THE WORLD READS WHITE PLAINS CITIZENETREPORTER — 8,324,077 VISITS IN ONE YEAR

WPNCR Homeowner’s Almanac. From Jonathan Leonard. May 24, 2002. 11:30 PM E.D.T.:With Possums, Raccoons, Foxes, voracious rabbits and critters finding White Plains more to their liking, The McGregor Fence Company has announced development of a revolutionary new fence that solves the “Peter Rabbit” problem by reliably keeping rabbits, skunks, woodchucks and other pests out of vegetable gardens.
Known as Mr. McGregor’s Fence™ (pat. pending), the product takes the form of a complete kit with easy installation instructions.

Mr. McGregor’s Fence and its parent company are both named for the gentleman gardener in Beatrix Potter’s Tale of Peter Rabbit. McGregor’s ire immortalized the problem faced by millions of vegetable gardeners who see their crops damaged or destroyed by critters.

Mr. McGregor’s Fence ends this annoyance safely and affordably. The fence is harmless to small animals, pets, and childrenindeed, it does nothing bad to anything. It is cheaper than the retail price of its components purchased separately, and it is easy to set up, with no gates, doors or below-ground digging required.

The fence’s key element is a single charged wire–part of an established system for controlling pets and other small animals in a way that startles but does not harm them. This wire runs a few inches out from the main fence at a height where any exploring creature will find it. Invariably, the would-be interloper investigates the fence before trying to climb or burrow, finds the wire, gets startled, and departs.

Historically, efforts to fence out small critters usually fail. That’s because most fences are passive barriers. They give invaders lots of time to attack them. So they must be massive. That makes them expensive, hard to install, and still failure-prone.

In contrast, most barriers formed by actively charged wires alone are too porous. Creatures figure out how to go over or under single or even paired wires. Worse, since the wires are nearly invisible, people
tend to trip over, break, or uproot them.

What Mr. McGregor’s Fence does is creatively combine these two elements by putting the wire next to a visible landmark (the low barrier fence), adds an active side to the old passive barrier, and ensures that intruders connect with the active element.

Jonathan Leonard, the fence’s inventor and head of the McGregor Fence Company is a Harvard graduate with decades of professional nursery and gardening experience. Leonard installed the first prototype of this fence 15 years ago and has used it to protect his home vegetable garden ever since.

He found the fence highly effective against the woodchucks, rabbits, skunks, and squirrels that roamed his nearby woods. “It was 100% effective” says Leonard, “except for a three-week period one year when I disconnected the fence, neglected to reconnect it, and found that most of my vegetables disappeared.”

Right now, Leonard’s goal is to convince vegetable gardeners of his product’s merits and to put a McGregor fence around every vegetable garden with small animal problems. He notes that “the kit going on the market is installer-friendly, user-friendly, Nature-friendly, and safe.” The kit comes in multiple lengths, with supplements that make it the right size for any garden. It’s also economical, costing less than comparable components purchased independently.

”Anybody who has tried to discourage a hungry woodchuck knows how frustrating and time-consuming it can be,” says Leonard. “If this fence gets the recognition it deserves, it should revolutionize home vegetable gardening in this country.”

While the kit will not reach garden centers this season, it can be ordered now at the firm’s Web site (www.mcgregorfence.com) for immediate delivery. For more information, contact the McGregor Fence Company, 156 Main Street, Sandwich, MA 02563; tel. 508-888-0272; web site www.mcgregorfence.com; e-mail [email protected].

WPCNR Afternoon Herald Statesman. By John F. Bailey. May 23, 2002. 3:00 PM E.D.T.: WPCNR was taken on a tour of Sites 5 & 8 on the New York Presbyterian Hospital grounds Wednesday, where the hospital said Monday it is willing to build their biotech/proton accelerator projects in response to adamant city refusal to locate the proposed facilities on the Bryant Avenue corridor of their property.

OVERVIEW OF NYPH CAMPUS: The interior sites where NYPH is now willing to locate their proposed new labs and cancer treatment facilities are located to the left and above of the Hospital Oval Historical District shown on the right of this overview. The CitizeNetReporter was taken on a tour of the proposed grounds Wednesday.
Photo by WPCNR

Thursday evening the NYPH Final Environmental Impact Statement will be reviewed by Michael Gerard, who will advice the Common Council on their responsibilities toward reviewing the document and what grounds they must consider in either rejecting or approving the project.

The White Plains Planning Department advised WPCNR today the FEIS is not yet available to the public, yet is in the hands of the Common Council. Deputy Planning Commissioner Rod Johnson reports the FEIS will be available to the public when the Common Council approves it.

In the following close-up of the campus aerial view, site five is located diagonally to the upper right of the “Formal Garden,” and to the right of the now-defunct structure shown above the “Formal Garden.” Site 5 is the smaller of the two sites.

Site 8 abuts Site 5, yet extends much deeper beyond Site 5. Site 5’s lack of depth makes it unsuitable, in the hospital’s view, for developing a combination building of both facilities.

BIRD’S EYE VIEW OF SITES 5 & 8: Site 5 is inside the historical district at the right and can be no higher that the builds in the oval, which prevents it from being home to both biotech lab and proton accelerator, according to NYPH spokesperson, Willa Brody. Site 5 is to the right of the dark building structure to the right of the “Formal Garden.” The building no longer exists. Site 8 is the long oblong meadow, at the top of this rendering, known as the driving range property, where, Brody said various configurations of biotech lab are being considered.
Photo by WPCNR

According to Brody, Site 5 is restricted from any tall structures, because it is definitely within the historical district. If the proton accelerator were to be constructed there, it would be three stories underground, with approximately two stories above ground because it has to conform to the heights of existing buildings on the oval. Brody said the hospital is designing configurations for that site.

LIGHTLY WOODED SITE 5 LIMITED IN WHAT IT CAN HOUSE: John Bailey points to the center of Site 5, accepted Monday by the hospital as a venue for the proton accelerator. This site was where the Marriott convalescent facility was proposed to have been built.
Photo by WPCNR

ANOTHER VIEW OF SITE 5: This reporter observed 15 to 20 mature trees approximately 50 feet high, with about seven dead and diseased trees which would have to go. The design of the proton accelerator building, with three stories of it underground, would need to conform to the red brick early twentieth century “look” of the historic oval slightly to the NortH It has been described as “an expensive” building to construct.
Photo by WPCNR.

Our guide, Willa Brody, on this “live” look at the two sites favored by the White Plains Planning Department, said that the form of parking facilities for any combination of the research lab and the proton accelerator were still being “massaged” by designers and architects at this time.

The Planning Department, in its detailed analysis of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, concluded, “Alternative 5 (Site 5) is a viable option for the Proton Beam Accelerator below grade and the 32,000 square feet of clinical space above grade. It can not accommodate the medical research facility or the parking garage within the requirements of the Historic District regulations.”

DRIVING RANGE IS SITE 8: This lightly wooded site is the second site the hospital has agreed to move the research lab, the proton accelerator, or both facilities. The CitizeNetReporter indicates the site. The trees at the far rear of this site (across the meadow), would remain as a buffer to views from Bryant Avenue. However, the pine tree grove to the left would most likely be removed, Brody said. A substantial swath of trees, (approximately 400, extending back to Bloomingdale’s), shown on the right side of this photograph would be removed to provide a 2-lane access road from Bloomingdale Road.
Photo by WPCNR

The White Plains Planning Department gave a favorable review to Site 8 in its analysis of the DEIS: “Alternative (site) 8 is a viable alternative in that it is consistent with the 1997 Comprehensive Plan and conforms to the Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, it does not have any unmitigated impacts to any environmental features on the site. It is accessible from the Bloomingdales’ store south access road. This road should not be designed to connect to the Bryant Avenue access road.”

Plans are considering a building with two stories below ground and 5 stories above ground, Ms. Brody said. The plans are being created, but she indicated the number of floors was not firm at this time. Ms. Brody advised that decisions on how parking would be accommodated are still under discussion and design.

Plans for designs incorporating the use of both Sites 5 and 8 are expected to be presented to the Common Council the beginning of the week of June 3, according to hospital spokesman, Geoffrey Thompson.

Access Road will impact a slice of site 7, adjacent to Bloomingdale’s.

PORTION OF TREES TO GO: The CitizeNetReporter points to area on the driving range where a swath of trees would be removed for the access road to Site 8.
Photo by WPCNR

Ms. Brody told WPCNR that the access road would parallel the Bloomingdale’s entrance, and would be tracked through to Sites 5 & 8, perching on the edge of the slope overlooking Cassaway Brook, continuing through the woods to Site 8. She said approximately 400 trees would be removed to achieve this entry. This reporter observed that on the heavily wooded Site 7 adjacent to Bloomingdale’s, where the access road is planned to be cut, the trees were mostly very young.

PINK RIBBON IN CENTER OF PICTURE indicates right of way through dense woods where site 8 and 5 access road, a two-lane blacktop, would go. This is looking towards Bloomingdale’s into the Site 7.
Photo by WPCNR

The Common Council will here from Michael Gerard this evening their responsibilities and options in dealing with the Final Environmental Impact Statement now under their review.