental fire and that there was no wrong-doing. We also hope the Town truly sees the error of their adoption of an ill-conceived and executed law and decides not to build this huge facility at this location. But, it doesn't seem to matter to Mr Feiner and his Town Board what the residents think. He only cares what matters for his developer friends and residents be damned! And this fire might just be the impetus to speed his process along. This has to stop. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.