The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994_07_20 Town Board Regular Minutes TOWN OF MAMARONECK TOWN BOARD AGENDA REGULAR MEETING- Wednesday, July 20, 1994 -Town Center, Court Room- 8:15 PM THE TOWN BOARD WILL CONVENE AT 7:00 PM into an Executive Session to discuss personnel. CONVENE REGULAR MEETING RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ADJOURN EXECUTIVE SESSION RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ATTENTION-Location of Exits PUBLIC HEARINGS - Proposed Recreation Zone and Zoning Map Changes - Proposed Moratorium on the Erection of Cellular Antennas ORAL COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS REPORTS OF THE SUPERVISOR REPORTS OF THE COUNCIL BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS 1. Fire Claims 2. Report of Bids—Elevator Contract—Weaver Street Firehouse 3. Other Business AFFAIRS OF THE TOWN 1. Appointments 2. Set Public Hearing - Parking of Emergency Vehicles - Alden Road/Harmony Drive 3. Bond Resolution—GEIS Country Club Properties 4. Authorization—Transfer of Funds—Capital Projects 5. Authorization—Extension—Housing Implementation Fund Agreement Westchester County 6. Report of Bids—Sidewalk/Curb Replacement 7. Adoption—Sexual Harassment Policy 8. Authorization—Agreement between Town of Mamaroneck and SRN 9. Salary Authorization - Conservation - Recreation Next regularly scheduled meetings -August 17, 1994 - September 7, 1994 July 20, 1994 TOWN OF MAMARONECK TOWN BOARD AGENDA July 20. 1994 REGULAR MEETING -Wednesday,July 20, 1994-Town Center, Court Room -8:15 PM THE TOWN BOARD WILL CONVENE at 7:00 PM into an Executive Session to discuss personnel. CONVENE REGULAR MEETING RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ATTENTION -Location of Exits PUBLIC HEARINGS -Proposed Recreation Zone and Zoning Map Changes -Proposed Moratorium on the Erection of Cellular Antennas ORAL COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS SUPERVISORS REPORTS REPORTS OF COUNCIL BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS 1. Fire Claims 2. Report of Bids: Elevator Contract-Weaver Street Firehouse 3. Other Business AFFAIRS OF THE TOWN 1. Appointments 2. Set Public Hearing -Parking of Emergency Vehicle-Alden Rd./Harmony Dr. 3. Bond Resolution -GEIS Country Club Properties 4. - Authorization -Transfer of Funds -Capital Projects 5. Authorization -Extension -Housing Implementation Fund Agreement Westchester County 6. Report of Bids -Sidewalk/Curb Replacement 7. Adoption -Sexual Harassment Policy 8. Authorization -Agreement between Town of Mamaroneck and SRN 9. Salary Authorization -Conservation -Recreation Next regularly scheduled meetings-August 17, 1994 -September 7, 1994 C AM SOffice1Wi nword%new194194Now107-94107-20-94.last.doc K:1Print194Printed107-20-94.pri nted.doc C:1WI N DOWS\Desktop%Pri nted 107-20-94.pri nted.doc 18 REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN BOARD AND THE BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 1994 AT 8:15 PM IN THE COURT ROOM OF THE TOWN CENTER, 740 W. BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NY PRESENT: Supervisor: Elaine Price Councilwoman: Kathleen Tracy O'Flinn Councilman Paul A. Ryan Councilwoman Valerie M. O'Keeffe Councilman: Barry Weprin Also Present: Patricia DiCioccio, Town Clerk Stephen V. Altieri, Town Administrator Steven M. Silverberg, Town Attorney CONVENE EXECUTIVE SESSION Executive Session of the Town Board was duly opened at 7:00 PM in Conference Room A of the Town Center. The purpose of the Executive Session was to discuss Personnel. The Board adjourned at 8:15 PM. to the Court Room. CONVENE REGULAR MEETING The Regular meeting of the Town Board was called to order by Supervisor Price at 8:20 PM. CALL TO ATTENTION Supervisor Price pointed out to those assembled the locations of exits as required by law for public gatherings. PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed Recreation Zone and Zoning Map Changes NOTE: PUBLIC STENOGRAPHERS MINUTES ATTACHED (In Separate Binder) All Officially filed letters and statements are also attached. The Notice of Public Hearing was entered into the record by the Town Clerk. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that a Public Hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck on July 20, 1994 at 8:15 PM or as soon thereafter as is possible in the Court Room of the Town Center, 740 W. Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck, New York, to consider adoption of a local law entitled "Recreation Zone" which will amend the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck by creating a new zoning district designated as the Recreation (R) District and amending the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Map by designating the following properties as being in the new Recreation (R) District: (1)the Bonnie Briar Country Club located on Weaver Street and designated on the Tax assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 201 Lot 19, Block 224 Lot 1000 and Block 225 Lot 1 and (2)the Winged Foot Country Club located at 851 Fenimore Road and designated on the Tax assessment map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 344 Lot 99 and Block 347 Lot 1. The full text of the amendment follows: July 20, 1994 RECREATION ZONE 1. Purpose: The Town Board recognizes that open space and recreational facilities within the Town of Mamaroneck are a rapidly diminishing resource of the community. Such open space and facilities are necessary in order to maintain the character of the Town of Mamaroneck as a suburban community and to reduce the adverse effects of over-building. In addition, the last remaining large areas of open space within the Town of Mamaroneck are located in areas of the Town where excessive construction could have severe, adverse impacts upon downstream properties as a result of storm water runoff. These open spaces are of sufficient significance so as to be listed on a County-wide inventory of open space. The Town of Mamaroneck, through its Local Waterfront Revitalization Program has recognized the significant interrelationship of development in a haphazard and unplanned manner and adverse environmental consequences for surrounding properties, particularly when those properties are located in watershed areas. The areas in question have been designated as Critical Environmental Areas by the Town's own local environmental laws and the Town's Master Plan has recognized the importance of protecting these areas. The purpose of this local law is to insure the maintenance of important open space and recreational resources within the Town, reduce the potential for substantial flood hazard and maintain the suburban quality of the community as a whole. 2. Section 89-4 of the Zoning Ordinance entitled "Districts Establishment" shall be amended by adding the following district: Recreation (R) 3. 89-5 is amended to reflect the changes set forth on the Zoning Map of the Town of Mamaroneck which are annexed hereto. 4. Add new 89-20.1 - Recreation (R) District A. Principal Uses: B. Special Permit uses: C. Accessory Uses (when located on the same lot with the principal uses to which they are accessory). D. Special Requirements: 5. Add 89-35.1 Recreation (R) District. A. Lot Requirements B. Yards, Courts, and Open Space D. Maximum Height E. Off street. Minimum number of off-street parking spaces; as required by sections 89- 63 through 89-66. F. Minimum off-street loading spaces: see section 89-70. G. All permitted storage shall be entirely within a building except for parking and loading vehicles. H. All lighting shall be located and shaded in a manner so that the light source itself is not visible beyond the boundaries of the lot on which it is located. 6. Add to 89-66 A. Type of use Minimum requirements 7. Severability -Should any provision of this local law be declared unconstitutional or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration of unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect any other provisions of this local law which may be implemented without the invalid or unconstitutional provision. The full text of this Local Law and the proposed revisions to the Zoning Map may be examined and copies obtained at the Town Clerk's Office, during regular business hours 2 July 20, 1994 (Monday through Friday, 8:30 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. or until 4:00 P.M. during July and August) at 740 West Boston Post Road Mamaroneck, New York. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that at said Public Hearing, all persons interested will be given an opportunity to be heard and that all persons are invited to submit written comments prior thereto. BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK Published: June 20, 1994 Patricia A. DiCioccio Town Clerk On motion of Councilwoman O'Keeffe, seconded by Councilwoman O'Flinn, the Public Hearing was unanimously declared closed. On motion of Councilwoman O'Keeffe, seconded by Councilman Ryan, it was unanimously: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck does hereby adopt the following Local Law: LOCAL LAW NO. 8-1994 "RECREATION ZONE 1. Purpose: The Town Board recognizes that open space and recreational facilities within the Town of Mamaroneck are a rapidly diminishing resource of the community. Such open space and facilities are necessary in order to maintain the character of the Town of Mamaroneck as a suburban community and to reduce the adverse effects of over-building. In addition, the last remaining large areas of open space within the Town of Mamaroneck are located in areas of the Town where excessive construction could have severe, adverse impacts upon downstream properties as a result of storm water runoff. These open spaces are of sufficient significance so as to be listed on a County-wide inventory of open space. The Town of Mamaroneck, through its Local Waterfront Revitalization Program has recognized the significant interrelationship of development in a haphazard and unplanned manner and adverse environmental consequences for surrounding properties, particularly when those properties are located in watershed areas. The areas in question have been designated as Critical Environmental Areas by the Town's own local environmental laws and the Town's Master Plan has recognized the importance of protecting these areas. The purpose of this local law is to insure the maintenance of important open space and recreational resources within the Town, reduce the potential for substantial flood hazard and maintain the suburban quality of the community as a whole. 2. Section 89-4 of the Zoning Ordinance entitled "Districts Establishment" shall be amended by adding the following district: Recreation (R) 3. §89-5 is amended to reflect the changes set forth on the Zoning Map of the Town of Mamaroneck which are annexed hereto. 4. Add new§89-20.1 - Recreation (R) District A. Principal Uses: 1. Private recreation facilities, including golf, tennis, and/or swimming clubs; along with clubhouses with accessory restaurants and catering facilities, used in conjunction with a recreational facility. 3 July 20, 1994 2. Other uses similar to those listed in the preceding paragraph, provided the Planning Board makes specific findings that the use is in full conformity with the purposes and intent of this zone district, all general and special requirements of the district and that the use has no greater impact upon open space, traffic, and drainage than any of the specifically enumerated uses. B. Special Permit Uses: 1. Public playground or park, including golf, tennis, and/or swimming clubs. This provision shall apply to the Town in addition to any other municipal government or authority. 2. a. Special Permits shall be issued by the Planning Board provided there is a finding that all general and special conditions are met. b. The Planning Board shall require that no special permit is issued until a traffic study is conducted which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Board that the proposed use shall not adversely impact upon traffic in the surrounding area, to a greater degree than any other Principal Use permitted in the zone. C. Accessory Uses (when located on the same lot with the principal uses to which they are accessory). 1. Off street parking in accordance with §§89-63 through 89-66. 2. Cabanas, lockers, snack bars, and/or pro shops. 3. Maintenance sheds and/or garages. 4. Signs as provided in Article XIV of the Building Code. 5. Playing fields and courts for baseball, volleyball, basketball and similar sports. 6. Playgrounds and picnic areas. 7. No more than one residence for caretakers and staff of a recreational facility consisting of no more than ten (i0) sleeping rooms or three (3) dwelling units. 8. Cross country skiing, sledding, ice skating and similar winter sports, however, winter sports using mechanized or motorized equipment is prohibited. 9. Child care facility limited to children of members or quests of the recreational facility, and used only while the members or quests are using the recreational facilities. D. Special Requirements: 1. The Planning Board shall review the design of all site plans of properties located in this district: a. So as to preserve to the maximum extent possible wetlands, wetland control areas, flood hazard areas, designated Critical Environmental Areas, and other unique natural features, including but not limited to the highest crest of hills, natural rock outcroppings, and major tree belts; b. To insure that no construction takes place on areas which have slopes greater than 25 percent prior to any disturbance of the natural contours of the property or on wetland control areas. A slope shall 4 July 20, 1994 be computed by taking a percentage in which the vertical distance is the numerator and the horizontal distance is the denominator calculated by measuring the vertical rise using two foot contours, in a thirty foot horizontal length; c. To minimize cut and fill, roads should follow natural topography wherever possible. 2. There shall be maintained a minimum of twenty(20) percent of the area of a parcel as a permanent open space. For the purposes of this section, permanent open space shall be an area exclusive of fairways, tees, greens or other areas of active recreational use, which shall be kept undisturbed and in its natural state, including areas designated as wetlands. 5. Add §89-35.1 Recreation (R) District. A. Lot Requirements 1. Minimum lot area 50 acres. 2. Minimum lot width and length of street line frontage 300 feet. Minimum lot depth 500 feet. 3. Perimeter buffer area around the entire perimeter of the property, in which no court, pool, field, green, fairway, tee or structure may be placed, of no less than 40 feet in width. The Planning Board shall approve appropriate screening within the buffer are 5 so as to minimize visual, sound and other impacts on adjacent property. B. Yards, Courts, and Open Space 1. Minimum front yard 150 feet. On a corner lot a front yard should be provided on each street (see —89-44F) . No parking may be placed in any required front yard. 2. Minimum side yard, 75 feet for each side yard. Minimum rear yard 100 feet. 3. Principal and accessory uses are not permitted in required front yards. 4. Accessory uses require a minimum forty (40) foot rear yard and forty (40) foot minimum for each side yard. C. Coverage 1. No principal buildings or combination of principal buildings on the site shall have a coverage which exceeds 1 percent of the total area of the lot. 2. The total of all buildings shall not exceed an area of 1.25 percent of the total lot area. D. Maximum Height 1. In stories, 2 stories; in feet, 35 feet. E. Off street. Minimum number of off-street parking spaces; as required by sections 89-63 through 89-66. F. Minimum off-street loading spaces: see section 89-70. G. Ail permitted storage shall be entirely within a building except for parking and loading vehicles. H. Ail lighting shall be located and shaded in a manner so that the light source itself is not visible beyond the boundaries of the lot on which it is located. 5 July 20, 1994 6. Add to §89-66 A. Type of use Minimum requirements Private Golf Courses two (2) parking spaces for each acre of land contained in the course Public golf courses 2.5 spaces for each acre of land contained in the course Public multiple use 2.5 spaces per acre on a recreational facilities course; one (1) space for every three (3) bathers in a swimming pool Tennis public or three (3) spaces per court private Private swimming one (1) space for each three pools (3) bathers Soccer, football and ten (10) spaces for each field baseball fields plus one (1) space for every five (5) spectator seats 7. Severability- Should any provision of this local law be declared unconstitutional or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration of unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect any other provisions of this local law which may be implemented without the invalid or unconstitutional provision. PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed Moratorium on the erection of Cellular Antennas NOTE: PUBLIC STENOGRAPHERS MINUTES ATTACHED All Officially filed letters and statements are also attached. The Notice of Public Hearing was entered into the record by the Town Clerk. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that a Public Hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck, on July 20, 1994, at 8:15 P.M. or as soon thereafter as is possible, in the Court Room of the Town Center, 740 West Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck, New York, to consider adoption of the following Local Law. A Local Law entitled Moratorium on Erection of Cellular Telephone Antennas The purpose of this local law is to set a 90-day moratorium on the erection of cellular telephone antennas in order to give the Town Board an opportunity to review existing regulations with regard to the placement of such antennas in the Town of Mamaroneck and determine whether or not it is appropriate to amend zoning regulations with respect to the location of such antennas. 6 • July 20, 1994 PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that at said Public Hearing, all persons interested will be given an opportunity to be heard and that all persons are invited to submit written comments prior thereto. BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK Patricia A. DiCioccio Town Clerk Published: July 10, 1994 On motion of Councilwoman O'Keeffe, seconded by Councilman Ryan, the Public Hearing was unanimously declared adjourned to August 17, 1994. BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Price at 12:11 am in the Court Room. Present were the following members of the Commission: Commissioner: Elaine Price Commissioner: Kathleen Tracy O'Flinn Commissioner: Paul A. Ryan Commissioner: Valerie M. O'Keeffe Commissioner: Barry Weprin 1. Fire Claims: Commissioner Weprin presented fire claims for authorization of payment, with one amendment for five dollars to Fraioli Moving, thereafter on his motion, seconded by Commissioner Ryan, it was unanimously: RESOLVED, that this Commission hereby authorizes payment of the following Fire Department claims as approved by the Fire Chief and audited by the Comptroller's Office: Operating Fund The State Insurance Fund $ 5,040.00 Capital Project Fund Brewers $ 122.46 Bennett Kielson Storch & Co. 500.00 Enviroscience, Inc. 1,597.75 Fraioli & Quigley Moving Inc. 772.50 JP McHale Termite Service 85.00 Gannett Suburban Newspapers 300.96 Gromor Associates 1,092.42 NYNEX 144.02 $ 4,615.11 Grand Total $ 9,660.11 7 July 20, 1994 2. Report of Bids: Elevator Contract-Weaver Street Firehouse Contract TA-94-3 The Administrator explained that the bids for the Elevator at the firehouse had been opened on June 22, and that the contractor chosen would furnish, deliver and install the elevator system for the Weaver Street Firehouse Project. He said that it would take about sixteen weeks for the elevator to be manufactured and delivered to the firehouse, and added that the cost of the elevator was being funded by a Community Development Block Grant of$50,000, which was given to assist us to be in compliance with the ADA. The following bids were received: Contractor Bid Dover Elevator Elmsford, NY $49.765.00 Otis Elevator Pelham, NY 51,800.00 Montgomery Elevator Elmsford, NY 54,900.00 Mr. Altieri recommended that the contract be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder that met the Town's bid specification, which was Dover Elevator, and noted that the bids had been reviewed by the construction manager and the Firehouse Building Committee. On motion of Commissioner Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Weprin, it was unanimously, RESOLVED, that this Commission hereby authorizes that the Elevator Contract (TA-94-3) be awarded to Dover Elevator, Elmsford, NY in the amount of$49,765.00, as recommended by the Town Administrator. There being no further business to come before the Fire Commissioners, they unanimously adjourned. AFFAIRS OF THE TOWN 1. Appointments -Watershed Advisory Committee Supervisor Price stated that she had requested Phyllis Wittner to assist in finding people who would be interested in serving on The Watershed Advisory Committee (WAC)that was being formed by the County and that before us tonight are the names of those people that are volunteering to serve on the Committee. After thanking Phyllis for her diligence, on motion of Councilwoman O'Flinn, seconded by Councilman Ryan, it was unanimously, RESOLVED, that the following are appointed as members of the Watershed Advisory Committee: Phyllis Wittner, 6 Pheasant Run Frank McGahan, 8 Brook Place 8 July 20, 1994 Richard Metzer, 36 Pinebrook Drive Nancy Sterbenz, 340 Orchard Road Jack Taylor, 90 Crystal Run Road. 2. Set Public Hearing - Parking of Emergency Vehicle The Town Administrator said that one of the Deputy Fire Chiefs had moved into an apartment building and had requested that a parking space be designated as "Parking of Emergency Fire Vehicle Only." The Board members questioned the location, which was explained would be located on Harmony Drive. On motion of Councilwoman O'Keeffe, seconded by Councilwoman O'Flinn, it was unanimously, RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby set the date for the Public Hearing for August 17, 1994 at 8:15 PM on the designation of Parking of Emergency Fire Vehicle, said location of the parking to be on Harmony Drive at the southeast corner of the intersection of Alden Road and Harmony Drive approximately fifty feet from the corner of the intersection. BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is authorized to publish in an official newspaper of the Town, a notice of Public Hearing on the parking designation. 3. Bond Resolution - GEIS Country Club Properties The Administrator remarked that this item was for the actual execution of the Bonding for the additional Environmental Impact Statement that had been previously voted and approved. After a brief discussion, on motion of Councilwoman O'Keeffe, seconded by Councilman Ryan, the following was authorized. BOND RESOLUTION DATED JULY 20, 1994. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF S250,000 SERIAL BONDS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK, TO PAY COSTS RELATING TO THE PREPARATION OF A GENERIC ENVIRONMENT IMPACT STATEMENT(PHASE II) CONCERNING COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTIES PLANNED IN AND FOR SAID TOWN. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck, Westchester County, New York, as follows: Section 1. For the specific object or purpose of paying costs relating to the preparation of a generic environment impact statement (Phase II) concerning country club properties planned in and for the Town of Mamaroneck, Westchester County, New York, there are hereby authorized to be issued $250,000 serial bonds of said Town pursuant to the provisions of the Local Finance Law. 9 July 20, 1994 Section 2. It is hereby determined that the maximum estimated cost of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is $250,000 and that the plan for the financing thereof shall consist of the issuance of the $250,000 serial bonds of said Town authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. Section 3. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is five years, pursuant to subdivision 62(2nd) of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law. It is hereby further determined that the maximum maturity of the serial bonds herein authorized will not exceed five years. Section 4. Subject to the provisions of the Local Finance Law, the power to authorize the issuance of and to sell bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance and sale of the serial bonds herein authorized, including renewals of such monies, is hereby delegated to the Supervisor, the chief fiscal officer. Such notes shall be of such terms, form and contents, and shall be sold in such manner, as may be prescribed by said Supervisor, consistent with the provisions of the Local Finance Law. Section 5. The faith and credit of said Town of Mamaroneck, Westchester County, New York, are hereby irrevocably pledged to the paymann of the principal of and interest on suck obligations as the same respectively become due and payable. An annual appropriauion shall be made in each year sufficient to pay the principal of and inuerest on such obligations becoming due and payable in such year. There shall annually be levied on all the taxable real property in said Town a tax sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on such obligauions as the same become due and payable. Section 6. Such bonds shall be in fully registered form and shall be signed in the name of the Town of Mamaroneck, Westchester County, New York, by the manual or facsimile signature of the Supervisor and a facsimile of its corporate seal shall be imprinted or impressed thereon and attested by the manual or facsimile signature of the Town Clerk. Section 7. The powers and duties of advertising such bonds for sale, conducting the sale and awarding the bonds, are hereby delegated to the Supervisor, who shall advertise such bonds for sale, conduct the sale, and award the bonds in such manner as he shall deem best for the interests of the Town; provided, however, that in the exercise of these delegated powers, he shall comply fully with the provisions of the Local Finance Law and any order or rule of the State Comptroller 10 July 20, 1994 applicable to the sale of municipal bonds. The receipt of the Supervisor shall be a full acquittance to the purchaser of such bonds, who shall not be obliged to see to the application of the purchase money. • Section 8. All other matters, except as,provided herein relating to such bonds, including prescribing whether manual or facsimile signatures shall appear on said bonds, prescribing the method for the recording of ownership of said bonds, appointing the fiscal agent or agents for said bonds, providing for the printing and delivery of said bonds (and if said bonds are to be executed in the name cf the Town by the facsimile signature of its Supervisor, providing for the manual countersignature of a fiscal agent or of a designated official of the Town), the date, denominations, maturities and interest payment dates, place or places of payment, and also including the consolidation with other issues, shall be determined by the Supervisor. It is hereby determined that it is to the financial advantage of the Town not to impose and collect from registered owners of such serial bonds any charges for mailing, shipping and insuring bonds transferred or exchanged by the fiscal agent, and, accordingly, pursuant to paragraph c of Section 70.00 of the Local Finance Law, no such charges shall be so collected by the fiscal agent. Such bonds shall contain substantially the recital of validity clause provided for in section 52.00 of%he Local Finance Law and shall otherwise be in such form and contain such recitals in addition to those required by section 52.00 of the Local Finance Law, as the Supervisor shall determine. Section 9. This resolution shall constitute a statement of official intent for purposes of Treasury Regulations Sections 1.150 -2. Other than as specified in this resolution, no monies are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside with respect to the permanent funding of the object or purpose described herein. Section 10. The validity of such bonds and bond anticipation notes may be contested only if: 1) Such obligations are authorized for an object or purpose for which said Town is not authorized to expend money, or 2) The provisions of law which should be complied with at the date of publication of this resolution are not substantially complied with, and an action, suit or proceeding contesting such validity is commenced within twenty days after the date of such publication, or 3) Such obligations are authorized in violation of the provisions of the Constitution. 11 July 20, 1994 Section 11. This resolution, which takes effect immediately, shall be published in full in , the official newspaper, together with a notice of the Town Clerk in substantially the form provided in Section 81.00 of the Local Finance Law. The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote on roll call which resulted as follows: Councilman Weprin VOTING AYE Councilwoman O'Keeffe VOTING AYE Councilman Ryan VOTING AYE Councilwoman O'Flinn VOTING AYE Supervisor Price VOTING AYE The order was thereupon declared duly adopted. 4. Authorization -Transfer of Funds - Capital Projects It was explained by the Town Administrator that as approved by an appropriation in the 1994 Town Budget, four vehicles would be purchased under New York State contract, and in so doing it would be necessary for the Town Board to authorize a transfer of$60,000 from the General Fund - Part Town to the Capital Project Fund. On motion of Councilman Weprin, seconded by Councilman Ryan, it was unanimously, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes the Comptroller to transfer$60,000 from General Fund - Part Town (B9901-8)to Capital Projects Fund 91-1 for the purchase of four Police Cars -Account No. H-3120-5001. 5. Authorization - Extension - Housing Implementation Fund Mr. Altieri said that the County of Westchester had given the Town $185,000 through the Housing Implementation Fund for the construction of the infrastructure at the Hommocks Park Apartments and therefore it would be required that a proposed extension agreement for the funding be authorized by the Board and executed by the Supervisor. On motion of Councilman Ryan, seconded by Councilman Weprin, it was unanimously, RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby authorize the Agreement with Westchester County for a Urban County Community Development Block Grant extension and also authorizes the Supervisor to execute the extension of the Agreement on behalf of the Town. 6. Report of Bids - Sidewalk/Curb Replacement Contract TA-94-4 Concrete Sidewalks & Curbs Bids were received and then opened on July 19, 1994 from the following: 12 July 20, 1994 Contractor Bid Peter J. Landi, Inc. 73,800.00 Eastchester, NY Tran Camp Contracting 77,940.00 Yonkers, NY Persico Contracting 84,450.00 Mt. Vermin, NY Ben Acocella Landscaping 86,095.00 Scarsdale, NY John Barretto Construction 112,150.00 Port Chester, NY N. Picco & Sons Construction 137,500.00 Mamaroneck, NY 10543 The Administrator recommended that the contract be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, Peter Landi, Inc. On motion of Councilwoman O'Flinn, seconded by Councilman Ryan, it was unanimously, RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby award the bid for Sidewalk and Curb Replacement (TA-945-4)to Peter J. Landi, Inc., Eastchester, NY, . In the amount of$73,800 as recommended by both Town staff and the Administrator. 7. Adoption - Sexual Harassment Policy Mr. Altieri said that the Board had previously reviewed the policy and if they so agreed, a formal adoption would have to be approved and thereafter he would incorporate the Sexual Harassment Policy into the Town's Administrative Manual. After a few questions on the implementation, on motion of Councilwoman O'Keeffe, seconded by Councilman Ryan, it was unanimously, RESOLVED, that the Town Board does adopt the Sexual Harassment Policy as presented and authorizes the amendment to the Town Administrative Manual incorporating the above stated policy. POLICY ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT Sexual harassment in the work place is illegal and all employees are forbidden from engaging in such activity. We are committed to providing a work environment free from all forms of sexual harassment or intimidation. Sexual harassment consists of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: (1) Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment; 13 July 20, 1994 (2) Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual; or (3) Such conduct has a purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. Sexual harassment may include explicit sexual propositions, sexual innuendo, suggestive comments, sexually oriented "kidding" or"teasing", practical jokes, jokes about gender-specific traits, foul or obscene language or gestures, displays of foul or obscene printed or visual material and physical contact such as patting, pinching or brushing against another's body. It is our policy to encourage employees who feel they have been the victim of sexual harassment to bring this to the immediate attention of the Town. If you have been the victim of such activity or have witnessed such activity, please report it to the Town Administrator at once. All complaints will be taken seriously and will be thoroughly and promptly investigated. Complaints will be treated as confidential matters and only those persons necessary for the investigation will be involved in the process. The Town forbids retaliation against anyone who has reported harassment. Conduct which is found to violate this policy will be regarded as a serious breach of Town policy, which will result in immediate disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal from employment. 8. Authorization -Agreement between Town and SRN The Town Attorney explained that SRN Corporation, (Sarah Newman Nursing Home) 845 Palmer Avenue, had sought through the Town, Board of Assessment Review and The Supreme Court an exemption from real property taxation. Mr. Silverberg said that a Stipulation of Agreement had been negotiated conditioning that the pending motion be withdrawn by them if the Town agrees to classify the property as exempt for each year beginning June 1, 1994 and continuing through to May 31, 2003; as an inducement for the Town, SRN agrees to make a payment of$11,000 to the Town in the year 2003 if the property remains exempt. Discussion followed, then on motion of Councilman Ryan, seconded by Councilwoman O'Keeffe, it was unanimously, RESOLVED, that the following Agreement between the Town and SRN be authorized as follows: WHEREAS, Plaintiff SRN Corporation ("SRN") , a New York not- for-profit corporation owns certain property located in the Town of Mamaroneck ("the Town") designated and known as 845 Palmer Avenue, Mamaroneck, New York, and identified on the official tax map of the Town as Section 9, Block 3, Lot 3B ("the Property") and operates a nursing home thereon; and WHEREAS, SRN has sought exemption of the Property from all real property taxation based on the provisions of Section 420-a of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York "RPTL") by filing with the Town its Application for Real Property Tax Exemption for Nonprofit Organizations, 14 July 20, 1994 Mandatory Class, and by thereafter filing a Complaint on Real Property with the Board of Assessment Review of the Town and a Petition with this Court seeking such exemption with regard to the 1992 and 1993 assessment rolls of the Town; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto are desirous of settling the within proceedings for the 1992 and 1993 assessment years by means of the exemption of the Property for future years, upon the terms and conditions set forth herein; now therefore IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED as follows: 1. Plaintiff's pending motion for summary judgment will be withdrawn without prejudice to the respective legal positions of the parties. 2. The within proceeding will be withdrawn with prejudice in July, 2002 without any change in the original total assessments on the 1992 and 1993 Town assessment rolls, and without Plaintiff being entitled to any refund of taxes paid on account of said assessments, provided the Property shall have been classified on the assessment rolls of the Town for each and every one of the nine assessment years beginning on June 1, 1994 and continuing through May 31, 2003, as exempt from real property taxes pursuant to RPTL Section 420-a. 3. Should the Town enter the Property on its assessment roll for any one or more of the aforementioned nine years in a category other than totally exempt from real property taxes, Plaintiff shall have the right to renew its motion for summary judgment and continue with the prosecution of proceedings for assessment years 1992 and 1993, and the Town hereby waives any objection it might otherwise have had thereto to the continuation of the proceedings on the basis of abandonment of the proceedings by Plaintiff, laches or otherwise. 4. In order to induce the Town to enter into this settlement agreement, Plaintiff has promised to make payment in lieu of taxes in the amount of $11,000 in the year 2003 provided the Property is classified as totally exempt from real estate taxes on the assessment roll for that year (and has been classified as exempt as set forth in Paragraph 2, supra) and to make similar payments in all subsequent years in which the Property is similarly classified, i.e. , totally exempt. 5. In furtherance of the terms of this Stipulation, counsel for the parties have executed the Stipulation of 15 July 20, 1994 Discontinuance annexed hereto as Exhibit A, which Stipulation may be filed without further notice by either party, .if and only if the conditions of Paragraph 2, supra, are complied with and in no event earlier than the year 2002, whereupon the within proceedings shall be deemed fully settled and discontinued, without costs or disbursements to any party, and neither party shall have any further claim or remedy on account of the facts and circumstances underlying the Petition herein. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned attorneys for the parties to the above-entitled proceedings, that subject to the provisions of a Stipulation of Settlement of even date herewith, the within proceedings are discontinued, with prejudice and without costs to either party as against the other. On or after the year 2002, subject to the provisions of a Stipulation of Settlement of even date herewith, this Stipulation may be filed without further notice with the Clerk of the Court. Dated: White Plains, New York June 9, 1994 9. Salary Authorizations - Recreation -Conservation RECREATION On motion of Councilwoman O'Keeffe, seconded by Councilwoman O'Flinn, it was unanimously, RESOLVED, that as provided for in the 1994 Town Recreation Budget, authority is hereby requested for the payment of salary to the following: Bernier Decimes, Custodian, Central Playground, $7.50/hr, effective 7/25/94. Jessica Gush, Alt. Life Guard, Hommocks Pool, $5.50/hr, retroactive to 7/14/94. Carol Aloise, Temporary Office Asst., $7.50/hr, retroactive to 7/14/94. Dennis Lunde, Asst. Manager, Hommocks Ice Rink, $7/hr, effective 7/18/94. Jeremey Sharff, Tennis Instructor, $9/hr, retroactive to 7/5/94. CONSERVATION On motion of On motion of Councilwoman O'Keeffe, seconded by Councilwoman O'Flinn, it was unanimously, RESOLVED, that Anthony Silvestri be hired at $6.50 per hour, effective July 11, 1994 as a worker in the Summer Conservation Corp. program. 16 • July 20, 1994 • Ernie Odierna said that he wanted to commend the Police Department for responding so quickly when he called them regarding someone dumping, and the situation was handled immediately. ADJOURNMENT Supervisor thanked him, said that the next Board meeting would be held on August 17, and asked if there was a motion to adjourn. In unison, and unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 12:57 AM. A Patricia A. DiCioccio, Town Clerk C AMSOfficeMi nwordlnew194\94Now107-94107-20-94.1 ast.doc 17 '". • , I . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . , . -. ., . x TOWN OF MAMARONECK BOARD MEETING x 740 West Boston Post Road Mamaroneck, New York 10543 July 20 , 1994 ' 8 : 30 p . m . II ot.... Iv /..; . • KAZAZES & ASSOCIATES , LTD . • Lori Fletcher , Reporter 250 East Hartsdale Avenue Hartsdale , N . Y . 10530 ( 914 ) 725-2415 1 ' (DOPY %MO*• .1', • t..., tu `'r-' --. g2j!,1 U' , * . 4,22;) .,..,:, ........ ..,'-'T•-V, 1,2_I Cm :7.:E:::1:j ,17,- .., II 2 1 A P P E A R A N C E S : 2 3 4 ELAINE PRICE , SUPERVISOR BARRY A. WEPRIN , COUNCILMAN 5 PAUL A . RYAN, COUNCILMAN STEPHEN V. ALTIERI , ADMINISTRATOR 6 KATHLEEN TRACY O ' FLINN, COUNCILWOMAN VALERIE M. O ' KEEFFE , COUNCILWOMAN 7 STEVEN M. SILVERBERG, TOWN COUNSEL 8 9 000 10 11 { 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 II 19 20 21 22 23 J ` ' 24 Proceedings 3 1 MS . PRICE : The public 2 . hearing is to consider the adoption 3 of a local law entitled Recreation 4 Zone , which will amend the Zoning 5 Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck 6 by creating a new zoning district II 7 designated as a recreation district 8 and amending the Town of Mamaroneck 9 Zoning Map by designating the 10 following property as being in the 11 new recreation district . ( 12 One , the Bonnie Briar Country 13 Club located on Weaver Street 14 designated on the tax assessment Map 15 of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 16 201 Block 19 , Lot 224 , Block 1000 17 and Block 225 , Lot 1 . 18 Two , the Winged Foot Country II19 Club located at 851 Fenimore Road 20 and designated on the tax assessment 21 map of the Town of Mamaroneck as 22 Block 344 Lot 99 and Block 347 Lot 23 1 . (. :; 24 Just to quickly recap on II Proceedings f 4 1 April 5th, the Town Board issued the 2 Finding Statement pursuant to the 3 New York Code of Rules and 4 Regulations and it was a culmination 5 of almost four years of an 6 environmental review process . At I/ 7 that time , we said two other steps 8 had to be considered . We had to 9 refer the Finding Statement to the 10 Planning Board , which we did, and 11 the Planning Board has made its l 12 recommendation . I will not read it 13 in at great length , but essentially 14 what they found was , it is found 15 that the proposed amendment of map 16 change are in harmony with the 17 comprehensive plan of land use for 18 the Town of Mamaroneck and would be 19 in furtherance with the purposes set 20 forth in Section 89-1 of the zoning 21 ordinance , and more specifically 22 such proposal will protect the 23 character and social and economic ( ' 24 stability of the Town and insure Proceedings 5 1 that development will be orderly and 2 beneficial . That the proposal with 3 conserve the value of buildings 4 located on adjacent properties and 5 continue conformity of the use of 6 the property subject to the map I/ 7 change with the various policies of 8 the Town as set forth in the Master 9 Plan and the local Waterfront 10 Revitalization Program. 11 Further, that such proposal 12 will benefit development in an 13 amount which commensurate with the 14 availability and capacity of public 15 facilities and services . 16 We also , all though we did 17 not talk about it that evening, we 18 also referred this recommendation 19 and findings to the commissioner of 20 planning of the Westchester County 21 Planning Board . The commissioner 22 has sent us a letter stating that, 23 pertinent parts , in addition to 24 being consistent with the Town' s Proceedings 6 1 Master Plan and the proposed 2 recreation zone is consistent with 3 the County Planning Board ' s urban 4 form refinement document and map and 5 proposed patterns , land uses of the 6 land which have designated the 7 properties as areas of open space 8 and character . 9 The proposed zone is also 10 consistent with the goals and 11 objectives of the counties 1976 12 Draft and 1993 Open Space Policies . 13 As well as with the Long Island 14 Sound Costal Management Program and 15 the Town ' s locate Waterfront 16 Revitalization Plan . 17 Thirdly, we commissioned an 18 appraisal of the property to insure 19 that the property maintains 20 substantial economic value under the 21 proposed recreation zone and the 22 appraisal sets forth that goal as 23 targeted by the Town . (':, 24 So , with that in mind , with Proceedings 7 1 these steps in place , we would now 2 like to hear from the public before 3 we implement a zoning change for 4 these designated properties . I 5 would ask that you keep your 6 comments as relevant as possible and 7 to the maximum extent possible not 8 to have them repetitive . 9 So , I would like first to ask 10 all those in favor of the proposed 11 change to the Town ' s zoning to 12 please raise your hand and you may 13 give your name and address to our 14 Town Clerk . You know what , 15 Mr . Ryan , would you please go to the 16 microphone so you can be heard . 17 MR . RYAN : Madam Supervisor 18 and members of the Town counsel and 19 my fellow residence of the Town of 20 • Mamaroneck and our opponents , the 21 developers . I rise tonight to speak 22 in favor of the zoning change that 23 would make this a recreational f> : `- 24 property . The -- I remember almost Proceedings 8 1 50 years ago or so , a little less 2 than that , when I was growing up in 3 this Town , there was great welcoming 4 to new development . There was a lot 5 of open space , houses were built all 6 over and it was generally a 8 desirable outcome , and I submit to 8 you that over those 50 years the 9 situation has changed drastically . 10 There is very little open 11 space left in this Town . In fact , 12 Bonnie Briar remains the only real 13 available open space left in this 14 Town , assuming that Winged Foot is 15 in some sort of golden safe and will 16 never be subject to any kind of 17 action by anybody . 18 But the Bonnie Briar County 19 Club is truly in action, in play and 20 I think that ' s a potential disaster 21 for all of the residence of this 22 Town . If that property becomes 23 developed, there will be no place 24 left in this Town , no open spaces II Proceedings 9 1 left capable of being used for 2 recreational purposes . There will 3 be no place to play golf really in 4 the Town , no place to hike , to do 5 any of the outdoors kinds of things 6 that people like to do , and so it II 7 seems to me that times have changed 8 and the priority now for this Town 9 ought to be to preserve these kinds 10 of open spaces rather than allow 11 them to be developed further . 12 The developers , of course, 13 are engaged in a time honored and 14 perfectly legitimate process in 15 attempting to develop this and there 16 purpose is to make money on this and 17 no one can find any fault with that 18 desire . But , I submit that the time II19 has come when development in this 20 Town has reached the point where it 21 needs to be controlled and we have 22 to defend our really only open space 23 left . 24 The needs of the community Proceedings 10 1 here are , I think paramount, and 2 should prevail over the attempt of a 3 group of good citizen that they are , 4 nevertheless , to make money out of 5 this property . I believe that the 6 information that has been collected 7 does show that owners will continue 8 to make a reasonable return from the 9 use of this property as a 10 recreational zone , and it is 11 therefore , it seems to me , no harm 12 in zoning it for what it has been in 13 fact been being used for for these 14 many decades , as long as I can 15 remember in any case , and it 16 probably goes back 75 or so years . 17 The -- Not only do we need 18 this property for recreational 19 purposes , but if there were 20 development of this property it is 21 perfectly clear that it will have 22 devastating effect on the 23 communities of which I am a member . 24 I live below this golf course along Proceedings 11 1 the brook. The flooding that will 2 occur is inevitable and it ' s well 3 known . There is every good reason 4 to believe there will be flooding 5 and that the community below this 6 watershed area actually will be 7 devastated by this type of flooding. 8 I don ' t need to recount the 9 problems of traffic , the pressure on 10 the schools , and most importantly 11 the damage it will do to the Long ( 12 Island Sound for this kind of 13 further development . 14 It seems to me taking all of 15 these factors into account that the 16 decision has to be in the interest 17 of the community to keep this at the 18 recreational level that it ' s now at . 19 Now, there has been some 20 indication that the members of this 21 Board, this counsel , are attracted 22 to the idea a recreational zone and 23 I think that you are to be commended ( ...: 24 for this view in this analysis of Proceedings 12 1 the situation, particularly you, 2 Madam Supervisor . You deserve 3 credit for being in the lead, for 4 opening this up to this kind of 5 analysis . The only disturbing thing 6 I see on the horizon is that the I/ 7 owners and the developers here seem 8 intent on threatening and bring 9 lawsuits of various kinds in an 10 apparent effort to intimidate the 11 counsel and to intimidate the 12 members of this community . 13 I can assure you that from my 14 past activity as President of the 15 Larchmont Gardens Association, as 16 organizer of the coalition of 17 neighborhood associations , as a 18 founder of the Bonnie Briar Task 19 Force and all my work in this 20 community , I am sure you have the 21 full and solid support of the vast 22 majority of the people in this 23 community for a change of this 24 zoning into a recreational zone . II Proceedings 13 r• 1 If you are faced with 2 lawsuits and if there are efforts to 3 intimidate us and you , I can assure 4 you I think again , all the members 5 of this community will back the 6 Board and back the Board solidly in 7 opposing those efforts and fighting 8 vigorously for the interest of this 9 Town in keeping this a recreational 10 zone . 11 So , I urge you to adopt the 12 zoning change that will make this a 13 recreational zone and I commend you 14 for all of the work you have done , 15 individually and collectively in the 16 past to have done this properly and 17 carefully so all the facts are on 18 the table and it ' s fully exposed . II19 We all know what is happening here 20 and so that you can reach the 21 conclusion rationally and in the 22 best interest of this Town to bring 23 this under recreational zoning. 24 Thank you , very much . Proceedings 14 1 MS . PRICE : Thank you, Mr. 2 Edward Ryan . Is there anyone else 3 in the audience that wishes to speak 4 in favor of the recreation zone? 5 Yes . 6 MS . LEADS : My name is Joan 7 Leads and I live in Mamaroneck and I 8 work in Mamaroneck. I would like to 9 speak as President of Sound Watch. 10 Sound Watch is a nonprofit all 11 volunteer organization dedicated to 12 clean water in other watersheds and 13 a clean Long Island Sound . I 14 appreciate the opportunity to 15 address you all today. 16 I strongly support your plan 17 to rezone Bonnie Briar and Winged 18 Foot as recreational zones . There 19 are many reasons why the residents 20 of this Town should support this 21 view and I expect we will hear the 22 rest of them tonight . 23 I support the desire for open 24 space and open vistas as called for Proceedings 15 1 in the New York State Department of 2 State Guidelines for knew 3 development in the coastal zones . I 4 support the preservation of the 5 habitats for birds and animals that 6 live on and around the golf course 7 and I support leaving some area of 8 the Town unbuilt so the next 9 generation can enjoy these spaces as 10 we have . 11 I would like to speak 12 specifically about the problems of 13 the Long Island Sound and the impact 14 of development of this site that we 15 have on the Sound . 16 First , as we all know, Long 17 Island Sound is a beautiful body of 18 water valuable to us for its 19 recreational and commercial uses . 20 Its water quality is an important 21 factor in the quality of our life in 22 Mamaroneck, as well as in other 23 costal communities . 24 The primary threat to the Proceedings • 16 1 quality of the water in the western 2 Long Island Sound which stretches 3 from the East River into Norwalk, 4 into Hempstead Harbor with its dense 5 population . The density of the 6 population combined with the age our II 7 infrastructure means that we have in 8 this area sewage treatment plants 9 presently operating at or over their 10 capacity . 11 New housing will add .` 12 additional flow to the already 13 burden system . Until we can upgrade 14 and improve our sewage treatment 15 plants , a fairly expensive 16 proposition , we must consider the 17 condition of the Long Island Sound. 18 Westchester County and its sewage II19 directs have signed a no net 20 increase agreement with the New York 21 State Department of Environment 22 Conservation that requires any 23 increased sewage flows to be ( . 24 balanced by increased capacity . We Proceedings 17 1 do not have any increased capacity 2 at this time . 3 The second most serious 4 problem in the Western Sound is 5 nonpoise (ph) source pollution . In 6 commentary , it ' s runoff from rain 7 water. When it rains , the earth 8 absorbs some of the water for 9 surface vegetation . Some of it 10 trickles through the earth into 11 underground accafers (ph) and some of 12 it evaporates back into the 13 atmosphere . The rest, the lion' s 14 share , flows over the surface of the 15 earth collecting in steams and 16 rivers until it flows back into the 17 sea . Bonnie Briar and most of 18 Mamaroneck in the Sheldrake River 19 watershed . These streams meander 20 through and under Bonnie Briar, 21 Winged Foot and other areas of the 22 Town before they converge in the 23 Long Island Sound . The slow speed I` `` 24 and indirect path of the flow of Proceedings 18 1 these streams serve important 2 ecological functions . 3 First , slow flowing water 4 disturbs less dirt and results in 5 less erosion and less siltation of 6 the stream beds and ponds 7 downstream . We already have a 8 problem of siltation in the 9 Sheldrake Pond . It ' s particularly 10 evident in the Duck Pond which was 11 dredged five or six years ago , a 12 great inconvenience and expense , and 13 it appears to be ready for dredging 14 again . Anything that speeds up the 15 water flow will exacerbate the 16 siltation problem and will possibly 17 require dredging at more frequent 18 intervals . 19 Any hardening of the surfaces 20 in the watershed including paving 21 for roads and driveways and 22 replacing woods and field with 23 (Inaudible) will increase the speed � ` ` 24 of water flow. Hardening of the Proceedings 19 1 surface will also reduce the 2 absorption of water, since the water 3 will run away at a faster rate . 4 This will disturb local ecological 5 conditions and result in destruction 6 of habitat for plants , birds , 7 animals , and of course the rest of 8 us . 9 Hardening surfaces will 10 reduce water holding capacity by the 11 area so that downstream areas , most (: 12 of the Town , may be susceptible to 13 much more frequent flooding . 14 The second ecological 15 advantage of slow meandering streams 16 is that the water flowing over the 17 surface and through these streams 18 and its adjacent wetlands is 19 filtered by the plants and the dirt 20 removes some of the airborne 21 pollutants . 22 In our area the rain contains 23 acid and heavy metals , so the 24 filtering action that keeps these Proceedings 20 r•- 1 toxic substance out of the Sound, 2 also keeps it out of the Sound' s 3 food chains and humans are at the 4 top of that chain . Any disturbance 5 to these meandering water bodies 6 increases the pollutants going into 7 the Sound . 8 We at Sound watch believe the 9 best interest of the Town of 10 Mamaroneck, the Sheldrake watershed 11 and the Long Island Sound would best 12 be served by zoning Bonnie Briar and 13 and Winged Foot as recreational 14 zones . Thank you . 15 MS . PRICE : Thank you . Is 16 there someone else in the audience 17 that wishes to speak? 18 MR. MASON : Good evening = 19 Madam Supervisor and members of the 20 Town Board . My name is Charles 21 Mason and I live at 482 Weaver 22 Street , Larchmont -- actually the 23 Town of Mamaroneck. This area is 24 south of the lower border of the Proceedings 21 1 Bonnie Briar Country Club . 2 I am presently Chairman of 3 the Town of Mamaroneck and Village 4 of Larchmont Coastal Zone 5 Commission . Prior to that I was a 6 member of the commission since its 7 inception . Before that I was a 8 member and later Chairman of the 9 Conservation Advisory Counsel -- 10 Committee . I have been involved in 11 conservation and flood control 12 activities since the very early 13 1970 ' s here in the Town . Although I 14 have lived in this general area 15 since 1947 . 16 Perhaps a little historical 17 prospective is in order at this 18 time . During the 1950 ' s when the 19 area north of Larchmont Reservoir in 20 New Rochelle , White Plains , 21 Scarsdale , was undeveloped and 22 Quaker Ridge Road was but a winding 23 blacktop crown road, running from 24 Weaver Street down to North Avenue, II Proceedings 22 1 flooding was almost unheard of in 2 the area along Weaver Street down to 3, between the Country Club area and 4 what we call the Duck Pond, Gardens 5 Lake . 6 This all changed very ' II 7 suddenly with the development of the 8 north end of New Rochelle . Of 9 particular interest and impact was 10 the development of the Pinebrook 11 Estates homes which are situated 12 between Pinebrook Drive and Weaver 13 Street . This area extends south 14 almost to Quaker Ridge Road and runs 15 north almost to the Hutchinson River 16 Parkway . Post-war and very heavily 17 in the late 50 ' s the development in 18 this area was very vast . The II19 westerly border is coincident with 20 the upper reach of Sheldrake River 21 which runs right along side 22 Pinebrook Boulevard and into which 23 the entire development rapidly 24 drains . This watershed area Proceedings 23 r' . 1 progressed from being only about 15% 2 impervious to well over 60% 3 impervious and is now approaching 4 80% . 5 From 1960 , when most of the 6 major development along the river 7 north of the reservoir had been 8 completed , the stage was set for the 9 problems we now have . During the 10 1950 ' s there was a dry period which 11 ended late in the 1960 ' s . This is 12 when we reaped what had been sown 13 for us . When the normal rainy 14 weather returned in the late 1960 ' s 15 and early 1970 ' s , flooding along 16 that reach of the Sheldrake from 17 Bonnie Briar Lane to the confluence 18 of the Sheldrake with the Mamaroneck 19 River became a constant threat . 20 The reservoir was kept as 21 full as possible for water supply 22 purposes . A rapid influx of water 23 from the area north of the reservoir �'~ 24 meant a rapid and heavy outflow from Proceedings 24 1 the reservoir through our area . 2 Until it was finally discontinued as 3 a water supply in the late 1975 , the 4 reservoir was of no help at all as a 5 flood control project . A rain of 2 - 6 2 1/2 inches in 'an afternoon was 7 enough to flood dozens of homes and 8 several streets . 9 During the week ending 10 September 25 , 1975 , we really 11 learned the extent to which the 12 development in New Rochelle had 13 placed us at risk. We had over 12 14 inches of rain in one week with the 15 last 5 inches falling on Friday 16 afternoon . We had not yet learned 17 to manage the reservoir as a flood 18 control device so we were caught 19 with it full . 20 Bonnie Briar Golf Course was 21 flooded to a depth of four feet in 22 some places and served as a huge 23 detention facility . 24 It was then that I became Proceedings #,f 25 1 more active in the pursuit of flood 2 control in the Town of Mamaroneck, I 3 had to be . I attended Board 4 meetings and was appointed to the 5 Freshwater Wetlands Commission and 6 later to the C . A. C . . II 7 I learned that Leon Stowell , 8 who then owned the Donetelli 9 property , had , in an effort to 10 protect his neighbors even more than 11 himself , constructed a decorative f`: 12 stream course in his yard which had 13 the added bonus of backing the water 14 onto the lowest end of the golf 15 course , in affect creating a 16 detention area . 17 This detention facility, the 18 golf course , is as least as 19 important as the reservoir as we now 20 use it in flood water detention and 21 flood control . 22 With optimal use of the 23 reservoir control system and the 24 golf course in its present state , we Proceedings 26 1 can usually handle a 5 to . 6 inch 2 rain fall without serious flooding . 3 Without the golf course as secondary 4 detention pond, the best we could 5 hope for would be to limit the 6 flooding in a 2 to 3 inch storm. 7 The last 2 to 3 inches are 8 purely a function of the ability of 9 the golf course to detain rain water 10 that falls on its upper reaches and 11 the ability of the ponding areas ( 12 both along Fenimore Road and Weaver 13 Street to detain the water and 14 discharge vast amounts of water over 15 the course of several days after a 16 storm. 17 It is my opinion that 18 development of those portions of the 19 course that are now acting as 20 ponding areas , the lower portions , 21 would necessitate providing for 22 rapid drainage and the lowering of 23 the water table to prevent people 24 living in those houses built in that Proceedings 27 1 area from having a wet basement. 2 If the upper reaches were to 3 be developed , the ability of these 4 areas to detain water must be 5 disrupted . The water from these are 6 as would , of necessity, be 7 discharged to the lower areas more 8 rapidly than at present , resulting 9 in a diminution of their abilities 10 of the lower areas to assist in 11 flood water detention and flood 12 control . 13 As members of this Board 14 know, we have sought ways to control 15 the flooding in the area drained by 16 the Sheldrake since the early 17 1970 ' s . The flood water detention 18 provided by the open and unpaved 19 areas of Bonnie Briar are essential 20 to any plan flood controlling plan . 21 Unfortunately, the Town has 22 had only mixed success in persuading 23 Scarsdale and New Rochelle to act in 24 a responsible manner in permitting Proceedings 28 L:r 1 in-watershed development . I recall 2 attending both municipalities , 3 sometimes accompanied by elected 4 Town officials such as then 5 supervisor Battalia , and pleading 6 with them to acknowledge their 7 responsibility to those downstream 8 of them. That ' s talking in the 9 1970 ' s or 80 ' s . We were made 10 welcome but were not really heard . 11 However, the two properties 12 which are the subject of this 13 legislation are within the Town and 14 subject to Town jurisdiction . I 15 urge this Board to hear the 16 pleadings of its own citizens . 17 If I may, I would like to 18 turn my attention very briefly to 19 the Winged Foot Property. Winged 20 Foot Golf Club performs the same 21 functions for the East Branch of the 22 Sheldrake River as the Bonnie Briar 23 Property does for the West Branch . 24 When the Fenbrook Subdivision was Proceedings 29 1 developed it was built on a tract of 2 land between the golf course and the 3 East Branch . 4 In spite of a high level of 5 vigilance within the then existing 6 laws , that subdivision has had a 7 severe negative impact on the East 8 Branch , on Fenimore Road , which was 9 torn up by rushing water last year, 10 and, unfortunately, has undone the 11 dredging of the Duck Pond which was 12 done at such great expense to the 13 Town . 14 One needs only stand at the 15 confluence of the East and West 16 branch , that ' s Valley Stream Road, 17 during a heavy rain to see the 18 difference in color of the water. 19 The east branch, 5 , 6 , 7 years since 20 the development , still runs heavy 21 with silt being transported from the 22 still unstable banks within the 23 Fenbrook Subdivision as compared to 24 the relatively clear water which Proceedings 30 1 comes down the West Branch where the 2 banks are well established and 3 stable . 4 Both of these properties , in 5 their open water-retentive state , 6 are essential to the protection of 7 the homes and businesses below the 8 confluence at Valley Stream Road and 9 each is essential to the protection 10 of the homes above the confluence on 11 their respective branches . 12 I urge this Board please do 13 not do anything that would permit 14 development paving over and making 15 impervious vast amounts of the land 16 on either tract , because in either 17 case there will be additional 18 siltation and there will be 19 additional rapid rate runoff and 20 flooding below the confluence right 21 down into the Duck Pond and right 22 down into Bonnie Briar . 23 We are walking a very fine 24 line right now of what we are able Proceedings 31 1 to do in the way of flood control . 2 If I really had my way I would say 3 to you take over the place and lets 4 put a burn at the south border and 5 turn the whole bottom of the club 6 into a flood detention area . That 7 would work and I would setup the 8 valves for it . 9 But that is what we are up 10 against . If you let this become 11 just another development , we are in 12 big trouble , those of us who live 13 south of the Bonnie Briar property . 14 Thank you . 15 MS . PRICE : Is there anyone 16 else that wishes to speak? 17 MS . COLEMAN : My name is 18 Carol Coleman . I am here tonight 19 representing the Larchmont League of 20 Women Voters . 21 The Town of Mamaroneck' s 22 position to zone Bonnie Briar and 23 Winged Food for recreational use is ;` 24 fully supported by the Larchmont II Proceedings 32 ( . 1 League of Women Voters . The 2 Larchmont League of Women Voter' s 3 position on this issue is well 4 documented . We have a position 5 dating back to the 70 ' s , in the days 6 where open space was plentiful . II 7 Even the impact of development on 8 our large open space was evident to 9 the average citizen represented by 10 the league in those days . This 11 position that we had in the 70s was r . 12 reexamined again in 1988 and we 13 again reaffirmed our position to 14 explore the use of Bonnie Briar as a 15 Town recreational facility . 16 In 1991 and 1992 , we again 17 updated the position based on the 18 examinations and studies and 19 attendance of all of the hearing on 20 the DEIS , the DGIS and the 21 supplemental studies . Nationwide 22 the league also has the position to 23 conserve open space where possible . ( ' 24 We commend the Town of Proceedings 33 sr 1 Mamaroneck for its thorough and 2 professional study of the 3 environmental and physical impacts 4 of the proposed development at 5 Bonnie Briar . We fully support your 6 position and ask you to adopt the 7 recreational zoning proposal to 8 develop Bonnie Briar. It would 9 certainly compromise our environment 10 and the quality of life we all know 11 and love and rely upon for our own (. 12 well-being and for that of the 13 children . We urge you to go through 14 with this change . Thank you . 15 MS . PRICE : Is there anyone 16 in the audience that wishes to speak 17 on behalf of the zoning change? 18 MR . OVIERNA: Earnest 19 Ovierna (ph) , 5 High Ridge Road in 20 Larchmont . I am President of the 21 Larchmont Gardens Association . We 22 have total support for the Town 23 Board in their position . We have 24 attended and participated in the Proceedings 34 1 various planning discussions and the 2 review process , and tried to sample 3 our membership and get the community 4 as involved as possible in the 5 entire process and we commend the 6 Board for their very through ' I/ 7 investigation and bringing to light 8 the many aspect of the decision . 9 We were sensitive to the 10 people ' s concern about traffic, 11 about education and space in the i'. _ 12 schools . The fact that on Weaver 13 Street there is a fire department 14 that we all know and love and there 15 are schools on Weaver Street and 16 there is very difficult traffic 17 situations that occurs in the 18 morning and also in the evening. We 19 should try to do nothing to 20 aggravate those already difficult 21 situations . 22 So without spending extra 23 time unnecessarily, once again, I 24 would like to say we totally support Proceedings 35 1 the Board ' s proposed position. 2 Thank you . 3 MS . PRICE : Is there anyone 4 else who wishes to speak in favor? 5 MS . BENEDICTS : I am Helga 6 Benedicts (ph) , 6 Harmony Drive , II7 Larchmont . I have lived here since 8 1968 . I am not a member of the 9 club . I do not live near the 10 properties in question . I am not 11 representing an organization, but I 12 am representing myself as a person 13 who came to this community for a 14 variety of reasons , and one of the 15 reason is the atmosphere , the 16 aesthetics . 17 I have to admit that 18 envisioning a development on the 19 Bonnie Briar property, every time I 20 drive up Weaver Street I find 21 disturbing . I of course listened to 22 some of the comments just here said 23 and some of them really concern me . 24 I think I am one of those Proceedings 36 1 individuals not immediately effected 2 in the neighborhood and therefore , 3 perhaps not completely conversant 4 with all of the issues involved. 5 Perhaps , like many of the residents 6 of this community I am not aware of 7 what is going on but yet would be 8 surprised to walk up one day to find 9 these spaces no longer open spaces 10 and I, would support therefor your 11 recreational proposal . Thank you . 12 MS . PRICE : Is there anyone 13 else who wishes to speak in favor? 14 If not , is there anyone in the 15 audience who wishes to speak against 16 the proposed recreational zone? 17 Yes , sir . Please stand up and state 18 your name . 19 MR. BAKER: My name is Gregg 20 Baker . I am attorney with the firm 21 of Shamberg, Marwell , Cherness , 22 Hocherman , Davis & Hollis in Mount 23 Kisco . We represent Bonnie Briar 24 Syndicate , Inc . , the owner of the Proceedings 37 1 Bonnie Briar property . 2 It is our opinion and we 3 advised our client that the proposed 4 zoning amendment is unconstitutional 5 and illegal . With me is Nat Parish 6 of Parish & Weiner, our client' s 7 planning consultant . Mr. Parish 8 will address the deficiencies of the 9 Town ' s underlying analysis on which 10 the proposed rezoning is founded . 11 With the Board ' s permission I would 12 like to turn the floor over to 13 Mr . Parish . Thank you . 14 MR. PARISH: For the record I 15 am Nathaniel J . Parish of the firm 16 of Parish & Weiner the planning 17 consultants in the Village of 18 Tarrytown and I am appearing as 19 attorney on behalf of the Bonnie 20 Briar Syndicate for the owners of 21 the Bonnie Briar property . 22 Before I go into my statement 23 I would like to first put into the 1s 24 record a letter from Mr. Martin Proceedings • 38 1 B. Bernstein who is the managing 2 partner of the majority shareholders 3 of the Bonnie Briar Syndicate . This 4 is addressed to Chairperson Price 5 and the members of the Mamaroneck 6 Town Board : II 7 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen : I 8 am writing with respect to a section 9 of your April 5 , 1994 Findings 10 Statement of the reference subject . 11 The following sentence appears in 12 the second paragraph , page 40 , of 13 the Findings Statement : 14 " We are well aware that for 15 over a year , the Syndicate ' s 16 minority shareholders have 17 negotiated to acquire the Bonnie 18 Briar majority shareholders ' 60% II19 stake in the property for an initial 20 offering price of $11 million for 21 the purpose of keeping the property 22 in use as a golf course . " 23 I am the managing partner of 24 Bonnie Briar Associates and the Proceedings 39 1 majority shareholder of Bonnie Briar 2 Syndicate , Inc . , who has been 3 involved in any and all financial 4 matters relating to this property. 5 Your statement is absolutely and 6 unequivocally in error . No such II 8 offer was ever received by the 8 majority shareholders from the 9 - minority shareholders . 10 The prior sentence in the 11 Findings Statement was : r 12 "While the Board acknowledges 13 that the Bonnie Briar majority 14 shareholders have taken the position- 15 that any change in the zoning of the 16 property would jeopardize its 17 economic viability, reliable 18 information in the public record II19 suggests otherwise . " 20 The only information that you 21 refer to in the "public record" is 22 your totally erroneous description 23 of an offer that was never made . '.� ' 24 There is no other evidence offered Proceedings 40 1 in your Finding Statement to 2 contradict our assertion that this 3 proposed rezoning would have a 4 serious and adverse impact on our 5 economic investment in this 6 property . 7 It is important that you take 8 cognizance of this error in your 9 Findings Statement as you consider 10 the rezoning of the property . 11 Very truly yours , Martin 12 B . Bernstein . 13 I would like to enter it into 14 the record of the public hearing 15 now. 16 MS . PRICE : You may. Would 17 you please give that letter to our 18 Town Clerk . 19 A would now like to enter 20 into the record a full statement 21 that I am presenting in summary and 22 paraphrasing , but I would like to 23 make the full statement part of the 24 the record and I hope that the Board Proceedings 41 3� 1 1 will consider it in its entirety . 2 If I may I ' ll give a copy to the 3 clerk and later I ' ll give a copy to 4 the stenographer . 5 MS . PRICE : Thank you . 6 MR. PARISH : The Town Board' s 7 Finding Statement was issued on 8 April 5th , 1994 , and I think more 9 accurately than four years , it 10 probably represents six years or so 11 of various environmental studies 12 starting with the Costal Zone 13 Management Study and the various 14 studies that Mr . Shuster (ph) 15 prepared and the DEIS and the DGEIS 16 and the FEIS and of course the 17 Finding Statement . The Board in its 18 Finding Statement sets forth the 19 recommendation for the recreation 20 zone that ' s being consider tonight . 21 So , the Finding Statement then 22 becomes the basis on which this 23 rezoning proposal is being .4a 24 considered and I hope it' s being Proceedings 42 E''. 1 consider, and I am assuming by your 2 opening remarks said it will be 3 implemented, and we hope that it 4 still is open for consideration and 5 it ' s just not going to be 6 implemented willy nill . II 8 We note that the zone itself 8 is proposed in the Finding Statement 9 and went at great length to talk 10 about Bonnie Briar and Winged Foot 11 and to combine the two , and as I 12 said before and we will say again , 13 that considering that cumulative 14 impact is totally an error. As 15 Mr . Ryan indicated in his comments 16 we totally agree there was no chance 17 under the sun that anybody would 18 really propose to develop Winged II 19 Foot and so its consideration in s. 20 terms of cumulative impact and 21 adding one to the other in terms of 22 all of the studies and of the 23 Finding Statement and the SEQRA 24 studies that came before it are an Proceedings 43 1p r�r. 1 error . 2 But we would like to go on 3 record that the basic zoning that 4 you are considering is an 5 unconstitutional use of the zoning 6 power . The Find Statement is full 7 with error of fact , 8 misinterpretations of the Board' s 9 own data and it comes to a faulty 10 conclusion . I am not going to try 11 to go through each and every one of 12 those points . I do in my statement 13 and we have in previous 14 communication which we asked that 15 you review again . They are still on 16 the record . 17 We don ' t believe that the 18 FEIS answered many of those and 19 certainly didn ' t answer many very 20 fully . But to focus on the 21 highlights of the Finding Statement 22 it concluded that the recreation 23 zone alternative is necessary in '; ;' 24 order to achieve the following Proceedings 44 1 public objectives . 2 One , to preserve space in a 3 public recreational resource . 4 Two , to reduce flood hazards 5 and avert an. increase in flooding 6 which might come about if any 8 residential development were to be 8 permitted . 9 Three , to avert adverse 10 impacts on traffic and school 11 facilities that would result from 12 residential development . 13 Four , to avert adverse 14 impacts on botanical and wildlife 15 resources that would result from 16 residential development . 17 Early tonight you had some 18 testimony from the public that 19 cofirms these are all matters of 20 public concern and your Finding 21 Statement examined those and it 22 concluded that this zone was the 23 only alternative that ' s suitable for 24 meeting those objectives . To that I/ Proceedings 45 1 we take great exception and we take 2 great exception to the way in which 3 the Finding Statement treats each of 4 these objectives . 5 Mind you, we accept that the 6 objectives in and of themselves are II 8valid . The Finding Statement 8 doesn' t treat them accurately and we 9 don ' t believe the zone is justified -- 10 is a necessary step toward achieving 11 those objectives . 44'x" 12 Let ' s talk first about the 13 idea that the objective of this is a 14 public recreation resource . It is 15 not . Your data in your Finding 16 Statement says that a concern number 17 of people live within five files 18 miles of the Bonnie Briar Country II19 Club site and even if we were to 20 assume that that number all live in 21 the Town of Mamaroneck, we believe 22 many do not , assuming we all believe 23 that , we will assume that they all CC, ',: 24 live in Mamaroneck, that makes 234 Proceedings 46 1 members that live in Mamaroneck 2 which is about two percent of the 3 population of the Town . 4 So , at most , it is now 5 serving two percent of the Town . 6 But there is nothing in your zone II 8 that will keep it even at that two 8 percent of the Town level . There is 9 nothing that would prevent the club 10 members from changing, from them all 11 being from Long Island, from New 12 Jersey or Putnam County or 13 Connecticut or wherever . 14 In fact , when the lease 15 expires in 1998 the owners would be 16 free to sell or lease the club under 17 your zone . There is nothing to stop 18 them from a group , say, of Russian II19 people in Brighton Beach who decide 20 they want to buy or lease the Club 21 and it all be used by them and no 22 members of the Club in the Town of 23 Mamaroneck would have availability (,.. 24 of that course . They do not have it Proceedings 47 1 now, except if they happen to be 2 members or a guest of a member. It 3 is not available to the public . It 4 will not become available to the 5 public as a result of your enacting 6 this zone . It is not certainly a 7 public recreational resource now nor 8 has it been , nor will it become one 9 as a result of this action . 10 Certainly we respect the fact 11 that it is an open space . We 12 acknowledge that it is an pleasant 13 open space . We acknowledge that the 14 Master Plan in 1966 recommended that 15 it be acquired as a public open 16 space for a public golf course and 17 it recommended the Town and/or the 18 county purchase it and that 19 recommendation has been a matter of 20 record for a long time . So , that 21 really is beyond question . 22 But , the question really is , 23 should this open space be created 24 and kept into being by a zoning Proceedings 48 1 action which in effect says that one 2 property owner is being asked to 3 maintain open space forever in order 4 to benefit the people around it , the 5 few people who actually could see 6 the vista as they drive by or the 7 properties that abut it? That is 8 not the function of zoning. If it 9 is to be an open space , a public 10 open space , we don' t argue with the 11 people who say they would like it to 12 be that way . The cost of doing that 13 should be born by all of the tax 14 payers of the Town of Mamaroneck, 15 not simply by one property owner . 16 You did consider in your 17 second SEQRA studies and Finding 18 Statement the fact that the 19 alternative of a public club , the 20 acquisition of this as a public club 21 and you came to a conclusion setting 22 a certain level of membership fees , 23 that there would be an annual cost 24 of $130 . 00 to $150 . 00 for each I/ Proceedings 49 1 property owner in the entire Town in 2 order to maintain this as a public 3 recreation facility . You use the 4 word subsidy in there and I question 5 why that ' s an appropriate word, 6 since really that would be the term 8 cost , simply public acquisition of 8 an important open space . 9 Now, that public cost of 10 course was based on an assumption of 11 a certain membership due . If you 12 raise those dues to a level , then 13 there would not be the $130 . 00 Or 14 $150 . 00 annual cost . That' s simply 15 an option . Simply by making a 16 certain assumption and coming to a 17 conclusion doesn' t make this a valid 18 analysis of an alternative . 19 The second thing that you did 20 in writing off the idea of a public 21 acquisition is you said , well it' s 22 going to bring more traffic , more 23 congestion , why? Because we are 24 going to expand the swimming pool . Proceedings 50 1 If we expand the swimming pool more 2 people will come there . We will 3 need more parking spaces . There 4 will be more traffic . So , by simply 5 assuming a larger swimming pool , you 6 assume therefor there are going to 8 be adverse impacts and therefore had 8 another justification for doing away 9 with the idea of public acquisition. 10 We submit to you -- We do 11 submit to you that there are many 12 golf courses , Maplewater (ph) in 13 White Plains is an example , that do 14 do not have swimming pools as an 15 accessory facility . They operate 16 simply as golf courses . If you 17 didn' t assume the swimming pool , 18 there would be no additional impact 19 of the type you cite . 20 Also in terms of traffic, we 21 note that there is nothing in the 22 SEQRA documentation that actually 23 studies what the traffic impact of a 24 facility -- public facility would be II Proceedings 51 1 and if there would be any, if there 2 would be any differences 3 significantly than there are now. 4 The only plausible conclusion that 5 we can reach is that the Town 6 dismissed the public club II 7 acquisitional alternative because it 8 was cost effected for the Town ' s tax 9 payers to preserve this important 10 space by using the zoning tool . 11 Your Finding Statement nor 12 your SEQRA process never even 13 considered the possibility of using 14 a referendum device to find out 15 whether the tax payers of the Town 16 of Mamaroneck might not be willing 17 to tax themselves in order to 18 preserve this important open space 19 and in deed , make it truly available 20 as a public recreation resource . 21 One of the other arguments 22 used , and I heard it earlier from 23 the public , is the idea that loss of ! 24 this open space would have a Proceedings 52 1 negative impact on property values . 2 We don ' t believe that the SEQRA 3 process while the Finding Statement 4 asserts this , there is nothing in . 5 the SEQRA process that documented 6 that . 7 In fact , we think there were 8 many homes in the Town of Mamaroneck 9 that do not abut or are not near the 10 golf course and whose current values 11 exceed over a half million dollars . 12 So , certainly values would be 13 high whether or not they were 14 proximate to a golf course . We do 15 not deny that it ' s undoubtedly 16 desirous to have a home next to a 17 golf course and that its value may 18 possibly be enhanced by the 19 location , but we don' t believe it ' s 20 a valid use of the zoning tool to 21 enhance one man' s property value at 22 the cost to another man . We don't 23 think that ' s a proper use of the 24 tool . II Proceedings 53 .r 1 Further, we don't think there 2 will necessarily be any significant 3 loss in property values if this 4 recreation zone were not enacted . 5 Later we are going to discuss a plan 6 that we have presented which would II 8preserve the golf course and its 8 views for those who abut it and 9 scenic values and at the same time 10 would permit the residential 11 development within the interior of 12 the property , demonstrating that it 13 is not necessary to have a 14 recreation zone in order to enhance 15 or protect these various values of 16 the people who live near the course . 17 This alternative also refutes 18 the assertion of the Town Board ' s II19 Finding Statement that the scenic 20 vistas , the protection of scenic 21 vistas for those few who do see it 22 now, the people who drive by it at 23 35 miles or more an hour or the ! .; 24 people who live adjacent to the • Proceedings 54 1 course , but even for them we contend 2 that this recreation zone is not a 3 necessary tool for preserving those 4 vistas at all and the plan that we 5 will present and put into the record 6 does that equally well . 8 The Town Board Finding 8 Statement says that any residential 9 development will have certain 10 impacts , it will alter the 11 landscape , will result in some 12 grades , the removal of trees and so 13 on . We note for the record that any 14 development plan would involve some 15 alteration of the physical 16 landscape . We also point out your 17 recreation zone itself does not 18 preclude an alteration of the 19 landscape . The golf course could be 20 redesigned at some point . You have 21 certain facilities that you said can 22 be had in here , stables , riding 23 trails , tennis court , swimming pool . . - 24 All those are permitted under the Proceedings 55 1 recreational zone and in order to 2 install them there is nothing that 3 prevents that from happening and 4 such an occurrence would certainly 5 alter the landscape as well . 6 I would like to get onto the 8 whole flooding issue problem because 8 that seems to be a major point . 9 Dr. Mason and Mr . Ryan talked at 10 great length about it and quite 11 knowledgeable , and we believe that 12 the Finding Statement is totally 13 faulty in its discussion of the 14 whole flood hazard issue and that in 15 fact your own studies in the SEQRA 16 documents indicate other conclusions 17 that you have come to in your 18 Finding Statement . Let ' s take them 19 one by one . 20 The Finding Statement says 21 that Town Site Plan Approval Law 22 requires that new development result 23 in a zero increase in the rate of tr`' 24 runoff during a peak storm. We I/ . Proceedings 56 l . 1 concede that . The findings reject 2 however, the use of retention basins 3 as a solution for achieving a zero 4 increase in runoff . So when 5 Dr . Mason referred to all of the 6 problems of increased runoff and the II 8other speakers referred to the 8 problems of faster runoff during a 9 peak storm, you can achieve that 10 obviously by use of retention 11 basins , but the findings say there ( ': 12 are problems with that and we don' t 13 want retention basins as a solution. 14 I am going to discuss that later . I 15 just want to hold that there . 16 It ' s axiomatic that the 17 addition of any impervious surface 18 to any piece of land will result in 19 some increase into peak storm runoff 20 in some stream or another, unless 21 the site is directly adjacent to a 22 title body of water. The only means 23 for achieving zero increase in i`. 24 runoff in any development , anyplace II Proceedings 57 1 whether it be in Mamaroneck or New 2 Rochelle or Scarsdale , is to 3 introduce some form of retention or 4 detention during the storm period. 5 It ' s quite that simple . 6 Now, the Town Board rejects II 7 the concept that you can 't have 8 retention or detention to solve a 9 problem to avert a problem, then in 10 fact you are saying that the policy 11 is to have no further development . 12 Well , if Mamaroneck can do that , no 13 further development on any vacant 14 land, any community except those few 15 that are next to a title body of 16 water wherein increase runoff might 17 not matter . Other than those , no 18 community in America can justify II19 additional development . 20 Therefore , we said that the 21 policy of the United States of 22 America is to have no population 23 increase . That may sound ludicrous 24 and may sound like it ' s a vast point II Proceedings 58 1 beyond which you meant to go , but 2 that ' s the implication of the 3 policies annunciated in your Finding 4 Statement . 5 Now, I would like to state 6 that the -- with retention basins in 8 place there would be no adverse 8 hydrological impacts and no basis 9 for the rezoning action recommended 10 in the Finding Statement in terms of 11 flooding . ; 12 Now, the Finding Statement 13 says that -- which is issued in 14 April says , retention basins are no 15 good . We don ' t want them. Yet in 16 the Town ' s own FEIS issued by the 17 Town in September 22nd , 1993 Volume 18 1 , Page 69 , here was the Town' s II19 comment about this very issue , the 20 issue was raised about will we have 21 retention basins . The Town , and I 22 am quoting the Town ' s answer to the 23 question was as follows , and I am ' . 24 going read it in it ' s entirety II Proceedings 59 1 because I think it ' s important . 2 "Both the DGEIS and SGEIS 3 recommend measures such as properly 4 sized culverts , storm drains and 5 retention ponds as mitigation 6 measures . It is acknowledged that II l there are sometimes problems with 8 these facilities . Proper sizing and 9 proper maintenance of them would be 10 essential if they were to function 11 adequately . The issue would be an 12 important one in a site-specific 13 EIS . " The Town ' s FEIS comment 14 continues to note . 15 "Local Law No . 8 ' Surface 16 Water and Erosion and Sediment 17 Control " adopted by the Town Board 18 on October 28th , 1992 , and amended II19 on March 3rd , 1993 is intended to 20 control and regulate land disturbing 21 activities to assure that best 22 management practices are used which 23 minimize water pollution, retain 24 valuable topsoil and vegetation and Proceedings 60 1 prevent flooding, erosion and 2 sedimentation . " 3 The Town' s FEIS comments then 4 continue to document the elaborate 5 legal measures to assure these 6 various retention areas storm 8 drains , culverts , the sediment and 8 erosion control measures all 9 maintained properly . You said it -- 10 and in your FEIS you so stated that . 11 Therefore , while you were 12 considering this whole SEQRA process 13 and this rezoning you put into place 14 commendably , laws which would 15 protect against the very problems 16 Dr . Mason and Mr . Ryan and the other 17 people are concerned about and that 18 any development be it the one that 19 we will show or any variation 20 thereof would have to meet the test 21 of those to assure there was no 22 adverse flooding impact . 23 Yet , in your Finding II' I` 24 Statement you brushed that aside and Proceedings 61 1 you said that don' t count . We are 2 not going to have any retention 3 sedimentation basins and the flood 4 issue is the one that gives us the 5 basis for -- one of the important 6 basis for making the zoning II 7 decision . 8 I would like to summarize not 9 just what the Finding Statement are , 10 but what I believe are the facts 11 that in the Town' s various 12 hydrological studies in the SEQRA 13 documents with respect to the whole 14 flooding issue on this site and 15 those that are important . 16 Number one , the enactment of 17 the recreation zone would not change 18 by one iota the flood hazards which II19 now exist . We had a lot of 20 testimony about flooding conditions 21 and floods have happened and all of 22 that . When you enact this zone 23 tomorrow, there would be no (" 24 abatement of those hazards . In your II Proceedings 62 { 1 Finding Statement you have discussed 2 yourself the fact that what ' s needed 3 is really the removal of 4 sedimentation and siltation from the 5 Larchmont Reservoir . The 6 implementation of the Core of II 8 Engineer Plans and those have not 8 been done for a lack of money . The 9 real answer is the failure of public 10 agencies to properly fund flood 11 abatement , the procedures and flood 12 abatement steps and improved 13 conditions are the reasons that 14 those hazards exist , not because of 15 any zoning issue that ' s before us 16 tonight . The zoning would not 17 change that . 18 The second important point , II19 the enactment of this recreation 20 zone is not at all necessary in 21 order to retain the present functions 22 hydrological f p erformed by 23 the Bonnie Briar Site . Dr. Mason i 24 and others have talked about the II Proceedings 63 I 1 retention function of the site . We 2 agree , but you don' t need a 3 recreation zone in order to retain 4 the wetlands , the flood plan areas , 5 the wetland buffer areas and all of 6 those areas that now perform the 7 function that Dr. Mason cited. They 8 can be done in an intelligent 9 development plan and you now have on 10 the books the laws that would assure 11 that that could be done . This ( 12 recreation zone is not at all 13 necessary in order to accomplish 14 that and we don ' t argue with those 15 objectives . 16 Thirdly , the enactment of the 17 recreation zone is not at all 18 necessary in order to assure that 19 any development plans would not 20 increase flood hazards . There has 21 been some comment here about how 22 additional development would cause 23 faster runoff . Sure it would, if 24 you did nothing to it that was Proceedings 64 1 intelligent . Any development plan 2 would be reviewed under all your 3 various laws and implementation of 4 particularly Local Law 82 which 5 assures that storm water would be 6 subject to a peak storm runoff of 8 zero , and by the way I will note in 8 a second it could be greater or less 9 than that . 10 This law that you enacted and 11 your Site Plan Review Law and the 12 Subdivision Review Law and the SEQRA 13 procedure , all of them assure that 14 if there were a development plan no 15 additional runoff during peak storm 16 would go in to exacerbate flooding 17 problems . 18 Fourthly , I would like to 19 point out that . The enactment of a 20 recreation zone would preclude the 21 possibility of actually reducing 22 flood hazards and storm water 23 pollution . First of all , we can 24 retain more than -- We can make Proceedings 65 1 retention areas larger than are 2 required for peak runoff so we have 3 less than zero during a peak storm 4 and retain a greater amount . That 5 would actually reduce downstream 6 flooding hazards . We can also use II l as part of such a plan contemporary 8 methods of controlling pesticide and 9 herbicide contaminants which would 10 reduce the pollutant level of 11 present golf storm drainage which f •. 12 ultimately impact on Long Island 13 Sound . 14 You had testimony on that, 15 the protection of water quality in 16 the Long Island Sound. That golf 17 course right now is under no 18 particular site plan regulation II19 because the time it went in it 20 didn ' t exist . Today if a plan came 21 in for redesign of the course , you 22 could impose all kinds of rules and 23 best management practices so the 24 pollution level in Long Island Sound Proceedings 66 1 would be reduced from what you are 2 now getting off the site . 3 You also talked about the 4 sedimentation , and what that is 5 doing to fill in the wetlands , to 6 filling in the various stream 8 channels and we recognize that . 8 However , as Bonnie Briar sits today 9 there is natural sedimentation . The 10 enactment of this zone will not stop 11 sedimentation . It rains , it erodes , 12 it goes into the wetlands , it goes 13 into the streams unabated, not 14 abated much . If you were to 15 entertain and review a development 16 plan for the site you could use 17 contemporary methods of 18 sedimentation and erosion control 19 and reduce that which presently 20 exists and that which will continue 21 under the recreation zone which you 22 are enacting or proposing to enact . 23 I hope that indicates clearly 24 that the whole flood issue is a I i . . Proceedings 67 1 nonissue in terms of any basis 2 whatsoever for this particular 3 recreation zone . 4 You raised in the Finding 5 Statement the issue of traffic and 6 said that additional development II 7 will bring all kinds of traffic 8 problems in a number of places and 9 criticized all of the alternatives 10 because of their traffic impacts . 11 That ' s what you said in your Finding 12 Statement but in your own SEQRA 13 report , your own professional 14 consultants who carefully study 15 traffic , they took counts , they had 16 many tables and prepared a very 17 lengthy report . They in Appendix 18 4-4 Page 11 state as follows , and I II19 am quoting from the report of 20 consultants hired by the Town and 21 whose report is not refuted by any 22 other technical data in the SEQRA . 23 They concluded as follows : 24 "The ,conclusion of this Proceedings 68 1 traffic analysis is that the traffic 2 impacts of the proposed development 3 scenarios are not significant and 4 there are no pronounced difference 5 among the alternatives . Much of the 6 traffic condition changes in the II 8area would be accounted for by 8 normal traffic growth . Relatively 9 simple mitigation measures will 10 improve existing and future traffic 11 conditions in the area . " i 12 The only conclusion we can 13 draw from the various SEQRA 14 documents is that the traffic 15 impacts of residential development 16 alternatives would not have a 17 significant adverse impact and that 18 traffic impacts do therefore not II19 justify this recreation zone , and 20 for all the people who didn' t quite 21 go through all the technicality, 22 simply stating , the Town' s 23 consultants concluded that there 24 would be traffic impacts , adverse Proceedings 69 1 traffic impacts from the 2 development . 3 One of your other elements in 4 the Finding Statement is to the 5 quality of a golf course that would 6 result in the various alternative 7 residential development plans . I 8 wouldn ' t go into it at great length 9 other than to state that we don' t 10 think that the quality of a golf 11 course is a germane issue in a 12 zoning matter and provides any 13 justification whatsoever for the 14 particular action . We will note 15 that the only expert judgment that' s 16 in the record on this subject was 17 with respect to the alternative plan 18 which we presented and which had a 19 golf course in it and that expert 20 golf course was -- That golf course 21 was examined by experts in the 22 design of golf courses and their 23 testimony in the SEQRA record . They 24 indicated that it was a perfectly Proceedings 70 1 feasible and adequate course for the 2 type of players that would play on. 3 The Board has a concern as to 4 whether such a course would be 5 suitable for PGA or US Open 6 qualifying rounds of play. We • 7 believe that ' s a totally irrelevant 8 concern to argue that . If it is not 9 so suitable that would avoid a -- 10 certainly on the days that it ' s so 11 used , an adverse impact and should 12 be discouraging its use for such 13 purposes rather than encouraging it , 14 and we also -- First the Board says 15 that length is one criteria for 16 judging a course ' s difficulty . 17 There are other criterias . Its 18 design . Yet , after stating that the II19 Board in its Finding Statement said 20 that we are going to critique these 21 various courses on the basis of 22 length alone , which is a total 23 misinterpretation of its own data . t' 24 Then we get to the whole Proceedings 71 1 school child projection issue where 2 again we find that the Board engaged 3 consultation . It reviewed it in a 4 DGIS , SGDIS and FEIS to examine this 5 business of how many school children 6 would be generated by this II 7 development . Finally the Board came 8 to a conclusion in its Finding 9 Statement that it was totally going 10 to reject the findings of its own 11 consultants and it was going to find , . 12 that rather than 0 . 36 children per 13 house it was going to be one child 14 per house practically three times as 15 many and they use on that basis a 16 letter from Mr . William Seltzer, a 17 citizen who says he is a 18 professional statistician and II 19 demographer and we don ' t see 20 anything in the record to indicate 21 what his background is or we don 't 22 really know . But nevertheless , 23 taking Mr . Seltzer' s analysis as the 1 „ 24 basis for a conclusion by the Town II Proceedings ff 72 1 Board in its Finding Statement is 2 kind of open to a great deal of 3 questions . Why? Because - 4 Mr. Seltzer himself concludes as 5 follows in the very letter that is 6 used as the basis . 7 " In the absence of an 8 alternative assumption based on real 9 and relevant data for Mamaroneck, I 10 think it is only safe to assume that 11 each new single family detached unit 12 in the Murray Area would produce on 13 the average one public school child 14 initially and a somewhat larger 15 number over a longer period . " 16 This highly speculative , 17 totally unsupported assumption is 18 then used by the Board in its 19 Finding Statement as against the 20 findings and conclusions in its only 21 FEIS which was issued earlier. Page 22 63 Item F-15 of the Town' s FEIS 23 states as follows : 24 "Data for golf course Proceedings 73 1 communities indicate that the number 2 of school children generated by them 3 is lower than in standard 4 subdivision development . The DGEIS 5 cited several examples (DGEIS 6 Appendix 403 ) which showed 7 multipliers of 0 . 03 and 0 . 15 . . . " 8 The Towns DGEIS in Appendix 9 4 . 3 provided the following data : 10 "At the 183 unit Forestgate 11 Green Development near Princeton, r. 12 New Jersey , there are fewer than 13 four children ( for a ratio of 0 . 03 14 school children per unit) ; at the 81 15 unit St . Andrews development in 16 Westchester County there are 12 17 children ( for a ratio of 0 . 15) ; and 18 at Fairway Green in Mamaroneck II19 Village , there are virtually no 20 children according to Thomas 21 Management Co . , the management agent 22 for the project . " 23 That ' s a quote from the 24 Town ' s own report in September of i Proceedings 74 1 1993 . We note that the St . Andrew' s 2 project children are within the 3 Ardsley School District known for 4 its excellent schools and this 5 clearly refutes the undocumented 6 assertion that because the Murray 7 Avenue School has an excellent 8 reputation , a development project in 9 its area would generate more pupils 10 than would otherwise be the case . 11 So , clearly this whole 12 business of using the school 13 children projection in the Finding 14 Statement as a basis or 15 justification for recreation zone is 16 totally faulty based on the Town' s 17 own data . 18 There are some other comments 19 we would like to make on the Finding 20 Statement including a statement -- a 21 quote from a Charles McCaffrey , that 22 appeared to come in on October 18th, 23 which is not in the record at all , x 24 and if you were going to include it Proceedings 75 f', 1 in the Finding Statement you at 2 least should have included the full 3 letter . We don ' t think it' s 4 appropriate to take what maybe out 5 of context in the quote . 6 The Finding Statement comes II 7 to a conclusion about wetlands and 8 buffers and says that they should 9 have a 300 to 400 buffer zone around 10 wetlands and it quotes Steven Colman 11 for the source for this conclusion. f. 12 Mr. Colman ' s original comment 13 appears in the SGDEIS . There was 14 not documentation then in the 15 analysis . He just thought it would 16 be a good idea . The Town Wetland 17 Ordinance on the books for every 18 piece of property -- We shouldn' t be 19 dealt with any differently , requires 20 a 100 foot buffer . We can ' t see how 21 the Town could use a prejudicial 22 analysis that hypothetically assumes 23 that 300 and 400 is right when its . 24 own ordinance , as matter of law, Proceedings 76 1 says that 100 is right and then say, 2 okay . Therefore , we can 't use 3 alternatives because they won' t meet 4 the wetland buffer requirement . 5 The Finding Statement 6 includes as a justification for the 7 recreation zone a statement " That 8 the Bonnie Briar minority 9 shareholders explicitly favored this 10 zoning alternative . " To accurately 11 put this statement into context , the 12 Finding Statement should also have 13 noted that the Bonnie Briar minority 14 shareholders are the Bonnie Briar 15 Country Club which has a lease on 16 the property which expires in 17 several years , and that the 18 enactment of this zone would likely 19 enhance their ability to negotiate a 20 favorable extension of that lease . 21 There are a number of 22 references in the Finding Statement 23 to the effect that portions of the 24 site have Chatfield Charlton soil Proceedings 77 1 types . The implication is that they 2 cause a problem . In fact , they 3 don't . They are perfectly sound 4 soil types to build on . They have 5 been built on all over Westchester 6 County in routine site engineering 7 and site review and we are sure 8 there is no problem in these soils . 9 Two other soil types that are 10 mentioned , Leicester Loam and 11 Ridgeway Loam which are all there on ,' 12 the site , and therefore are very 13 bad . They are typically wetland 14 soils and as we repeatedly indicate , 15 we would not disturb the wetlands . 16 That is not an issue . Really, the 17 Finding Statement is totally 18 misleading on that point . 19 I think going through all of 20 these items and my complete 21 statement further documents this , we 22 have established that the Finding 23 Statement and the SEQRA records and r . (: 24 the proceeding studies in no way Proceedings 78 1 justify that a recreation zone is 2 required in order to properly 3 regulate the use of the Bonnie Briar 4 site . What you are trying to do in 5 all of this , and you so stated, is 6 to implement the most worthy 7 policies of the LWRP, the Local 8 Waterfront Revitalization Plan. 9 I might point out in 1988 or 10 thereabouts , the Town engaged 11 Shuster Associates to prepare a plan (. 12 and suggested a zoning ordinance for 13 the property as a tool for 14 implementing LWRP policy . I would 15 like to point out that Shuster 16 Associates was not a firm that 17 didn ' t understand about the LWRP. 18 They were the consultants to the 19 Town and Village of Larchmont in the 20 development of that LWRP . Shuster 21 Associates as an implementation 22 measure first prepared a cluster 23 plan and a suggested implementation I .. 24 ordinance under the existing R-30 Proceedings • 79 1 zone . They mandated cluster and 2 they wanted to protect the wetlands 3 and the water paths and against 4 flooding and so forth . 5 Later , without explanation 6 Shuster Associates prepared for the 7 Town a similar plan only at an R-50 8 density , which would have resulted 9 in less development than the first 10 plan . Most of these we might 11 suggest are similar in general E . .. 12 concept to the alternatives that we 13 prepared and presented which are 14 present in the SGDEIS and they were 15 routinely rejected , all of those , 16 Shuster' s plan, our plan in the 17 Town' s Finding Statement . Never did 18 the Town in its Finding Statement or 19 any of the SEQRA documents every 20 fully explained why the Shuster 21 proposal , which was developed in 22 full context with the LWRP 23 objectives doesn 't meet those 24 objectives . We think they do we . Proceedings 80 1 We believe those plans and 2 ordinances that come along with them 3 are an appropriate and 4 constitutional tool for fully 5 meeting the LWRP objectives . We 6 don't argue those objectives for 7 those of you who are here and great 8 supporters of it . We agree with 9 those objectives . We don 't think 10 this zone is the property tool for 11 meeting it . 12 The Town Board Finding 13 Statement and its prior SEQRA 14 evaluations criticize our 15 alternatives and the Shuster 16 alternatives for various reasons . 17 One of the basic ones is that 18 they will change the alteration of II19 land and have more impact than a so 20 called "no build" solution . "No 21 build" solution is keeping 22 everything the same as it . is today , 23 and we concede that any development �, 24 plan for any piece of land will have Proceedings 81 1 somewhat more of an impact . That' s 2 not the question . That ' s not the 3 question -- The test is , do these 4 impact constitute significant 5 adverse impacts? We absolutely 6 assert that they do not . We believe 7 that the property owners have a 8 right to develop his or her property 9 in a manner that is consistent with 10 the zoning pattern of the area and 11 have no significant adverse impacts . 12 The Board in its various comments , 13 in the Finding Statement and in the 14 SEQRA documents have consistently 15 magnified the most minor impacts and 16 implied that these could not -- 17 would not be addressed and averted 18 as a part of the routine application 19 of the various land development laws 20 presently existing in the Town of 21 Mamaroneck and on the SEQRA -- 22 MS . PRICE : Excuse me . For a 23 point of clarification and 24 information , how much longer will Proceedings 82 1 you be on your recitation? 2 MR. PARISH : Probably about 3 five or seven minutes . I am winding 4 up. You had a seventy-five page 5 Finding Statement that took a long 6 time to read and as representing the 7 property owners , I think we really 8 have an obligation to point out the 9 problems that we see in that Finding 10 Statement . 11 Now, just because I got 12 interrupted and I don ' t want to lose 13 a point -- It ' s an important issue 14 and I hope you can focus . My client 15 has a lot at stake and the community 16 has a lot at stake and I would hope 17 that a reasoned analysis and a 18 reasoned look at what we are talking 19 about and the various reports , and 20 the Town has prepared reports this 21 thick -- The Town has prepared a 22 seventy-five Finding Statement that 23 was read here in April -- 24 MR. RYAN : Please continue . II Proceedings 83 r`~ . ti 1 MR. PARISH : I should point 2 out that the impacts of the various 3 development alternatives that the 4 Town Board did in evaluating it 5 magnified the most minor impacts and 6 totally ignored the fact that these II7 impacts can and would be addressed 8 and averted as part of a routine 9 application of the various land 10 development laws that are presently 11 existing if the Town of Mamaroneck 12 and under SEQRA. 13 Now, I talked about 14 alternative plans and I would like 15 to place into the record a plan that 16 my client has submitted to the 17 Planning Board , a proposed 18 subdivision cluster plan which I li19 will discussion for a few moments 20 because I think it is germane to 21 this hearing . 22 MS . PRICE : Mr . Parish, is 23 this one of the alternatives that 24 you submitted to the Town Board Proceedings 84 1 which we evaluated? 2 MR. PARISH : No . 3 MR. PARISH : This is probably 4 before the Planning Board tomorrow 5 evening ; is that correct? 6 MR. PARISH: It was submitted 7 to the Planning Board but I am 8 submitting it as an exhibit because 9 • it is germane to this hearing . 10 As I earlier referred to , 11 this is a plan that has been 12 submitted to the Planning Board for 13 review . It shows my client ' s 14 proposal for the development of this 15 property in accordance with the 16 present zoning but adhering to all 17 of the policies of the LWRP and 18 those that were annunciate in the II19 various SEQRA documents as important 20 to the physical conditions of the 21 site , and I note this for the Board 22 and I turn it around for the public, 23 all of the area that is shown in t 24 green on this site and in blue will Proceedings 85 t'. 1 remain as permanent open space . 2 That means 114 of the 140 ' s or so 3 acres on the site would remain in 4 permanent open space under this 5 plan . The blue areas within this 6 open space are the areas which are II 7 now wetlands or flood plain areas or 8 act as retention areas . They would 9 be retained . They would not be 10 disturbed . The areas shown also are 11 the buffer protection areas . I . 12 An 18 hole golf course is 13 wrapped around the total perimeter 14 of the site . So that on every 15 portion of the site there is the 16 vista maintained , landscaping 17 maintained , for the people who ride 18 by, for the people who walk by, for II19 the people that live next to the 20 site . It is all maintained within 21 the interior of the site . There is 22 housing , yes , and we believe that 23 all of your environmental ' 24 information indicates that level of II Proceedings 86 1 housing can be accommodate in terms 2 of traffic , in terms of schools and 3 in terms of all other socioeconomic 4 and physical impacts , and that there 5 would be within these open space 6 many areas for botanical resources 7 to be for wild life , to populate the 8 area and that there is no basic 9 reason that the LWRP policies need 10 to be implemented by the recreation 11 zone . This plan would meet those {' 12 policies and at the same time 13 protect and recognize the economic 14 interest of my client . 15 I would just like to 16 conclude , we urge your Board to 17 avail itself of this one last 18 opportunity to carefully examine a II19 legally sound alternative for the 20 implementation of its public policy 21 objectives . 22 While my client is adamantly 23 opposed to the recreation zone , they ( 24 do recognize that there are Proceedings 87 1 important public policy objectives 2 that need to be observed in any 3 future use of this property. They 4 are most willing to cooperate with 5 the Town toward the development of a 6 plan and an appropriate ordinance , 7 if necessary , which would permit a 8 reasonable use of the property and 9 would at the same time recognize the 10 LWRP and the Master Plan objectives 11 of the Town . Thank you . 12 My apologies for the length 13 of this , but we felt it was 14 important for this hearing and for 15 the record and to put our views on 16 the record. Thank you . 17 MS . PRICE : Thank you. Is 18 there anyone else that wishes to 19 speak against the proposed zoning 20 ordinance? If not do any Board 21 members have any questions or 22 statements to make? 23 Mr . Parish, I have listened 24 as well as the others for a long Proceedings 88 1 time and we appreciate you taking 2 the time to critique our Finding 3 Statement . We recognize the amount 4 of work that was involved . Having 5 said that and having listened very 6 carefully to your statements I feel 7 very comfortable and having the 8 statements before me and having 9 worked on the statements well over 10 eight months , I feel very 11 comfortable rejecting your 12 statements and I want that to be 13 known for the record . 14 Again , I have listened 15 carefully . As to your plan, that is 16 before the Planning Board and our 17 Finding Statement , again , very 18 clearly delineates why that plan 19 would not work. Our hydrologist was 20 involved , the planner was involved . 21 We had specialists that were 22 involved . We disagree , that much is 23 clear . But there is nothing that 24 you have said here tonight that Proceedings 89 1 would make me personally review the 2 Finding Statement that this Board 3 has spent so much time on . Is there 4 anything else that any other Board 5 members -- 6 MS . TASHOFF : My name is 7 Sandy Tashoff (ph) . I live at Cooper 8 Lane in the Town of Mamaroneck. I 9 was wondering if it was appropriate 10 for the Board to entertain comments 11 from the public after hearing both 12 sides? 13 MS . PRICE : We can do this . 14 This is a public hearing . If you 15 wish to make a few statements , then 16 the other side with make a few 17 statements , as well . 18 MS . TASHOFF : I request 19 permission to address Mr . Parish and 20 the other Bonnie Briar Syndicate 21 representatives here this evening. 22 I listened very carefully -- 23 MS . PRICE : Address us , we 24 are the ones -- Proceedings 90 ti. 1 MR. RYAN : This is not a 2 dialogue between the members of the 3 audience . We ask each side to 4 address the Board . 5 MS . TASHOFF : I wonder if any 6 of the members of the Syndicate live 7 in the Town of Mamaroneck or have 8 the opportunity to drive on Weaver 9 Street in the morning rush hour or 10 the evening rush hour and be faced 11 with the horrendous traffic 12 situation? I think not . Be that as 13 it may , I believe that any 14 ,reasonably intelligent person can 15 manipulate data to suit their needs 16 and I believe that was apparent this 17 evening and I think there are many 18 inaccuracies that Mr . Parish made 19 about the Board ' s findings and I 20 just wanted to go on record to say I 21 feel very strongly that the public 22 should really know that you have to 23 read between the line and listen f' 24 very carefully to both arguments . Proceedings 91 Ir 1 For those of you been 2 following it right through and have 3 read all of the findings and been 4 through all of the processes I do 5 think that it ' s important for you to 6 keep that in mind at this time when 7 you are being fed, perhaps with 8 incorrect information from our 9 opponents who favor the development . 10 I seriously believe the development 11 can only exacerbate to this entire 12 community . Thank you . 13 MS . PRICE : Mr. Parish . 14 MR. PARISH : The question was 15 addressed for the record . The data 16 that I referred to was not data that 17 we prepared . It was data that the 18 Town consultants prepare . I 19 referred to a section of the Town' s 20 report done by the Town ' s 21 consultants not by us and not by my 22 clients . Thank you . 23 MS . PRICE : Thank you, 24 Mr . Parish . Is there anyone else Proceedings 92 1 that wishes to speaks? No other 2 comments? No other questions? Is 3 there a motion? 4 MR. RYAN : I move to close 5 the public hearing. 6 MS . PRICE : Is there a II 7 second? 8 MS . O ' KEEFFE : Second . 9 MS . PRICE : All in favor? 10 (Whereupon , Board members 11 respond aye) j``~ 12 MS . PRICE : As to the 13 proposed zoning amendments and 14 change in the zoning map . Is there 15 a motion? 16 MS . O ' KEEFFE : So moved . 17 MS . PRICE : Is there a 18 second? II19 MS . O ' FLINN : Second . 20 MS . PRICE : All in favor? 21 (Whereupon , Board members 22 respond aye) 23 MS . PRICE : Town of 24 Mamaroneck, you have a new Proceedings 93 yyJ i,. 1 recreation zone . 2 We are going to take a brief 3 recess . Five minutes exactly and 4 come back please for the second part 5 of the hearing . 6 (Whereupon, a recess was 7 taken by all parties) 8 MS . PRICE : Is there a motion 9 to open? 10 MS . O ' KEEFFE : So moved. 11 MS . PRICE : Do we have a 12 second? 13 MS . O ' FLINN : Second . 14 MS . PRICE : We have before us 15 this evening a local moratorium on 16 placement of cellular telephone 17 antennas . The succinct purpose of 18 this moratorium is to set a 90-day 19 moratorium on the erection of 20 cellular telephone antennas to give 21 the Town Board an opportunity to 22 review existing regulations with 23 regard to the placement of such 24 antennas in the Town of Mamaroneck Proceedings 94 1 and determine whether or not it ' s 2 appropriate to amend zoning 3 regulations with respect to the 4 location of such antennas . 5 The expanded intent and 6 purpose of this law has further been 7 modified by the Town Board and I 8 would like to read the expanded 9 version of the purpose and intent . 10 "The Town Board is congnizant 11 of the concern within the community 12 of potential hazards and health and 13 safety from exposure to 14 electromagnetic fields . At the 15 present time the Town of Mamaroneck 16 has no regulations with respect to 17 the placement of cellular telephone 18 antennas ; however, there is some 19 evidence that those antennas emit 20 electromagnetic fields and that 21 exposure over long periods of time 22 to those fields at certain distances 23 may cause adverse effects upon the 24 health of individuals who are Proceedings 95 1 exposed . " 2 It is the intent of this 3 Local Law to provide for a 4 moratorium of placement of these 5 antennas until the Town Board can 6 haven an opportunity to investigate 7 the impact of these antennas on the 8 public health and the welfare of the 9 Town , including its aesthetic value, 10 land value and historic value and to 11 investigate the claims with respect 12 to the alleged ( Inaudible) antennas , 13 and to determine whether or not it 14 is appropriate to adopt zoning 15 changes with respect to cellular 16 telephone antennas to protect the 17 public health , welfare and safety of 18 the Town . 19 - The Town Board is also 20 cognizant of the fact this is a 21 highly regulated area which is 22 largely preempted by the Federal 23 Government . However, the Board 24 believes that it is within its Proceedings " 96 t S 1 authority to adopt limited 2 regulations if warranted to protect 3 additional zoning objectives . 4 The Town Board is further 5 aware that cellular telephone 6 transmission are an important form 7 of communication and adopting this 8 moratorium for a limited period so 9 as to avoid to the greatest extent 10 possible interference with the plans 11 of the providers of cellular 12 telephone service . Is there a 13 motion to accept this expanded 14 aversion? 15 MR. RYAN : So moved . 16 MS . PRICE : Is there a 17 second? 18 MS . O ' KEEFFE : Second. 19 MS . PRICE : All in favor? 20 (Whereupon, Board members 21 respond aye) 22 MS . PRICE : The public 23 hearing is now open . Again , because 24 of the hour please try to be brief Proceedings 97 1 and not repetitive in statements 2 that are made . We would first like 3 to hear from all of those in the 4 audience who are in favor of this 5 90-day moratorium. 6 MR. OVIERNA: Ernie 7 Ovierna (ph) from 5 High Ridge Road . 8 I am not speaking in this capacity 9 as the President of the Larchmont 10 Gardens Association, but as a 11 resident with a cellular phone in my 12 car . Don ' t you want to 13 differentiate cellular phone 14 antennas from ones on the back of 15 everybody ' s cars? Don' t you want to 16 give us some clue as to a hundred 17 watt , a thousand watt , a two watt 18 antenna? Is it a hundred feet tall? 19 Is it two foot tall? What are we 20 talking about that we are against or 21 for? 22 MS . PRICE : The purpose of 23 the moratorium is to study all of 24 that and hear testimony -- Proceedings 98 1 MR. OVIERNA: Are you saying 2 that no one can put another cellular 3 phone in their car for 90 days until 4 you get your act together? 5 MS . PRICE : This is fixed 6 communication, a cellular antenna II 7 that is stationary, not mobile . 8 MR. OVIERNA: If you are 9 going to make a law, don't get 10 yourself in a position where you are 11 banning anybody from putting a 12 cellular antenna on -- 13 MS . PRICE : These are fixed. 14 MR. OVIERNA: Isn ' t there any 15 further restriction as to what we 16 are talking about? Someone could 17 use a cellular phone from their 18 homes and have a fixed antenna on II19 the window or on the roof and I have 20 one on my boat . It is not a big 21 deal . It depends on how much 22 wattage . Receiving antennas don't 23 cause a problem . Transmitting 24 antennas do potentially cause a Proceedings 99 1 problem. I am not against this . I 2 agree with you . You just got to say 3 what you are talking about . 4 MS . PRICE : We will come back 5 to our findings and make that very 6 clear. Thank you . Anybody else? 7 MS . BENEDICTS : Helga 8 Benedicts , 6 Harmony Driver. I 9 support the moratorium for 90 days 10 for the purposes of education and 11 research and investigation, whatever 12 you want to do . It ' s something that 13 I always support . I would like to 14 suggest that as you proceed with 15 your investigation that you get 16 expert opinion of all persuasions 17 because I have a hunch you may end 18 up with a battle of the experts . II19 Secondly , I suggest you be 20 aware of the NIMBY argument , not in 21 my backyard , as to whether that' s a 22 real or an emotional reaction. I 23 suggest that you study this issue in 1 24 its impact , not only from the safety Proceedings 100 1 issue which is of primary concern to 2 all of us but also in terms of 3 aesthetics. as well as clarify some 4 of the types of questions that the 5 gentleman raised . 6 MS . PRICE : Thank you . It is 7 important to point out that the 8 battle of the experts is not what is 9 before us this evening . It is to 10 look at the concerns of residents 11 and what happens as a result of 12 those concerns in terms of property 13 values and surrounding values . It 14 is not to say whether it ' s good, bad 15 or indifferent and who' s right and 16 who' s wrong . Is there a genuine 17 concern and does it effect property' 18 value? We need time to hear 19 testimony to that effect and to 20 spend the three months looking at 21 it . 22 MS . BENEDICTS : Your 23 concerned citizens will be bringing 24 in the experts of all persuasions . Proceedings 101 1 MS . PRICE : Thank you . 2 Anyone else? 3 MS . BERKOVITS : Madam 4 Supervisor and members of the Town 5 Board and fellow residents . My name 6 is Annette Berkovits (ph) . I live on 7 Copley Road in the Larchmont postal 8 area of the Town of Mamaroneck. 9 Unlike these speakers who 10 have come before you to speak on 11 other issues , who are prepared with 12 facts and figures , with articulate 13 elaborate presentation , I am not so 14 prepared . The reason for that is 15 very simple . I became aware of the 16 issue of the cellular antennas on 17 Saturday when I read the front page 18 of the New York Times and I heard 19 about it from a concerned neighbor . 20 I was stunned when I heard this . 21 When I moved to Mamaroneck 16 22 years ago I became accustomed to 23 receiving notices from the Town when 24 any changes around me were Proceedings 102 1 contemplated . When the neighbor two 2 blocks down the road was planning to 3 erect a fence that was a couple of 4 inches taller , I got a notice 5 several . When the neighbor several 6 blocks away wanted to build a deck 7 that was a little further removed 8 from his property line , I got a 9 notice . And here, low and behold, 10 NYNEX is trying to erect a large 11 cellular station only three houses 12 away from me , by stealth and 13 corporate muscle , and I learned 14 nothing about it . 15 In stead of panicing, like 16 the scientist that I am -- I am a 17 biologist . I wanted to seek out 18 facts , but since Saturday I had only 19 three days and it has been extremely 20 difficult to get any information in 21 such a brief period of time . I 22 contacted some biologists working in 23 this area and scientist , as my I , 24 husband who has a few things to add Proceedings 103 1 on the subject , and I learned there 2 was a great dispute on the subject . 3 Clearly there is any number of 4 scientist who believe these antennas 5 ought to be situated a minium of 6 half a mile from residential areas , 8 and yet this antenna is being 8 contemplated for an area that has a 9 - great numbers of homes and three 10 schools . I am terribly concerned 11 about it and would urge you most 12 strongly to put the moratorium into • 13 effect and study the effects of such 14 antennas with extreme care . 15 I would like to read letters 16 from two neighbors unable to intend 17 that asked me to read this into the 18 record . This is a letter from Tom II19 and Essie Turner of 15 Kenmare Road: 20 "Due to our inability to 21 attend the July 20th , Town Board 22 meeting , we 've asked David and 23 Annette Berkovits to represent us , 24 in effect , as our proxy . • Proceedings 104 1 We are twenty year residents 2 at 15 Kenmare Road, a mere block 3 from the Alden Road site that NYNEX 4 has , somehow, negotiated a deal to 5 install cellular antennas on the 6 roof of that location. 7 It is our firm 8 recommendation, and I know we ' re 9 joined by many others in our 10 community , that NYNEX is prevented 11 from implementing this plan until 12 conclusive evidence is presented to 13 assure everyone concerned that this 14 action presents no safety hazards or 15 in any way would devalue property in 16 the surrounding areas . 17 Certainly , there is ample 18 evidence that a public difference of 19 opinion exists regarding health 20 problems related to these cellular 21 stations . Indeed , NYNEX has been 22 unsuccessful with installation 23 attempts in other areas . That 24 rejection is directly related to the Proceedings 105 1 safety issue . Why then should we 2 allow this corporate giant to have 3 its way in the Town of Mamaroneck? 4 At the very least, please put 5 a temporary halt to NYNEX until 6 we 've had time to hear all the 7 concerns from the people you serve 8 as well as receive conviction beyond 9 doubt from NYNEX that no one is in 10 jeopardy should-they receive your 11 permission to install these 12 antennas . 13 Thank you for your 14 consideration . " 15 Here is a letter on the same 16 subject from Robert and Christine 17 Agnew, 13 Kenmare Road . 18 "We share your concern about 19 this installation , and believe a 20 serious study should be undertaken 21 before they are installed on Alden 22 Road . Although we are not 23 categorically opposed to antennas in 24 our area if they are safe , we Proceedings 106 1 strongly believe that their safety 2 must be assured prior to 3 installation . 4 Our immediate area has one of 5 the highest population densities in 6 the Larchmont postal district , and II 7 as homeowners in this area we have 8 no desire to have our property and 9 ourselves put in any jeopardy. 10 We would certainly attend the 11 Wednesday, July 20 Town Board 12 meeting , but will be away on 13 vacation at the time . For this 14 reason , we have written to you to 15 give you our support , and in effect , 16 our proxy . It is our hope that this 17 short note will be helpful in 18 registering community reaction to II19 the proposed NYNEX cellular antenna 20 location . " 21 MS . PRICE : Thank you . As a 22 Point of clarification , and 23 hopefully to reassure you, if and (. 24 when that cellular application comes Proceedings 107 1 before the Planning Board there 2 would be a public hearing scheduled . 3 At that time all of the residence of 4 that area would be notified . What 5 is before the Town Board tonight is 6 a moratorium on any and all cellular 7 antennas . Consequently, that is for 8 all of the community . Please be 9 reassured, that if it is before the 10 Planning Board and a public hearing 11 is scheduled everyone will have a 12 full and fair opportunity to be 13 heard on that issue . 14 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Isn' t it 15 before the Planning Board tomorrow 16 night? 17 MS . PRICE : It is a public 18 hearing . It is a conference . If 19 the Planning Board were to decide 20 and go through tomorrow night then 21 they would schedule a public hearing 22 on the issue . Yes . 23 MR. BERKOVITS : Madam 24 Supervisor , members of the Board and Proceedings 108 1 fellow residence my name is David 2 Berkovits . Thank you for the 3 opportunity to talk before you. 4 I had the opportunity to talk 5 to Dr . Blank (ph) of Columbia 6 University who spent his life 7 studying electromagnetic radiation . 8 The frequencies that he looks at are 9 not as high as the ones on antennas . 10 There were a number of comments he 11 made to me today and I would like to 12 relate them to you . 13 First , he was very surprised 14 in the low levels of radiation at 15 lesser frequencies that he works 16 with and there effects . He found 17 effects at lower levels than he had 18 anticipated . He also stated that 19 there are biological effects at all 20 levels of frequency and that has to 21 be discussed and determined and 22 explored and I don ' t believe that a 23 moratorium for 90 days or 180 days 24 will be able and adequate to II Proceedings 109 FI 1 determine what effects , health 2 effects of such radiation are . 3 Secondly , he said regardless 4 of whether or not there is an effect 5 in terms of that antenna 6 installation , the perception is what II7 matters . The terms of what ' s 8 happening today in terms of high 9 powered lines -- People are not able 10 to sell their properties . 11 A realtor called my wife up (� .. 12 this evening and she said until the 13 golf club made a decision that the 14 antennas would not be installed on 15 top of the water tower I was unable 16 to sell that house adjacent to that 17 piece of property. She said, I 18 would come to the hearing. I am II19 sure if she is here or not , but I 20 have two children and I am waiting 21 for my husband to come home . If he 22 comes home in time I will be at the 23 courthouse . t 24 So , there are two situations . Proceedings 110 t .: 1 There is a public perception 2 situation of what health effects are 3 and there is a question of what the 4 health effects -- and the scientific 5 debate is heating up . 6 When we bought the house 17 II 7 years ago , we bought it because of 8 the quality of life , a school system 9 and there was a manner and shape and 10 a community we liked living in . 11 Putting antennas such as these on 12 top of the co-op for just economic 13 reasons destroys that quality of 14 life and devalues the property that 15 I spent a lot of time working for 16 and my neighbors have also . Thank 17 you . 18 MS . PRICE : I am going to II19 take someone that hasn ' t spoken . 20 MR . DEBUNO : My wife and I 21 are both here , Joe DeBuno (ph) and 22 Gail Debuno , 6 Nassau Road in 23 Larchmont , which is within less than L 24 a hundred yards -- In fact we are II Proceedings 111 1 the corner from -- the other corner 2 of Walden (ph) , very close . We lived 3 in the neighborhood for a number of 4 years . 5 All I have to say is ditto on 6 what that man said . I am going to II 7 make a recommendation here , you 8 have -- I am not asking for closure 9 so these people don' t have any say . 10 I would like to have a show of hands 11 for those in favor of your (. ' 12 moratorium so we can get a sense and 13 feeling for this reason . May I ask 14 for a show of hands? 15 MS . PRICE : Yes . 16 MR. DEBUNO : May I have all of 17 those people who are in favor of 18 having the moratorium? Thank you . II19 I am finished . 20 MS . PRICE : Thank you, sir. 21 MS . BENEDICTS : I just wanted 22 to say in my remarks I attempted to 23 remain neutral , not partisan and I 24 am disturbed by the partisan Proceedings 112 1 comments I am hearing and I wish to , 2 just for the record, indicate that I 3 disagree with what I heard from a 4 partisan point of view. , 5 MS . PRICE : Thank you . Yes . 6 MS . SUSSMAN : My name is 7 Claudia Sussman (ph) . I live at 145 8 Beach Avenue . I can 't be neutral 9 about this . As a parent of young 10 children I am in no way willing to 11 take even a remote risk that my 12 children will develop leukemia , 13 which is one of the things that has 14 been cited in relation to 15 electromagnetic fields . As a woman 16 I am not willing to take a risk to 17 increased rates of breast cancer in 18 relation to these electromagnetic 19 field and I advocate not only the 20 moratorium, but prohibition of these 21 antennas in any residential 22 neighborhood . There are a 23 tremendous amount of parents who r.- 24 feel exactly the same way that Proceedings 113 1 couldn' t be here tonight . Thank 2 you . 3 MS . PRICE : Thank you. 4 MS . LIONS : I am Leslie 5 Lions (ph) . I am in the process of 6 buying 2 Spruce Road . In about a II 7 month I ' ll be moving in . About 8 three days after I signed my 9 purchase contracts I found out about 10 all of this with respect to Winged 11 Foot . Other than some of the people rI 12 here , that ' s given me a little more 13 time to learn something about what I 14 know nothing . 15 I am not a scientist . I have 16 a get deal of difficulty 17 understanding some of the safety 18 studies that I have seen but I have II19 tried . I have spent a lot of time . 20 I am scared to death . I am moving 21 here from New Rochelle for my two 22 children, I have two little girls , 23 so they can have the benefit of the ( 24 quality of life and the schools . I Proceedings 114 fir '..._ 1 can state to you from the research I 2 have done , which I will continue , I 3 will not live in my house if this 4 happens . I feel that strongly about 5 it . So I certainly understand 6 whoever said that the real estate II 7 people say , put it only hold . You 8 can ' t sell a piece property that ' s 9 effected by this . I am faced with 10 my children and myself being put at 11 risk of very serious health effects 12 or I move and lose a fortune . 13 I am very strongly in support 14 of a moratorium and a prohibition 15 and I think 90 days , may in fact not 16 be very long to study this . It' s a 17 complex issue if you are not -- I 18 don ' t know what kind of physicist 19 you have to be to understand this . 20 It ' s not easy . Thank you . 21 MS . . PRICE : Thank you . 22 MR. MAKER: Supervisor Price 23 and members of the Town Board and ': 24 various consultants , my name is .. . . . Proceedings 115 1 William Maker , Jr . . We represent 2 Mr . and Mrs . Harlan Batrus who live 3 close to the Winged Foot water 4 tower . At the time that application 5 was made , Mr . and Mrs . Batrus 6 organized most of the neighbors in 7 their neighborhood to put together 1I information which was shared with 1..� 8 9 certain members of the Town 10 community that showed the problems 11 that could be generated by these 12 types of antennas . 13 Mr . and Mrs . Batrus would 14 like to applaud the Board for having 15 the foresight to take some time to 16 study the issues . In fact , we would 17 be surprised if anybody would oppose 18 this moratorium because it would 19 seem to me that if the NYNEX people 20 honestly believe that there are no 21 harmful effect from the antennas , 22 the studies they will be able to 23 produce within the next 90 days 24 ought to be convincing . So, for 1 Proceedings 117 1 by Paul Boduress (ph) . He is not a 2 scientist . He is just a -- He is a 3 journalist . They are not bad 4 people . "The Great Power Line 5 Cover-Up" also written by him, but 6 also -- This is heavy. I can't pick 7 it all up at once . These scientific 8 articles -- I would say that because 9 this is the presentation that I 10 received and none of this was 11 mentioned as the possible other 12 side , that NYNEX alone needs 90 days 13 to study this . So , I am very much 14 in favor of this moratorium. Thank 15 you . 16 MS . PRICE : Is there anyone 17 else who wishes to speak? 18 MS . ALVEREZ : My name is 19 Francina Alverez (ph) . I represent 20 the Larchmont Gables Apartment 21 Cooperative . Our group, The 22 Larchmont Gables Co-Op is located 23 across the street and contiguous to 24 the premises known as Eleven Alden Proceedings 118 1 Tenants Corp . , located at 11 Alden 2 Road . 3 We are here tonight and have 4 submitted a petition of 36 residence 5 that are in objection to the 6 application of the Alden Road 7 Tenants Corporation for the 8 installation of low power radio 9 antennas located on the roof of said 10 building and building ' s garage . 11 We are opposed to the 12 installation because of the unsafe 13 levels of microwave radiation that 14 - puts us at an increased risk for 15 leukemia and other cancers . In 16 light of the present lack of 17 agreement within the scientific 18 community as to the safety of the 19 radiation to be emitted by the 20 proposed equipment we feel that the 21 application -- their application 22 should be denied and the Town Board 23 have a 90-day moratorium on any • 24 installation and any proposals to be Ilh. Proceedings 119 1 submitted . 2 Let me mention that there are 3 other proposals that have been 4 refused within Westchester County. 5 Mamaroneck Village refused a 6 proposal , Rex-Tel (ph) . Harrison 7 turned down a request from Cellular 8 One . 9 Our neighbors at Winged Foot, 10 the nice gentleman that spoke before 11 myself , have argued that we will all ( 12 be exposed to potentially unsafe 13 levels of microwave radiation . A 14 report already submitted by Winged 15 Foot addresses the fact that 16 antennas should be at least 17 twenty-five hundred feet from a 18 home . So if it ' s not safe in the 19 Winged Foot area , it certainly 20 wouldn ' t be safe on Alden Road or 21 anywhere in our Town . 22 Our Town Board knows the site 23 that has been proposed . It' s a 24 densely populated area . There are Proceedings 120 1 four out of six school within 25 2 feet of the proposes antenna site . 3 This represents 2 , 200 of the 4 precious children that we have in 5 our community . 6 When NYNEX sites these 7 scientific reports that tell us how II8 safe these cellular antenna sites 9 are, let me remind you 30 years ago 10 our scientific community saw nothing 11 wrong with installing asbestos in 12 our schools . In case you don't 13 know, NYNEX has buildings in White 14 Plains that house overseas lines 15 that are environmentally hazardous they 16 because the are filled with 17 asbestos . These now represent giant 18 modelists dedicated to the mistakes 19 that the telephone companies have 20 made . They are unsafe and too 21 expensive to tear down . So , The 22 phone companies and science have 23 been wrong before when it comes to 24 public safety . Proceedings 121 1 We are not here to argue over 2 whose studies are better or to 3 impede progress . What we are saying 4 is that the evidence is conflicting 5 and we are petitioning the community 6 to have the cellular companies err 7 on the side of caution and locate 8 these stations away from residential 9 areas . Thank you . 10 MS . PRICE : Thank you . 11 MR. OVIERNA: Ernie Ovierna 12 (ph) 5 High Ridge Road . I couldn't 13 be more in favor of you studying for 14 90 day the impact of the antennas . 15 I realize you are referring to , even 16 though they call it low power, the 17 relatively high power antennas . 18 Most of the studies I have referred 19 to have related to low power, low 20 frequency power line problems . 21 People are worried about buying a 22 house near a cellular antenna . They 23 should be panic stricken about 24 buying a house near a Con-Ed Proceedings 122 1 transformer on the pole outside 2 their bedroom window. Most of the 3 concerns have related to the 60 4 cycles that you have in your home . 5 A CRT display -- Everyone has a 6 computer these days . The radiation II 7 that comes out of the back of the 8 CRT display can be quite lethal and 9 quite a problem . 10 So , you should be concerned 11 about many areas in addition to the 12 cellular phone situation . Once you 13 opened the Pandora ' s Box of studying 14 and trying to come to a solution, 15 you are going to be inundated with 16 information and you are really 17 leaving the Town potentially exposed 18 to other hazards if you don' t look II19 into those as well . 20 The whole concept of antennas 21 doesn ' t always appear as an antenna . 22 You need to be concerned about many 23 _ things . So , your moratorium and 24 studies -- I would just urge you Proceedings 123 !. 1 that you may have to hire a 2 consultant because I would wager 3 that there is probably no one 4 technically competent on the Board 5 today that is really capable of 6 sorting it all out to give some 7 really good advise . 8 So , it is a very technical 9 area . There are reams and reams of 10 information that have already been 11 studied . It ' s no simple task to I' 12 come to a conclusion in 90 days , 13 unless you are each prepared to do 14 an awful lot of reading and 15 conflicting testimony . It' s not a 16 casual subject . Thank you . 17 MS . PRICE : Remember, in all 18 of this , it is a moratorium to look 19 at what is appropriate in terms of a 20 siting of these that are under 21 special permit use which is now in 22 the Town and the intent is not to 23 figure out which expert is right or ( 24 wrong . The issue is public 1 . Proceedings 125 , 1 is a letter from the Mayor of the 2 Village of Larchmont and it is 3 addressed to myself . 4 "I understand that .a public 5 hearing to consider a proposed 6 moratorium on the erection of II l cellular antennas is on the agenda 8 for the Town Council meeting this 9 evening . Please let this letter 10 serve as notification that the 11 Village of Larchmont is in support 12 of this moratorium. 13 As you know, the Village of 14 Larchmont is in close proximity to 15 the Town of Mamaroneck. Since 16 sufficient scientific data 17 concerning radio wave transmission 18 of this type has not yet been made 19 available for review, we would 20 appreciate it if the Town of 21 Mamaroneck would keep the Village 22 appraised of any public hearings , 23 meeting , applications , reports , and 1 24 related information concerning this Proceedings 126 1 subject . Sincerely Cheryl W. Lewy, 2 Mayor" . P 3 I also spoke to the Mayor of i 4 the Village of Mamaroneck, Joe 5 Lanza (ph) who could not be with us 6 this evening , but he wanted to 7 convey his support of the , 8 moratorium. 9 In addition , we have several 10 letters from residence who have 11 written and a petition . The first 12 letter is address to me : 13 "We are vehemently opposed to 14 having cellular phone antennas on 15 the Alden House roof . 16 We live directly across the 17 street and we would be exposed to 18 too much danger . 19 I have two children and I 20 would hate to think of the long term 21 consequences of such a plan . 22 This area is entirely too 23 densely populated to be considered 24 for a site for NYNEX . Proceedings 127 1 Please don't let this happen . 2 Sincerely, Sandy Favata, 1440 3 Boston Post Road Apartment 3J . " 4 Another letter addressed to 5 the Mamaroneck Town Board: 6 "As residents of 9 Harmony 7 Drive for the past 15 years , we are 8 extremely concerned about the 9 proposed installation of six 10 antennas atop 11 Alden Road by the 11 NYNEX Mobile Communications Company . 12 We would urge the Board to 13 seriously consider the health 14 effects of electromagnetic radiation 15 to the immediate residents of our 16 neighborhood . We would encourage 17 the Town of Mamaroneck to engage an 18 independent expert in the field to 19 advise and counsel the Board on the 20 impact this proposed installation 21 will have on the community ' s health 22 and value/attractiveness to future 23 residents . Dr . Robert Becker, who 24 has already advised residents of the Proceedings 128 1 Winged Foot area of the potential 2 danger, argues that antennas of this 3 nature should be placed at least 4 2 , 500 feet from any home . Clearly, 5 atop the Alden House does not meet 6 this criteria . Additionally, a 7 recent interview with Dr. Motzkin 8 conducted by the NY Times tells us 9 that it would be prudent to avoid 10 placing these stations in 11 residential areas . 12 While it disturbs me that 13 this proposed installation is being 14 considered virtually in my own 15 backyard , it would appear that the 16 issue is whether or not the Town of 17 Mamaroneck wants these facilities in 18 any part of the residential areas 19 within the Town . Atop an apartment 20 building in a neighborhood which is 21 already densely populated (an to 22 become more populated once the new 23 Hommocks apartment complex is 24 opened) would appear to me to be the Proceedings 129 1 least desirable location . 2 Certainly, the NYNEX company 3 would agree , given their recent 4 decision to abandon plans to install 5 nine antennas at the Winged Foot 6 County Club , a much less populated 7 area than atop an apartment building 8 in the middle of a residential area . 9 I am also appalled by the 10 recent statement which NYNEX 11 spokesman Jim Gerace said during his 12 Daily Times interview on July 12 . 13 To state that "It ' s not bothering 14 anyone up on the roof" is 15 insensitive to the concerns and 16 health of our Town residents , 17 particularly when you consider 18 NYNEX' s recent decision to halt 19 installation at the Winged Foot 20 Country Club for that very reason. 21 And guess what Jim. . . . it does bother 22 us ! 23 Concerned Residents , Steven '; 24 M. and Kathleen Circelli" Proceedings 130 1 I also have a petition -- 2 There is a letter from Mr. and Mrs . 3 Thomas Horey 1032 Old White Plains 4 Road , Mamaroneck . 5 "Dear Elaine , Tom and I are 6 unable to attend the July 20th 7 meeting but would like to express 8 our thoughts . 9 We favor a 90-day moratorium 10 on installing cellular telephone 11 antennas . 12 Regardless of whether the 13 Town Board is not preempted by the 14 FCC the Town Board should seriously 15 look into the health hazards . 16 Our neighbor Harlan Batrus 17 did extensive research and in 18 January , 1993 , the Gannett paper did 19 a special issue "Health 1993 " , on 20 the risk of electromagnetic fields . 21 Steve Ottis , Chairman of the 22 City of New York' s ( inaudible) is 23 compiling information on this 24 subject matter and many have Proceedings 131 1 additional and useful material if 2 need be . 3 Best regards , Sincerely, Mary 4 Morey . " 5 Finally , we have a petition 6 that was -- and while addressed to 7 the Planning Board -- The residence 8 shareholders of the Larchmont Gables 9 ask I read it here tonight . 10 "The undersigned 11 residents/shareholders of the 12 cooperative corporation above-noted, 13 which cooperative is located across 14 the street from and contiguous to 15 the premises know as Eleven Alden 16 Tenants Corp . , and located at 11 17 Alden Road , Larchmont , New York 18 (Town of Mamaroneck) , does hereby 19 object to the application of Eleven 20 Alden Tenants Corp . , for the 21 installation of low power radio 22 antennas and related equipment on 23 the roof of said building and the 24 roof of said building ' s garage . Proceedings 132 1 The proposed installation 2 will expose the undersigned and 3 their families to unsafe levels of 4 microwave radiation and will put 5 them at an increased risk for 6 leukemia and other cancers . 7 In light of the present lack 8 of agreement within the scientific 9 community as to the safety of the 10 radiation to be emitted by the above 11 equipment , the above application 12 should be denied . " 13 This petition was signed by 14 thirty-six of the residence . I will 15 give it to the Town Clerk as part of 16 the record . 17 Is there anyone else that 18 wishes to speak in favor of the 19 90-day moratorium? If not , is there 20 anyone in the audience that is 21 opposed? Yes , sir . 22 MR . SNYDER : Good evening 23 Supervisor Price and members of the 24 Board . My name is David Snyder. I Proceedings 133 1 am an attorney with Snyder & Snyder 2 in White Plains . I am appearing 3 this even on behalf of our client 4 NYNEX Mobile Communication . 5 I also am beginning to 6 understand what Custer must have 7 felt like at the battle of Little 8 Big Horn as I am confronted with all 9 of these hostile opponents . 10 In any event , let me just say 11 this for the record , we have 12 submitted a memorandum to the Town 13 which I will give to the clerk and 14 to the stenographer which we believe 15 conclusively demonstrates the 16 attempts by the Town to inject 17 itself into the regulation of 18 cellular technology , a field which 19 has been reserved exclusively to the 20 FCC, infringing on the 21 constitutional rights of NYNEX and 22 any other company which is 23 attempting to operate under the 24 authority granted to it by the Proceedings 134 1 Federal Communications Commission. 2 Having said that, we would 3 point out that in going down this 4 long dark tunnel , exploring issues 5 which have been reserved by congress 6 to the FCC , the moratorium that the l Town is contemplating fails to 8 address issues such as police 9 antennas , fire antennas , the 10 ambulance service antennas , the 11 harbor police , the ship to shore , 12 the ham radio , the monitors people 13 have in infant ' s rooms to keep track 14 of infants and light phone pendants 15 that we have seen on TV emit a radio 16 frequency and let somebody know I 17 have slipped . I have fallen and I 18 can' t get up . 19 The fact is that this 20 proposed law singles out , 21 discriminates and focuses telephone on cellular tele 22 exclusively p 23 antennas without taking cognizance 24 of the fact that identical radio Proceedings 135 1 frequencies are present in the 2 environment . I cannot think of a 3 more blaring example of a 4 discriminatory approach of singling 5 out of technology, for no other 6 reason than this applicant is II 7 considering a site on the Alden 8 House , had one previously considered 9 at Winged Foot and hence , a proposed 10 law which focused exclusively on 11 cellular . 12 Why are we singling out this 13 technology when it is no different 14 than any other source of EMF in the 15 environment? I question the 16 rational . I question the legality 17 and I question its compliance with 18 equal protection . II19 Having said that , honorable 20 Supervisor and members of the Board, 21 let me suggest the following: I 22 don ' t mean to suggest that your 23 questions and concerns with regard ( 24 to EMF should be discounted . I II Proceedings 136 1 1 think it ' s fair -- legitimate for 1 2 you to look into these questions but 3 to enact a moratorium and assert a I 4 power to regulate a federal 5 technology intrudes on a statutory 6 program which congress has reserved II 7 for the FCC . 8 Having said that , let me 9 point out that you do have a remedy . 10 There is a way to go . The FCC has 11 said in a 1987 order which I faxed 4 12 previously to your Town Counsel , 13 "With regard to land mobile 14 base stations and other fixed 15 facilities , we do not believe that 16 environmentally significant exposure 17 is possible due to the relative 18 inaccessibility of such antennas and 19 their relatively low operating power 20 levels . However , for these 21 facilities and for all excluded 22 facilities we recognize that if the 23 commission is presented with new 24 evidence it will reexamine the Proceedings 137 1 environmental impact of these 2 facilities . " 3 The point is this , members of 4 the Board , if the Town were to adopt 5 its study or conduct a study which 6 yielded new information or new 7 insights which you believe speak to 8 new environmental conclusions 9 regarding this technology , the 10 remedy which congress and the FCC 11 has provided to you is to bring that 12 information to the FCC and ask them 13 to engage in a rule making which 14 reflects your concerns , but to adopt 15 the power and the mantel of a 16 regulator in this federally 17 preempted area , I think is 18 inconsistent with the United States 19 Constitution . 20 I would like to turn the 21 presentation over to my partner who 22 will address some of the procedural 23 aspects with respect to the local t 24 laws that we have talked about Proceedings 138 1 tonight . 2 MS . Snyder : Good evening 3 Supervisor and members of the Board . 4 My name Leslie Snyder . I am a 5 partner of the law office •of Snyder 6 & Snyder . As my partner highlighted 7 earlier , the moratorium is invalid g on federal and constitutional 9 grounds . I submit to you that the 10 moratorium is also invalid on 11 procedural grounds . 12 The Court of Appeals has held 13 that a moratorium is a zoning 14 measure and must strictly comply 15 with zoning procedures prior to its 16 enactment . In fact , moratoriums 17 have repeatedly been referred to as 18 "stop-gap zoning" . Section 239-m of II19 the General Municipal Law requires 20 that zoning laws effecting 21 municipalities , such as the proposed 22 moratorium, be referred to the 23 County Planning Board and the County 24 Planning Board has thirty days to • Proceedings 139 t;. 1 report on these zoning changes . 2 A review of the county 3 records indicated that proposed 4 moratorium was not referred to the 5 County Planning Board . In fact , the 6 County Planning Board has confirmed 7 this fact . 8 The courts have repeatedly 9 found that failure to comply with 10 239-m of the General Municipal Law 11 renders the municipal body powerless 12 to act . 13 Therefore , I respectfully 14 submit that this Board has no 15 authority this evening to enact this 16 moratorium . 17 Please make my letter, which 18 I submit to you with official 19 citations , part of the record . I 20 also request that the Planning Board 21 applications which have been 22 referred to by the public and all 23 the documentation NYNEX had 24 submitted in connection with the Proceedings 140 1 Alden House be incorporated in the 2 record . 3 You should also note that the 4 report that was done in connection 5 with the Alden House did not speak 6 to the Winged Foot report, which II 7 Mr . Batrus did, was sent to the New 8 York State Department of Health and 9 was reported and that documentation 10 is in the file and they have found 11 no effect with respect to the Alden ' 12 House . Thank you for your 13 consideration . 14 MS . PRICE : Ms . Snyder, do 15 you have a particular view as to 16 whether this Town Board can use 17 their ( inaudible) control to protect 18 property values ( inaudible) II19 MS . Snyder : That was not the 20 purpose stated in the local law as 21 published in the newspaper. I would 22 not address that at this point . If 23 you wanted us to formally address �: '` 24 that , I would be more than happy to . Proceedings 141 1 Your purpose in the local law is to 2 set the health facts and that was 3 published in the paper and made 4 available . This new purpose was not 5 published to my knowledge and was 6 not made available . 8 I would also like to note for 8 the record and for the public that 9 we did send some material to the 10 Town Counsel so that it would be 11 apprised of some of the federal 12 issues and we were not noted that 13 the purpose maybe altered this 14 evening . 15 MS . PRICE : Mr . Mason . 16 MR. MASON : Charles Mason, 17 Weaver Street , Larchmont . The 18 question for special counsel on 19 environmental items -- I have a 20 question specific to this . Is this 21 not a Type 1 action by definition of 22 our local law, not the moratorium 23 but the installation being it ' s on t 24 the Post Road in that area? Proceedings 142 ( : 1 MS . PRICE : Yes , that ' s an 2 issue that has been preempted . 3 MR. MASON : I realize it was 4 preempted in that point of view, but 5 I was just wondering , as far as 6 consideration goes , is it Type 1? 7 MS . PRICE : I am not sure . I 8 have to look at that . 9 MR. MASON : Considering 10 timing and discussion -- 11 MS . PRICE : Is there anyone 12 else that wishes to speak against 13 this moratorium? 14 MR. DEBUNO : Joe Debuno from 15 Larchmont , 6 Nassau Road . It seems 16 to be a very poor performance on a 17 public relation standpoint of view, 18 not withstanding the legalities and 19 the tone of voice addressing the 20 municipalities on behalf what I 21 consider a regulated -- and right 22 now if I had to switch my phone , 23 it ' s kind of tough for NYNEX in this 24 area . I must tell you that if NYNEX Proceedings 143 1 is telling you there is no other 2 place that is acceptable to the 3 Village of Larchmont , acceptable to 4 the people of the Town of 5 Mamaroneck, then they will have to 6 prove that there is no other place 7 before they can take this tone of 8 voice . Thank you . 9 MS . PRICE : I would like to 10 address some comments that we have a 11 charge before this Board , not to 12 reassure consumers but to protect 13 and promote the general welfare of 14 our residents and we have the 15 ability to regulate within that 16 spirit and land use control are an 17 important part of the public 18 welfare . 19 Some of the statements that 20 have been said tonight are 21 overstated as far as the federal 22 preemption . Our concern is this , is 23 there a public perception of danger, '4 24 not a personal perception , but a Proceedings 144 4 1 public perception? Is that real? I 2 will tell you this , for everyone 3 that perception from what I can see 4 is there and it ' s public for the 5 following reasons : 6 I have the same books that 7 Harlan presented this evening, but 8 from municipalities across the 9 United States to federal regulatory 10 personnel in charge of monitoring 11 these , I wont go into that, plus 12 school boards and municipalities . 13 The public perception has been 14 across the United States , it is not 15 personal consider the following, and 16 this goes not to whether the risk is 17 there but the public perception : 18 Kirkland (ph) Air Force Base , 19 New Mexico , they have developed 20 guidelines much stricter than the 21 national guidelines . The ANSI (ph) 22 standards , public perception of 23 concern . The same with Hughes (ph) 24 Aircraft , a subsidiary of General Proceedings 145 1 Motors . There are no official 2 government limits , no federal 3 standards . The feds have adopted 4 the ANSI standard ( Inaudible) of the 5 representatives from industry and 6 government agencies . Consider the 7 past practiced of NYNEX that goes to 8 public perception . Withdrew from 9 Winged Foot . Why? Because of 10 public perception of a danger, 11 plausible explanation . Withdrew 12 from Lincoln Park, New Jersey, 13 twice -- Withdrew from Boonton (ph) , 14 New Jersey once . Lincoln Park, New 15 Jersey transmittal rejected by the 16 Town counsel twice . San Francisco 17 School Board, banned antennas on 18 school property . Town Board in 19 California , rejection because of -- 20 rejection of cellular antennas . 21 Cleveland suburb , fighting -- Town 22 Board fighting the siting of 23 antennas on school property. 24 Sarasota , Florida , fighting the Proceedings 146 1 siting on school grounds . Wall 2 Street Journal , December, 1993 , 3 "Power Lines Short Circuit Sales" . 4 EMF, New York Times , " fields raise 5 fear in home buyers . The fear has 6 begun to effect the market play in 7 the metro area and all over the 8 country . " 9 We have a letter from 10 Elizabeth Jacobson , Ph . D . Deputy 11 Director of the Sciences , Center for 12 Radiological Health , Food and Drug 13 Administration . That ' s the agency 14 that ' s supposed to be regulating 15 these . Her message is clear . Her 16 position is , "While there is no 17 direct evidence animal studies 18 suggest that such effects could 19 exist , simply too soon to assume . 20 We need additional research . " 21 Public perception is real and 22 it ' s growing . In California 23 Dr. Arber (ph) Shepard of the VA 24 Medical Center in Loma Linda , II Proceedings 147 1 California , since there is almost no 2 research addressed in long term 3 exposure from low level sources such 4 as cellular facilities , one study 5 does bear directly on the possible 6 risk from low level exposure . It is II 7 done by Dr . Bill Guy (ph) and 8 co-workers . They found and excess 9 of primary tumors in rats exposed to 10 week radiation levels deemed safe by 11 the ANSI standard . Although the 12 study is in my opinion inconclusive, 13 on the question of cancer, the 14 question it raises undermines the 15 basis for the ANSI standard . 16 Public perception is growing 17 and it ' s there . Is the public 18 right? That ' s not before us . It ' s II19 there and we believe we can 20 regulate . This is not to ban but we 21 believe we can look at the 22 possibility of regulating in this 23 community . 24 I would like to take a Proceedings 148 1 five-minute recess because there is 2 new information that has just come 3 up about the General Municipal Law. 4 Our attorney who has done this 5 research is away on vacation . I 6 will ask the audience to bear with 8 us while we recess for five minutes 8 to look at the information you just 9 stated , Ms . Snyder . 10 Is there a motion for a 11 recess? 12 MR . RYAN : Yes . 13 MS . PRICE : Second? 14 MS . O ' KEEFFE : Second . 15 MS . PRICE : So moved . 16 (Whereupon , a recess was 17 taken by all parties) 18 MS . PRICE : Thank you all . 19 As to the issue that was raised by 20 NYNEX' s attorneys , 239 of the 21 General Municipal Law, we feel there 22 are arguments on both sides . We are 23 not willing to -- Is there a motion 24 to reopen the hearing? 1 Proceedings 149 1 MS . O ' FLINN: Yes . 2 MS . PRICE : Second? 3 MS . O ' KEEFFE : Second . 4 MS . PRICE : If we wait to 5 fine out if it ' s right it will cause 6 unnecessary delay, which we don' t II 7 want to do because whatever we 8 decide to do we want to decide to do 9 it as expeditiously as possible . 10 Therefore , it is the consensus of 11 the Board not to vote on this this 12 evening, submit it to Westchester 13 County tomorrow and reschedule , but 14 continue the public hearing for our 15 next Town Board meeting on August 16 17th . 17 The alternative would be to 18 create delay much more beyond August II19 17th, and we are competent as to the 20 other issues raised that they do not 21 ( inaudible) . So , if there are any 22 other questions or comments at this 23 time we will entertain them. 24 MS . BERKSTEIN : On the August Proceedings 150 i 1 17th meeting , will you have the 2 comments given by the public here 3 today or do we all show up again? 4 MS . PRICE : We will have all 5 of your comments and anyone who is 6 concerned about what is happening in II 7 the Planning Board level , there is a 8 conference scheduled tomorrow 9 evening . It is not a public 10 hearing . As a matter of course, 11 there is a fair chance , more than a 12 fair chance that you will not be 13 allowed to have input . That is the 14 decision of the Planning Board. I 15 cannot speak for the Planning Board 16 because it is not a public hearing, 17 but the Planning Board will be 18 discussing this particular 19 application that was referred to 20 this evening tomorrow and we will 21 keep you informed and we will notice 22 all of you as to the next -- as to 23 our next meeting . I am assuming at 24 this point that we will have the I/ Proceedings 151 1 Westchester County referral package 2 with us . 3 AUDIENCE MEMBER: On August 4 17th it will be strictly on whether 5 or not to have a moratorium. That' s 6 the issue , not whether to support or 7 oppose the antennas? II8 MS . PRICE : This is neither 9 pro or anti . This is a moratorium 10 and we have the benefit of 11 everyone ' s comments before us this 12 evening . So that will -- 13 MR . LOWBIN : Mark Lowbin (ph) 14 30 Kulpin . Between now and August 15 17th can those antennas be 16 installed? 17 MS . PRICE : No , they can not . 18 MR. PULVER: My name is Allan II19 Pulver (ph) . I live at 12 Harmony 20 Drive . I have a person relationship 21 with NYNEX . I get a bill from them 22 every month and when I pay this one 23 I am going to write them a letter . 24 I might even be tempted to staple it Proceedings 152 1 to that part that says , please do 2 not staple anything on it , and on it 3 I am going to write my comments 4 about this meeting and my objection 5 to the installation of the antennas 6 at the proposed site . If .anybody 7 else wanted to do it I wouldn't 8 object to that either . 9 MR. WEPRIN : People should 10 also consider communicating with the 11 Federal Communication Committee of 12 NYNEX ( Inaudible) the agency that 13 has jurisdiction . They looked at 14 issue in 1987 from an environmental 15 perspective and the information 16 available at that time was very 17 different as to the information 18 available today . They should be II19 encourage to ( inaudible) 20 MS . PRICE : As a matter of 21 fact , when you mentioned that -- We 22 are in complete agreement with that 23 because at the time of the hearings �.!` ' . 24 it was mostly representatives from Proceedings 153 1 the industry and I am sure that 2 someone down the line someone will 3 file a suit with the FCC, maybe the 4 FDA that ' s in charge of the 5 regulatory agency . 6 I also want to point out to II 8 the audience that what we raised 8 this evening about property values 9 and the perception of a problem, 10 concerns , that is the exact same 11 issue that the Planning Board has to 12 look at to grant the special permit . 13 I will read the applicable portion . 14 "That the proposed special 15 permit use will be in harmony with 16 the general health, safety and 17 welfare of the surrounding area and 18 that by the nature of its particular II19 location it will not adversely 20 impact upon surrounding property or 21 surrounding property values . " 22 The highest court in New York 23 State has made that a standard . It 24 is in our special permit provision . II Proceedings 154 1 That is what one would need in order 2 to get anything installed, cellular 3 antennas installed . It is very 4 important to keep that in mind . 5 MR. OVIERNA: Mr . Ernie 6 Ovierna from High Ridge Road . In 8 our procedures is there any place 8 where somebody from the Town can sit 9 down with somebody from NYNEX and 10 discuss alternatives off the record, 11 say over a cup of coffee and say we 12 can put in an antenna on a golf 13 course , nobody is going to care 14 about it or something like that , so 15 that we don ' t have to go through six 16 months of battle . Golf is 17 transient . They walk by once every 18 week . 19 MS . PRICE : We have 20 determined that this is part of a 21 public process and we want to hear 22 from the public . 23 MR. OVIERNA: As and i 24 alternative if you can make the Proceedings 155 f�. 1 problem go away , we don 't have to 2 meet every two weeks and have a 3 great debate . 4 MS . PRICE : We could discuss 5 alternatives publicly. 6 MR . OVIERNA: Both parties 7 should know that -- I shouldn't said 8 both parties , but NYNEX should know 9 we are not automatically opposed to 10 antennas anywhere , anyplace , any 11 time . If there is another site , 12 another location that might be 13 acceptable . 14 MS . PRICE : Well , you raised 15 an important point that I think the 16 audience should understand . We 17 cannot , no matter what we might 18 think down the road , not for this 19 particular discussion or point of 20 information , we cannot prohibit 21 cellular antennas in the Town . No 22 community can , and the Town of 23 Greenburgh is faced with creating a 24 zoning ordinance to include them Proceedings 156 1 because they had excluded them. 2 MS . O ' KEEFFE : I would like 3 to ask a question , we know that 4 there is more than one cellular 5 company, if that ' s how to describe 6 these things in existence . There II 7 seems to be Cellular One , NYNEX and 8 something else . Is it possible that 9 three different companies would want 10 to locate things there if they are 11 competing in one area or does the + . 12 Federal Communication Committee give 13 people a monopoly over certain 14 geographical areas , so you don't 15 have antennas all over the place 16 competing? 17 MS . PRICE : The FCC does not 18 do that . Technically, there is some II19 language in the ' 87 Order which 20 states that individually or 21 cumulatively you cannot regulate . 22 That ' s a concern that is not 23 addressed . 24 MR. WEPRIN : They grant II Proceedings 157 1 franchises but they grant at least 2 two for every major metropolitan 3 area . 4 MS . O ' KEEFFE : If that ' s the 5 case, the point Mr . Weprin made with 6 respect to the Federal Commissions II 7 Committee is even more important. 8 Secondly, the federal 9 legislators for the State of New 10 York, our congressmen and our two 11 senators might also be targets of 12 your feeling , telephonically or by 13 letter . We are all trying to look 14 at the problem responsibly but we 15 have to be precise in describing 16 what authority we have as a Town 17 Board or a local government has with 18 respect to any kind of regulation of II19 these kind of facilities . 20 MS . PRICE : It is not 21 productive for every community to 22 take on NYNEX or vice versa and ' 23 there has to be some central agency ' 24 that is trying to grabble with this Proceedings 158 1 and in the absence of that, we 2 grabble with it in terms of our own 3 mandate to our community . 4 We need a voice in 5 Washington , but many scientists -- I 6 will tell you this , a lot of II 7 lobbying will be going on in 8 Washington to get these things 9 changes . 10 MS . SPOTS : Judy Spots . I 11 got lost . I am not sure why the 12 public hearing is being continued? 13 MS . PRICE : Because there may 14 or may not be a procedural defect in 15 terms of referral to Westchester 16 County Planning Department . It is 17 not clear from what we have seen if 18 the defect is a legitimate one or II19 not . If we take the risk that it is 20 not and find out later it is , it 21 will create unnecessary delay . We 22 want to expedite this and we are 23 assuming for the moment that a 24 defect does exist . We are referring II • • Proceedings 159 ( • 1 it to Westchester County and asking 2 for a very fast response . 3 MS . SPOTS : Why does it have 4 to be referred to Westchester 5 County, because it has to do with 6 public communication or everything II 8 you do has to be referred to the 8 County Planning Board? 9 MR. DAVIS : Bob Davis . The 10 argument is that the moratorium is a 11 change in the zoning regulation 12 applicable to zoning districts and 13 applicable to property within 500 14 feet of county roads and other 15 things . 16 MS . SPOTS : 500 feet of 17 county roads? 18 MR. DAVIS : I am just picking II19 out pieces of it . That ' s my 20 understanding why the referral is 21 required . 22 MS . PRICE : Does anyone else 23 have any questions? 24 MS . LIONS : Leslie Lions . If Proceedings 160 1 it is a county matter and this 2 allegation , for lack of a better 3 word is correct , then what happens? 4 MR. WEPRIN : We refer it to 5 the county for their opinion . We 6 are not required to follow their II 7 opinions . It is what they think. 8 MS . PRICE : We are required 9 to get it from them. 10 MR. DAVIS : If their advice 11 is required and you do not get it , 12 the action you take can be set 13 aside . 14 MR. PRICE : We do not want to 15 take the risk . 16 AUDIENCE MEMBER: What is the 17 time of tomorrow' s meeting? 18 MS . PRICE : 8 : 15 , I don' t II19 know where it will be yet . It ' s 20 Number 6 on the agenda . Maybe here 21 or down in the senior center. 22 Mr . SHERIDAN: William 23 Sheridan , 711 Old Post Road . Is 24 tomorrow' s meeting with the Planning Proceedings 161 1 Board an open forum? I believe you 2 stated earlier they would not 3 necessarily take commentary from the 4 public . There is a process and it 5 would go to the public in due 6 course . II 8 MS . PRICE : Absolutely . I am 8 not suggesting that if you ask g nicely that they won ' t entertain 10 comments . I want you to be prepared 11 for the eventuality that you will 12 not be able to speak tomorrow 13 evening . 14 MS . ALVEREZ : Francine 15 Alverez . If we submitted a petition 16 to you that also went to the 17 Planning Board , will we have an 18 opportunity to speak? II19 MS . PRICE : No . During a 20 public hearing and in the public 21 process they would introduce that 22 into the record and you would have 23 your opportunity , but then and only 24 then , unless they make a special Proceedings 162 1 exception tomorrow. 2 MR. MULCAHY : Dennis 3 Mulcahy (ph) Alden Road . What 4 happens if the Planning Board turns 5 it down? 6 MS . PRICE : There will be II 7 some very happy people in the 8 audience . They can ' t do that 9 tomorrow night . They have to have a 10 public hearing before they can turn 11 it down . 12 MS . ALVEREZ : They couldn 't 13 approve it either? 14 MS . PRICE : They cannot do 15 anything tomorrow night except to 16 hold a public hearing -- schedule 17 one . 18 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Is NYNEX II19 represented tomorrow? 20 MR. RYAN : Yes . 21 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Why is 22 that? 23 MR . RYAN : I understand from 24 the persona of the audience that you I/ Proceedings 163 1 had an application before in 2 Scarsdale? 3 MS . Snyder: Not to my 4 knowledge , not while I have been 5 representing them. I have never 6 represented them in Scarsdale . 7 MR. RYAN : I understood they 8 had an application and it was 9 withdrawn . I was just looking for 10 furtherance . 11 MS . Snyder: I can't address 12 that . 13 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I don' t 14 know if this is the appropriate 15 forum, but I was just wondering why 16 was it turned down at Winged Foot? 17 MS . PRICE : We received -- 18 The Planning Board receive a letter 19 that stated is succinctly and maybe 20 Ms . Snyder recalls the letter . 21 MS . Snyder : I did .not 22 represent NYNEX at Winged Foot . 23 This is a separate application. 24 This is the only application I i I/ Proceedings 164 1 submitted to Mamaroneck. I have 2 been working at whatever was 3 required since May and I can 't speak 4 about Winged foot . 5 MS . PRICE : There was a 6 letter and I have it on file . If II 8 you call me tomorrow I ' ll read it to 8 you . There was a lot of opposition 9 and both the Planning Board and 10 myself received many letters from 11 many residents concerning the siting 12 of it at Winged Foot . 13 MR. RYAN : The Chairman of 14 the Board of NYNEX was a 15 member ( inaudible) 16 MS . PRICE : Any other 17 questions? 18 MS . ALVEREZ : I would like to II19 ask a question of the NYNEX 20 representatives that are here . I 21 have a copy of information I got out 22 of the file from the Planning Board 23 and it indicates that the enclosed 24 application is requested by Eleven Proceedings 165 1 Alden Tenants Corporation and it 2 does not indicate it is also 3 requested by NYNEX . 4 MS . Snyder: The application 5 of the owner 11 Alden House -- and 6 11 Alden House authorized NYNEX to 8 pursue the application . 8 MS . ALVEREZ : Wouldn 't that 9 be required to be -- 10 MS . Snyder : You have to look 11 at all the material . 12 MS . PRICE : We are having a 13 hard time hearing . 14 MS . Snyder: If she has 15 questions I would be glad to answer 16 them . 17 MS . PRICE : Are there any 18 other questions? I can' t tell you 19 how much we appreciate you being 20 here and spending all this time . We 21 heard your concerns and we have 22 listened very carefully to 23 everything you have said and we will 24 be in touch . Again , thank you. Do Proceedings 166 1 I have a motion to end the public 2 hearing? 3 MR. RYAN : So moved . 4 MS . PRICE : Do I have a 5 second? 6 MS . O ' KEEFFE : Second. 7 MS . PRICE : All in favor? 8 (Whereupon, Board members 9 respond aye) 10 MS . PRICE : Do I have a 11 motion to have a new public hearing? 12 MS . O ' KEEFFE : So moved . 13 MS . PRICE : Do I have a 14 second? 15 MR. RYAN : Second. 16 MS . PRICE : All in favor? 17 (Whereupon , Board members 18 respond aye) 19 MS . PRICE : The record of 20 this hearing will be made part of 21 the hearing on August 17th . 22 (Time noted , 12 : 10 a .m. ) 23 24 167 1 2 3 4 5 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 6 7 8 Certified to be a true and accurate 9 transcript of the aforesaid proceeding . 10 11 12 13 14 15 Lori Fletcher, Reporter 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24