DFEIS Without Technical Reports Appears at White Plains Public Library.

Hits: 0

WPCNR MAIN STREET LINE.  January 10, 2004: In apparent reaction to Dan Seidel’s extracting the Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement from City Hall, by pointing out a law to them they did not know about, the City of White Plains has made available the Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement on the 221 Main Street Project. The DFEIS was inadvertently or intentionally suppressed from the White Plains citizens who asked for it. It is now available to the public in the White Plains Public Library. However, a reader notes that the document available in the library  is not complete and is missing its key appendices. The documents in the appendices explain the answers found in the main body of the document. In a comment, a White Plains “CitizeNetReporter” writes:





A “CitizeNetReporter” attempting to look at the Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Cappelli Hotel project at 221 Main Street, at the White Plains Public Library,  reports that as of Wednesday, the 7th of January,  two days after Dan Seidel exposed the city failure to release the DFEIS to him when he requested it, violating the New York State Code of Rules and Regulations, that the DFEIS is on file now at the White Plains Public Library is incomplete, because it is missing the Technical Reports section, or appendices referred to by the bulk of the document.


The White Plains Public Library Reference Desk Specialist confirmed to WPCNR Saturday afternoon by telephone, that the library copy of the DFEIS did not contain what she described as “The Third Part, Technical Reports”. The Specialist did not know whether the Technical Reports were kept separately in the library, but they were definitely not with the DFEIS on file.


Public Gets to Read A DFEIS without backup


 Mr. Seidel, WPCNR readers will recall, analyzed the Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement with its appendices last week and made a number of technical criticisms of it on live public television Monday evening at the hearing on the Cappelli Hotel Project before the Common Council.


According to the “CitizeNetReporter,” who drew this to WPCNR’s attention: “They (the city) have removed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement,  and the draft DEIS from the WP Library and replaced it with a second edition of a “Draft FEIS”, but without appendices (the technical advisory reports as well as agency and state agency comments and letters) as contained in the 1st DFEIS filed with the City Clerk.”


The citizen feels there is a bit of a mystery as to why there are no technical reports, and offers a theory:  “Both 1st and 2nd editions of the DFEIS ( in the City Clerk’s office) are dated as submitted “12/15/03” and the 2nd Edition now on display in the library has hand written on the face sheet 12/13/03, something not written on the 1st Edition in the City Clerk’s office. The 1st Edition was without many Lead Agency comments and now the 2nd one,athough dated before the first one, has those (Lead Agency) comments, but no tech reports.”


The Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Turned Over to Seidel Contained Technical Reports.


Mr. Seidel’s 5-minute “rough cut” on the Draft Final Environmental Impact statement contained a number of general criticisms, none of which could be heard well by the audience viewing from the comfort of their homes on WPGA-TV, Channel 75, last Monday evening, of which WPCNR was one.


WPCNR was able to hear the comments because our staff videotaped the hearing and reviewed it late Monday evening, being able to enhance the volume. WPCNR asked Mr. Seidel Wednesday to summarize some of his raw analysis, since he is the only other person other than Cappelli Enterprises and the members of the Common Council to have seen the DFEIS.


Cappelli Enterprises Got Copy, Prompting City to Release DFEIS


George Gretsas, the City’s Executive Officer, identified Cappelli Enterprises as the “someone not of White Plains city government who had seen the DFEIS” which lead City Corporation Counsel, Edward Dunphy to the ruling that since, someone other than the city govenrment had seen it, the DFEIS had to be released to the public. Mr. Gretsas told WPCNR by telephoneThursday the city was unaware of the New York State Code of Rules and Regulations statute that said that once filed, documents had to be made available to the public.


Mr. Seidel sent these comments to WPCNR and he makes many references to the appendices and technical reports citing what he feels are mistakes in selection of standards of measurement in some of the appendices, indicating to WPCNR that it would appear to be impossible to have confidence in Draft Final Environmental Impact Statements without the appropriate appendices the main text of the DFEIS refers to.


Seidel’s Written Analysis to WPCNR Shows Value of Technical Reports to Determine How Hard the Look Is


Mr. Seidel’s comments to us on sewage and wastewater, would not have been able to come to a conclusion, other than implicit trust in the experts of the city and the developer, if he had not had the Technical Reports section. This rudimentary analysis of just one section of the DFEIS by Mr. Seidel, (he provided to WPCNR  on request), shows how essential it is to have the technical reports to evaluate the efficacy of the DFEIS statements.


DFEIS page II-H-2, Comment H3 (fromPublic hearing 2, Dan Seidel, 9/2/03) “You’re talking about problematic sewer hookups, water service.”

Applicant Response: refers back to Appendix D of the DEIS  for the discussion of electricity. The Response then refers back to “DFEIS Applicant Response H9 and H10 regarding sewer capacity for the project”.

Applicant Responses H9 and H10 base the estimates of water and waste water demands in stats and reports as provided in the DEIS Chapter III-D.

III-D-2 and D-7,8,9 of the DEIS talk about water usage and wastewater flow averages, indicating that a 3 bedroom unit will produce about 400 GallonsPerDay (gpd) of wastewater. The consumption stats are from NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the wastewater flows are from the same source.

The stats are supplemented by a Divney 4 page letter dated 9/18/03, (DFEIS Tech Appendices Exhibit “F”) addressing the “concerns” and still basing the data of outflow on the Averages, as produced by the NYSDEC, not on actual usage or projected,site specific actual usage ( ie scenario: 50 people taking showers in the 6:45-7 a.m. period and putting, at 2.5 gpm shower heads with 8 minute showers, at about 125 gpm into the system, then add 50 more people at sinks washing up (3-5 gpm = 150-250 at that same time period, then 50 more people at kitchen sinks (2-5 gpm= 100-250 at that same time and you have about 375-650 gpm (a conservative morning estimate residential peak from a partially filled building) peak (150-250 residents).This does not even take into account projected businesses firing up in the morning, and local heavy rains or snow-melts, other business uses, etc.  The averages used also assume a 1.2 gal rate for a bath (not very realistic) (I can’t find that sheet right now!). AT full capacity for the 221 Main project, you could have disastrous occurrences at peak flow times, when coupled with runoff from stormwater, snow melt, etc. AND the cumulative impact upon the sewer system by 10 Main, City Center and other proposed towers, almost undoubtedly causing the sewer and other city infrastructures to use up whatever “spare capacity”, more in particularly what ever  exists after City Center fully comes on line.


The Divney letter appears in the appendices, which are missing from the copy of the DFEIS for review by the public at the White Plains Public Library as of Saturday at 1 P.M. Any citizen opening that DFEIS  desiring to get a handle on how the comment was answered can only guess at what the Divney letter (in DFEIS Tech Appendices Exhibit “F”), says about it.




 





Posted in Uncategorized

Adam In Albany: Come on Governor Pataki, Pay Attention and Fix Education.

Hits: 0

WPCNR’S ADAM IN ALBANY. By New York State 89th District Assemblyman Adam T. Bradley. January 9, 2004: With the new year upon us, the governor’s State of the State speech served as a reminder of the many challenges facing New York in the year ahead. The governor highlighted several important issues during his speech, including reforming funding for education. We need reforms – real, meaningful reforms – if we are going to improve our state, our schools, and our communities. I encourage the governor to follow through with the rhetoric in his State of the State by making specific legislative proposals and then working with the Assembly to pass meaningful comprehensive reforms in the coming months.

 


One of the most pressing issues our state will face this year is reforming the state aid formula for public schools. I am committed to providing Westchester children with the best education we can provide.


 


The state’s highest court recently established guidelines that require New York to redesign its school finance system and adequately fund all schools. I’m encouraged the governor finally acknowledged that we must do more to help struggling schools. However, I am troubled that his Commission on Education Reform doesn’t make its recommendations until March – two months after the governor is supposed to release his comprehensive budget. So I must reserve judgment until the governor provides more details.


 


I will work with my colleagues in the Assembly, the Senate, and with the governor to ensure fair and equitable reforms are made to school funding. It is important to raise the bar for all schools. However, it should and can not be at the expense of our children in Westchester.


 


I also agree with the governor that our SUNY system is vital to our local economy and that investments need to be made to our colleges and universities. For the governor to make good on his State of the State promise, he must begin with a capital plan detailing how money will be spent to update campuses and keep construction projects efficient. Nearly 85 percent of SUNY’s approximately 3,000 buildings are at least 20 years old and need renovation, rehabilitation and repair.


 


The governor also spoke about the need to reform parts of New York State government and I couldn’t agree more. We need to return our government to the progressive model it once was by reforming and reigning in our antiquated budget process and our mismanaged public authorities. We also need meaningful campaign finance reform. Unfortunately, the governor has failed in previous years to work cooperatively with the Assembly to make significant reforms. I can only hope that this year he will finally follows through on his promises.


 


The upcoming year is an opportunity for the Assembly to work with the governor in creating responsible legislation. I urge the governor to partner with the Assembly to advance real reforms in 2004.


 

Posted in Uncategorized

“Mayor Coffee” Welcomes Starbucks to White Plains

Hits: 0

WPCNR Renaissance Reporter. January 9, 2004: Mayor Joseph Delfino of White Plains personally brewed up a classic Starbucks Latte for a coffee klatch of dignataries Friday morning at the new Starbucks on Renaissance Plaza fountain. During the ceremony, Starbucks announced it was donating $1,000 towards the Business Improvement District Community Ambassadors program and furnishing the volunteer meeters-and-greeters in the downtown with distinguished uniform jackets. The Mayor said the city had long sought to bring The Nation’s Coffee to White Plains and urged all residents to support the facility.


MAYOR COFFEE AT THE CONTROLS FRIDAY MORNING AT STARBUCKS: Mayor Delfino was being trained to create a traditonal Starbucks Latte  by Starbucks Manager, Katie Cronen. Your Renaissance Reporter tasted the Mayor’s brew and it was hearty, mellow and warming in the 20 degree “Hot Coffee Weather.” Photo by WPCNR Renaissance Cam.

Posted in Uncategorized

Play Group Theatre Comes Home Saturday Night at 8 at WPPAC

Hits: 0

WPCNR STAGE DOOR. From The Mayor’s Press Office. January 9, 2004: White Plains Mayor Joseph Delfino will introduce the first White Plains community theater group to perform at the City’s new Performing Arts Center. The Play Group Theatre for Children and Young Adults will kickoff their 4 run performance of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer on Saturday, January 10, 2004 at 8:00 pm. The Play Group Theatre is dedicated entirely to providing actor training and diverse performance opportunities for children and teenagers.

 


Since its inception 10-years ago, the Play Group Theatre has not performed in its hometown of White Plains due to a lack of suitable performance space. The White Plains Performing Arts Center has rectified that unfortunate set of circumstances, and is committed to providing local artists and groups a first class venue for their talents.


 


For Tickets at $12 each, call 946-4433. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer will also be performed in Sunday Matinee at 2 PM, Sunday (January 11), 8 PM on Friday, January 17, and concluding with a Saturday Matinee at 2 on January 18.

Posted in Uncategorized

Westchester One Fills Up. Argent Mortgage Brings 900 Jobs…

Hits: 0

WPCNR RENAISSANCE REPORT. January 9, 2004: Paul Wood, Economic Development Director for the City of White Plains reported yesterday that Argent Mortgage Corporation has agreed to lease 223,000 square feet at the landmark Westchester One building, 44 South Broadway, owned by Nick Pepe. Wood reckoned that the lease, which will bring 900 persons into the offices, would just about fill up the Westchester One space, necessitating opening the Stop and Shop garage, which has not been accessed by Westchester One tenants since it opened in 2003. Wood said Argent was to occupy the space by the end of February.

Posted in Uncategorized

Donald Trump Tours City Center with Pal Louis Cappelli

Hits: 0

WPCNR MAIN STREET LINE. By John F. Bailey. January 8, 2004: The long, long, long, long, long, limousine could barely ease into City Plaza Wednesday as Donald Trump arrived for a tour of the new City Center with Louis Cappelli. Mr. Trump was observed by employees of City Center, (speaking on condition of anonymity to WPCNR), touring the City Center retail first two floors, but it was not known whether or not he was given a tour of the City Center North Spire apartments in their final stages of completion by his host and longtime friend, Louis Cappelli. Moments ago, Paul Wood, City Economic Development officer said he believed Mr. Trump toured the North Apartment Spire at City Center. Bruce Berg, Vice President for Cappelli Enterprises told WPCNR moments ago,  that Mr. Cappelli and Mr. Trump did tour the City Center and afterwards strolled past 221 Main, site of the Cappelli Hotel project.



AFTER A TOUR OF MR. CAPPELLI’S CITY CENTER WEDNESDAY, Mr. Trump and Mr. Cappelli lunched at Trotters, each dining on the roasted dry aged sirloin. The men appeared to be in good spirits. Speculation buzzed through the corridors of City Hall, every floor of the City Center and along Main Street as to what Mr. Trump and Mr. Cappelli were talking about. To learn more about Mr. Trump and his international empire, WPCNR directs you to the spectacular Trump website, www.trump.com  Photo by Photorazzi

Posted in Uncategorized

CCOS Condemns Commerical Rezoning of NYPH Property In Return for Park

Hits: 0

WPCNR SOUTHEND CITIZEN-SENTINEL. January 8, 2004: Concerned Citizens for Open Space has condemned and rejected the agreement reached in principle between Mayor Joseph Delfino and New York Presbyterian Hospital’s Herbert Pardes in which the hospital would lease 55 acres of its property along Bloomingdale Road in return for commercial medical rezoning of the northern end of its property along Westchester Avenue.


In a news release privately circulated to delegates to the Council of Neighborhood Associations, and obtained by WPCNR,  the open space advocacy group made known its reservations about the plan, reviving its call for 100 acres of usable parkland instead, rejecting the plan in spirit. Here is the text of that news release:


 


 


Concerned Citizens for Open Space in White Plains welcomes a new proposal from New York-Presbyterian Hospital offering what, at first glance, would finally seem to include much needed open space and parkland for the citizens of White Plains.  We have worked for over twenty years to find a way to save this magnificent property owned by NYPH and landscaped by the world-famous Fredrick Law Olmsted just before the turn of the last century.  During those years, CCOS has had to muster community opposition to NYPH proposals for massive, high rise commercial development, a movie theater, supermarket and, most recently, several large commercial buildings, including Fortunoff. It is an oasis hidden in White Plains, so secluded that only the newest high towers of the city intrude upon a sense of being miles from civilization.  It is, in truth, a treasure any other city in the world would move heaven and earth to preserve.


 


As positive as a renewed initiative might appear, we have very serious reservations and questions regarding the details of this secretly developed plan to rezone the property for commercial use in exchange for the temporary use of fifty-five acres of open space. It would more than triple the value of the hospital property and, in return, LEND the city of White Plains fifty-five acres, of which even the administration quietly agrees will provide no more than twenty acres usable for parkland. Ultimately rezoning will add THOUSANDS of cars to the already choking traffic in the city, surround what little parkland we might have to use temporarily with tall buildings where people will be engaged in potentially dangerous medical research, and will greatly increase the level of air pollution in our already over polluted city.


 


Throughout these 20-years, all Mayors and Common Council members, including the incumbents, have vowed again and again never to allow commercial development on NYPH property. To permanently prevent commercial development, a previous Administration rezoned the property for three houses per acre, the lowest density permitted under White Plain’s ordinances.


 


As with all acceptable agreements between parties, the terms and conditions of an agreement should meet criteria that benefit both parties equally.  An agreement of this magnitude for commercial rezoning cannot be rife with loopholes or language that might provide misinterpretation by either party regarding the full value and intent of the agreement.  Without ironclad language, the hospital could instigate a “breach” of the purpose and intent of the agreement to the detriment of the citizens of White Plains.  NYPH cannot have the unilateral right to terminate any lease of parkland that has been developed in good faith by the city with taxpayers’ dollars.  


 


Since there are, as yet, no substantial details of this new plan, CCOS cannot endorse the proposal. From what little we already know, it is incumbent upon the city to require detailed information from the hospital as well as new impartial consultants to evaluate the environmental impact this plan would impose on the city.  Previous studies, particularly the highly questionable traffic studies, made prior to the many new developments now open in the city, are no longer valid.  


 


It has been both rewarding and frustrating to hear city officials and candidates for office seize upon the 1993 CCOS developed concept of a Central Park for White Plains.  But it should be noted that the CCOS concept of what that Central Park should be is a very far cry from commercial surroundings of a mere twenty acres situated on wetlands that will require the city to create a catch basin disguised as a pond.  The city’s concept of a Central Park completely ignores the obvious connection CCOS was making between Central Park in New York City to the parkland in White Plains, both of which were designed by America’s most famous landscape architect.


 


It is our belief that the hospital should agree to sell or gift at least 100 acres of USABLE parkland to the city as a gesture of good will to citizens who have provided the hospital with a tax-free home for over 100 years.


 


CCOS will continue to examine this proposal, offer constructive alternatives to ensure this initiative is fair to the city, and be available to provide citizen input for any plans the city develops for a guaranteed PERMANENT park.


 


As positive as the Mayor’s responsive initiative might appear, CCOS has very serious reservations and questions in addition to opposition to commercial development.


(It is not clear where the large, asphalt parking spaces will be. Is that part of the park?)

Posted in Uncategorized

Obituary: White Plains Watch Dies. Epitaph: More Local Than Local News Was

Hits: 0

WPCNR MAIN STREET LINE. By John F. Bailey. January 7, 2003: WPCNR News has learned that Susan Chang, Publisher of the now defunct White Plains Watch, has announced to advertisers that bills will be issued on December advertising which appeared in the December issue of the paper, and refunds will be issued on any advance contracts for 2004 placements. She has made a statement to a leading advertiser that subscribers to the paper who have paid for 2004 subscriptions will receive a complete refund. WPCNR has also learned from a leading advertiser  that the Watch will not publish a January issue as WPCNR had been previously lead to believe.


The paper died, aged six years and 1 month.


The White Plains Watch was founded by Ms Chang in late 1997, first publishing in December of that year. The paper was an immediate success mixing a brand of in-depth local news stories that uniquely captured the flavor of White Plains neighborhoods, featured reminisces of White Plains residents, profiled local personalities, and rekindled memories of the city’s past with popular columns such as “Old White Plains.”


Ms. Chang recruited local personalities such as Peter Stone to write for her, and did in-depth articles on neighborhoods and their reactions to city progress, developer plans and neighborhood problems that the daily paper published by Gannett Enterprises never gave the space or the understanding, or the commitment to understanding to cover adequately.


A former financial reporter, Ms. Chang was at her best in covering the financial, detailed aspects of stories, their effects on the city and the neighborhoods. She profiled political candidates, presented forums, and published calendars of community events that were massive. She ran stories on technical aspects of situations that required great effort. Citizens learned about their churches, their schools, and the executives, teachers and personalities behind them. White Plains residents met their Commissioners, the people who made the city work. Ms. Chang was devoted to uncovering and interviewing personalities who worked to make a difference in the city. Every issue of the White Plains Watch had an article that you just had to read that told you something you did not know.


The paper was not afraid to take stands on issues, was fearless editorially, and took an advocacy stance, earning it the ire of city hall on certain issues such as the City Center and New York Presbyterian Hospital, but by doing so, it served a purpose by forcing developers, city planners and councilpersons to consider issues carefully and take up crusades that otherwise might not have come to pass. Would the city have paid as much attention to acquisition of open space had the White Plains Watch not given voice to organizations that promoted it?


The White Plains Watch celebrated what White Plains is: Little League, Soccer, diversity, great education, achieving kids, dedicated schools, committed public servants, government by people who love White Plains, business owners trying to make a  buck, restaurants with a new taste and take, arts and White Plains artists who perform them. Every month. Reading the Watch, you read about your neighbors, your friends, people you know, and you always felt closer to situations you did not know about and understood them better, which is what any real newspaper or medium should be committed to delivering: understanding, truth, justice, and the American way.


Ms. Chang was an idealist and she gave a great effort delivering a paper that was interesting, different and worth reading. Her publication aroused more citizens to pay attention to the way their city was going, and though decisions might not have gone the way the paper wanted, the paper presented the issues.


Ms. Chang was so respected for her efforts in publishing The Watch, and the service The Watch provided to the community, she was named Citizen Extraordinaire by the White Plains Historical Society in 2002, at its annual fundraising dinner. The Watch was also named as a paper of Excellence by The National Association of Newspaper Publishers in the year 2002.


In the last year, Ms. Chang made the decision to go to a paid circulation basis, because even with her strong roster of local advertisers she announced the paper was costing too much for her to continue without having a paid subscription base. The paper was previously circulated to we believe 20,000 to 25,000 residences in White Plains without charge.


The subscription drive did not achieve enough paid subscribers apparently, and Ms. Chang has made the decision to discontinue the paper. This lack of support came despite personal efforts by Ms. Chang and personal appearances at many community groups to appeal for their support and subscriptions.


After six years and one month, the White Plains Watch is dead.


Its epitaph in the graveyard of newspapers that include The White Plains Argus, The Reporter Dispatch:


More Local Than Local News Was


 


 


 

Posted in Uncategorized

KING KOMMENTS: Reflections on White Plains Future

Hits: 0

WPCNR KING KOMMENTS By William King. January 6, 2004: The proposed Main Street mixed-use condo-retail project I read about on your website from the Business Journal which appears more real with Martin Ginsburg being involved is just one of at least ten potential mid-to-high-rise development projects other than the City Center twin behemoths (I think that’s what the New York Times called them in Sunday’s Westchester section) proposed by Lou Cappelli … and there are certainly other potential development projects being formulated out
there that only a few people working on them know about.

In my last work session with the Council in December I threw out on the table, in vain I think, that the Council should keep in mind that other potential developments were out there that might be good for the City but, if the Council approved the full scale of Cappelli’s proposal, it could soak up all the traffic-carrying capacity of the downtown street network and make the rest of the downtown less appealing to other developers and their potential tenants.  The mayor responded that a bird in the hand was better than 2 in the bush. 


However, it seems there might be at least ten in the bush.  The Common Council would be right to ask Planning Commissioner Sue Habel and the outside environmental review consultants, if they show up again, about this and it would be better if they would do this at a monthly televised meeting so the public could hear and chew on any meaningful answers. 

Sue Habel once said when we were reviewing the traffic impacts of the City Center project before it was approved that the downtown street network could handle more residential and entertainment type uses, where traffic is more dispersed throughout the day and on weekends, but not much more office development because the downtown streets during weekday rush hours were already at or near capacity. 


However, in the DEIS for 221 Main there is an argument made somewhere that the offices proposed at 221 Main were only one of three approved office projects (one of the other 2 was Gateway II by the Train Station over the parking lot at South Lex and Hamilton) and thus, since the other 2 were probably not going to happen, it was actually ok for the 221 Main mega project to move forward, that traffic would be less bad than if all 3 office
projects were to be built.  You get all kinds of arguments like this in DEIS’s. 

While I was on the Council there were presentations of six different development proposals that have not been built: 


1.  Barker and Church 10-12-story condo;


2.  Church St. office condo bldg. between Main and
Hamilton;


3. A possible residential overbuild over and behind the stores
on the northeast corner of Mamaroneck and Post;


4.  A mixed-use office/residential/retail project over the county-owned parking lot at
Court and Quaroppas behind the old Post Office Bldg. on Grand Street;


5. The Chelsea Piers-type of kids-focused project by Leon and Bonnie
Silverman between Mamaroneck and Court at Martine;


6. The 25-story or so residential/retail project on Main that Martin Ginsburg is now involved
with. 

Four other potential redevelopment sites include: 


1. the retail portion of the north side of Westchester Ave. between Bloomingdale Road
and North Broadway – some have mentioned in the past that the new
private parking garage built over the Stop & Shop parking lot was
partially built for such a possibility;


2. the White Plains Mall – possible mixed use overbuild;


3. possible overbuild combined with redevelopment (I would especially like to see) of the Verizon Building
between Main and Hamilton at MLK Blvd., aka Darth Vader’s Headquarters.  I have mentioned this last possibility to both Bruce Berg of Lou Cappelli and to Verizon – they could do a sale of their property and
then lease back space in a new, taller, more attractive building or could be a co-owner of a new building and take greater advantage of their prime downtown location. 


I just hate the appearance of the windowless Verizon Building – it’s like a black hole in the middle of
Downtown WP.  In addition, I have heard directly from two other major developers who are interested in White Plains. 

But development has to be controlled – it’s better for everybody, residents and developers (including Lou Cappelli).  It’s also good to put the horses before the cart:  get the State to fund the MLK/Grove St. extension project, get the I-287 project finished at least east to White Plains to drain off some of the cut-through traffic and get more
meaningful mass transit into White Plains (not just a downtown circulating trolley that is mostly for show), do something to inhibit traffic from cutting through Battle Hill and other surrounding neighborhoods  … all virtually ignored by the 221 Main St. DEIS.

I remember once having coffee with Leon Silverman, who I knew from being at workshops together during the citizen involvement phase of the Comprehensive Plan in the mid-90’s, after I first came on the Council.
Leon talked about 10 to 20-story buildings along Mamaroneck Avenue between Maple and Main.  I joked that wouldn’t we need the 7th Avenue Subway Line to come up from the West Side of Manhattan, where Leon grew
up, to White Plains to handle all the people?  I was only half joking.


 
Downtown White Plains’ street network can only handle so much traffic and a good portion of what comes into the Downtown now cuts through the surrounding low density residential neighborhoods, something no resident
wants, so if you want to have development and redevelop some dead spots in the Downtown you can’t go crazy and you have to have a way for people to come and go other ways than by car.

The last thing I could add is that I have heard from life-long White Plains residents, including several residents of color, maybe not as old as the mayor but still life-long, who are not happy with what they see as Manhattanization.  In the last few years I’ve heard phrases from those in favor of development to the max including “We’re not Mayberry,” “Halo Effect” and “Little Manhattan” repeated.  I’m sure we’ll hear these again.

William King

Posted in Uncategorized

DFEIS PUNDITS entrench. Longhitano Revealed to have Applied for Landmark Status.

Hits: 0

WPCNR Common Council Chronicle. By John F. Bailey. January 6, 2003: The long running classic “221 Main” continued its long run playing at “Common Council Theatre” Monday evening, bringing forth a series of new revelations from a dramatic cast.


 


 


Mr. Stackpole of the Planning Board recounted the history of how elimination of the Bar Building developed as part of the plan. He said the Planning Board became convinced that the bulk, parking needs, and space needed to extend Court Street required the Bar Building to go. He also pointed out how the Bar Building was not the work of a major architect, did not represent a distinctive style, and had no significant history.



Jack Harrington, shown, with back to camera on the WPGA-TV telecast of Monday evening’s Public Hearing,former President of the White Plains Historical Society, indignantly denied that the Historical Society was being “used,” by Anthony Longhitano, owner of the Bar Building, saying the Society was continuing their mission to preserve buildings of significance in the city. Harrington revealed that Mr. Longhitano had sat down with Mr. Harrington to fill out an application to have the Bar Building designated an historical landmark in New York State on September 18, the first time this has been publicly stated. A letter to Michael Seymour from the New York preservation agency confirmed that it could be “considered” for historical preservation in Mid-October.


Mr. Longhitano, as you recall, in his appearance at the Common Council December 1 did not reveal he had either applied for preservation status or had been notified of his building being “considered.”


Harrington added that the Bar Building was a piece of a block of seven historic buildings in the city, including, The Kennedy, 2 William Street, The North Court Building, The Bar Building, Grace Church, The Lawyers Title Building and City Hall. Harrington was magestically indignant and earnest as only Jack Harrington can be, turning to the gallery, looking at developer Louis Cappelli, and referred to his (Harrington’s) long history on the Conservation Board, and characterized the mission of the Conservation Board as being a group of citizens who defined “what they expect in their city and what they expect from developers who come into the city.”


Allowed with respect by Council Clerk to continue well past his five minute time limit, Harrington refuted early statements by Robert Stackpole,  that the Bar Building did not fit the criteria for historic preservation or landmark status. Harrington, reading from what is believed to be Longhitano’s application, said the Bar Building qualified on the basis that it played an ongoing role “in the broad patterns of our local history,” and that it “embodies distinct character of a type, or period.”


The Levine Planning Course


Robert Levine, the architect intimately involved in persuading the Common Council with Mr. Stackpole and William Rose, that one big building was too much and to bring in Frederick Bland to design the City Center project, in 2001, said 221 Main was “A rare planning opportunity not to be repeated for a long time.” He cited “4 Major Planning Courses”  for the Council to proceed with the project.


1.) The Court Street extension was a key objective the city needed to secure.


2.) The inclusion of the entire Bar Building into the site “is essential”. 


3.) The Council had to prevail on the developers, Mr. Cappelli and Mr. Longhitano to come to the table and negotiate a sale of the Bar Building.


4.) “Then and only then can we take up the issues of density, parking below ground, designs of buildings.”


Two speakers warned the council of violating the constitutional amendment prohibiting seizure of private property, referring to the possibility that the Council could choose to use eminent domain to seize the Bar Building property to develop the full scale of the Cappelli Hotel-Office complex.


Duelling Barristers.


Anthony Longhitano’s attorney, Carl Finger,  reiterated his comment that other alternative building designs were not being considered by the Cappelli organization, saying he felt the Council should encourage alternatives that would allow both projects, Longhitano’s and Cappelli’s to be constructed on the same site in consort.


 



Mark Weingarten, (shown above on White Plains Government Access Television Monday night), the attorney for Louis Cappelli, with the Super Developer looking on, rejected Mr. Longhitano’s olive branch, pointing out that Mr. Longhitano’s plan for redeveloping the Bar Building takes the entire back of the Bar Building, meaning the tenants there “would have to move anyway.”


Weingarten pressed the attack on another front, warning the Common Council not to confuse the difference between exercising the discretion of using eminent domain and the power to do so. Weingarten told them, “you have that power,” saying the right of using eminent domain for the public benefit has been upheld up to the Supreme Court: “You have the legal authority to do so, you may want to use it (eminent domain) on the next one (project)”.


Weingarten laid on some harsh reality, saying that “without the Cappelli project, Court Street doesn’t happen.” He asked rhetorically who would pay for the extension of Court Street (about $3-4 Million) if Mr. Cappelli doesn’t do it?


Bar Building Red Herring


Ken Worden, CoPresident of the Highlands Civic Association, said he’d been asked by his association to speak. He said the Council is focusing to much on the Bar Building, instead of considering the bulk, impact, and infrastructure effects of the Cappelli Hotel project. “The only Council concern (should be) is the basic project itself.” Worden said the Environmental Impact Statement was “chockful of problems,” that “Mr. Adler’s (traffic) solutions boggle the mind, and fly in the face of common logic.” He said the problems of the Bar Building would be decided between Mr. Cappelli and Mr. Longhitano, but the problems of “bulk, infrastructure, impact have to be decided by you.(The council).”


An attorney noted that the Bar Building future extension and expansion pictured in the New York Times Westchester Section over the weekend, appeared to him not to involve removing tenants from the back of the building as Mr. Weingarten had noted. Mayor Delfino refuted this to the attorney, saying “one of the troubles here is people state things that aren’t true. I’m not here to argue. When presented to me, it did take the back of the building.” 


Another person worried about businesses already closing and moving out along the Main Street corridor. However, later in the Council meeting, permits were renewed for Paparazzi and Coughlin’s two restaurants who are staying and liking what is happening in White Plains. Decision was tabled on a matter involving the number of parking spaces for a doctor’s office, at 170 Maple Avenue pending a discussion with the business.


 



Posted in Uncategorized