The October 2003 CGCA meeting was cancelled to allow community leaders the opportunity to attend the debate that was sponsored by the League of Women Voters between candidates for the office of Town Supervisor.

In lieu of minutes, following are news updates on some issues of concern to CGCA representatives. Information is included on meetings/events that took place during the period from the last CGCA meeting (September 16) through the month of October. Ella Preiser, Secretary.

Thirty-nine civic groups have paid dues for the year 2003. Please see the minutes of the September 16, 2003 CGCA meeting for a listing of the CGCA membership.

As reported last month, the CGCA was urged to hold a debate for candidates running for local office because the Westchester League of Women Voters (LWV) had not scheduled a debate. It was noted that community member Mark Tenzer had scheduled a debate, but that he did not represent an official group as called for in the rules adopted by the Town Board for debates to be aired on Greenburgh Access Television. The CGCA voted to look into why the LWV was not holding a debate in Greenburgh and to consider scheduling a debate sponsored by the CGCA.

Following the CGCA meeting, Mary Tobias contacted LWV members who told her that although a debate had not been planned in Greenburgh, it was not too late to schedule one. The LWV subsequently arranged a debate for October 21 – the same night as a scheduled CGCA meeting. An executive decision was made to cancel the CGCA meeting. It is a pleasure to report that a number of CGCA representatives attended the debate. The debate was telecast live on Greenburgh Access TV Channel 76 and rebroadcast several times.

Following the Town Board meeting at Massaro Park on September 10, 2003, community leaders urged Town Board members to tour the park building which is in need of repair. At the Town Board work session on October 7, 2003, Supervisor Paul Feiner informed Town Council members that he had met with North Elmsford Civic Association President Esther Melon and other community members and also with Parks Commissioner Gerry Byrne about refurbishing the building. When Commissioner Byrne arrived at the work session, he stated that the town could do most of the necessary upgrading of the building "in house." Councilwoman Eddie Mae Barnes mentioned the building is very unattractive. Mr. Bryne noted the need for a vandal-proof building is partly responsible for the building’s unattractive appearance. Mr. Feiner promised to include $30,000 in next year’s budget for repairs.

The applicants for the proposed Dunkin’ Donuts/Baskin Robbins store in the Greenburgh Shopping Center at 81 Knollwood Road applied for and were granted a Special Permit by the ZBA in June 2003 to operate a quick service food establishment. According to the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed business is a restaurant. On September 18, 2003, the ZBA voted to reopen Case #03-10 to correct the error. On October 16, 2003, the ZBA approved a Special Permit for the restaurant.

The proposed business has also requested a drive-through window at the rear of the building, closest to Dobbs Ferry Road. An amendment to the site plan for the shopping center is required, which involves review by the Planning Board and approval by the Town Board. The matter was discussed at the Planning Board work session on September 17, 2003. Planning Board members expressed many concerns about the location of the drive-through window and requested that the applicant supply additional information.

At its meeting on October 16, 2003, the ZBA granted a variance reducing the number of required parking spaces from 40 to zero for the proposed Alcaria (Portuguese) Restaurant at 187-191 East Hartsdale Avenue. Few, if any, of the other businesses along East Hartsdale Avenue have the required number of parking spaces, but no other business has ever been required to obtain a parking variance. The processing of this application raises questions of fairness.

The Hartsdale Center Contextual Review Board must now review and make recommendations concerning the façade change necessary to combine the former bank and cable TV studio storefronts. Next the Planning Board must review the application for a Special Permit to operate a restaurant and make recommendations to the Town Board. The Town Board will then hold a public hearing and decide whether a Special Permit should be issued.

The Town Board should revisit/amend the law it passed two years ago creating the HC Hartsdale Center zoning district along East Hartsdale Avenue.

At the Town Board meeting on October 8, 2003, the board approved a resolution instituting a $25.00 fee to file an application seeking renewal of a previously granted Special Permit. The Planning Board recommended to the Town Board that a reduced application fee be established for renewal of time limited Special Permits. In 2002, the Planning Board granted a Special Permit for one year to a Central Avenue restaurant, Venetian Delight, with the condition that the Planning Board would review compliance with the terms of the approval and consider renewal of the permit at the end of the year.

The formal resolution adopted by the Town Board refers in the "whereas" provisions to Section 285-29 (CA Central Avenue Mixed Use Impact District and HC Hartsdale Center District) of the Town Code. It is unclear whether the intention of the resolution is to apply this $25.00 fee to renewal applications for Special Permits in all zoning districts or only in the CA and HC zoning districts.

At the regular board meeting on October 22, 2003, the Town Board declared itself Lead Agency and issued a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance regarding the acquisition of Taxter Ridge. Councilman Steve Bass mentioned that the resolution referred to only 183.15 acres, not the 199 acres the board originally approved purchasing in May 2003. Supervisor Feiner stated that 16 acres (which are mainly wetlands) are located in Tarrytown and will be acquired and maintained by the Village of Tarrytown. Mr. Feiner noted that the purchase price to the Town will be adjusted. He also announced that the Town Board would be voting in November on a resolution to issue bonds to pay the town’s one-third share of the acquisition price of the 183.15 acres.

As reported last month, on September 12, 2003 – the day after a judge dismissed his lawsuit seeking certain documents – Greenridge Association President Robert Bernstein filed a formal Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request with the town for documents regarding the acquisition of Taxter Ridge. Under the law, the town is required to reply to a FOIL request within five working days. Because he did not receive a reply to his FOIL request, Mr. Bernstein filed an appeal with the Town Board on September 22, 2003.

Under the law, the Town Board must hear and decide an appeal regarding denial of access to documents within seven business days of receipt of the FOIL appeal. At the Town Board work session on September 23, 2003, although the issue of the FOIL appeal did not appear on the agenda and Mr. Bernstein was not notified (the law does not require notification), the board discussed the appeal. The board was advised of a draft letter which identified documents that would be sent to Mr. Bernstein and other documents that would not be sent because they were deemed confidential, not in the Town’s possession, or unavailable because of the move to the new Town Hall.

While the Town Board did approve sending some of the requested documents, it never rendered a decision on Mr. Bernstein’s appeal of the denial of access to other documents. Mr. Bernstein attended the "after meeting meeting" on October 8, 2003 and informed Supervisor Paul Feiner and Councilwoman Eddie Mae Barnes of the Town Board’s failure to render a decision on his appeal. Mr. Feiner promised to place the matter on the Town Board work session agenda for October 21, 2003.

No mention of any discussion regarding Mr. Bernstein’s FOIL request or appeal appeared on the work session agenda for October 21, 2003. When the Town Board members finished discussing the items that did appear on the agenda, they voted to go into Executive Session for personnel and legal matters and said there would be no further public business conducted.

Upon leaving Town Hall, Ella Preiser encountered Mr. Bernstein and James Lasser in the parking lot. Mr. Bernstein advised her he had an invitation to the work session and the item of discussion should be open to the public. When he knocked on the closed Conference Room door, Town Attorney Susan Mancuso initially informed him the Town Board would not meet with him. The doors eventually were opened.

In his presentation before the board, Mr. Bernstein reviewed information that was included in his FOIL request and appeal. He informed the board it was in default because it had not responded to his appeal of the town’s denial of access to two records – the Trust for Public Land option agreement to purchase the Taxter Ridge property and backup for the 5-year budget projections presented to the public in April 2003. Councilwoman Diana Juettner agreed that Mr. Bernstein was entitled to a response. Mr. Feiner announced at the Town Board meeting on October 22, 2003, that he intended to ask the Trust for Public Land for a copy of the option agreement.

A settlement has been reached in Greenburgh Town Court regarding the destruction of a buffer at 65 Westchester View Lane. In November 2002, the homeowners removed numerous trees and other vegetation from the buffer in violation of Planning Board resolutions requiring that the buffer remain in its natural state.

On October 23, 2003, Deputy Town Attorney Janet Insardi, representing the Planning Board, Town Prosecutor Timothy Lewis, and the defendant’s attorney, Joel Sachs, met in Town Justice Sandra Forster’s chambers to work out the settlement. The homeowner pleaded guilty and is required to deposit $18,500 ($10,000 now and $8,500 at the end of January 2004) in an escrow account with the town. $13,500 of that sum will be used to restore the buffer, $1,000 represents a fine, and $4,000 will partially defray the costs ($11,100) the town expended for consultants. The homeowners will absorb the cost of installing the monuments delineating the buffer; such delineation shall take place under the direction of and in the presence of the Town surveyor.

The settlement agreement comes too late for this year’s planting season. It is anticipated that planting will take place in the spring of 2004.

Members of the Conservation Advisory Committee (CAC) attended the October 21, 2003 Town Board work session and presented suggestions for strengthening the town’s Tree Ordinance and other land use processes relative to tree protection. The CAC prepared its recommendations after reviewing ordinances from other municipalities. The recommendations include requiring a permit for the removal of any tree, regardless of tree size or property size. Under the existing Greenburgh Tree Ordinance, a permit is required only for removing trees six inches or greater in diameter at a height of four feet from the ground on lots of one acre or more, unless conditions have been imposed during a development’s approval process (e.g., site plan, subdivision, special permit or variances). The CAC is also recommending different approval processes for permits, based on whether the property is developed or undeveloped residential property or requires subdivision or site plan approval. Substantial fines are recommended for unlawful removal or damage to trees.

It is difficult to comment until the actual wording of proposed legislation is circulated. However, it appears that if these recommendations are written into a new Tree Ordinance, enforcement would be extremely difficult. Given the vast number of trees in Greenburgh, it is likely several enforcement officers and clerical staff would have to be hired to process the tree permit applications.

Cablevision Promises Better Equipment. At the meeting on September 24, 2003, the Town Board continued a public hearing to consider renewal of the town’s franchise agreement with Cablevision. The representative from Cablevision said the new Town Hall at 177 Hillside Avenue contained fiber optic wiring. She also indicated Cablevision would provide robotic cameras and gooseneck microphones for better cable transmission of town meetings.

GATV Off to a Poor Start in New Town Hall. At the ZBA meeting on October 16 – the first board meeting held at the new Town Hall – there was no audio system in the auditorium. Even persons seated in the front row had difficulty hearing the proceedings. In addition, the televised transmission of the meeting was very poor. Since then, the audio system has been installed although it is still difficult to hear some board members when they speak. Transmission problems have been corrected.

Cable Studio at 177 Hillside Avenue is Inadequate. The Town Hall at 177 Hillside Avenue is more than three times the size of the old Town Hall building. Supervisor Feiner promised a cable television studio would be included in the new building. The space set aside as a studio for Greenburgh Access Television is little more than a closet, barely large enough to accommodate cameras and other equipment in the existing studio. It is hoped that before the Town Board starts renting "extra space" to outside groups, adequate provisions will be made to provide decent facilities for residents to produce quality public access cable television programs.

Town cablecasts government functions on weekends, but few know. At the "after meeting meeting" on August 20, 2003, it was suggested that the town rebroadcast Town Board meetings and other town functions on the government access channel – Channel 76 – in a loop over the weekends. For the past two months, Town Board meetings and events such as the September 11 memorial service, candidates’ debates and opening ceremonies of the new Town Hall have aired in a loop over the weekends on Channel 76. Unfortunately, there has been virtually no publicity about the new schedule.

Is there still an Interim Cable Board? At a Town Board work session on July 1, 2003, it was announced that two members of the Interim Cable Board had resigned. When questioned at the meeting on October 22, 2003, Town Board members and the Town Clerk insisted there had been no resignations. However, there is no "active" cable board. At the Town Board meeting on July 16, 2003, four cable board members indicated they would be on hiatus awaiting direction from the Town Board. At that meeting, Supervisor Feiner responded that the cable board members would be advised of when the Town Board would discuss the issue at a future work session. To date, no work session has been scheduled to discuss the issue.

At its meeting on September 24, 2003, the Town Board continued a public hearing (initially opened on March 26, 2003) on a proposed amendment to redefine the term "resubdivision" in the Town’s subdivision regulations. Councilman Steve Bass mentioned that the Planning Board had unanimously recommended against adoption of the amendment as written. Several community members asked the Town Board to heed the advice of the Planning Board, noting that responsibility for subdivisions rests with the Planning Board and the Planning Board had discussed this amendment at length at numerous meetings. The Town Board voted to adjourn the public hearing to the next meeting and invite Planning Board members to attend. The meeting never took place and no date has been given for the continuation of the public hearing.

The proposed amendments appear to be an attempt to rescue the Town’s legal department from an awkward situation. The Town lost two lawsuits – representing both sides of the issue of whether resubdivision is necessary when tax lots are aggregated to form building lots. All appeals were exhausted on the first case. When a decision unfavorable to the Town was rendered on the second case on December 18, 2002, Town Attorney Susan Mancuso apparently recommended that the town appeal the case, but she has delayed "perfecting" the appeal for the last ten months.

The CGCA will discuss the merits of the proposed amendment regarding resubdivision before the public hearing on this issue is continued.

The proposed resubdivision amendment was discussed at the work session of the Town Board on September 30, 2003. Councilwoman Timmy Weinberg recommended adopting the amendment as written and told Councilman Steve Bass: "It makes sense – you have recused yourself on all the other things on this because of your contact with Tom [Abinanti] – that you should recuse yourself on this decision." Mr. Bass disagreed with Ms. Weinberg’s opinion but agreed the matter could be referred to the town’s Board of Ethics. Mr. Bass was told he would be permitted to weigh in on the issue before the Board of Ethics made a decision.

Town Attorney Susan Mancuso sent a letter asking the Board of Ethics to render an opinion. Before Mr. Bass had the opportunity to respond to the comments in her letter, the Board of Ethics rendered an opinion that Mr. Bass should recuse himself, based on the statements contained in her letter. Mr. Bass wrote to the Board of Ethics, asking the board to reconsider its decision and inquiring which provision of the Ethics Code requires recusal. The Chair of the Board of Ethics faxed a message to the Town Attorney stating without further explanation: "The Board [of Ethics] has unanimously affirmed its original opinion." Interestingly, Mr. Bass was not notified of this message until Ella Preiser brought it to his attention. [She had obtained the documents through a FOIL request filed on behalf of the CGCA.]

Mr. Bass is an employee of Westchester County and works with County Legislator Tom Abinanti. To prevent any appearance of impropriety, Mr. Bass correctly recused himself from hearing/deciding cases when Mr. Abinanti appeared before the Town Board representing clients seeking waivers from the moratorium law and when the Town Board discussed lawsuits Mr. Abinanti filed against the Town (and subsequently won). It should be noted that Planning Board Chair Fran McLaughlin is also a Westchester County employee and she recused herself when Mr. Abinanti represented a client before the Planning Board but not when the proposed resubdivision amendment was discussed. Councilwoman Weinberg is the liaison to the Planning Board and did not ask the Planning Board chair to recuse herself when the proposed amendment was discussed. A different standard was applied to Mr. Bass.

The Board of Ethics renders advisory opinions. Mr. Bass alone must decide whether to recuse himself from voting on the proposed resubdivision amendment to the Town Code. A number of community leaders intend to urge Mr. Bass to ignore the advisory opinion. The public elected him to vote on matters that come before the Town Board. He has no conflict of interest as that term is described in the Code of Ethics.

Meanwhile the Town Board should address whether it was ethical for the Town Attorney to write a one-sided letter to the Board of Ethics giving misleading, incorrect and incomplete information

On October 23, 2003, a few CGCA representatives joined a number of Edgemont residents at a special forum entitled "Greenburgh 101." The forum, sponsored by the Edgemont Community Council and several Edgemont civic groups, took place at Edgemont High School.

At the Town Board meeting on October 22, 2003, Supervisor Paul Feiner expressed his frustration that he was not invited to attend and speak at the forum. Bob Bernstein invited Mr. Feiner to attend. ECC President David Kreiness stated that he had given the Edgemont School District assurances that the program would be nonpartisan. Mr. Kreiness said Mr. Feiner could attend but should not participate in the forum or electioneer on school grounds. Mr. Feiner sat quietly in the back of the room at the forum.

The forum opened with a skit performed by community leaders Donna Vock and Chris Klerer that demonstrated how confusing it is for newcomers to understand they live in Greenburgh when their mailing address is Scarsdale and their school district is Edgemont. Mark Baron and Bob Bernstein then gave a slide presentation. They did a great job simplifying and explaining the complex issues of Greenburgh government. Most of the evening was spent explaining the differences between the Town Entire (all of Greenburgh including the six villages) and the Town Outside (unincorporated Greenburgh, excluding the six villages) regarding population, budgets and tax consequences.

Sam’s Club on Route 9A in North Elmsford wants to sell gasoline to club members. The Zoning Ordinance specifically prohibits a gasoline station in the Designed Shopping (DS) zoning district and the Building Inspector has denied a permit for the gasoline station. Sam’s Club has appealed the Building Inspector’s decision to the ZBA, claiming that the proposed "Fueling Station" is not a traditional gasoline service station but a lawful accessory use to the existing principal use of the property. The ZBA will hear the appeal at its meeting on November 20, 2003.

The decision rendered in this case will have ramifications that extend far beyond the borders of the Sam’s Club property or the DS zoning district. Most zoning districts in the Greenburgh Zoning Ordinance include the statement: "Other customary accessory uses incidental to the principal uses on the site." The Zoning Ordinance will be severely compromised if an applicant is able to rename a specifically prohibited principal use in a zoning district as a permitted "customary accessory use."

Broadview Civic Association President Robert Reninger has raised questions about whether the clinic that the Greenburgh Health Center proposes erecting on the former Cooke’s Florist property on Knollwood Road is a permitted use in the zoning district. In deciding whether to appeal to the ZBA the Building Inspector’s decision permitting the facility, Mr. Reninger has raised an ethical question. The Building Inspector and Fairview Fire Chief Robert Mauro, a member of the Board of the Greenburgh Health Center, both serve on the town’s Bureau of Fire Prevention. Building Inspector John Lucido asked the legal department for advice and Town Attorney Susan Mancuso has forwarded a letter to the Board of Ethics asking whether Mr. Lucido should recuse himself from involvement in the interpretation and approval process.

Carpet Store Runs Clever "NO TENT" Sale Ad. Dilmaghani carpet store (Central Avenue) had a quarter page "No Tent" sale ad in the Journal News on Sunday, October 12, 2003. The ad stated thousands of oriental and area rugs were available at rock bottom – lower than tent prices! – and asked the question "why pay for a tent?" At a public hearing in June of this year, when it became obvious that some Town Council members were agreeing with the overwhelming outcry from the public, Supervisor Feiner withdrew his recommendation for a Town Code amendment that would have permitted Mr. Dilmaghani to erect a 4,000 square foot tent on Central Avenue.

Why are Town Board meetings not listed in the free "Civic Calendar" of the Journal News? Hal Samis has raised this question repeatedly for over a year. At the "after meeting meeting" on September 24, 2003, Supervisor Paul Feiner promised he would take personal responsibility and have information about future Town Board meetings published. No listing appeared in the paper for the October 8, 2003 Town Board meeting, but Mr. Feiner announced that he had spoken with the person in charge at the newspaper that day. Mr. Feiner offered no explanation for why the October 22 meeting was not listed in the Civic Calendar. It is unfathomable why the Town Board can’t comply with this simple, reasonable request when the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals do so regularly.

CGCA Responds to Supervisor Feiner’s False Statements. At the CGCA meeting on September 16, 2003, a resolution was passed to send a letter to the editor of the Scarsdale Inquirer refuting some published false statements about the CGCA that Supervisor Feiner had made. A letter was prepared that responded to the false statements and outlined the CGCA’s purpose. The letter to the editor was published in the October 3, 2003 edition of the paper.