Details on the City/Armory Plaza Senior CenterLease Made Public.

WPCNR FOR THE RECORD. By John F. Bailey. October 5, 2006: The details of the new lease approved Tuesday evening by the Common Council contracting the city to rent the Senior Center from Armory Plaza Preservation Housing Development Fund, Inc. (a newly formed subsidiary of the present owners of the property, Related  Apartment Preservation of Manhattan) for the next twenty years with an option for thirty were made public in the City Clerk Office today.


The city, as reported by WPCNR previously will pay $264,000 a year  (up from $126,000 the city has been paying the last twenty years annually), for ten years to rent the the senior center. After 10 years there will be a 2% increase in year 11 (to $269,280) running through year 20, or to year 30 if the 10 year extension is agreed upon. The document dated August 30, 2006, was not included in the back-up material provided the media Monday October 2.


The document describes the increase as follows: “The recommended rent for the new lease brings the rent on the leased premises to market rate…” and notes “Although this represents an initial significant increase in the (city’s) rent for the leased premises, this increased rent is necessary to preserve the low income senior citizen housing on the premises and represents the first increase in 20 years.”


The city was told by Related Preservation Companies in August that a recent Housing and Urban Development survey had determined that Related Preservation had been charging too much for the senior apartments and told the company to reduce their rents. The reduction as reported by Andrew Glantz, press spokesperson for HUD’s Manhattan office told WPCNR


What has happened as stated in the work session when this lease was discussed is that Related Apartment Preservation has been charging rents over and above guidelines HUD has established and the Housing and Urban Development department has told Related Apartment Preservation to reduce their rents which the company did.  Related Apartment Preservation asked the city to make up the rent loss difference dictated by HUD surveys of typical rents,  in the September work session.


HUD Explains: Rents too High.


Andrew Glantz, spokesman for HUD of Manhattan,  told WPCNR last week that Related Apartment Preservation had been charging $1,087 a month for its 13 efficiences (of which the elderly tenants pay one-third), and HUD demanded Related lower that rent to $925. Glantz said the average decrease was $146 a month, which cost Related Apartment Preservation $1,898 a month in rent or $22,776 a year.


Glantz reported to WPCNR that of the 39 one-bedrooms, Related Apartment Preservation had been charging an average $1,306 a month, and HUD has forced Related to lower that rent to $1,215, a decrease of $91 a month. That works out to $3,549 a month in rent shortfall or $42,588 a year.  The total rental shortfall, according to the figures Glantz supplied on the individual apartments totals $65,364. The city had been paying Related $125,000 a year for rent on the senior citizen center in the Armory. Related wanted the city to up that rent and also take care of a portion of the rent loss demanded by HUD.


 

Posted in Uncategorized

Police on the Greenridge Gun Accident. Victim I-D’d; Capt. Lundin Retires

WPCNR POLICE GAZETTE. From White Plains Department of Public Safety and WPCNR. October 4, 2006, 4:30 P.M. E.D.T.: Deputy Commissioner of Public Safety, Daniel Jackson moments ago issued this statement to WPCNR on the Tuesday afternoon shooting at 74 Greenridge Avenue, the reported retirement of Captain Paul Lundin (previously head of the Central Business District Neighborhood District, and the unsolved Ferris Avenue shooting of September 11:



Deputy Commissioner of Public Safety Daniel Jackson on the Greenridge Incident, the Ferris Avenue stabbing and the departure of Captain Paul Lundin. Photo,WPCNR News Archive.



Yesterday afternoon at around 5 PM we responded to 74 Greenridge to a reported robbery/shooting that had allegedly occurred around the corner on Linda Ave. Due to inconsistencies in the robbery story, it was determined to be a false report. The victim, 22 year old Carlton Brown, had suffered a gunshot wound to the shoulder and his girlfriend Elena Sannella was on scene as well but, it was determined that the incident had occurred inside 74 Greenridge. Investigation revealed that Ms. Sannella had shot her boyfriend inside the house while he was showing her the gun. The gun was an illegally possessed 22 caliber handgun which has been recovered.



Mr. Brown was still at the Westchester Medical Center last night being treated. The wound was not life threatening.



Ms. Sannella has been charged with Assault 2, Reckless Endangerment, Criminal Possession of a weapon, and Falsely Reporting an incident. It is expected that Mr. Brown will be charged as well upon release from the hospital. 



She will be arraigned in White Plains City Court today.


 (WPCNR notes from independently gathered information from sources, that the young woman is a student of White Plains High School and was engaged to Mr. Brown. Persons who know the couple said the incident was not the result of a quarrel or dispute or any violent interchange.)


On the Lundin matter:



Captain (Paul) Lundin has announced his retirement. We will be adjusting personnel to compensate for his absence. Lt. Christopher will be handling the CBD at this time.


On the Ferris Avenue shooting:


‘
The investigation is continuing in the Ferris Avenue case. The victim is reluctant, as are the witnesses.

Posted in Uncategorized

Motorcyclists Injured in Accident on Cent Westchester Parkway.

WPCNR POLICE GAZETTE. October 4, 2006: White Plains Deputy Commissioner of Public Safety, Daniel Jackson said today that two motorcyclists collided into the back of a stuck truck which had wedged itself under the footbridge crossing southbound on the Central Westchester Parkway at about noon today. The two cyclists were injured and hospitalized. One of the cyclists from Port Chester, Jackson said was “in bad shape.” Presently G.W. Parkway southbound is closed, Jackson said police expected to have it open by evening.

Posted in Uncategorized

Proposed Timetable for NYPH Subdivision.

WPCNR FOR THE RECORD. October 4, 2006: In the Common Council backup material supplied with the Memorandum of Understanding, there is an Exhibit B which is a timeline by which, if the Council and the Mayor can work out differences over questions on the Memorandum of Understanding expect to approve the city-originated subdivision acquiring 5.5 acres of park. 


The schedule is ambitious expecting, if the Mayor and council reach agreement by the end of October or the first week in November, the subdivision can be approved by the Planning Board by August 1. Here is the schedule:


EXHIBIT B
CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION TIMELINE


October (If MOU approved in October, first month of timeline starts in November when NYPH gives City permission to proceed with application to Planning Board after up to 45 day review and comment period by NYPH, as set forth in Section 1 of the MOU)


Week 1


a. Common Council authorizes Mayor to execute MOU, Mayor executes
MOU


b. NYPH approves and executes MOU


c. NYPH directs preparation of site survey for portion of property subject to
proposed Conservation Development.


d. Planning, DPW, Traffic, Law, Mayor’s Office, Public Safety, Planning
Board Secretary and Environmental Officer (together “City Staff’) meet to
lay out staff responsibilities and consultant responsibilities for
Conservation Development application process before Planning Board


e. City Staff prepare application to Planning Board for Conservation Development pursuant to Section 5.7 of the Zoning Ordinance


f. City Staff prepare Long Form Environmental Assessment Form


g. End of Week 1, City submits preliminary Conservation Development
application and Long Form Environmental Assessment Form to NYPH
pursuant to Section 1. of the MOU. NYPH has 45 days to review
application and provide comments. (45 days ends prior to next Planning
Board meeting) Timeline begins once application is approved to be
submitted to Planning Board


Week 1-2


a. Assuming NYPH executes MOU in Week 1 ,City staff and NYPH finalize
budget. Budget to be approved within 10 days of execution of MOU by
NYPH


b. Common Council approves budget and authorizes contracts with
consultants within 10 days of NYPH execution of MOU


Week 3-5


City staff and consultants continue to prepare information for environmental review of application


Month 1: November


Weeks 1-2


a. City Staff and consultants continue to develop information for
environmental review and prepare draft Scoping Outline


b. NKTH submits application to Common Council to amend Special Permit
to remove portion of property subject to the Conservation Development
application, subject to the approval of the Conservation Development and
final non-appealable approval


Week 3


a. At work session Conmion Council schedules public hearing on
amendment to NYPH Special Permit for Month 2 (December) Common
Council meeting


b. Planning Department submits the following to Planning Board and
affected neighborhood associations and DPW, Traffic, Public Safety, Law,
Environmental Officer, Conservation Board, and Design Review Board,
with copies to Common Council, pursuant to Section 5.7.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance:


(i) application to Planning Board for Informal Conservation Development Review under Section 5.7.4.1


(ii) Long Form EAF


(iii) Draft Scoping Outline


Week 4


At special meeting of the Planning Board, Commissioner of Planning makes presentation for Informal Conservation Development Review pursuant to Section 5.7.4.1 and presents Draft Scoping Outline. Planning Board responds to proposal for Conservation Development, declares itself Lead Agency for proposed Conservation Development and determines the proposed Conservation Development to be a Type I Action under SQER, directs submission of Preliminary Application pursuant to Section 5.7.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, directs preparation of a DEIS and schedules public scoping session for regular meeting in Month 2 (December)


Month 2: December



Week I


a. At its regular meeting the Common Council would take the following
actions:


1. Common Council, as an Involved Agency, would confirm the Planning Board as Lead Agency for the environmental review of the proposed Conservation Development on the NYPH property


2. Common Council would hold a public hearing on amending NYPH Special Permit for NYPH to remove the property subject to the Conservation Development from the NYPH Special Permit and amend the NYPH Master Plan, subject to the non- appealable approval of the Conservation Development; and would approve proposed amendment, all being made subject to the completion of the environmental review


b. City Staff and consultants continue to prepare information for DEIS


Week 3


Planning Board holds public scoping session and designates 10 day written comment period


Month 3: January



Weeks 1-2


City staff and consultants finalize Scoping Outline and submit to Planning Board and public, continue to work on information for DEIS


Week 3


Planning Board approves Scoping Outline


Week 4-5


City Staff and consultants continue work on DEIS


Month 4 February



Week 1-2


City and consultants complete DEIS and submit to Planning Board for completeness review; hold meeting with Planning Board to review completeness of DEIS


Week 3


a. At its regular meeting, Planning Board accepts DEIS for public review and
schedules two public hearing dates, one in early Month 5 and one at
regular Month 5 meeting


b. City Staff distribute DEIS


Week 4


Final Survey received from NYPH and DPW and consultants prepare survey specific plat


Month 5 March


Week 1 or 2


Planning Board holds special meeting for public hearing on DEIS and adjourns DEIS hearing to a second meeting in the month


Week 3


At second meeting, Planning Board continues hearing and closes hearing on DEIS. Depending on extent and substance of comments Planning Board directs preparation of an FEIS or directs preparation of Findings Statement/Negative Declaration


Week 4


City Staff and consultants work on FEIS


Month 6 April



Week 1 OR 2 


1. If FEIS required, City staff and consultants complete EElS and submit to
Planning Board and public for review.


2. If no FEIS required, City Staff submits Findings Statement/Negative
Declaration and Preliminary Conservation Development Approval
Resolution to Planning Board


Week 3


At Planning Board meeting, Planning Board does one of following:


1. If FF15 required, Planning Board accepts FEIS and gives 10 day review
period


2. If FEIS is not required, Planning Board receives Findings
Statement/Negative Declaration and Preliminary Conservation
Development Approval Resolution. Planning Board can act on the
Findings Statement/Negative Declaration and Preliminary Conservation
Development Approval Resolution that night or schedules a special
meeting to approve, and schedule a public hearing on Final Conservation
Development Approval for following month


Month 7 May


Week 1-2


If FEIS was accepted at last meeting, distribute Findings Statement and Preliminary Conservation Development Approval Resolution


Week 3


1. If FF15 was required, at its regular meeting, Planning Board adopts
Findings Statement and Preliminary Conservation Development Approval
Resolution and schedules public hearing on Final Conservation
Development Approval for following month


2. If FEIS was not required, Planning Board holds public hearing on Final
Approval

Month 8 June


Week 3


1. If FEIS was required, Planning Board holds public hearing on Final
Approval



2. If FEIS was not required, Plaiming Board closes public hearing on Final
Approval and grants Final Approval. Approval Process is complete.


Month 9 July


Week 3


If FEIS was required, Planning Board closes public hearing on Final Approval and grants Final Approval. Approval Process is complete

Posted in Uncategorized