HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992_12_09 Town Board Minutes SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF
MAMARONECK MINUTES OF THE ONECK HELD ON THE 9T" DAY OF
DECEMBER 1992 AT 8:15 PM IN CONFERENCE ROOM A OF THE TOWN
CENTER, 740 W. BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK
Present were the following members of the Board.
Supervisor Caroline Silverstone
Councilwoman Elaine Price
Councilman John McGarr
Councilwoman Kathleen Tracy O,Flinn
Councilman Paul A. Ryan
Also present were:
Patricia A. DiCioccio, Town Clerk
Stephen V. Altieri, Town Administrator
Steven M. Silverberg, Town Counsel
CONVENE SPECIAL MEETING
The Special Meeting of the Town Board was called to order by Supervisor Silverstone at 8:30
PM.
The following pages contain the stenographer's minutes of the session.
! y
I,
I
-----------------------------------------x
PUBLIC HEARING ON
DRAFT GENERIC SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
-----------------------------------------x
740 West Boston Post Road
Mamaroneck, New York 10543
December 9 , 1992
8 : 30 p . m .
))
4' I.T C
ORIGINAL
KAZAZES & ASSOCIATES
Marci Loren Dustin , Reporter
250 East Hartsdale Avenue
Hartsdale , New York 10530
( 914 ) 725-2415
I
I
I
i
i
II
I
2
1 A P P E A R A N C E S
2
3
4
5 CAROLINE SILVERSTONE , SUPERVISOR
STEPHEN V . ALTIERI , ADMINISTRATOR
6 PAUL R . RYAN , COUNCILMAN
JOHN MC GARR, COUNCILMAN
7 ELAINE PRICE , COUNCILWOMAN
KATHLEEN O ' FLINN , COUNCILWOMAN
8 STEVEN M . SILVERBERG , TOWN COUNSEL
PATRICIA DiCIOCCIO , TOWN CLERK
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I
16
17
18
119
I
I
20
21
22
23
24
I
25
I
r
Proceedings
3
�I
1 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE : I
2 think it ' s time to call this meeting
3 to order . Let me call this meeting
I
4 to order and point out the exits at
5 the right and left of the rear of
6 the room.
7 This is a Special Meeting of
g the Mamaroneck Town council . The
9 purpose of which is to hear the
10 public with regard to a . Draft
11 Supplemental Generic Environmental
12 Impact Statement concerning the last
13 open spaces in the Town of
I14 Mamaroneck which include the Bonnie
15 Briar Country Club and Winged Foot
16 Golf Club .
117 There having been previously
118 a hearing on the Draft Environmental
, 19 Impact Statement , this being a
20 supplement to that Draft .
I
21 Steve Silverberg is Counsel
22 to the Town . Steve , will you please
23 explain to those assembled what the
I24 purpose of the procedure is tonight
j25 and what the technicalities are .
I
I f
� r
it
Proceedings
4
1 MR. SILVERBERG : As the
2 Supervisor indicated , tonight we
3 have a hearing at which we are to
4 hear from the public on the
5 Supplemental Environmental Impact
6 Statement .
7 This document was produced at
8 the request of the Town Board to
9 deal with certain matters which were
10 not addressed in the Draft and this
11 evening , we will not , and no one on
12 behalf of the Town , will be
13 responding in the way of answering
14 your questions or comments .
15 The purpose of this evening
X16 is to receive your comments and
17 receive any questions that you may
I
it
18 have concerning this document and
19 there will subsequently be a Final
20 Impact Statement prepared which is
21 required by law to respond to all
I
22 questions and comments raised .
23 I should point out , as well ,
24 that if you made comments previously
25 on the Draft , those comments will be
i
i
_ r
i
Proceedings
5
1 responded to in the Final
2 Environmental Impact Statement also ,
3 so it ' s not necessary for you
4 tonight to repeat any comments that
5 you may have previously made .
I
6 Furthermore , there is a
7 public comment period which runs to
8 December 21st and you can submit
9 written comments up until that date .
10 So again , it ' s not necessary
I
11 for you , if you don ' t feel it ' s
12 necessary , to even make a verbal
113 comment tonight , you can submit your
14 comments in writing , and all
15 comments , either written or verbal ,
16 will receive the same weight and
I
17 must be responded to and will be
18 responded to in the Final
19 Environmental Impact Statement .
20 Finally , I would just like to
21 note that we did receive a
22 communication dated December 7th
23 from Martin Baker who is an attorney
i
24 representing property owners of
25 Bonnie Briar requesting that we
I
I
i
I
Proceedings
6
1 defer this meeting based upon his
2 statement which he claims there were
3 certain deficiencies in the
4 document .
5 I reviewed his letter and
I
6 reviewed the regulations and I
7 believe the document is in
8 compliance and the Town Board can
9 proceed with the hearing this
110 evening .
11 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE : This
12 document , ( indicating) , as well as
113 it ' s predecessor , have been
14 available in both libraries and will
15 continue to be available . They are
16 available in the Town Clerk' s Office
17 both to stay there and read it and
X18 also a couple of copier to be
f19 available to be borrowed on a
20 short-term basis . The copies are
21 also available for sale , and as the
22 comment period continues to December
I
123 21st , it will still be possible to
24 come in and read the document or
I
25 review it from the Town Office or
Proceedings
7
1 look at it in the library .
2 So anyone who wishes to do
3 further study and then send in a
4 statement , may of course read the
5 document and do whatever work you
I
6 want to do on it and then make your
I
7 statement in writing .
8 At this point , I turn this
9 over to Vince Ferrandino , the
10 consultant who has put together this
11 document and has shepherded the
12 study from the very beginning .
13 MR. FERRANDINO : Thank you ,
14 Madame Supervisor . Good evening to
15 everyone .
16 We are not going to be making
17 a very long presentation this
18 evening . What I will do is provide
19 an overview of what we were asked to
20 do as part of the Supplemental
21 Environmental Impact Statement .
22 I do want to indicate that in
23 addition to my firm , Malcolm Pirnie
24 Engineers worked very closely with
25 us on flooding , wetlands and water
I
i
Proceedings
8
I
1 quality impacts .
2 The architectural firm of
3 Warshauer , Mellusi , Warshauer worked
4 with us on alternate designs and the
5 traffic consulting firm Jaquemart
6 Associates worked with us as they
7 did on the Draft on traffic issues .
8 As Steve Silverberg had
9 indicated , the Draft Generic
10 Supplemental Environmental Impact
i
111 Statement is in fact a continuation
12 of what we prepared in the Draft
13 Document .
14 There was additional
15 information required to be gathered .
1 There was some additional
117 information presented to us at the
18 Draft Public Hearing wherein we were
19 asked to analyze additional
I
20 schematics and there was some new
21 information we were asked to
22 explore .
i
23 In a nutshell , that is what
24 we did for a period of about six to
I
125 eight months and which culminated ,
i
Proceedings
9
1 of course , in the document that is
2 still a Draft that you have before
3 you this evening .
4 I would like to give a very
5 quick overview of the seven basic
6 tasks that comprise the Draft
7 Generic Supplemental Environmental
g Impact Statement and for brevity
9 sake , I am going to refer to this
10 now as the SEIS .
11 The first task was for us to
12 review the three schematics that
13 were submitted at the Draft Public
14 Hearing by the Bonnie Briar
15 Syndicate ' s consultants , Parish &
16 Weiner , Inc . of Tarrytown , and
17 essentially , we have listed them as
18 Alternative A, B and C , and if you
19 look up in the front of the room,
20 the schematics , which I guess from
21 your left to right , would be A, B
22 and C .
23 Very simply , Alternative A
24 looks at the existing zoning of
25 property which is one dwelling unit
i
i
Proceedings
10
1 per 30 , 000 square feet and the
2 development scenario that was put
3 together by the Syndicate ' s
4 consultants would be for a 164
5 detached single-family units on the
6 Bonnie Briar Property with no golf
7 course . That is Alternative A .
8 Alternative B is 114 detached
9 single-family units plus an 18 hole
10 golf course on the Bonnie Briar
11 Property and that is the schematic
12 in the center to my right .
13 Alternative C is 108 detached
14 single-family units plus 56 attached
15 single-family units with no golf
16 course .
17 Those are the three
i
18 alternatives that the developer ' s
I
19 consultants submitted .
20 On the basis of that , the
21 Town Board asked us to analyze in
22 some detail Alternative B , which is
23 the 114 detached single-family units
24 plus 18 hole golf course .
i
25 We also looked at
I
I
I
I
Proceedings
11
1 Alternatives A and C , but in a less
I
i
2 detailed fashion , and basically what
3 we did in that regard , was look back
4 to similar development scenarios
5 that were put together in the Draft
6 Document and we predicated certain
7 analyses and certain conclusions
�I
g based upon those previous
I
9 development scenarios and applied it
10 to Alternatives A and C .
11 With regard to Alternative B ,
12 we did conduct a very detailed
113 analysis of the potential impacts
I
' I
14 and mitigation measures and I just
15 want to list them very quickly for
16 the record .
17 We looked at such things as
i18 land use and zoning , traffic ,
X19 community services , demographics ,
I
20 open space and recreation resources ,
21 visual and historic resources ,
22 geology , water resources , wetlands ,
123 air quality and noise analysis and
24 terrestrial and aquatic: resources .
25 So in effect , we analyzed
I
Proceedings
12
I
1 each of these development scenarios
2 according to these criteria , looked
3 at what the impacts of the
4 development would be , and then
5 suggested perhaps what mitigation
6 measures could be provided .
7 Likewise , we were asked to
8 look at an additional development
9 scenario by the Town Board , and that
i
10 in effect , was the schematic you see
' 11 to the left which in effect was a 33
12 unit scenario retaining the 18 hole
i
13 golf course .
114 Essentially our task in that
i
i
X15 regard was to look at what we had
16 provided in a previous development
17 scenario which was the so-called CR
18 Town House which clustered 75 town
19 house units in roughly the same area
20 that we indicated , the 33
21 single-family units , with the 33
22 single-family units preserving the
23 golf course , undertake the same type
X24 of analysis that I previously
25 described for Alternative C .
i
i
I
Proceedings
13
1 In addition to that , we were
i
2 asked to expand the analysis of the
3 CR Alternative to include the
4 viability of a nine hole golf
5 course .
6 There was some suggestion
7 made during that Draft Hearing that
8 one of our development scenarios ,
9 which included a nine hole golf
I10 course , might not be viable in terms
' 11 of a nine hole golf course being a
12 viable recreational alternative . So
13 we did some investigation of whether
14 or not a nine hole golf course in
15 connection with residential
16 development works .
117 In addition to that , task two
118 was an updated traffic analysis . We
I
I19 did an analysis of summer traffic
120 counts which we had not done in the
21 Draft . We also did a detailed
22 analysis of flooding , wetlands and
23 water quality impacts for the three
! 24 Parish & Weiner alternatives in
!
! 25 addition to our so-called R-100
I
i
Proceedings
14
1 Alternative or 33 Unit Alternative .
2 We also took another look at
3 the fiscal impact of the Draft
4 Document . There was some question
5 raised with regard to the
6 demographic multipliers we used . We
7 have updated those multipliers to
8 reflect 1990 census data and we ran
9 the numbers again and there are some
10 slight differences in the school ,
11 children projection figures and
12 fiscal impact figures as a result of
13 that . However , the results were not
14 subtantially different from what we
15 concluded in the Draft .
16 We were also asked to take
I
17 another look at our projected
18 selling prices for the units . The
19 difference is that , I believe , we
i
20 were projecting a build-out year
21 initially of 1995 . A comment made
22 at the Public Hearing was to project
23 a build-out year of 2005 , so we
24 amended our selling price and came
i
25 up with an analysis of fiscal
I
I
Proceedings
15
i
impacts based upon the newer selling
1 P P g
2 prices .
3 The fifth task was an
i
4 analysis of the so-called Public
5 Club Alternative , one of the things
6 we looked at in the Draft was the
i
7 possibility of the Town acquiring
g and operating Bonnie Briar as a
9 public club .
10 We did a preliminary
117_ analysis . There was a lot of
12 interest in that analysis and the
13 Town Board asked us to do a more
14 detailed analysis and in effect we
15 did and we looked at such things as
16 capitol expenditures , operating
17 costs , revenues and a revised pro
18 forma of a public club as it
19 actually might exist if the Town
X20 moved ahead to the purchase it and
21 operate it as a public club .
22 We looked at two scenarios
23 with respect to that . One would be
24 a public club that was completely
25 self-supporting by the Town and
I
I
I
I
Proceedings
16
1 another that would be subsidized in
I
2 some way by the Town , subsidized
3 directly by taxpayer dollars .
4 We also took a look at the
5 viability of maintaining Bonnie
6 Briar as a private country club .
7 We also looked at alternative
8 zoning scenarios . Essentially , the
9 Town Board asked us to look at a
110 potential recreation zone and we did
I -
11 provide a draft of a recreation zone
12 in the Supplemental Document .
13 We drafted a CR or
14 Conservation Recreation Town House
15 Zone and we also drafted what we
16 call a Modified CR Sinclle-Family
I
17 Zone which is the R-100 density ,
i18 which is based upon the schematic to
19 my left which generatecl , in terms of
20 our drafting , 33 units .
21 The final task was to look at
22 all of the development scenarios in
23 the Draft as well as the three
i
24 Parish & Weiner scenarios and the
.25 R-100 scenarios for a dotal of
I
i
I
I
Proceedings
17
I
I
1 eleven development scenarios .
2 To analyze those eleven
3 development scenarios in terms of
4 whether they conform or didn ' t
5 conform with the Coastal Zone
6 Management Commission ' s Local
7 Waterfront Revitalization Plan , as
8 well as the Town Master Plan . So we
9 undertook that type of analysis
10 also .
11 All tolled , those were the
12 tasks we were asked to undertake and
I
13 prepare and those of you who had the
14 fortune or misfortune to pick up the
15 document and read it , we hope that
16 we did provide a comprehensive
17 analysis of these issues and we look
18 forward to your comments and
19 questions this evening , all of
I20 which , as Mr . Silverberg indicated,
I
21 will be responded to in detail in
I
22 writing in the Final Generic
23 Environmental Impact Statement which
24 will be prepared sometime next year .
25 Thank you, very much .
I
I
I
i
j Proceedings
18
1 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE : This
2 is a Public Hearing . A Public
3 Hearing requires that you give your
4 name and address and I would prefer
I
5 that everyone speak at the podium.
6 It will help the court reporter .
7 Remember we have a human being
8 taking notes there with that court
9 reporting machine , so we have to
�I
10 help her .
I
11 I have here about nineteen
12 people who have registered a desire
I
13 to speak .
14 I think it would be useful if
15 we attempt to keep to five minutes
16 for everyone .
17 Now , when we reach the end ,
i
i
18 if there are those who wish to speak
119 again , I would certainly entertain
20 people to continue their comments .
I
21 I believe at the end we will
22 have also two representatives from
23 the majority owner and I would
24 assume they are probably going to
125 take more than five minutes to say
i
i
Proceedings
19
I
1 what they have to say , but most
i
2 everyone else here who wishes to
3 speak would have spoken .
4 So , with those rules in mind ,
5 I would like to start this evening .
6 This list of cards is in order
7 pretty much as you came in , but I am
8 going to take one person out of
I
9 order . She is the Chairman of the
10 Town Conservation Advisory
i
� 11 Commission , Mrs . Louise Perez .
12 Mrs . Perez , if you would
113 start , we will continue in order
14 after that .
15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Am I
16 permitted to ask a question?
17 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE : Yes .
18 MR. BROWN : My name is Ed
19 Brown and I don ' t wish to speak, but
20 I was hoping that the gentleman that
21 presented the tasks they were
22 charged with would also give us a
23 brief summary of their conclusions .
24 Many of us have not yet had a
25 chance to read the document and I
I
I
i
i
Proceedings
20
1 think it would be helpful to
2 everyone here if somebody who is
3 knowledgeable would give us a brief
4 summary .
5 MR. SILVERBERG : On the first
6 order , there really are no
7 conclusions in this document . The
8 document brings together a lot of
9 information and you really need to
10 read the document to understand
ill where it ' s coming from .
12 The purpose of this hearing
13 tonight is not for us to make
14 lengthy presentations but to hear
15 the public .
16 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE : Do
17 you want to repeat where we go after
18 this again?
19 MR . SILVERBERG : There is an
� 20 additional public comment period up
21 until December 21st . Certainly
22 anyone who hasn ' t had an opportunity
23 to read the document yst can and can
i
24 submit written documents and after
I
25 that , there will be a Final
i
I
Proceedings
21
1 Environmental Impact Statement which
2 will respond to all of the comments
3 that have been made both on this
4 document and on the Draft and at
5 that point in time there will be an
6 additional opportunity for public
7 comments .
8 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE : And
9 then what does the Town Board do?
10 MR . SILVERBERG : After that
11 period of additional public comment
12 on the Final , the Town Board will
13 then render its findings based upon
14 all of the documentation and all of
15 the comments and all of the input
16 that is gotten on these issues .
17 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE : And
18 it ' s only after that , that any
19 zoning change may be put in place .
20 MR . SILVERBERG : May be .
21 ( Inaudible)
22 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE : So
23 it would be premature to . talk in
24 terms of conclusions at this point .
25 MS .' PEREZ : Supervisor
i
i
I
Proceedings
22
1 Silverstone , Councilmen , interested
2 members of the public , I am Louise
3 Perez . I live at 8 Cherry Avenue in
4 Larchmont and I am Chairman of the
5 Conservation Advisory Commission for
6 the Town of Mamaroneck. We call
7 ourselves the CAC .
8 We have reviewed this
9 document and we had two or three
10 members reading at several times and
11 we have produced our comments .
12 I am first going to state our
13 general observation and then I will
14 get a little more specific on the
15 Supplemental -- SEIS .
16 For our general observations
X17 the CAC believes very strongly that
118 any action taken with respect to the
19 two parcels under study should be
20 based on the principle that the
21 lowest level of disturbance is the
22 most desirable .
23 Any action which would permit
24 development should require it to
25 strictly adhere to existing
I
Proceedings
23
1 environmental regulations .
2 Additional study of the
3 wetlands must be undertaken to
4 ensure that these sensitive areas
5 are adequately protected in the
6 event of developmental activity .
7 Open space , recreational
8 facilities , wetlands and waterways
9 are important elements in our
10 environment and need to be treated
11 with care , caution and respect .
12 We believe that the SGEIS is
I13 a substantial improvement and has
14 been responsive to many of the
15 issues raised by the CAC and others .
16 However , after a review of
17 the Generic EIS and with the
18
understanding that any proposed
I
119 development would require the
20 submission of a much more detailed
21 EIS , we offer the following comments
22 for consideration :
23 Impact of other developmental
24 activity . We felt that while
25 substantial improvement has been
i
Proceedings
j 24
1 made in addressing the impact of the
2 various alternatives ow the sites in
3 question , we believe that greater
4 emphasis must be given to
5 determining the impact of known or
6 potential upstream development on
7 the sites in question and on the
8 downstream areas .
9 We particularly note the
10 sensitive condition of Long Island
11 Sound to which barely a page is
12 devoted at the very end of the
13 SGEIS .
14 In fact , the effect of land
15 use on Long Island Sound has hardly
16 been addressed . Particularly where
17 waterways are concerned , the impact
18 of present and potential upstream
� 19 development must be taken into
X20 consideration .
21 We believe that the concept
22 of looking at the alternatives
23 solely from an incremental point of
24 view understates many problems faced
25 by our community .
I
Proceedings
25
1 For example , wetlands and
2 water courses are profoundly
3 affected by land use patterns in
4 surrounding areas .
5 Now for mitigation . The
6 report seems to suggest that the
7 potential adverse impacts of the
8 alternatives under study
9 particularly related to the impact
10 on wetlands would be relatively
11 easily mitigated .
12 While it may be beyond the
13 scope of this Generic EIS to fully
14 evaluate development proposals or
15 concepts , the CAC feels strongly
16 that many of the potential problems
17 associated with environmentally
118 sensitive areas would be difficult
19 or impossible to solve and should
20 not be underestimated .
21 Now , for the wetlands ,
22 information provided in the
23 description of the alternatives
24 under study was insufficient to
25 provide a clear understanding about
i
I �
Proceedings
26
i
1 the manner in which wetlands and
2 water courses would be protected
3 during and after development of any
4 project .
5 The CAC considers it critical
6 that any activity related to any of
7 the proposed actions or any
8 resulting development adequately
9 protect wetlands and water courses .
110 The CAC would like to remind
11 those concerned of the important
12 role of the Sheldrake and its
I
13 surrounding wetland-,areas has in
1 purifying runoff from upstream
15 areas .
16 Now, as for water supply ,
� 17 little attention was paid to the
I
i18 question of the available adequate
i
i
19 supplies of water to support any of
20 the proposed actions . We
21 particularly note that water use
22 restrictions have been required in
23 the past few years because of
24 inadequate supplies .
25 For open space , the study
I
i
i
i
Proceedings
27
1 seems to suggest that adequate open
2 space and recreational areas would
3 be available in the event that the
4 golf courses were developed .
5 The CAC would like to
6 emphasize the importance of open
7 space in our environment , and at the
8 risk of stating the obvious , point
I
9 out that few plots of open space
10 remain available in our local areas .
11 I would like to show you our
12 Conservation Map . The green areas
13 are the parks and conservation
14 areas . The red are the flood-plain
15 areas . The blue , of course , are the
16 rivers and the large blue squares
17 are the schools , but if you look at
i
18 the green areas -- this is Bonnie
119 Briar , this is Winged Foot , this is
20 Saxon Woods , these are the Sheldrake
21 Trails .
22 So you see , our open space ,
123 what we have , it ' s limited to the
24 country clubs and Sheldrake Trails
25 and a few parks .
I
i
Proceedings
28 -
1 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE : Are
2 you nearly finished?
3 MS . PEREZ : Yes .
4 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE :
5 Okay .
6 MS . PEREZ : Thank you .
7 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE :
8 Thank you . Mr . Charles Mason .
9 MR. MASON : Madame
10 Supervisor, members of the Council ,
11 thank you .
12 My name is Charles Mason , 482
13 Weaver Street , Larchmont , New York.
14 Former Chairman of the CAC .
15 Presently a member of the Coastal
16 Zone Management Commission .
17 I do not speak in that
18 capacity tonight . However , I speak
i19 merely as a home owner immediately
20 downstream of the Bonnie Briar
21 Property .
i
22 Over the years when the
23 developments have been proposes such
24 as the Fenbrook Development , one of
125 the requirements that has been
I
it
i
I
I
Proceedings
29
1 imposed by the Town is the so-called
2 zero increase in rate of runoff , but
3 it never happens .
4 Well , one of the reasons why
5 it never happens is there is no way
6 to enforce it . There is no way to
7 measure it .
8 Those days are gone forever
9 folks . We have been measuring the
10 rainfall every . hour on the hour for
11 months and every time we have a
12 storm event , we measure the right of
13 rise in the reservoir and we record
14 it . We measure the rate of rise in
15 the streams and we record it .
16 If indeed there is
17 development here and there is an
18 increase in the rate of runoff , we
19 have the documentation . We have
20 what we need to produce a computer
21 model .
22 I would hope that this Board,
23 if indeed they approve any form of
I24 development , will stick very
25 strictly to the regulations and the
Proceedings
30
1 legislation that is now in place and
2 demand that zero increase and put in
I
3 the appropriate bonding requirements
4 so that we have recourse if we have
5 a situation such that developed at
6 Fenbrook where we had an increase in
7 the rate of runoff that tore up the
8 roadbed on Fenimore Road in what was
9 a very mild storm in comparison with
10 some of the previous storms before
11 that development .
12 Zero increase in rate of
13 runoff is no longer some little
14 concept that an engineer can say oh ,
15 sure , sure , sure , we will do it this
16 time . Oh , no , . it didn ' t happen last
17 time , but this time we ' ll do it .
18 Now we can hold them to it and let ' s
19 do it . Thank you .
20 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE :
21 Mr . Sal Ligani .
22 MR. LAGANI : Madame
23 Supervisor and Councilmen , ladies
24 and gentlemen .
25 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE : Will
i
i
i
Proceedings
31
1 you repeat your name please for the
2 reporter .
3 MR. LAGANI : I haven ' t said
4 it .
5 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE : Oh ,
6 all right .
7 MR . LAGANI : Sal Lagani , 1334
8 Raleigh Road , Village of Mamaroneck.
9 The three items I would like
10 to address are taxes , traffic and
11 flooding .
12 As everybody in the room
13 probably knows , there are two
14 schools that are presently in
15 consideration of being expanded
16 which means tax base will have to be
17 raised in order to finance the two
18 additional additions to the schools
I
19 that we have .
20 Any form of increase of home
21 owners in any way in Bonnie Briar is
22 directly going to affect what
23 happens at the Chatsworth Avenue
24 School , I believe , or Murray Avenue
25 School .
I
Proceedings
32
1 In any case , taxes is what
2 most people come out and vote for
3 and not to say politically , what you
4 do may or may not return you to your
5 office because of taxes .
6 Traffic , as everything stands
7 now, if nothing were done at ' all at
8 Bonnie Briar , flooding still will
9 occur at the lowest end of the Town
10 of Mamaroneck, which is the Village
11 of Mamaroneck . Anything you do will
12 make the flooding even worse .
13 I didn ' t see anywhere where
14 they addressed what the flooding
15 effect would be in the Village .
16 They were strictly concerned with
17 what happened in the unincorporated
! 18 Town of Mamaroneck and possibly in
19 the Village of Larchmont .
20 The other part of it was the
21 traffic . Weaver Street , Fenimore
22 Road , especially Weaver Street is
23 one of the streets that the Town
24 really doesn ' t have any control over
25 because it ' s a State road . You
i
i
I
I
Proceedings
33
i
1 can ' t widen it because you don ' t
i
2 have the land to widen it by and
3 it ' s horrendous as it is now and
4 adding traffic to that road is not
5 going to make it any better and
6 last , but not least , is the flooding
7 in the Village of Mamaroneck.
8 No one directs , and since I
9 am speaking for Mamaroneck Road and
X10 the residents of the Village of
11 Mamaroneck, the impact at the
12 Village of Mamaroneck.
13 All of the water flows to the
14 smallest part of the funnel , and
15 everybody knows this , and yet we
16 have the only recourse is to the
I17 Town to stop whatever development
18 that is going on that directly
19 effects us and this will directly
i
20 effect us .
21 Everybody upstream builds ,
22 puts blacktops down and they really
23 doesn ' t care where the water goes so
124 long as it don ' t effect them.
2 This effects the Village of
i
I
w;
I
Proceedings
34
1 Mamaroneck residents and there is
2 quite a bit of industry down at that
3 end and I seriously would ask you to
4 consider, if ' you are going to rezone
5 for any housing , housing at
6 five-acre plots , maximum three-acre
7 plots , which would give you the
8 least amount of impact on water
9 retention and traffic .
10 Thank you , very much .
11 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE :
12 Thank you , Mr . Lagani . Richard
13 Young .
14 MR. YOUNG : Good evening . My
15 name is Richard Young . My address
16 is 12 Bonnie Briar Lane and I am
17 here as President of the Bonnie
18 Briar Civic Association .
• 19 I am goint to let other
20 people speak to specific issues and
21 problems as they see it . My
22 understanding of what this process
23 is , is that the properties that we
24 are concerned with , the golf
25 courses , are presently zoned as
i
I
Proceedings
35
1 R-30 .
2 The real issue before this
3 Board ultimately is going to be
I
4 should that zoning be changed .
5 Having read most , and I admit
6 not all of the original report , and
7 the Supplemental Report , I am of the
8 view that what these reports in
9 combination say , is that the present
10 zoning of R-30 is totally
11 incompatible with the character of
f 12 this community . That is to allow
13 this property to develop under those
14 circumstances , is inconsistent with
15 what this Town should be about .
16 And I think that is what the
17 report said . I am telling what I
18 think the report said , not my
19 opinion . It ' s obviously my opinion,
20 but a think a simple reading of the
21 report documents that .
22 The only question that this
23 board is ultimately going to have to
24 decide , I think, based on not
I
25 whether it should be rezoned , but
I
Proceedings
36
1 what should the rezoning be .
i
I
2 Some of us have , I am talking
3 now for the Bonnie Briar Civic
4 Association primarily , have put
5 together a very short petition . If
6 I may read it , it will not take very
7 much time , and I would like to tell
8 you that none of us take any credit
9 for the language because we have
10 taken it right from the Supplemental
11 Study , itself .
12 This is what your
13 Supplemental Study basically says ,
14 with a few editing parts which will
15 be obvious .
16 We residence of the Town of
17 Mamaroneck recognize that open space
118 and recreational facilities within
19 the Town of Mamaroneck are a rapidly
20 diminishing resource of the
21 community . "
22 Such open space and
23 facilities are necessary in order to
24 maintain the character of the Town
2 as a suburban community and to
I
i
Proceedings
37
i
1 reduce the adverse effects of over
I
2 building .
i
i
3 In order to ensure the
4 maintenance of important open space
5 and recreational resources within
6 the Town , reduce the potential for
7 substantial flood hazard and to
8 maintain the suburban quality of the
i
9 community , we strongly recommend
110 that the Town adopt a law that
11 creates pure recreational. zoning ,
I
, 12 the golf courses described in the
� 13 SGEIS .
I
14 I happen to have several more
15 of these in blank if anyone would
16 like to have one and sign it . We
I
17 have lots of them if you would like
18 to sign them and submit them .
19 I have 27 of these -- 27
20 families represented by these
21 petitions along with -- In addition,
22 somebody decided to send in a letter
23 as well that I would like to be able
24 to submit tonight , if I may . Can I
25
do that?
I
i
Proceedings
38
1 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE :
2 Absolutely . You can leave them with
3 the clerk.
4 MR. YOUNG : The only other
I
5 comment that I would make is that we
6 obviously all sincerely believe that
7 the only alternative to be
8 considered ultimately , there be no
9 development whatsoever . Thank you
10 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE :
11 Thank you , Mr . Young . Elizabeth
i
12 Lehman .
13 MS . LEHMAN : By a very
14 fortuitous circumstance , my name is
15 Elizabeth Lehman , 8 Cambridge Court ,
I
16 Larchmont .
17 Our family received a
18 Christmas card today . I would just
19 like to read you the message .
i
20 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE : I
21 think you have to get a little
22 closer to the microphone .
123 MS . LEHMAN : "We are reminded
24 in this special season that we are
25 caretakers of the earth and all it
I
i
I
Proceedings
39
I
1 holds . "
2 When I appeared before you
3 the last time it was as a Board
4 Member of the Scarsdale Autobon
5 Society which is the lower
i
6 Westchester branch of the National
7 Autobon Society that covers
8 Larchmont and Mamaroneck as well as
I
9 all of the other central amenities .
10 At the time we read the
111 original statement we felt there
112 were some short comings in it and I
I
113 am very happy to see that in the
14 revised version , especially in the
15 section written by Steve
16 Coleman (ph) , some of our concerns
17 were addressed . This included the
18 following :
119 You cannot simply displace
20 wildlife from one area and hope that
21 they will go elsewhere because the
22 elsewhere is already inhabited by
I
23 wildlife . So in essence , there is
24 no place to go .
25 Second point was that a group
I
I
I
i
Proceedings
40
I
1 of green parcels often provide
I
2 habitat for wildlife , whereas if
3 they are broken up they would not be
4 able to .
5 Thirdly , the rough areas
6 around the golf course where you
7 have old trees , bushes and tall
8 grass , are exactly the areas where
9 wildlife live , but also the areas
I
10 where houses would be built .
i
111 The impact on any animals
12 living in the water courses , if the
13 water is silted , sanded or in other
14 ways polluted , would have an
15 indirect effect on all of the other
16 animals that feed on the animals
17 that live in the water . So you get
I18 a ripple effect when you take away
119 one part of an area .
20 We also felt that to
21 compromise by saying well , we ' ll
22 only build on 50% or we ' ll only
I23 build on 30% or 80% , might lead some
124 people to believe that if you only
25 build on half , you will only lose
I
i
I
Proceedings
41
I
i
1 half of the wildlife , but it doesn ' t
2 work that way because the impact is
3 progressive and you might develop
4 half and lose 90% percent of the
I
5 wildlife .
6 Steve Coleman also points out
7 that in places where detention
I
8 basins have been build by builders
9 to catch water and prevent it from
10 flooding , these basins tend to silt
11 up and we have no real mechanism for
12 ensuring that they be kept clean .
13 The builder often
14 unincorporates his building
I
15 corporation and moves on . The home
16 owners either don ' t know or don ' t
i
17 wish to pay for the maintenance of
I
18 these basins .
19 Lastly , I would like to bring
20 up something that ' s just come up in
21 the last year by studies at the
22 University of Wisconsin .
23 More than 70% of the migrant
24 bird species have suffered
I
25 population decline since 1978 . Now,
I
Proceedings
42
1 we all think that the primary reason
2 for that is the deforestation in
3 Central and South America and that
I
4 is one reason , but they have found
5 that as important and perhaps even
6 more important is what we are doing
7 up here on the northeast section of
I
g our country .
9 We are displacing birds
i
i
10 because we have disturbed , through
X11 road building and house building and
112 power line building forest tracks .
113 We have segmented them, and once we
I
14 do that , the birds who are here in
15 their breeding season can no longer
16 reproduce because their nests are
17 preydated (ph) upon by people and the
I
118 animals that people bring with them
19 by loss of habitat .
20 Also , we are reducing the
21 size of areas where birds that
22 migrate through this area can rest
23 and feed during their long travels .
24 So we can ' t simply blame the
25 other guy and say if people down
I
i -
Proceedings
43
1 south would do the right thing we
2 would have our birds back .
3 Birds are not just something
4 pretty to see in the spring looking
I
5 out the window, but they have their
6 function too .
7 If we have too few song
8 birds , we have too many caterpillars
9 in the trees , too many inchworms ,
i10 people will start to spray more and
11 we will have too many grubs in the
112 garden and grass , people will use
13 more pesticides .
14 So we feel , as the speaker
15 before me , that the quality of life
16 in Mamaroneck , for the human life
17 and the animal life , depends on your
18 decision to leave this as open
19 space . Thank you .
20 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE : This
21 is a hearing on an Environmental
22 Impact Statement . If you are here
X23 for a Planning Board Meeting , that
24 is downstairs and if you wish to
i
I25 speak , we are having people fill out
I
I
I
I
i
i
Proceedings
44
1 cards . If you would like to sign on
2 a sheet of paper .
i
3 Edgar Lehman .
4 MR. LEHMAN: I am Edgar
5 Lehman , President of Friends of the
6 Reservoir , that is the Larchmont
7 Reservoir Conservancy .
8 Ladies and gentlemen and
9 Council members , I am told that
10 Benjamin Franklin once had to stand
11 before a group and said something
12 like , I am going to address you for
13 fifteen minutes , regretfully , I have
14 only been told about this
15 twenty-four hours ago that I had to
16 speak to you and he continued and
� 17 said , if you had told me much
I
18 earlier , I wouldn ' t need fifteen
I
19 minutes . I would only need five
20 minutes . I have the same problem.
21 I have five minutes and I have spent
22 the time , so if you will allow me to
23 read it rather than to add-lib , I
24 think I can shrink eight minutes to
25 five minutes .
I
I
i
Proceedings
45
1 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE : That
I
2 is your choice .
3 MR. LEHMAN : I last had the
4 opportunity of addressing you by
I
i
5 letter on July 28th , 1991 , on behalf
6 of the Friends of the Reservoir ,
7 that Is the Larchmont Reservoir
8 Conservancy , on the subject of
9 exacerbated flooding and silting ,
10 and water quality loss expected from
11 the Bonnie Briar Development .
12 To avoid adding unreasonably
13 to the mountain of documentation
I
14 with which you all have to contend ,
15 I ask you simply to add my comments
16 now to the document of July 28th ,
17 1991 with it ' s photographs ,
18 statements , letters and
19 observations . It ' s in a brownish ,
20 beige folder and each of you have
21 received that . If you need more
22 copies we can make them .
23 The issue with the proposed
24 Bonnie Briar Development is an
25 unequivocal future increase in
I
i
I
I
i
Proceedings
46
1 flooding and silting in the Town of
2 and Village of Mamaroneck and an .
3 ongoing loss of the quality of water
4 in our stream and drainage network
5 ultimately flowing into the Long
l
6 Island Sound .
7 As residents along Valley
8 Stream Road and Brookside Drive in
9 the Town of Mamaroneck know all too
10 well , and Washingtonville in the
11 Village of Mamaroneck still more
12 vividly , the waters flowing
13 peacefully down the little stream
14 called Sheldrake River can turn into
15 a destructive torrent after a few
16 days of horrendous rain , and the map
17 that is shown by the CAC points that
18 out .
19 The stream then flood streets
20 and basements and fill the Town ' s
21 beloved Duck Pond with unwanted and
22 contaminated silt , which we
23 periodically are then privileged to
24 clean out at a very high cost , if we
25 can get rid of the silt that we are
i
I
i
Proceedings
47
1 trying to clean .
2 Our residents know , too , that
3 the situation has grown worse with
4 past upstream development and that
5 in the future it will continue to
6 grow still worse as a result of
7 substantial upstream developments in
8 New Rochelle , Scarsdale and White
9 Plains , without intermunicipal
10 watershed management in the County ,
i
11 and that is quite important . It ' s
12 nowhere in sight .
13 The flood-prone west branch
14 of the Sheldrake begins along the
15 Scarsdale/White Plains border , flows
16 through Carpenter ' s Pond ,
17 Dickerman ' s Pond , both of them badly
18 silted , almost completely , then the
19 Larchmont Reservoir , which is
20 continually silting , as the
21 photographs I have presented a year
22 and half ago will show, then through
23 the Bonnie Briar floodplain , down
24 through Gardens Lake , also known as
25 the Duck Pond , which is adjacent to
i
jProceedings
48
1 New England Thruway and from there ,
2 the stream turns northeast to cross
3 Washingtonville , a dense residential
4 area ultimately joining the
I
5 Mamaroneck River and Columbus Park.
6 To do whatever is possible to
7 moderate peek stormwater flows and
g to better anticipate serious storms ,
9 as Mr . Mason has already stated , the
10 Friends of the Reservoir , Larchmont
11 Reservoir Conservancy , has already
, 12 installed computerized flood control
13 valving and a weather monitoring
14 station .
15 Lying immediately upstream
16 from Bonnie Briar , we , the
17 Reservoir , take a very active
18 interest in flood control , erosion ,
19 siltation control and in what would
20 become terribly unpolluted water ,
21 which has the title of stand-by
22 water supply in the entire Sheldrake
23 Watershed .
i
24 Bonnie Briar , itself ,
25 however , is perhaps the single
i
I
I
Proceedings
49
1 largest natural storm water
2 detention area in the community .
i
3 In many ways , in a severe
4 storm situation where the lower
5 portions of the Bonnie Briar Golf
6 Course flood to several_ feet in
7 depth , Bonnie Briar , itself , is a
8 more important water detention
9 facility than the Larchmont
10 Reservoir , itself . It ' s a natural
11 detention area of huge proportion .
12 Zero increase in the rate of
13 runoff is an engineer ' s pipe dream,
14 if you excuse the pun , if you got
15 it , no matter how strident the
16 promises of the developer .
17 We need only look at the
18 present condition along Fenimore
19 Road , referred to by Mr . Mason ,
20 adjacent to the Fenbrook Development
21 to know this . Once the developer
22 moves on , the community is left
23 where the mess , to pay for it ; etc . .
I
24 Should the Town of Mamaroneck
25 make the wrong decision in the case
I
i
i
Proceedings
50
i
I
1 of Bonnie Briar , a decision which
2 permits further aggravation
3 downstream in heavily settled
4 residential areas , then how can we
5 ask upstream communities like White
6 Plains , Scarsdale and New Rochelle
7 as well as the County of
8 Westchester , itself , for help in
I
g creating a rational and effective
10 plan for controlling the entire
11 Sheldrake Watershed? This is a
12 large question in our minds .
13 Virtually all threats to the
14 local environment are man created .
15 All to often we think of ourselves
16 as independent from our natural
I
17 surroundings . We don ' t pay enough
18 attention to the relationships
i
19 amongst ourselves and the
20 life-giving water , plants and land
21 on which we depend .
22 Such neglect , whether from
I
I
23 ignorance , apathy or lack of
i
24 understanding cannot continue
25 without grief . If we do not take
Proceedings
53.
1 steps now to protect what we have ,
2 the losers will be the beauty and
3 economic value of our area .
4 If this Board were to permit
5 the development of this property , it
6 would cause us to cross the line
7 separating construction from
8 destruction and a promised gain for
i
g the community into an irrevocable
i
10 loss .
11 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE : Are
I
12 you done?
i
13 MR. LEHMAN : Thank you .
I
14 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE : Ed
i
15 Brown .
16 MR . BROWN : My name is Ed
17 Brown , 28 Country Club Drive ,
18 Larchmont , New York .
19 My wife advised me not to
I
20 speak because she said I can only
21 say something emotional , but I don ' t
I
22 wish to lose my opportunity to go on
i
23 the register for what I think is the
24 sentiment of the present taxpayers
25 of the Town .
I
I
i
Proceedings
52
i
i
1 The last meeting that I
2 recall was perhaps almost two . years
3 ago now. It was down in the
4 basement . It was a large group of
i
I
5 people --
6 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE : One
i
7 year ago .
i
8 MR . BROWN : One year ago . I
9 don ' t recall anybody there that
10 night being for the development
11 other than the representatives of
I
i
12 the developer , himself . So I rather
13 suspect that the sentiment of all
14 taxpayers in the Town are against
15 having more housing development on
16 Bonnie Briar , in taking out of play
17 a pretty nice golf course , even
18 though I don ' t play there .
19 I wanted to rise and put my
I
j20 emotional foot forward on a couple
21 of points .
22 We moved into our present
23 house -- We back up against Bonnie
i
24 Briar . We are one house removed
25 from the Bonnie Briar Golf Course .
i
I
Proceedings
53
i
1 When we moved into our house
2 in 1968 , we had six children who
I
3 happily have gone to all of the
i
4 schools here in Town , but we have a
5 stream that goes at the back of our
6 property and feeds the Sheldrake
7 Trail , the nature trail. .
8 When we moved in , in 1968 ,
9 there was flowing water in the
10 stream , comes off of Bonnie Briar .
i
11 There were carp in the stream, we
12 could see them and I thought it was
I
13 great , my children are going to be
14
able to see fish in the stream . The
15 fish were good size , six , eight ,
16 ten , twelve inches . There were many
17 of them swimming there .
! 18 Several years after we moved
19 in , the steam began to back up and
i
20 now it doesn ' t flow at all .
21 It turned out that -- About
I
22 six months ago I asked Miss Ing (ph) ,
23 and several other people on one of
24 the Town ' s bodies , to come out and
25 look at the Old Mill Site , which is
i
i
I
I
Proceedings
54
1 right in our area there off of
2 Fenimore Road , because one builder
3 had taken town the Town sign that
4 said it was a public property site ,
5 the Old Mill Site , and had planted
6 trees around it to seciire it and
I
7 basically taking it away from the
g citizens .
g So , Miss Ing and others from
10 the committee came out and looked at
11 the site and I asked them to also
i
12 look at the stream behind my house
13 and they were appalled to find out
14 that those steams are all blocked up
15 now , the water does not flow, there
16 is congestion somewhere in all of
17 the runoff waters in that particular
j 18 stream .
19 I don ' t know what the map is
20 of other streams , but I know the one
I
21 behind our house is in very bad
22 shape . The water has backed up and
23 it ' s sitting there rotting the roots
I
24 of several very stall trees . I
25 don ' t want to guess at the number of
i
I
i
Proceedings
55
I
1 feet , but they are twice as high as
2 my house .
3 Several trees , I would say ,
4 perhaps. six of them, have fallen
5 over because of the problem with
6 that stream .
7 I rather suspect that any
8 more development would make those
9
matters worse .
10 So I recommend that anybody
11 can go to Miss Ing and find out from
12 those committee members who came to
13 look at that stream , that there are
14 some bad situations developing
15 feeding into the Sheldrake that I
16 think most people are not aware of .
17 I want to say another thing .
18 I am a reasonably intelligent member
19 of the Town and usually I can digest
20 a lot of information , and I am not
21 taking personal offense at the Town
22 attorney ' s suggestion that I read
23 that document , but as a taxpayer, I
24 find it unacceptable that we cannot
25 expect from our Town Council and
i
i
I
I
I-
Proceedings
56
1 other members , some sort of summary
I
2 of the situation we are in .
3 Nobody wants the development
4 and I recognize that the Town has to
5 protect itself from trampling over
6 the rights of the owner of the
7 property that the owner wants to
8 build , and I respect those rights
I
9 also . If in fact legally that
10 builder should be able to build , so
11 be it . I don ' t want it to happen ,
i
12 but I am not for taking away that
13 person ' s rights either .
14 It seems to me that you , on
15 the Council , should ask somebody in
16 the Town , of the people who did the
17 study , to come up with a more
18 manageable summary of our positions .
19 Tell us what the pros and the cons
20 are . Are there any advantages to
21 the Town having this development?
22 I never heard anybody in all
23 the years this has been going on
24 ever stand up and tell us that there
25 might be some pluses to the
I
i
I
!
!
i
i
Proceedings
57
I
1 development .
2 I am not for the development ,
3 but I would like to hear a balanced
4 executive summary of where we are
5 and I don ' t know anybody in this
6 Town , other than a few of the people
7 who are specialists , who can go to
8 that document and come away and know
I
9 what is the proper result , what is
10 the proper position for us to taking
11 as taxpayers of this Town .
12 So I am requesting that the
13 Town accept the responsibility to
14 give us a better summary of where we
15 are with respect to all of this ,
I
16 what are the pros and cons of having
17 that development go in and what
18 should our position be , even knowing
19 that you want to protect yourselves
20 from trampling on the developer ' s
21 rights . Thank you .
I
22 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE :
i
23 Sylvia Scheuer .
i
24 MS . SCHEUER : My name is
25 Sylvia Scheuer . I live at 875
I
i
I '
Proceedings
58
i
1 Fenimore Road .
2 In the interest of moving
j 3 things along quickly , I will write
I
j 4 to you about my serious concerns
5 about flooding , for which I have
6 quite such experience on Fenimore
I
7 Road , and traffic and I would like
8 you all to know , and I am sure that
i
9 you do , that Weaver Street
10 frequently in the afternoon , and
i
11 particularly on Friday , is almost
I
12 jammed , but Mrs . Lehman said
13 something this evening that really
14 moved me .
15 We seem to be very cavalier
16 about destroying our environment .
17 My children and I went to the
18 Fenbrook Development and watched
19 some beautiful trees , probably 150
i
20 or more years , old being cut down ,
21 lickety-split . They cannot be
22 replaced simply , quickly ,
23 inexpensively .
24 We are destroying our
25 environment very , very quickly and
i
i
I
I
I
Proceedings
59
1 it isn' t just ours to destroy .
I feel that we have it in
2
3 . trust for our children , for our
4 neighbors , for our community and
5 many people move to this community
6 because they felt it is beautiful
7 and perhaps it ' s a little less so .
8 We cannot legislate good.
9 taste , but we can legislate good
10 sense , and even when we try , we fail
11 pathetically . I think there is some
12 law to preserve trees .
13 I 've seen wells around trees
14 that have not done a blind bit of
15 good . I 've seen trees just wither
16 and I would like you all to think
17 about that this evening , that once
I
18 we have done the damage , it ' s done .
19
SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE :
20 Thank you . James Daily .
I
21 MR. DAILY : I am going to
22 fight fire with fire . My name is
23 James Daily . I live at 14 Clover
24 Street in Larchmont . I go by the
25 nickname Jed .
I
I
I
Proceedings
.60
I
1 These are copies of my
I
2 spreadsheets for everyone to see . I
3 have given copies to the Town Clerk
4 of what I am going to read .
5 The subject is A--his letter to
6 you , Madame Supervisor . The subject
7 is a Draft and Supplemontal Generic
g Environmental Impact Statement
9 Consery ation Recreation Zone , Town
10 of Mamaroneck, New York, dated
11 October , 1992 . I am going to go
I
12 fast .
13 My comments are directed to
I
14 three areas . The economics of the
15 "to be built" alternatives . The
16 economics of the public golf courses
17 and the zoning questions itemized in
18 Section 6 . 5 Zoning Texts , Appendices
i
19 J-1 , J-2 and J-3 .
20 Regarding the " to be built"
I
21 alternatives , please refer to
I
22 Section III , page 4 and I quote ,
g assumptions were
"The followin
23 P
24 provided by Parish & Weiner"-.
25 The price structure of
i
I
Proceedings
61
i
1 $1 , 000 , 000 . 00 is in current dollars .
i
2 This estimated selling price is
3 predicated upon market conditions
� 4 returning to a level similar to that
5 which occurred in the 1.985-87
I
6 period .
7 SUPERVISOR SILVI!,RSTONE : You
8 have given us a copy . You have a
9 choice , you can repeat it or
I
10 summarize .
11 MR . DAILY : I will try and
12 summarize .
13 Essentially , F&A , Ferrandino
i
14 & Associates report says in their
15 assumptions , that the million dollar
16 price on the homes under: Alternative
17 A is high .
18 To quote them it says , "It
I
19 should be considered a best case
20 scenario for the selling price from
21 the developer ' s perspective . "
22 I believe Ferrandino &
23 As.sodlates is being paid a
24 consulting fee for these studies . I
25 mean it ' s this thick and we have
i
I
I
Proceedings
62
i
1 paid them 200 and fifty thousand
2 bucks and it ' s being paid by the
3 taxpayers from the Town of
i
4 Mamaroneck and why are they allowed
5 to so blatantly favor developer ' s
6 perspective in the fiscal impact
7 analysis?
8 If you look at my spreadsheet
9 you will see that the very first
10 Alternative is Alternative B and
11 with the assumptions that ,Ferrandino
12 took from Parish & Weiner , and it
13 shows that the fiscal impact from
14 the municipal would be four hundred
15 and seventy-eight thousand and down
16 at the very bottom of that sheet ,
17 the fiscal impact of the school is
i
18 nine hundred and fifty-two thousand .
19 Now , if you adjust those
20 numbers to the 57% of market which
i
21 is mentioned in the report , you go
22 to the next column and it reduces
23 those numbers significantly to four
I
24 seventy-eight down to seventy
25 thousand for the municipality and
I
i
I
I
I
I
Proceedings
63
i
1 from nine hundred and fifty-two
2 thousand to a hundred and
3 twenty-five thousand for the town or
4 for the school .
I
5 So I think Alternative B ,
6 which F&A says is the best of the
7 three from Parish & Weiner , I can ' t
i
I
8 believe the assumptions . Therefore ,
I
9 I don ' t believe Alternatives A and
10 C .
11 I just can ' t believe your
i
12 market assumptions and I follow
13 along my spreadsheet and I look at
I
14 the Modified CR , which is the middle
15 one of the nine on the page , that is
16 the R-100 . That is more believable .
17 33 houses on the property , I
18 don ' t want it to happen , but it ' s
19 more believable in terms of economic
20 assumptions and I have taken the
21 liberty at the bottom, looking at
22 the combined fiscal impact , and that
23 is the best alternative of all of
i
24 these nine in terms of positive
25 fiscal impact for the Town .
I
!
I
I
I
i
I
Proceedings
i
64
1 Now what I come to is -- My
2 conclusions are , I prefer no
3 building at all . However -- I would
4 like you to leave it as is .
5 However , if you have to -
I
6 permit development , the Town and its
I 7 taxpayers are much better off with
-
8 the Modified CR , R-100 , 33 houses ,
9 18 hole golf course alternative .
10 This is the best of the "to
11 be built" alternatives because it
12 has one , the highest combined fiscal
i
13 impact to the Town and the school
14 and the least amount of impact on
15 the environment , traffic , schools ,
16 etcetera .
17 By the way , I would like to
18 go to another section and refer to
19 Section III , Page 20 , Item 9 ,
20 General Government .
21 "The impact on government
22 services of additional residential
23 units and associated population
24 would not be significant . " I am
I
25 quoting right from your report .
i
I
I
i
I
I
Proceedings
65
1 "During the planning and development
2 of the project , the workload of the
3 Town departments would increase .
4 However , developer fees .are
I
5 established to offset these costs . "
6 My questions to the Board, I
7 would like to know who sets these
8 fees? What are the fees? When are
9 they paid? Why are they not
10 disclosed now? Where will the fees
11 be spent? How much are the fees?
12 I suggest we spent
13 $250 , 000 . 00 in cash plus unknown
14 amounts of time so far on this
15 project .
16 Therefore , I believe that the
17 developer fees to develop this
i
18 property , if you are going to permit
19 them to develop , should be some
20 large number . I start with a
21 million , it probably should be a
22 higher amount , because this is the
23 last large piece of land available
i
24 for development in the Town .
25 Opec charges a user fee for
Proceedings
66
1 oil , why can ' t we charge a user fee
2 for our disappearing asset called
3 green space?
4 As you know, my above
5 conclusion in favor of Modified CR
6 or not the only answer to this
7 zoning puzzle .
8 Let ' s consider the second
9 phase of my comments , the economics
I
10 of the public golf course and I have
11 a second spreadsheet here which lays
12 out Lake Isle versus Rye Golf versus
I
13 Bonnie Briar .
I
14 And again , F&A failed to
15 provide a strategic summary sheet .
16 I agree with Mr . Brown , there should
17 be summary sheets on all these
I
18 eleven alternatives . L provided
19 them to the Town .
I
20 Two central points on the
21 spreadsheet . One , we only have to
22 buy 57% of the controlling shares .
I
23 We do not have to buy all of shares -
i
24 owned by the members of the club .
i
25 Their shares are not equity any
I
I
Proceedings
67
i
1 more . They are just options that
i
2 will expire in November of ' 97 .
3 So , we don' t have to pay the
I
4 full seventeen million or
5 $12 , 000 , 000 . 00 price . We only have
6 to pay 57% . Then we have a
7 corporation , we got control , we
8 don ' t have to dividend these members
9 anything . So the price is not what
10 it appears to be in the study .
11 Second , we already have a
12 pool to serve the community at
i
13 Hommocks . We do not need a pool at
14 Bonnie Briar with its expensive
15 operations and capitol costs for a
16 three month short season .
17 I mean , we can ' t even keep
18 the Hommocks pool running , so why
19 should we have another one?
I
20 Therefore , if you put these
21 two observations and implemented ,
22 take these two observations and
23 implement them, the Town could have
24 a profitable golf and tennis
I
25 recreation facility which would add
I
I
Proceedings
j 68
i
1 value to every taxpayer ' s home due
2 to the "club rights" similar to
j 3 Manor Beach Rights in the Village of
i
I
4 Larchmont .
5 I did not pay much attention
6 to Table 6 . 3 -VI for a Golf Club ,
7 Public Subsidy . I find this
8 suggestion to be a blatant
I
I
9 distraction effort and it is a joke
10 to seriously suggest that all
i
11 taxpayers of this community want to
12 subsidize golf and tennis players in
13 this type of facility . That is to
I
14 take the money out of taxpayer ' s
15 pocket and subsidize every
16 individual member .
17 My opinion is , this is poor
I
i
18 judgment to include it in the report
19 and it ' s just a distraction .
20 If you go to Table 6 . 3 , the
21 Impact of Public Subsidy on the Town
22 Budget . In my opinion , this Table
I
j 23 is pure obfuscation and displays
24 incompetence in creating
25 understandable exhibits . I am sorry
i
Proceedings
69
I
1 for using straightforward language .
2 I also believe it ' s placed in
3 the report as a scare tactic against
4 the public golf course alternative .
5 The mysterious high tax ratio is
6 just a scare tactic .
7 In conclusion , I believe that
8 the Town could acquire the equity
9 4 y
I
9 shares in the Bonnie Briar Syndicate
I
10 for less than the seventeen or
11 twelve million stated in the report .
12 The public club could be
13 operated profitably without a new
14 pool or public subsidy .
15 You can look on my
16 spreadsheet and you can see , over on
17 the right-hand side , I got capitol
j 18 costs , Case 1 and Case 2 .
19
Case 1 is the seventeen
i
20 million and it shows a net operating
j21 profit of zero and Case 2 , according
22 to your study , is a net operating
23 profit of zero with a $12 , 000 , 000 . 00
24 price .
25 I have adjusted those in my
I
I
I
I
I
I
Proceedings
70
1 Case 1 and Case 2 just to the right .
2 I have taken the price down to 57%
3 of your price and I eliminated the
i
4 pool and all of a sudden we got a
5 net operating profit and we have no
6 public subsidy .
7 So I think your report is
g biased against a public golf course
g operation .
10 I am not necessarily in favor
11 of public golf course operations ,
12 but it ' s a viable alternative rather
13 than 164 town houses or whatever .
14 My third area of comment--
15 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE :
16 Mr . Daily--
i 17
MR . DAILY : I am almost
18 finished .
19 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE : You
20 are really over time . You have had
21
about seven minute .
22 MR. DAILY : This will take me
i
23 thirty seconds .
24 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE :
25 Okay . I will give you thirty
i
i
I
Proceedings
71
1 seconds .
� 2 .
MR. DAILY : Third area of
I
I
3 comment has to do with the zoning
I
4 alternatives , J-1 , J-2 and J-3 .
5 J-1 is Recreation Zone-No
6 Build .
7 J-2 is Conservation
g Recreation Zone R-50 and J-3 is
9 Residential R-100 .
10 I think you should do all
11 Recreation Zone even in you ' re going
12 to get sued , back it up with saying
13 you ' re going to put modified CR' s
14 and the next alternative , R-100 ,
15 back it up with high user fees for
16 the land and the future of our
17 community is in your hands .
lg SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE :
19 Thank you , very much . Sandy
20 Capshaw (ph)
21 MS . CAPSHAW (ph) : I have
22 chosen to make comments in written
23 form.
24 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE :
25 Okay . Thank you . William O 'Gorman .
I
I
I
i
i
I
Proceedings
72
1 MR . O ' GORMAN : My name is
j 2 William O ' Gorman . I live at 5
3 Revere Road in Larchmont and I take
4 exception to the whole procedure .
5 I feel that the last Public
6 Hearing indicated to our Town
I
7 Council that public space should be
I
8 maintained and that our open space
g should be maintained .
10 So therefore , if the Town
11 Council responded to our wishes as
12 citizens as expressed at a Public
i
13 Hearing , this would not take place
14 but there would have been a zoning
15 of no building , that if would be
16 retained as recreational or within
j 17 the same category that it is today .
This has been a public lace
18 P P
19 for this -- an open space for this
20 Town for the last hundred years and
21 we have all enjoyed it and we have
22 all expressed our opinions .
I
23 I don ' t want to belabor the
i
24 fact that the schools will have to
25 be increased , the traffic can
i
i
I
I
i
I
Proceedings
73
i
1 absolutely not stand it. , the Long
2 Island Sound is polluted already and
3 any additional homes or.- houses or
I
4 buildings on this property would be
5 absolutely ridiculous and this is
6 what the Public Hearincr said before .
7 If I own a house and I do ,
8 and I have a building lot next to me
9 and I want to build a house there , I
10 put a sign and the Planning Board
11 notifies my neighbors that I want to
12 build a house .
13 My neighbors don ' t think it ' s
14 a good idea , so they come and say to
15 the Planning Board. , don ' t let
16 O ' Gorman build a house .
17 So , the Planning Board comes
j 18 back to me and says they don ' t want
I
19 a house , O ' Gorman . So they throw
I
20 the ball back to me , I have got to
21 go to the Planninq Board and tell
22 them why I want to build a house and
23 what good it ' s going to do for the
I -
24 community and why it ' s acceptable
i
25 under these conditions ; but just the
i
i
j Proceedings
74
1 opposite has happened here .
i
2 This audience expressed their
3 opinions to the Town Board that they
4 wanted to maintain open spaces .
i
5 I feel that the Town should
6 have , in their new hearing , should _
7 have designated open spaces as an
8 alternative and allow the home
9 owners , not the home owners , the
10 property owners of Bonnie Briar to
11 come back to us and convince us that
12 they are right and they have a right
13 to build on this property .
14 We are still trying to
15 convince , with all of this , all of
16 the houses that they got listed here
I
17 and all of the alternatives , but not -
18 very little said in this study about
19 open space .
20 We are the people that want
I
21 open space . We can justify the fact
22 that they own the property , but let
23 them tell us why they have a right
i
24 to build on property that hasn ' t
25 been touched for a hundred years .
i
i
i
Proceedings
75
I
1 This is our open space and
2 this thing is nothing but a
i
3 repetition of what went on a year
4 ago .
i
5 All of the people that I have
6 heard talk very intelligently have
7 said that we want open space , we
8 don ' t want building and we are faced
9 again with the same things outlining
10 what we are paying for , to have
11 somebody tell us where we can put
12 the homes and the representation
13 that we are paying.- for is oin to
i going
i
14 Alternative B . which is part of the
15 home owners -- part of the property
16 owners . It don ' t make sense . Thank
j 17 you .
18 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER : As a
19 point of information , are we
20 proceeding under Robert ' s Rules? If
21 so , I would like to rise to a point
22 of information . I would like to
? 3 compliment you, sir , very good .
i
24 MR . O ' GORMAN : Thank you . Am
25 I finished?
I
I
i
i
Proceedings
76
1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes ,
2 and I want to ask a question . You
3 stay there for a moment .
i
4 We are under Robert ' s Rules .
5 I rise to a point of information and
6 I would like to ask the Town Council -
7 We have been trying to get the
g information -- It is that kind of
f
9 opinion -- I agree with what
i
I
10 Mr . O ' Gorman said .
11 As Town Council , can you
i
12 advise us as Town residents and
13 taxpayers whether or not that is an
I
14 okay legal way to go . If it is ,
15 that ' s the way we would all like to
I
16 go . I have never heard another
17 member of the Town say anything
1s else .
i
19 As Town Council , I am rising
20 to a point of information in asking ,
21 is that legal or is that silly? If
22 it ' s silly , tell us and we will know
23 we have to do something else , but if
24 it ' s not silly , that is the way
25 everybody in the Town wants to go .
i
i
i
I
Proceedings
77
I
1 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE :
2 First of all , we are not proceeding
3 under Robert ' s Rules .
4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I
5 asked if you were and I thought you
6 said yes .
7 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE : As a
i
8 curtesy I allowed you to ask the
i
9 question , but we are not proceeding
1 10 under Robert ' s Rules because this is
!
11 a Public Hearing and there are very
12 specific rulings for Public
13 Hearings .
I
i
14 We allow people to speak and
15 we set the rules for how long people
16 can speak . You asked for a point of
I
17 information and that is why I
18 allowed you to ask the question .
19 MR. SILVERBERG : As I
120 indicated , we are not responding to
21 questions , but since this is
i
22 procedural , perhaps I can
23 ( inaudible) to answer the question .
24
Mr . O ' Gorman is suggesting a
25
conclusion . The Town Board may very
I
I
I
I
Proceedings
78
i
1 well reach that conclusion at the
2 end of the process or it may not
3 reach that conclusion .
4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Are
5 they legally able to?
6 To MR. SILVERBERG : Excuse
7 me , may I answer your question?
8 The Town Board has to study
9 all of the information that ' s been
i
10 submitted to it and there is a legal
i
I
11 process that it must follow and it
12 is doing that .
13 It will not make its findings
14 until it completes that process and
15 therefore , while I can perhaps
16 understand Mr . O ' Gorman ' s frustration
17 with the process , that is the legal
18 process that the Board must complete
I
19 and the Board cannot , in the middle
20 of the process , say we are going to
21 do it this way . They will listen to
I
22 everybody and make a decision .
23 Can they decide legally that
24 this property can be zoned one-way
I
25 or another? Yes , if there is
i
i
Proceedings
79
1 sufficient information basis to
2 support it .
i
3 The question remains whether
I
4 or not there is sufficient basis to
j
5 support that and we will not know
6 that until the entire process is
7 complete and that is why the Board
I
g is not answering questions or making
9 comments .
10 We are hearing everybody ' s
11 comments tonight and then there will
12 be a further process which will
13 include further documents and
14 further opportunity for people to
15 comment on that .
16 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank
17 you . That was the answer I was
i
18 looking for .
j 19 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE :
I
j 20 Carolyn Coleman .
21 MS . COLEMAN : I am from Legal
I
22 Woman Voters and we will be
23 submitting a written statement .
i
24 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE :
I
I
25 Thank you . Joyce Eldridge (ph) .
I
j
Proceedings
I
80
I
I
1 MS . ELDRIDGE : I think I will
2 reserve my comments for writing .
3 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE :
4 Okay . Edward Ryan .
5 MR. RYAN : My name is Edward
6 Ryan , 32 West Garden Road ,
7 Larchmont , New York .
I
8 I would like to compliment
9 the Council and the Supervisor and
10 its members on , I think, a very
11 responsible handling of this
12 process .
13 Some of us were concerned at
14 the initial report . I think that
I
15 you have responded very nicely , very
16 intelligently , filled in a lot of
17 the holes and I don ' t want to say
1g that I think that even the revised
19 report is satisfactory in all
20 respects and I would join in the
21 remarks that have - been made by Jed
22 Daily in that respect and , for that
23 matter , most of the other people
I
24 that have spoken here tonight , but I
25 do think that as much as I would
i
Proceedings
81
i
1 liked to have just said so far , good
2 job , and I do hope that Council will
3 have the wisdom to pursue a
i
j 4 recreational use for this property,
5 I do -- I must say that I share the
6 sentiment with the gentleman who
i
7 remarked that there ought to be some
8 more information provided .
9 I think you have done a good
10 job and I don ' t think you ' re well
11 served by a legalistic , formalistic
12 approach to this which says that
13 since we don ' t have to provide you
i
14 with a summary , we won ' t , we will
15 stick to the very minimum of what
16 the law requires and I don ' t think
17 that is useful because I think this
j 18 is being televised and it would have
19 been very useful for the whole Town
i
20 to have gotten more of the
21 information .
22 I think , I recall at the
23 outset this was summarized at the
24 first hearing , so now it ' s come
25 back, it ' s been change and we really
I
!
Proceedings
82
1 have very little , you know, for the
i
2 general public to go on and I don ' t
3 think a large number of people are
4 going to have the time or
5 opportunity to go down and read
6 these documents .
7 So that , in a way , I don' t
8 think you ' re serving yourself well
9 by having done a good job and then
i
10 not give the consultant and
11 yourselves the opportunity to
12 display that .
13 Nevertheless , I join in the
14 comments that have been made by Jed
15 Daily and Rich Young and the other
16 speakers . I wouldn ' t begin to try
17 to add to it , because it wouldn ' t
18 serve any substantive purpose .
i
19 Thank you , very much .
1 20 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE :
1 21 Thank you . Eleanor Baller .
22 MS . BALLER : Eleanor Baller,
23 I live at 145 West Brookside Drive
24 in Larchmont .
25 I speak here not as an
i
I
Proceedings
83
1 accountant , not as engineer , but
2 very much endorsing a Tot of what
3 has been said and I feel as if I am
4 someone who is witnessing a tragedy
5 that ' s being brought on by
6 money-hungry people who have no
7 interest in our community and when I
8 hear people speak of the Bonnie
j 9 Briar Property , ( inaudible)
I
10 Syndicate , I would. like to make it
11 clear that these are not present
I
12 members of the Bonnie Briar Club .
13 They are not people who have the
i
14 interest of the club or the interest
15 of the community at heart , but
16 people who left along time ago
17 holding onto bonds through some
18 fluke of -- or some mistake at that
19 time and who then sought to sell
20 that out as a way of making money
21 and capitalizing can what they felt
22 they could gain from property that
I
23 was there and I feel this has been
24 what has continued to go on .
25 We now have developers who
I
II
Proceedings
84
i
1 have bought these rights from the
2 property owners who now want to make
3 a lot of money by developing the
4 land again with no concern as to
PP le who
people what will happen to the
5 P P
6 are downstream, with no real concern
7 about what our community is like
8 with no recreational facilities as
9 it is , or very limited facilities ,
10 and with little concern for what the
11 environment is .
12 I don ' t want to go into the
I
13 flooding issue , a lot has been said
14 already . Again , I can ' t speak with
15 a statistics , I can speak from
16 common sense .
17 I live on the Sheldrake on
I
1 18 West Brookside Drive . We watch the
I
19 flooding . It is a delicate balance
20 from how everything that has been
21 done with lowering the reservoir .
22 We smell sewerage after every
23 heavy rain because the sewers are
I
24 still overflowing into that area .
25 The silt that comes down our
I
i
I
I
i
i
1
i
Proceedings
85
1 street after a heavy rain has to
2 shoveled from in front of my
3 driveway because there is a heavy
4 amount of runoff and there is no
5 place for that water to go .
6 We live on rock bed . The
7 sewers are full as it is now and any
g kind of increase at all_ , and I agree
i
g 1000 , the statistics are statistics ,
10 common sense is common sense and
i
11 anybody who lives alone that area
17 has already said that it will be a
13 terrible disaster to have more water
14 coming down there .
I
15 I also speak as someone who
I
16 has lived in the community for 28
i
17 years . When we moved to Larchmont
18 we found that the one deficit of the
lg community was lack. of recreational
20 facilities .
21 The Hommocks does not satisfy
22 the whole community . A large number
I
j 23 of people are forced to join private
I
24 clubs because our community does not
25 have adequate facilities compared to
Proceedings
86
1 most of the communities around us
2 and I think that it would be a
3 disaster to lose an option that we
i
4 have that could serve as an
5 additional Town recreational
6 facility .
I
7 Were we to chose not to go
8 ahead with any kind of building and
9 to allow that to remain as is , we
10 would buy a great deal of time
11 because Bonnie Briar would continue
12 to be able to operate as a club .
13 Once it was no longer zoned for
14 development , the Town could take the
I
15 option to have that as a facility
16 down the road , but once we lose this
17 option , we will never have it again .
18 Thank you .
19 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE :
i
20 Thank you . Ernie Odierna .
21 MR . ODIERNA : Ernie Odierna 5
22 Highridge Road . I am the President
i
23 of the Larchmont Gardens
24 Association .
i
25 Miss Silverstone and members
i
Proceedings
87
1 of the Council , without spending the
i
i
2 full five minutes repeating some of
3_ the excellent thoughts that have
4 been expressed here this evening ,
5 just let me say that for the past
6 year that the Larchmont- Gardens
7 Association has discussed with its
8 close to 200 members and residents
i
I
9 of the community the subject of
10 Bonnie Briar , never once did anyone
11 suggest that it be developed as a
12 residential community .
13 The biggest, question that
I
14 most of the membei. s have had , how
15
come the Town Board is even
16 considering it and why don ' t they
17 just come out and say we want to
18 acquire it or we want to zone it so
19 there will be no development?
20
And while I am beginning to
i
21 understand some of the ramifications
22 of you taking that action , and at
I
23 the time that you take it , the basic
24 feeling within the people that we
25 have worked with , those are the
i
I
Proceedings
88
I .
1 people in the Larchmont. Gardens
i
I
2 area , is that you should proceed in
3 a manner least costly to the Town to
4 acquire the property for the benefit
5 of the residents of the Town or that
6 you should arrange so that the
7 zoning will not encourage any
8 further development . Thank you .
9 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE :
10 Anthony Magro .
11 MR. MAGRO : My name is
12 Anthony Magro . I live at 14 Bonnie
i
13 Briar Lane in Larchmont .
14
I benefit a little bit from
15 the hearing tonight beyond what I
16 learned at the last hearing that I
17 attended .
18 For one thing , the
19 spreadsheet tells me that this is
20 obviously a serious economic
21 decision . On the one hand we are
22 talking about some 114 to 164 homes
23 which at a million dollars a piece ,
24 would represent a gross value of a
25 hundred million dollars .
i
Proceedings
89
I
I
1 On the other side there are a
2 lot of people that feel_ that the
3 land that Bonnie Briar represents
4 and everything it does for
5 environment is worth far more than
6 that .
7 In that context , we have
8 undertaken an ambitious study for
9 $250 , 000 . 00 to determine what the
10 impact would be on some very serious
I
11 and very complicated issues ranging
i
12 from taxes to the environment , the
I
13 quality of life , the impact on Long
14 Island Sound and other serious
15 matters .
16 It occurs to me that just in
17 the time from the last study that we
i
18 did to this one , that there have
19 been significant enough changes on
I
20 what we think the impact of
I
21 development would be that I can
22 reasonable draw the conclusion that
23 with more and more study , we are apt
I
24 to find that there will be more and
25 more of an impact or to learn things
i
i
i
I
i
i
Proceedings
90
1 we haven ' t even considered at this
i
2 point .
j 3 so , my conclusion is that
4
since this is of such serious
5 importance to the people of
!
6 Mamaroneck and the surrounding area ,
7 that we can ' t take this question to
8 lightly and if we have any question
9 whatsoever about the impact on these
10 issues we should do everything that
11 is legally possible , including spend
12 more money to determine definitively
13 whether we are comfortable with
14 making the irrevocable decision that
15 is about to be made here .
16 so , while I can ' t add
17 anything to the data for making that
18 decision , I would like to encourage
19
the Town Board to make every effort
20 possible to study all of the myriad
I
21 of issues that have been raised here
22 with a view towards becoming
23 entirely comfortable should the Town
24 Board decide on behalf of the people
25 of Mamaroneck that any development
I
i
i
Proceedings
91
1 should occur on Bonnie Briar .
2 I personally believe that the
3 impact would likely to be greater
4 than any of us can see and we will
5 look back from the future from where
6 we were today and wish that we
7 didn ' t do it . So I will hope that
8 we will thoroughly study the issue ,
9 communicate it to the people of
10 Mamaroneck before any development is
11 allowed . Thank you .
12 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE :
13 Thank you .
14 Now , that concludes the list
15 of people who have signed up with
16 two exceptions . The exceptions are
17 Mr . Parish and Mr . Baker . You have
18 requested that you be allowed to
19 speak last . Is there anyone further
20 who wishes to speak other than
21 yourselves?
22 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER : Yes ,
23 if you wouldn ' t mind .
24 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE :
25 Okay . Is there anyone who has not
Proceedings
92
1 spoken who wishes to be heard?
2 (Whereupon , there is no
3 response from the Public)
4 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE : We
5 will take a five minute recess .
6 (Whereupon , a recess was
7 taken)
8 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE :
9 Mr . Martin Baker of Stroock &
10 Stroock . Let me preface this by
11 saying we have agreed that Mr . Baker
12 and Mr . Parish , who represent the
13 majority stockholders , may need more
14 than five minutes each , which we
15 have agreed to give them . Okay .
111 16 MR . BAKER : Thank you , Madame
17 Supervisor . My name is Martin Baker
18 and for the record , I am a partner
19 in the firm of Stroock & Stroock &
20 Lavan at Seven Hanover Square , New
21 York , New York .
22 1 don ' t expect to take much
23 longer than five minutes .
24 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE : You
25 might want to raise your microphone
Proceedings
93
1 just little bit .
2 MR. BAKER: I hope that is
i
3 better . The sincere comments made
4 by members of the public tonight
5 with respect to the development
6 impacts or development on the Bonnie
7 Briar Country Club are fair matters
8 for you to consider . They are ,
9 however , not matters before you
10 tonight .
X11 The owners of this property
12 have not made any development
13 proposals and there are no
14 development proposals before you .
15 I am interested in the
16 comments of several members ,of the
17 public with respect to the
18 development impact issues . They are
19 very helpful because as we develop
20 plans , which we will be doing for
21 development of the property , we hope
22 to be able to take into account each
23 of these issues and to be able in a
24 sincere and professional way to
25 address them .
i
i
i
Proceedings
94
1 So for example , with respect
2 to the flooding issues and the other
3 hydrological issues , with respect to
4 the traffic issues , the open space
5 issues , the community impacts , the
6 impacts on the Long Island Sound and
7 the like , we expect to be able to
8 address them .
I
9 There is substantial
10 confusion , we believe , in this
11 record because the documents before
12 you are seriously flawed .
13 The flaws are material and
14 important . They go directly to the
15 heart of the ability of the Town
16 Board to understand the
i
17 environmental implications of the
18 matter that is before you, whatever
19 that is , and they directly effect
20 the ability of property owners and
21 members of the public to understand
22 the proposed action , such as it is ,
I
23 and to actively and usefully comment
24 on it .
25 one ( inaudible) of that is
i
I
Proceedings
95
1 the request from several members of
2 the commenting public tonight , for a
3 summary . What are the issues that
4 are properly before the. Board for
5 consideration?
i
6 We ask a more fundamental
j •7 question . Reading the two documents
8 before the Board , and we understand
9 the May document , May of 191 , and
10 the October of 192 document to
11 constitute those two documents .
112 What is the -proposed action?
I
13 The 1991 document defines a proposed
14 rezoning . It ' s obviously been
15 changed , but there is no proposed
i
16 action set forth in; the October ,
17 1992 action .
18 You have many alternatives .
19 What is being proposed and what are
20 the facts related to that which is
21 being proposed? What is the fair
22 analysis of it , such that we can all
23 ' draw conclusions?
24 We believe that the law
25 . relating to Generic Environmental
i
I
i
I
I
I
Proceedings
96
1 'Impact Statements and the provision
2 relating to Supplemental Statements
3 have been applied inappropriately to
4 this proceeding .
5 The documents before you are
6 contradictory and inconsistent , and
I
7 as such , they don ' t comply with the
.8 law .
9 Let me be specific . You
10 received extensive testimony last
11 year suggesting that the 1991 Draft
12 was inadequate , it needed to be
I
13 supplemented . We made several
14 points about material that needed to
15 be added .
16 Instead of doing a new Draft
� 17 incorporating in a cohesive way, the
18 proposed action and the information
19 that was previously missing, a Draft
20 Supplemental has been prepared which
21 requires you to read both of them
I
22 . together .
23 Now, that is a high standard
24 because it suggests that
25 inconsistencies could be avoided .
I
i
Proceedings
97
1 They have not been avoided here , and
2 we will be setting that forth in
I
3 some excruciating detail to you in
4 our written submissions .
5 We hope this hearing will be
6 continued until such time as either
7 a specific development proposal is
8 before you or there is a
9 comprehensive document which clearly
10 describes what the proposed action
11 is , what the summary of impacts are
I '
X12 and which allows informed public
13 decision making with respect to it .
14 These are more than arguments
i
15 relating only to form or
16 characterization document . The
17 document before you doesn ' t contain ,
18 as a whole , all of the issues which
19 must be contained in a Draft
20 Statement for it to be legally
21 sufficient for purposes of a Public
22 Hearing . Necessary information is
23
left out and of course the earlier
24 document has not been revised .
25 What ' s the current
I
i
I
F
Proceedings
98
1 information? According to the --
2 These are issues of substance .
3 The document before this
4 hearing is a hybrid . It doesn ' t
I
5 meet either the standards of a
I
6 Generic Statement or of a Site
7 Specific Statement and that matters
8 because it makes it impossible to
9 adequately comment . The document
10 should be a comprehensive whole .
11 Without it , substantive issues fall
12 between the cracks and comments have
13 been made with respect to areas
14 where the analysis inadequately
15 referenced , for example , the Long
16 Island Sound Study is one that was
17 made earlier .
18 Now , a very fundamental
I
19 observation should be made .
20 The action before you is
21 about one property , one property
22 only , the Bonnie Briar Property . We
23 will make , at the appropriate time ,
24 the argument should you proceed with
25 that procedure , that such is spot
I
i
Proceedings
99
1 zoning .
j 2 However , you can -consider
3 site development issues in a Site
4 Specific Document .
5 If your action is a proposed
6 rezoning , you ' re Generic Statement
7 relating to conservation and
i
8 recreational uses is fatally flawed
9 because you fail to take into
10 account the conservation and
i
111 recreational resources available to
12 Town ' s residents which are beyond
13 the Town limits .
14 By analogy , that ' s like
I15 saying that resources are inadequate
16 because they are not located in the
17
Town . If that were the case , you
18
would have to locate land fills and
19 solid waste management resources in
20 the Town . In fact , you can and do
: 21 rely on such resources elsewhere .
I
22 Similarly , you will need
23 jails and homeless shelters and more
24 low income housing to bear the
25 burdens and responsibilities of your
i
I
I
i
Proceedings
100
• I ,
1 citizenry .
2 You note , I assume , and
3 certainly properly , that those
4 resources that are ,, available
5 throughout ' the County are available
6 to you . Such resources. similarly
7 with respect to conservation and
g open space resources are also
9 ` available to residents of the Town .
; 10 If this is a Generic Impact
' 11 Statement , those resources elsewhere
12 and the failure to ' consider them,
13 renders this document inadequate:
14 because these resources are
15 available to Town residents and must
16 be considered by the Town in SEQRA
17 Proceedings .
18 'Now, with respect to the site
19 specific questions that have been
20 asked and fairly raised , and which
21 any development plan needs to
22
address in any Environmental Impact
23 Statement , dealing with them should
24 address .
25 We look forward to
i
Proceedings
101
I
1 cooperating with you in providing ,
2 in such detail as you would like ,
I
3 information that will allow you to
4 develop the documents which are
5 compliant with law and which allow a
6 fuller understanding for the public
7 to comment on them and I am not
8 suggesting to members of the public
g that a proposal that we might come
I
10 forward with is something that you
11 would like , but I do think that you
12 need to know with specificity what
13 is being proposed such that you can
14 ask the question , what are these
15 impacts? How are they addressed?
16 Are they addressed with integrity or
17 not?
18 I have one comment , I guess
I
lg it ' s to Mrs . Baller , respecting the
20 tragedies that this has brought on
21 by people who , I think the word was
22 greedy .
I
i
23 My only comment at this point
24 is , there is no proposal before the
25 Town . If and when such a proposal
i
I
I
Proceedings
102
I
1 is made , we will be pleased to
I
2 answer in detail what the
3 appropriate concerns of yours and
4 what the appropriate concerns of the
5 Town Board are and we look forward
6 to cooperating with you and
7 providing whatever information you
8 need in this respect . Thank you .
9 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE :
10 Thank you , Mr . Baker . Mr . Parish .
11 MR . PARISH : Thank you ,
12 Madame Supervisor, members of the
13 Town Board and staff and
14 consultants .
15 I am Nathaniel J . Parish . I
16 am a licensed professional engineer
17 in the State of New York and I am a
18 full member of the American
19 Institute of Certified Planners and
20 a principal in the firm of Parish &
21 Weiner , Incorporated whose offices
22 are at 560 White Plains Road in
23 Tarrytown , New York .
24 I am appearing tonight as
25 consultant to the Bonnie Briar
i
i
I
Proceedings
103
1 Syndicate which is the owner of the
2 real property on which is situated
3 the Bonnie Briar Country Club .
4 Attorney Baker has presented
5 tonight certain legal issues that
�I
6 relate to this Hearing .
7 I want to briefly focus on
8 some of the basic policy planning
9 and environmental issues .
10 My testimony will be
11 supplemented by extensive technical
12 comments that will be later
13 transmitted for the hearing record
14 and had we started those tonight we
i
15 would be here until the wee hours of
16 the morning .
17 It ' s difficult to
18 characterize this as a hearing on a
19 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
20 because that document and this
21 supplement can be more accurately
22 described as an advocacy report for
23 a predetermined policy .
24 It contains facts which do
25 not support the conclusions that it
i
I
Proceedings
i
104
1 reaches . It is a compilation of
2 opinions rather than what it should
,I
3 be a recitation of facts that are
4 consistently applied and which are
5 fairly analyzed .
6 Surely the major consultants
7 for the report , Ferrandino &
8 Associates , Gary Trachtman and his
9 associates at Malcolm Pirnie , the
10 Warshauer Firm , the Jaquemart
11 Traffic Firm , are all highly
12 qualified technical consultants . I
13 have no knowledge as to the
14 qualifications of the various
i
15 volunteers who contribute to the
16 report .
17 The report they prepared, if
18 carefully reviewed , does contain
19 some useful statistical data , but
20 much of the data that was included
21 is seriously flawed and/or
22 misleading and certainly many of the
23 interpretations and editorial
24 comments that are promoted as facts
25 all lead to the conclusion that this
I
i
i
Proceedings
105
I
1 is an advocacy document and should
2 be considered as such .
3 Hopefully , after reflecting
4 on the matter and reviewing the
5 technical comments which we will
6 submit , the Town Board will direct
i
7 its consultants to go back to the
8 drawing board and prepare a document
9 that is straight forward , that is
10 internally consistent and that deals
11 in an equitable fashion with the
12 issue at hand .
13 The action which you ' re
14 considering , and it ' s impossible , as
15 Attorney Baker pointed out , to
16 pinpoint what that action exactly
17 is , grows out a 1986 Local
18 Waterfront Revitalization Program
19 that dealt with broad principles
20 relating to the Bonnie Briar site ,
21 among many other elements .
22
It ' s difficult to understand
23 why in the first place Bonnie Briar
24 was included in that study since it
25 has no waterfront frontage and
i
i
Proceedings
106
1 indeed, at its nearest boarder , it ' s
2 about two miles from the waterfront
3 and it ' s separated by the waterfront
4 by a built-up residential area ,
5 major highways , a railroad and a
6 busy commercial strip .
7 The only argument for
8 inclusion might be the fact that a
9 water course flows through Bonnie
10 Briar and ultimately reaches the
11 Long Island Sound , but by the same
12 token , all of the lands , and it ' s
13 been pointed out repeatedly tonight ,
14 upstream and downstream, that
15 contribute drainage to Long Island
16 Sound , should have been equally
i
17 included in the environmental
18 impacts resulting from their current
19 or proposed uses equally considered
20 at the Hearing tonight . That might
21 lead to totally different
i,
22 conclusions as to dealing with the
23 impact of water pollution on Long
I
24 Island Sound , if that indeed is the
25 issue and very well it should be .
i
i
I
Proceedings
107
1 That ' s the truly Generic
i
2 Environmental issue which has been
3 raised in the Local Waterfront
4 Revitalization Plan and is discussed
5 somewhat in your study , but not
6 really dealt with in any depth .
7 An examination of that issue ,
8 looking at the drainage set as a
I
9 whole , might lead to totally
10 different conclusions as to what is
11 important and germane .
12 For example , the drainage
13 shed is occupied , for the most part
14 by residential development , and it' s
15 fair to assume that most of these
16 homes have automatic dishwashers and
17 that many households use Cascade
18 Dishwashing Detergent or its
19 equivalent .
20 A glance at a Cascade carton
21 reveals that its contents contain
i
22 seven and a half percent phosphorous
23 on the average , and I am sure your
24 consultants will tell you that this
25 has an adverse effect on water
i
Proceedings
108
1 quality .
2 Therefore , a valid
3 examination of the environmental
I
4 impacts would reveal that possibly
5 banning the use of phosphorous
6 detergents is a far more relevant
7 implementation step for achieving
8 your LWRP Goals than is the rezoning
9 of Bonnie Briar .
10 I could go on with other
i
11 examples , but my basic point is that
12 a rezoning of Bonnie Briar is in no
13 way , shape or form a necessary or
I
I
14 even a valid means for achieving the
15 LWRP Goals .
I
16 Certainly the rezoning
17 alternatives that drastically reduce
18 density have no relation to those
19 goals . Your own consultants told
20 you that .
21 In July , 1988 , the firm of
I
22 Schuster (ph) Associates , under
23 contract to the Town of Mamaroneck,
24 performed a study that included the
25 Bonnie Briar Property .
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
i
I
I
i
Proceedings
109
1 Its purpose was to implement
2 the LWRP proposals . The study
3 concluded that the LWRP objectives ,
4 and we are not arguing about those
I
5 objectives , could be achieved by
6 requiring cluster development under
7 the existing R-30 Zone .
8 In this manner , the wetland ,
9 the floodway , much of the existing
10 habitat , the golf course , could be
11 preserved and the property owner
! 12 would be permitted to maintain an
13 equitable use of the property , but
14 the Town Board did not act on that
15 proposal .
16 The Environmental Impact
17 Statement doesn ' t at all explain the
18 reasons for the failure to act , much
i
I
19 less give due recognition to that
20 particular study .
21 We submitted alternatives ,
� 22 and Mr . Ferrandino briefly described
i
23 them tonight , that utilize the same
24 principle and achieved the same
25 objectives .
i
Proceedings
110
1 I might point out that
2 Mr . Ferrandino , in his presentation,
3 neglected to mention , while he
j 4 mentioned a number of houses in each
5 of the plans , he neglected to
6 mention that those plans preserve
7 much of the open space , preserve the
8 wetlands , preserve the water
9 courses , preserve the floodways ,
10 created adequate retention areas .
11 In response to many of your concerns
12 about that , that can be documented
13 with hard engineering and not just
i
14 rhetoric , and achieve the very
15 objectives , and they are ( inaudible)
16 objectives that were in the LWRP .
17 Yet these proposals are not fairly
18 examined in the report before you .
19 Yes , they are included , but
20 the valuation was clearly one bent
21 to the task of finding reasons to
i
22 find fault with these alternatives .
23 Let me give you one example
24 of the clear prejudice in the
25 analysis . The Section 3 . 12 , the
i
I
Proceedings
111
1 last paragraph on Page 39 states ,
2 "The proposed development of one
3 dwelling unit per average -of 13 , 000
4 square feet is considerably more
5 dense than the surrounding
6 neighborhood . "
7 It does not blush at making
8 that statement , despite the fact
9 that one of the alternatives
10 tonight , that the Town ' s consultant
11 prepared , proposed lot sizes of
12 10 , 000 square feet , which is smaller
13 than the 13 , 000 square feet in the
14 report that was cited as too dense
15 and a previous report had -- in the
16 consultants own hypothet (ph) , had
17 13 , 000 square foot lots , and of
18 course , applying this negative
19 connotation to that proposal is
20 totally neglectful of the fact that
21 any valid analysis of a cluster
22 development looks at the gross
23 density of the site rather than the
24 individual lot sizes within it .
25 That is the whole principle
I
I
Proceedings
112
1 of cluster development , but the
2 report does not emphasize , it
3 editorializes , it does not give that
4 recognition .
5 There are many other examples
6 of the prejudiced review and we will
7 comment in our detailed comments on
8 them , but they are in the traffic
9 section , in the review of municipal
10 and school courses against the
11 revenues they will produce .
12 In its failure to distinguish
13 between a concept plan and a
I
14 detailed Site Plan , and Attorney
15 Baker has mentioned that , and I
16 . would like to emphasize that again ,
17 that there is either , you have a
18 generic analysis or detailed Site
19 Plan analysis , but you can ' t label
20 something a generic analysis and
21 then go proceed in your review of it
i
22 and look at one little section and
23 say wait a second , what is the grade
24 over there and come to a conclusion
25 that the grades are to high . That
i
i
Proceedings
113
1 is not fair . That is comparing
2 apples and pears and it ' s not done
3 in an evenhanded environmental
4 analysis .
5 And further , the analysis
6 fails to recognize that there are
i
7 routine mitigation measures . For
8 example , a Soil and Erosion Control
9 Plan that virtually eliminates
10 potential adverse impacts that the
11 review has used in order to
12 strengthen their advocacy case
13 against those particular
14 alternatives .
15 We ' ll document all that , but
16 we will only prove that the review
i
17 is not bland , evenhanded , and is not
18 a true and accurate hard look at the
19 environmental impacts that
20 alternative development policies
21 might engender .
i
22 Boiled down to its simplest
23 terms , we believe that the rezoning
24 of this property to a lower density
25 is not warranted by that portion of
i
I
i
Proceedings
114
1 the environmental data which is in
2 your report and which sticks to the
i
3 facts and uses objective technical
4 data .
5 All of the environmental
6 protection which you want to achieve
i
7 can be accomplished within the
8 context of a sophisticated and
9 detailed Site Plan review process
10 and a Site Specific DEIS .
11 Perhaps at most , the Town
12 might gain greater comfort from
13 adoption of the Schuster , July ,
14 1988 , study proposals which mandate
15 cluster and the preservation of
I
16 wetlands , floodway and much of the
i
17 open space of the site .
18 I have not at all commented
19 thus far about the alternative
20 proposals for municipal acquisition
21 of the site and the recreation zone .
22 The municipal acquisition
23 alternative is perhaps the only
24 honest and straightforward
25 alternative that the Town has
I
Proceedings
115
1 advanced . It implies that there is
2 a public need for this recreation
3 facility and that there would be a
4 public purpose in acquiring it .
5 If such where the conclusion
6 of the Town , my clients could not
7 very well quibble with that .
8 It ' s consistent with the
i
9 Town ' s 1966 Master Plan proposals
10 and it ' s based on a presumption of
11 need for recreation rather than a
12 poorly disguised attempt to achieve
113 open space at the expense of a
14 private property owner , which seem
15 to be the basic objectives of the
16 other alternatives , and most
17 particularly the recreation zone .
18 Specifically , as to the
I
19 recreation zone , we might dismiss it
20 out of hand by noting that it would
21 be a pure and simple act of inverse
I
22 condemnation . Perhaps that answers
23 the gentleman ' s questions and I am
24 sure , Mr . Silverberg , in the FEIS ,
25 will further comment on that , but
i
I
Proceedings
116
1 the inclusion of that zone in the --
2 that alternative in the DEIS is
!
3 highly questionable .
4 At a very minimum, if the
5 populous of the Town of Mamaroneck
6 and your Board is to consider it as
7 a serious alternative , it should be
8 accompanied by a legal opinion as to
9 its validity .
10 The fiscal impact section of
111 the report should evaluate the cost
12 and tax impacts to the Town as a
13 result of the very certain inverse
14 condemnation litigation and the
! 15 results that such litigation would
16 bring about , if a recreation zone
17 were to be enacted .
i
18 My clients had hoped that the
19 Supplemental DEIS would provide
20 sound-technical information that
21 would enable your Board to make an
22 informed and equitable decision .
23 We recognize that adjoining
24 property owners would rather see
25
Bonnie Briar remain forever green.
I
i
Proceedings
117
l
1 We recognize that there are
2 many well meaning citizens , and many
3 here tonight , that legitimately feel
I
4 that this is an important open
5 space .
6 These goals , we believe , can
7 be achieved with site specific
g plans .
9 We are absolutely willing to
10 work with the Town and its
! 11 consultants to prepare a specific
i
12 Site Plan that would accommodate
13 development , preserve the golf
I
14 course , wetlands , floodland water
15 retention areas and one which would
16 incorporate those necessary measures
I
I
17 to ensure that soil erosion control
lg is maintained and natural site
19 typography is maintained to the
X20 maximum extent possible .
21 This would permit the Town
22 and its school districts to have the
23 benefit of a very significant
24 revenue surplus and at the same
25 time , would be sensitive to
i
Proceedings
118
i
1 environmental issues .
2 We think that such an
3 approach can help the Town Board to
4 achieve LWRP objectives , and at the
5 same time , consider the rights of
6 the property owners .
7 We respectfully request that
8 you carefully consider these
I
1
9 comments and those which will follow
10 and so consider them in the context
jll of a further structuring of a policy
I
112 review to move towards a
I13 constructive and mutually acceptable
I
114 solution for the Bonnie Briar
i
15 Property . Thank you .
i
16 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE :
17 Thank you , very much .
I
18 I believe that should
19 conclude the hearing .
20 I will take a motion to close
21 the hearing on the Supplemental
I
22 Environmental Impact Statement .
23 MS . PRICE : So move .
I
1 24 MR. MC GARR: Second .
I
25 SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE : All
i
i
I
i
i
1
I
i
Proceedings
119
1 in favor?
i
2 (Whereupon , all Board members
I
3 say aye)
4
SUPERVISOR SILVERSTONE :
I
5 Anyone opposed?
6 (Whereupon , there is no
7 response from the Board members)
8 MR . SILVERBERG : I want to
9 point out again that everyone can
j10 submit open comments up until
i
I11 December 21st .
i
12 SUPERVISOR $ILVERSTONE : Yes .
13 To repeat , written comments will be
14 accepted until December 21st. and the
15 copies of the Supplemental
16 Environmental Impact Statement are
17 available in the Town Clerk ' s Office
for borrowing or for buying and they
18
19 are also available in the library,
20 both libraries , Larchmont and
21
Mamaroneck . Thank you .
22 (Time noted at 10 : 30 p . m. )
23
24
25
I
I
I