HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000_04_12 Town Board Minutes MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TOWN BOARD
OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD ON APRIL 12, 2000
AT 6:15 PM IN CONFERENCE ROOM A 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
Councilwoman Nancy Seligson
ABSENT: Councilman Ernest C. Odierna
ALSO PRESENT:
Patricia A. DiCioccio, Town Clerk
Stephen V. Altieri, Town Administrator
Charlene Indelicato, Town Attorney
ALSO PRESENT:
Robert Spolzino, Special Town Counsel
The Supervisor convened the special meeting of the Town Board at 6:15 P.M.
Supervisor O'Keeffe and all Board members then gave statements regarding the
proposed local law allowing review of projects within a certain distance of the Town and
creating a large impact on the Town.
Stenographers verbatim transcript attached.
2. Authorization - Consultant Services - Courtroom Lighting
The Administrator said funds had been appropriated in the current budget for changing
the lights in the Court Room, and proposals were solicited to prepare the specifications
for the project. There were two received:
Lightech Resources - $6500
Stamford, CT
Goldstick Lighting Design - $3700
White Plains, NY
April 12, 2000
He said the proposal scope was to design a new lighting scheme for the courtroom,
which will include drawings for review, as well as alternative designs.
On motion of Councilwoman Myers, seconded by Councilwoman Seligson, it was
RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby award the
contract for a new lighting design for the Town Court to
Goldstick Lighting Design, White Plains, NY who
submitted the lowest proposal bid in the amount of$3700;
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Administrator is hereby
authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of
the Town.
Seligson - Aye
Myers - Aye
Wittner - Aye
O'Keeffe - Aye
ADDED ITEM
Authorization - Pryor Manor Marsh
Mr. Altieri said as part of the Pryor Manor Marsh restoration, it is necessary for the
Town to survey the parcels and the work area included in the project. The proposals
received for surveying services were from:
Karl Knoecklin L.S.P.C. - $8,600
Aristotle Boumazos Surveying - $17,240
Chas Sells Inc. - $24,300
Funds for the survey are provided through the New York State grant received by the
Town for this project. Authorization is requested to enter into a contract with Karl
Knoecklin for surveying services at the Pryor Manor Marsh at a cost not to exceed
$8,600.
Councilwoman Wittner said she was glad to see this move forward as it had taken a long
time to find someone to survey the site at a reasonable price.
On motion of Councilwoman Wittner, seconded by Councilwoman Myers, it was
RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby award the
contract for surveying Pryor Manor Marsh to Karl
Knoecklin, who submitted the lowest responsible bid in
the amount of$8600; and
BE IT FURTHER,
2
April 12, 2000
RESOLVED, that the Town Administrator is hereby
authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of
the Town.
Seligson - Aye
Myers - Aye
Wittner - Aye
O'Keeffe - Aye
Supervisor O'Keeffe thanked everyone who had attended this special meeting, and also
thanked County Legislators Latimer and Noto who had been helpful, as well as
supportive of regional planning. She said she had invited Senator Oppenheimer and
Assemblyman Tocci to the next Town meeting to state their position on this matter.
ADJOURNMENT
On motion made and seconded the meeting was adjourned at 6:55 PM
Submitted by
Patricia A. DiCioccio, Town Clerk
\\CLERKSERVER\SERVER\Documents\Minutes\2000minf\04-12-00specialx.doc
3
April 12, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING; LOCAL LAW AMENDMENT
TO THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK - IMPACTS
OF MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
740 West Boston Post Road
Mamaroneck, New York 10543
April 12, 2000
6:15 p.m.
TERRANOVA, KAZAZES &ASSOCIATES, LTD
Stephanie Poli, Reporter
49 Eighth Street
New Rochelle, New York 10801
(914) 576-7431
Pagel
1
2 APPEARANCES :
3
4
5 VALERIE M. O'KEEFFE, Supervisor
6 NANCY SELIGSON, Councilwoman
7 JUDITH A. MYERS, Councilwoman
8 PHYLLIS WITTNER, Councilwoman
9 ERNEST C. ODIERNA, Councilman NOT PRESENT
10 CHARLENE INDELICATO, Town Counsel NOT PRESENT
11 STEPHEN V. ALTIERI, Administrator
12 PATRICIA A. DICIOCCIO, Town Clerk
13 ROBERT SPOSINO, Special Town Counsel
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 2
1
2 MS. O'KEEFFE: Okay. Ladies
3 and gentlemen, welcome to the Town
4 Center, Town of Mamaroneck, Town
5 Board Meeting, Wednesday April 12,
6 2000. On our agenda tonight, the
7 first thing we have on our agenda is
8 consideration for the Local Law
9 regarding the review of local impact
10 caused by major development projects
11 amending the code of the Town of
12 Mamaroneck. We had a public hearing
13 with respect to this law several
14 weeks ago. We've heard the verbal
4
April 12, 2000
15 comments of many people who were in
16 attendance. We have also received
17 telephone calls and written
18 communications with respect to the
19 law. Virtually all these
20 communications have been in favor of
21 the law. We have made a finding of
22 that negative declaration with
23 respect to our obligation under the
24 Seeker Law. So we are now prepared
25 to vote on whether or not we want
Page 3
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 this law. I would be happy to
3 entertain a motion with respect to
4 Local Law regarding the review of
5 local Impacts caused by major
6 development projects amending the
7 code of the Town of Mamaroneck
8 amending the code by adding thereto
9 Chapter 130, entitled "Local Impact
10 Review." Is there a motion in favor
11 of passing the law?
12 MS. WITTNER: So moved.
13 MS. SELIGSON: Second.
14 MS. O'KEEFFE: Okay. So
15 moved by Councilwoman Wittner and
16 seconded by Councilwoman Seligson.
17 I'll now ask board members if they
18 have any comments before we vote.
19 MS. SELIGSON: Yes.
20 MS. O'KEEFFE: Okay.
21 Councilwoman Seligson, do you have a
22 comment?
23 MS. SELIGSON: Yes. I have
24 a statement I would like to read
25 regarding the Proposed Law. Many
Page 4
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 people in the community have spoken
3 out as Valerie mentioned about this
4 law and even people beyond the
5 community. I have personally heard
6 many negative arguments just orally
7 that weren't presented at our public
8 hearing and many from the legal
9 respective. And I just wanted to
10 say that I think it is a very
11 positive step toward reaching the
12 planning for protecting the citizens
13 of the Town of Mamaroneck.
14 Unfortunately the laws and
15 regulations of the world have yet
16 caught up with the reality of
17 development. The world is indeed a
18 different place today than it was
19 questioning "home rule" wasn't often
20 needed or necessary. Today we have
21 communities that are very built and
22 almost built out. We have
5
April 12, 2000
23 communities and municipalities that
24 effect one another in profound ways.
25 Their economies, the environment,
Page 5
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 and characters of the communities
3 are all linked and interrelated.
4 Those aspects no longer respect in
5 municipal boundaries. There is no
6 regional planning mechanism in the
7 State of New York. The Town Board
8 thinks that a proposed development
9 of its size outline of this law and
10 closer to its boundaries would have
11 a serious impact in the Town of
12 Mamaroneck. We should have the
13 right to protect our citizens from
14 the negative impacts. The Proposed
15 Law would allow the Town of
16 Mamaroneck to participate in the
17 decision-making process about the
18 development that would have
19 tremendous impact. On a large note,
20 it wouldn't just be on the Town of
21 Mamaroneck. I wanted also to point
22 out that the Town of Mamaroneck has
23 reached out to the City of New
24 Rochelle to be partners in working
25 together on regional proposed
Page 6
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 developments. All of us sitting up
3 here have worked with countless
4 people in the City of New Rochelle
5 for years and have had very good
6 relationships in working with them
7 in the past and all hope to have
8 some of the same success in working
9 together in the future to continue
10 to have a minimal and cordial
11 relationship with them right now. 1
12 definitely look forward to working
13 together in a positive fashion.
14 MS. O'KEEFFE: Thank you,
15 Councilwoman Seligson. I'm going to
16 ask our Town Clerk DiCioccio, to
17 please read into the record the
18 letter that Councilman Ernest
19 Odierna submitted to us. He is out
20 of town on business and can not get
21 a plane back from Alabama to be here
22 with us tonight. Ms. DiCioccio,
23 would you be kind enough to read Mr.
24 Odierna's statement.
25 MS. DICIOCCIO: It is
Page 7
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 addressed to the Town Supervisor.
6
April 12, 2000
3 Dear Valerie, if we were
4 deliberating sometime in the distant
5 future, like they used to do on Star
6 Trek, we could each "beam" ourselves
7 to wherever we wanted to be, arrive
8 instantly, and disturb no one in our
9 passage. With mind "melds" we, and
10 the New Rochelle City-Council, could
11 know what was on each other's minds,
12 come to a computer-aided consensus,
13 and act in concert to benefit and
14 protect out citizens. "Border
15 disputes" as we have come to know
16 them (in the 21st century here on
17 earth in New York State, in
18 Westchester County) will have been
19 relegated to, trivia quizzes and
20 academic research by historians.
21 Procedures will have long been in
22 place to solve, on a regional basis,
23 ways to bring the most good to the
24 most people, while minimizing
25 negative impacts on anyone affected.
Page 8
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 People will probably always
3 differ on how best to define and
4 accomplish desirable goals, but how
5 these determinations are made, and
6 by whom, are thought processes that
7 would have occupied the wisest and
8 most concerned planners and elected
9 officials in the early years of that
10 new millennium.
11 Since the world is not perfect
12 and we, as elected officials in the
13 Town of Mamaroneck here in the year
14 2000, without the benefit of history
15 or hindsight as to how it was
16 ultimately done, have to try our
17 best to come up with fair, workable
18 solutions that protect as best we
19 can, the interests of out citizens.
20 We need to try to balance the
21 regional gain that might result from
22 large nearby developments with the
23 anticipated pain we, and our
24 neighbors, may have to endure.
25 1 feel we would be remiss in
Page 9
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 our responsibility to those that
3 have elected us to merely accept
4 "observer status" as plans proceed
5 for major developments on our
6 borders.
7 We are all concerned with the
8 idea of"home rule." Do you mean
9 you want to tell me what I can, or
10 cannot do within my own town or
7
April 12, 2000
11 city? Who's paying the taxes and
12 who's responsible for delivering the
13 services? How can we tell a
14 neighbor's municipality they have to
15 raise a tax, knock down a house, or
16 reroute a stream? It seems to make
17 no sense. But, suppose the Town of
18 Mamaroneck, as did an upstate New
19 York farmer, decided to fertilize
20 all our green space with the stuff
21 you find in septic tanks or better
22 yet, attract a chemicals
23 manufacturer to build a sulfur
24 processing plant on our border with
25 New Rochelle. Do you think that
Page 10
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 would raise a stink?
3 The bottom lime? We could all
4 use a higher authority from
5 time-to-time, when the situation
6 gets big, or tough enough, to settle
7 disputes. My first choice would be
8 at the County level, but I could see
9 in some instances where the state,
10 or even the Federal Government could
11 need to get involved if the issues
12 were big, and complex enough.
13 If a strong county planning
14 structure existed, I don't think we
15 would need this legislation, nor do
16 1 think it would be necessary if we
17 had some form of co-lead agency
18 status with New Rochelle.
19 Since I have joined the board
20 in January of this year, this
21 subject has been of paramount
22 importance to each of us, and has
23 probably occupied more time than all
24 other issues combined, as we try to
25 come up with a meaningful and
Page 11
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 enforceable resolution of the
3 problem. We have been working on
4 county and state levels as well as
5 trying to come to some meaningful
6 arrangement with out counterparts in
7 New Rochelle. We are really trying
8 to leave no stone unturned to
9 resolve the issue amicably, while
10 doing our jobs on behalf of the
11 impacted citizens in the Town of
12 Mamaroneck.
13 If a long planned important
14 business commitment didn't
15 necessitate my being out of town, 1
16 would be casting my vote in support
17 of the addition of Chapter 130 -
18 Local Impact Review Law. Signed,
8
April 12, 2000
19 Odierna.
20 MS. O'KEEFFE: Thank you,
21 Ms. DiCioccio. Okay. Councilwoman
22 Myers, do you want to make a
23 comment?
24 MS. MYERS: Yes. Thank you.
25 This proposed Local Impacts Law is
Page 12
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 not about Ikea. It's not about New
3 Rochelle nor about Mayor Idoni.
4 It's about neighbors and the need to
5 have a voice. It's about the
6 ability to work to resolve
7 neighborly conflicts and the ability
8 to have a substantive voice in the
9 process. Without a voice, there is
10 no meaningful conflict resolution.
11 As a community leader, I have
12 learned the extreme importance of
13 conflict resolution and
14 interest-based negotiation. But,
15 clearly, none of this is possible
16 without a meaningful voice.
17 Within the Town, every attempt
18 is made to listen to both parties
19 when there is a dispute over zoning
20 requirements, dispute over signage
21 on the Boston Post Road, a dispute
22 over parking or traffic. Just 2
23 weeks ago, we listened here to our
24 neighbors in New Rochelle who need a
25 place to park to take the train to
Page 13
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 Larchmont. And we were able to
3 reach a negotiated agreement where
4 both the Town and our neighbors had
5 a voice.
6 We do not have a meaningful
7 voice when a neighboring
8 municipality threatens to negatively
9 impact the Town. While I would have
10 preferred New Rochelle or any
11 neighboring municipality to have
12 come to the Town Board when the site
13 for development of the Town's border
14 was merely a sparkle in their eye,
15 like a good neighbor, to discuss
16 their plans. I would have preferred
17 to discuss site shifts to minimize
18 impacts on the Town before any plans
19 were drawn. I would have preferred
20 having a voice to say that the Town
21 of Mamaroneck does not want to be
22 the driveway for Ikea.
23 But this did not happen.
24 Meetings have been held and more
25 offered, but the Town has only been
9
April 12, 2000
Page 14
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 offered the ability to listen and to
3 comment, but not to have a
4 substantive, meaningful voice in the
5 decision-making process relative to
6 potential impacts of this project on
7 our own Town. I support this Local
8 Impacts Law, despite my belief that
9 more is to be gained by talking than
10 litigating. And I will continue in
11 my efforts to advocate for the
12 Regional Planning that is so sorely
13 needed.
14 MS. O'KEEFFE: Thank you
15 very much, Councilwoman Myers.
16 Councilwoman Wittner, would you like
17 to say something?
18 MS. WITTNER: I certainly
19 would. I would like everyone to
20 know the extent the Town and New
21 Rochelle have worked and continue to
22 cooperate with each other.
23 The Town and New Rochelle have
24 been working together for years. 1
25 live in the Pryer Manor neighborhood
Page 15
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 which is part of the Unincorporated
3 Area of the Town of Mamaroneck that
4 abuts the City of New Rochelle, and
5 1 am very familiar with the
6 environmental issues this unique
7 area presents. I began working with
8 the New Rochelle Department of
9 Planning in the 1980s to assist and
10 provide information to their staff
11 for the section of New Rochelle's
12 proposed Local Waterfront
13 Revitalization Program dealing with
14 the Premium River-Pine Brook
15 Wetlands Complex. In subsequent
16 years when their LWRP was revisited,
17 1 met with new staff members.
18 1 have written and the Town has
19 received 5 State grants that
20 required New Rochelle and the Town
21 to work together. Each grant
22 required at a minimum a letter of
23 support from New Rochelle to
24 accompany it.
25 We functioned together with New
Page 16
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 Rochelle and 4 other municipalities
3 on Watershed Advisory Committee 5 to
4 assist the County in preparing a
5 non-point source pollution
6 management plan for Stephenson
10
April 12, 2000
7 Brook, Burling Brook, Pine Brook and
8 Larchmont Harbor.
9 When the County was unable to
10 proceed with the next watershed, the
11 Town interceded. The Town has a
12 Memorandum of Understanding with the
13 City of New Rochelle and 4 other
14 municipalities for the work to be
15 done by Westchester County for
16 Watershed Advisory Committee 4, a
17 study of the Sheldrake and
18 Mamaroneck Rivers which could
19 proceed only because the Town
20 received the grant on behalf of all
21 the municipalities.
22 In 1998, Mayor Idoni,
23 Councilwoman Christine Selin and 3
24 other leaders from New Rochelle
25 participated in Pace University's
Page 17
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 Land Use Law Center's "Community
3 Leadership Alliance Program" with
4 me, Councilwoman Nancy Seligson,
5 Town Administrator Steve Altieri,
6 then Supervisor Elaine Price, 3
7 other Town leaders and leaders
8 representing 8 additional Long
9 Island Sound Municipalities. That
10 "talking and working together"
11 experience was so successful that it
12 led to the formation of the Long
13 Island Sound Watershed
14 Intermunicipal Council or LISWIC.
15 The Council was formed to encourage
16 the 10 governments to work together
17 on achieving common goals to protect
18 the environment within the Long
19 Island Sound watershed and to
20 achieve intermunicipal cooperation.
21 The Town shouldered the
22 responsibility for the two grants
23 received by LISWIC. The other
24 governments, including New Rochelle,
25 sent letters of support for the
Page 18
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 grant applications and signed and
3 Intermunicipal Agreement to form the
4 Council.
5 Currently, Supervisor O'Keeffe,
6 Councilwoman Judy Myers and
7 Councilman Noam Bramson, of New
8 Rochelle, are participating in this
9 year's Long Island Sound Community
10 Leadership Alliance Program.
11 We do know how to talk to each
12 other. Our staff and New Rochelle's
13 began to talk about the Ikea project
14 last summer. The Mayor's offer for
11
April 12, 2000
15 "full access to staff and
16 consultants" is something we have
17 enjoyed for years. However, while
18 these people play a critical role in
19 the development of projects and
20 proposals, they are not the decision
21 makers.
22 1 am voting for this law
23 because ultimately it is my
24 responsibility to do whatever is
25 within my power to defend the
Page 19
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 health, safety and welfare of the
3 citizens of the Town of Mamaroneck
4 and to protect their physical
5 environment.
6 MS. O'KEEFFE: Thank you
7 very much, Councilwoman Wittner.
8 Six weeks ago, on March 1st, we
9 held a public hearing on the
10 proposed Local Impacts Law that is
11 before us tonight for action.
12 Before I entertain a motion -- I've
13 all ready entertained a motion with
14 respect to the proposed law, 1
15 believe that it is important to lay
16 out publicly the efforts we have
17 made over the past six weeks to
18 reach an agreement with the City of
19 New Rochelle on an appropriate role
20 for the Town Board in the IKEA
21 project review and why, now that
22 those efforts have proven to be
23 unsuccessful, I believe that we must
24 adopt the Local Impacts Law.
25 Our most recent attempts to
Page 20
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 reach out to the City of New
3 Rochelle were prompted initially by
4 the comments made by Mayor Idoni at
5 our public hearing. Although he was
6 the only person who spoke at the
7 hearing against the adoption of the
8 law, Mayor Idoni went beyond the
9 City's formal position in his
10 remarks and held out what we
11 understood to be an olive branch,
12 stating that "We (meaning the City
13 and the Town) should be partners in
14 the review."
15 Although these comments were in
16 start contrast to the unkind manner
17 in which Mayor Idoni had
18 characterized us at a press
19 conference earlier that day, we
20 welcomed the positive, forthcoming
21 attitude he expressed that evening,
22 because we have always believed that
12
April 12, 2000
23 a joint approach is the most
24 effective way to deal with the
25 serious issues presented for both
Page 21
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 the City of New Rochelle and the
3 Town of Mamaroneck by the IKEA
4 proposal. For that reason, in a
5 letter dated March 6th, 2000, we
6 requested that a meeting be arranged
7 at which Mayor Idoni and I, with our
8 respective managers and counsel,
9 could lay the groundwork for a
10 future joint meeting of the City
11 Council and Town Board for the
12 propose of adopting "an agreement
13 that would provide for a mutually
14 agreeable joint decision-making
15 process with respect to the IKEA
16 project.
17 The meeting we suggested was
18 held at New Rochelle City Hall on
19 March 20th, 2000. 1 proposed that
20 the City Council and the Town Board
21 agree to sit as co-lead agencies
22 under the New York State
23 Environmental Quality Review Act
24 (SEQRA) with respect to the impacts
25 of the project on the Town of
Page 22
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 Mamaroneck. I made this proposal
3 for the purpose of placing this
4 joint decision-making process within
5 an established legal framework.
6 Co-lead agency arrangements have
7 worked successfully elsewhere in
8 Westchester County in reviewing
9 projects having regional impacts.
10 My comments made it clear, however,
11 that the Town Board was not fixed on
12 co-lead agency status, and was open
13 to any arrangement by which the Town
14 Board had a role in the
15 decision-making process with respect
16 to the potential impacts of the
17 project on the Town of Mamaroneck.
18 Mayor Idoni rejected this request.
19 His only response was to offer to
20 allow the City's staff and
21 consultants to meet with the Town's
22 consultants to provide information
23 regarding the City's SEQRA process,
24 information to which we already
25 entitled under SEQRA and the Freedom
Page 23
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 of Information Law.
13
April 12, 2000
3 On March 21st, the City Council
4 adopted a resolution essentially
5 embodying Mayor Idoni's limited
6 offer. The resolution proposed to
7 establish "an Inter-Municipal
8 Working Group to brief the Town of
9 Mamaroneck and the Village of
10 Larchmont" during the SEQRA process
11 to be conducted by the City. The
12 resolution provided no role for the
13 Town or the Village other than as
14 the recipient of"briefings" by the
15 City.
16 "Briefings" do not make a
17 partnership, as I stated to Mayor
18 Idoni in a letter dated March 30th.
19 In fact, "briefings" provide the
20 Town with very little beyond what
21 any interested person is entitled to
22 under SEQRA. Nevertheless, on
23 behalf of the Town Board, 1
24 responded to the City Council's
25 resolution by offering the Town's
Page 24
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 participation in a "working group"
3 with respect to the IKEA project,
4 provided that the group had some
5 meaningful responsibility. 1
6 suggested a further meeting. Mayor
7 Idoni's response simply re-iterated
8 the City's offer to keep the Town
9 fully informed and assured us that
10 the City welcomes our "input and
11 comment during the review process."
12 It made no mention of any role for
13 the Town other than as a public
14 participant in the SEQRA process.
15 Although there did not seem to
16 be any doubt about the limited
17 nature of Mayor Idoni's offer, the
18 Town Board and I wanted to be
19 certain that we did not miss any
20 opportunity to resolve this matter
21 amicably with the City. So we sent
22 one more letter, on April 6th,
23 offering to meet if the City was
24 willing to discuss a decision-making
25 role for the Town Board. Mayor
Page 25
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 Idoni's response, on April 10th,
3 again allowed only for a role in
4 commenting during the process.
5 As I have repeatedly said, and
6 1 believe that I speak for the Town
7 Board on this, it is not acceptable
8 to us that the Town Board's role in
9 the review of the impacts the IKEA
10 project will have on Mamaroneck be
14
April 12, 2000
11 limited to making comments to the
12 New Rochelle City Council. Unlike
13 any other major development that has
14 been proposed in the City of New
15 Rochelle, the proposed IKEA is
16 located directly on the Town border.
17 In fact, half of Valley Place, the
18 street on which the IKEA store is to
19 be located, and onto which all of
20 the truck traffic to and from IKEA
21 will pour, is actually in the Town
22 of Mamaroneck. As a result of the
23 specific location of this project,
24 there is no question that its
25 impacts cannot be contained in the
Page 26
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 City of New Rochelle and will
3 necessarily affect the residents of
4 the Town of Mamaroneck.
5 Despite this, without co-lead
6 agency status, the review process
7 under the New York State
8 Environmental Quality Review Act
9 (SEQRA) provides no role for the
10 Town in the decision as to whether
11 the project goes forward and, if so,
12 in what form. It simply allows the
13 Town to comment on the environmental
14 review process only in the same
15 manner as any other member of the
16 public. Mayor Idoni's offer of
17 "briefings" does very little more
18 for us than this. Other communities
19 that have relied on SEQRA for
20 example, the Town of Greenburgh and
21 the City of Rye) have found it
22 insufficient to protect the
23 interests of their residents. We
24 believe that the Town Board's
25 responsibility to protect the
Page 27
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 health, safety and welfare of
3 Mamaroneck's residents requires a
4 more substantive role in the process
5 than this. Unfortunately, the City
6 of New Rochelle has rejected our
7 proposals to agree on an appropriate
8 role for the Town Board.
9 If we are to satisfy our
10 responsibilities to the residents of
11 the Town of Mamaroneck, we cannot
12 sit by as spectators while the City
13 of New Rochelle, City of New
14 Rochelle Council makes a decision
15 that will significantly, and
16 possibly, detrimentally, affect the
17 Town's future for many years to
18 come. Realistically, the City's
15
April 12, 2000
19 decision with respect to IKEA will
20 turn on factors other than the
21 impacts of the proposed project on
22 the Town of Mamaroneck. It is out
23 role to ensure that the decisions
24 that will be made in the planning
25 process adequately address the
Page 28
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 impacts on the residents of the Town
3 of Mamaroneck.
4 The proposed Local Impact Law
5 is a careful approach to this
6 problem. Contrary to the manner in
7 which it has been characterized by
8 its opponents, the proposed law does
9 not subject every development
10 proposal on our border to review by
11 Mamaroneck. It applies only to very
12 significant projects located on the
13 Town's border, presumably the
14 projects that would have undeniable
15 impacts on the Town. In addition,
16 the Board's role in the review
17 process is not unlimited. Rather,
18 it is specifically confined under
19 the law to consideration of the
20 impacts on Mamaroneck. Moreover,
21 the requirements of the law are
22 satisfied when the Town Board
23 determines that the impacts on the
24 law have been mitigated to the
25 extent possible. Thus, the law will
Page 29
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 not deprive the Town Board's
3 authority to protect the residents
4 of the Town from the potential
5 impacts of those proposals. If the
6 proposed IKEA project extended
7 twenty feet to the north, there
8 would be no question as to the
9 Town's role in the process. The
10 difference of that twenty feet will
11 not measurably reduce the impacts on
12 the Town. The Town's role in the
13 process similarly should not be
14 limited.
15 The proposed Local Impacts Law
16 is unquestionably a novel approach
17 to the problem with which the IKEA
18 proposal has presented us. There
19 are, however, provisions in the
20 constitution and laws of the State
21 of New York that provide substantial
22 support for such an approach. In
23 addition, there is an increasing
24 recognition that "home rule" is an
25 anachronism that provides an
16
April 12, 2000
Page 30
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 entirely inadequate approach to
3 major planning decisions like those
4 presented by the IKEA proposal.
5 Perhaps for this reason, there have
6 been several situations in recent
7 years in which the regional impacts
8 of a project have prompted a
9 regional decision-making approach,
10 most recently in a dispute between
11 the City of New York and an upstate
12 town with respect to the impacts of
13 a proposed development on the city's
14 water supply.
15 Based upon these examples and
16 the advice of our counsel, I believe
17 that the law is a defensible
18 exercise of the Town Board's power
19 to protect its residents and their
20 physical environment. I was not
21 aware at the time of the public
22 hearing of any direct authority to
23 the contrary, and none has been
24 brought to my attention in the six
25 weeks since the public hearing was
Page 31
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 held. Obviously, it is not my
3 intention to vote for anything that
4 is clearly beyond the authority of
5 the Town Board. Nevertheless, 1
6 believe that it is our duty to the
7 residents of the Town of Mamaroneck
8 requires that we resolve any doubt
9 in favor or taking every action
10 reasonably possible to ensure that
11 their health, safety and welfare is
12 protected. That is all we would be
13 doing here. I will vote for the
14 Local Impacts Law. Is there any
15 other comments by the members of the
16 board? We will now take a vote.
17 Let's call the role.
18 MS. DICIOCCIO: Seligson.
19 MS. SELIGSON: Aye.
20 MS. DICIOCCIO: Myers.
21 MS. MYERS: Aye.
22 MS. DICIOCCIO: Wittner.
23 MS. WITTNER: Yes.
24 MS. DICIOCCIO: O'Keeffe.
25 MS. O'KEEFFE: Aye. Okay.
Page 32
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 Thank you very much. We now have a
3 new law, Local Law Number of the
4 year 2000. We now have a few other
5 items on our agenda and it will be
6 very short.
17
April 12, 2000
7 MS. MYERS: We want at this
8 point to ask our attorney just to --
9 in English, in layman's terms, to
10 describe exactly how this law
11 impacts?
12 MS. O'KEEFFE: Okay. If you
13 would like. Mr. Sposino is our
14 Special Counsel and he can do that.
15 If you want to talk in simple talk,
16 what does the law do?
17 MS. SPOSINO: The law simply
18 requires that the proposed
19 developer, proposed project, Ikea,
20 or any other project that is similar
21 and meets the criteria of the law
22 come before the Town Board and
23 address the impacts of the project
24 of the Town of Mamaroneck and
25 explain how they're going to
Page 33
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 litigate and satisfy the Town Board
3 that they're doing everything that
4 is possible to mitigate those
5 impacts.
6 MS. MYERS: Which? I think
7 it's important to specify which? Do
8 you want to develop --
9 MS. O'KEEFFE: What is the
10 criteria? I think that's --
11 MR. SPOSINO: In order for a
12 permit to require, a project must
13 involve -- it has to be --there's a
14 scope help. There has to be a major
15 project. It has to be defined,
16 involving construction of 250 or
17 more residential units or the
18 physical alteration of 10 acres or
19 more or the construction of a
20 facility with more than 100,000
21 square feet of gross floor area or
22 involving parking for more than
23 1,0000 vehicles. So there is a
24 scope. There has to be a large
25 scope and it has to meet a
Page 34
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 requirement for location. Which is
3 that it has to abut, adjoin, be
4 adjacent to or touch a town street
5 within or upon the border of the
6 Town. There are those two
7 requirements in order for the law to
8 even apply to the particular
9 development.
10 MS. O'KEEFFE: I think
11 Councilwoman Myers asked the
12 question, to whom does it apply?
13 Does it apply to the municipality or
14 does it apply to the developer?
18
April 12, 2000
15 MR. SPOSINO: It applies to
16 the developer. It doesn't require
17 the municipality to do anything. It
18 requires the developer to come
19 before the Town Board and establish
20 that they have status and that they
21 mitigated their impact on the Town
22 of Mamaroneck.
23 MS. MYERS: I think this is
24 an important piece of it because 1
25 think it has been misunderstood in
Page 35
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 discussions throughout the community
3 and discussions even passed that
4 this is a law specifically to a
5 developer with regard to the need
6 for a permit.
7 MS. O'KEEFFE: Well, it is.
8 MS. SELIGSON: You mean
9 municipality?
10 MS. MYERS: No, strictly
11 developer.
12 MS. O'KEEFFE: Thank you,
13 Judy, thank you, Bob. Item number
14 two on the agenda.
15 MR. ALTIERI: The Board has
16 before them a memorandum requesting
17 authorization and a consulting
18 agreement for consultant services to
19 revise the lighting in the
20 courtroom. This is something that
21 the board has been talking about for
22 sometime. The proposal is submitted
23 with the call for the provision of
24 specifications and review of the law
25 of the calculations for the lighting
Page 36
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 as required presentation of the
3 design of the Town Board for review
4 received bids and overside the
5 installations. Two proposals were
6 submitted. One from Light Tech.,
7 Stamford, Connecticut and the other
8 from Goldstick(ph) Lighting Design
9 in White Plains, New York. The low
10 bid was submitted by Goldstick
11 Lightning Design. The cost not to
12 exceed $3,700 or for consulting work
13 described in the proposal.
14 MS. SELIGSON: How long will
15 it take to do these?
16 MR. ALTIERI: We are hoping
17 roughly six weeks. The bids have to
18 work.
19 MS. SELIGSON: And how much
20 was put into the budget consulting
21 services.
22 MR. ALTIERI: Well, the
19
April 12, 2000
23 total project for the lighting 1
24 believe is $25,000.
25 MS. SELIGSON: And can they
Page 37
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 make us look better?
3 MS. O'KEEFFE: We will see.
4 MR. ALTIERI: You'll get to
5 decide that.
6 MS. O'KEEFFE: I'm in favor.
7 I've been waiting six years to get
8 better lighting. This is a
9 consulting agreement service, tell
10 us how to get new lights?
11 MS. ALTIERI: Types of
12 lighting, the mechanism, how to
13 install them, how to hang them from
14 the roof. Obviously, you have to go
15 into the roof to make sure we can
16 use the same hang system because at
17 this point we know we will use some
18 form of a down light which means it
19 may change the mechanism of the way
20 they hang the light.
21 MS. WITTNER: I do have a
22 question. What do you find
23 difficult about this lighting, is it
24 merely a wonderful shade or is that
25 you can't see?
Page 38
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 MS. DICIOCCIO: You can't
3 see. It's really hard to keep up
4 with what you're doing in this
5 light.
6 MS. O'KEEFFE: I sat here at
7 the planning board and the zoning
8 board this year and the people out
9 there looked at the blueprints, they
10 can't see detail and it gets
11 exhausting. There is this gray
12 uneven light and the people become
13 not alert, if I can say that. It's
14 kind of soferific(ph) it doesn't
15 keep you on your toes and you are
16 being put to sleep. Would anybody
17 like to make any more comments on
18 this proposed consultant agreement.
19 Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion.
20 MS. MYERS: I would like to
21 move that we authorize Goldstick
22 Lighting Design in White Plains, New
23 York to provide a consultant surface
24 to the Town for courtroom lighting.
25 MS. O'KEEFFE: Is there a
Page 39
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 second?
20
April 12, 2000
3 MS. SELIGSON: Second.
4 MS. O'KEEFFE: Let's call
5 the role, please.
6 MS. DICIOCCIO: Seligson.
7 MS. SELIGSON: Yes.
8 MS. DICIOCCIO: Myers.
9 MS. MYERS: Aye.
10 MS. DICIOCCIO: Wittner.
11 MS. WITTNER: Yes.
12 MS. DICIOCCIO: O'Keeffe.
13 MS. O'KEEFFE: Yes. Let
14 there be light. Okay. Now, we have
15 one more item on the agenda Pryer
16 Manor March(ph) Authorization for
17 the surveying services. Steve.
18 MS. ALTIERI: The Pryer
19 Manor March project for which the
20 Town had received a grant requires
21 us to do the survey work before the
22 project. Below three proposal
23 received for surveys the lowest bids
24 obviously submitted by Carl
25 MacLachlan of New York City to do
Page 40
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 the work $8,600. The funds would be
3 provided through the grant and so
4 again authorizations is requested to
5 proceed with --
6 MS. O'KEEFFE: We are the
7 lead agency here. So the money
8 comes from the grant. We just --
9 MS. SELIGSON: Facilitate.
10 WITTNER: The projects can
11 not go forward without the survey.
12 So it's taking a long time to get
13 somebody who could come up with a
14 reasonable price.
15 MS. O'KEEFFE: This seems
16 reasonable.
17 MS. SELIGSON: I had just
18 mentioned that earlier and 1
19 wondered what the delay was; the
20 pricing?
21 MS. WITTNER: We couldn't
22 get the surveys to --this will help
23 us determine the amount of, I'll
24 call it engineering, that has to
25 occur in order to restore the title
Page 41
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 aspect of this wetland. So
3 therefore I will move it.
4 MS. MYERS: I will second
5 it.
6 MS. O'KEEFFE: Let's call
7 the roll, please.
8 MS. DICIOCCIO: Seligson.
9 MS. SELIGSON: Aye.
10 MS. DICIOCCIO: Myers.
21
April 12, 2000
11 MS. MYERS: Aye.
12 MS. DICIOCCIO: Wittner.
13 MS. WITTNER: Aye.
14 MS. DICIOCCIO: O'Keeffe.
15 MS. O'KEEFFE: Aye. I would
16 like to report on -- have any of you
17 read today in the local newspaper on
18 the front page of which was a map of
19 concentration incident of breast
20 cancer in Westchester County and in
21 Putnam County. Mr. Altieri pointed
22 out to me that the map on the front
23 didn't necessarily jibe with the
24 statistics that are provided by the
25 State Department of Health on the
Page 42
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 second page. However, it does
3 appear that 10538 zip code the map
4 is accurate and does reflect the
5 statistical information that the
6 Health Department has developed with
7 respect to the breast cancer in New
8 York State. I have drafted a letter
9 to Dr. Antonio Davela(ph) who is the
10 commissioner of health in New York
11 State to see --to follow-up to see
12 what this means, what we could do
13 about it, and how we can be of help
14 to the municipality to our residents
15 who has concerns about this.
16 Strangely enough, there is no -- 1
17 don't want anybody to jump in to
18 conclude or panic by this. We don't
19 know if there is any cause and
20 effect at all environmental. It
21 could be all kinds of things that
22 virtually have nothing to do with
23 where people live. It may be
24 coincidental, it may be genetic. We
25 don't know at this point. I will
Page 43
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 keep everyone informed on that. 1
3 just thought I would bring that up.
4 1 don't know what the board thinks
5 of this. I would like to thank you
6 all the board members for being so
7 diligent and doing there diligences
8 and studying the affects of this
9 Local Law. We have been very
10 serious. We've met with our Counsel
11 Mr. Sposino. Town Administrator
12 Altieri has been very attentive to
13 our concerns and that we haven't
14 been frivolous reactive in passing
15 this law. We really take in all the
16 concerns and voice to us by members
17 of the community on both in our
18 jurisdiction and outside. We are
22
April 12, 2000
19 very serious. We don't do this in a
20 light way but we seek no alternative
21 given the weakness in the Seeker Law
22 in New York State to have a
23 meaningful voice as Councilwoman
24 Myers said in the process doesn't
25 seem to be given to us under the
Page 44
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 Seeker Rule so we think there is a
3 reasonable chance of this law being
4 upheld. We never know of a law can
5 be upheld. We don't know that. We
6 don't have the eyes of God. We
7 don't know what's going to happen.
8 1 don't think any of us frivolously
9 grandstand or passed the law thought
10 that there is a chance whatsoever of
11 being constitutional. So that's
12 that. And I would also like do say,
13 1 would like to thank both County
14 Legislator George Latimer, he has
15 been very helpful of the County
16 level to try to help us get to
17 speak to the County Planing Board
18 and also being very proactive with
19 respect to the studying some kind of
20 regional planning mechanism that
21 would be available in the County of
22 Westchester and also County
23 Legislator Paul Noto who is a
24 minority leader. We will be the
25 visiting the County Legislator some
Page 45
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 time in May. We are going to have a
3 hearing on a regional plan. I would
4 also like to call upon our State
5 Legislator who I written to both
6 Suzi Oppenheimer and Ron Tocci to
7 introduce some kind of legislation
8 that would enable us to make use of
9 some kind of regional planning
10 mechanism to avoid the kind of so
11 called "border wars." I would like
12 to invite the State Senator
13 Oppenheimer and Senator Tocci to
14 come to our next meeting on the 26th
15 and their convenience to tell us
16 where they stand on this matter.
17 Because it would be very helpful to
18 us as a municipality to know that we
19 had their backing on our efforts.
20 Are there any other Councilpersons
21 that would like to make comments
22 before we adjourn? Okay. Our next
23 meeting will be April 26th, 8:15 in
24 the courtroom here. And we want to
25 thank you all and who is here in
23
April 12, 2000
Page 46
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 person for coming and also anybody
3 who is out there in TV land. Thank
4 you. Adjournment at 6:52. 1 would
5 need a motion to adjourn.
6 MS. MYERS: So moved.
7 MS. WITTNER: Second.
8 MS. O'KEEFFE: All in favor.
9 ALL: Aye.
10 MS. O'KEEFFE: Thank you to
11 the Town Clerk for being so alert in
12 reading the letter from Mr. Odierna.
13 (Time noted is 6:52 p.m.)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 47
1 PROCEEDINGS
2
3
4
5 CERTIFICATION
6
7
8 Certified to be a true and accurate
9 transcript of the aforesaid proceeding.
10
11
12
13
14 Stephanie Poli, Reporter
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 48
24
April 12, 2000
\\CLERKSERVER\SERVER\Documents\Minutes\2000minf\04-12-00specialx.doc
25