Motorcyclists Injured in Accident on Cent Westchester Parkway.

Hits: 0

WPCNR POLICE GAZETTE. October 4, 2006: White Plains Deputy Commissioner of Public Safety, Daniel Jackson said today that two motorcyclists collided into the back of a stuck truck which had wedged itself under the footbridge crossing southbound on the Central Westchester Parkway at about noon today. The two cyclists were injured and hospitalized. One of the cyclists from Port Chester, Jackson said was “in bad shape.” Presently G.W. Parkway southbound is closed, Jackson said police expected to have it open by evening.

Posted in Uncategorized

Proposed Timetable for NYPH Subdivision.

Hits: 0

WPCNR FOR THE RECORD. October 4, 2006: In the Common Council backup material supplied with the Memorandum of Understanding, there is an Exhibit B which is a timeline by which, if the Council and the Mayor can work out differences over questions on the Memorandum of Understanding expect to approve the city-originated subdivision acquiring 5.5 acres of park. 


The schedule is ambitious expecting, if the Mayor and council reach agreement by the end of October or the first week in November, the subdivision can be approved by the Planning Board by August 1. Here is the schedule:


EXHIBIT B
CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION TIMELINE


October (If MOU approved in October, first month of timeline starts in November when NYPH gives City permission to proceed with application to Planning Board after up to 45 day review and comment period by NYPH, as set forth in Section 1 of the MOU)


Week 1


a. Common Council authorizes Mayor to execute MOU, Mayor executes
MOU


b. NYPH approves and executes MOU


c. NYPH directs preparation of site survey for portion of property subject to
proposed Conservation Development.


d. Planning, DPW, Traffic, Law, Mayor’s Office, Public Safety, Planning
Board Secretary and Environmental Officer (together “City Staff’) meet to
lay out staff responsibilities and consultant responsibilities for
Conservation Development application process before Planning Board


e. City Staff prepare application to Planning Board for Conservation Development pursuant to Section 5.7 of the Zoning Ordinance


f. City Staff prepare Long Form Environmental Assessment Form


g. End of Week 1, City submits preliminary Conservation Development
application and Long Form Environmental Assessment Form to NYPH
pursuant to Section 1. of the MOU. NYPH has 45 days to review
application and provide comments. (45 days ends prior to next Planning
Board meeting) Timeline begins once application is approved to be
submitted to Planning Board


Week 1-2


a. Assuming NYPH executes MOU in Week 1 ,City staff and NYPH finalize
budget. Budget to be approved within 10 days of execution of MOU by
NYPH


b. Common Council approves budget and authorizes contracts with
consultants within 10 days of NYPH execution of MOU


Week 3-5


City staff and consultants continue to prepare information for environmental review of application


Month 1: November


Weeks 1-2


a. City Staff and consultants continue to develop information for
environmental review and prepare draft Scoping Outline


b. NKTH submits application to Common Council to amend Special Permit
to remove portion of property subject to the Conservation Development
application, subject to the approval of the Conservation Development and
final non-appealable approval


Week 3


a. At work session Conmion Council schedules public hearing on
amendment to NYPH Special Permit for Month 2 (December) Common
Council meeting


b. Planning Department submits the following to Planning Board and
affected neighborhood associations and DPW, Traffic, Public Safety, Law,
Environmental Officer, Conservation Board, and Design Review Board,
with copies to Common Council, pursuant to Section 5.7.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance:


(i) application to Planning Board for Informal Conservation Development Review under Section 5.7.4.1


(ii) Long Form EAF


(iii) Draft Scoping Outline


Week 4


At special meeting of the Planning Board, Commissioner of Planning makes presentation for Informal Conservation Development Review pursuant to Section 5.7.4.1 and presents Draft Scoping Outline. Planning Board responds to proposal for Conservation Development, declares itself Lead Agency for proposed Conservation Development and determines the proposed Conservation Development to be a Type I Action under SQER, directs submission of Preliminary Application pursuant to Section 5.7.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, directs preparation of a DEIS and schedules public scoping session for regular meeting in Month 2 (December)


Month 2: December



Week I


a. At its regular meeting the Common Council would take the following
actions:


1. Common Council, as an Involved Agency, would confirm the Planning Board as Lead Agency for the environmental review of the proposed Conservation Development on the NYPH property


2. Common Council would hold a public hearing on amending NYPH Special Permit for NYPH to remove the property subject to the Conservation Development from the NYPH Special Permit and amend the NYPH Master Plan, subject to the non- appealable approval of the Conservation Development; and would approve proposed amendment, all being made subject to the completion of the environmental review


b. City Staff and consultants continue to prepare information for DEIS


Week 3


Planning Board holds public scoping session and designates 10 day written comment period


Month 3: January



Weeks 1-2


City staff and consultants finalize Scoping Outline and submit to Planning Board and public, continue to work on information for DEIS


Week 3


Planning Board approves Scoping Outline


Week 4-5


City Staff and consultants continue work on DEIS


Month 4 February



Week 1-2


City and consultants complete DEIS and submit to Planning Board for completeness review; hold meeting with Planning Board to review completeness of DEIS


Week 3


a. At its regular meeting, Planning Board accepts DEIS for public review and
schedules two public hearing dates, one in early Month 5 and one at
regular Month 5 meeting


b. City Staff distribute DEIS


Week 4


Final Survey received from NYPH and DPW and consultants prepare survey specific plat


Month 5 March


Week 1 or 2


Planning Board holds special meeting for public hearing on DEIS and adjourns DEIS hearing to a second meeting in the month


Week 3


At second meeting, Planning Board continues hearing and closes hearing on DEIS. Depending on extent and substance of comments Planning Board directs preparation of an FEIS or directs preparation of Findings Statement/Negative Declaration


Week 4


City Staff and consultants work on FEIS


Month 6 April



Week 1 OR 2 


1. If FEIS required, City staff and consultants complete EElS and submit to
Planning Board and public for review.


2. If no FEIS required, City Staff submits Findings Statement/Negative
Declaration and Preliminary Conservation Development Approval
Resolution to Planning Board


Week 3


At Planning Board meeting, Planning Board does one of following:


1. If FF15 required, Planning Board accepts FEIS and gives 10 day review
period


2. If FEIS is not required, Planning Board receives Findings
Statement/Negative Declaration and Preliminary Conservation
Development Approval Resolution. Planning Board can act on the
Findings Statement/Negative Declaration and Preliminary Conservation
Development Approval Resolution that night or schedules a special
meeting to approve, and schedule a public hearing on Final Conservation
Development Approval for following month


Month 7 May


Week 1-2


If FEIS was accepted at last meeting, distribute Findings Statement and Preliminary Conservation Development Approval Resolution


Week 3


1. If FF15 was required, at its regular meeting, Planning Board adopts
Findings Statement and Preliminary Conservation Development Approval
Resolution and schedules public hearing on Final Conservation
Development Approval for following month


2. If FEIS was not required, Planning Board holds public hearing on Final
Approval

Month 8 June


Week 3


1. If FEIS was required, Planning Board holds public hearing on Final
Approval



2. If FEIS was not required, Plaiming Board closes public hearing on Final
Approval and grants Final Approval. Approval Process is complete.


Month 9 July


Week 3


If FEIS was required, Planning Board closes public hearing on Final Approval and grants Final Approval. Approval Process is complete

Posted in Uncategorized

Council Considers 6 Month Extension on Pin Affordables.

Hits: 0



WPCNR Common Council Chronicle-Examiner. October 4, 2006, UPDATED 2:20 P.M. E.D.T. with Financials: The Pinnacle, the Ginsburg Development Corporation 28-story luxury condominium housing, received a mixed blessing from the Council which voted to “refer out” a Pinnacle request for extension of time before The Pinnacle has to post a Guaranty Agreement and posting of financial security,  until April 2007. 


 


Councilperson Rita Malmud questioned Corporation Counsel Edward Dunphy closely on the council’s ability to enforce the “linkage” of the Pinnacle to the 221 Main Ritz-Carlton opening. Malmud has  realized that in view of The Pinnacle difficulty in getting financing together it will affect The Pinnacle ability to build the 52-unit affordable housing at 260 Main Street by fall 2007, when the Ritz-Carlton is scheduled to be occupied and require a Certificate of Occupancy.





Mr. Dunphy noted that the likelihood of the Pinnacle affordable housing being built by “late 2007” the time when 221 Main Street is targeted for completion and a certificate of occupancy, is unlikely. Ms. Malmud asked what would happen if The Pinnacle failed to cobble together its financing by next April (the deadline of the proposed six month extension). Dunphy said the responsibility for the Cappelli portion of the affordable units would revert back to Mr. Cappelli. Where Mr. Cappelli would build that housing was not conjectured by Mr. Dunphy.  Malmud said she would hope that Mr. Cappelli would commence immediately building his affordable housing share (24 units) immediately if The Pinnacle were to default, saying she would do everything in her power to withhold the certificate of occupancy from Mr. Cappelli until his “share” of the affordable housing was built.


 


Mr. Dunphy, in conciliatory tones, when Malmud asked about what recourse the council had to enforce the affordable housing Mr. Cappelli owes, be built, said the council recourse was that they could without certificates of occupancy from the second tower (now rising above ground level), as a means of enforcing the affordable housing piece.


 


The  Pinnacle is supposed to supply a Guaranty Agreement and posting of financial security on October 7. The council would need to extend the agreement shortly to avoid the responsibility for the affordables reverting back to Mr. Cappelli.


 


$16.3 Million and rising.


Cost per unit: $313,461


 


Documents supplied with the Common Council agenda place the cost of the 52 units of affordable housing to be $16.3 Million (with construction listed as being $12 Million of that total, and the balance in fees). The $16.3 price tag now with $20 Million in funding sources, shows that the cost to build each of the 52 units is $313,461 — comparable to the cost of building Louis Cappelli luxury apartments and condos.


 


 The Pinnacle reports as supplying $6,377,704 of its own equity, and is attempting to lineup financing from Restore New York Initiative ($1 Million) by December 31; HHAP Grant of $1.4 Million by December 31; $364,000 from Federal Home Loan Bank by January 2007, and $2 Million from Westchester County New Home Lands Acquisition fund by November 30, 2006. The documents state this sum of $4.7 Million in grants would be on top of Pinnacle’s $6.4 Million of equity. A White Plains Urban Renewal Agency “bond issue” of $8-9 Million is expected to finance the rest of the project.  (The White Plains URA is only listed in the documents as supplying $4M in funds through bonds, but has authority to offer $8-9 Million). Low Income Tax Credit Equity is also sought and would contribute $6.3 to the project.


 


 The Pinnacle Affordable Housing By the Numbers. Photos by WPCNR News




 


 


“This extension is necessary to afford our client time to secure various governmental grants, which are necessary to the financial viability for constructing the fifty-two (52) units,” the letter requesting the extension said.


 


Demolition on The Pinnacle project was supposed to have begun in September, but it did not. The letter states,


 


“Accordingly, during the additional time needed to obtain commitments from these governmental funding sources, Pinnacle-Westchester LLC will review its design for this building. It has completed one-hundred percent Design Development Drawings upon which its construction estimates have been based. However, further engineering is needed so that alternative structural systems or other modifications mayf be implemented to achieve cost savings.”


 


Following is the fund sources and tax credit calculation and “use of funds” supplied as requested by Councilman Benjamin Boykin:


 


 

Posted in Uncategorized

City Rent for Senior Center at Armory More than DOUBLES to $264,000 A Year

Hits: 0

WPCNR COMMON COUNCIL-CHRONICLE EXAMINER. October 4, 2006: The city approved a 20 year lease with a newly formed subsidiary of Related Apartment Preservation, LLC, known as Armory Plaza Preservation, which will pay Armory Plaza Preservation $264,000 a year for rent on the senior Center in the Armory building.


 The Mayor in his remarks stated that the city action preserved the 52 units of senior housing there, because the organization has lost its funding and the units would have to close, while also assuring that $2 Million in improvements would be made to the Armory building by the new owner.


What has happened as stated in the work session when this lease was discussed is that Related Apartment Preservation has been charging rents over and above guidelines HUD has established and the Housing and Urban Development department has decreased the Related Apartment Preservation rents.  Related Apartment Preservation had asked the city to make up the rent loss difference dictated by HUD surveys of typical rents,  in the September work session.


Here’s the story from HUD:


Andrew Glantz, spokesman for HUD told WPCNR last week that Related Apartment Preservation had been charging $1,087 a month for its 13 efficiences (of which the elderly tenants pay one-third), and HUD demanded Related lower that rent to $925. Glantz said the average decrease was $146 a month, which cost Related Apartment Preservation $1,898 a month in rent or $22,776 a year.


Glantz reported to WPCNR that of the 39 one-bedrooms, Related Apartment Preservation had been charging an average $1,306 a month, and HUD has forced Related to lower that rent to $1,215, a decrease of $91 a month. That works out to $3,549 a month in rent shortfall or $42,588 a year.  The total rental shortfall, according to the figures Glantz supplied on the individual apartments totals $65,364. The city had been paying Related $125,000 a year for rent on the senior citizen center in the Armory. Related wanted the city to up that rent and also take care of a portion of the rent loss demanded by HUD.


Tonight’s lease does more than that. The city is more than doubling its annual investment with Related’s new subsidiary Armory Plaza Preservation. The city will pay $264,000 a year over 10 years for the lease of the senior center, with renegotiation at that time.


No explanation was given at the council proceedings Tuesday evening of the justification for the more-than-double increase in the amount of rent the city will now pay for the Senior Center. 

Posted in Uncategorized

Council Balks on NYPH Memorandum of Understanding. Tables to November.

Hits: 0

WPCNR COMMON COUNCIL CHRONICLE-EXAMINER. October 3, 2006: In a very rare occurence tonight, the Common Council took an item up for discussion on the consent agenda.


 It was in the matter of the last-Thursday-evening-submitted Memorandum of Understanding on subdivision of New York Presbyterian Hospital property, the council was being asked to approve that the city may acquire a 5.5 acre park from the Hospital in exchange for subdividing a  60-acre adjacent parcel for 125 homes (down 6 units from as first reported based on last week’s MOU information).


The Council soundly bounced the Memorandum  back to the Mayor as being too vague, laying the city open to unknown expenses. This, after they had no particularly objections to the concept in the work session. However, five of the six councilpersons found plenty to disagree with in the fine print. Glen Hockley was the only individual in support of the proposal, however, he did vote in favor of tabling the matter.


The rejection of the MOU (as it is anacronymically referred) in its present form was spearheaded by the instant research of Councilman Dennis Power, which he apparently conducted since last Thursday evening when he received the MOU. Power read a listing of careful technical questions he raised over 40 minutes of sustained questioning of the Commissioner of Planning Susan Habel about the Memorandum of Understanding over fees due in the subdividing process, and the question of what would the hospital do the the rest of its land. (Habel said the hospital would follow its Master Plan, but knew of no indications of any hospital projects for “the rest of the property”.) Habel insisted the MOA was simply to acquire parkland for the city and nothing else. Mayor Delfino assured the television audience that the hospital has “no plan” to execute a subdivision “at the present time.”


Councilpersons Thomas Roach (complaining about the vagueness of what happens if the hospital walks away from the deal and whether the proton accelerator project still remains alive in that event), Rita Malmud (Council authority to approve the budget)  and Benjamin Boykin  (demanding a specific budget analysis before approval), and Councilman Arnold Bernstein (preferring to see a larger park parcel) all agreeing tabled the Memorandum until the Regular Common Council meeting of November 6, 2006. Prior to that the council is to meet to discuss rewording of the MOU with the Corporation Counsel, and the Planning Commissioner.


The document, Edward Dunphy, the Corporation Counsel, said appeared to be headed for substantial revision. Councilpersons statements were greeted with applause from the handful of citizens who were invited to speak about the Memorandum of Understanding even though it was a consent agenda item and was not in a public hearing mode.


Six citizens spoke, denouncing the MOU. Harriet Baker described it as “an insult.” Lynn Huber, Treasurer  of Concerned Citizens for Open Space ridiculed the statements that the 5.5 acres would be preserved in perpetuity, noting that the 60 acres if turned into 131 homes would  “be destroyed in perpetuity.” Dan Seidel castigated the Memorandum of Understanding on grounds that the city should not be doing it, when there was so much else to do. Marc Pollitzer expressed budget concerns, said the School District Capital Project Committee should have been informed of this city intention to subdivide on the basis of any subdivision impact on school district enrollment.


 

Posted in Uncategorized

Shooting on Greenridge in Highlands An Accident Sources Say.

Hits: 0

WPCNR POLICE GAZETTE. October 3, 2006 UPDATED 12:45 P.M. E.D.T. October 4, 2006: Paul Wood, the City’s Executive Officer, confirmed there was a shooting on Greenridge Avenue in the Highlands Tuesday, in which a woman shot a man, who was hospitalized. Wood reported his injuries were not life-threatening. Wood knew no other details of the shooting. Police would not make a statement Tuesday afternoon on the nature of the shooting or what lead to it.


Further information acquired by WPCNR Wednesday indicates the incident was not violent but an accidental firing of a pistol that resulted when the male was showing his gun to his fiancee at 74 Greenridge Avenue.  His financee is a student and athlete at White Plains High School.


 Reliable sources outside the Police Department who know the couple told WPCNR today the incident was an accident and not a result of a quarrel, dispute, or violence between them.


The WPCNR source said that the man not identified by police was wounded in the area of left shoulder when the pistol being handled by the woman accidentally discharged. She was showing him the gun where she lived at 74 Greenridge Avenue. WPCNR’s source says the couple realized the man had been shot and they went out walking in the neighborhood, on Linda and Longview Avenue and created a story of being robbed to explain the young man’s gunshot wound to the police. The police did not buy their story, according to press reports because there were no signs of a struggle and the two not being consistent in their stories of what happened.


Police have not contacted WPCNR with any updates on this incident despite several requests to find out what criminal charges may have been filed and the police evaluation of the incident. A detailed report in The Journal News this morning report the Police as identifying the woman as Elena Sannella,18,  and that she has been charged with second-degree assault, reckless endangerment, criminal possession of a weapon and falsely reporting an incident.  Police said the victim had been showing her the gun and the woman pulled the trigger, hitting the victim, which confirms what WPCNR sources have said. Her finance, the male was not charged at the time last night, police saying he likely would be charged with weapon possession and falsely reporting an incident.


This appears based on the information WPCNR has obtained to not be a violent incident.


This, though,  is the second  incident in the Highlands  in less than a  week, and third violent episode in the city in five days. Last Thursday a resident was mugged by three youths in the late afternoon as he entered his yard. Police arrested and charged three youths with the attack.


There have been seven violent attacks in the city since March 27 all involving persons in their twenties and teens. The violence began with a fatal stabbing on South Lexington Avenue and Post Road March 27, followed by a fatal shooting on Ferris Avenue, a gunfight between two individuals after observing a fist fight last week at Winbrook, a non-fatal shooting on Ferris Avenue, with the perpetrators still at large, followed by three incidents in a week: the mugging on Bryant, the stabbing on Mitchell Place Friday night, and Tuesday afternoon’s shooting.

Posted in Uncategorized

Louis Cappelli, Simon Cooper of The Ritz, Open R-C Sales Center. Gov Visits.

Hits: 0

WPCNR MAIN STREET JOURNAL. October 3, 2006: Governor George Pataki of New York State took a whirlwind tour to the top of the “topped out” first tower of the new Ritz-Carlton Westchester today, and wished White Plains and The Ritz well, congratulating White Plains on its Renaissance, then left prior to the ceremony for another appearance in New York. Following the tour, a Topping Out ceremony was held where Mayor Joseph Delfino thanked all his commissioners who worked so hard to make “this day possible,” and Louis Cappelli, the Super Developer told of how his persistence finally wooed Simon Cooper CEO of the Ritz-Carlton to say “Yes” once the building had reached twenty stories. Mr. Cappelli broke the news that the Ritz has already sold $30 Million of condominium units in the two tower, hotel and condominium masterpiece rising.



Governor George Pataki goes to the Top: The Governor, center, is pictured emerging from the complex after his whirlwind tour to the top of the Ritz this morning prior to the Topping Off Ceremony at Renaissance Square. Photo, WPCNR News



Louis Cappelli, thanking his construction workers for completing the tower without an accident at the Topping Off Ceremony. Photo, WPCNR News



Louis Cappelli cuts the ribbon opening the Sales Center for the Ritz-Carlton today. Left to right, Jim Sullivan of the Marriott Corporation, Mayor Joseph Delfino, Louis Cappelli, Simon Cooper of the Ritz-Carlton, Charles Gargano of the New York Empire State Development Corporation and State Senator Nicholas Spano. Photo, WPCNR News

Posted in Uncategorized

Council Set to Approve Memorandum of Understanding for Park/ 131 Homes at NYPH

Hits: 0

WPCNR COMMON COUNCIL CHRONICLE-EXAMINER. October 3, 2006 UPDATED 1 A.M. OCTOBER 4, 2006: The Common Council was expected tpo approve last night a Memorandum of Understanding on the Consent Agenda which puts the city on record as endorsing a 131-unit subdivision to be constructed adjacent to Bryant Avenue on the New York Presbyterian Hospital site, while providing a 5.5 acre recreation park for the city planned to have a soccer field and a baseball/softball field.


The city will be paying all costs for drawing of the “Conservation Development” subdivision plan, which has a timetable attached to it, calling for a Final Approval by the Planning Board by the third week of July, 2007. A budget for the subdivision plan will be drawn up between the hospital and the city 10 days after tonight’s planned approval. No estimate of the city costs for preparing and submitting the plan to all agencies has been included as part of the memo.


Another aspect of the Memorandum is the city is agreeing to the design of entrance and egress roads into the hospital subdivision to be drawn up to the hospital specifications. The Memorandum also effectively kills the proton accelerator/biotech center plan for building on the 65 acres covered by the Memorandum of Understanding.


Should the hospital change its mind and withdraw from buying into the subdivision proposed by the city, the hospital agrees to reimburse the city for all costs incurred.


Community leaders have been quietly lobbying the Council to postpone the vote on this Memorandum pending some kind of public hearing process. Apparently the effort paid off as the council voted 7-0 to approve tabling the Memorandum of Understanding until it could be substantially clarified, see latest story above).


Here is the text of the Memorandum of Understanding as it appeared in the “Backup Material.”



MEMORANDUM
OF
UNDERSTANDING
This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is entered into as of this day of September, 2006 by and between THE CITY OF WHITE PLAINS, a municipal corporation, having an office and place of business located at 255 Main Street, White Plains, New York 10601 (the “City”) and ROYAL CHARTER PROPERTIES WESTCHESTER, INC., a New York not-for-profit corporation, having an office or place of business located at 435 East 70th Street, New York, New York 10021 (the “RCPW”).


 
GENERAL
RCPW is the owner of approximately 214 acres of land (the “RCPW Site”) in the City. The entire property is situated in the R1-12.5 zoning district and has received a special permit to use the RCPW Site for “Hospital” purposes as defined in the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
Pursuant to this MOU and the terms and conditions contained herein, the City proposes to cause to be subdivided, as a Conservation Development approximately 65.5 acres of the property owned by RCPW (the “Proposed Conservation Development”), with (a) approximately 5.5 acres of the RCPW Site being subdivided and the development rights associated with that parcel, defined herein below as the “Park and Recreation Parcel,” being transferred to the “Residential Parcel”, also defined herein below, pursuant to the City’s conservation development zoning and subdivision regulations, and such area set aside for Park and Recreation purposes (the “Park and Recreation Parcel”) for use by all residents of the City with the rights of access and control by the city described herein below, and (b) a parcel of approximately 60 acres of the RCPW site having frontage on Bryant Avenue, for Residential Purposes (the “Residential Parcel”). The City proposes to undertake the environmental review- of the environmental impact of the Proposed Conservation Development in accordance with Section 5.7 of the City’ s Zoning Ordinance and NY State SEQR regulations. Such use of the RCPW Site will require an amendment to RCPW’s master plan and special permit pursuant to Section 6.7.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Proposed Conservation Development, including the Park and Recreation Parcel and the Residential Parcel, are depicted on the “Conceptual Conservation Development Plan”, annexed hereto as Exhibit A for illustration purposes only. Exhibit Al will consist of a conventional subdivision plan and Exhibit A2 will be a proposed Conservation Development Plan. Exhibits Al and A2 shall be finalized by the parties, subject to such modifications as may be made during the environmental, subdivision and special permit processes.


TERMS OF AGREEMENT


1. The City shall prepare, at its cost and expense, and submit to all appropriate governmental agencies, including but not limited to the Vvlite Plains Planning Board (“Planning Board”), an application for subdivision of the approximately 214 acres of land owned by RCPW, including the subdivision of the Residential Parcel and the Park and Recreation Parcel generally as shown on the Conceptual Conservation Development Plan. The Conceptual Conservation Development Plan shall be used for Informal Review pursuant to Section 5.7.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and to establish the lot count for the Conservation Development. This paragraph is made subject to paragraph 3 herein below. The City shall be the annlicant for the subdivision and environmental aunroval of the Pronosed Conservation Development. When mutually deemed ready for submission to start the subdivision process, the proposed plan for the proposed Conservation Development shall be submitted to RCPW, which shall, within forty-five (45) days thereafter, review and comment on such plan.


2. Upon final agreement of the parties on the proposed Conservation Subdivision Development, RCPW shall submit to the City an application to amend the special pemiit issued to RCPW and to amend RCPW’s Master Plan, which is a part of the special permit, to remove the portion of the property subject to the proposed Conservation Development from the Hospital use special permit, such action by the City being made subject to the granting of final conservation subdivision plat approval for the proposed Conservation Development, and authorize the use of the Residential Parcel for residential purposes and the use of the Park and Recreation Parcel for park and recreational purposes upon granting of final conservation subdivision plat approval.


3. The City shall, subject to RCPW’s approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, retain all consultants (including approved land use counsel) it deems reasonable andlor necessary to pursue the Proposed Conservation Subdivision, shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, all drawings, studies, plans, reports and documents, and shall pay for all costs necessary and required to obtain environmental and other approvals for the Proposed Conservation Subdivision. Within ten (10) days of the Effective Date of this MOU, the parties shall agree upon the budget for the costs of the review process for the proposed Conservation Development (the “Approved Budget”). The Approved Budget may be amended from time to time by agreement between the parties. RCPW shall not be obligated to reimburse the City (as such reimbursement may be effected as described in this paragraph 3) its allocable portion of any expenditures that exceed the amounts set forth in the Approved Budget. In the event the City desires to amend any application, plan, sketch or drawing in connection with the Proposed Conservation Subdivision, such amendment shall not be made, submitted or filed without the prior approval of RCPW, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Each party shall be responsible for their own attorney’s fees in connection with (a) any legal proceedings or challenges of such approvals or (b) any requests by such party for services not directly related to the purpose for which land use counsel has been retained, as described in the first sentence of this paragraph 3. The parties hereto shall develop a fair and equitable distribution or allocation of the reasonable third party costs associated with the Residential Parcel, consistent with Approved Budget, and, upon the granting of final approval of the Proposed Conservation Subdivision plat and related environmental review, and after any and all challenges to such approvals have been exhausted (resulting in a non-appealable final order or judgement) or the time within which a challenge must be made has expired, RCPW shall reimburse the City for those costs allocable to the Residential Parcel. The City shall be responsible for such costs allocable to the Park and Recreation Parcel. RCPW shall reimburse the City for such costs attributable to the Residential Parcel by conveying to the City additional land adjacent to the Park and Recreation Parcel of equal value in the area (or portion thereof) so designated in Exhibit A2, unless the parties mutually determine that such reimbursement shall be made by cash payment. If RCPW terminates this Agreement without good cause or ceases to proceed in good faith with its efforts to secure necessary govemmental and land use approvals for the Proposed Conservation Development in accordance with this MOU, it shall reimburse to the City, in a timely manner, all reasonable costs (consistent with the Approved Budget) expended by the City in obtaining the environmental and all other approvals for the proposed Conservation Subdivision, by cash payment. No such reimbursement shall be required in the event RCPW exercises its rights under paragraph 9 herein.


4. RCPW agrees that upon the granting of final approval of the Proposed Conservation Subdivision plat and related environmental review, and after any and all challenges to such approvals have been exhausted or the time within which a challenge must be made has expired, it shall grant to the City, by written instrument, the undisturbed right to use, occupy, develop and maintain the Park and Recreation Parcel for a period of ninety-nine (99) years, with renewal options that may be exercised by the City.


5. The City shall construct at its sole cost and expense and otherwise provide for all labor and materials it deems necessary to construct all improvements to the Park and Recreation Parcel, including but not limited to ball fields, playgrounds, landscaping, equipment, lighting and fencing, access road (in the location designated in Exhibit A) and retention basin (if required). The Park and Recreation Parcel shall be enclosed by a fence, which shall be similar in height, structural and aesthetic design to the wrought iron fence presently enclosing the RCPW property. RCPW shall have no obligation to pay for the cost of any improvements to the Park and Recreational Parcel. The City shall, after the completion of the initial construction, repair, maintain and, if desired, reconstruct, redevelop, or improve, or cause to be repaired, maintained, reconstructed or redeveloped and improved, the Park and Recreation Parcel, including constructing an access road between the Park and Recreation Parcel and Bryant Avenue, and the City shall pay all costs in connection therewith. The City and RCPW shall execute and record a restrictive covenant to limit the use of the Park and Recreation parcel to recreation use open to the residents of White Plains and their visitors and guests, and to impose such reasonable restrictions on the use of such Park and Recreation Parcel as may be agreed to by the parties (including without limitation, hours of operation, pennitted/proscribed activities, noise levels, security, etc.), such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld. The cost to record such restrictive covenant shall be shared equally by the parties.



6. Tn order to enhance and facilitate RCPW’s operation of the RCPW Site and the conduct of all Hospital activities occurring thereon, all easements, roads, retention basins and points of access to public streets shall be designed so that the same are acceptable to RCPW, including, without limitation, reasonable additional or new means of access to the RCPW site from Bloomingdale Road. Any amendments or changes to the easements, roads, retention basins and points of access shall be subject to approval of RCPW.


7. RCPW shall be responsible to secure, at its sole cost and expense, the approval, if required, of all regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over RCPW in connection with the activities described herein. RCPW shall, within 6 months after the execution of the MOU, apply for such approvals and shall diligently seek approval thereafter. RCPW’ S failure to secure such approvals which failure shall prevent the use of the Park and Recreation Parcel by the City as contemplated under this MOU, shall constitute a cause under which RCPW is required to reimburse the City by cash payment for all of its costs related to the environmental and other approvals of the Conservation Subdivision.


 
8. The City has estimated that the Proposed Subdivision Plat will be ready for final approval within nine months from the date hereof plus any periods necessary to obtain a survey of the Residential Parcel and Park and Recreation Parcel, if not already part of a survey in possession of RCPW, and any review periods for RCPW as described in paragraphs 1 and 4 herein above (the “Proposed Conservation Subdivision Plan Schedule”). Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a summary of required actions and respective anticipated time frames (“Conservation Subdivision Timeline”), culminating in the Proposed Conservation Subdivision Plan Plat being ready for final approval. The City and RCPW, its successors, assigns and designees, agree to (1) proceed in good faith and with all due expedition in the prosecution and completion of the Proposed Conservation Subdivision and (2) cooperate with each other (a) in promptly filing any applications for approval of the Proposed Subdivision Plan and any amendments thereto, (b) in timely filing any documents in connection with environmental review of the Proposed Conservation Subdivision Plan and any other required actions and ( c) in taking all other steps to achieve the objectives of this MOU consistent with the terms herein and the Proposed Conservation Subdivision Plan Timeline and Proposed Conservation Subdivision Plan Schedule. The City and RCPW shall diligently work together to resolve any issues, misunderstandings or disputes in connection with the Proposed Subdivision Plan and the environmental review in connection therewith.


9. If the Proposed Conservation Subdivision is not approved within the Proposed Conservation Subdivision Schedule or such modified or extended timeline to which the parties may agree, RCPW may withdraw from this Memorandum of Understanding and, upon such withdrawal, neither party shall be bound by the terms and conditions herein. Recognizing the timeline agreed to herein, RCPW agrees that it shall review plans, respond to questions and provide information to the City and its designated consultants in a timely manner.



10. Notwithstanding section 7.6 or any other provision of the Zoning Ordinance, the parties acknowledge that RCPW ‘ s affiliate, New York Presbyterian Hospital (NYPH) submitted a letter to the City, dated as of August 1, 2005 (“Renewal Request”), requesting a renewal of its Special Permit Approval for the Proton Beam Therapy Center/Research facility (“Project”) at the Site. The parties, therefore, agree that such Renewal Request shall be held in abeyance and (a) NYPH and/or RCPW shall not take any further actions in connection with such Special Permit Approval or the Project and (b) the City shall not place such item on the agenda of the Common Council or any other department, board or agency for consideration, until such time that this MOU shall terminate or expire, as set forth herein; it being further understood and agreed that, upon granting of final approval of the Proposed Conservation Subdivision plat and related environmental review, and after any and all challenges to such approvals have been exhausted (resulting in a non-appealable final order or judgement) or the time within which a challenge must be made has expired, such Special Permit Approval shall no longer be effective and NYPH’ s request for renewal thereof shall be deemed withdrawn. The City further agrees that in the event the MOU expires or terminates and NYPH (or RCPW) proceeds with its request for renewal of the Special Permit Approval, the passage of time between NYPH’s timely submission of the Renewal Request and the effective date of the MOU’s termination or expiration shall not be a factor in the City’s consideration of and detennination on such Renewal Request.


11. Jurisdiction over any action or proceeding arising out of this Memorandum of Understanding shall be vested in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester.


12. Except as set forth in paragraph 9 above, this MOU may be amended only by written agreement executed by both parties. The parties agree that this MOU constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and that there are no agreements, contracts, covenants, promises or representations, except as set forth herein.


13. The persons executing this MOU represent that they (a) are executing this instrument on behalf of and as the act of the party for which they sign and (b) possess all requisite authority to execute same on such party’s behalf.


14. The parties agree that any notice regarding the MOU shall be sent to the following by overnight courier or first class mail:


For the City of White Plains:
Paul Wood
Executive Officer
City Hall
255 Main Street
White Plains, NY 10601
4


 

Posted in Uncategorized

P.R. S.A. Presents Key Journalists in ‘Meet the Media’ Luncheon

Hits: 0

WPCNR THE CITY DESK. From Public Relations Society of America, Westchester/Fairfield. October 3, 2006: The PRSA monthly gathering presents a “Meet the Media” Luncheon, featuring Ed Baig of USA Today and Robyn Walensky of Fox Radio News to be held at 12 noon – 1:45 pm on Thursday, October 12, 2006 at Luca’s Steakhouse, 35 Church Street, Greenwich (just off Putnam Avenue/ Route 1).


How can you best work with journalists to gain publicity for your clients and organizations? What story ideas appeal to them? How can you best approach them – and when? How should you tailor your pitch? Learn all you need to know about interacting with these key reporters and media outlets. Guest speakers will Ed Baig, Personal Tech Columnist, USA Today; Robyn Walensky, Reporter, Fox Radio News; and other leading journalists.


The event is sponsored by the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) Westchester/Fairfield Chapter. The public is invited. Cost is $30 for members and $35 for nonmembers with reservations by October 11. Cost is $45 for walk-ins. To make reservations, call Jackie D’Erasmo, Executive Business Support Services, at 203-655-1092 or email to events@prsa-wf.org. For PRSA Chapter membership information, email colleenbrathwaite@msn.com.

Posted in Uncategorized

First 50 Story Tower Tops Off Today at Renaissance Plaza.

Hits: 0

WPCNR PHOTOGRAPH OF THE DAY. By the WPCNR Roving Photographer. October 3, 2006: Today’s Photograph of the Day is of the first of the Ritz-Carlton Westchester condominium towers which has finally reached its 500 foot height. Its creator, Louis Cappelli, will host a Topping Off Ceremony today, with Mayor Joseph Delfino of White Plains as Master of Ceremonies. Expected to attend are Governor George Pataki of the State of New York, Simon Cooper the Chief Executive Officer of Ritz-Carlton, County Executive Andy Spano and a host of dignataries. A dance company from the Twyla Tharp/Bob Dylan muscial, The Times They Are a-Changin will perform in Renaissance Square. The Ceremony begins at 11:00 A.M.



The Ritz-Carlton Premier Tower, Sunday Night at Twilight from the entrance of the City Center on Mamaroneck Avenue.  Photo by the WPCNR Roving Photographer

Posted in Uncategorized