WPCNR THE LETTER TICKER. SEPTEMBER 6, 2016:
Dear Mayor and Common Council,
If FASNY wants to drop their lawsuit and submit a another revised development plan. . .FASNY should just do it.
And both can be done at the same time with minimum cost to the City with the legal brief having already being filed with the Appellate Court, where apparently there is already a considerable backlog in hearing cases.
And doing both at the same time forces FASNY to come up with a realistic and workable plan for their property. . .which FASNY has never been able to do for the past 5 years or so.
Let’s review why the FASNY review process has dragged on for more than 5 years:
→ FASNY purchased the wrong property for their planned massive development. Then compounded their own problem by not doing enough due diligence on the old golf course property. And ever since FASNY has been trying to force feed a massive development into the middle of a residential area where it doesn’t fit with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and neighborhood Character.
→ The City wasn’t responsible for delaying the approval process as FASNY claimed in its lawsuit. . .FASNY never presented a realistic and workable plan for the property. Each of the multiple plan submissions by FASNY had the common theme of being misleading, inaccurate and incomplete. Not a good report card on FASNY’s ability to present a good project development plan to the City.
→ For some reason the City Staff appeared to be intimidated and out-maneuvered by the FASNY lawyers every step of the way to the extent that Staff was incapable or uninterested in asking the right questions and thoroughly investigating each of FASNY’s plan submissions. Not a good report card on the City Staff’s ability or interest in asking the right questions of FASNY. . .or being able to thoroughly evaluate a revised FASNY plan submission.
→ Your own White Plains residents were left with the task of uncovering the flaws and inadequacies in each of FASNY’s incomplete plan submissions and City Staff inadequate reviews. On all of the major problem issues in FASNY’s submissions such as massive Traffic, the Closure of Hathaway Lane, the North Street Entrance. 10-year Construction, Water, Environmentally Sensitive Wetlands, Zoning, the Dumping of Pesticides in the Conservancy, etc. and etc. . .
— it was left to residents to clean up FASNY’s and the City Staff’s lack of thorough due diligence. This work was never the intended responsibility of residents. . .however to protect the City and residents’ own personal property values. . .residents had to step in and try to fix the mess left by FASNY and the City Staff.
The challenge for FASNY or any other future developer of the old golf course property is that it is not 130 acres of contiguous space. The property consists of 4 separate parcels of land each surrounded by City streets. . .and way back 100 years or so when the original golf course was built it was constructed by piling on dirt and creating underground streams.
So there are existing Water issues today and more will come up with any planned building foundations. . .and the old golf course’s steep slopes and wetlands also create challenges for any future development. All of these unique elements were recognized in the City’s Comprehensive Plan which recommended that. . .if the golf course went out of business that residential housing would be the preferred alternative.
We understand that FASNY has apparently now come up with another revised plan. Please forgive us for having lost count of the number of plan revisions that FASNY has already submitted to the City! If FASNY’s new plan is one calling for 640 students with changed Traffic patterns. . .this is a significant and material change from FASNY’s last Site Plan submission and the City’s own prior SEQR Findings Approval document. FASNY should be treated just like any other large developer and be required to restart the SEQR approval process.
Just on the issue of Traffic in White Plains a lot has changed over the past 5 years with normal population growth, the impact of new construction and more vehicles exiting parkways to take shortcuts through our City. . .particularly on Ridgeway and North Street.
And with all the analyses of FASNY Traffic, please stop with all of the PR comparisons with prior FASNY plans which were flawed and were never approved anyway.
Do answer in FASNY’s revised plan the million-dollar question that FASNY and their City Enablers don’t want to hear. How many additional cars and buses, including ins and outs, will FASNY be adding to our current neighborhood Traffic. . .and what other WP streets will this convoy of FASNY vehicles be traveling through to get to their campus?
We’re getting ahead of ourselves critiquing FASNY’s new plan before it has even been submitted. . .however if the FASNY property is 4 separate parcels of land and FASNY is concentrating all its building on Parcel A. . .aren’t there density restrictions on the percentage of how much can be constructed on each parcel of land that residents and developers have to adhere to, particularly in a R1-30 low-density zoned residential area?
It looks to us like FASNY is trying to build the largest ever McMansion type project right in the middle of residential homes!
SEQR regulations also specifically require that all future development plans for a property must be disclosed upfront. . .so if FASNY’s new school population is for 640. . .then according to SEQR the school population has to stay at 640 “in perpetuity”.
And also according to SEQR if any possible future land sales are planned. . .this also has to be disclosed upfront. FASNY can’t come back and try to increase school population before the Construction phase is even competed. . .as FASNY tried to do in some of their recent plans. It’s the Common Council’s fiduciary responsibility to insure that SEQR regulations are followed to the letter of the law.
We ask the Common Council to ignore the FASNY behind-the-scenes intimidations. . .and to follow SEQR regulations, the City’s Comprehensive Plan and our local laws as written. . .and with this latest significant and material FASNY development plan change. . . treat FASNY the same as any other large developer. . .and have FASNY once-and-for-all prepare a complete and accurate SEQR submission as required by law.
In our opinion the settlement agreement FASNY now wants the City to agree to may actually encourage FASNY to continue to prepare more incomplete and inaccurate plans. . .because with the approval timetables FASNY wants the City to adhere to there is significant danger of another City rushed and inadequate reviewed FASNY plan.
Why put the pressure on the City? The pressure should be on the developer FASNY. If the City receives an accurate and well-thought out development plan from FASNY. . .follows normal review procedures. . .completing the review in a timely fashion would not be a problem.
However, the experience to date of all of the FASNY plan submissions is that they have been misleading, inaccurate and incomplete. . . with the added complication that these FASNY lawyers and consultants don’t like to answer direct questions about their development project. . .as other outside developers must do in White Plains. So it would be a disaster for the City to commit to review-time-tables if the City continues to receive bad plans from FASNY. . .which based on our experience with FASNY is more than likely to happen.
The City has to take whatever time it needs to do its due diligence. . .anything less than a timely and thorough review of a project would be a disaster. How is the City being protected with these review time limits considering FASNY’s history of submitting incomplete and inaccurate plans?
We urge our Common Council not to settle. And also urge the Common Council to leave the City’s current appeal with the Appellate Court in place. . .it’s the right thing to do to protect the future of White Plains and its citizens.
Thanks for your consideration,
Your Truth Police
Marie and Ron Rhodes
P.S. We would be remiss in our comments if we didn’t mention the following:
Shame on the FASNY lawyers and consultants who initially didn’t do enough due diligence on the property they themselves bought. . .and then dragged out the City’s approval process by submitting incomplete and misleading plans. . .and shame on those in our City government who behind-the-scenes have tried to help these FASNY lawyers and consultants circumvent the City’s approval process.
And also shame on the City Bureaucrats responsible for the last minute pre-Labor Day notification of a Tuesday, September 6th agenda item for a vote on settling FASNY’s lawsuit.
As long-time residents of White Plains we expect our elected officials to partner and protect citizens with forward thinking as well as innovative and transparent government.
We’re shocked that some of our elected officials, who we voted for, turned into “Benedict Arnolds” and also participated in backroom politics and vindictive last minute document dumps. We’ll be more informed for the next election.
