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 

“If You Don’t Like What I’m Doing, Sue Me!”

On Saturday, July 2, 2016, ABG posted a story about Mr Feiner and his Town Board working, and we believed even then in secret, with Formation Shelbourne, a developer looking to build a 94-bed assisted living facility at the current Sprainbrook Nursery location. That article was titled:

Like A Good Neighbor, Formation Shelbourne Sues Everyone Hoping To Stop Free Speech, Then Realizes Their Blunder. This article explained that Formation Shelbourne decided to sue numerous groups, individuals and of course the Town for rescinding their NegDec ruling which would have easily opened the doors to “the process” for Formation Shelbourne to proceed with their project. After rescinding the NegDec, Formation Shelbourne would be forced to start the process over again. 

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016, in our article entitled:

Shelbourne Decides Not to Sue, we explained that after the furor we and others created, Formation Shelbourne issued a press release stating that their initiation of lawsuits against the citizens and civic groups questioning their project was a mistake and they would withdraw their lawsuit – without apology.

 

On July 9, 2016 we wrote another article entitled Embarrassed Town Leaders To Vote To Undo Scam, explaining the move being contemplated by Mr Feiner and the Town Board to reverse the NegDec vote that had foolishly made to push the Formation Shelbourne project forward as promised. You see, promising constituents and taxpayers something and then doing something else can usually be done with little or no consequence. But when you go up against a multi-million dollar entity whose resources are almost immeasurable, the consequences can be severe. 

On Saturday July 16, we posted yet another article entitled: Town Board Threatened, Delays "NegDec" Cancellation Vote and described how Mr Feiner and his Board had decided to reverse their NegDec ruling. While this was brought about by public pressure as well as websites such as this one and others, Mr Feiner cleverly decided to explain his improper actions as a mistake and that the Zoning Board of Appeals should be the one reviewing this, not he and the Town Board. 

Unbeknownst to the average taxpayers was that Formation Shelbourne initiated and then withdrew their law suit as we had written earlier. What most would also not know was that Formation Shelbourne’s representative, threatened Mr Feiner and the Town Board with another lawsuit at a Work Session if the Board rescinded their NegDec. They rescinded it and soon after Mr Lino Sciarretta did in fact bring suit against the Town on August 18, 2016! 

Not only did most residents and taxpayers not know another lawsuit was brought against the Town because of Mr Feiner and his Board’s (illegal?) actions, the Town officials intentionally kept it under wraps and did not inform the public of this action! Ironically, Town Attorney Tim Lewis had informed the Town officials that they had been warned there would be a lawsuit even after he explained to them that he believed they had acted improperly by rescinding the NegDec. Mr Feiner always says, "If you don't like what I'm doing, sue me." So they are; now for a second time!

In reviewing the lawsuit, the petitioners state numerous times when a NegDec can be reversed or withdrawn. Those would be a) substantive changes to the plans; b) newly discovered information, or, c) changed circumstances that the rescission could be based. Added difficulty for Mr Feiner and his Board was the Formation Shelbourne’s admission that they and Greenburgh officials had secretly agreed behind closed doors to support the Formation Shelbourne application, the Town Board’s issuance of the NegDec as part of their agreement!

Apparently, the ethically challenged Mr Feiner and his Board believe they can do whatever they want without consequence. Perhaps because they always seem to run unopposed at election time feel invincible? Perhaps they believe their own hype that they have the toughest ethics law on the books and revel that other communities want to emulate it? Perhaps it’s because Mr Feiner appoints and his Board approves all members of the various Boards, including the Ethics Board? Following the Town’s ethics law is a whole other story. Actions such as these prove of why we need term limits and engaged constituents. Only then will we see A Better Greenburgh.

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.

Town Wrong Again, Snubs Nose At Process and Residents

It's no secret that when Mr Feiner wants a project to go through, he will do everything possible to stack the deck for that project's developer. Such is the case with the Formation-Shelbourne's oversized assisted living facility project that would replace the Sprainbrook Nursery. It's the first proposal for an assisted living facility that clearly does not meet the Town Board's newly adopted (2-yr old) assisted living zoning code. It was adopted specifically to allow the Brightview facility to be built at Rt 119 and Benedict Avenue - another project Mr Feiner favored. In fact, after adopting the code change that Thomas Madden, then the Planning Commissioner, along with Mr Sheehan and others, insisted another assisted living facility could not be built anywhere in Unincorporated Greenburgh because there is no space that could accommodate it!

This debacle, highlighting the public's outcry that the Town Board follow the process and allow the project to proceed, or not, of its own volition, has routinely been ignored by a deaf Town Board. But since Mr Feiner wants this project to go through even though it violates the zoning, he insisted on pushing it through against protests of the taxpayers. He's again violated the process he so often refers to, claiming that the residents should have confidence in the process. Actions such as these reinforce the residents’ lack of confidence in any processes Mr Feiner and his Board may discuss. The only confidence they seem to get is the confidence game he and his Board are running against taxpayers! 

At this meeting, he had his Town Board vote to accept the negative declaration on the State Environmental Quality Review Assessment (SEQR) before it was required to be performed. The "neg dec SEQR" report means the project will not have a negative environmental impact on the project. Perhaps this would be the outcome anyway. But testing and reports are needed to make that determination. Mr Feiner and his Board have performed none and by not following the real process, are cheating everyone except the developer. Emboldened by the public's inability to stop them has created this nightmare scenario.

During the same Town Board meeting was a scheduled hearing for the 7-8 year old Comprehensive Plan that has yet to be adopted. The Town Board cancelled it. Why was the hearing cancelled? The Comprehensive Plan is the one official obstacle that might restrict Mr Feiner and his spot-zoning ways if adopted. However, changes to it seem to have watered down its effectiveness. It should provide a map for the Town's zoning which would slow and possibly stop Mr Feiner's wanton wholesaling of every piece of undeveloped land in Unincorporated Greenburgh. It's no wonder he decided to postpone the hearing. Every delay, change or review slows its adoption and keeps him in the driver's seat. He's spent the last two years throwing more considerations for them to review knowing it slows them down.

To add dramatic flair to the proceedings, Councilman Ken Jones had said at an earlier meeting that he had unanswered questions and wished to have a delay in the vote. This night, he said his concerns had been answered and he would support the project. No surprise there. ABG believes these theatrics were Mr Jones' turn to appear to be the “concerned Board member”. We believe that Mr Feiner instructs the Board members who can challenge and even vote "no" on any given issue. It was his turn. Ironically, Mr Jones' questions were less environmental and more traffic oriented. It was perceived and ultimately believed by many to be nothing more than a ploy for appearance sake.

Many residents have been concerned about increased traffic, accidents, emergency vehicle responses, flooding, lack of blending into the neighborhood and more. Others, including friends of the Sprainbrook Nursery owners have championed the sale. While we appreciate they're trying to help their friends, this is about adhering to the zoning code changes Mr Feiner and his Town Board adopted against many residents objections with valid concerns. He and his Board ignored that input and it was passed. Now, Foundation Shelbourne is asking for variances for some of those same concerns. They should not be allowed and the zoning code Mr Feiner and his Board passed should stand. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.