Thirty-nine civic groups have paid dues for the year 2003. See the minutes of the June 17, 2003 CGCA meeting for a listing of the CGCA membership.

On June 19, 2003, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) closed the public hearing and granted Fuzzy Garcia’s request for a variance to reduce the number of parking spaces required for a proposed restaurant from 24 to 17. At the public hearing the applicant agreed to limit seating to 20 seats, rather than the 25 seats originally proposed. The ZBA made it a condition of the variance approval that "the seating on the premises shall be limited to 20 seats."

The applicant must now return to the Planning Board to obtain a Special Permit to operate a restaurant at the Hartsdale site at 26 South Central Avenue. The Planning Board has rescheduled a Public Hearing on the Special Permit application for its meeting on August 6.

On June 19, 2003, the ZBA closed the public hearing and granted the Dunkin’ Donuts/Baskin Robbins request for a Special Permit to convert the vacant bank building to a quick service food establishment at the Greenburgh Shopping Center at 81 Knollwood Road. CGCA members who attended the ZBA meeting were pleased to learn that the shopping center owner agreed to improve the overall appearance of the center. In granting the approval, the ZBA included a condition requiring the applicant to plant, and maintain in a healthy condition, a row of 22 evergreen trees at least six feet high at planting.

The ZBA has assumed "Lead Agency" status under SEQRA and will be responsible for reviewing any environmental impacts associated with the Union Baptist Church application to construct a new sanctuary and an addition to the administration building on Manhattan Avenue. On June 19, 2003, the ZBA passed a resolution requesting that a traffic consultant and an environmental consultant be hired to review material previously supplied and to help formulate additional requests for information from the applicant. The church has requested more than a dozen variances from the ZBA. The church must also obtain site plan approval from the Town Board, which has agreed to sell adjacent town-owned land to the church to increase its expansion capability.

On June 19, 2003, the ZBA continued the public hearing on the LINENS-N-THINGS request for a variance for an illuminated wall sign with 42-inch high letters. Under existing laws, the store is entitled to a sign with 26.4-inch high letters. At the hearing, the attorney representing the applicant stated that the Building Inspector had issued a building permit that day for an alternate sign design. The attorney then presented to ZBA members copies of a drawing of the new design. The drawing depicted 52.8-inch high letters for the initial and final letters of the word "linens" and the word "things" and the "N" separating the two words, and 26.4-inch high letters for the remaining letters in the words. The attorney also submitted what he claimed was a copy of the building permit issued that day for the newly designed sign. (It is impossible to accurately duplicate the design of the new sign in these minutes, but the following should give readers an idea of the appearance of this new "approved" sign.)

LINENSNTHINGS

Several ZBA members expressed the view that the applicant was "playing games." The attorney and another representative for the store insisted the Town’s code permitted this design and the store might use the new design. The ZBA adjourned the hearing "For Decision Only" and at its next meeting on July 17, 2003, denied the store’s request for a sign variance.

Some CGCA members weighed the idea of appealing to the ZBA the Building Inspector’s decision to issue a permit for the newly designed sign. The sign law does permit larger "insignia or key letters in a name" on a sign. It is unclear how the L, S, N, T and S could be considered "key" letters in the store’s name. LINENS-N-THINGS is a registered trademark and all letters are shown in advertisements at a uniform height, except the separating letter "N" which is somewhat smaller. CGCA members also noted that what the applicant’s attorney presented to the ZBA on June 19, 2003 was not a permit for a sign issued that day. It was actually a verification a building permit had been issued on March 28, 2003, for exterior façade renovations for the entire shopping center. Interestingly, the sign company, in a letter to the building department dated July 2, 2003, requested that the building permit (for the façade changes) be nullified. While it might have been interesting to pursue an appeal in this case, CGCA members rejected the idea of an appeal to avoid more "games" regarding this application.

When the Hartsdale Center (HC) zoning district was created in September 2001, the two residential properties at 170 and 180 East Hartsdale Avenue were left in a commercial district. CGCA members have called this anomaly to the attention of the Town Board on numerous occasions over the past two years. The Town Board has finally decided to address the issue of residential zoning for these residential properties. At its meeting on June 25, 2003, the Town Board referred to the Planning Board for its review and recommendation a proposal to change the zoning classification and amend the Zoning Map for 170 and 180 East Hartsdale Avenue from HC to M-174 (a multifamily district).

The Planning Board discussed the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map at its July 23 meeting. Planning Board members commented that during discussions on the proposal to create a Hartsdale Center District in 2001, they noted that the multifamily residents should not be included in the HC district. At the meeting, Ella Preiser pointed out to Planning Board members that it was her belief that the Town Board did not rezone these residential properties to the HC zoning district in 2001 and that the properties remain in the Close Business (CB) zoning district. The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend that the zoning "be changed from its current designation to M-174."

At the meeting on June 17, 2003, CGCA members passed a resolution condemning the action taken by Supervisor Paul Feiner in suggesting that the Fortress Bible Church make a donation of a fire truck in exchange for favorable disposition of the church’s applications before the Town. The CGCA resolution, which called for the Town Board to publicly censure Supervisor Feiner, was read aloud by CGCA Chair Madelon O’Shea at the June 25 Town Board meeting. Mr. Feiner and the other members of the Town Board did not respond to the resolution.

The CGCA resolution was also sent to the local media. The Journal News ran a news article on July 2 about the CGCA resolution and the church’s lawsuit against the Town and an editorial on July 6 which noted the supervisor engaged in "horse-trading"… that "tiptoes over the line." The article and editorial generated several "letters to the editor." The Scarsdale Inquirer also ran an article about the CGCA resolution in its July 11, 2003 edition. In the Journal News article, Mr. Feiner claimed the CGCA was politically motivated and "involved in a political campaign." In the Scarsdale Inquirer article, Mr. Feiner said the CGCA "has become a partisan organization."

Something for CGCA members to think about! During even-numbered years, Mr. Feiner refers to the CGCA as a "persistent critic." However, during odd-numbered years when local elections are held, Mr. Feiner refers to the CGCA as "partisan" or "political."

The Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations (CGCA) is a politically non-partisan umbrella organization, established in 1955, with membership open to all bona fide non-political community, neighborhood, membership civic and taxpayers’ associations composed in whole or in part of residents of the unincorporated Town of Greenburgh. Representatives to the CGCA regularly attend town meetings, ask questions when allowed to speak and report their findings to the entire membership. The CGCA does not endorse political candidates.

The purpose of the CGCA is:

• to obtain and disseminate information concerning Town affairs that is of common interest to its member associations;

• to foster public interest in better government;

• to assist in maintaining good mutual understanding between citizens and Town officials;

• to promote public knowledge and the appreciation of public problems through non-partisan publicity and to alert public interest toward their solution;

• to study Town policies, planning, procedures, organization, staffing, finances and like matters;

• to cooperate with other local, county, state and national groups having similar purposes;

• to promote concerted and intelligent action on any matters affecting common interests of member associations;

• to encourage and assist in the formation of enlightened public opinion and increased general action in public affairs; and

• to foster cooperation and mutual assistance among member associations and to assist in the effective presentation of their views and those of the CGCA before governmental and private entities and the general public.

On June 2, 2003, a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request was filed on behalf of the CGCA to obtain a copy of correspondence Supervisor Feiner wrote to town staff telling them not to enforce provisions of Town laws. A copy of the memo was provided to Ella Preiser on July 2, 2003. The memo from Town Supervisor Paul J. Feiner, dated April 11, 2003, and addressed to Building Inspector John Lucido, Town Attorney Susan Mancuso and Commissioner of Planning Mark Stellato, reads:

I received a call from Ecco-La restaurant on East Hartsdale Avenue complaining that the Building Department issued a warning that they are in violation for displaying a sidewalk sign notifying patrons that they are open. I am sick and tired of the harassment that town officials are perpetrating on small businesses. I feel East Hartsdale Avenue is going to become a ghost street unless the town gives a little to allow businesses the freedom they need to operate successfully. I am calling for a moratorium on violations on East Hartsdale Avenue that inhibit the small businessman until legislation I am drafting is reviewed and decided.

Mr. Feiner stated at the Town Board meeting on May 28, 2003, that Building Inspector John Lucido said he must enforce the laws of the Town and could not comply with the Supervisor’s directive for a moratorium on enforcement. It should be pointed out that Mr. Feiner must take personal responsibility for any laws that harass small businesses on East Hartsdale Avenue since the laws regarding the Hartsdale Center (HC) zoning district were adopted by Mr. Feiner and the Town Board in September 2001. It is not known whether Mr. Feiner is currently involved in drafting new legislation. It is questionable whether any new laws would totally please Mr. Feiner. Following the Town Board meeting on July 16, 2003, Mr. Feiner stated regarding another matter (cable access TV): "I’m not the type of person who believes in all these written rules and regulations."

As previously reported, the Town Board adopted the "Comprehensive" Plan, "McMansion" legislation and a Zoning Ordinance amendment requiring density deductions for areas containing steep slopes and wetlands at the Town Board meeting on June 11, 2003. At the Town Board meeting on June 25, 2003, the Town Board adopted laws regarding steep slopes, wetlands and historic landmark preservation.

"Comprehensive" Plan. The "Comprehensive" Plan deals with only 29 parcels and is not truly a comprehensive plan. While the Town Board officially adopted the plan and an addendum to the plan, it should be noted that the Town has not given any indication whether it will follow through on the recommendations in the adopted plan to "upzone" and/or place a Conservation District overlay on certain properties. The owners of some properties recommended for "upzoning" have raised objections. It is also unclear whether the Town will pursue the idea of creating a Recreational District zoning overlay to place on the Town’s six golf courses. Unless the Town follows through on the plan’s recommendations, the usefulness of the limited "Comprehensive" plan will be further compromised.

"McMansion" Law. The newly adopted Floor Area Ratio amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will limit the size of houses that can be constructed. However, the Town Board should immediately amend the provision that permits a 11,500 square foot house to be erected only 8 feet or 25 feet (depending on the zoning district) from the property line. The Town Board ignored this recommendation prior to approval and opted to "fix" it later.

Historic Landmark Preservation Law. This law was adopted by a 4-0-1 vote of the Town Board. Supervisor Paul Feiner abstained because he wanted an "opt-out" provision included. Inclusion of such a provision would have made the Town ineligible for "Certified Local Government" status and certain grant money and could have compromised the integrity of the law and permitted the destruction of such structures as the slave quarters on Old Army Road. It is hoped that the Town will move quickly to appoint the Historic and Landmarks Preservation Board called for in the new law.

Steep Slopes Law. The Town should immediately seek to amend this new law. It is unclear why the Town rejected the recommendations made by community members and insisted upon passing this poorly worded law. The Town Board should provide explanations why

• the Town Engineer has been given the right to waive the requirement that an applicant must submit the name and address of the owner of the property who has requested a slope permit.

• landscape architects may certify plans but architects may not.

• trees/vegetation replanted on steep slopes must only be maintained for two years.

• applicants must consider buying other property before presenting a plan for a permit.

• persons who violate the steep slope law will be subject to imprisonment for six (6) months but persons who violate the wetlands/watercourses law will be subject to imprisonment for only fifteen (15) days.

These are only a few of the problems with the law. The law is filled with spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors. The author of this law does not seem to understand basic outlining – i.e., you can’t have an (A) without a (B) or a (1) without a (2) and definitions are not presented in alphabetical order.

Re-subdivision Definition. Although not officially recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, the Town has been seeking to create a new definition for the term "re-subdivision" and has adjourned the public hearing on this proposed amendment to the subdivision regulations to the Town Board meeting on August 20, 2003. At its work session on July 23, 2003, the Planning Board held a lengthy discussion on this subject, including input from Deputy Town Attorney Edward Lieberman and members of the community. The Planning Board intends to finalize its recommendations on this matter at its work session on August 6, 2003.

At the Town Board work session on July 29, 2003, Nicola Coddington, Greenburgh’s Energy Conservation Coordinator, urged the board members to accept a donation of three electric vehicles from Global Electric Motors, a DaimlerChrysler subsidiary. Ms. Coddington explained that the vehicles were reassigned from other municipalities. She commented that acceptance of the donation will result in energy (fuel) conservation and savings because the vehicles are powered by batteries that can be plugged into a standard outlet and recharged. She noted the vehicles look like open golf carts but the New York Power Authority has arranged for soft-sided doors to be installed. The Town must pay $749 a year per vehicle for a three-year service contract. DPW Commissioner Al Regula indicated that meter readers or parks employees might use the vehicles. The four members of the Town Board present at the meeting passed a resolution to accept the donation.

At the Town Board work session on July 1, 2003, Town Comptroller Norah McAvoy announced that she had just returned from a meeting which included a discussion about hiring "Acting Justices" to help the Greenburgh Town Court deal with a backlog of tickets. A stipend of $250 per half calendar day in court was suggested. Ms. McAvoy mentioned the resultant revenues from fines would more than cover the cost of the stipends. The town will continue to investigate this option. It was noted that Town Justice Doris Friedman is working a fourth day on Wednesdays, without pay, to help clear the backlog.

Meetings and court appearances continue regarding efforts to remediate the damage to the buffer at 65 Westchester View Lane caused in November 2002 when the homeowners permitted removal of numerous tress and other vegetation in violation of Planning Board resolutions requiring that the buffer remain in its natural state. On June 18, 2003, the Planning Board met in executive session with Town Prosecutor Tim Lewis and a landscape architect hired by the Town to discuss a remediation plan. In the most recent court appearance on July 31, 2003, Mr. Lewis and the attorney for the homeowner met with Town Justice Sandra Forster in chambers and there was apparent agreement that the homeowner will pay $13,000 toward new landscaping, $1,000 to re-stake the buffer boundary and a $1,000 fine. The homeowner has objected to paying the consulting fees (currently $10,000) that the Town has incurred for an arborist to assess the damage and a landscape architect to prepare a remediation plan. The next court appearance has been scheduled for August 28 at 9:30 a.m.

On June 25, 2003, Paul Feiner sent a "Supervisor’s Report" to persons on his email list about an advisory opinion that was issued by the Committee on Open Government. According to Mr. Feiner, the opinion stated: "It is not unusual for a public body to place a limit on the amount of time that it permits individuals to speak or the period during which it will authorize the public to speak. A limitation of 3 minutes per person is quite typical." Mr. Feiner frequently professes he stands for "Open Government" and obviously sent this message in an effort to justify his decision to limit the "Open Meeting" portion of Town Board meetings to thirty (30) minutes and to limit individual speakers to three minutes. A few questions need answers.

1. Why did Mr. Feiner neglect to include part of a sentence in the Committee’s opinion? The complete sentence in the opinion reads: "In my experience, a limitation of three minutes per person is quite typical, and a public participation period of an hour is more than many public bodies authorize." [Emphasis added.] Did Mr. Feiner not want community residents to know that some municipal boards allocate more time than Greenburgh does to hear from constituents?

2. Why did Mr. Feiner neglect to include another sentence from the Committee’s opinion? One sentence reads: "When a public body does permit the public to speak or otherwise authorize public participation, I believe that it should do so based upon rules that treat members of the public equally." Why does Mr. Feiner separate some topics from the "Open Discussion/Public Comment" portion of the meeting and allow some speakers more than three minutes?

3. Why did Mr. Feiner choose to cite this particular Committee on Open Government advisory opinion? Mr. Feiner should have known this advisory opinion, dated October 28, 1999, concerned rules adopted by the City of Peekskill Common Council. Those rules led to the arrest and removal in handcuffs of a librarian who did not confine her comments to agenda items during a Peekskill Council meeting. Does Mr. Feiner believe Peekskill’s rules are worthy of adoption by Greenburgh?

At the Town Board meeting held at Babbitt Court on July 16, 2003, representatives from the State Emergency Management Office (SEMO) responded to questions about the Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had approved to elevate 16 homes in the Babbitt Court area. The grant promised to provide 75% of the costs of design plans and actual elevation of the homes. It appears that the contract between the Town and SEMO was not approved on time. Residents have not been reimbursed in a timely fashion for expenditures for engineering studies and design plans. Delays in obtaining approvals also appear to jeopardize completing the actual elevations of homes within the prescribed timeframe. The SEMO representative assured residents they will be reimbursed for plans and indicated he will support extension of the timeframe. Supervisor Feiner stated he would give priority to this matter and will contact state and federal officials. He promised this issue would be discussed at the Town Board work session on Tuesday, August 19, 2003, at 3:30 p.m.

As reported at the CGCA meeting on June 17, 2003, Bob Bernstein, President of the Greenridge Association, filed an Article 78 lawsuit on behalf of the Edgemont Community Council because the Town would not provide certain information regarding how the tax consequences were figured for paying the negligence lawsuit and purchasing the Taxter Ridge property for open space. On July 10, 2002, Mr. Bernstein filed a second Article 78 lawsuit against the Town, questioning the Town’s policy of taxing only unincorporated Greenburgh property owners for purchasing/maintaining parkland (Hart’s Brook, Glenville Woods, as well as the proposed purchase of Taxter Ridge) that is accessible to all residents, including those who live in Greenburgh’s six incorporated villages. Mr. Bernstein argues that exempting the villages from paying their fair share for the recently purchased parks violates New York State Town Law and results in overcharging taxpayers in the unincorporated area of Greenburgh.

Danny Gold who has spearheaded the effort to save the 200-acre Taxter Ridge property as open space wants everyone to be aware that saving this property from development will benefit all residents. In a July 18, 2003 article in the Scarsdale Inquirer, Mr. Gold stressed the importance of acquiring the property and re-emphasized the accuracy of the cost to finance the purchase – the average homeowner in unincorporated Greenburgh, with property assessed at $15,000, would pay between $8.73 and $15.00 per year over the life of the bond. Mr. Gold has expressed his belief that it would be a tragedy for all if the lawsuits filed by Mr. Bernstein result in jeopardizing the purchase of Taxter Ridge.

On a related matter, at the Town Board work session on July 29, 2003, Tax Assessor Gerry Iagallo urged the Town Board to settle a tax certiorari/tax grievance case with the Unification Church. Mr. Iagallo explained that if the exemption claims had gone through a full trial process it was his (and the town’s attorneys’ and the school district’s) belief that the courts would have awarded exemptions to the church. The Town Board did adopt a resolution to settle the case. The approved settlement calls for the church to convey to the Town approximately 16 acres of land along Taxter Road for the sum of one dollar ($1). The resolution also states that between 2004 and 2008, the church will make voluntary payments of $245,700 to Greenburgh and approximately $1.5 million to the Irvington School District. In addition, the resolution classifies as exempt or calls for a reduction in the assessed value of several parcels in the Village of Tarrytown and a reapportionment and exempt classification for a Village of Irvington parcel. The resolution does not indicate whether the Tarrytown School District and the villages of Irvington and Tarrytown were parties to the settlement.

On March 12, 2003, when the Town Board appointed a seven-member "Interim" board to oversee public access cable TV, the new board never received an official name. From the start, the board members were never advised whether the new "interim" board was a decision-making board or merely an "advisory" board, with access to Greenburgh’s cable stations still firmly controlled by the Town Board.

At the Town Board work session on July 1, 2003, it was announced that two members of the cable board – Antonio Correia and Jeff Grant – had resigned. At the Town Board meeting on July 16, 2003, Supervisor Feiner stated there were no resignations. At the meeting, four members of the Interim Board spoke. Mr. Correia, who has spent 25 years in media, expressed his frustration, noting that Greenburgh Access Television was not very good ("a motherless/fatherless child") and that the interim board didn’t have a mission statement. Cable Board member Wyn Walshe noted how frustrating it had been for all members and that some of the villages were doing a better job than Greenburgh. Cable Board member Alan Hochberg noted that he tried to bring people together and his suggestions had produced lively discussion, but lines were harsh and people were very depressed. Cable Board Chair Del Hillgartner questioned the point of continuing as a board, said it was time for a break, and urged the Town Board to put "its cards on the table" and announce whether it was prepared to yield control to an independent cable board. 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.

On a related matter, at the Town Board meeting on July 16, 2003, the Town Board held a public hearing to consider renewal of the Town’s franchise agreement with Cablevision. Some community residents stated their displeasure with Cablevision’s monopoly status, poor service and pricing. Hal Samis and Francis Sheehan suggested that Cablevision take over training of Town residents. Mr. Sheehan urged that Cablevision provide equipment rather than giving money toward an equipment fund since the Town has been using capital equipment funds from Cablevision for non-capital cable access expenses, such as rent and construction for the Comptroller’s office. The hearing will be continued in the fall.

Following the Town Board meeting on July 16, 2003, Supervisor Feiner and Councilwoman Eddie Mae Barnes stayed to discuss matters with residents. New resident Richard Garfunkel joined James Lasser, Hal Samis and Francis Sheehan for the discussion, which focused on Greenburgh’s cable television. Mr. Garfunkel expressed his belief that too much time was wasted discussing cable television, that some people were being petty and had a personal vendetta and that people should get "Dish" TV.

Mr. Feiner insisted that everyone who wants a cable program can have one, that he is opposed to censorship and that he has not interfered with cable since creating the interim board. Hal Samis pointed out a number of issues that Mr. Feiner had control of – renting a cable studio, charging additional funds to the cable budget for a larger than necessary studio and using cable capital equipment funds to pay for alterations to accommodate the Comptroller’s office. When Mr. Samis asked why Mr. Feiner had not appointed Francis Sheehan, the CGCA’s recommendation, to the interim cable board, Mr. Feiner replied that the CGCA was a partisan group. He would not respond to questions of why he felt the CGCA was partisan. In response to a question about use of the Town’s cable equipment, Mr. Feiner assured Mr. Sheehan that he could use the equipment. Cable Coordinator George Malone interjected and said that community members could have access to the $300 camcorders but not the more expensive equipment.

Mr. Feiner made it clear he wants to maintain control of the cable budget and would not support giving the cable board the independence it claims is needed. He urged participants at the meeting to forget about the cable board for the next three months and give him a list of six or seven issues that he could address in little "bite-size" fashion over the next three months. More delays.

The Mount Pleasant Planning Board has voted 4 to 3 to prepare a resolution rejecting plans for a 113,540 square foot Home Depot store on Route 9A in the town of Mount Pleasant near the Greenburgh border. If the board votes to deny the proposed application, it will be the third rejection. In December 1999 the Mount Pleasant Planning Board rejected the original proposal for a 132,000 square foot store. Home Depot sued and won in court. The Mount Pleasant Planning Board successfully appealed the lower court decision. Home Depot then appealed but the Court of Appeals refused to hear the case so the Appellate Division ruling stands. Home Depot previously also proposed a 116,000 square foot store which was rejected by the Mount Pleasant Planning Board in March 2002.