JUDGE JO ANN FRIIA APPOINTED TO THIRD TERM AS CITY JUDGE. ELIZABETH SHOLLENBERGER APPOINTED TO CITY JUDGE, REPLACING RETIRING JUDGE LEAK

Hits: 340

 

WPCNR WHITE PLAINS LAW JOURNAL. DECEMBER 21, 2016:

The White Plains Common Council met Tuesday evening in Executive Session to deal with appointments to the White Plains City Court.

Afterwards the Common Council voted to reappoint  Judge Jo Ann Friia to her third 10 year term on the City Court bench.

Judge Friia is also Acting Judge County Court of Westchester since 2013.

She was in private practice from 1984 to 1996 and was appointed by the White Plains Common Council to Judge of the City Court in 1997. She graduated from Pace University Law School, 1979 after graduating New York University in 1976. Judge Friia has served as President of the Westchester Women’s Bar Association, President, New York State City Judges Association, 2013-2015.

Elizabeth Shollenberger, a long time lawyer with a practice specializing in consumer law, was voted by the Common Council to the bench, replacing Judge Barbara Leak who is retiring, the Mayor’s Office reported.

Ms. Shollenberger’s law practice specializes in appeals, litigation, family law, election law, hearings and tenant representation. She was appointed last night to a 10-year term on the City Court through 2027.

Ms. Shollenberger is also the Chair of the White Plains Democratic City Committee, and member of the White Plains Rotary Club.

She was admitted to the New York State Bar, First Department in 1982, the Federal District of New York in 1983 and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 2014. Ms. Shollenberger graduated from Princeton University and received her J.D. degree from Yale Law School.

Posted in Uncategorized

WHITE PLAINS SALES TAX $$ SLOW. EVEN WITH LAST YEAR’S JULY TO NOVEMBER PACE. COUNTY ON PACE FOR 1% SALES TAX REVENUE INCREASE FOR ALL OF 2016. 13% LOWER THAN PROJECTED BY COUNTY.

Hits: 119

WPCNR QUILL & EYESHADE. From the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance.December 20, 2016:

The City of White Plains retail pace slowed in November compared to November of last year.

City Sales Tax dollars declined 4% from the single month November 2015 to $4,044,305 in November 2016.

Through the first 5 months of the city 2016-17 fiscal year the city has collected $20,831,839, down 1/3 of a percent from the July through November of 2015 ($20,903,322).

Should the city receive the same sales tax handle for December that they did last year ($4,195,135, December 2015)) the city will be essentially even with last year’s sales tax collection pace, reaching the $25,026,974 level with six months to go in the city fiscal year.

A big December could put White Plains at an all time record for sales taxes by the end of the fiscal year in June, if collections maintain the level of taxes received from January to June 2016.

Westchester County through 11 months has received $454,522,396 in sales taxes. If the county receives the $48,551,543 the county received in sales tax dollars last December they will hit an all time sales tax receipts record, $503,073,939–about 3/4 of a percent higher than the county received in 2015.

It should be noted, that this $503 Million (projected) is 13% lower than what the county expected to get from sales tax receipts in their 2016 budget. They anticipated a 14% increase.

Posted in Uncategorized

Commentary on Mayor Thomas Roach’s Appearance at the Council of Neighborhood Associations

Hits: 125

WPCNR THE LETTER TICKER. DECEMBER 20, 2016
Dear Mayor,                                                                                                                                      
We appreciate your passion and commitment to improve the White Plains downtown area. . .and are amazed with the number of projects that are already in motion. . .as well as those you would like to get done with the new Transportation Center study.
 
Our concern is whether this City Administration has the capability to effectively oversee all of these individual projects, most of which require zoning changes. . .or whether the project oversight will just be turned over to the individual developers. . .which may result in the inclusion of more developer-friendly elements than resident-friendly ones.
 
For example, you mentioned that you are opposed to the current developer plan for the old Good Council property and we know a number of nearby residents to this property are also unhappy with this developer’s plan. . .so why then does this developer plan seem to be progressing along like business as usual?
On a personal note, as fellow members of the Democrat Party, we would like to share with you what we learned from the recent Presidential Election process.  We believe voters across the country expressed the feeling that they like to be asked by their elected officials how they feel, then listened to and in the end see that their concerns and priorities are being addressed.
Citizens don’t like being told by their elected officials what elected officials believe is good for the voters if the elected officials have not listened in the first place . . .which seems to be the pattern with some of our elected officials in White Plains.
 
While we like your passion for making White Plains better. . . to us and other residents whom to you may seem frustrated. . .you appear to be more focused on the interests of large developers than current residents and their neighborhoods as you move forward in your vision for the future of White Plains.
Here’s some specific feedback:
1.  At the meeting you mentioned that the MTA higher-ups are telling you that there are available seats on their trains for all the occupants of the new apartments that you are planning to build downtown. . .not true based on our knowledge.  You asked for specifics and we can report that right now In the AM the 7:37, 7:42 and 7:52 trains are full each day forcing some people to stand all the way to NYC.  And the MTA higher-ups when commenting on their trains can’t include the middle seat of the 3-seaters as open. . .when the MTA’s 3-seaters, unlike airplanes, have no individual separations. . .so if an MTA train has 2 plus-sized or sleeping passengers in a 3-seat space there is little room or desire for another passenger to squeeze in between.
 
Looking over the City’s list of the Transportation Task Force Members in the glossy brochure that was handed out. . .few on this Task Force appear to be every-day train commuters.  Our suggestion is instead of relying on the MTA higher-ups and the Task Force for factual input. . .maybe have some of your City Staff drive to the train station, park and then travel to NYC and back for a week or so to give the City a hands-on and different perspective.
Personally we are looking forward to learning more about the new proposed changes for passenger pick-ups at the train station. . .because with the MTA’s evening train return times from NYC operating about as much on schedule as airport plane arrivals. . .our own train station pick-up experiences is a continuing reminder of our frustrations involved in picking up family members at NY area airports.
So we’re looking forward to the City Staff’s solutions to the train station’s current passenger pick-up problems.
And strangely enough the new Transportation Center study seems to be more focused on attracting large developers for the downtown area. . .than providing improvements for making the every-day train commuting experience more efficient and enjoyable for the residents of White Plains.  We’re not surprised that resident interests are not first!
 
In addition there is a more immediate problem at the train station that your Task Force Members must find a solution for. . .the homeless in our City are using the stairs leading up to the train platforms as personal urinals and are sleeping in the only heated indoor room up on the platform. . .it is not a pleasant experience for current or future every-day train commuters nor is this the correct treatment of our City’s  homeless.  While planning for the future is important. . .unfortunately this is the reality of the City we live in today.
2.  Regarding bike lanes. . .right now few people in the morning commute by bike to the train station. . .primarily because it’s just not safe riding on our streets.
A few weeks ago when the weather was warmer. . .out of 14 bike stations at the train station we counted only 2 being used.  Just because City Staff employees paint bike lanes on a street. . . this does not make traveling by bike on that street safe, particularly in the AM rush periods.
And it is not just downtown as in our Gedney Farms neighborhood traveling by bike on Mamaroneck, Bryant, North Street and Ridgeway is just not safe right now.  Bike lanes are great in concept. . .however its implementation has to insure resident safety, particularly for children. . .and we say bike lane safety is below where it should be right now in White Plains.
In the last 5 years or so we are seeing a lot more cars, trucks, buses and cut-through Traffic on all of our White Plains streets. . .and this is before considering FASNY’s massive incremental Traffic.  Residents from the CarHart Association are also expressing concern about increased Traffic flow on Maple Avenue from development projects in their neighborhood.
It would be nice if our City Staff Traffic experts overseeing all of the many developer projects listen to resident concerns and incorporate this information into their evaluations. . .particularly with FASNY’s plans where in the absence of input from the City Traffic experts. . .the Gedney Association had to pay for their own expert Traffic Studies in order to provide real facts and truthful information.
3.  The list of downtown projects and companies relocating into White Plains are quite impressive and will certainly transform the City. . .and we hope when these projects are completed that there will be seats on the trains and room on our streets for all the additional Traffic these new residents will bring.  Is someone on the City Staff monitoring and incorporating all these potential increases into a master Traffic and Transportation plan?
It is interesting that all these major development projects appear to require changes to White Plains zoning regulations. . .which to us means the City is either not following our Comprehensive Plan or our Comprehensive Plan is out of date.
Our understanding is that our Comprehensive Plan is in place to serve as a vision and guide going forward for citizens, the City Administration and for developers.  So does that mean that with so many zoning changes and exceptions this City Administration is granting now. . .that this City Administration is more comfortable granting exceptions. . .than allowing White Plains citizens to participate again in the revising and updating the Comprehensive Plan?
 4.  Also at the meeting you mentioned that the City had to give the FASNY project more review time because it involved building a school rather than an office building on the old golf course.  Isn’t the real reason this FASNY project has dragged on for so long. . .is that FASNY itself has submitted so many flawed plans where many of the problems with their plans were first exposed by residents rather than the City Staff.  And that this City Administration has allowed FASNY to put forth many plans that are in conflict with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and current R1-30 zoning for the old golf course property.
 
While most citizens are in favor of Open Space. . .residents are not interested in a Conservancy if it involves the tradeoff of agreeing to a massive development which would make Parcel A looks like a over-built downtown section of the City.
As you know the old golf course property is comprised of 4 Parcels of land each separated by Public streets. . .and each Parcel is zoned R1-30, a low density designation established to preserve Open Space and conform to the surrounding residential community.
Somehow over the years either this City Administration went out of their way to help FASNY or were out-negotiated by the FASNY lawyers. . .to allow over-building on Parcel A’s in violation of Parcel A’s own zoning. . .in return for agreeing to a Conservancy on some of FASNY’s other Parcels of land.  All this against residents’ interests, wishes and the individual Parcel A’s R1-30 zoning
All of this seems strange because in other communities the elected officials join together with residents to restrain and control developer plans. . .while in White Plains this City Administration works with developers. . .to change zoning and with FASNY to allow incomplete and factual inaccurate plans that in the end would destroy resident personal property and neighborhoods.
5.  It’s nice that you mentioned that you are taking seriously the findings of the Gedney Association’s expert’s report on potential Environmental problems on FASNY’s Parcel  A property.
However this City Administration should have required FASNY to do this and more Environmental studies long ago. . .as it’s part of the City’s responsibility of protecting zoning, safeguarding resident home values and avoiding potential water and flooding problems that could arise from the FASNY Construction.
In addition we are still awaiting FASNY’s submission of an up-to-date map identifying where all of the underground streams on the old golf course are located. . . so that FASNY’s massive building development on Parcel A can be accurately accessed from an Environmental viewpoint.
Just another example of this City Administration not being tough on the developer FASNY. . .and forcing residents to spend their own money on expert Environmental studies that FASNY should have performed themselves in their own due diligence and multiple plan submissions.
 
If this City Administration over the past 6 years has had trouble understanding, evaluating and uncovering truthful facts from the developer FASNY. . .why should citizens have any faith that all of the proposed new developer projects coming forward in our City will be successfully managed?
We have to wonder what happened to those long-time White Plains Democratic Party campaign priorities. . .of Protecting the Environment, Neighborhoods and Open Space while Caring more about the People of our City. . .all the things you ran on the last time you campaigned.
Thanks again for bringing us up-to-date all the big developer projects. . .please forgive us if we remain skeptical and concerned.
Happy holidays and a great New Year,
Your Truth Police, Team Rhodes
Marie and Ron Rhodes
(Editor’s Note: based on the Strategic Plan presented last week, the city plans to move shuttle pickups to separate area on the White Plains Parking just south of Main Street, adjacent the elevated tracks; Move the Passenger drop off and pick up area adjacent the current entrance to the station, and moving taxi pick up and drop off adjacent to the drop off and pick up area, reversing what exists now. See the diagrams in the WPCNR story published one week ago at
Posted in Uncategorized

COUNCILWOMAN MILAGROS LECUONA ANALYZES TRANSIT STRATEGIC PLAN, NOTES CURRENT FASNY SITUATION ON PEOPLE TO BE HEARD ON THE INTERNET NOW ON YOUTUBE AND whiteplainsweek.com

Hits: 186

JOHN BAILEY AND PETER KATZ INTERVIEW

20161219XMASJDBCARTER 038

WHITE PLAINS COUNCILWOMAN MILAGROS LECUONA 

LICENSED PLANNER IN EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES

ON PEOPLE TO BE HEARD

20161219XMASJDBCARTER 042

“THE PROGRAM WHERE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY…HAVE THEIR SAY”

WESTCHESTER COUNTY’S MOST RELEVANT  INTERVIEW PROGRAM

20161219XMASJDBCARTER 041

 HER IMPRESSIONS OF THE TRANSIT DISTRICT STRATEGIC PLAN

HER UPDATE ON THE FRENCH AMERICAN SCHOOL OF NEW YORK REVISED SITE PLAN

HER PLAN FOR BALDWIN FARMS

AND MORE

see her now on YOUTUBE

OR

www.whiteplainsweek.com

See the program Thursday ON Television at 8 PM ON VERIZON FIOS CHANNEL 45 ALL OVER WESTCHESTER COUNTY

AND ON ALTICE CABLEVISION CHANNEL 76 IN WHITE PLAINS

Posted in Uncategorized

STANDARD AMUSEMENTS STILL ALL IN AT PLAYLAND: GELFARB

Hits: 145

WPCNR PLAYLAND GO ROUND. December 19, 2016:

Standard Amusements, WPCNR has learned, informed Westchester County early this fall that it would not pay for renovations and repairs to the Playland pool, which Standard had envisioned as becoming a public restaurant/catering facility due to the deteriorated condition of the pool. Standard said the County would have to pay for repairs and improvements to the pool if the county wanted to keep the pool.

David Gelfarb, Chair of the County Legislators Labor, Parks, Housing and Planning Committee, asked by WPCNR if Standard Amusements had dropped out of its 15 year agreement to run Playland and fund $30 Million of improvements, since Gelfarb’s Committee had allocated $10 Million in Playland Pool improvements, Gelfarb issued this statement to WPCNR:

“Standard Amusements has not pulled out of the deal. In essence, they have not taken a strong position on the pool, because their position is that if the County wants to fix/repair/enhance it, the County has to pay for it. Things have been disrupted by the City of Rye lawsuit, we’ll have to see how the Courts handle it. “

Asked where the lawsuit now stands, Gelfarb issued this statement to WPCNR; 

” It is before the Judge and I believe everyone is waiting for a decision.”

Posted in Uncategorized

NORTH STREET CIVIC ASSOCIATION LOBBIES THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL ON FASNY– DECRIES REMOVAL OF STACKPOLE AND RESIGNATION OF QUINN FROM PLANNING BOARD

Hits: 134

 WPCNR LETTER TICKER. Special to WPCNR From the North Street Civic Association. December 17.2016:

The North Street Civic Association has released to WPCNR the following letter urging the Mayor and Common Council to reject removing the environmentally sensitive designation from the area where  the French American School of New York wants to build its 7-buiding school complex on the former Ridgeway Country Club

 

Email To:  Mayor Roach and Each Member of the Common Council

Subject: FASNY’s Alternative Plan Application

Date:  December 14, 2016

The Board of the North Street Area Civic Association would like to add its support to the statements and concerns expressed by the Gedney Association in its letters of December 1, 2016 (with accompanying legal letter and environmental expert report) and November 21, 2016 with respect to the Alternative Plan Application submitted by FASNY on November 2, 2016.

 

As we all know, the Alternate Plan is essentially Phase 1 of the “Original Plan” with all access to the school coming off of Ridgeway.  While FASNY’s attorneys say the Plan now includes only FASNY’s “Upper School,” in reality it includes what FASNY describes — on its own website — as its Upper School AND its Middle School (i.e., grades 6-8), all on the single Parcel A.

 

We start by stating unequivocally that NSACA is no less troubled by the Alternative Plain with the entrance on Ridgeway than it was when the entrance was on North Street, given the traffic and safety concerns for pedestrians and bikers, especially school children who walk or ride to and from Ridgeway Elementary School, Our Lady of Sorrows School and White Plains and Archbishop Stepinac High Schools, and for drivers navigating the increased traffic.

As it is, westbound traffic on Ridgeway between the hours of 4:00 and 6:00 PM is already a significant problem.  Traffic backs up from Mamaroneck Avenue to Westchester Hills and the former Ridgeway country clubs by around a quarter of a mile.  Adding 400+ automobile trips during AM and PM peak hours in the morning and afternoon is a genuine threat to our schoolchildren and others, and it will no doubt exacerbate a traffic problem that needs to be fixed even before any FASNY plan is allowed to proceed. The Common Council already determined that the Ridgeway entrance is unacceptable. None other than John Kirkpatrick said “We can’t allow this school if we have traffic off of Ridgeway. The traffic is just too intense, it’s too great.” The south end of the City will face gridlock that will seriously affect the safety of our neighborhoods.

 

We are appalled at the suggestion that the Council should “issue a determination that no supplemental environmental review is required”. If the Council determined once through a full SEQRA process that the Ridgeway entrance was unacceptable, how can it now determine otherwise, especially without going through a full SEQRA process with public input. That process would allow (and should encourage) comment by the towns and municipalities that might be affected by environmental consequences of the development.

 

We would like to focus here on FASNY’s attempt, apparently supported by various city officials, to remove the “environmentally sensitive” designation from Parcel A.  We are all aware that reversal of this designation would mean that a supermajority vote would no longer be required for the project to be approved.

 

As detailed in the legal letter submitted by Gedney Association, the Common Council determined on August 1, 2011 and in its Findings Statement adopted pursuant to SEQRA (which according to the Stipulation is part of the full Administrative Record required to be part of the Alternative Plan Application) that “The Property which is the subject of the Application is an environmentally sensitive site (ESS) with multiple environmentally sensitive features including a New York State registered wetland”. Specifically, Finding B-1 stated “The entire Project Site is an environmentally sensitive site.  Significant potential stormwater impacts could result from the development of the site unless mitigated through properly designed and constructed stormwater management techniques and infrastructure.”  As summarized by Gedney Association’s lawyers, Finding B-1 is “dispositive of the issue”; the entire Project Site is an ESS. As far as we know, a reversal of a parcel’s “environmentally sensitive” designation would be unprecedented.

 

We strongly believe the Council cannot legally remove the environmentally sensitive designation of Parcel A, especially by a simple majority vote and without a full environmental review. Even if it would be legal, to do so would be irresponsible and an abdication of the duty of the Mayor and Council Members to the public. It certainly should not be done in this case, where the effect would be to remove the supermajority requirement and quite possibly result in approval of a project that would not be approved if the supermajority requirement applies.  There is a reason why White Plains law requires a supermajority to approve development on an environmentally site and it subverts the intent of that law to reverse the designation and approve the development with a simple majority.

 

We were encouraged by the Mayor’s statement (at last night’s meeting of the Council of Neighborhood Associations) that he has not yet concluded that Parcel A is not an ESS but we are perplexed as to why this is even under consideration, as the Common Council already determined, pursuant to the SEQRA process, that the entire FASNY property is an ESS. 

Although the Findings Statement stated that the “environmentally sensitive features of the Project Site are located primarily on two of the four parcels, Parcels C and D”, the same findings acknowledge that “there are portions of the Project Site on all parcels that have steep slopes and portions that experience impacts from storm water run off that must be managed”.

We believe that the papers submitted by the Gedney Association clearly show that Parcel A, by itself, is an ESS, and we submit that, even if the City’s experts come to a different conclusion, the Council cannot legally reverse its finding and determine that Parcel A is not an ESS, at least not without going through the processes required by SEQRA, including the public input required by statute.

To bypass the super majority requirement in this way would be a miscarriage of justice which will have legal as well as political consequences.

We conclude by noting our surprise and dismay to hear about the sudden resignation of Michael Quinn as the Chair and the removal of Robert Stackpole as a member of the Planning Board just three days before the Planning Board’s vote on FASNY’s proposal. Our Board had a very strong and positive working relationship with Messrs. Quinn and Stackpole and we believe the City is ill-served by their departures.

 

Thank you.

 

Respectfully,

North Street Area Civic Association

 

Board Members:

Allen Flissler, President

Alan Himmelstein – Vice President

Bob Friscia – Secretary

Pat Bernstein – Treasurer

Carry Kyzivat

Stuart Pearlman

Shelia O‘Brien

Posted in Uncategorized

PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE DAY

Hits: 120

THREE AND A HALF INCHES OF SNOW FELL OVER NIGHT IN WHITE PLAINS NY USA AND IT HAS CHANGED TO RAIN BY 10:30 AM WITH THE TEMPERATURE RISING TO 30 MISERABLE DEGREES F
20161217snow 00620161217snow 00420161217snow 00320161217snow 002

Posted in Uncategorized

FIRST WIND PROPERTY AUCTIONED BY DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

Hits: 154

WPCNR POWER NEWS. From Environment NY. December 16, 2016:

Today, Statoil Wind LLC won an auction held by the U.S. Department of Interior for the New York Wind Energy Area. The New York Wind Energy Area is 79,350 acres. Heather Leibowitz, Director of Environment New York, issued the following statement in response:

“The Empire State has a great opportunity to be a national leader in tackling climate change and developing offshore wind. The successful lease sale of New York’s first Wind Energy Area is a great step forward to tapping into this tremendous clean, pollution-free resource. We look forward to continuing to work with local, state and national officials to bring offshore wind to New York.”

Posted in Uncategorized

WHITE PLAINS WEEK TRANSIT DISTRICT STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY NEWS SPECIAL ON YOUTUBE AND THE INTERNET NOW.

Hits: 135

2016318wpw 001

WHITE PLAINS WEEK TRANSIT DISTRICT STRATEGIC PLAN SPECIAL

THE DECEMBER 16 SHOW ON YOUTUBE NOW AT

https://youtu.be/CuPa9owbUL4

AND

JOHN BAILEY AND PETER KATZ 

EXCLUSIVE VIDEO OF

THE STAKEHOLDER TASK FORCE

STRATEGIC PLAN FOR DOWNTOWN.

20161212Strategicplan 088

PROS CONS–WHAT’S MISSING–WHAT’S AHEAD

PLUS

PETER KATZ’S EXCLUSIVE

TRUMP IN TRANSITION

WEEKLY WRAPUP OF THE TRUMP TEAM

AND MORE

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized

WHITE PLAINS HIGH HONORS 156 SCHOLAR ATHLETES–ALL WITH AVERAGE OF 90 OR BETTER.

Hits: 178

WPCNR SCHOOL DAYS. Special to WPCNR from Michele Schoenfeld. Clerk to the Board of Education December 16, 2016:

One hundred-fifty-six White Plains High School students from nine Fall Varsity Athletic Teams were named Scholar-Athletes by the New York State Public High School Athletic Association.

This status is awarded on the basis of an average of 90 or better.  Sixty percent all of the athletes competing in Fall Varsity Sports achieved this recognition.

Athletic Director Matt Cameron introduced the coaches, who presented certificates and pins to the students in a recognition ceremony at the Board of Education Meeting on December 12th.

Teams represented were Boys’ Cross Country, coached by Fred Singleton; Girls’ Cross Country, coached by Carlos Agudelo; Field Hockey, coached by Joan Behrends; Girls’ Soccer, Meaghan Chase;, Coach; Boys’ Soccer, coached by Jack Gigli; Girls’ Swimming and Diving, Patricia Gilmartin, Coach;, Girls’ Tennis, coached by Sue Adams; Volleyball, Caitlyn MacDonald, Coach; and Football, Michael Lindberg, Coach.

Acting Superintendent Dr. Howard W. Smith and Board of Education President Rosemarie Eller congratulated the student and their coaches.  They also thanked the parents of these students for their role in this recognition.

photo

 Girls’ Swimming & Diving Coach Patricia Gilmartin presents certificates with Athletic Director Matt Cameron looking on (far right). Photo, Courtesy,White Plains City School District

 

Posted in Uncategorized