NextG Must Demonstrate That Antennas Can't Be Located in Non-Residential Areas First!
- Details
- Hits: 4235
Here is a letter from Edgemont resident Bob Bernstein concerning the NextG application to install cell phone antennas on residential streets in Edgemont. As the author of the ECC legal opinion on the NextG application, I feel it is necessary to correct a number of misconceptions and misstatements in the article about the NextG application that appears on this site.
First, while Federal law does not allow municipalities to bar cell phone antennas solely on health grounds, Federal law has for years balanced the rights of residents concerned about health issues against the need to develop cellphone coverage nationwide by allowing municipalities to restrict cell phone antennas to nonresidential neighborhoods and allow them in residential areas only upon a showing that they cannot be located anywhere else in order to achieve the so-called "seamless web" in cell phone service.
Greenburgh's town code, which has been on the books since 1998, is consistent with Federal law. It requires all cell phone antennas to be located in nonresidential areas unless the applicant can demonstrate that all reasonable efforts to locate antennas in such areas have been exhausted and such antennas are needed in residential areas to eliminate gaps in service.
Here, the Town's Antenna Review Board considered NextG's application for over a year. NextG insisted that it could not locate its antennas on telephone poles and monopole towers along Central Avenue, among other nonresidential locations, but was never asked to provide -- and did not provide -- any substantiation for that assertion. The Antenna Review Board, which has an Edgemont resident as one of its three members, certified NextG's application as having been complete without demanding any such evidence. That was wrong.
Under the Town code, when the Antenna Review Board deems an application to locate cell phone antennas in a residential area is complete, the application goes before the Town Board for a special permit. The special permit may only be granted upon a showing, among other things, that the antennas cannot be located in nonresidential areas and that all efforts to locate them there to "fill gaps" in cell phone service have been exhausted. Residents have not been told that that is the issue.
In fact, Town Supervisor Feiner has cast the issue not in terms of whether the required need has been satisfied, as the Town Code requires, but rather whether federal law limits the Town's ability to deny the permit based on health risks, which it plainly does. As a result, residents and environmental activists not familiar with the Greenburgh Town Code and the law in this area are understandably being misled.
The focus must be on whether the required need has been met and on the basis of the record before the Town thus far, it plainly has not.
As for the required notice, here too Supervisor Feiner has some explaining to do. Every resident who might be impacted by the location of a cell phone antenna near their homes should as a matter of common sense be notified the moment an application to install a cell phone antenna within 500 feet of their homes is filed. The Town Code, however, does not require any such notification until the Town's Antenna Review Board has deemed the application "complete" which could take a year or longer.
Three years ago the ECC tried to remedy the situation by drafting legislation to amend the Town Code so as to require all applicants to give the required notice to residents when their application with the Town is FILED -- not when the application is deemed COMPLETE. That way, residents could follow the progress of the application before the Town's Antenna Review Board and raise questions along the way as to whether the Town's requirements for completing the application have in fact been met. Unfortunately, the chair of the Town's Antenna Review Board refused to allow her board to vote on whether to recommend the legislation, and even though the matter was presented by the ECC to the Town Board at a work session, along with a copy of draft legislation I wrote that had been approved by the Town Attorney's office, not one member of the Town Board was willing to introduce it.
The opposition to changing the law, and thereby giving residents the notice we were seeking, was led by Feiner himself. The only other people opposed to giving residents notice were local lawyers representing the cell phone antenna industry. These lawyers are one of the Town Supervisor's largest single group of political contributors.
I encourage concerned homeowners to attend the Town Board's next hearing on the matter and to demand that the required need be demonstrated and if it is not demonstrated, to either reject the special permit, or send the application back to the Town's Antenna Review Board to insist that the application be re-reviewed for completeness -- this time with evidence to substantiate the applicant's self-serving contentions as to need. And for the same doing, residents who don't like the fact that they weren't given adequate notice should demand that the Town Board introduce and adopt the ECC's draft legislation that would give residents the right to notice of these applications when they are FILED instead of when they are deemed COMPLETED.
Bob Bernstein
48 Old Colony Road
Hartsdale, New York 10530
TVCC Issues Report on County Budget
- Details
- Hits: 3352
The County Fiscal Affairs Committee of the Town and Village Civic Club of Scarsdale has issued their report on the 2012-13 Westchester County budget. The in-depth report on County finances was written by Jackie Irwin, Bill Kay III, James Wetmur and Mark Lewis.
The report was issued to the public by the Executive Committee under the expeditious treatment procedure of the TVCC by-laws. The full membership will act on the report at their next membership meeting on February 2, 2012. County Executive Rob Astorino will attend the 2/2/12 meeting and give an address on the "State of the County" and take questions from the audience.
Here is a summary of the conclusions of the committee’s report. The full report can be viewed here.
- We support County initiatives to seek contributions toward the primary cost of healthcare from all County employees. …We also believe that securing employee participation in paying for healthcare should be a component of any upcoming union contract negotiations.
- We reluctantly support the reduction of 336 positions from County government and recommend that these positions not be restored, as has been the practice of the Board of Legislators several times in recent years. …Our support is reluctant because this headcount reduction requires 210 layoffs which disrupts families and will force those laid off to try to find jobs in an already difficult employment environment.
- We recommend that the County continue to fund the contracts for three neighborhood health centers for at least three months into 2012 to provide a transition and study period, rather than terminating the non-mandated funding for the contracts with the health centers on January 1, 2012.
- We commend the County’s decision to pay all of its 2011 New York State pension fund contribution liabilities in full and recommend that the County consider its participation in the New York State Pension Stabilization Program, if any, year by year.
- We believe the County should urge the Cornell Cooperative Extension to adopt a regional model that encompasses larger areas of the State rather than administer separate offices more locally, in many cases in each county. To help facilitate this transition, we recommend that County government continue to fund the Cornell Cooperative Extension program Westchester for 3 additional months, or other reasonable but finite transition period, into 2012.
- County government should continue efforts to consolidate departments and services to control costs and cut expenses wherever possible.
- The County Executive should release preliminary budgets for expenditures and capital by the end of September including reorganizations of County services and departments if any are contemplated and where any more than nominal lead times are needed
New Public Safety Building Opens in Scarsdale
- Details
- Hits: 3481
We got a preview of Scarsdale’s new Public Safety Building on Fenimore Road this week. Though Police Chief John Brogan reports there is still a punch list for the construction team, Scarsdale Police and Firefighters have finally moved into their state-of-the-art facility. The new headquarters are 27,000 square feet, 10,000 square feet larger than the original building that dates back to 1924. The original portion of the building has been thoroughly renovated and the entire facility is powered by its own generator.
Chief Brogan and Lt. Andrew Matturo took us on a tour of the new police station and we were very impressed with what we saw.
Take a look at these photos of some of the new features including:
-Secure and refrigerated evidence lockers
-An emergency operations center where Village Police, Managers, Firefighters and even Con Edison can assemble to manage emergencies. The room includes voice and data lines, radio systems, audio/visual equipment and work stations.
-The interrogation room,
-The bullet-proof entrance
-Holding cells with stainless steel commodes
-An outdoor cage for stray dogs and animals
-Spacious lockers rooms for men and for women,
-Dormitory rooms where employees can stay overnight when needed.
-An exercise room
…And the much-discussed, 75-foot shooting range.
The shooting range will accommodate officers who are required to train once a year. They can shoot 40 caliber guns, shotguns and M16’s with real or simulated ammunition.
The fire station has a spacious living room and kitchen area for firefighters on call and a large garage that houses two engines and a smaller truck.
The entire staff looked happy and proud to be in their new facilities -- congratulations!
Guggenheimer to Chair Scarsdale Bowl Committee
- Details
- Hits: 4022
Randy Guggenheimer has been named Chair of the 2012 Scarsdale Bowl Committee. Jackie Irwin, President of the Scarsdale Foundation, announced the appointment. As Bowl Committee Chair, Guggenheimer will head the Scarsdale Bowl nominating committee and the community celebration dinner to be held on Wednesday evening, April 18, 2012 at Lake Isle Country Club. The Scarsdale Bowl is awarded annually in the spring to a Scarsdale resident in recognition of his or her outstanding voluntary public service to the community. This year’s Executive Secretary/Treasurer of the Scarsdale Bowl Committee is Deborah Pekarek.
The members of the committee serve staggered two-year terms. The newly appointed class of 2012 includes Linda Hillman Chayes, Merrell Clark, Amy Cooper, Alice Herman, Howard Nadel, Jim O’Connor, and Sara Werder. The continuing Class of 2011 includes Jane Buck, Marc Carter, Malula Gonzalez, Liz Gruber, Anne Moretti, Bill Natbony, and Robert November. Seth Ross, Scarsdale Foundation trustee, will serve on the committee as the liaison. Jackie Irwin, president of the Scarsdale Foundation, is an ex-officio, non-voting member.
Guggenheimer is a Managing Director at Young and Partners, a New York-based investment banking firm serving the life science and chemical industries. He
The 2012 Scarsdale Bowl Committee will begin its work in early December to select the 2012 recipient of the Scarsdale Bowl. The Scarsdale Bowl, has been awarded annually since 1943 to an individual, or in rare instances, to a husband and wife, who has given “unselfishly of his/her time, energy and effort to the civic welfare of the community.” The founding donors of the Bowl believed that “many who serve generously and voluntarily, without office, honor or publicity, are those deserving of having their names permanently inscribed on the Scarsdale Bowl.”
The Scarsdale Bowl is administered by the Scarsdale Foundation which operates as a not-for-profit community foundation to promote the civic welfare. It does so by supporting institutions and individuals in a manner that encourages educational and human development in the community. The Foundation provides financial aid to college students entering their sophomore, junior and senior years. It also administers a number of special purpose funds, and makes grants for specific purposes which have included the Scarsdale Volunteer Ambulance Corps and the Scarsdale/Edgemont Family Counseling Service.
The Bowl Committee enthusiastically welcomes community input. It will hold its first meeting December 11, and requests that residents contact any member of the committee with suggestions of potential recipients. If you have any questions, please contact Randy Guggenheimer at 725-2301.
Valhalla Schools Ordered to Repay $1.864 Million in Illegal Grant Money to Town of Greenburgh
- Details
- Hits: 4337
In the latest development in the case of the Valhalla School District against the Town of Greenburgh, Judge Nicholas Colabella of the New York State Supreme Court has ruled that the town is entitled to recover $1.864 million previously paid to the Valhalla School District. The school district had filed a claim against the Town of Greenburgh for an additional $4.5 million due to them under a grant agreement that dated back to 2004. Under that grant, the Town of Greenburgh was to pay the Valhalla School District $650,000 per year for ten years to compensate them for educating children housed at Westhelp, a facility for the homeless on the campus of Westchester Community College. At the time, the Town of Greenburgh was receiving $1.2 million a year from the County to lease the shelter for the homeless. Greenburgh Town Supervisor Paul Feiner championed the grant of $650,000 per year as a means of funneling some of the County lease money to Valhalla to compensate them for housing and educating the homeless.
However, in January, 2007 a review by the State Comptroller’s office found that the grant to the Valhalla School was unlawful as the monies were not being spent for a town-wide purpose but only for the benefit of one portion of the municipality. The Comptroller deemed it “an impermissible gift of public funds to a private entity,” and reported that the almost $1.9 million that had been already paid over three years had not been used for the benefit of children from Westhelp. In fact, no children from Westhelp were in attendance at Valhalla Schools and the monies were being channeled to” adult education and cultural enrichment programs.” According to a footnote in the judgment, two thirds of the children in the Valhalla School District are not even residents of the Town of Greenburgh, making the benefit of the gift to Greenburgh residents “incidental at best.”
But rather than accept the Comptroller’s decision that the grant was invalid, the Valhalla Schools moved to try to recoup the remaining $4.5 million that would have been paid under the grant agreement. In the November 18, 2011 ruling, instead of ordering the Town of Greenburgh to pay the balance of the illegal grant, the court ordered Valhalla to pay back the $1.864 million already received to the Town of Greenburgh.
In a highly unusual move, two local residents, Robert Bernstein of Edgemont and Herbert Rosenberg of Dobbs Ferry acted as Intervener Defendants in the suit contending that Town Supervisor Paul Feiner's support for the illegal grant created a conflict of interest in the town attorney's office that prevented the town from fairly representing their taxpayers. Consequently both the town’s attorneys and the team of Bernstein and Rosenberg filed claims. The Town argued to recover the funds on the basis that they were constitutionally prohibited from making the grant and that the school district failed to file a timely notice of claim. The Interveners based their claim on the indemnification agreements executed by the school district in which they assumed the legal risk for the grant.
In his decision, the judge wrote, “in fact, there is no inconsistency between the positions of the town and the intervener defendants in this action. The indemnification provisions are merely an alternate basis for recovery.”
Greenburgh Deputy Town Attorney David Fried said, ““We’re extremely pleased that the court agreed with the town’s position that there was no breach of contract and that the district failed to timely file its notice of claim.” Bernstein and Rosenberg claimed that they had won the summary judgment and said, “The ruling is a stern rebuke to Feiner who has for years insisted that the grant was legal and should be enforced.” Either way, the Town stands to recoup the misspent funds.
Will Valhalla appeal? According to the lawyers, it’s possible -- especially because Valhalla could find it impossible to come up with the money to repay the Town of Greenburgh due to the 2% tax cap, which will undoubtedly squeeze the school district even further.
