THE WORLD READS WHITE PLAINS CITIZENETREPORTER — 8,324,077 VISITS IN ONE YEAR | 2,905,611 VISITORS VISIT 8,324,077 TIMES 3 TIMES EVERY DAY IN ONE YEAR. HIGHEST ACTIVITY IN WPCNR HISTORY.White PlainsCitizeNetReporter lifted its worldwide visits from unique visitors to wpcnr.com to 8,324,077,a 1,306,419 increase in visits in one year from 7,017,658 visits to the site last year which covers White Plains and Westchester County. The 8,324,077 visits were made by 2,005,611 unique visitors who visited wpcnr an average of 3 visits a day. ON JULY 20- -2026 visitors have accessed wpcnr and made 3,072 visits an average of 1.6 visits. In the last week 33,495 individual vistors made 54,458 visits, averaging 1.6 visits. In the last month, 152,940 visitors recorded 229,338 visits (1.5 visits)

GEDNEY ASSOCIATION FEARS WEDNESDAY SPECIAL MEETING ON FASNY IS CALLED FOR FINAL VOTE .

Posted on August 1, 2015 by John Bailey

WPCNR COMMON COUNCIL CHRONICLE-EXAMINER. SPECIAL TO WPCNR. JULY 31, 2015 UPDATED SATURDAY AUGUST 1, 8 A.M.:

An agenda for a Special Meeting of the Common Council has been posted on the City of White Plains website late Friday.

The agenda may be seen right here and appears to be calling the question on a Resolution to approve closure of Hathaway Lane and approval of a Special Permit for the French American School of New York. This meeting would come two days after the regular Common Council meeting on Monday and begin at 7 P.M. Wednesday evening. The agenda:

http://www.cityofwhiteplains.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/08052015-371

The Gedney Association, reacting this morning has sent out an e-mail message declaring this is the “Final Vote” on FASNY

WPCNR sent an e-mail to White Plains Mayor Thomas Roach asking about the nature of the meeting, if a vote is planned, whether discussion is planned for the meeting, if The French American School of New York will speak to issues raised by the Mayor himself in the June 29 Meeting on FASNY on the impact of longterm construction; Councilman John Martin’s being troubled by the closing of Hathaway Lane; Councilwoman Nadine Hunt-Robinson’s concern that the mitigation outlined by the resolution does not make the neighborhood impact worse than if the project was not built; and the numerous objections of Councilwoman Milagros Lecuona and Councilman Dennis Krolian.

WPCNR also asked the Mayor if Susan Habel, the major consultant for the city on the project will speak on the matter; if the matter can be tabled; if the question will be called for a vote.The Gedney Association is issued this e-mail this morning:

The Common Council has scheduled a Special Meeting to vote on the FASNY application for Wednesday, August 5th at 7:00 PM. This is a critical Meeting in which we can expect a decision on the application after 5 long years. We urge you to attend this meeting and arrive early to make sure our supporters are able to be present in the Council meeting room.

The Gedney Association

LAGUARDIA, THE FIREMAN’S PLEA, LENNAR’S DESIGN FOR NEW WP PAVILION, THE LIQUOR AUTHORITY CITES 3 POPULAR WP BARS ON WHITE PLAINS WEEK MONDAY AT 7 AND ON THE INTERNET

Posted on July 31, 2015 by John Bailey

TONIGHT

WESTCHESTER’S UNIQUE NEWSTALK PROGRAM

15 YEARS OF TELLING IT LIKE IT IS

7:00 MONDAY FIOS CH. 45 COUNTYWIDE

CABLEVISION CH. 76 (WHITE PLAINS)

ON THE INTERNET NOW AT

www.whiteplainsweek.com

: PETER KATZ

: JOHN BAILEY WHITE PLAINS OWN CITIZENETREPORTER

FIREFIGHTER PLEADS GUILTY TO VEHICULAR HOMICIDE

STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY FINES 3 WELL-KNOWN WHITE PLAINS BARS

PETER KATZ ANALYZES THE GOVERNOR’S LAGUARDIA AIRPORT TERMINAL PROJECT–VIDEO OF WHAT TAS K FORCE PROPOSES.

LENNAR UNVEILS ITS VISION TO REBUILD WHITE PLAINS PAVILION– EXCLUSIVE PHOTOGRAPHS

AND MORE!

ONE OF WESTCHESTER COUNTY’S LEADING ALLERGISTS ON THE WORST POLLEN SEASON EVER AND WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT it

PEOPLE TO BE HEARD

WESTCHESTER COUNTY’S MOST RELEVANT INTERVIEW PROGRAM

www.whiteplainsweek.com

THE REBROADCAST OF THE DR.JILLIAN HOCHFELDER INTERVIEW

LCOR GETS ITS FINANCING FROM WELLS FARGO–PREPARES TO GET PROJECT ON THE WAY. 710 UNITS PLANNED ON COMMUTER LOT ON BANK STREET

Posted on July 31, 2015 by John Bailey

WPCNR QUILL AND EYESHADE. Special to WPCNR from LCOR JULY 30, 2015:

LCOR, a fully-integrated real estate company specializing in property development, investment and management, has closed on an $80 million construction loan from Wells Fargo for the mixed-use development site located at 55 Bank Street,

. Upon anticipated completion of Phase I in 2017, the property will provide White Plains with a dynamic mix of premier residential and retail space that further evolves and extends this walkable community.

LCOR plans to develop the land at 55 Bank Street into an impressive mixed-use property in two phases.

Phase I will consist of a 16-story, 288-unit leading rental building with 3,000 square-feet of ground floor retail space and 381 underground parking spaces.

Phase II will include a 16-story, 273-unit full-service, rental building with 3,350 square-feet of ground floor retail space and the balance of the underground and above grade parking, for a total of 570 parking spaces. Of the 561-units, 20 percent have been designated as workforce housing.

“Located in the center of White Plains, 55 Bank Street provides LCOR with an extraordinary opportunity to redevelop an area that was underutilized but will now provide the city with substantial residential and retail offerings,” said James Driscoll, Senior Vice President of LCOR. “The site location is ideal for creating a successful transit oriented development that will further advance the Westside of White Plains into an invigorating walkable community.”

Upon completion, 55 Bank Street will feature a mix of luxury studio, one- and two-bedroom apartment homes. Residents will have exclusive access to a host of first-class amenities that will serve as an extension of their home.

Amenities will include a stunning sky lounge complete with a clubroom, private dining room and outdoor deck featuring barbeque grills and additional seating. A landscaped area for outdoor recreation can be enjoyed on the mezzanine level, along with the swimming pool and fire pit.

Additional amenities include a distinguished resident’s lounge, cyber café and business center, billiards lounge, children’s playroom and state-of-the-art fitness center.

(Editor’s Note: The project is getting on the way 8 years after its approval in 2007, in the Delfino administration in White Plains. The nature and amount of the brownfield clean up program involving the Bank Street commuter lot where the project will be built reimbusements has been asked about by WPCNR, and I await the answer.

Kyle Walker speaking for LCOR, said the exact time frame for the start of construction has not been determined yet by the team, but he is checking on it. He also was checking on when the commuter parking lot will officially close.)

55 Bank Street will also feature a full-service lobby with concierge service and shared parking garage that extends 200 parking spaces to White Plains commuters. The building is slated for LEED Silver certification.

Both the City of White Plains and the Westchester County IDA took important roles in helping 55 Bank Street to come to fruition. The creation of the Bank Street Redevelopment Area, by the City of White Plains, allowed LCOR to develop the northern portion of the redevelopment area into the adjacent 502-unit Bank Street Commons residential and retail complex in 2004.

In 2010, LCOR purchased the former municipal parking lot, now home to 55 Bank Street, from the City with the goal of redeveloping the land into a mixed-use community on the southern portion of the redevelopment area. The Westchester County IDA created numerous incentive programs to allow large TOD projects to be developed in these areas, including a PILOT program, a Sales Tax Exemption, and Relief from the Mortgage Recording Tax.

As part of LCOR’s mission to revitalize the area around 55 Bank Street, the project site is part of the NYS Brownfield Cleanup Program.
(Editor’s Note: The project is getting on the way 8 years after its approval in 2007, in the Delfino administration in White Plains. The nature and amount of the brownfield clean up program involving the Bank Street commuter lot where the project will be built reimbusements has been asked about by WPCNR, and I await the answer.

Does PETS ALIVE Restrictive Covenant Have an Impact on the FASNY? Reader says it Should

Posted on July 30, 2015 by John Bailey

WPCNR THE LETTER TICKER. JULY 29, 2015:

To: Hon. Mayor Roach and Hon. Common Council Members

Legal or illegal? FASNY’s plan to build a school on the former Ridgeway Country Club property would breach the restrictive covenant in the deed filed in 1925 (Gedney Farm Co. sold the property to Gedney Farm Golf Club. RCC bought the golf club in 1952). In fact, it is possible that the sale to FASNY by RCC was itself a breach.

The restrictive covenant, which runs with the land in perpetuity, allows only a golf course or single family residences on the property, no matter who owns it. Special Permit or no Special Permit, a school is an illegal use of the property and RCC sold to a school planning to build a regional school campus, not run a golf course or build single family residences.

I am revisiting the issue of restrictive covenants because of an event last week which places the spotlight on this issue as it relates to Pets Alive in Elmsford. The issue was raised by Town of Greenburgh Supervisor Paul Feiner with respect to the decision by Pets Alive to close its animal shelter in Elmsford and move the animals to its main location in Middletown, NY. The predecessor of Pets Alive, Elmsford Animal Shelter/ Central Westchester Humane Society, needed a larger space to house its overcrowded shelter in Greenburgh.

Efforts began in the 1980’s’ to find a suitable location. Paul Feiner, who was not yet Supervisor, was heavily involved in this effort. The shelter was eventually built on donated property in Elmsford resulting from a land swap between Greenburgh and Westchester County. The surprise announcement of the plan to close the Pets Alive shelter and sell the property caused immediate outrage by Feiner and animal advocates. The Greenburgh Town Board held an emergency meeting on 7/22/15 to discuss ways to save the animal shelter. According to Feiner, “Inasmuch as the land was donated for the sole purpose of being used as a no kill animal shelter — I do not believe that Pets Alive should be able to keep the land if they are not going to use the land for a shelter.”

Because Greenburgh was so heavily involved in helping the shelter get the land donated to them, prior to the meeting, Feiner asked the Town Attorney to review the deed to determine if the town has any rights. The original animal shelter did not pay for the property and Pets Alive only paid $10 for it when it took over several years ago.

A deed restriction was discovered stating that “the grantee, its successors and assigns shall use the said premises solely and exclusively for park, recreational, or general municipal purposes or as an animal shelter in perpetuity.” As a result, Pets Alive will not be able to sell the property to a commercial developer, according to Feiner. It is Feiner’s belief that Pets Alive hoped to sell the property for three to four million dollars.

Which brings me back to FASNY. While the Pets Alive desire to sell and the Ridgeway Country Club sale to FASNY are not the same, (except that lack of money was the underlying issue) what has bearing here is that both properties have a restrictive covenant which runs with the land in perpetuity. The restrictive covenant is binding on future title holders of the property.

We know that the deed for the golf course property prohibits the use of the property for anything but a golf course (which was its sole use through 2010) or single family residences (but not permitted before 1940), in perpetuity. From my research, I have learned that an original seller/developer who imposed a restrictive covenant could grant “retrospective consent” to get around the problem of the restrictive covenant, if requested.

Otherwise, if the terms are ignored the property owner is in breach. Can anyone show that RCC or its predecessor made such a request and so changed the terms of the restrictive covenant? Would a successful golf course make such a request? I think not. And if RCC thought about it as its financial situation deteriorated, who would it call, The Long Island Medium in hopes of speaking with the long dead seller?

RCC knew that FASNY didn’t plan to operate a golf course or build single family residences but planned to build a school. It doesn’t matter whether or not RCC didn’t know or didn’t care about the restrictive covenant. It was still legally in force. But FASNY should have known that a school was prohibited because a deed search would have uncovered the restrictive covenant. I cannot believe that FASNY’s attorney didn’t research the original deed for encumbrances.

Howard Willets, the owner of Gedney Farm, sold the property which was developed into the golf course, The golf course was on four non-contiguous parcels, bisected by local streets, and so was integral to the developing community.

Willets, the founder and first president of The Gedney Association, was now actively subdividing his property for development of single family residences, many of which abutted the four golf course parcels.

The restrictive covenant was meant to protect the newly subdivided properties by maintaining their values and the character of the attractive and sought after neighborhood — both then and in the future. Today, at least 115 homes abut this property and many more are on nearby streets.

The surrounding properties in particular would be harmed by a breach.

So I ask again, does this mean that the Ridgeway Country Club sale to FASNY was illegal? Certainly what FASNY wants to build is illegal under the terms of the 90-year-old deed’s restrictive covenant. Doesn’t the Pets Alive situation underscore the argument that the restrictive covenant on the former golf course lives and cannot be violated, even if the seller or buyer didn’t know or care?

And furthermore, how can a new restrictive covenant in perpetuity for the “Conservancy” supersede the existing restrictive covenant in perpetuity for the entire property? And being the creator of a new restrictive covenant that runs with the land in perpetuity, what is to stop FASNY from ignoring or changing the terms to be more favorable to whatever future plans it has? That is a loophole you can drive a a truck through.

Respectfully,

Ellen Alzerez

White Plains NY