Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000_03_01 Town Board Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK AND THE BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS HELD ON MARCH 1, 2000 AT 8:15 PM IN THE COURT ROOM OF THE TOWN CENTER, 740 W. BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK PRESENT: Supervisor Valerie M. O'Keeffe Councilwoman Phyllis Wittner Councilwoman Judith A. Myers Councilman Ernest C. Odierna Councilwoman Nancy Seligson ALSO PRESENT: Patricia A. DiCioccio, Town Clerk Stephen V. Altieri, Town Administrator Charlene Indelicato, Town Attorney CONVENE EXECUTIVE SESSION The Board convened into an Executive Session at 6:30 PM in Conference Room A of the Town Center to discuss personnel and litigation. On motion duly made and seconded the Board adjourned at 8:15 PM to the Court Room. CONVENE REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Town Board was called to order by Supervisor O'Keeffe at 8:25 PM, who then pointed out the location of exits. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Restriction of Parking Permits (This item was held over) - Review of Local Impacts Caused by Major Development REVIEW OF LOCAL IMPACTS CAUSED BY MAJOR DEVELOPMENT The following Public Hearing Notice was entered into the record: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that a Public Hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck on March 1, 2000, at 8:15 PM or as soon thereafter as is possible, in the Court Room of the Town Center, 740 W. Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck, New York to consider adoption of the following Local Law: The purpose of the Local Law is the Review of Local Impacts Caused by Major Development Projects in Areas that Abut, Adjoin or are Adjacent to the Town of Mamaroneck, Amending the Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. Supervisor O'Keeffe read the following statement: As you are aware the first order of business is a public hearing on a local law with respect to the Review of Local Impacts caused by major development projects in areas that abut, adjoin or are adjacent to the Town of Mamaroneck; amending the Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. We have received many letters and phone calls about this proposed law. At the end of the speaking portions, the Clerk will enter copies of these letters into the record. March 1, 2000 Our ground rules are these: Each person wishing to speak has been asked to fill out a card with his or her name. The Chair will recognize speakers in the order in which they signed up so that as many as those wishing to speak may do so - each speaker will be limited to 5 minutes. Please have the courtesy to stop speaking when the signal is given by the Clerk. No person will be permitted to speak a second time until all persons wishing to speak have had the opportunity to do so. We are here to listen to your opinions and concerns. Please speak to the issues. This hearing is not a debate. Please address all remarks to the chair and please refrain from addressing your remarks to other persons in the audience. Before we start I wish to make a few comments to set the record straight. The Town of Mamaroneck has always had friendly relations with our neighbor, The City of New Rochelle. We are fully aware that cities in the County need economic development. The better the economic condition of all the cities in the County the better it is for us. We are charged as public officials with the responsibility to protect the health and well being of our residents. The economic development of our neighbors and the protection of the character and quality of life in our Town should not be mutually exclusive. This hearing is not evidence of what the press has termed a border war. We are not against responsible economic development, but when large scale development projects appear to threaten the welfare of our Town, we cannot sit idly by as spectators when our citizens, the people we work for, could get hurt. What we have in mind with the present legislation is plain and simple - That is to protect people - not just wealthy people, but poor people and middle income people too. Our Town is very diverse, we have waves of new immigrants who are looking for jobs just like cities throughout Westchester. What we are aiming at is to protect the suburban character of our Town - protecting the health and welfare of our citizens. But under the present State law and the SEQRA process we can comment on findings, but if we disagree with the result we are left only with the remedy to litigate after the fact. What we need is some mechanism to protect our interest - whether in the form of State or County regional planning laws or possibly some form of Intermunicipal arbitration arrangements. Until such mechanisms are available, municipalities must redouble their efforts to work together. The suggestion made today at the press conference at New Rochelle City Hall and attended by the Mayors of our County's largest cities that the Town of Mamaroneck could be called class insensitive is preposterous and untrue. It cannot stand. This kind of language inflames passions and prevents reasonable discourse, and erodes good will. The Town of Mamaroneck is fully cognizant of the economic development needs of our cities and wish them well. We are also charged to protect our own citizens. We will continue to do this in a spirit of cooperation and reasonableness. Our special counsel, Mr. Robert Spolzino, will briefly describe the proposed local law. Now we are ready to listen to you. On motion of Councilwoman Wittner, seconded by Councilwoman Myers, the hearing was declared open at 8:30 PM. The following people spoke before the Town Board: (addresses and phone numbers on file) 1. Mayor Timothy Idoni 13. Stephen Blau 2. Elliott Sclar 14. Laura Brett 3. Jane Axelrod 15. Colleen Dealy 4. Valentine Estabrook 16. Kate Dehnis 5. Randolph McLaughlin 17. Debra Cohen 6. Helen Dondy 18. David Tulchin 7. Don Vidler 19. Barbara Winter 8. Scott Stefan 20. Amy Nathan 9. Michele Faber 21. Ned Benton 2 March 1, 2000 10. Eric Beyrich 22. Chris Bourdain 11. David Palermo 23. Dough Kahan 12. Sandy Constabile 24. Mayor Cheryl Lewy The following telephone calls were received from the residents to Supervisor O'Keeffe in opposition to the IKEA project. These were entered into the record. Jenine Arnold 3 York Road Gladys Hartnett 16 N. Chatsworth Ave. Suzanne Kliegerman 40 Mountain Ave. Laurie Rotfkoff& Michael Kanter 2036 Palmer Ave. Michelle Faber 66 Larchmont Ave. Penny Weiner 34 Vine Rd. Susan Sills 41 Mayhew Ave. Beth Samach 46 Echo Lane Lee Rubin 65 Kane Lane Judith Sharp 7 Wendt Ave. Pat Harmon/Tim Wilson 5 Vine Road Robin Golden 31 Wendt Ave. Patricia Appel 4 Sherwood Dr. Rosemarie/Carmine Magazino 6 Woods Way Maria Markey 43 Hillside Rd. Maria Bartolli 14 N. Chatsworth Ave. Mrs. Marmur 2 Rochelle Rd. Esther Alpert 14 N. Chatsworth Ave. Mark Bloom 104 Edgewood Ave. Wendy Paddock 14 N. Chatsworth Ave. Ellen Ochs 30 Hillside Rd. Valerie Kirby 1 France PI. Valerie/Carlo Leah 14 N. Chatsworth Ave. Mary Marzullo 21 N. Chatsworth Ave. Jack Wong 14 N. Chatsworth Ave. Mike Goldstein 14 N. Chatsworth Ave. Susan Kanes 9 France Place Renee Lillienthal 35 N. Chatsworth Ave. Walter/Marion Lister 39 Wendt Ave. Paul Rafalski 20 Valley Place Ron Edelstein 51 Stuyvesant Ave. Richard Ronson 129 N. Chatsworth Ave. Peter Murray 19 Ocean Ave. Denise Cruickshak 16 N. Chatsworth Ave. Laurence Templemon 206 Murray Ave. Amanda/John Sullivan 3 Washington Sq. Patricia/Jeff Horing 24 Mayhew Ave. Bill Lovejoy 4 Echo Lane Thomas Gerspach 88 Stuyvesant Ave. Tony Coretto 1 Cambridge Court Kristen Moga 14 N. Chatsworth Ave. Ruth/Peter Baylinson 80 Stuyvesant Ave. Marjorie/Bill Weschler 11 Mulberry Lane Demetrios Xistriaf 39 Flint Ave. Carol/Michael Gerber 9 Sherwood Dr. Clair/Anthony Leggett 19 Forest Park Ave. Frank Owens Thompson Place The following letters were entered into the record: March 1, 2000 Hon. Valerie O'Keeffe, Supervisor and Members of Town Council Town of Mamaroneck 140 West Boston Post Road Mamaroneck, NY 10543 Dear Supervisor O'Keeffe and Town Council Members: Reference is made to Town of Mamaroneck Proposed Local Law 4-2000. The Village of Mamaroneck has concerns regarding the legislation, and the Mayor and Trustees believe that the assessment of 3 March 1, 2000 local impacts caused by development projects are best addressed through intermunicipal cooperation and not by legislating mandatory review by neighboring communities. While we are aware that the proposed law is carefully crafted to address only major development projects, we believe that legislation such as this opens the door to future regulation by one municipality of affairs of another. This concept is worrisome in principle. Accordingly, we urge you to embrace regional planning concepts rather than adopting this legislation. The Village is fully aware of the basis on which this legislation has been developed. The Village of Mamaroneck would like to go on record in support of the Town's opposition to the proposed IKEA project. We believe that municipalities should voice concerns regarding the impact of development on their borders;however, we endorse intermunicipal cooperation as the vehicle by which this can be addressed. If there is any assistance the Village can provide, please feel free to contact me and the Village will do whatever it can. Sincerely, Deborah Chapin Mayor February 20, 2000 Mamaroneck Town Supervisor Valerie O'Keeffe Mamaroneck Town Center 740 W. Boston Post Road Mamaroneck, NY 10543 Dear Ms. O'Keeffe, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed building of an IKEA in New Rochelle directly off the 195 exit when traveling north from NYC. As a concerned citizen and homeowner in Larchmont, I think that the proposal is a horrible example of urban planning. It would bring congestion, traffic, noise, and pollution to a residential area that cannot sustain it. It puts the quality of life in this town at risk. Furthermore, the plan for an IKEA is a shameful example of the use of eminent domain. The area proposed is not a blighted community-it is a racially integrated neighborhood of 34 residences, 29 businesses, and 2 churches. The increased traffic from this proposed project(there is no entry or exit from the IKEA site when traveling south) will force many customers from Westchester and CT to travel local roads to get to the store, and will be hazardous to the residents of the neighborhood. This is a community where children play outside, and the increased traffic is dangerous. Please accept this letter of protest in good faith, and as a concerned citizen, I feel that it is imperative to not permit IKEA to build a huge, mega store on this site. Respectfully yours, , Susan Putterman 409 Weaver Street Larchmont, NY 10538 24 Homer Ave. Larchmont, N.Y. 10538 Valerie O'Keeffe Mamaroneck Town Supervisor Mamaroneck Town Center 740 W. Boston Post Road Mamaroneck, N.Y. 10543 Dear Supervisor O'Keeffe, I know, or at least hope, that you have been spending a lot of time figuring out how to keep this IKEA store from happening. This is an ill-chosen project that will bring a traffic and pollution nightmare not only to New Rochelle, but especially to Larchmont and Mamaroneck. 4 March 1, 2000 Ours towns in lower Westchester are already crowded. This project will turn our crowded but livable towns into traffic nightmares. IKEA needs to go somewhere where there is more room. 1 am not against development when it is done fairly and for the benefit of all. This is not true of this project. Please keep fighting!! Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Connie Casari Reddicliffe Joan D. Sullivan Three Washington Square Larchmont, New York 10538 February 14, 2000 Westchester County Legislator George Latimer County Board of Legislators Michaelian Office Building 148 Martine Avenue White Plains, N.Y, i0601 Dear Mr. Latimer. Thank you for your letter of January 10th in reply to my telephone call. It made me feel so encouraged in the effort to stop this very bad plan that New Rochelle and the IKEA company are trying to rush past US. When 1 write to anyone about it, 1 mention that 1 stood at the corner of Fifth Avenue and Brud Flowers Park and looked both ways- toward what they call the blighted area and toward the Thruway. 1 realized that, if they win, it will be impossible to do that. 1 would like them to come to a spring baseball game between New Rochelle High School and whoever, and see how the "blighted" homeowners and the surrounding area citizens enjoy that place. They could also estimate how many of said citizens and their children their traffic would endanger cripple or even kill. Thank you for all you do and plan to do to stop the plan. 1 have always admired those people who choose to work for all the rest of us at the town, city, county, state and Federal level. Your job is not easy and not always rewarding-but you can count on me and many like me to be grateful. Sincerely yours, Joan Sullivan Mr. Kenneth M. Bialo sent copies of the following letter to: Mr. Peter W. Mattingly Ms. Bonnie Robinson 14 Knollwood Dr. Mr. Joseph Beck Larchmont, NY 54 Lookout Circle Larchmont, NY Mr. & Mrs. William J. Klein Mr. Gregg L. Bienstock, Esq. 45 Lookout Circle 44 Glenn Road Larchmont, NY Larchmont, NY Ms. Helen T. Spencer Ms. Susan Putterman 35 N. Chatsworth Ave. -3S 409 Weaver St. Larchmont, NY Larchmont, NY 5 March 1, 2000 Kenneth M. Bialo 24 Elm Avenue Larchmont, New York 10538 February 4, 2000, Dear. Thank you for your letter of , 2000 expressing your opposition to the IKEA project. 1 agree with your sentiments, having spoken against the proposed IKEA project publicly since October at Village Board meetings, on my monthly LMC-TV show, on my monthly radio show on WVOX, at meetings of Westchester Residents Against IKEA Now(WRAIN), in the press, and in letters to County and State elected officials. For your information, 1 enclose a copy of an article from The Sound and Town Report, dated December 10, 1999, and my copy of a letter to State and County officials published in The Sound View News on December 9, 1999, as well as a position paper drafted several weeks ago. As you know, Town Supervisor Valerie O'Keeffe is actively opposed to the IKEA project. Also, the Larchmont Village Board has retained counsel, as has the Mamaroneck Town Board, to protect our environmental and other interests. It is important that you continue to make your voice heard. You may wish to express your views to the public officials shown on the attached List of Names and Addresses. 1 also enclose a petition for which you may wish to obtain signatures. Feel free to make extra copies and return the signed petitions to me. 1 will see to it that they get to the New Rochelle City Council along with others gathered by WRAIN. Contrary to the popular saying, we can fight City Hall, and we must. Thank you once again. Very truly yours, Kenneth M. Bialo, Trustee, Village of Larchmont 14 Knollwood Drive Larchmont, NY 10538 January 12, 2000 Ms. Valerie O'Keeffe Mamaroneck Town Supervisor Mamaroneck Town Center 740 West Boston Post Road Mamaroneck, NY 10543 Dear Ms. O'Keeffe: 1 want to express to you my strong concern about the IKEA project currently being considered by New Rochelle. This project threatens to bring a huge volume of traffic through the Larchmont/Mamaroneck area thus destroying its residential nature. In addition, the project does not appear to produce any meaningful tax or job benefits for New Rochelle. 1 want you to know that 1 intend to cast my future vote for those candidates who oppose this project. 1 hope that you will join me in opposing IKEA. Sincerely, Peter W. Mattingly Mamaroneck Town Supervisor Valerie O'Keeffe Mamaroneck Town Center, Mamaroneck NY 10543, We are writing to voice our opposition to the Proposed IKEA project in the city park area of New Rochelle. In addition to our concern about a major increase of traffic through Larchmont, and 6 March 1, 2000 Mamaroneck, both small residential towns with a good deal of the traffic passing a grade school (Murray Avenue). We are opposed to demolishing thirty four homes, twenty nine businesses, and two churches when there is already available space left vacant when COSCO Price Club vacated their original installation, rather than displacing home owners, and churches much more space is available at the other end of the property now occupied by a car agency, if the New Rochelle Government took over the car agency no one would suffer the hardship of having their home demolished so that IKEA could gain a substantial tax abatement. William J. & Shirley J. Klein 45 Lookout Circle Larchmont NY 10538 Gregg L. Bienstock, Esq. 44 Glenn Road Larchmont, New York 10538 (914) 834-2153 January 19, 2000 Mamaroneck Town Supervisor Valerie O'Keeffe Mamaroneck Town Center 740 West Boston Post Road Mamaroneck, NY 10543 Re: Opposition to New Rochelle Ikea Dear Town Supervisor O'Keeffe: Having recently learned of New Rochelle's plan to allow and support the erection of an Ikea (on the backs of and to the detriment of its citizens and those in surrounding neighborhoods), I am compelled to write to you to voice my concern and strong objection to this proposed project. By virtue of this letter, I ask that you publicly voice your objection to this proposed project. Recognizing the value of your time, I will briefly summarize my concerns. If you would like to discuss the same further I would welcome the opportunity to do so. • Dislocation of people, business and houses of worship-- through a self-serving "Blight Study, New Rochelle (with Ikea footing the bill!) conveniently concluded that numerous houses, businesses and two houses of worship were a blemish on the community(if they didn't fit in this category, see bullet 2). If one were to objectively look at the aforementioned and compare the same to houses and businesses in New Rochelle and the surrounding areas there would be no distinction. • Bastardization of the Doctrine of Eminent Domain --as I understand eminent domain, it is to be used for the betterment of the community and for legitimate public needs. Does the erection of a furniture superstore, the size of several football fields, qualify as a legitimate public need? Was the intent of this doctrine to dislocate people from their homes, destroy businesses and destroy people's houses of worship for the "public good" of a furniture store. • Taxation --New Rochelle will grant Ikea a 15 year tax abatement while the residents of New Rochelle will have their property taxes increase. Incredulously, this will occur while the majority of Westchester County residents will see their property taxes decline by 1-5% (New York Times, January 8, 2000). • Public Health -- Can our already over-taxed sewers, water and utility systems handle the introduction of this massive blue box or will all surrounding communities suffer the runoff and need to increase capacity for the public good of a furniture store? • Public Safety and the Safety of our Children -- Given the proposed location, potential customers coming from the north and west will have no natural ingress or egress to 195. The effect of this will be to cause additional traffic to flood the already overcrowded streets and byways of Mamaroneck, Larchmont and New Rochelle. Moreover, the passageways to and from 195 to the proposed site will cross the paths of several schools thereby unnecessarily placing our children in harms way. Is the public good of a furniture store worth the life of even one child? As the above bullet-points merely highlight the concerns, I would welcome any questions or feedback. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. 7 March 1, 2000 Sincerely, Gregg L. Bienstock Bonnie Robinson and Joseph Beck 54 Lookout Circle-Larchmont, NY 10538 Home Phone 914-834-1706 January 10, 2000 Mamaroneck Town Supervisor Valerie O'Keeffe 740 W. Boston Post Rd. Mamaroneck New York 10543 Mamaroneck Town Supervisor O'Keeffe: We are writing to urge you to oppose the development of IKEA on the New Rochelle-Larchmont border. The current proposal is flawed in 3 respects: • IKEA will condemn 34 homes, 29 businesses and two churches. This unnecessary disruption of people's lives could be avoided if IKEA moved to the vacant former Price Club site less than a mile away. • An "independent.study finding that the proposed IKEA site was "blighted. was paid for by IKEA and, consequently, biased in favor of that conclusion. The study did not allow an adequate comparison with the abandoned commercial Price Club location. • The volume of traffic from 195 due to delivery trucks and cars will congest an already busy, residential section of Larchmont. The vacant former Price Club location has easier access to 1-95 that will not upset any residential properties. As long-time residents of Larchmont, we are upset that our neighborhood will become adversely affected by the traffic and upheaval brought about by IKEA's proposed development. These problems could be avoided if IKEA chose to move into another location, specifically the vacant former Price Club site. We urge you to oppose IKEA's proposal in any way possible. Sincerely, Bonnie Robinson and Joseph Beck STANLEY H. SCHNEIDER ONE DANTE STREET LARCHMONT, NY, 10538 212-930-4556 December 23, 1999 Hon. Paul Ryan Supervisor Town of Mamaroneck 740 West Boston Post Road Mamaroneck, NY 10543 Re: Ikea Dear Supervisor Ryan: 1 am writing in connection with this store which is planned for construction in New Rochelle but directly adjacent to Larchmont. All of the main traffic arteries in Larchmont, and in and out of Larchmont, are already jammed, particularly on the weekends. 1 understand that this project is now planned without highway access in New Rochelle, with a 1300 car parking lot and anticipated traffic of 1300 trips in and out of the store per hour. This is insane and will cause havoc in Larchmont and adjacent communities. People move to the Larchmont area for its small-town life and amenities. This project, while perhaps helpful to New Rochelle for its tax contributions, would be a bane to the adjacent communities and 1 urgently request your office's help in stopping it before planning proceeds any further. 8 March 1, 2000 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Stanley H. Schneider 35 N. CHATSWORTH AVENUE APT. 3S LARCHMONT, NEW YORK 10538 MAMARONECK TOWN SUPERVISOR VALERIE O'KEEFFE MAMARONECK TOWN CENTER 740W BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK 10543 FEBRUARY 22,2000 DEAR MS O'KEEFFE: THE CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE ENTERED INTO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE FIFTH AVENUE URBAN RENEWAL AREA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT. AN AGREEMENT WAS REACHED IN THE SPRING OF 1999. THE PROJECT IS PLANNED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF FIFTH AVENUE BETWEEN VALLEY PLACE AND POTTER AVENUE IN THE CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE. THE TOTAL SITE ENCOMPASSES 16 ACRES OF LAND. THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HAS EXPRESSED TO THE CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE SERIOUS RESERVATIONS IN REGARD TO THIS PROJECT. MY SPOUSE AND 1 WANT TO EXPRESS OUR SERIOUS RESERVATIONS TO YOU IN REGARD TO THIS PROJECT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. THE TREMENDOUS INCREASE IN TRAFFIC TO THIS AREA, ESTIMATED TO BE 2,000,000 CARS WILL ENDANGER THE SAFETY OF OUR SCHOOL CHILDREN AS WELL AS TO OURSELVES. 2. THIS TREMENDOUS INCREASE IN TRAFFIC THROUGH OUT THIS ENTIRE AREA OF SOUTH WESTCHESTER WILL ENDANGER OUR HEALTH DUE TO THE INCREASE IN AIR POLLUTION AND WATER POLLUTION. 3. THE WHOLESALE REMOVAL OF HOMES AND BUSINESS IN THIS NEW ROCHELLE PARK AREA BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR THE BENEFIT OF A PRIVATE FOREIGN COMPANY IKEA IS UNCONSCIONABLE. WE URGE YOU TO STOP THIS PROJECT BEFORE IT BECOMES A DISASTER. VERY TRULY YOURS HELEN T SPENCER STEPHEN J SPENCER February 4, 2000 Honorable Tim Idoni City Hall 515 North Avenue New Rochelle, New York 10801 Dear Mayor Idoni: 1 am a resident of the Howell Park neighborhood in the Town of Mamaroneck which is defined geographically as the neighborhood east of Palmer Avenue and south of Weaver Street. 1 write to express my concern about the proposed IKEA construction in the City Park neighborhood of New Rochelle. 1 am troubled both by the process by which New Rochelle plans to accomplish this project-seizing the properties of local residents and merchants in order to permit IKEA to build its store and enjoy a property tax abatement--and by the inevitable local traffic that will be generated if this huge store is constructed in City Park. The proposed site is not easily accessible to the New York State Thruway, the Hutchinson River Parkway or 1-95. This would require both shoppers and delivery trucks to resort 9 March 1, 2000 to local roads, no doubt including the Boston Post Road, Palmer Avenue and Weaver Street, all of which are already heavily traveled by local motorists and pedestrians alike, including our neighborhood children attending Central Elementary School, the Hommocks Middle School, and Mamaroneck High School. Even if ramps were built from 1-95 to IKEA, many drivers would still be expected to use the local roads since 1-95 is already quite congested. In any event, the increased traffic would add to the levels of air and noise pollution that residents of our neighborhood already face. Residents of New Rochelle, Larchmont and Mamaroneck share many benefits, and we all hope our communities will continue to prosper together. Growth comes with a cost, however, and for the proposed IKEA construction in City Park, 1 feel that the price is way too high and the burden on New Rochelle's neighbors, too heavy. Sincerely, The following residents of the Howell Park neighborhood sent the aforementioned letter to Mayor Tim Idoni: Sandra Elam Doris/Harold Sandstrom 1241 Palmer Ave., Larchmont 92 Carleon Ave., Larchmont MaryAnn Schreiber Edward J. Mooney 22 Carleon Ave., Larchmont 22 Carleon Ave., Larchmont Maura Concannon Helen/Martin Waters 53 Carleon Ave, Larchmont 1298 Palmer Ave., Larchmont Jane/Dudley Mairs W& M Gray 44 Howell Ave., Larchmont 126 Carleon Ave., Larchmont Louis/Susan Cozzi Colette Asaff 80 Howell Ave., Larchmont 110 Carleon Ave., Larchmont James/Gail Hiler Sean/Linda Dolan One Meadow PI., Larchmont 64 Carleon Ave., Larchmont Leigh/Robert Garry Karen/Gordon Oppenheimer 7 Meadow PI., Larchmont 50 Howell Ave., Larchmont Suzanne/David Wahrhaftig 100 Carelon Ave., Larchmont On motion of Councilman Odierna, seconded by Councilwoman Wittner, the hearing was declared closed. Attached is the Stenographers verbatim record of the proceedings. BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS The meeting was called to order by Commissioner O'Keeffe at 9:50 PM. Present were the following members of the Commission: Commissioner: Valerie M. O'Keeffe Commissioner: Phyllis Wittner Commissioner: Judith A. Myers Commissioner: Ernest C. Odierna Commissioner: Nancy Seligson 10 March 1, 2000 1. Fire Claims: Commissioner Odierna presented fire claims for authorization of payment , thereafter on Commissioner Odierna's motion, seconded by Commissioner Wittner , it was unanimously: RESOLVED, that this Commission hereby authorizes payment of the following Fire Department claims as approved by the Fire Chief and audited by the Comptroller's Office: A A A Emergency Supply Co. Inc. $ 10.00 American Gun & Uniform Supply $138.38 AT&T $9.23 Bell Atlantic $514.38 Brewer Hardware $304.49 Dri-Chem Fire Extinguisher 128.00 Metrocom 156.00 National Standby Repair 524.24 Rita Smith 149.00 Sound Shore 86.00 Town of Mamaroneck Professional Fire Fighters 204.36 TOTAL $ 2,224.08 The following fire claims were removed: Staples $1,205.95 Staples 494.65 Councilman Odierna questioned the large phone bill. The Administrator explained the 911 service is a big part of the bill, and told him when alarms go off, each of the fire chiefs cell phones are activated. There was also a question regarding a bill from staples for video players for training which cost $1,205. It was decided to remove the claims pending further information. The Supervisor mentioned that because of better training the Town has gotten a improved rating from the insurance company, she commended Chief Acocella on achieving the rating. Councilwoman Myers said the better rating translates to a lower premium on insurance for homeowners. Then on Commissioner Odierna's motion, seconded by Commissioner Wittner, the claims were adopted. Seligson - Aye Odierna - Aye Myers - Aye Wittner - Aye O'Keeffe - Aye On motion of Commissioner Myers, seconded by Commissioner Wittner the Board of Fire Commissioners adjourned at 10:05 PM AFFAIRS OF THE TOWN 1. Appeal of Tree Permit - Tree Removal Application Block 330, Lot 350.2 - 48 Marbourne Drive 11 March 1, 2000 Ron Carpaneto, Director of Building sent a communication regarding the findings of the Tree Preservation Commission on property located at 48 Marbourne Drive. He states the property was inspected and the trees in question have been damaged to the point where they are irreparable, and due to the location it was recommended that the trees be removed and replacement trees installed. The Board then received an appeal from Joel Negrin on the commission's decision, filed on behalf of Ralph Miles, 1 Gatehouse Lane and Benjamin Simkhai, 3 Gatehouse Lane. He states objections have repeatedly been voiced to the damaging of the mature trees along the Gatehouse Lane property lines, especially since the trees predate the purchase by the developer. It appears obvious that the activities on the property site grading plan have caused the damage. And now the developer after causing the drowning of the trees has received permission to remove them, which should be deemed insulting. The request is that the developer be required to replace them, without protest as to cost and/or practicality as he has willfully created the situation. Mr. Miles, 1 Gatehouse Lane, stated that his attorney had been unable to attend this evening's meeting because of an emergency. He and Mr. Simkhai, 3 Gatehouse Lane then outlined the problems encountered since the regrading of the property. Al Ragazino, the site supervisor, introduced himself, then said in the original plan it shows the drainage work that had to be performed, which was done under an agreement to try to keep these trees. The trees are now in standing water and the health of them is in question. Mr. Miles said this appeared to be a ploy, since when getting approval initially, they were told to preserve the trees. It has been shown instead they did not do that, now they are getting a second bite of the apple. How are they allowed to present one plan and then be able to come back and do something else? There then ensued a rather lengthy discussion regarding the replacement of the trees. Supervisor O'Keeffe asked what specifically they were requesting of the developer. Mr. Miles said the trees should be replaced on a two to one basis, the Town should not just take a check in lieu of replacement and put trees into other areas of the Town, especially since it was his belief there was not a genuine effort to preserve them. After a rather long discussion an agreement was reached and the ensuing resolution was adopted. On motion of Councilman Odierna, seconded by Councilwoman Wittner, it was unanimously, RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby reject the appeal for reversal of a tree permit made by Ralph Miles, et al., for property located at 48 Marbourne Drive, Block 330, Lot 350.2; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the developer has agreed to plant six trees of at least 3" caliper to be placed along the property line; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said appeal be given back to the Tree Commission in order to site the trees. 2. Authorization - Renewal of Snow Removal Contract - New York State Department of Transportation On motion of Councilwoman Wittner, seconded by Councilwoman Myers, it was unanimously, RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby agree to extend the current agreement with New York State Department of 12 March 1, 2000 Transportation for the removal of snow and ice on State roads in the Town; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town will be reimbursed in a lump sum of $8,253.00 for removal of snow and ice on Weaver Street and the Boston Post Road. This agreement is for the 2001\2002 season; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Board authorizes the Town Administrator to execute above-said agreement on behalf of the Town. 3. Approval of Certiorari On motion of Councilwoman Wittner, seconded by Councilwoman Myers, it was, RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby authorize the settlement of the following certiorari as recommended by the Town Attorney, Charlene Indelicato: Fenimore Real Estate - 711 Fenimore Road Block 831 Lot 298 Town of Mamaroneck/Village of Mamaroneck Year Assessment Reduced To Amount of Reduction 1998 $23,500 $18,000 $5,500 23% 1999 $23,500 $18,000 $5,500 23% The Town will refund approximately $390 for the 2 years in question. The loss to the Town is approximately $195 per year. 133 Halstead Holding Corp. - 133 Halstead Avenue Block 901 Lot 92 Town of Mamaroneck/Village of Mamaroneck Year Assessment Reduced To Amount of Reduction 1998 $25,000 $19,000 $6,000 24% 1999 $25,000 $19,000 $6,000 24% The Town will refund approximately $425, The loss to the Town will be approximately $200. Seligson - Aye Odierna - Aye Myers - Aye Wittner - Aye O'Keeffe - Aye 4. Salary Authorization - Recreation On motion of Councilwoman Wittner, seconded by Councilman Odierna, it was, 13 March 1, 2000 RESOLVED, that as provided for in the 2000 Town Budget that the Town Board does hereby authorize the payment of salary to the following: Lauren Abanati, Swim Instructor, Hommocks Pool, $16.50 per hour, effective February 27, 2000. Seligson - Aye Odierna - Aye Myers - Aye Wittner - Aye O'Keeffe - Aye ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ned Ryan, who arrived at 10:15 PM or thereabout, said Edgewood Avenue residents had formed a neighborhood association. He said the front door to the Town Center was locked and he finally had to go to the police to be let into the building so he could attend this meeting. He was told the night person usually locks the doors at 10 PM but they would see the building does not get locked in the future when there were still meetings being held. Councilman Odierna asked if the sanitation budget was available yet. Supervisor O'Keeffe replied that it was in the mail at this time. Betty Miller, LGCA, asked about the enforcement officer, since there seems to be no evidence of enforcement of any kind in her area of the Town. Mr. Altieri said the Board had received information on the activities of the enforcement officer and there would be a meeting shortly with the building staff to discuss maybe increasing the hours per week of the officer. Councilman Odierna said there had been an all day meeting in Work Session-study session where enforcement had been discussed and we want to see an expanded report and probably more hours for the enforcement officer. He said he had attended the Association of Towns meeting in the City and thought it was a wonderful way to network and learn what other communities are doing, he urged more people to attend Councilwoman Seligson said she attended the Planning Board meeting on February 9, and the Coalition on Environment meeting. The latter had been talking about federal funds for the Sound clean up, and it appears there will be more money than ever before given to accomplish the cleanup. Councilwoman Myers said she, Supervisor O'Keeffe and the Town Administrator had met with school, police and PTA personnel, including Sherry King, School Superintendent, regarding the traffic problems around the Hommocks. The meeting was constructive; the police had prepared an analysis prior showing the real problem areas and all present were in agreement that the entire Post Road, Weaver, Hommocks Road and Palmer areas need to be studied. It was agreed that the Town and School District would engage a consultant to review the area. Further, the PTA will work out a way to have students dropped off in a safer fashion. She said she had also attended the Traffic Committee meeting last night where they had discussed a new sign, and the issue of heavy speeding on Weaver, Murray and Myrtle Boulevard. Councilwoman Wittner said she had attended the Human Rights Commission meeting this week, which now has a new Chair. She also attended the Coastal Zone Management Commission meeting which was also attended by three prospective members. 14 March 1, 2000 ADDED ITEM The Board discussed changing the second March meeting from the 15th to the 22"d and the April meeting from the 19th to the 25th On motion of Councilman Odierna, seconded by Councilwoman Seligson, it was unanimously, RESOLVED, that the regular meetings of the Town Board originally scheduled for March 15, 2000 and April 19, 2000 be changed to March 22, 2000 and April 26, 2000 in the Court Room of the Town Center, 740 West Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck at 8:15 PM. Seligson - Aye Odierna - Aye Myers - Aye Wittner - Aye O'Keeffe - Aye ADJOURNMENT The Supervisor said that the next scheduled meetings would be March 22 and April 5. On motion of Councilwoman Wittner, seconded by Councilwoman Myers the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 PM. Submitted by Patricia A. DiCioccio, Town Clerk Seligson - Aye Odierna - Aye Myers - Aye Wittner - Aye O'Keeffe - Aye 11CLERKSERVERI SERVER\DocumentslMinutes 12000minf103-01-00x.doc 15 March 1, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK -----------------------------------------x Mamaroneck Town Center 740 Boston Post Road Mamaroneck, New York 10543 March 1, 2000 8:10 p.m TERRANOVA, KAZAZES &ASSOCIATES, LTD. Barbara Terranova, Reporter 49 Eighth Street New Rochelle, New York 10801 (914) 576-7431 1APPEARANCES : 2 3 4 5 VALERIE M. O'KEEFFE, Chairwoman 6 NANCY SELIGSON, Councilwoman JUDITH A. MYERS, Councilwoman 7 STEPHEN V. ALTIERI, Administrator PHYLLIS WITTNER, Councilwoman 8 ERNEST C. ODIERNA, Councilman CHARLENE INDELICATO, Town Counsel 9 PATRICIA A. DICIOCCIO, Town Clerk 10 Page 2 1 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Good 2 evening, ladies and gentlemen, 3 welcome to our Town Board meeting. 4 We welcome many visitors to the Town 5 of Mamaroneck. Is there a motion to 6 convene the Town Board? 7 MS. SELIGSON: So moved. 8 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Second? 9 MS. SELIGSON: Second. 10 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: May I 11 point out the location of the exits, 12 they are in the rear of the room 13 here. 14 As you are aware the first 15 order of business is the Public 16 Hearing on the local law with 17 respect to the review of local 18 impacts caused by major development 19 projects in areas that abut or 20 adjoin or are adjacent to the Town 21 of Mamaroneck. And then you have 22 the codes of the Town of Mamaroneck. 23 We have received many letters and 24 phone calls about this proposed law. 25 At the end of the speaking portion, Page 3 16 March 1, 2000 1 the clerk will enter copies of those 2 letters into the record. 3 These are our ground rules, 4 each person wishing to speak has 5 been asked to fill out a card with 6 his or her name. The Chair will 7 recognize speakers in the order in 8 which they signed up so that as many 9 of those wishing to speak may do so. 10 Each speaker will be limited to five 11 minutes. Please have the courtesy 12 to stop speaking when the signal is 13 given by the clerk. No person will 14 be permitted to speak a second time 15 until all persons wishing to speak 16 had had an opportunity to do so. We 17 are here to listen to your opinions 18 and your concerns. Please speak to 19 the issues. This hearing is not a 20 debate. Please address all remarks 21 to the Chair and please refrain from 22 addressing your remarks to other 23 persons in the audience. 24 Before we start, I wish to 25 make a few comments to set the Page 4 1 record straight. The Town of 2 Mamaroneck has always had friendly 3 relations with our neighbor, City of 4 New Rochelle, a very distinguished 5 old City, founded more than 300 6 years ago. We are fully aware that 7 cities in the County need economic 8 development. The better the 9 economic condition of all the cities 10 in the County, the better it is for 11 us here and for all residents of the 12 County. We are charged by the 13 public officials for the 14 responsibility and to protect the 15 health and well being of our 16 residents. The economic development 17 of our neighbors and the protection 18 of the character and quality of life 19 in our Town here shall not be 20 mutually exclusive. 21 This hearing is not evidence 22 of what the press has termed a 23 border war. We are not against 24 responsible economic development, 25 but in large scale development, Page 5 1 development projects that appear to 2 threaten the welfare of our Town, 3 then we cannot sit oddly by 4 spectators, while our citizens, the 5 people we work for, could get hurt. 17 March 1, 2000 6 What we have in mind with the 7 present legislation is plain and 8 simple. This is to protect people, 9 not just wealthy people, the poor 10 people and middle economic people, 11 too. Our Town, for those who don't 12 know it well, is very diversed. We 13 have ways of new immigrants who are 14 looking for jobs just like the 15 cities throughout Westchester have 16 these new immigrants. What we are 17 aiming at is to protect the suburban 18 character of our Town. We want to 19 protect the health and welfare of 20 our citizens, but under the present 21 State law and the SEQRA process, we 22 cannot really comment to the extent 23 that we might want to, even though 24 we can make comments on findings 25 under the SEQRA process. We can Page 6 1 comment on the findings, I am sorry. 2 But if we disagree with the result 3 we are only left with the remedy to 4 litigate after the fact. What we 5 need is some mechanism to protect 6 our interest, whether in the form of 7 State or County regional planning 8 laws or possibly some form of 9 intermunicipal organizational 10 arrangements. Until such mechanisms 11 are available, municipalities must 12 redouble their efforts to work 13 together. 14 The suggestions made today at 15 a press conference held in the New 16 Rochelle City Hall and attended by 17 the mayors of the County's larger 18 cities that the Town of Mamaroneck 19 could be called class insensitive, 20 it's preposterous and untrue. It 21 cannot stand. This kind of language 22 inflames passion and it prevents 23 reasonable discourse. It erodes 24 goodwill. The Town of Mamaroneck is 25 fully cognizant of the economic Page 7 1 development needs of our cities and 2 we wish our cities well. 3 Just parenthetically, I would 4 like to say that I lived in Yonkers 5 for, I guess, ten or 12 years after 6 1 first got married within a stone's 7 throw of Bronxville. I know what 8 the story is. I understand what the 9 needs of the cities are. 10 We also are charged to 11 protect our own citizens. We will 18 March 1, 2000 12 continue to do this is in a spirit 13 of cooperation and reasonableness. 14 Our special Counsel, Mr. Robert 15 Spaulzino(ph), will briefly describe 16 the proposed law and then we will be 17 ready to listen to you. Mr. 18 Spaulzino. 19 MR. SPAULZINO: Thank you. 1 20 think the best way to describe the 21 law is to simply read the operative 22 section of the law which is as 23 follows: No project that A, 24 involves one, the construction of 25 250 or more residential units; or Page 8 1 two, the physical alteration of ten 2 acres or more; or three, the 3 construction of a facility with more 4 than 100,000 square feet of gross 5 floor area; or four, parking for 6 more than 1,000 vehicles. And B, 7 abuts, adjoins or is adjacent to a 8 town street within or upon the 9 border of the Town of Mamaroneck 10 shall be undertaken except upon the 11 issuance of a permit by the Town 12 Board. 13 The law goes on to provide 14 standards for the issuance of that 15 permit. It says as follows: In 16 reviewing the application for a 17 permit under this section, the Town 18 Board shall consider the potential 19 impacts of the project on the 20 streets and the areas around the 21 project, including but not limited 22 to impacts upon natural resources, 23 noise, traffic, cultural or 24 aesthetic resources, existing 25 patterns of population concentration Page 9 1 and community or neighborhood 2 character and shall review the means 3 available to mitigate such impacts, 4 including those regulatory measures 5 that are in the authority of the 6 Town to undertake. 7 The Town Board shall grant a 8 permit upon finding that the impacts 9 associated with the project can be 10 mitigated and that all such 11 mitigation measures have been 12 incorporated into the plan for the 13 project. 14 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Thank 15 you, Mr. Spaulzino. We will now 16 make a motion to open the Public 17 Hearing. Do I have a motion to open 19 March 1, 2000 18 the Public Hearing? 19 MS. WITTNER: So moved. 20 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Second? 21 MS. MYERS: Second. 22 (Whereupon, all Board members 23 respond aye) 24 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Okay, 25 we will now proceed to invite our Page 10 1 speakers to the microphone. First 2 card I have is the Honorable Timothy 3 Idoni, the Mayor of the City of New 4 Rochelle. Welcome Mayor Idoni. 5 MAYOR IDONI: Thank you. 6 Thank you Supervisor O'Keeffe, 7 members of the Town Council, Mr. 8 Altieri, Mr. Spaulzino, Ms. 9 Indelicato. First, I would like for 10 the record to state it was not I who 11 said the words class insensitive at 12 that meeting this morning. 1 13 certainly would never accuse anybody 14 on this Council or this Town for 15 being class insensitive. We are all 16 truly friends that work together 17 very closely over the years. 1 18 would like to read just three brief 19 paragraphs into the record as the 20 City's official position on the law 21 itself and then to propose a couple 22 of options that you may want to 23 consider. 24 Ladies and gentlemen, 25 although the City of New Rochelle is Page 11 1 sensitive to the Town's concerns, 2 most knowledgeable people in the 3 field would agree that the proposed 4 legislation written is manifestly 5 unconstitutional and unenforceable 6 as it violates almost every 7 established statutory principle 8 described under the New York State 9 Municipal Home Rule Powers. No one 10 would dispute that the Town has the 11 general powers to adopt and amend 12 local laws that relate to "impacts 13 upon its natural resources" and its 14 community and neighborhood 15 character. Both those quotes come 16 from the State law itself. 17 It is of the law of the State 18 of New York, however, that such 19 powers may not be exercised "to the 20 extent that they relate to other 21 than property, affairs or government 22 of such local government" or "impair 23 the powers of any other public 20 March 1, 2000 24 corporation or local government". 25 There are simply no legal basis for Page 12 1 the Town to seek --to surplant the 2 jurisdictional sovereignty of its 3 municipal neighbors by requiring an 4 applicant to seeking, to develop 5 certain uses adjacent to its borders 6 to receive approvals for development 7 from the Town. There are 8 established mechanisms to address 9 intermunicipal impacts from certain 10 development projects including those 11 contained in the State Environmental 12 Quality Review Acts, SEQRA, and the 13 General Municipal Law. The Statutes 14 are widely utilized by 15 municipalities to participate in the 16 review and evaluation of proposed 17 projects located in other 18 municipalities which they believe 19 might impact their communities. 20 The Town, for example, has 21 actively participated in the initial 22 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal SEQRA 23 meeting held by the City of New 24 Rochelle. It was indeed 25 instrumental in establishing the Page 13 1 lengthy scope of the environmental 2 issues that must be addressed in the 3 future draft environmental impact 4 study to assess the potential 5 impacts of Fifth Avenue 6 redevelopment project, which 7 includes, by the way, 39 8 intersections, some of which are 9 located in the Town of Mamaroneck 10 and Village of Larchmont. 11 Let's put away the legal 12 language for a second and just 13 invite you, as the Town Council, the 14 members of your community, to join 15 with us in the City of New Rochelle 16 is something unique. We would like 17 you to come with us,join us in the 18 Planning Board meetings, send your 19 Planning Board members to 20 participate in our Planning Board 21 meetings, to have each of your 22 members to visit us at our City 23 Council meetings, to participate 24 fully in the review of the SEQRA 25 papers -- excuse me, the DEIS when Page 14 21 March 1, 2000 1 it comes in, which will be sometime 2 at the end of April, I believe. 3 This is not a slam dunk by any 4 stretch of the imagination. I want 5 to remind the Town Council and 6 members of this audience, that it's 7 this Mayor in March of 1992 that 8 killed Xanadu along with the four 9 members of the City of New Rochelle. 10 For ten years the City of New 11 Rochelle fought this Town, Village 12 of Larchmont, every other community 13 in Westchester to put an ill-advised 14 project together. We have 15 precedents here in this Sound Shore 16 area for the City Council of New 17 Rochelle to kill a project that does 18 not do the City of New Rochelle or 19 your Town any good. I was elected 20 in November of 1991 to push forward 21 and to complete the Xanadu project. 22 That it was the input from the 23 County Work Legislators, from the 24 Secretary of State, from the then 25 Town Supervisor of this Town, Mayor Page 15 1 of Larchmont over the next 60 days 2 to convince this Mayor that it was a 3 bad project. 4 We're going to go farther 5 this time. We want you involved in 6 our Planning Board. We don't need 7 mediation. We don't need 8 arbitration. Come in with us as 9 partners and review the papers to 10 tell us what we need to look at if 11 it impacts you. As I said on the 12 record a couple of weeks ago, if you 13 have traffic problems, I am going to 14 have double the traffic problems 15 because it's in our Town. We have 16 plenty of other access roads coming 17 from inside the City of New 18 Rochelle. 19 I'm not going to vote for any 20 project that causes my community 21 that much harm and I truly mean this 22 from the bottom of my heart that we 23 have worked so well together. A 24 couple of weeks ago we received a 25 $50,000.00 grant that the Town of Page 16 1 Mamaroneck applied for with the 2 watershed advisory Council that 1 3 sat along with Phyllis Wittner and 4 along with Nancy Seligson, Chris 5 Selman(ph) from my City Council and 6 put together the paperwork for that 22 March 1, 2000 7 kind of grant to work. And in deed, 8 look at the cooperation we are going 9 to be receive from that $50,000.00 10 grant received. 11 1 can't be any more sincere 12 than that. This is it, ladies and 13 gentlemen. We have a project that 14 we have to look at, the decisions 15 have been made, the information is 16 going to be there for you to look 17 at, for us to look at. We should be 18 partners in the review. We can't 19 applicate the voting rights to 20 approve or disapprove this project 21 any more than you can applicate the 22 right to vote on the local law 23 tonight. How would you like the 24 City Council to come and demand 25 tonight that we have the right to Page 17 1 vote on this particular law. You 2 wouldn't want that and either would 3 we. Come and work with us. We will 4 make the right decision. 5 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Thank 6 you very much, Mayor Idoni. The 7 next speaker is Elliot Sclar. 8 Please tell us your name, where you 9 live and what your title is, if it's 10 pertinent to the proceedings. 11 MR. ELLIOT SCLAR: My name is 12 Elliot Sclar and I'm a resident of 13 Larchmont and I am the professor of 14 Urban Planning at Columbia 15 University where I direct all 16 graduate programs in urban planning. 17 I've recently been asked by the 18 Village of Larchmont to head of a 19 task force to reconsider the master 20 plan for the Village of Larchmont. 21 I'm aware of the complexities 22 involved in the process that you're 23 involved with this local law. And 24 when I look at what is happening to 25 date in New Rochelle, it's almost a Page 18 1 case study of the wrong ways to go 2 about planning. What the Mayor said 3 now is much more heartening on how 4 things might be done but it's only 5 the beginning. The problem that we 6 have is that under the SEQRA 7 procedure, basically the advocates 8 for projects do the DEIS -- I've 9 been involved in DEISs in various 10 places around the State. 11 The problem that you get into 12 is they don't necessarily cover all 23 March 1, 2000 13 the concerns that others have. They 14 are done by the proponents, they are 15 paid for by the proponents. There 16 is a great deal of gray area in 17 how-- in the methods that are used 18 in the way things are done and it 19 doesn't do justice to a lot of the 20 environmental concerns. More 21 importantly, what is going on is 22 that we're living increasingly in 23 areas that are more and more 24 independent of each other. The 25 environment doesn't know about Page 19 1 boundaries. It doesn't know about 2 borders and it becomes very 3 important that the process be put in 4 place that allow real corroboration 5 and real cooperation. 6 1 think it's important that 7 you move forward on this law at this 8 point in time simply because it at 9 least helps to move the dialogue 10 along. Is this the way to plan? 11 No. Over the long run what should 12 have happened is that from the very 13 beginning, everybody should have 14 been involved. It's very important 15 that New Rochelle develop. It's 16 very important that New Rochelle 17 thrive for everybody. We are all 18 routing for New Rock City. We are 19 all routing for the downtown and 20 remember that downtown, this is the 21 second time that a renewal site has 22 been built upon. There was a Macy's 23 first and that had to be taken down. 24 Now we have New Rock City there. 25 It's very important that what goes Page 20 1 on in this site not be antithetical 2 to what's happening in the downtown. 3 It should be strenghtening the 4 downtown. 5 There is a list of things 6 that could be done on that site that 7 would be compatible with 8 Mamaroneck's and Larchmont's 9 interests and that would do a lot 10 more for both the fiscal and long 11 term economic concerns of this City 12 of New Rochelle. And I hope that 13 what this is is the beginning of a 14 spirit of moving forward together. 15 Thank you. 16 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Thank 17 you, Mr. Sclar. Ms. Rae Axelrod. 18 MS. AXELROD: I speak as a 24 March 1, 2000 19 concerned citizen -- 20 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Would 21 you be kind enough to tell us where 22 you live? 23 MS. AXELROD: I live at One 24 Washington Square, Larchmont, New 25 York. I'm speaking as a concerned Page 21 1 citizen. I've lived in the Village 2 of Larchmont since 1961. I'm well 3 aware of what has gone on in the 4 City of New Rochelle there. I've 5 seen a lot of things come and go. 6 I've seen a lot of things come and 7 go in the Village of Larchmont and 8 the Town of Mamaroneck. I'm proud 9 to be a resident here. 10 1 would like to say that I 11 support the local law, if it's at 12 all possible for the local law to be 13 passed or something similar. 1 14 think we need something like that, 15 not only because of this project but 16 because of the things you read. 17 I've been reading a lot. I belong 18 to a preservation group and I read a 19 lot about the problems of sprawl, 20 not just urban sprawl but sprawl all 21 over this country, which is eating 22 up our environment, our open spaces, 23 places where people live, places 24 where people play. I think it's 25 something that ought to be done to Page 22 1 control and curtail it. 2 There are other ways of 3 economic development. There are 4 Main Street programs. There are all 5 kinds that people have seen and used 6 to develop their economic community 7 without having any impact on the 8 environment, the traffic and 9 everything else. 10 And if anybody on the Council 11 wants to call me, my number is down, 12 1 can give them the people that can 13 be contacted. In fact, if the Mayor 14 of New Rochelle would like the names 15 of people to contact for economic 16 development, I'd give him that, too. 17 I'd be real happy to do that. I've 18 seen these programs successful in 19 other places. That is all I have to 20 say. Thank you very much. 21 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Thank 22 you, Ms. Axelrod. Next speaker is 23 Vicky Rosenstrung(ph). No, pass, 24 okay. Next is Ms. Sally 25 March 1, 2000 25 Esterbroad(ph). Page 23 1 MS. ESTERBROAD: I live in 2 Larchmont. 3 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Speak 4 up or closer to the mike. 5 MS. ESTERBROAD: Sally 6 Esterbroad(ph), I live in Larchmont. 7 And I'm here, I didn't realize you 8 were proposing this legislation and 9 it's very interesting. Now,just to 10 offer my perspective and perhaps 11 offer some thoughts for the work you 12 are doing here tonight. 13 On a governmental level, 1 14 personally question eminent domain 15 being used for the good of a private 16 corporation. On a community level 1 17 feel for the neighborhood and the 18 people and the homes and the 19 churches and the jobs that will be 20 lost with this project. 21 On a personal level, I too 22 look from the perspective of the 23 Town of Mamaroneck because I live in 24 the Town of Mamaroneck and how would 25 it affect my life. I question the Page 24 1 incredible traffic. I do not 2 believe that all the traffic will 3 come off 95. 1 think it will come 4 from the Post Road, from the north 5 and south. I think it will come 6 from the Hutch. I think it will 7 come down State and County roads. 1 8 think it will come pass my child's 9 school, and through our towns, 10 through Chatsworth Avenue and 11 Larchmont Avenue. 12 And I at this point encourage 13 my 11-year old to ride his bike to 14 school and I don't know, I think 1 15 would be leary about that, with the 16 change in traffic. That kind of 17 right of passage is the kids walking 18 into Town without their parents when 19 we they get 11 years of age or ten 20 years of age and hanging out, 21 getting some candy. Maybe those 22 things will be questioned and 1 23 wonder about his safety. I think 24 the traffic will be tremendous and 1 25 think it is a major -- I think it Page 25 1 carries tremendous impact on the 26 March 1, 2000 2 character of our Town. If that's 3 what's in question, I think the 4 character of our Town will be 5 greatly affected. Thank you. 6 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Thank 7 you, Ms. Esterbroad. Our next 8 speaker is Mr. Randolph McCoughlin. 9 MR. McCOUGHLIN: Good 10 evening, my name is Randolph 11 McCoughlin. I'm the director of the 12 social justice at Pace Law School 13 and I'm here in my capacity as an 14 advisor to the City Park 15 Association, the group that's 16 directly affected by the IKEA 17 project. Tonight what brings us all 18 here is not just City Park. City 19 Park is the impetus for this debate, 20 but the real question is how are we 21 going to handle and deal with the 22 development in this County. We're 23 not in the dessert, we are very 24 close in neighbors. And the 25 question is what is development and Page 26 1 what is good for this community. 2 We have a couple of questions 3 on that score. A, what is a 4 community? Obviously, development 5 is good for certain communities, but 6 the question on development is what 7 is it? A, it has an economic 8 impact. Obviously, the City of New 9 Rochelle is focused primarily on the 10 economic benefits in any of this 11 project and that's understandable. 12 They need to deal with economic 13 basis and increase it, but there are 14 also quality of life concerns that 15 go beyond New Rochelle. 16 As the Professor from 17 Columbia said, the environment does 18 not recognize an artificial line 19 drawn on a map. So when pollution 20 is in New Rochelle because there is 21 an increase in cars, that pollution 22 will spill over into your Town as 23 well. Clearly, there are 24 intergovernmental concerns. And 25 sure, it's true as the Mayor said, Page 27 1 that if at the end of the day what 2 happens in New Rochelle in terms of 3 the SEQRA and various reviews is not 4 satisfactory to the Town residents, 5 that matter can be litigated, but 6 that's what I call an adversarial 7 approach for development. I rather 27 March 1, 2000 8 see a more cooperative, holistical 9 approach in development that takes 10 into consideration not just the 11 economic interest as the primary 12 moving factor, but the quality of 13 life concerns and the concerns of 14 neighboring communities who will 15 bear the affects of this 16 development. So we are all in favor 17 of a good neighbor approach and we 18 think that it's important to foster 19 this type of cooperation. 20 Now, what the IKEA debate has 21 brought about is very unique. 1 22 read the press release and I wait to 23 see the news tonight and how they 24 characterized the efforts of the 25 Town, but I don't see as class Page 28 1 warfare. Quite the contrary. I see 2 this as class cooperation. What is 3 happening here is fixed and low 4 income individuals and City Park 5 and, let's be very frank, throughout 6 this County, whenever there has been 7 urban renewal, it has resulted in 8 urban removal of poor and low income 9 individuals. I would challenge any 10 official to show me one area in this 11 County when an affluent community 12 was destroyed to build a highway, to 13 build a store or to build anything. 14 So we applaud the efforts of 15 the Town to reach out to their 16 brothers and sisters across that 17 border who are a part of this 18 community. See, I have a much 19 broader sense of community. My 20 community does not end and begin 21 with where the map says it begins 22 and ends. It begins with how 1 23 reach out and deal with other 24 people. One great poet said it, no 25 man is an island, we are all Page 29 1 connected to the man. Thank you. 2 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Mr. 3 Marly Hobert(ph), pass. Ms. Helen 4 Dondi(ph). 5 MS. DONDI: I've been a 6 resident of Larchmont since -- 7 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Please 8 be kind enough to tell us where you 9 live. 10 MS. DONDI: I live on Jetson 11 Street in the Town of Larchmont. 12 I've been a resident there since 13 1961. The gentleman who just spoke 28 March 1, 2000 14 more than took the words out of my 15 mouth and said it very eloquently. 16 1 was delighted to learn of your 17 proposed law because it seems to me 18 that what is seriously lacking 19 throughout this County is 20 communities working together for 21 whatever the end might be. We have 22 communities who endanger somebody 23 else's water rights, somebody else's 24 flood pockets. And we need to work 25 together and I can see this law as Page 30 1 possibly a first step towards a much 2 more regional planning activity in 3 the County which I think is 4 absolutely essential. I'm 5 personally opposed to the IKEA plan 6 not only for the reason of the 7 horrendous traffic that I know 1 8 will experience living in between 9 Weaver Street and Chatsworth and the 10 traffic that will come through 11 there, but I'm opposed to it because 12 there is a very solid community that 13 will be destroyed. And considering 14 the fact that the housing prices in 15 this County are so enormous and so 16 out of line, these people will have 17 no place to go and will lose their 18 homes. And I think this is really a 19 very serious consideration. I think 20 the previous person who spoke about 21 eminent domain, this is not a fair 22 way to use eminent domain for a 23 private corporation. 24 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Thank 25 you. Mr. Don Vidler(ph). Page 31 1 MR. VIDLER: My name is Don 2 Vidler. I live on Murray Avenue in 3 Larchmont. For the record, I was a 4 homeowner resident of New Rochelle 5 for ten years prior to this and did 6 vote for Mayor Idoni precisely 7 because he was against David's 8 Island, so I applaud him for that. 9 From a very selfish personal 10 invested interest, I'm opposed to 11 this because I'm on Murray. My 12 children go to Murray Avenue School. 13 1 think the traffic will be a 14 nightmare. From what I read and 15 what I know, there's a folcum(ph) to 16 this traffic. No matter where you 17 come off it's going right down on 18 Madison, on Washington, a lot of the 19 people are going to come down 29 March 1, 2000 20 Murray. The reports of traffic by 21 IKEA's measure any number whether 22 it's 300 average per hour of cars or 23 up to 500 or 600, even if ten 24 percent of those come down Murray 25 Avenue, that's 60 cars, 30 cars on Page 32 1 average per hour. Already on 2 certain days it takes me five 3 minutes to pull out of my driveway, 4 the traffic is that heavy. So that 5 is again a very personal, selfish 6 reason why I don't want to see it 7 there. 8 Regarding home rule, and 1 9 don't mean to repeat the other 10 speakers, but it seems that's a very 11 outdated proposition. Again, maybe 12 50, even 100 years ago when there 13 were a couple of miles between towns 14 and communities, it wasn't a 15 problem. But certainly everyone 16 knows in the lower southern 17 Westchester, whether it's New 18 Rochelle, Larchmont, Mamaroneck and 19 Larchmont, Rye right up the road, 20 towns abut one another and it's very 21 important that what happens to one 22 community is certainly going to 23 affect another. 24 1 would think that this law 25 precisely is looking to avoid, Page 33 1 whether who said it or who's 2 credited for it, whether it's a 3 border war or class insensitive, 4 this law is looking to avoid that 5 and up front to get the facts out to 6 have the communities speak to each 7 other in the spirit of cooperation. 8 And to me to quote a famous New 9 Rochelle favorite historical figure, 10 it's just common sense to make this 11 law and pass it. So I hope that you 12 do. 13 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Mr. 14 Scott Stefl(ph). 15 MR. STEFL: Good evening, 16 thank you very much for this 17 opportunity to speak. 18 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Would 19 you be kind enough to tell where 20 your address is. 21 MR. STEFL: Yes. My name is 22 Scott Stefl. I live at One Hugenot 23 Drive in Larchmont. I'm also a 24 member of Westchester Residents 25 Against IKEA Now and I support the 30 March 1, 2000 Page 34 1 Council's proposed local impact 2 review law and I urge its adoption. 3 1 also commend Supervisor O'Keeffe 4 and the Town Council members for 5 their initiative for taking action 6 in this regard. Now Mayor Idoni has 7 come before us tonight and he 8 eloquently called on us to trust him 9 to act responsibly on our concerns. 10 But let's look at the record book as 11 Casey Stingle(ph) would say and see 12 if Mayor Idoni and his allies on the 13 New Rochelle City Council deserve 14 our trust. 15 First of all, the blight 16 stage that launched this project, 17 the blight study which declared the 18 City Park neighborhood blighted and, 19 therefore, susceptible for urban 20 renewal was written with two 21 conflicts of interest built in. 22 First of all, it was paid for by 23 IKEA. Second of all, the blight 24 study was conducted by a firm called 25 Ferrandino &Associates. Ferrandino Page 35 1 &Associates has ongoing business 2 with the City of New Rochelle. They 3 are, right now, still writing zoning 4 codes and other laws for New 5 Rochelle. They have an ongoing 6 business interest with New Rochelle. 7 Does anybody really believe that 8 Ferrandino is going to write a 9 so-called independent report and 10 write that -- 11 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Mr. 12 Stefl, please address the members 13 of-- 14 MR. STEFL: Excuse me, 1 15 apologize. Now, this supposedly 16 independent blight study ignored 17 about 160 people, 350 employees that 18 work there in the 29 businesses and 19 the two church congregations. It 20 isn't as if this blight study went 21 to a back lot at Universal Studios 22 and did a blight study in one of 23 those empty towns where it looks 24 like a town but there is nobody that 25 lives there. Does that inspire Page 36 1 trust? Does it inspire trust that 2 they are using eminent domain in a 31 March 1, 2000 3 highly controversial way here? They 4 are using eminent domain not to 5 build public works as was done in 6 the past to build highways or 7 airports, but here just to clear 8 land that is wanted by a private 9 company, does it inspire trust that 10 Mayor Idoni has inflated -- 11 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Can 12 we-- I don't want to have an odium 13 attack on Mayor Idoni. Do you know 14 what I mean? 15 MR. STEFL: I understand. 16 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: You can 17 get your points out without having-- 18 MR. STEFL: It doesn't 19 inspire trust, however, that New 20 Rochelle City Council has repeatedly 21 claimed that New Rochelle is going 22 to make 100 million dollars -- 23 excuse me, that this store will have 24 100 million dollars in sales. 25 Whereas IKEA itself has told us the Page 37 1 average store only makes 68 million 2 dollars a year. That's not us 3 saying that, it's IKEA itself saying 4 that. Anyone that wishes to confirm 5 that fact can call Marty Marcins(ph) 6 at IKEA and the number is 7 610-834-0180, 610-834-0180. 8 Does it inspire trust that 9 the New Rochelle Council members 10 have been meeting in secret, that 11 they have elaborate three by three 12 proposal where they can meet SEQRA 13 and therefore circumvent the State 14 sunshine laws? Does it inspire 15 trust that this project abuts 16 Mamaroneck's border and yet 17 Mamaroneck has no say in it, even 18 though the traffic that flows 19 through our streets and the 20 pollution that this traffic is going 21 to cause is so substantial that it 22 probably will have the biggest 23 affect on this Town since the 24 construction of 1-95. The fact is 25 that nothing in this process up to Page 38 1 now has been open or democratic or 2 fair or evenhanded. There's nothing 3 in this process that suggests that 4 our concerns as Mamaroneck residents 5 are going to be taken -- are going 6 to be taken in consideration by New 7 Rochelle and the New Rochelle City 8 Council in this project. So again 1 32 March 1, 2000 9 urge the City Council to approve 10 this local review law, this local 11 impact law and I commend you for 12 proposing it. Thank you very much. 13 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Thank 14 you, Mr. Stefl. Our next speaker is 15 Ms. Michelle Faber. 16 MS. FABER: Good evening, my 17 name is Michelle Faber and I live at 18 66 Larchmont Avenue. I have been 19 gravely concerned about this 20 proposal to develop an IKEA store at 21 the City Park location for over a 22 year when I first learned about it 23 for two reasons. One because 1 24 consider my community to include 25 Larchmont neighborhood, Larchmont, Page 39 1 New Rochelle and Mamaroneck. And 2 secondly, because of development of 3 this scope simply does not respect 4 town borders. And in seeking to 5 move out of Manhattan eight years 6 ago, my husband and I chose to buy a 7 home and raise our children in this 8 community because of the wonderful 9 quality of life it vantages, that it 10 offered as a small town atmosphere, 11 close to Manhattan, beautiful leafy 12 neighborhoods, a place where people 13 walked to do their errands, a place 14 where you know your neighbors. 15 Now, I have concern that the 16 quality of life will be 17 irretrievably, irreversibly 18 compromised by the City Council's 19 shortsighted attempts to increase 20 sales tax revenue from the new IKEA. 21 1 consider it an egregious exercise 22 of municipal authority that the City 23 Council would undertake to forceably 24 remove so many residents and 25 businesses for the sake of the Page 40 1 private retail venture. And I can't 2 understand why the City Council 3 would be willing to threaten the 4 quality of life in its own 5 community. For example, the lovely 6 areas of Pine Brook, Beechmont 7 Terrace, which is surely to be 8 destroyed by the traffic, noise 9 pollution that an IKEA would bring. 10 But more than that, I 11 consider it fundamentally wrong that 12 Mamaroneck and Larchmont should be 13 forced to bear the burden of New 14 Rochelle's irresponsibility, lack of 33 March 1, 2000 15 foresight, lack of creativity in 16 planning on our borders. I support 17 the proposed amendment so that our 18 Town and our Village can have a 19 voice in the scope of developments 20 in our borders and the affect that 21 they would bring to our quality of 22 life here. And I urge New Rochelle 23 to consider other options, other 24 locations for an IKEA store that 25 will not have such an irreversible Page 41 1 detrimental affect on the quality of 2 life in its own City and in our 3 neighboring community. Thank you. 4 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Thank 5 you, Ms. Faber. Eric Byrich(ph). 6 MR. BYRICH: Eric Byrich, 1 7 live at Murray Avenue. I just want 8 to echo some of the thoughts that 9 people have already said. My wife 10 Sarah and I moved to Larchmont about 11 a year and a half ago and the reason 12 that we chose Larchmont were for 13 some of the reasons that the woman 14 who spoke just before said. We were 15 looking for a nice community where 16 we can live and raise our family. 1 17 might add that we did, like 18 everybody else, we paid extra to 19 live in Larchmont not only because 20 of the quality of the schools and 21 the neighborhoods but also because 22 it was a diversed community. And as 23 you know, it's very hard to find a 24 place where you can feel safe at the 25 same time for your kids and that Page 42 1 they are also going to get a good 2 experience overall. 3 Had we known that this IKEA 4 project was in the works, we would 5 not have chosen to live in 6 Larchmont. So we applaud the 7 efforts of the Board to try to fight 8 this in any way possible. I'm 9 actually surprised that somebody or 10 a Council would propose to use 11 eminent domain to remove so many 12 people from their homes. One of the 13 things that I always thought 14 interesting, and we had actually 15 looked at New Rochelle, was that if 16 you look on Quaker Ridge Road coming 17 off of Weaver, there is a sign there 18 and it says New Rochelle is a 19 community that looks after its 20 churches and its families and its 34 March 1, 2000 21 neighborhoods. Have you all seen 22 the sign? So what is so shocking to 23 me is that a Town which advertises 24 itself to be looking after the best 25 interest of the citizens is, in Page 43 1 fact, doing the exact opposite. 2 It's eliminating churches and 3 businesses and neighborhoods for no 4 clear purpose except to put a big 5 box store there. 6 Now, I don't know what the 7 traffic patterns would really be 8 like. I don't know how many kids 9 would get run over by cars or how 10 much pollution will affect our 11 breathing quality or what will 12 really happen. But I can tell you, 13 having come from New Jersey and 14 seeing the IKEA and the mess that it 15 creates around there. In fact, 1 16 worked not too far from there. 1 17 would say that this would be debacle 18 and if there is anything in the 19 power of this Council or this Town 20 or this community that we can do to 21 stop it, we should. Because once 22 it's done, there is no going back. 23 Thank you. 24 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Ladies 25 and gentlemen in the rear, there are Page 44 1 three or four seats in the front, if 2 you would like to come and sit down. 3 Thank you, Mr. Byrich. Mr. David 4 Palermo(ph) is our next speaker. 5 MR. DAVID PALERMO: David 6 Palermo, I live at 16 North 7 Chatsworth Avenue in Larchmont. I'm 8 a relatively new comer to this area. 9 I've only been here five or six 10 years and I was appalled when I 11 discovered that there is no 12 regional, no such thing as regional 13 planning in the State of New York. 14 It blew my mind. I just couldn't 15 believe it. And so it seems to me 16 that the efforts of the Mamaroneck 17 Council to pass a law which reaches 18 in that direction of regional 19 planning, even if the law can't be 20 passed or can't be considered 21 constitutional might raise the 22 awareness of people that what we 23 need is a regional planning law in 24 the State in order to have 25 communities which are so close 35 March 1, 2000 Page 45 1 together. You cannot tell when 2 you're in Larchmont, when you're in 3 New Rochelle. You just cross a 4 line. 5 In fact, I was out the other 6 day and I had to ask someone when 7 did I leave Larchmont and enter New 8 Rochelle. So I certainly support 9 your efforts in this direction and I 10 hope that you have some success. 11 Thank you. 12 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Thank 13 you. Ms. Sandy Constabile. 14 MS. CONSTABILE: Hi, my name 15 is Sandy Constabile, I live at 47 16 Mayhew Avenue in Larchmont. I've 17 been there for over 30 years. I'm 18 currently the head of the Pine Brook 19 Property District Property Owners 20 Association which represents over 21 2,000 residents in Larchmont, but 22 I'm speaking personally. I fear 23 that the IKEA property that New 24 Rochelle proposes will dramatically 25 increase the levels of noise Page 46 1 pollution, air pollution and traffic 2 in the Pine Brook area, which is 3 located below Palmer Avenue directly 4 across 1-95 from the proposed IKEA 5 site. 6 Worst yet, the IKEA project 7 could put the nail in the coffin of 8 the ailing New Rochelle sewer system 9 that also serves Larchmont. 10 Currently, in a major storm, unless 11 New Rochelle allows untreated 12 sewerage to flow into the Sound, it 13 ends up flowing into our streets and 14 basements. None of us wants to 15 pollute the Sound, but no one wants 16 sewerage in their streets and 17 basements either. The sewerage 18 system and various problems are 19 shared between the two 20 municipalities. 21 With the building and paved 22 parking lot of the size IKEA 23 proposes, drainage for the whole 24 area will be even further stressed, 25 no doubt causing an even greater Page 47 1 threat to the sanitation of our 2 streets and to Long Island Sound. 3 Since pollution in the sewers know 36 March 1, 2000 4 no municipal boundaries, it only 5 seems fair that all concerned and 6 affected towns have a voice in 7 determining the scope and validity 8 of the project. 9 If this law will protect 10 Larchmont and Mamaroneck from 11 dealing with all of the fallouts and 12 none of the benefits of a major 13 development on its borders, then I'm 14 strongly in favor of the law. Thank 15 you. 16 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Ms. 17 Marilyn Lobencooth(ph). 18 MS. LOBENCOOTH: I will pass. 19 My friends on Murray Avenue said 20 what I wanted to say. 21 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Thank 22 you very much. Ms. Barbara 23 Rosenbloom. 24 MS. ROSENBLOOM: I also will 25 pass. Page 48 1 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Mr. 2 Steven Blou(ph). 3 MR. BLOU: I'm Steven Blou. 4 I've lived in Larchmont for 25 years 5 and I work there in our home. It's 6 about five blocks from 1-95. 7 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Could 8 you just be kind enough, Mr. Blou, 9 to tell us your address. 10 MR. BLOU: 9 Centre Avenue. 11 I'm concerned mainly about the noise 12 level. Ever since 1-95 was 13 resurfaced with this special 14 anti-skid material, the noise level 15 has junked dramatically in our area, 16 limiting outdoor activities, 17 sometimes sleep and I'm very 18 concerned with the increased 19 traffic. There will be increased 20 noise from this area and make it 21 even more unlivable. Thank you. 22 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Thank 23 you. Ms. Laura Brett. 24 MS. BRETT: Hello, my name is 25 Laura Brett and I live at 93 Page 49 1 Stuyvesant Avenue in Larchmont. 1 2 support the law that's been proposed 3 by this Council. It seems to me 4 it's obvious that a strong New 5 Rochelle is good for Mamaroneck but 6 the project that they are proposing 7 for the IKEA site is not good for 8 Mamaroneck and it doesn't seem to be 9 good for New Rochelle. They have 37 March 1, 2000 10 designated this neighborhood of City 11 Park blighted. Well, if it were 12 truly blighted, we would want to 13 renew that area as well. They 14 haven't thought through what should 15 be done with that neighborhood, if 16 anything. 17 Yes, of course, we should 18 work together, but it seems to me 19 that the law that's been proposed 20 would only come into play when they 21 haven't worked together with us. 22 The law only affects large-scaled 23 projects that are likely to affect 24 our environment and our traffic. 25 And when they propose those sorts of Page 50 1 projects and haven't talked to their 2 neighbors to find out how they feel 3 about them or how it will affect 4 them, then we should have a voice 5 and our voice should be stronger 6 than just fighting them in Court 7 after the fact, after the fact, 8 after the studying has been done and 9 the paperwork by the City and by the 10 companies that are hoping to get 11 those sites. So I support this law 12 and I'm greatful that the Town 13 Council has proposed it. 14 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Helen 15 Spencer. 16 MS. SPENCER: I am going to 17 pass. Everything that I wanted to 18 say has been said. I support the 19 law very much. 20 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Ms. 21 Colleen Daly. 22 MS. DALY: My name is Colleen 23 Daly, I live at 61 Bine Road(ph) in 24 Larchmont. I strongly support this 25 proposal to curb urban development Page 51 1 and our borders. In other areas of 2 the country, like California, they 3 have regional planning, which make 4 it possible for one municipality to 5 embark on a project that will 6 strongly impact a neighboring 7 municipality without its approval. 8 Here in Westchester, under Home 9 Rule, each town and city can do 10 whatever it wants to on its own 11 turf, but that doesn't always make 12 sense and it certainly isn't always 13 fair. 14 The IKEA project is a perfect 15 example of this problem. 38 March 1, 2000 16 Technically, the IKEA would be in 17 New Rochelle, but it sits within 18 yards of the Larchmont, Mamaroneck 19 border. The traffic runoff and the 20 noise pollution certainly won't stay 21 on the New Rochelle side of that 22 arbitrary line that we call a 23 border. If the Town of Mamaroneck 24 passes this law, at least we will 25 have the opportunity to test its Page 52 1 validity in Court. Then perhaps we 2 can encourage the legislator of New 3 York to consider acting regional 4 planning laws that will encourage 5 neighboring municipalities to work 6 together for mutually agreeable 7 outcomes and for the greater good of 8 the people and all the communities. 9 Thank you very much for your time. 10 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Thank 11 you, Ms. Daly. Ms. Kate DeHais. 12 MS. DEHAIS: Good evening, my 13 name is Kate DeHais, I live at 14 14 Clark Court in Larchmont. Just very 15 briefly, because you know, so many 16 eloquent statements have already 17 previously been made. To say that 18 Larchmont and Mamaroneck are really 19 for families, they are residential 20 communities and most of us live here 21 for our children. And you go out on 22 the street on a weekday, you see 23 hundreds of kids walking to school, 24 biking to school, after school going 25 to the park, going to their baseball Page 53 1 practice and their soccer practice 2 and so forth. 3 And the cars, if you look at 4 what the project is, any cars coming 5 from the north are going to be 6 coming down the Hutch and coming 7 down Weaver where there is already 8 tremendous, tremendous traffic 9 pile-ups coming down Murray or 10 coming down Palmer or coming down 11 the Post Road. And I'm really 12 concerned because already it's 13 getting dangerous for children out 14 there. And, you know, I'm afraid 15 that there is going to be accidents 16 and that children will die out of 17 this. That's just my very personal 18 local concern. There is many 19 broader regional concerns and 1 20 compliment you in taking the 21 initiative in the aggressive fashion 39 March 1, 2000 22 here. And I hope the County and 23 State will follow your lead and try 24 to institute some larger regional 25 measures but I think it is a Page 54 1 wonderful first step and I strongly 2 support it. 3 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Ms. 4 Deborah Cohen. 5 MS. COHEN: Good evening, my 6 name is Deborah Cohen and I'm the 7 associate director at the social 8 justice center at Pace Law School. 9 And along with my colleague, 10 Randolph McCoughlin, have an 11 interest in addressing the Board 12 tonight because of our work with the 13 City Park residents. We're here 14 tonight to give you our thoughts on 15 the local law that's been proposed, 16 but I think we are all in agreement 17 that what brings us here on this 18 night is the controversy surrounding 19 the IKEA project that's proposed for 20 New Rochelle and the issues that it 21 raises. 22 And frankly I cannot give you 23 a legal opinion tonight whether or 24 not if you pass this law it will 25 stand, but I can tell you that we Page 55 1 think that it's important that this 2 law is put forward and that this 3 debate does occur because it really 4 forces us to address the larger 5 issues that are raised by these 6 types of actions. And frankly, the 7 interest in what's occurring in New 8 Rochelle and how it impacts its 9 neighbors, such as Mamaroneck, is 10 not --the interest is not just 11 confined to these two municipalities 12 and this County, these are concerns 13 that we are seeing growing national 14 interest and we see that just from 15 the calls that we've been getting in 16 our office from national media who 17 want information on the IKEA 18 controversy. And the reason why we 19 think this interest is growing is 20 because these types of projects and 21 proposals are forcing us to 22 re-evaluate the exercise of the 23 awesome power of government to seize 24 our property and develop our 25 property using the eminent domain Page 56 40 March 1, 2000 1 power. Now that really raises 2 questions of what we're supposed to 3 re-evaluate, what do we consider the 4 public interest in the use of those 5 powers. 6 For instance, where does, in 7 the public interest, where does it 8 fit in and how does this impact our 9 neighbors? Yes, you can pass this 10 law and New Rochelle can litigate 11 its validity. And litigation, as 1 12 said, at a recent arraign(ph) 13 meeting is basically warfare. Is 14 that in the public interest, is that 15 how we want to resolve these kinds 16 of issues? We think not. We think 17 that one of the things we hope in 18 putting in this local law for us to 19 do will force at least in 20 Westchester municipalities to seek 21 alternative ways to resolve these 22 questions and disputes. 23 We think the other thing that 24 this controversy is raising is 25 raising what are our priorities in Page 57 1 terms of economic development. The 2 IKEA project is the perfect example 3 of that and that's why it's being so 4 closely watched. What is the role 5 of the neighborhood in preserving 6 the neighborhood. Yes, it's 7 apparently relatively easy to 8 threaten, to declare a neighborhood 9 blighted, destroy it, destroy the 10 homes there, destroy the businesses 11 there, destroy the churches there to 12 put in a super store with an alleged 13 characterization that it will 14 increase jobs and tax revenues. Our 15 question is when is it more 16 important to, in fact, preserve and 17 nurture neighborhoods? To say that 18 it maybe more in the public interest 19 to sacrifice a few tax dollars in 20 order to allow people to remain in 21 the homes they have lived in for 70 22 years, to remain in the churches 23 that they prayed in for 20 years and 24 to continue to develop the family 25 business that's been in the family Page 58 1 for generations. 2 So we applaud this local law, 3 if nothing else for the fact that it 4 puts some of these questions before 41 March 1, 2000 5 us and we hope that what it will do 6 is to stimulate and invigorate a 7 constructive debate between New 8 Rochelle and its neighbors and 9 within New Rochelle itself to begin 10 this process of defining and, in 11 fact, redefining what is considered 12 the public interest. So we thank 13 you very much. 14 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Thank 15 you, Ms. Cohen. Mr. Daniel Tultrin, 16 1 am sorry, David. 17 MR. TULTRIN: Ladies and 18 gentlemen, thank you for the 19 opportunity to speak. I will try to 20 be brief. My name is David Tultrin, 21 1 live on Rochelle Road in 22 Larchmont. I lived in Larchmont for 23 23 years. I think many of the 24 speakers have eloquently made the 25 points that need to be made. I, Page 59 1 too, am very much in favor of the 2 proposed law. And I first want to 3 make one observation and then just a 4 point or two. 5 The observation is that the 6 Mayor of New Rochelle here tonight 7 said that he wanted to work together 8 with the Town of Mamaroneck in a 9 cooperative spirit. And he said 10 that he was being sincere in 11 expressing those thoughts, and 1 12 assume he was. But I was at the 13 City of New Rochelle Town Council 14 meeting in February when one of the 15 subjects to be discussed was the 16 IKEA project. And before anyone 17 spoke, the Mayor read from a 18 five-page, 14-inch on single spaced, 19 five pages on 14-inch paper, a 20 statement which is more of an 21 advocates peace about the IKEA 22 project, than anything I think even 23 IKEA would put out. In deed, the 24 statement that the Mayor read takes 25 the position that there is no Page 60 1 question that redevelopment is 2 important. 3 With respect to the issue of 4 traffic, which is the one question 1 5 want to address in a moment, the 6 Mayor's statement that he read even 7 before he heard from any of the 8 residents of New Rochelle who spoke 9 that night and there were several 10 dozen, the Mayor's statement says 42 March 1, 2000 11 it's impossible to assess affects of 12 the traffic at this point. Common 13 sense tells you that one can assess 14 the affects quite well. And it goes 15 onto say that the point made by 16 residents of Larchmont and 17 Mamaroneck about the traffic is, and 18 1 quote from the Mayor's statement, 19 "border war postering." 20 So with all due respect to 21 the Mayor, and I'm glad he's here 22 tonight, it seems to be that New 23 Rochelle has started this process at 24 the very early stages before any 25 environmental impact statement or Page 61 1 any draft has been prepared with the 2 approach that the project is 3 inevitable despite the concerns of 4 not only the residents of New 5 Rochelle, including those whose 6 homes will be taken under the power 7 of eminent domain for the benefit of 8 a private corporation, but despite 9 the concerns of the residents of the 10 Town of Mamaroneck having already 11 issued a statement that makes it 12 appear that the City has decided 13 that the affects that will be 14 imposed on all of us, including the 15 traffic, are not worthy of further 16 consideration. 17 So let me just talk very 18 briefly about the traffic. There 19 are estimated to be 600 cars per 20 hour entering IKEA's parking lot on 21 a Saturday. Common sense tells you 22 that those cars will not all be 23 coming on 1-95 from the south, from 24 Manhattan or the Bronx, let's say, 25 and exiting on exit 17, that is not Page 62 1 on our local roads. Common sense 2 tells you that a large percentage of 3 the 600 cars coming out and the 600 4 cars coming in per hour will be 5 coming from Connecticut and 6 throughout Westchester County. 7 They'll be coming on Weaver Street, 8 if they are coming from Connecticut 9 and exiting at exit 18, they'll be 10 coming on Chatsworth and at Palmer 11 taking the turn to go towards IKEA. 12 And if they are coming from 13 Westchester County and coming down 14 Pine Brook or Weaver, they'll be 15 going eventually on all the local 16 streets where our children play and 43 March 1, 2000 17 go to school, including Murray 18 Avenue. We've had speakers here who 19 live right on Murray Avenue, posing 20 not just the threat of the welfare 21 of the children but a threat to our 22 environment and the noise and the 23 quality of life that we all treasure 24 in our community. 25 So I said I'd be brief and Page 63 1 I'm finished. I think the local law 2 that's been proposed is an excellent 3 one. I think it's time that the 4 Town of Mamaroneck stand up and 5 assert its right to express its 6 concerns and that the City of New 7 Rochelle's view, apparent view that 8 this project is inevitable be 9 brought to a halt. Thank you. 10 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Ms. 11 Barbara Winter. 12 MS. WINTER: Hi, my name is 13 Barbara Winter, I live at 25 14 Stuyvesant Avenue. I'm here after a 15 long day of work. I'm missing 16 putting my two kids to bed. I don't 17 like standing up in front of a group 18 of people, but I am here because 1 19 feel strongly about this issue and 1 20 wanted to give you my support. 1 21 want to say that I strongly support 22 the measure. I also support any 23 measure that we can take to work 24 together not for the financial 25 benefit of just our community, but Page 64 1 for all the communities and I hope 2 that New Rochelle will do the same. 3 1 thank you. 4 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Ms. Amy 5 Athen(ph). 6 MS. ATHEN: My name is Amy 7 Athen, I live at 5 Edgewood Avenue. 8 I've lived there for 15 years. 1 9 support everything everyone else has 10 said. And as the gentleman who 11 spoke earlier also was appalled to 12 find out there was no regional 13 planning in New York State, 1 14 assumed, of course, there would be. 15 I'm very pleased to see that the 16 Town is starting the effort to get 17 that by wanting to pass this law. 18 And I want to share with you 19 a letter that I received from Mr. 20 Cox, who's the manager of customer 21 service at IKEA of North America. 1 22 got the very same letter from IKEA 44 March 1, 2000 23 International. This was a response 24 to letters that I have written to 25 them expressing my concerns as a Page 65 1 resident of Larchmont for the 2 traffic and also my concerns for the 3 removal of all of those people from 4 their homes by eminent domain. So 5 the letter says: "We have met or 6 attempted to meet with every 7 resident, business and organization 8 directly affected by this project." 9 Well, no one has ever met 10 with me or tried to meet with me or 11 anyone on my block. My block of 12 Edgewood Avenue is a well known 13 shortcut to get from Weaver Street 14 to the Myrtle Boulevard area. And 15 if there was a store there, there 16 would be a great number of cars 17 going down my street. And the fact 18 that this letter shows that IKEA is 19 not thinking regionally the way that 20 Mamaroneck is thinking, they don't 21 realize that I, even though I said 22 so in my letter as a Larchmont 23 resident, I am going to be adversely 24 affected by this project. 25 The next paragraph is more Page 66 1 chilling, however. It says: "IKEA 2 will use its resources to help each 3 individual be better off in their 4 particular situation." Now they are 5 not talking about me because I'm not 6 going to be affected by this. They 7 are talking about people in New 8 Rochelle. And this is reading 9 between the lines here it implies to 10 me that they are going to buy off 11 people in New Rochelle. They are 12 going to use their vast economic 13 resources to make it impossible for 14 New Rochelle to say no, to make it 15 impossible for New Rochelle to 16 really think regionally. That's why 17 1 think it is so important that we 18 have to pass this law to help New 19 Rochelle when maybe it can't 20 financially think regionally and 21 think responsibly for all the 22 communities in the neighborhood. So 23 thank you. 24 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Mr. Ned 25 Bentin(ph). Page 67 45 March 1, 2000 1 MR. BENTIN: Thank you. I'm 2 Ned Bentin, 149 Beach Avenue in 3 Larchmont. And I also come to you 4 as one of the Village trustees in 5 Larchmont and I appreciate the 6 opportunity to see you tonight in 7 this setting on this most important 8 question. 9 Each generation has a duty to 10 make our community better, to leave 11 our community better when we pass it 12 on to future generations. And in 13 each generation there comes a time 14 when we have to make major decisions 15 about problems that can have 16 historic impacts and they are the 17 kinds of impacts that I associate 18 with the affects of the Thruway 19 coming through this area and other 20 kinds of historic major events that 21 happen in other communties. 22 And I think that the IKEA 23 project presented to us and 24 presented to our generation, this 25 kind of challenge and this kind of Page 68 1 decision, I don't think that New 2 Rochelle and I don't think that 3 Mamaroneck and I don't think that 4 Larchmont will ever be the same if 5 this project proceeds as we envision 6 it to proceed and as it appears to 7 be proposed to proceed. It's going 8 to affect the character of all of 9 our communities. It's going to 10 affect the health and quality of our 11 environment in each of our 12 communities and in the region. 13 1 think that the Town Council 14 is to be commended for seeking a 15 solution to this border impact 16 problem. I appreciate the 17 invitation by New Rochelle that the 18 leadership in Mamaroneck and 1 19 assume perhaps the leadership in 20 Larchmont participate in 21 deliberations about this project 22 that would take place in New 23 Rochelle. 24 However, my concern, and it's 25 a concern which I think is central Page 69 1 to the question that you've asked 2 this evening, is whether it is 3 appropriate that if we are inquiring 4 about an impact which is taking 5 place here, taking place in the Town 46 March 1, 2000 6 of Mamaroneck, taking place in 7 Larchmont, why should we be 8 deliberating about that impact and 9 seeding the decision about that 10 impact to another jurisdiction? I 11 think the question might be framed 12 this way, would New Rochelle be 13 willing to subject this project and 14 the decision-making about this 15 project and the assessment of its 16 impact, would they be willing to 17 subject that decision-making to our 18 jurisdiction, particularly with 19 respect to the impacts that are 20 going to take place in our 21 jurisdiction, the impacts on 22 traffic; the impacts on noise; the 23 impacts on air quality; the impacts 24 on our sewer systems; the impact on 25 our storm water systems; the impact Page 70 1 on the quality of the water in the 2 Sound. So many different impacts, 3 social impacts, the environmental 4 impacts. 5 Would they be willing to 6 allow our Coastal Zone Management 7 Commission hear where the problem is 8 going to actually affect us here? 9 Would they be willing to allow our 10 Coastal Zone Management Commission 11 to hear about this project and to 12 render a ruling about the impacts of 13 this project on us, a ruling that 14 would determine whether or not they 15 can go forward? Thank you. 16 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Chris 17 Bordeaux(ph). 18 MR. BORDEAUX: My name is 19 Chris Bordeaux, I live on Lafayette 20 Road in Larchmont. Unlike Edgewood 21 people just think Lafayette Road is 22 a shortcut over to New Rochelle, but 23 it is a dead end. We get around ten 24 to 20 cars a day screeching to a 25 halt when they realize you cannot Page 71 1 get to Fifth Avenue that way. Like 2 Scott Stefl spoke earlier, I also 3 question some of the figures that 4 New Rochelle is using in its own 5 assumption and in its own P.R. work 6 in connection with this project, how 7 much property taxes are they losing 8 by getting rid of all of these homes 9 or businesses that are there right 10 now. Have they quantified it and 11 have they discussed it, have they 47 March 1, 2000 12 discussed the cost in widening Fifth 13 Avenue to a four-lane road. I don't 14 care what anyone says, that will 15 have to be done eventually if they 16 are going to put IKEA down there. 17 Have they discussed the extra cost 18 of police protection in that area. 19 Like Scott I question those things. 20 1 haven't seen any evidence that has 21 been in the open discussion of the 22 project in New Rochelle. 23 Like many of the speakers 24 previously I question some of the 25 things regarding the blight study as Page 72 1 people who've known this area 2 realize they are certainly a lot of, 3 1 guess what you would call areas 4 that are less than attractive, along 5 many of the parts of 95 and also 6 sort of right next to Metro North 7 Railroad in much of New Rochelle. 8 Where is the declaring of an area 9 like this blighted? Well, it's not. 10 Using the same standards that we 11 were using the blight study for City 12 Park, many of those areas in New 13 Rochelle using the same logic. 14 Where does that stop? If the City 15 Council thinks that things like 16 places where the school buses are 17 parked are a blighted landscape or 18 what do they think of a 1200 car 19 parking lot. 20 There is a empty 21 Bloomingdale's that sat in New 22 Rochelle for many years. Seems like 23 a likely alternative for an IKEA 24 store to me. Like Mr. Byrich spoke 25 earlier, I've been in the traffic in Page 73 1 Elizabeth going to the IKEA in New 2 Jersey. There is not a residential 3 area issue down there. It's 4 actually a perfect location for 5 IKEA. There is no residence any 6 where near there. But anyway, when 7 you get off the exit, when you go 8 down the service road, you're 9 waiting at a red light -- left turn 10 light for an awfully long time. 11 There's awfully a lot of cars that 12 are going in that place. That's 13 going to be the same here on any 14 street immediately close to the 15 store, no matter what the Mayor 16 tells us. 17 Our Town could certainly take 48 March 1, 2000 18 cheap shots and do nasty little 19 things if this IKEA project gets put 20 in there. We could put on Town 21 land, we could put in there some 22 nice little tall signs by the 23 Mamaroneck Avenue exit and say IKEA, 24 North Avenue exit. We can put a 25 sign on Town land on Weaver Street Page 74 1 up near Quaker Ridge saying IKEA, 2 turn right at Quaker Ridge and go 3 down Pine Brook. You know, take 4 little cheap shots like that. We 5 could, now on Fifth Avenue, declare 6 it buses only because it's County 7 --(inaudible). But I think the 8 better idea is obviously to try to 9 work with our neighboring district 10 and encourage them to use some other 11 more likely regional planning 12 concept and scrape this idea all 13 together. This law that's being 14 proposed here, I think it's a good 15 one, it's an interesting one. Don't 16 know if it will stand up to a 17 challenge. 18 Obviously there is a question 19 there. It forces New Rochelle to 20 hopefully think about it a little 21 more. Maybe it's going to elevate 22 with discussions with the State 23 level, maybe it will elevate to a 24 State lawsuit of some kind. I think 25 another suggestion which also is Page 75 1 less of an appearance of the 2 self-interested law and more of a 3 high road type of law could we work 4 with some of the State legislators 5 and propose a broad state law that 6 just says for every municipality in 7 the entire State, any use of eminent 8 domain laws for something that is 9 not a public infrastructure project 10 requires a public referendum in all 11 of the affected areas and that could 12 be a broad State law. It could be 13 taking a high road and I think it 14 would not be as challengeable as 15 something as obviously that the Town 16 of Mamaroneck's interest associated 17 with. Nonetheless, I do support the 18 law, hope it passes, hope it creates 19 some challenges, hope we get a good 20 discussion going and I hope this 21 IKEA never occurs in this area. 22 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Eileen 23 Portnoy? 49 March 1, 2000 24 MS. PORTNOY: I support the 25 law. That's all. Page 76 1 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Mr. 2 Portnoy? 3 MR. PORTNOY: I really have 4 decided not to speak because I would 5 just be reiterating. 6 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Does 7 Ms. Portnoy want to speak? No. 8 MS. PORTNOY: No, thank you. 9 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Mr. 10 Doug Cahn(ph). 11 MR. CAHN: Good evening, my 12 name is Doug Cahn. I live at 21 13 Pryer Manor Road. I have one thing 14 that seems a little different, well, 15 a couple of things different from 16 what other people have said so far. 17 Although after hearing a lot of 18 things, it's hard to be different. 19 1 actually live in Larchmont and 20 half my property is in New Rochelle. 21 So what happens in New Rochelle is 22 actually very important to me. 23 Currently I'm in the middle of about 24 14 houses being built all around me. 25 I'm in the tremendous construction Page 77 1 zone. Permits were given through 2 Larchmont, Mamaroneck and permits 3 were given through New Rochelle for 4 separate properties. That being 5 said, I am in favor of this piece of 6 legislation. I'm extremely opposed 7 to the IKEA issue. 8 And one thing that hasn't 9 been mentioned, I've been at the 10 store in Hicksville and I believe 11 the road in front of that store has 12 about 12 lanes, five going in each 13 direction and still, for about three 14 quarters of a mile to the highway to 15 the Northern State Long Island 16 Expressway, there's maybe 20, 30, 40 17 minute traffic jams every Saturday 18 and Sunday. Maybe not as much in 19 the wintertime, but certainly the 20 summer months when more people are 21 outside, it is a nightmare. If for 22 some reason you're stuck there not 23 realizing this is going to happen, 24 it happens. And I cannot imagine 25 that it would be any less in this Page 78 50 March 1, 2000 1 area where we are talking about two 2 lanes or potentially four lanes. 3 That being said, I'm opposed 4 to the use of eminent domain. It's 5 grossly unfair but I think something 6 that a few other speakers alluded 7 to, I would like to take it one step 8 further. There was talk about 9 regional planning, regional 10 discussions that should be done 11 together. I think I would ask this 12 Council to consider amending this 13 law. I like it and it's strong, but 14 1 think to take the high road, we 15 should offer sections in here that 16 say anything along the projects that 17 are here that abut two different 18 towns or two different 19 municipalities have to be part of an 20 adjoining planning team, members 21 from both communities, whether it's 22 three from each side or four or 23 five, whatever it is that a joint 24 permit has to be issued. And 1 25 would suggest that we would have to Page 79 1 put that in our legislation to cover 2 Rye and Scarsdale and New Rochelle 3 because I think what is good for one 4 should be good for everyone. 5 And that if we, as Mamaroneck 6 residents, want to take part in what 7 happens in New Rochelle, we should 8 allow New Rochelle to take part in 9 what happens on our borders. And I 10 suggest to this Council that some 11 people have alluded to this that 12 this is going to be a very difficult 13 test, this particular law, as it 14 stands. From a constitutional 15 standpoint, it's going to be real 16 difficult and it's going to be 17 extremely costal fight, which is why 18 1 suggest and I would be remiss if 19 the people from New Rochelle were 20 here would say or oppose the issue 21 of joint planning team from 22 neighboring communities for anything 23 along these lines that covers both 24 areas, because if the people from 25 New Rochelle were to say no to that, Page 80 1 then we would know they are 2 extremely unfair, uncaring and 3 unwilling to compromise or listen 4 and I suggest some sort of amendment 5 to this law along those lines. 6 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Thank 51 March 1, 2000 7 you. Sheryl Louie(ph) of the 8 Village of Larchmont. 9 MS. LOUIE: Good evening, 10 members of the Town Board, good 11 evening Mayor Idoni. I arrived 12 later this evening because I was in 13 White Plains at a Pace University 14 Westchester Municipal Planning 15 Federation Meeting that was a study 16 among planners on land uses and car 17 studies. I felt that in a pursuit 18 of elected officials trying to 19 figure out how to deal with these 20 very thorning issues. We all 21 struggled with this. We have worked 22 cooperatively with the Village of 23 Larchmont with the Town of 24 Mamaroneck, with the Village of 25 Mamaroneck, with New Rochelle for Page 81 1 many, many years. I think it is 2 with sadness that we are all faced 3 with thorning problems, that the 4 systems make so difficult to solve 5 to meet everybody's needs. And we 6 have been working, our Board with 7 the Town of Mamaroneck, very 8 closely. 9 On this particular issue, our 10 concerns is traffic and environment, 11 water drainage issues, noise, 12 quality of life, all the things you 13 so eloquently heard from the time 1 14 arrived this evening described 15 affect all of us as we live in our 16 homes and our small communities. 17 New Rochelle definitely has needs. 18 They are a City and they have their 19 own perspectives. The Town has 20 their own perspectives. The Village 21 does. We share many of them in 22 common. And so I think that this is 23 just a glaring example, as you just 24 heard from Doug, of how the system 25 just doesn't suit what modern day, Page 82 1 technology and commerce and 2 government needs to solve these 3 problems. 4 And so the law that you have 5 before you is one way to go at it. 6 We are all working for regional 7 solutions and I totally support that 8 hopefully by working together we can 9 work with New Rochelle to address 10 all of these concerns and come to 11 the proper solution. It's been a 12 long night, and I'm going to stop 52 March 1, 2000 13 here because many of the issues have 14 been laid out, but the Village Board 15 has been working on this diligently 16 as you have. We've been working 17 with all of our citizens and I guess 18 1 really want to commend everybody 19 for the very --the manner in which 20 people have chosen to speak to do 21 their research and to educate 22 themselves because it's through that 23 level of education understanding all 24 of the facts and the real 25 implications of the kinds of studies Page 83 1 that need to be done that are still 2 going to be done and analyzing that 3 data which will prepare us with 4 facts. 5 One of things that I did 6 learn at the meeting tonight from 7 the planning experts in White Plains 8 was that it's the facts that will 9 take us to the right answers and 10 it's the facts that will come out of 11 all the studies that are being done 12 through the SEQRA process, through 13 all the other questions that are 14 being raised that hopefully will 15 determine for everybody, both the 16 City Council for New Rochelle and 17 all the folks that are so concerned, 18 including our Board, what the right 19 answers should be, because facts and 20 truth really take you, I have found 21 in my working in government, to the 22 logical conclusion. Because it then 23 becomes simple, when you understand 24 what happens, if it will choke our 25 roads to have this project in that Page 84 1 location, that makes no sense. If 2 we are going to flood downstream, 3 that makes no sense. On the other 4 hand, if they are other things that 5 come out of it, then I think we 6 would all be adult and work with 7 those, too. But I encourage and 8 know that we will pursue the right 9 facts that will take us to the right 10 conclusion. Thank you, everyone. 11 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: We are 12 at the end of our speakers list. 13 Yes, sir. 14 MR. PALERMO: I have one more 15 comment. 16 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Wait a 17 second. I think we have come to the 18 end of our list of speakers. 1 53 March 1, 2000 19 don't know whether the Council wants 20 to entertain a second round of 21 speakers or not, sir. 22 MR. PALERMO: I will make it 23 very brief. I received the same 24 letter from IKEA that the woman 25 mentioned that she received. Again, Page 85 1 in that letter they say we did not 2 approach Mamaroneck or New Rochelle 3 to build this store in this place 4 New Rochelle approached us and asked 5 us to do this. 6 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: That 7 was Mr. Palermo. Do any of the 8 Council members have any comments 9 before we close the Public Hearing? 10 And if not, does anyone want to move 11 to close the Public Hearing? 12 MR. ALTIERI: I will. 13 MR. ODIERNA: I was just 14 going to move to close the Public 15 Hearing. 16 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Mr. 17 Odierna moves to close the Public 18 Hearing. 19 MS. WITTNER: Second. 20 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Ms. 21 Wittner seconds that motion. Let's 22 call the roll, madam clerk. 23 MS. DICIOCCIO: Ms. Seligson? 24 MS. SELIGSON: Aye. 25 MS. DICIOCCIO: Mr. Odierna? Page 86 1 MR. ODIERNA: Aye. 2 MS. DICIOCCIO: Ms. Myers? 3 MS. MYERS: Aye. 4 MS. DICIOCCIO: Ms. Wittner? 5 MS. WITTNER: Aye. 6 MS. DICIOCCIO: Ms. O'Keeffe? 7 CHAIRWOMAN O'KEEFFE: Aye. 8 Thank you very much for your 9 courtesy and your patience here 10 tonight. We will listen carefully 11 to what all of you have said. We 12 have the stenographer taking all of 13 your comments down. We will have an 14 opportunity to review those comments 15 before we take any action with 16 respect to this local law. Thank 17 you very much. Page 87 1 2 3 54 March 1, 2000 4 5 CERTIFICATION 6 7 8 Certified to be a true and accurate 9 transcript of the aforesaid proceeding. 10 11 12 13 14 15 Barbara Terranova, Reporter 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 55