Hits: 0
WPCNR SOUTH END TIMES. By John F. Bailey. September 28, 2006: More citizens turned out for a Rosedale Residential Association meeting to protest the plans of the pharmaceutical chain, Walgreen’s, to locate on the site of the old Sports Page restaurant than have ever turned out for any issue in White Plains in WPCNR’s covering six years of White Plains school budgets, city budgets, school bond meetings, New York Presbyterian Hospital issues, or City Center issues.
The three hour meeting featured over 25 speakers, whose numbers were called out as you would in a delicatessen to determine when they would speak. It featured a vow by Cass Cibelli to fight the Walgreen’s proposal from his position on the White Plains Planning Board. Pat Sevcik, the President of the association, advocated for members and those of other neighborhood associations to make known their feelings to the Planning Board and Common Council. Photo, WPCNR News
He told WPCNR he would seek Rosedale Association Executive Board authorization l to tap the $34,000 in what is named the Rosedale Residential Association “Defense Fund” to hire legal counsel to combat the issue. Sevcik also announced representatives from Walgreen’s would present their proposal to the association in a meeting October 11 at White Plains High School, Room B-1.
“The next plan is we have a Common Council meeting on the third of October. There is time at that meeting to get up and speak on this subject, so I am encouraging all members of the Association and all residents of the city who oppose this to show up and show their support. The next meeting after that will be the Planning Board meeting on October 10,” Sevcik told WPCNR. “I encourage everyone to show up there as well. It is not a public hearing, but there is strength in numbers regardless. The following night on the 11th (of October we have a presentation given by the Walgreen’s representatives at White Plains High School, to understand really what it is they’re planning on putting in and voice their opinions and ask the hard questions. We’ll continue to sponsor additional meetings as we progress.”
WPCNR asked about legal recourse and tapping the Rosedale Residential Association “Defense Fund”: “Yes, I’ll have to check our constitution a little bit closer on that particular item, but I believe at the very least the executive board needs to approve that. I don’t see necessarily a problem with that (using the funds) at this point. We have to investigate the (legal) situation a little bit more to see what it is we can do. And, tonight, luckily enough, I’m very excited, a lot of people have signed up with pledges. If that continues that will help buffer our defense fund. Any funds not used will be returned. Anything they can afford, $10, $50, a $100. We’ll use everything. Keep tabs on everything.”
Sevcik said Walgreen’s has never indicated to him that they have either signed the lease on the site or purchased the property. “The next step is to determine if (the proposal) is pending approval. I’m not sure if they actually bought it as of yet.”
Sevcik hoped Walgreen’s would consider another site elsewhere in the city.
Asked where he thought the chain might go, he said: “This particular site is not conducive (to Walgreen’s). It’s not appropriate. Not in the spirit of the zoning in that area anyway. White Plains downtown is booming. There is space. There is plenty of room downtown to put in a full-blown Walgreens. The average size is 14,000 square feet, they can do it downtown and be able to compete with the Wal-Mart, the Stop N Shop Pharmacy and the two CVS’s. The fact that they said they want to come in and break the CVS monopoly is ludicrous.I would hope they would consider coming downtown.”
Would legal action be mounted? “Not a sure thing. It looks like it is going that way. If we feel it’s necessary, we’ll do what ever we have to do to make sure that our voice is heard and action is taken, whatever it may be whether it may be political, legal, whatever.”
Sevcik said the Planning Department had not made up its mind: “The jury is somewhat out. On the 19th when this first came up for review, there were several people on the Planning Board who were skeptical. Mr. Cibelli made it very clear to them this was out of character for the area, not within the spirit of the neighborhood zoning district, and a reach for that area. It’s early in the process. There’s going to be another informal review on the 10th.”
What would he like to see on the site? “A lot of different things: a restaurant with a service bar, a family restaurant could probably go in that footprint. Right next door we have a pharmacy, a cleaners, why not continue that row and have other store fronts, a bakery, a florist, a bagel shop, a nail salon, a small office for rent, a café that would truly serve the needs of the neighborhood. I don’t need a mart to sell us milk. I can go to the gas station for that. There’s lots of little things that could be done there to help the neighborhood.”
Councilman Glen Hockley, standing, center advocated Common Council Executive Session to discuss the Walgreen’s proposal. Photo, WPCNR News
From the first speaker who called the Walgreen’s proposal an “outrage,” to Marty Linden who strongly urged the Association to seek legal advice and strategy to thwart the proposal, to Councilman Glen Hockley who said he would call a Common Council Executive Session to explore ways the city could approach the issue, the Walgreen’s proposal was excoriated for 24-hour traffic potential, the possibility of traffic tieups into and out of the drive-in parking lot, light pollution, and alleged violations of the B-1-B-2 zone, that is reserved for “light retail and neighborhood businesses.” The theme that the Walgreen’s proposal would be the beginning of strip malling the south end of Mamaroneck Avenue was viewed with alarm by a number of speakers.
Cibelli characterized the Walgreen’s proposal as “The end of the city in the park,” saying he felt, “I feel as though you’re losing that touch that feeling.” Cibelli said of Walgreen’s proposal before the Planning Board, “their arrogance, lack of vision, befuddled me. It (if approved) is a bad decision, a lack of vision.” Photo, WPCNR News
Another speaker advised the throng that they should beware for he remembered when The Sports Page was undergoing review years ago, and the restaurant said it would be “a restaurant with a small bar, instead, we got a bar with a small restaurant. They lie.”
