WHITE PLAINS CITIZENETREPORTER SETS RECORD VISITS FOR YEAR 7,017,658 VISITS! 2,098,003 VISITORS MADE 6 VISITS A DAY EVERY DAY. 63,330 UNIQUE VISITORS MADE 133,730 VISITS IN DECEMBER. WPCNR AVERAGED 17,284 VISITORS A WEEK, VISITING 31,270 TIMES.

Hits: 101

WPCNR PLAYLAND GO ROUND.  By John F. Bailey JUNE 15, 2015 1:10 PM  UPDATED 2 PM (BOLD FACE) EDT:

The Labor and Parks Committee after a morning of negotiations between Standard Agreements, the Astorino Administration reconvened approximarely 12: 15.

The first matter was a resolution on the issue of what is paid County Employees who work for Playland for Standard Amusements. The tentative agreement, county employees currently at Playland who were not retained would be retained by Westchester County, at same grade and level and pension and transferred elsewhere by the Recreation Commissioner.

In the matter of compensation of present County Employees whom Standard Amusements wishes to hire, the compensation for those employees would be “negotiated” with Standard Amusements at the time. This was included at the insistence of White Plains Legislator, Benjamin Boykin who noticed it had been inexplicably missing from the final county administration documents last week.

It was not clear given the verbal explanation at the live telecast whether payment could be less and the county would pick up the balance of compensation, benefits.

County Legislature Chair Michael Kaplowitz said the resolution was as good as a handshake because if the contract with Standard was not conducted in good faith the legislature would “have holy hell to pay,” presumably, and I am just guessing here — this meant the CSEA union wrath (if Standard and the county did not negotiate fairly).

The Committee  then recessed at 12:45  before voting, to give the county legal team time to put all the pieces of paper part of this first resolution together for the vote. As of 2:00 P.M. they are still recessing.

When the Committee began at 9:27 this morning, 27 minutes late, Legislator Parker told Joseph Manigula, representing Standard Amusements she had requested the Pool-Water Feature jurisdiction matter be removed from the Capital Projects Memorandum of Understanding. Manigula said since there were changes to the MOU on Capital Projects as indicated by Chairwoman Shimsky, that he would have to caucus with his boss, Nick Singer of Standard Amusements before this evening’s scheduled vote.

With the Pool issue in the air and the Capital Projects decision making procedure legal issues still to go, it is looking like a long day ahead.

Hits: 105

Hits: 131

Plan of The Collection development on Westchester Avenue, looking east. The Westchester is on the right.

WPCNR THE LETTER TICKER. JUNE 13, 2015:

A downtown resident with the call for scoping comments on The Collection, the new proposed development on Westchester Avenue opposite the The Westchester at Bloomingdale Road and Westchester Avenue, has written the Mayor and Common Council, raising questions on congestion the new project may create:

TO:

The Honorable Tom Roach, Mayor of White Plains,and Common Council Members

RE:

The DEIS for “The Collection” development project at 60 – 96 Westchester Avenue (236,000 square feet of new commercial space, 261 residential units, and 1,233 parking spaces)

Introduction: Where is the Open Space? Outdoor Seating Areas? Plantings? Is the developer trying to cram too much into this small area? Is there only one driveway that will access the hotel, the retail and residential components, and municipal lot? What will access by vehicles be like during rush hours? AND … do we really need more retail space in White Plains?

Dear Mayor Roach and Common Council Members.

I am responding to the request for statements about the potential environmental impact of the proposed “Collection” project on Westchester Ave. My comments below relate to

1) the plan’s lack of Open Space, of Seating Areas, of Plantings, and Screening near a neighboring building;

2) pedestrian safety;

3) the amount of new retail space planned in the complex;

4) the number of driveways required (that pedestrians will have to cross);

5) the width of the pedestrian sidewalks for entering the complex;

6) location of the dog park for the residential component;

7) location of waiting area for a possible shuttle bus to the railroad station from the large residential component;

8) location of garbage staging and pick-up;

9) location for storing snow.

1)    The plan is noteworthy for its lack of Open Space, lack of Seating Areas, lack of Plantings, and lack of Screening of the proposed large residential building from the existing apartment building at 26 Franklin Ave. What gives White Plains its charm? Trees, parks, plantings, and sitting areas add to the livability and charm of the relatively dense neighborhoods close to the downtown.

2)    The Scoping document for the project very briefly mentions bicycle and pedestrian improvement (see section C-9-C-d.), including enhanced pedestrian access from Franklin Ave. to Westchester Ave.

But what about those attempting to cross Westchester Avenue? Now and for years, for pedestrians, there is no safe time to cross near the Stop&Shop driveway over to The Container Store (at the corner of Westchester Ave. and Bloomingdale Rd). The WALK sign appears even when vehicles may be making a left turn (going south) from the Stop&Shop driveway.

I have been almost hit by a vehicle twice. Could this crossing be made safe before we get into more development on Westchester Ave.? Any new crossings should be completely safe when there is a WALK sign.

3)    Please note the many existing retail vacancies on both sides of Main St. (near the new hotel and near Walmart), between City Place and N./S. Broadway; and also on Post Rd. and on Mamaroneck Ave.

The Collection plan includes 236,000 gsf of commercial space. (Some of that is a proposed hotel and a car dealership.) The remaining retail space seems to be at least 14,790 gsf + 46,790 gsf = 61,580).

4)    How many driveways will pedestrians have to cross along Westchester Ave.’s east side? Please note that the push-button mechanism for “requesting” a crossing of the Stop&Shop driveway was removed years ago.

5)    How will pedestrians enter the Collection complex, with its multi destinations? The width of the pedestrian sidewalks for entering the complex is important.

This is one problem at the City Center, at the Five Guys Burgers corner, 240 Main St., corner of City Place. Many people, some with baby strollers or personal shopping carts, bump into each other going into or exiting City Place because of the too-narrow sidewalk on the corner and along City Place.

6)    Where will the dog park be for residential units (possibly 261 total)? A dog park used all hours was built for the large rental apartment building at 2 Canfield (corner of Main St.) after the fact. It was positioned relatively near another apartment building. A dog park should not be near or opposite other residences or residential complexes.

7)    Where will the waiting area be for a possible shuttle bus to the railroad station from the large residential component? Will the waiting bus block traffic on Franklin Ave.? Will it block the circular driveway for “The Collection”?

8)    Many are aware of the odorous garbage staging area on Martine Ave. for the City Center. This is across the street from residential buildings. How will this be handled for “The Collection,” so that it will be hygienic and safe? How will garbage pick-up be handled?

9)    Where will snow be stored?

Renee Marks Cohen

White Plains NY

Hits: 95

WPCNR PLAYLAND GO-ROUND. By John F. Bailey. June 12, 2015:

The last meeting of the County Legislature  Labor Parks Planning Housing Committee Wednesday morning failed to reach agreement on approving the Memorandum of Understanding between Westchester County and Standard Amusements, the entity on the verge  pending a vote Monday of becoming Managing Operator of the landmark amusement park, Playland in 2016.

The Committee discovered that an arrangement by which county employees would be assigned to Playland and their wages paid by the county and the county reimbursed by Standard Amusements was not spelled out specifically in the agreement.

This  oversight was pointed out doggedly by County Legislator Benjamin Boykin, despite Chair of the Board of Legislators Michael Kaplowitz not recalling any such discussionin previous commitee meetings.

Chairman of the Committee, County Legislator MaryJane Shimsky and Legislator Catherine Borgia remembered this exchange and agreed with Mr. Boykin.

Kaplowitz backtracked and agreed to add language which he suggested on the spot. Kevin Plunkett, the Deputy County Executive said he was reluctant to approve language that might in some way upset or be prohibited by union existing contracts.  It was agreed that the new language would be run past legal either Thursday and Friday.

The execution of Capital Projects requiring County expenditures required for the Playland existing structures,  was disputed by Legislator  Kay Parker of Rye, as being inadequate. The agreement as written says the County and Standard Amusements will review together the capital needs of the park that the county needs to fund.

Parker said the procedure on deciding capital project necessity “lacks specifity. I don’t see an agreement to review is going to bring these projects about in a timely fashion.”

Parker said the Astorino administration in its revised second draft of the review of capital projects and procedure for determining what capital projects should be done and the costs, did not meet her earlier concerns.

“I want to see Standard Amusements succeed . I want to take one more day to put in language that will add some specifics,” she said.

Parker and Shimsky said they would work on the new legal capital projects review language, which has to be approved in time for a scheduled vote on Monday evening on approving the Memorandum of Understanding with Standard Amusements.

The third area of contention again involved the matter of what entity decides what, this time on it involved the pool at the park.

Ms. Shimsky, the Chair of the Committee asked Mr. Singer, principal of Standard Amusements about his plan to preserve the pool, if it could be preserved.

Singer said the pool had many problems, its infrastructure was sinking, the pool depth was too deep and as he has said for 10 weeks of review, Standard has to go in this summer and evaluate the pool (as with the rest of the structures and how the pool is operated).

Singer said presently the Memorandum of Agreement that stipulates the pool area needs to be a pool or a water feature. Shimsky, pressing asked how what happened to the pool is determined, whether their would still be a pool.

Mr. Singer read the memorandum of agreement draft,

“The manager should shall have the ability to repurpose the pool area as long as it contains a water feature.”

This brought a collective quiet intake of breath by some committee members.

Shimsky, after a few seconds of silence, said ‘I guess we will have need of legal counsel.”

Singer said his legal team would have to look at the changes in the county employees employed by Standard at Playland and any additions to the capital Projects review procedure that Parker and Shimsky are working on.

Mr. Kaplowitz said the changes whatever had to be in very quickly as to be reviewed by the concerned parties: the County Executive’s office, Standard Amusements and of course the legislators.

The meeting can be seen at the Westchester County Legislators website at

http://westchestercountyny.iqm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetingID=3733&Format=Agenda

Hits: 102

WPCNR THE FEINER REPORT. By Greenburgh Town Supervisor, Paul Feiner. June 10, 2015:

WPCNR THE FEINER REPORT. By Greenburgh Town Supervisor Paul Feiner. June 10, 2015:

The Greenburgh Town Board will hold a public hearing tonight at Town Hall on a proposed law that will provide the police with the tools to close down massage parlors that are involved in illegal activities – such as prostitution.

The hearing will take place tonight after 7:30 PM at Greenburgh Town Hall.

Two different versions of the law are being considered: one law written by Bob Bernstein, President of the Edgemont Community Council.  The other by the Town’s Planning Board. The legislation drafted by Mr. Bernstein was based on a law that the Town of Clarkstown approved in the 1990s. The village of Farmingdale in Long Island also approved a similar law.  A link to the Town Board agenda (with texts of the two versions) is below.

http://www.greenburghny.com/Cit-e-Access/webpage.cfm?TID=10&TPID=13179

The ECC’s proposal requires massage establishments to obtain a license from the town to obtain a special permit to operate.

Town Councilmembers Kevin Morgan, Francis Sheehan, Chief Chris McNerney, Howard Hirsch of the ECC and Bob Bernstein met recently to discuss both competing laws -hoping that a compromise law, with some modifications could be adopted by the Town Board. It is anticipated that the Town Board will vote on the legislation after we listen to the comments at the hearing and finalize a new draft law.  No vote is expected tonight –the goal: to hear comments and than to finalize a compromise version.

Among changes in the proposed legislation: reducing the $500 cost of obtaining a license to a more affordable amount – a cost that could be burdensome to legal massage owners.  Another compromise: exempting solo practitioners from the legislation since the law’s goal is to close down massage parlors that are really being used for prostitution.