http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/opinion/nyregionopinions/WEYonkers.html?ref=nyregionopinions
Letters to the Editor: From Today's New York Times
Yonkers’ Waterfront: Let’s Think Again
Published: April 15, 2007
Unfortunately, “A New Proposal to Rescue Yonkers’ Waterfront” (April 8) did not show the actual building design proposed by the London-based architect Will Alsop. The building is described as “color-spattered,” and indeed it would be a lively touch against the bland office towers in London’s Docklands complex.
But placed in the Hudson Valley the design is a monstrosity. The shape is awkward. The polychrome surface treatment is trivial and unrelated to the former powerhouse at its base. The scale is hideously out of proportion with the landscape.
After more than a century of industrial misuse of our shoreline, current planners seem determined to replace one blight with another. Mr. Alsop’s proposal has the virtue of being “green” architecture, but a building need not be outrageous and oversized to be environmentally sound or original.
Michelle Jacobs
Yonkers
To the Editor:
Yonkers is poised as bait for developers with a buck in their pocket but who want to earn three at the city’s expense. Traffic and overall planning theme and coherence are but two of the major hurdles.
We need to step back, take a deep breath and count to ten. “How should Yonkers look as gateway to the Hudson Valley?” should be the primary question on everyone’s minds.
Gary Miller
Yonkers
Parking is questioned in the Journal News.
Where can tower tenants park?
Aside from the fact that the design for the Glenwood Power Station on the Hudson in Yonkers is a monstrosity, I would like to know where they plan to park all the cars for the 390 apartments and condos, museum and restaurant? Do they plan on using Kennedy marina?
Nicholas Maggio
Yonkers
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Friday, April 13, 2007
Different perspectives on the Glenwood Powerstation.
From today's Journal News Letters to the editor.
Tower would destroy beauty of river
(Original publication: April 13, 2007)
Tower would destroy beauty of river
I was deeply distressed by the Tuesday editorial praising the proposed development of the old Glenwood power plant. It implies that any development in Yonkers is good, while ignoring the fact that development must be appropriate to its surroundings. The confetti-colored tower proposed by British architect Will Alsop would offer a lively contrast to the bland office towers of London's Docklands complex. However, in the context of the Hudson Valley it is a monstrosity. The shape is awkward. The polychrome exterior is trivial and completely unrelated to the former powerhouse at its base. The scale is as badly disproportional to the landscape as the powerhouse's smokestacks.
Our Hudson River is a natural masterpiece that the editorial says "hardly requires embellishment." Erecting tall buildings will destroy the beauty from any vantage point on the river or Palisades, and block the views of Yonkers residents. After more than a century of industrial misuse of its shoreline, Yonkers seems determined to replace one blight with another. Alsop's architecture has the virtue of being "green," but a building need not be outrageous and oversized to be environmentally sound. Yonkers shouldn't strive to become "Manhattan north." We need no more "eye-catching" skyline than the matchless one nature provided.
Barrymore Laurence Scherer
Yonkers
The writer is speaker on architecture, New York Council for the Humanities.
Tower proposal needs re-thinking
Had your Editorial Board (passing by from parts unknown) detrained at the Glenwood Metro-North station to stroll the neighborhood, you would agree that the design and scope of the proposed Glenwood Power Station redevelopment insults its surroundings.
Yonkers and Lower Hudson Valley residents deserve practical architecture deferential to the majesty of the Palisades, not an imported museum piece to gawk at which we may or may not "grow to love." A suitable design exists in the existing structure (smokestacks included).
Christopher Keane
Yonkers
Tower would destroy beauty of river
(Original publication: April 13, 2007)
Tower would destroy beauty of river
I was deeply distressed by the Tuesday editorial praising the proposed development of the old Glenwood power plant. It implies that any development in Yonkers is good, while ignoring the fact that development must be appropriate to its surroundings. The confetti-colored tower proposed by British architect Will Alsop would offer a lively contrast to the bland office towers of London's Docklands complex. However, in the context of the Hudson Valley it is a monstrosity. The shape is awkward. The polychrome exterior is trivial and completely unrelated to the former powerhouse at its base. The scale is as badly disproportional to the landscape as the powerhouse's smokestacks.
Our Hudson River is a natural masterpiece that the editorial says "hardly requires embellishment." Erecting tall buildings will destroy the beauty from any vantage point on the river or Palisades, and block the views of Yonkers residents. After more than a century of industrial misuse of its shoreline, Yonkers seems determined to replace one blight with another. Alsop's architecture has the virtue of being "green," but a building need not be outrageous and oversized to be environmentally sound. Yonkers shouldn't strive to become "Manhattan north." We need no more "eye-catching" skyline than the matchless one nature provided.
Barrymore Laurence Scherer
Yonkers
The writer is speaker on architecture, New York Council for the Humanities.
Tower proposal needs re-thinking
Had your Editorial Board (passing by from parts unknown) detrained at the Glenwood Metro-North station to stroll the neighborhood, you would agree that the design and scope of the proposed Glenwood Power Station redevelopment insults its surroundings.
Yonkers and Lower Hudson Valley residents deserve practical architecture deferential to the majesty of the Palisades, not an imported museum piece to gawk at which we may or may not "grow to love." A suitable design exists in the existing structure (smokestacks included).
Christopher Keane
Yonkers
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
RidgeHill Back on the Planning Board Agenda Tonight 5:30pm
Here's the agenda
http://www.cityofyonkers.com/planning/agendas%2007/p-4-11.htm
SITE PLAN 14. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR PROPOSED SIGNAGE
REVIEW AT RIDGE HILL AT BLOCK: 4060 LOT: 1 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1 RIDGE HILL BOULEVARD PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
HENRY HOCHERMAN, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
B. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
http://www.cityofyonkers.com/planning/agendas%2007/p-4-11.htm
SITE PLAN 14. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR PROPOSED SIGNAGE
REVIEW AT RIDGE HILL AT BLOCK: 4060 LOT: 1 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1 RIDGE HILL BOULEVARD PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
HENRY HOCHERMAN, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
B. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
Monday, April 9, 2007
CDA Board Meeting - April 19th - 4:00pm
CDA Board Meeting - April 19th - 4:00pm
The Draft Agenda includes the following Draft Resolution:
1. RESOLUTION OF THE YONKERS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTAGENCY AUTHORIZING CONTRACT WITH N.Y.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR FUNDING OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO INITIATE COMMUTER FERRY SERVICE BETWEEN LOWER MANHATTAN AND YONKERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES CONTAINED IN THE YONKERS DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN.
The Draft Agenda includes the following Draft Resolution:
1. RESOLUTION OF THE YONKERS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTAGENCY AUTHORIZING CONTRACT WITH N.Y.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR FUNDING OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO INITIATE COMMUTER FERRY SERVICE BETWEEN LOWER MANHATTAN AND YONKERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES CONTAINED IN THE YONKERS DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Friday, March 30, 2007
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Councilwoman McDow Holds Meeting on Power Station Friday March 30th 6:30pm
Yonkers City Council Majority Leader Patricia McDow (D - Dist. 1) is hosting a "Power Plant Introduction" on March 30, 2007 at the Hudson River Museum at 6:30 PM. The Majority Leader invites everyone interested in the Power Plant redevelopment to attend. McDow, who represents the area of the proposed development, said the meeting, "Will provide residents and neighbors of the power plant an ideal opportunity to review the developer's plans. More importantly, it is an opportunity to share ideas and suggestions with me and directly with the developers." The developer, REMI Companies, will review proposed plans with the public, but will also have hands-on activities planned for attendees. Children and teens are encouraged to attend. For more information, please feel free to call the Council office at 914-377-6311
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Tonight: City Hall at 7:00pm The State of The City Address by Mayor Philip Amicone
This event according to today's Journal News will be broadcast on both News Channel 12 and Chanel 78 both on the Cablevision System at 7:00pm.
Two Meetings Tomorrow: Kimber Manufacturing Meeting and the Ethics Board: See Below for details.
http://communityfirstdevelopmentcoalition.blogspot.com/2007/03/kimber-meeting-with-liam-mclaughlin.html
The Ethics Board will meet in the Mayors Conference Room City Hall Thursday March 29th at 7:00pm
The Ethics Board will meet in the Mayors Conference Room City Hall Thursday March 29th at 7:00pm
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
The City Council will vote on the SFC FINAL SCOPING document for the Tomorrow March 27th 2007 at 8:00pm
Any member of the public wishing to speak on this or any agenda item at the 7:30 PM "committee of the whole" must sign up by calling the City Clerk at 377-6020 before 3:00 pm Tuesday.
Agenda for the meeting can be read by using the link below:
http://www.cityofyonkers.com/citycouncil/index.htm
For more on the SFC Project
http://www.sfcyonkers.com/projects/index.htm
Agenda for the meeting can be read by using the link below:
http://www.cityofyonkers.com/citycouncil/index.htm
For more on the SFC Project
http://www.sfcyonkers.com/projects/index.htm
Glenwood Power Station: Exhibition
http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070326/NEWS01/703260364/1246/NEWS0224
for more information go to Rob Yasinsac's website
http://www.hudsonvalleyruins.org/
FYI The Landmark Preservation of this building has been sitting on the City Council Presidents Chuck Lesnick's desk, and that of the Real Estate co-chair Dennis Robertson since November 2005.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Friday, March 23, 2007
Reminder. Last Day for Brownfield Comments
Comments for Sun PolyChrome East site are due Today, March 23, for Sun Polychrome West site they are due on April 13th.
The DEC contact person is Michael Ryan and his e-mail address is:
mjryan@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Phone & Fax numbers: (518) 402-9564; (518) 402-9679
All the information can be found by going to this link.
http://communityfirstdevelopmentcoalition.blogspot.com/2007/03/brownfield-cleanup-program.html
The DEC contact person is Michael Ryan and his e-mail address is:
mjryan@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Phone & Fax numbers: (518) 402-9564; (518) 402-9679
All the information can be found by going to this link.
http://communityfirstdevelopmentcoalition.blogspot.com/2007/03/brownfield-cleanup-program.html
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Reminder: IDA Meeting Tomorrow
IDA Meeting
Yonkers IDA Meeting
Thursday, March 22, 2007
8:30 a.m.
Yonkers City Hall
Mayor’s Reception Room
Agenda available Now. Here's the link.
http://www.yonkersida.com/PDFs/Agendas/Agenda_3_22_07.pdf
Yonkers IDA Meeting
Thursday, March 22, 2007
8:30 a.m.
Yonkers City Hall
Mayor’s Reception Room
Agenda available Now. Here's the link.
http://www.yonkersida.com/PDFs/Agendas/Agenda_3_22_07.pdf
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Monday, March 19, 2007
Brownfield Cleanup Program
*********************************
Brownfield Cleanup Program
Site Name: Sun PolyChrome Corporation - East
Site Address: 80-94 Alexander Street
Yonkers, New York 10701
County: Westchester
Site No.: C360098
Requestor: SFC Sun, LLC
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) administers the Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP) pursuant to State Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) 27-1400 et seq. The BCP was created to encourage the remediation and redevelopment of contaminated properties known as brownfields. The requestor indicated above has submitted a BCP application for investigation of the site indicated above.
NYSDEC will accept public comments concerning the application. A copy of the application and other appropriate documents (application package) is available in the site document repository located at the address indicated below.
NYSDEC will review the application package and public comments received and then make a determination on the eligibility of the application.
Comments should be submitted by March 23, 2007 to:
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Environmental Remediation - Remedial Bureau C
625 Broadway - 11th Floor
Albany, New York 12233-7014
Attention: Michael Ryan
Repository address:
Yonkers Public Library
One Larkin Center
Yonkers, New York 10701
*******************************************************************************
Site Name: Sun Poly Chrome Corporation-West
Site Address: 137-145 Alexander Street
Yonkers, NY 10701
County: Westchester
Site No.: C360099
Requestor: SFC Sun, LLC
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) administers the Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP) pursuant to State Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) 27-1400 et seq. The BCP was created to encourage the remediation and redevelopment of contaminated properties known as brownfields. The requestor indicated above has submitted a BCP application for remediation of the site indicated above.
NYSDEC will accept public comments concerning the application. A copy of the application and other appropriate documents (application package) is available in the site document repository located at the address indicated below.
NYSDEC will review the application package and public comments received and then make a determination on the eligibility of the application.
Comments should be submitted by April 16, 2007 to:
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Environmental Remediation, 11th Floor
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233-7014
Attention: Mike Ryan
Repository address:
Yonkers Public Library
One Larkin Center
Yonkers, NY 10701
Brownfield Cleanup Program
Site Name: Sun PolyChrome Corporation - East
Site Address: 80-94 Alexander Street
Yonkers, New York 10701
County: Westchester
Site No.: C360098
Requestor: SFC Sun, LLC
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) administers the Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP) pursuant to State Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) 27-1400 et seq. The BCP was created to encourage the remediation and redevelopment of contaminated properties known as brownfields. The requestor indicated above has submitted a BCP application for investigation of the site indicated above.
NYSDEC will accept public comments concerning the application. A copy of the application and other appropriate documents (application package) is available in the site document repository located at the address indicated below.
NYSDEC will review the application package and public comments received and then make a determination on the eligibility of the application.
Comments should be submitted by March 23, 2007 to:
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Environmental Remediation - Remedial Bureau C
625 Broadway - 11th Floor
Albany, New York 12233-7014
Attention: Michael Ryan
Repository address:
Yonkers Public Library
One Larkin Center
Yonkers, New York 10701
*******************************************************************************
Site Name: Sun Poly Chrome Corporation-West
Site Address: 137-145 Alexander Street
Yonkers, NY 10701
County: Westchester
Site No.: C360099
Requestor: SFC Sun, LLC
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) administers the Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP) pursuant to State Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) 27-1400 et seq. The BCP was created to encourage the remediation and redevelopment of contaminated properties known as brownfields. The requestor indicated above has submitted a BCP application for remediation of the site indicated above.
NYSDEC will accept public comments concerning the application. A copy of the application and other appropriate documents (application package) is available in the site document repository located at the address indicated below.
NYSDEC will review the application package and public comments received and then make a determination on the eligibility of the application.
Comments should be submitted by April 16, 2007 to:
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Environmental Remediation, 11th Floor
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233-7014
Attention: Mike Ryan
Repository address:
Yonkers Public Library
One Larkin Center
Yonkers, NY 10701
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Friday, March 16, 2007
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION meeting Tomorrow Night
There is a CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION meeting this Wednesday, March 14, in the Mayor's conference room beginning at 7:00 pm.
For those of you interested in the Atlantic Yards Project, check out the Blog Below
http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2007/03/unclean-hands-judge-raps-boymelgreen.html
Also pay a visit to the Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn site
http://dddb.net/php/latestnews_ArchiveDate.php
and the detailed Blog of No Land Grab
http://www.nolandgrab.org/
Also pay a visit to the Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn site
http://dddb.net/php/latestnews_ArchiveDate.php
and the detailed Blog of No Land Grab
http://www.nolandgrab.org/
Monday, March 12, 2007
Council Meeting Tomorrow Night: See Details Below
Hi, please note that the final Scoping Document for the SFC Phase 1 project will be discussed at a REAL ESTATE committee meeting scheduled for 7:00 pm TUESDAY, March 13, before the regularly scheduled City Council meeting (see below). The final Scoping Document is on the Council agenda for a vote that night -- agenda is able at
http://www.cityofyonkers.com/citycouncil/agendas07/20070309-100247.pdf
If you wish to speak on any matter on the City Council agenda at the 7:30 pm "Committee of the Whole," you need to call & sign up with the City Clerk's office (377-6020) by 3:00 pm TUESDAY.
http://www.cityofyonkers.com/citycouncil/agendas07/20070309-100247.pdf
If you wish to speak on any matter on the City Council agenda at the 7:30 pm "Committee of the Whole," you need to call & sign up with the City Clerk's office (377-6020) by 3:00 pm TUESDAY.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
PLANNING BOARD MEETING WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2007 AT 5:30 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING BOARD Roman Kozicky, Chairman
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA
YONKERS, NEW YORK
AGENDA: FOR A REGULAR MEETING OF THE YONKERS PLANNING BOARD TO BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2007 AT 5:30 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 4TH FLOOR, YONKERS, NY.
PLEASE NOTE: ANY MATTER REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE
HEARD AFTER 7 P.M. ITEMS MAY BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE PUBLIC COMMENT.
MINUTES:
1. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 28, 2007.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN 2. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PARKING LOT
REVIEW AT BLOCK: 5039 LOT: 16 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 829 MIDLAND AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
JOHN SPENCER, JR., REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL
ZONING 3. REFERRAL FROM THE YONKERS CITY COUNCIL
AMENDMENT FOR A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO HOUSING LOCATION FOR REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS
A. SEQRA: TYPE I ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SITE PLAN 4. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED
REVIEW HANDICAPPED RAMP AND ACCESS STAIRS AT BLOCK: 2359 LOT: 24 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 10-16 LOCKWOOD AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
THOMAS HAYNES, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL
SUBDIVISION 5. PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED
APPLICATION THREE LOT SUBDIVISION AT BLOCK: 6351
PUBLIC HEARING LOTS: 28 & 29 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 25
(CONTINUED) THURTON PLACE PURSUANT TO THE CITY OF
YONKERS SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MICHAEL MCGARVEY, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED)
B. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL
SITE PLAN 6. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND PROPOSED CHANGE TO
REVIEW SWEP COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR A PROPOSED COMMERCIAL LAUNDRY (CINTAS) FACILITY AT BLOCK: 3455 LOT: 1 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 325 CORPORATE BOULEVARD PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
AL DELBELLO, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
B. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN/ SITE PLAN
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
OFFICIAL 7. REFERRAL FROM THE YONKERS CITY COUNCIL
MAP ACTION REGARDING A REQUEST TO DISCONTINUE A PAPER STREET KNOWN AS COURTSIDE TERRACE
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED
LEAD AGENCY: CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL USE 8. SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
PERMIT/ SITE FOR PROPOSED PHILANTHROPIC USE WITH
PLAN REVIEW/ SOCIAL SERVICE AT BLOCK: 124 LOTS: 42-46 ON
PUBLIC HEARING THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 485 AKA 487 SOUTH
(CONTINUED) BROADWAY PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX AND
ARTICLE VII OF THE YONKERS ZONING
ORDINANCE.
JEFFREY BUSS, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED)
B. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
SITE PLAN 9. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR HILLVIEW RESERVOIR
REVIEW AT BLOCK: 8002 LOT: 1 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 100 CENTRAL PARK AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
RICHARD ZUNINO AND SANDRA JACKSON, REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
NEW BUSINESS:
PRELIMINARY 10. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A
SITE PLAN PROPOSED MULTI USE BUILDING AT BLOCK: 161
REVIEW LOTS 15, 17, & 19 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 303 SOUTH BROADWAY PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
STEVE ACCINELLI AND JAMES VENERUSO, REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: DETERMINATION/ COORDINATED REVIEW
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
SITE PLAN 11. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR PROPOSED SITE
REVIEW IMPROVEMENTS AT BLOCK: 3415 LOT: 42 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1020-1022 NORTH BROADWAY PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
ROYDEN LETSON, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
SITE PLAN 12. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED ADDITION
REVIEW AT ST. JOHNS HOSPITAL AT BLOCK: 3535 LOTS: 68 & 100 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 967 NORTH BROADWAY PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
GREGG DEANGELIS, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
PLANNING BOARD DESCISION
SITE PLAN 13. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR PROPOSED NEW SIGNAGE
REVIEW AT CHASE BANK AT BLOCK: 4350 LOT: 6 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 2195 CENTRAL PARK AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
RICH HEKIMAN AND JAMES INGUNZA, REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
PLANNING BOARD DESCISION
SITE PLAN 14. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED OFFICE
REVIEW BUILDING AT BLOCK: 3455 LOT: 13 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 225 CORPORATE BOULEVARD PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
KIMBERLEY MARTELLI, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
SITE PLAN 15. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED 70 UNIT
REVIEW APARTMENT BUILDING AT BLOCK: 185 LOT: 50 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 7- 17 LUDLOW STREET PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
ED WEINSTEIN, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
ZONING 16. REFERRAL FROM THE YONKERS CITY ORDINANCE COUNCIL REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO
AMENDMENT THE YONKERS CITY CODE TO PERMIT A NEW
(TEXT) "PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT" SECTION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED
LEAD AGENCY: CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
OTHER
BUSINESS
17. REVIEW OF CROSS COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER
STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
18. SCHEDULE WORK SESSIONS AS NECESSARY
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA
YONKERS, NEW YORK
AGENDA: FOR A REGULAR MEETING OF THE YONKERS PLANNING BOARD TO BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2007 AT 5:30 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 4TH FLOOR, YONKERS, NY.
PLEASE NOTE: ANY MATTER REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE
HEARD AFTER 7 P.M. ITEMS MAY BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE PUBLIC COMMENT.
MINUTES:
1. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 28, 2007.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN 2. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PARKING LOT
REVIEW AT BLOCK: 5039 LOT: 16 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 829 MIDLAND AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
JOHN SPENCER, JR., REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL
ZONING 3. REFERRAL FROM THE YONKERS CITY COUNCIL
AMENDMENT FOR A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO HOUSING LOCATION FOR REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS
A. SEQRA: TYPE I ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SITE PLAN 4. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED
REVIEW HANDICAPPED RAMP AND ACCESS STAIRS AT BLOCK: 2359 LOT: 24 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 10-16 LOCKWOOD AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
THOMAS HAYNES, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL
SUBDIVISION 5. PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED
APPLICATION THREE LOT SUBDIVISION AT BLOCK: 6351
PUBLIC HEARING LOTS: 28 & 29 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 25
(CONTINUED) THURTON PLACE PURSUANT TO THE CITY OF
YONKERS SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MICHAEL MCGARVEY, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED)
B. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL
SITE PLAN 6. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND PROPOSED CHANGE TO
REVIEW SWEP COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR A PROPOSED COMMERCIAL LAUNDRY (CINTAS) FACILITY AT BLOCK: 3455 LOT: 1 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 325 CORPORATE BOULEVARD PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
AL DELBELLO, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
B. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN/ SITE PLAN
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
OFFICIAL 7. REFERRAL FROM THE YONKERS CITY COUNCIL
MAP ACTION REGARDING A REQUEST TO DISCONTINUE A PAPER STREET KNOWN AS COURTSIDE TERRACE
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED
LEAD AGENCY: CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL USE 8. SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
PERMIT/ SITE FOR PROPOSED PHILANTHROPIC USE WITH
PLAN REVIEW/ SOCIAL SERVICE AT BLOCK: 124 LOTS: 42-46 ON
PUBLIC HEARING THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 485 AKA 487 SOUTH
(CONTINUED) BROADWAY PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX AND
ARTICLE VII OF THE YONKERS ZONING
ORDINANCE.
JEFFREY BUSS, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED)
B. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
SITE PLAN 9. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR HILLVIEW RESERVOIR
REVIEW AT BLOCK: 8002 LOT: 1 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 100 CENTRAL PARK AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
RICHARD ZUNINO AND SANDRA JACKSON, REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
NEW BUSINESS:
PRELIMINARY 10. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A
SITE PLAN PROPOSED MULTI USE BUILDING AT BLOCK: 161
REVIEW LOTS 15, 17, & 19 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 303 SOUTH BROADWAY PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
STEVE ACCINELLI AND JAMES VENERUSO, REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: DETERMINATION/ COORDINATED REVIEW
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
SITE PLAN 11. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR PROPOSED SITE
REVIEW IMPROVEMENTS AT BLOCK: 3415 LOT: 42 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1020-1022 NORTH BROADWAY PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
ROYDEN LETSON, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
SITE PLAN 12. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED ADDITION
REVIEW AT ST. JOHNS HOSPITAL AT BLOCK: 3535 LOTS: 68 & 100 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 967 NORTH BROADWAY PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
GREGG DEANGELIS, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
PLANNING BOARD DESCISION
SITE PLAN 13. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR PROPOSED NEW SIGNAGE
REVIEW AT CHASE BANK AT BLOCK: 4350 LOT: 6 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 2195 CENTRAL PARK AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
RICH HEKIMAN AND JAMES INGUNZA, REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
PLANNING BOARD DESCISION
SITE PLAN 14. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED OFFICE
REVIEW BUILDING AT BLOCK: 3455 LOT: 13 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 225 CORPORATE BOULEVARD PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
KIMBERLEY MARTELLI, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
SITE PLAN 15. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED 70 UNIT
REVIEW APARTMENT BUILDING AT BLOCK: 185 LOT: 50 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 7- 17 LUDLOW STREET PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
ED WEINSTEIN, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
ZONING 16. REFERRAL FROM THE YONKERS CITY ORDINANCE COUNCIL REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO
AMENDMENT THE YONKERS CITY CODE TO PERMIT A NEW
(TEXT) "PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT" SECTION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED
LEAD AGENCY: CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
OTHER
BUSINESS
17. REVIEW OF CROSS COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER
STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
18. SCHEDULE WORK SESSIONS AS NECESSARY
Friday, March 9, 2007
The FBI Probe and the City Council
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070309/OPINION/703090334/1015/OPINION01&template=printart
More on the Probe from Michael Gannon and Timothy O'Connor
http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070309/NEWS02/703090409/1018/NEWS02&template=printart
More on the Probe from Michael Gannon and Timothy O'Connor
http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070309/NEWS02/703090409/1018/NEWS02&template=printart
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Real Estate Committee Meeting & Education/Budget Committee Meeting are on Tonight
Please be advised that a Real Estate Committee Meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, March 7, 2007 at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Conference Room, City Hall, Fourth Floor, Room 406.
The following items will be on the agenda:
1. Discussion of Final Scoping Document for SFC Project
2. Boyce Thompson
3. Any additional items that may properly come before this Committee
Please make every effort to attend. Thank you.
Dennis M. Robertson
Chairman, Real Estate Committee
Chuck Lesnick
Co-Chairman, Real Estate
Education/Budget Committee Meeting March 7th
Please be advised there will be an Education Committee meeting on Wednesday, March 7th, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Conference Room, City Hall, Fourth Floor, Room 406.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Friday, March 2, 2007
Call for a Special City Council Meeting to be held on Tuesday, March 6, 2007 at 7 p.m.
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YONKERS
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2007
TIME: _______
PRESENT: PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
CHUCK LESNICK
DISTRICT
1 MAJORITY LEADER PATRICIA D. McDOW
4 MINORITY LEADER LIAM J. McLAUGHLIN
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
DISTRICT
2 SANDY ANNABI
3 DENNIS M. ROBERTSON
5 JOHN M. MURTAGH
6 DEE BARBATO
I, THE UNDERSIGNED PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PURSUANT TO RULE 1 (2) OF THE CITY COUNCIL RULES, DO HEREBY CALL A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2007 IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, FOURTH FLOOR, CITY HALL, YONKERS, NEW YORK AT 7:00 P.M. FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSE:
TO DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION ON:
1. ALL ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE 2007 LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE.
2. ALL ITEMS PROPERLY COMING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL.
CHUCK LESNICK
CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YONKERS
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2007
TIME: _______
PRESENT: PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
CHUCK LESNICK
DISTRICT
1 MAJORITY LEADER PATRICIA D. McDOW
4 MINORITY LEADER LIAM J. McLAUGHLIN
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
DISTRICT
2 SANDY ANNABI
3 DENNIS M. ROBERTSON
5 JOHN M. MURTAGH
6 DEE BARBATO
I, THE UNDERSIGNED PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PURSUANT TO RULE 1 (2) OF THE CITY COUNCIL RULES, DO HEREBY CALL A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2007 IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, FOURTH FLOOR, CITY HALL, YONKERS, NEW YORK AT 7:00 P.M. FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSE:
TO DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION ON:
1. ALL ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE 2007 LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE.
2. ALL ITEMS PROPERLY COMING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL.
CHUCK LESNICK
CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
Mark Your Calenders IDA Meeting
Yonkers IDA Meeting
Thursday, March 22, 2007
8:30 a.m.
Yonkers City Hall
Mayor’s Reception Room
Thursday, March 22, 2007
8:30 a.m.
Yonkers City Hall
Mayor’s Reception Room
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Open Space Analysis: Park Hill Land Conservancy, Inc.
YONKERS PHASE 1 - DOWNTOWN REHABILITATION
OPEN SPACE-POPULATION DENSITY ANALYSIS
February 19, 2007
Compiled by: Terry Joshi
Park Hill Land Conservancy, Inc.
COMPARISON OF THE
PHASE 1 SCOPING DOCUMENT AND THE NRPA STANDARDS AND GUILDELINES
1. National Recreation and Park Association (www.nrpa.org)
The National Recreation and Park Association’s nationally recognized standards and guidelines recommend that an urban municipality provide a minimum average of between 6.5 – 10.5 acres of open space per 1000 residents. (NRPA provides a wide latitude in its definition of open space: everything from golf courses, vest pocket parks, ball fields, and passive parkland, to small neighborhood playgrounds, wilderness areas and conservancies. Sidewalks, esplanades and walkways are not considered open space within the classification system developed by the NRPA.
2. Yonkers – current open space
Based on a Yonkers city population of approximately 200,000 residents, the city should have 1600 acres of open space if one uses an average of eight acres from the NRPA ratio cited in (1) above.
Based on the Yonkers Parks Department’s own analysis, the city is woefully under-served with open space. In 1989, the last year for which city-compiled data is available, the Yonkers Citiwide Parks System contained approximately 400 developed and undeveloped acres. (Even when factoring in county parkland within the city borders, the city was still under the proposed ratio by at least 500 acres.)
Based on a 2004 Westchester County open space acreage by municipality report, Yonkers ranks third in an open space comparison with New Rochelle and White Plains.
3. Palisades Point
SFC plans to build 436 apartments at Palisades Point. Assuming an average of 1 ½ persons per apartment, that is a total of 654 new residents on Parcels H&I. Current plans call for 3.1 acres of open space.
Based on the NRPA standard, at least 5.28 acres of open space should be provided for Palisades Point new residents alone.
4. River Walk Center
SFC plans to build 950 apartments at River Walk Center. Assuming an average of 1 ½ persons per apartment, that is a total of 1425 new residents at the former Chicken Island site. The City Council scoping document does not show any provision for open space other than along the margins of the daylighted Saw Mill between Elm and New Main Streets.
Based on NRPA standards, there should be a minimum of eleven+ acres of new open space at the River Walk Center alone.
Summary:
The woeful lack of citywide open space represents a significant quality-of-life issue for city residents, particularly those in the southwestern quadrant where apartment living is the norm. Without even addressing the issue of our current open space shortfall of 1200 acres of city-owned open space, we should at the very least consider the fact that to meet accepted standards we should provide over sixteen acres of open space for just the additional population created by River Park and Palisades Point as they are currently envisioned.
OPEN SPACE-POPULATION DENSITY ANALYSIS
February 19, 2007
Compiled by: Terry Joshi
Park Hill Land Conservancy, Inc.
COMPARISON OF THE
PHASE 1 SCOPING DOCUMENT AND THE NRPA STANDARDS AND GUILDELINES
1. National Recreation and Park Association (www.nrpa.org)
The National Recreation and Park Association’s nationally recognized standards and guidelines recommend that an urban municipality provide a minimum average of between 6.5 – 10.5 acres of open space per 1000 residents. (NRPA provides a wide latitude in its definition of open space: everything from golf courses, vest pocket parks, ball fields, and passive parkland, to small neighborhood playgrounds, wilderness areas and conservancies. Sidewalks, esplanades and walkways are not considered open space within the classification system developed by the NRPA.
2. Yonkers – current open space
Based on a Yonkers city population of approximately 200,000 residents, the city should have 1600 acres of open space if one uses an average of eight acres from the NRPA ratio cited in (1) above.
Based on the Yonkers Parks Department’s own analysis, the city is woefully under-served with open space. In 1989, the last year for which city-compiled data is available, the Yonkers Citiwide Parks System contained approximately 400 developed and undeveloped acres. (Even when factoring in county parkland within the city borders, the city was still under the proposed ratio by at least 500 acres.)
Based on a 2004 Westchester County open space acreage by municipality report, Yonkers ranks third in an open space comparison with New Rochelle and White Plains.
3. Palisades Point
SFC plans to build 436 apartments at Palisades Point. Assuming an average of 1 ½ persons per apartment, that is a total of 654 new residents on Parcels H&I. Current plans call for 3.1 acres of open space.
Based on the NRPA standard, at least 5.28 acres of open space should be provided for Palisades Point new residents alone.
4. River Walk Center
SFC plans to build 950 apartments at River Walk Center. Assuming an average of 1 ½ persons per apartment, that is a total of 1425 new residents at the former Chicken Island site. The City Council scoping document does not show any provision for open space other than along the margins of the daylighted Saw Mill between Elm and New Main Streets.
Based on NRPA standards, there should be a minimum of eleven+ acres of new open space at the River Walk Center alone.
Summary:
The woeful lack of citywide open space represents a significant quality-of-life issue for city residents, particularly those in the southwestern quadrant where apartment living is the norm. Without even addressing the issue of our current open space shortfall of 1200 acres of city-owned open space, we should at the very least consider the fact that to meet accepted standards we should provide over sixteen acres of open space for just the additional population created by River Park and Palisades Point as they are currently envisioned.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Reminder: Planning Board Meeting Tonight at 5:30
The meeting will be held tonight, Wednesday, February 28, 2007 at 5:30 in the City Council Chambers.
Planning Board Agenda is available at the posting of Feb. 10th 2007. See Blog Archive on the left of this page.
Planning Board Agenda is available at the posting of Feb. 10th 2007. See Blog Archive on the left of this page.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
SFC Presentation, Wednesday, Feb. 28, 6:30 - 8:30 p.m.Yonkers Riverfront Library Auditorium, One Larkin Plaza, Yonkers
DEVELOPER PRESENTATION -- Hear what SFC has to say about the future of business in downtown Yonkers
Developer Struever Fidelco Cappelli (SFC) is hosting another in a series of community meetings about the proposed redevelopment of downtown Yonkers. This time the meeting is focused on the Yonkers Downtown/Waterfront Business Improvement District and will include information about:
Economic benefits for local businesses
Use of tax increment financing for public improvements
The future of doing business in downtown Yonkers
What: SFC Presentation
When: Wednesday, Feb. 28, 6:30 - 8:30 p.m.
Where: Yonkers Riverfront Library Auditorium, One Larkin Plaza, Yonkers
We applaud SFC for holding these meetings and opening them to the public. But we also believe that we must constantly remind the developers that the citizens of Yonkers are paying attention. People in other cities have in some cases stayed on the sidelines and watched mega-development projects destroy the special character of a community in the name of "economic benefits for local business."
We can't let that happen here.
I hope you can make the meeting, and I hope you can bring some friends. The developers need to see that lots of Yonkers residents care about the future of their downtown.
Sincerely,
Ned Sullivan
President
Scenic Hudson
Developer Struever Fidelco Cappelli (SFC) is hosting another in a series of community meetings about the proposed redevelopment of downtown Yonkers. This time the meeting is focused on the Yonkers Downtown/Waterfront Business Improvement District and will include information about:
Economic benefits for local businesses
Use of tax increment financing for public improvements
The future of doing business in downtown Yonkers
What: SFC Presentation
When: Wednesday, Feb. 28, 6:30 - 8:30 p.m.
Where: Yonkers Riverfront Library Auditorium, One Larkin Plaza, Yonkers
We applaud SFC for holding these meetings and opening them to the public. But we also believe that we must constantly remind the developers that the citizens of Yonkers are paying attention. People in other cities have in some cases stayed on the sidelines and watched mega-development projects destroy the special character of a community in the name of "economic benefits for local business."
We can't let that happen here.
I hope you can make the meeting, and I hope you can bring some friends. The developers need to see that lots of Yonkers residents care about the future of their downtown.
Sincerely,
Ned Sullivan
President
Scenic Hudson
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
From the Folks at Patterson Crossing: Familiar Sounding Themes
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070219/OPINION/702190310/1076/OPINION03
Please take the time to respond to the points Mr. Camarda has raised in this sad attempt to justify the Patterson Crossing atrocity. Below is a link to the Journal News website where you can submit a Letter To The Editor:
http://www.nyjnews.com/contact/letters.php3?address=letters
Remember that there is a 250-word limit for Letters To The Editor. Exceeding the word limit will result in portions of your text being selectively removed by the editor.
Thank you,
StopPattersonCrossing.com
Putnam County Residents Deserve BETTER!
Please take the time to respond to the points Mr. Camarda has raised in this sad attempt to justify the Patterson Crossing atrocity. Below is a link to the Journal News website where you can submit a Letter To The Editor:
http://www.nyjnews.com/contact/letters.php3?address=letters
Remember that there is a 250-word limit for Letters To The Editor. Exceeding the word limit will result in portions of your text being selectively removed by the editor.
Thank you,
StopPattersonCrossing.com
Putnam County Residents Deserve BETTER!
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Charter Revision Commission Wednesday Feb 21st at 7:00pm in the Mayors Reception Room
Click on Image to enlarge
Monday, February 19, 2007
Point Street Development Discussion Thursday Feb 22nd
Thursday, 22 Feb. at 7 pm Amackassin Gardens Cooperative, 295 North Broadway between Glenwood and Pine Street. Robert MacFarlane Group discussing the Point Street development along the Hudson river.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
HELP BRING AFFORDABLE TECHNICAL HIGHER EDUCATION TO YONKERS
HELP BRING AFFORDABLE TECHNICAL HIGHER EDUCATION TO YONKERS
Would you like to help inspire Yonkers students to complete high school
by persuading the State University of New York to open an accessible,
affordable technical and engineering college in downtown Yonkers?
Join the Committee for SUNY-Yonkers
The Yonkers City Council has just passed a unanimous resolution
supporting the idea. The Chancellor of SUNY has agreed to consider it.
But to make it happen, we will need to mobilize representatives of
Yonkers’ business, labor, education, religious and grass-roots communities
to lobby SUNY, its Trustees, the NYS Regents, Governor and Legislature.
Would you like to help?
Next meeting of the Committee for SUNY-Yonkers:
7 p.m., Monday, March 12, 2007
Cross County Shopping Center Office of Westchester Community College
6 Xavier Drive, 5th fl
Yonkers
For more information: contact Julie Weiner
at jweiner123@verizon.net
Would you like to help inspire Yonkers students to complete high school
by persuading the State University of New York to open an accessible,
affordable technical and engineering college in downtown Yonkers?
Join the Committee for SUNY-Yonkers
The Yonkers City Council has just passed a unanimous resolution
supporting the idea. The Chancellor of SUNY has agreed to consider it.
But to make it happen, we will need to mobilize representatives of
Yonkers’ business, labor, education, religious and grass-roots communities
to lobby SUNY, its Trustees, the NYS Regents, Governor and Legislature.
Would you like to help?
Next meeting of the Committee for SUNY-Yonkers:
7 p.m., Monday, March 12, 2007
Cross County Shopping Center Office of Westchester Community College
6 Xavier Drive, 5th fl
Yonkers
For more information: contact Julie Weiner
at jweiner123@verizon.net
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
CDA Board Meeting is scheduled for Thursday, Feb 15th
A CDA Board Meeting is scheduled for Thursday, Feb 15th, 2007 at 4:00pm in the Mayors Reception Room.
The Draft Agenda includes the following Draft Resolutions:
1. RESOLUTION OF THE YONKERS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING EASEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF BUILDING LOCATED AT 38 MAIN STREET AND DESIGNATED AS SECTION 1, BLOCK 501, LOT 18 ON THE TAX MAP OF CITY OF YONKERS, SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
2. RESOLUTION OF THE YONKERS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING EASEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF BUILDING LOCATED AT 36 MAIN STREET AND DESIGNATED AS SECTION 1, BLOCK 501, LOT 19 ON THE TAX MAP OF CITY OF YONKERS, SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
3. RESOLUTION OF THE YONKERS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING LAND DISPOSITION AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF WESTCHESTER, INC., FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF PURSER PLACE WITHIN THE RIVERDALE AVENUE URBAN RENEWAL AREA
We will also introduce Mr. Lou Kirven, the new Commissioner for the Department of Planning and Development.
Cupid's Arrow: Tomorrow's Planning Board Meeting Cancelled
Unfortunately, due to the potential inclement weather we are expecting, the Planning Board has decided to cancel the meeting for tomorrow night. The meeting has been rescheduled for Wednesday, February 28, 2007 at 5:30 in the City Council Chambers.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Yonkers Beware: How much has the City Spent?
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070212/OPINION/702120313/1015/OPINION01
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Boyce Thompson For Sale Again: See Agenda Below
Photograph Copyright Martin McGloin ©2007. All rights reserved
Real Estate Committee Meeting. Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at 6:00 P.M.
Please be advised that a Real Estate Committee Meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Conference Room, City Hall, Fourth Floor, Room 406. The following items will be on the agenda:
1. Donna Giambrone Ingram appointment to Landmarks Board
2. Conveyance of 193 Ashburton Avenue to provide relocation housing for Mulford Gardens Hope VI Project;
3. Special Use Permit for Petsmart located at 2458 Central Park Avenue
4. Approval of Boyce Thompson Purchase Agreement and Restrictive Covenant
5. Any additional items that may properly come before this committee.
Please make every effort to attend.
Thank you.
Dennis M. Robertson Chairman, Real Estate Committee
Chuck Lesnick Co-Chairman, Real Estate Committee
1. Donna Giambrone Ingram appointment to Landmarks Board
2. Conveyance of 193 Ashburton Avenue to provide relocation housing for Mulford Gardens Hope VI Project;
3. Special Use Permit for Petsmart located at 2458 Central Park Avenue
4. Approval of Boyce Thompson Purchase Agreement and Restrictive Covenant
5. Any additional items that may properly come before this committee.
Please make every effort to attend.
Thank you.
Dennis M. Robertson Chairman, Real Estate Committee
Chuck Lesnick Co-Chairman, Real Estate Committee
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Planning Board Agenda for Wednesday FEBRUARY 14, 2007 AT 5:30 P.M
AGENDA: FOR A REGULAR MEETING OF THE YONKERS PLANNING BOARD TO BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2007 AT 5:30 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 4TH FLOOR, YONKERS, NY.
PLEASE NOTE: ANY MATTER REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE
HEARD AFTER 7 P.M. ITEMS MAY BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE PUBLIC COMMENT.
MINUTES:
1. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD
MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 13, 2006.
2. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD
MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 10, 2007.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN 3. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PARKING LOT
REVIEW AT BLOCK: 5039 LOT: 16 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 829 MIDLAND AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
JOHN SPENCER, JR., REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL
OFFICIAL 4. REFERRAL FROM THE YONKERS CITY COUNCIL
MAP ACTION REGARDING A REQUEST TO REMOVE THE REMAINDER OF A PAPER STREET KNOWN AS STONE AVENUE
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED
LEAD AGENCY: CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
ZONING 5. REFERRAL FROM THE YONKERS CITY COUNCIL
AMENDMENT FOR A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO HOUSING LOCATION FOR REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS
A. SEQRA: TYPE I ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SITE PLAN 6. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED
REVIEW HANDICAPPED RAMP AND ACCESS STAIRS AT BLOCK: 2359 LOT: 24 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 10-16 LOCKWOOD AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
THOMAS HAYNES, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL
SUBDIVISION 7. PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED
APPLICATION THREE LOT SUBDIVISION AT BLOCK: 6351
PUBLIC HEARING LOTS: 28 & 29 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 25
(CONTINUED) THURTON PLACE PURSUANT TO THE CITY OF
YONKERS SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MICHAEL MCGARVEY, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED)
B. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL
SITE PLAN 8. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED
REVIEW SELF STORAGE FACILITY BLOCK: 5425 LOT: 124 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 300 FULLERTON AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
MICHAEL CALVI, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL
SITE PLAN 9. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED
REVIEW 4 CAR GARAGE AT BLOCK: 2079 LOT: 51 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 38-40 VINEYARD AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
NUNZIO PIETROSANTI, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL
SUBDIVISION 10. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PLANNING BOARD
AMENDMENT CONDITIONS TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION AT BLOCK: 4859 LOT: 1 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 70 MORROW AVENUE PURSUANT TO THE CITY OF YONKERS SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
DAN HOLLIS, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL
SITE PLAN 11. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND PROPOSED CHANGE TO
REVIEW SWEP COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR A PROPOSED CHANGE TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HOTEL SITE PLAN AT BLOCK: 3455 LOT: 80 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 7 EXECUTIVE BOULEVARD PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
AL DELBELLO, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
B. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
C. DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL
SITE PLAN 12. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND PROPOSED CHANGE TO
REVIEW SWEP COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR A PROPOSED COMMERCIAL LAUNDRY (CINTAS) FACILITY AT BLOCK: 3455 LOT: 1 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 325 CORPORATE BOULEVARD PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
AL DELBELLO, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
B. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
NEW BUSINESS:
OFFICIAL 13. REFERRAL FROM THE YONKERS CITY COUNCIL
MAP ACTION REGARDING A REQUEST TO DISCONTINUE A PAPER STREET KNOWN AS FREMONT STREET
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED
LEAD AGENCY: CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
ZONING 14. REFERRAL FROM THE YONKERS CITY COUNCIL
AMENDMENT FOR A PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE FROM A “T” ZONE TO AN “IP” ZONE AT BLOCK: 3360 LOT: 100 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 101 TRUMAN AVENUE
A. SEQRA: TYPE I ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
OFFICIAL 15. REFERRAL FROM THE YONKERS CITY COUNCIL
MAP ACTION REGARDING A REQUEST TO DISCONTINUE A PAPER STREET KNOWN AS COURTSIDE TERRACE
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED
LEAD AGENCY: CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL USE 16. SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
PERMIT/ SITE FOR PROPOSED PHILANTHROPIC USE WITH
PLAN REVIEW/ SOCIAL SERVICE AT BLOCK: 124 LOTS: 42-46 ON
PUBLIC HEARING THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 485 AKA 487 SOUTH
BROADWAY PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX AND
ARTICLE VII OF THE YONKERS ZONING
ORDINANCE.
JEFFREY BUSS, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. PUBLIC HEARING
B. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
SITE PLAN 17. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED
REVIEW ADDITION TO AN ELECTRICAL SERVICE ROOM AT BLOCK: 2172 LOTS: 17-28 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1 FATHER FINIAN SULLIVAN DRIVE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
STUART MARKOWITZ, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL
SITE PLAN 18. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR HILLVIEW RESERVOIR
REVIEW AT BLOCK: 8002 LOT: 1 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 100 CENTRAL PARK AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
RICHARD ZUNINO AND SANDRA JACKSON, REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
SITE PLAN 19. AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE
AMENDMENT PLAN OF THE HOPE VI SITE B PROJECT AT BLOCK:
2079 LOT: 29 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 193 ASHBURTON AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
ALFRED DELBELLO, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL
OTHER 20. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A PREVIOUSLY
BUSINESS APPROVED SITE PLAN AT 34 HIGHLAND AVENUE
21. REVIEW OF CROSS COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER
STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
22. SCHEDULE WORK SESSIONS AS NECESSARY
PLEASE NOTE: ANY MATTER REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE
HEARD AFTER 7 P.M. ITEMS MAY BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE PUBLIC COMMENT.
MINUTES:
1. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD
MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 13, 2006.
2. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD
MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 10, 2007.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN 3. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PARKING LOT
REVIEW AT BLOCK: 5039 LOT: 16 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 829 MIDLAND AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
JOHN SPENCER, JR., REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL
OFFICIAL 4. REFERRAL FROM THE YONKERS CITY COUNCIL
MAP ACTION REGARDING A REQUEST TO REMOVE THE REMAINDER OF A PAPER STREET KNOWN AS STONE AVENUE
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED
LEAD AGENCY: CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
ZONING 5. REFERRAL FROM THE YONKERS CITY COUNCIL
AMENDMENT FOR A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO HOUSING LOCATION FOR REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS
A. SEQRA: TYPE I ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SITE PLAN 6. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED
REVIEW HANDICAPPED RAMP AND ACCESS STAIRS AT BLOCK: 2359 LOT: 24 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 10-16 LOCKWOOD AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
THOMAS HAYNES, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL
SUBDIVISION 7. PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED
APPLICATION THREE LOT SUBDIVISION AT BLOCK: 6351
PUBLIC HEARING LOTS: 28 & 29 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 25
(CONTINUED) THURTON PLACE PURSUANT TO THE CITY OF
YONKERS SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MICHAEL MCGARVEY, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED)
B. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL
SITE PLAN 8. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED
REVIEW SELF STORAGE FACILITY BLOCK: 5425 LOT: 124 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 300 FULLERTON AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
MICHAEL CALVI, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL
SITE PLAN 9. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED
REVIEW 4 CAR GARAGE AT BLOCK: 2079 LOT: 51 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 38-40 VINEYARD AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
NUNZIO PIETROSANTI, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL
SUBDIVISION 10. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PLANNING BOARD
AMENDMENT CONDITIONS TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION AT BLOCK: 4859 LOT: 1 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 70 MORROW AVENUE PURSUANT TO THE CITY OF YONKERS SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
DAN HOLLIS, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL
SITE PLAN 11. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND PROPOSED CHANGE TO
REVIEW SWEP COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR A PROPOSED CHANGE TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HOTEL SITE PLAN AT BLOCK: 3455 LOT: 80 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 7 EXECUTIVE BOULEVARD PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
AL DELBELLO, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
B. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
C. DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL
SITE PLAN 12. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND PROPOSED CHANGE TO
REVIEW SWEP COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR A PROPOSED COMMERCIAL LAUNDRY (CINTAS) FACILITY AT BLOCK: 3455 LOT: 1 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 325 CORPORATE BOULEVARD PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
AL DELBELLO, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
B. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
NEW BUSINESS:
OFFICIAL 13. REFERRAL FROM THE YONKERS CITY COUNCIL
MAP ACTION REGARDING A REQUEST TO DISCONTINUE A PAPER STREET KNOWN AS FREMONT STREET
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED
LEAD AGENCY: CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
ZONING 14. REFERRAL FROM THE YONKERS CITY COUNCIL
AMENDMENT FOR A PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE FROM A “T” ZONE TO AN “IP” ZONE AT BLOCK: 3360 LOT: 100 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 101 TRUMAN AVENUE
A. SEQRA: TYPE I ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
OFFICIAL 15. REFERRAL FROM THE YONKERS CITY COUNCIL
MAP ACTION REGARDING A REQUEST TO DISCONTINUE A PAPER STREET KNOWN AS COURTSIDE TERRACE
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED
LEAD AGENCY: CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL USE 16. SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
PERMIT/ SITE FOR PROPOSED PHILANTHROPIC USE WITH
PLAN REVIEW/ SOCIAL SERVICE AT BLOCK: 124 LOTS: 42-46 ON
PUBLIC HEARING THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 485 AKA 487 SOUTH
BROADWAY PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX AND
ARTICLE VII OF THE YONKERS ZONING
ORDINANCE.
JEFFREY BUSS, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. PUBLIC HEARING
B. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
SITE PLAN 17. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED
REVIEW ADDITION TO AN ELECTRICAL SERVICE ROOM AT BLOCK: 2172 LOTS: 17-28 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1 FATHER FINIAN SULLIVAN DRIVE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
STUART MARKOWITZ, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL
SITE PLAN 18. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR HILLVIEW RESERVOIR
REVIEW AT BLOCK: 8002 LOT: 1 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 100 CENTRAL PARK AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
RICHARD ZUNINO AND SANDRA JACKSON, REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
SITE PLAN 19. AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE
AMENDMENT PLAN OF THE HOPE VI SITE B PROJECT AT BLOCK:
2079 LOT: 29 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 193 ASHBURTON AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE
ALFRED DELBELLO, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL
OTHER 20. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A PREVIOUSLY
BUSINESS APPROVED SITE PLAN AT 34 HIGHLAND AVENUE
21. REVIEW OF CROSS COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER
STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
22. SCHEDULE WORK SESSIONS AS NECESSARY
Friday, February 9, 2007
Public Hearing on amended lease agreement 10:30 Feb 12th
To enlarge click on image
From Journal News Legal Notices Feb 5th 2007
From Journal News Legal Notices Feb 5th 2007
Thursday, February 8, 2007
SFC Responses to Questions Regarding the TIF Projections
SFC Responses to Questions Regarding the TIF Projections
February 5th, 2007
Memo: Questions for SFC Regarding the TIF Projections
From: Councilmember Dennis Robertson, Real Estate Committee Chairman and, Council President Chuck Lesnick, Real Estate Committee Co-Chair
To: Struever Fidelco Cappelli LLC
The following questions are regarding the proposed TIF survey area and the Phase 1 TIF Bond Projections submitted by MuniCap, Inc.
1. The TIF District as drawn is significantly larger than the SFC proposed development area to include almost all of downtown Yonkers, yet SFC’s bond projections exclude revenue from this area entirely. What is the projected future tax revenue from that other area and why is it being included in the TIF District? If this extra tax revenue is included in the projections, what % of the TIF revenue do the Developers need to cover the debt service?
1.1 Draft TIF boundaries have been drawn in such a way so as to mirror the phase I redevelopment proposed by SFC. We have not included revenues outside the new development to date since there is less certainty in these revenues and we want to make sure the bonds work with revenues in from our phase I projects only. The revenues provided to the city are conservative in that they do not include these extra tax revenues.
2. The TIF Projections assume an increase of 4% in property taxes every year for 30 years in Yonkers and in Westchester. What if Yonkers (or Westchester) does not raise property taxes at that rate?
2.1 We have used a rate that is less than the Yonkers historical rate in tax increases. The projected taxes are conservative based on historical experience. We can be confident that the costs of government will go up in future years. If this increase is less than four percent per year, it is hard to imagine it will be much less. In any case, the bonds do not require an increase of four percent per year for there to be sufficient tax revenues to repay the bonds. Future excess revenues to the city and county will be less if real property taxes rates are increased by less than four percent per year; however, this will be an indication that the costs of governments services are going up by less as well.
3. What if unexpected infrastructure or traffic mitigation expenses arise, who will pay and how for the amount over the projected $160 million?
3.1 As stated in section 1.7 of the MDDA, “It is currently contemplated that the cost of the Infrastructure required for the Proposed Projects, will be funded with: (i) Public Funding in the form of federal, state, and other grants and/or subsidies, without direct cost (other than in connection with TIF programs) to the Municipal Entities or the respective Project Entities.
4. Why don’t the SFC TIF projections include the Property Tax Revenue from the Baseball Stadium?
4.1 The baseball stadium financing and ownership structure has conceptually envisioned a non-for-profit entity holding title, therefore to be conservative in our projections, we have excluded any real estate increment from the ball park.
5. The SFC TIF projections assume a 5% vacancy rate for the residential, retail, and commercial space. They also estimate that apartments will average $2,422 in monthly rent. Are those vacancy rates reasonable?
5.1 A 5% vacancy rate for residential, retail, and commercial development is a typical assumption utilized for financial models beginning in the 1st stabilized year. (To be verified by the City’s consultants)
6. Is $22,500 for the construction of each parking space a reasonable estimate? How did SFC come up with that number?
6.1 As you are aware, Cappelli and or its affiliates have developed and built more structured parking facilities in Westchester County than any other developer. Our most recent structured parking development, City Center garage in White Plains, followed this assumption.
7. The SFC numbers projects a surplus of about $80 million over the amount needed for the debt service. What happens to this surplus money and must it be spent on the TIF district?
7.1 All surplus revenues will go directly to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions. Pursuant to Section 970-p(a)(iii) of the Municipal Redevelopment Law, whenever the tax increment collected by the City exceeds the amount necessary to service the debt, the excess amount of taxes “shall be paid into the funds of the respective municipalities as taxes on all other real property are paid.” There is no restriction on the use of the excess taxes, which can be used for the same purposes and in the same manner as any other real property taxes collected by the City.
8. Under what circumstances will an existing property owner’s property taxes increase if the TIF district is established?
8.1 An existing property owner’s taxes will increase only for the same reasons and under the same circumstances that taxes would increase if the property was not in a Municipal Redevelopment Project area (a “TIF district”), i.e., if the property owner improves the property and increases its assessed value. The establishment of a TIF district does not affect the assessed values of existing properties in the district.
9. Does the TIF district increase the threat that eminent domain will be used against properties that do not make improvements that would bring their properties up to the “new and improved” standards set by the new development?
9.1 No. The establishment of a TIF district does not increase the threat that any property would be condemned. The exercise of eminent domain is always solely within the discretion of the City Council. SFC has informed the City Council that it will not request that the City Council exercise eminent domain unless an owner of property within the SFC phase I project area is recalcitrant or where public improvements will be required.
10. Are there ways to structure the TIF to help address the issues that affect other property owners in the TIF district? How, if at all, have TIF plans in other cities addressed these issues?
10.1 The Redevelopment Plan adopted by the City would be a plan for the entire Municipal Redevelopment Project area, and not just for the SFC phase I project. The tax increment collected from the Municipal Redevelopment Project area can be utilized to issue tax increment bonds the proceeds of which can be used for any public improvements or services “integral to” the final Redevelopment Plan approved by the City Council, which will be improvements and services which benefit existing property owners as well as SFC (See Section 970-o(h)(iv) of the Municipal Redevelopment Law.)
11. Does creation of a TIF district require that the property within the district be designated as “blighted”? Within the proposed TIF district what, if any, portions are presently legally designated as “blighted”? What are the legal ramifications for property owners in a district that is designated as blighted? Does the blight designation increase their risk of eminent domain being used to take their property?
11.1 The term “blighted area” is defined in Section 970-c(a) of the Municipal Redevelopment Law as follows:
“Blighted area means an area within a municipality in which one or more of the following conditions exist: (i) a predominance of buildings and structures which are deteriorated or unfit or unsafe for use and occupancy; or (ii) a predominance of economically unproductive lands, buildings or structures, the redevelopment of which is needed to prevent further deterioration which would jeopardize the economic well being of the people” (emphasis added).
A Municipal Redevelopment Project area must be an area which meets these criteria. However, the project area may also include properties “which are not detrimental or inimical to the public health, safety or welfare, but whose inclusion is found necessary by the municipality for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part” (Section 970-c(g) of the Municipal Redevelopment Law).
Almost all of the properties within the proposed Municipal Redevelopment Project area are already within the Getty Square Urban Renewal Plan area and the Riverview Urban Renewal Plan area, and have therefore already been determined by the City to be in a blighted area within the meaning of the State Urban Renewal Law. The criteria for designation as blighted under that law and under the Municipal Redevelopment Law are essentially the same, so placing those properties within a Municipal Redevelopment Project area is consistent with prior determinations by the City, and does not have any materially different ramifications to the owners of those properties.
The City already has the power to condemn under the Getty Square Urban Renewal Plan and Riverview Urban Renewal Plan. The few properties that are not currently in those areas but are proposed to be within the Municipal Redevelopment Project area would be subject to condemnation for a proper public purpose. However, the establishment of a TIF district does not increase the threat that any property would be condemned. The exercise of eminent domain is always solely within the discretion of the City Council. SFC has informed the City Council that it will not request that the City Council exercise eminent domain unless an owner of property within the SFC project area or on which new public improvements and/or infrastructure will be constructed is recalcitrant.
12. Does the power to “acquire property” using TIF revenues refer only to the acquisition of property through eminent domain?
12.1. No. Upon the adoption of the Redevelopment plan, the City may “purchase, lease, obtain option upon, acquire by gift, grant, bequest, devise or otherwise, any real or personal property, any interest in property, and any improvements on it, or acquire real property by eminent domain” (Section 970-i(a) of the Municipal Redevelopment Law).
13. Who will control and/or administrate the proposed TIF plan? What are their powers? What local government agency in Yonkers would be assigned the administrative powers that come with the creation of a TIF such as: 1) acquire property; 2) relocate displaced individuals; 3) demolish or move buildings; 3) prepare a site for redevelopment?
13.1 Approval of the Redevelopment Plan and any amendments to the Plan is solely within the jurisdiction of the City Council. Under the Municipal Redevelopment Law, the powers to acquire property, demolish buildings, prepare sites for redevelopment, and sell property are all granted to the “municipality.” Presumably, those powers would be exercised by the City in the same manner they are exercised in all other circumstances, subject, however, to the provisions of the approved Redevelopment Plan.
The Redevelopment Plan approved by the City Council must provide a plan for relocation of persons displaced from housing in the project area. Pursuant to Section 970-j of the Municipal Redevelopment Law, the City Council prepares the relocation plan, but may presumably delegate administration of the relocation plan to any City agency or department it deems appropriate.
February 5th, 2007
Memo: Questions for SFC Regarding the TIF Projections
From: Councilmember Dennis Robertson, Real Estate Committee Chairman and, Council President Chuck Lesnick, Real Estate Committee Co-Chair
To: Struever Fidelco Cappelli LLC
The following questions are regarding the proposed TIF survey area and the Phase 1 TIF Bond Projections submitted by MuniCap, Inc.
1. The TIF District as drawn is significantly larger than the SFC proposed development area to include almost all of downtown Yonkers, yet SFC’s bond projections exclude revenue from this area entirely. What is the projected future tax revenue from that other area and why is it being included in the TIF District? If this extra tax revenue is included in the projections, what % of the TIF revenue do the Developers need to cover the debt service?
1.1 Draft TIF boundaries have been drawn in such a way so as to mirror the phase I redevelopment proposed by SFC. We have not included revenues outside the new development to date since there is less certainty in these revenues and we want to make sure the bonds work with revenues in from our phase I projects only. The revenues provided to the city are conservative in that they do not include these extra tax revenues.
2. The TIF Projections assume an increase of 4% in property taxes every year for 30 years in Yonkers and in Westchester. What if Yonkers (or Westchester) does not raise property taxes at that rate?
2.1 We have used a rate that is less than the Yonkers historical rate in tax increases. The projected taxes are conservative based on historical experience. We can be confident that the costs of government will go up in future years. If this increase is less than four percent per year, it is hard to imagine it will be much less. In any case, the bonds do not require an increase of four percent per year for there to be sufficient tax revenues to repay the bonds. Future excess revenues to the city and county will be less if real property taxes rates are increased by less than four percent per year; however, this will be an indication that the costs of governments services are going up by less as well.
3. What if unexpected infrastructure or traffic mitigation expenses arise, who will pay and how for the amount over the projected $160 million?
3.1 As stated in section 1.7 of the MDDA, “It is currently contemplated that the cost of the Infrastructure required for the Proposed Projects, will be funded with: (i) Public Funding in the form of federal, state, and other grants and/or subsidies, without direct cost (other than in connection with TIF programs) to the Municipal Entities or the respective Project Entities.
4. Why don’t the SFC TIF projections include the Property Tax Revenue from the Baseball Stadium?
4.1 The baseball stadium financing and ownership structure has conceptually envisioned a non-for-profit entity holding title, therefore to be conservative in our projections, we have excluded any real estate increment from the ball park.
5. The SFC TIF projections assume a 5% vacancy rate for the residential, retail, and commercial space. They also estimate that apartments will average $2,422 in monthly rent. Are those vacancy rates reasonable?
5.1 A 5% vacancy rate for residential, retail, and commercial development is a typical assumption utilized for financial models beginning in the 1st stabilized year. (To be verified by the City’s consultants)
6. Is $22,500 for the construction of each parking space a reasonable estimate? How did SFC come up with that number?
6.1 As you are aware, Cappelli and or its affiliates have developed and built more structured parking facilities in Westchester County than any other developer. Our most recent structured parking development, City Center garage in White Plains, followed this assumption.
7. The SFC numbers projects a surplus of about $80 million over the amount needed for the debt service. What happens to this surplus money and must it be spent on the TIF district?
7.1 All surplus revenues will go directly to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions. Pursuant to Section 970-p(a)(iii) of the Municipal Redevelopment Law, whenever the tax increment collected by the City exceeds the amount necessary to service the debt, the excess amount of taxes “shall be paid into the funds of the respective municipalities as taxes on all other real property are paid.” There is no restriction on the use of the excess taxes, which can be used for the same purposes and in the same manner as any other real property taxes collected by the City.
8. Under what circumstances will an existing property owner’s property taxes increase if the TIF district is established?
8.1 An existing property owner’s taxes will increase only for the same reasons and under the same circumstances that taxes would increase if the property was not in a Municipal Redevelopment Project area (a “TIF district”), i.e., if the property owner improves the property and increases its assessed value. The establishment of a TIF district does not affect the assessed values of existing properties in the district.
9. Does the TIF district increase the threat that eminent domain will be used against properties that do not make improvements that would bring their properties up to the “new and improved” standards set by the new development?
9.1 No. The establishment of a TIF district does not increase the threat that any property would be condemned. The exercise of eminent domain is always solely within the discretion of the City Council. SFC has informed the City Council that it will not request that the City Council exercise eminent domain unless an owner of property within the SFC phase I project area is recalcitrant or where public improvements will be required.
10. Are there ways to structure the TIF to help address the issues that affect other property owners in the TIF district? How, if at all, have TIF plans in other cities addressed these issues?
10.1 The Redevelopment Plan adopted by the City would be a plan for the entire Municipal Redevelopment Project area, and not just for the SFC phase I project. The tax increment collected from the Municipal Redevelopment Project area can be utilized to issue tax increment bonds the proceeds of which can be used for any public improvements or services “integral to” the final Redevelopment Plan approved by the City Council, which will be improvements and services which benefit existing property owners as well as SFC (See Section 970-o(h)(iv) of the Municipal Redevelopment Law.)
11. Does creation of a TIF district require that the property within the district be designated as “blighted”? Within the proposed TIF district what, if any, portions are presently legally designated as “blighted”? What are the legal ramifications for property owners in a district that is designated as blighted? Does the blight designation increase their risk of eminent domain being used to take their property?
11.1 The term “blighted area” is defined in Section 970-c(a) of the Municipal Redevelopment Law as follows:
“Blighted area means an area within a municipality in which one or more of the following conditions exist: (i) a predominance of buildings and structures which are deteriorated or unfit or unsafe for use and occupancy; or (ii) a predominance of economically unproductive lands, buildings or structures, the redevelopment of which is needed to prevent further deterioration which would jeopardize the economic well being of the people” (emphasis added).
A Municipal Redevelopment Project area must be an area which meets these criteria. However, the project area may also include properties “which are not detrimental or inimical to the public health, safety or welfare, but whose inclusion is found necessary by the municipality for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part” (Section 970-c(g) of the Municipal Redevelopment Law).
Almost all of the properties within the proposed Municipal Redevelopment Project area are already within the Getty Square Urban Renewal Plan area and the Riverview Urban Renewal Plan area, and have therefore already been determined by the City to be in a blighted area within the meaning of the State Urban Renewal Law. The criteria for designation as blighted under that law and under the Municipal Redevelopment Law are essentially the same, so placing those properties within a Municipal Redevelopment Project area is consistent with prior determinations by the City, and does not have any materially different ramifications to the owners of those properties.
The City already has the power to condemn under the Getty Square Urban Renewal Plan and Riverview Urban Renewal Plan. The few properties that are not currently in those areas but are proposed to be within the Municipal Redevelopment Project area would be subject to condemnation for a proper public purpose. However, the establishment of a TIF district does not increase the threat that any property would be condemned. The exercise of eminent domain is always solely within the discretion of the City Council. SFC has informed the City Council that it will not request that the City Council exercise eminent domain unless an owner of property within the SFC project area or on which new public improvements and/or infrastructure will be constructed is recalcitrant.
12. Does the power to “acquire property” using TIF revenues refer only to the acquisition of property through eminent domain?
12.1. No. Upon the adoption of the Redevelopment plan, the City may “purchase, lease, obtain option upon, acquire by gift, grant, bequest, devise or otherwise, any real or personal property, any interest in property, and any improvements on it, or acquire real property by eminent domain” (Section 970-i(a) of the Municipal Redevelopment Law).
13. Who will control and/or administrate the proposed TIF plan? What are their powers? What local government agency in Yonkers would be assigned the administrative powers that come with the creation of a TIF such as: 1) acquire property; 2) relocate displaced individuals; 3) demolish or move buildings; 3) prepare a site for redevelopment?
13.1 Approval of the Redevelopment Plan and any amendments to the Plan is solely within the jurisdiction of the City Council. Under the Municipal Redevelopment Law, the powers to acquire property, demolish buildings, prepare sites for redevelopment, and sell property are all granted to the “municipality.” Presumably, those powers would be exercised by the City in the same manner they are exercised in all other circumstances, subject, however, to the provisions of the approved Redevelopment Plan.
The Redevelopment Plan approved by the City Council must provide a plan for relocation of persons displaced from housing in the project area. Pursuant to Section 970-j of the Municipal Redevelopment Law, the City Council prepares the relocation plan, but may presumably delegate administration of the relocation plan to any City agency or department it deems appropriate.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Monday, February 5, 2007
Final Reminder: Today is the last day to get your scoping comments in.
DEADLINE for written public comment on SFC PHASE 1 DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT is MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5:
Sunday, February 4, 2007
From Yonkers Insider
http://yonkersinsider.wordpress.com/2007/02/02/yonkers-city-council-resolution/
RESOLUTION NO. -2007
BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT LESNICK, MAJORITY LEADER McDOW, MINORITY LEADER McLAUGHLIN, COUNCILMEMBERS ANNABI, ROBERTSON, MURTAGH AND BARBATO:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL: (1) FINDING THAT IT IS FEASIBLE AND APPROPRIATE TO UNDERTAKE A STUDY TO DETERMINE WHETHER A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WITHIN THE AREA DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT 8 TO THE APPLICATION/PETITION OF STRUEVER FIDELCO CAPPELLI, LLP IS FEASIBLE; (2) AUTHORIZING STRUEVER FIDELCO CAPPELLI, LLP TO UNDERTAKE A STUDY TO DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WITHIN THE AREA; (3) finding that the undertaking of the Study is a Type II action under Section 617.5(c)(21) of the regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act; and (4) Expressing the sense of the city council regarding the appropriateness of the USE of tax increment bonds and/or tax increment notes to finance certain elements of a redevelopment project in the event it is established.
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2006, Struever Fidelco Cappelli, LLC (”SFC”) duly filed an Application/Petition with the City Clerk for certain approvals from the City Council for the development of the projects known and described in the Application/Petition as “Palisades Point,” “River Park Center” and “Cacace Center” (collectively, the “SFC Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Application/Petition requests that the City Council establish a “redevelopment project” under New York General Municipal Law Article 18-C within the area of the City described in Exhibit 8 to the Application/Petition (such area, the “Survey Area”); and
WHEREAS, the Application/Petition requests that the City issue tax increment bonds and/or tax increment bond anticipation notes for the purpose of carrying out and/or administering a redevelopment plan for the proposed redevelopment project within the Survey Area, the proceeds of which would be used for the objects and purposes set forth in New York General Municipal Law Section 970-o(h)(i)-(iv); and
WHEREAS, SFC proposes to develop the SFC Project within the Survey Area; and
WHEREAS, SFC has stated to the City Council that the SFC Project is not economically viable unless the City issues tax increment bonds and/or tax increment bond anticipation notes, the proceeds of which would be used to, among other things, finance the construction of some or all elements of public parking facilities, public water, sewer and storm water drainage systems, public road improvements, and other necessary public improvements integral to the SFC Project (the “Integral Public Improvements”); and
WHEREAS, the City may issue tax increment bonds and/or tax increment bond anticipation notes only in furtherance of a redevelopment project duly established under New York General Municipal Law Article 18-C; and
WHEREAS, SFC would be willing to undertake on behalf of the City Council and at SFC’s sole cost and expense a study to determine if a redevelopment project within the Survey Area is feasible.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Yonkers that pursuant to New York General Municipal Law Section 970-d, the City Council hereby finds that it is appropriate and feasible to undertake a study (the “Survey Area Study”) to determine whether a redevelopment project within the Survey Area described in Exhibit 8 to the Application/Petition of SFC is feasible; and be it further
RESOLVED, that pursuant to New York General Municipal Law Section 970-d, the City Council hereby authorizes and directs SFC to undertake the Survey Area Study on behalf of the City Council; and be it further
RESOLVED, that SFC shall undertake the Survey Area Study at SFC’s sole cost and expense; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the City Council does not by this resolution commit to establish a redevelopment project within the Survey Area, but only to authorize the preparation of the Survey Area Study to determine whether a redevelopment project within the Survey Area is feasible; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the City Council finds that the Survey Area Study is a preliminary feasibility study necessary to the formulation of a proposal for action that does not commit the City of Yonkers or the City Council to commence, engage in, or approve any action, and further finds that the undertaking of the Survey Area Study is therefore a Type II action under Section 617.5(c)(21) of the regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act; and be it further
RESOLVED, it is the intent in principle of the City Council that if, upon compliance with the New York Municipal Redevelopment Law, the State Environmental Quality Review Act and other applicable law, and subject to the studies, hearings or findings required under such laws, the City Council establishes a redevelopment project within the Survey Area, then the City Council will, if consistent with such studies, hearings or findings, use its reasonable best efforts to cause the City to issue tax increment bonds and/or tax increment notes pursuant to New York General Municipal Law Section 970-o in an aggregate amount sufficient (taking into account reasonably projected public parking revenues) to fund the construction of the Integral Public Improvements in the project area, presently estimated at not more than $160 million in total cost (subject to reasonable efforts to achieve cost savings), plus required interest, bond or note issuance costs and capitalized interest, when and if SFC commences construction of the SFC Project in accordance with all required governmental approvals; and be it further
RESOLVED, that this resolution shall take effect immediately
RESOLUTION NO. -2007
BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT LESNICK, MAJORITY LEADER McDOW, MINORITY LEADER McLAUGHLIN, COUNCILMEMBERS ANNABI, ROBERTSON, MURTAGH AND BARBATO:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL: (1) FINDING THAT IT IS FEASIBLE AND APPROPRIATE TO UNDERTAKE A STUDY TO DETERMINE WHETHER A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WITHIN THE AREA DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT 8 TO THE APPLICATION/PETITION OF STRUEVER FIDELCO CAPPELLI, LLP IS FEASIBLE; (2) AUTHORIZING STRUEVER FIDELCO CAPPELLI, LLP TO UNDERTAKE A STUDY TO DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WITHIN THE AREA; (3) finding that the undertaking of the Study is a Type II action under Section 617.5(c)(21) of the regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act; and (4) Expressing the sense of the city council regarding the appropriateness of the USE of tax increment bonds and/or tax increment notes to finance certain elements of a redevelopment project in the event it is established.
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2006, Struever Fidelco Cappelli, LLC (”SFC”) duly filed an Application/Petition with the City Clerk for certain approvals from the City Council for the development of the projects known and described in the Application/Petition as “Palisades Point,” “River Park Center” and “Cacace Center” (collectively, the “SFC Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Application/Petition requests that the City Council establish a “redevelopment project” under New York General Municipal Law Article 18-C within the area of the City described in Exhibit 8 to the Application/Petition (such area, the “Survey Area”); and
WHEREAS, the Application/Petition requests that the City issue tax increment bonds and/or tax increment bond anticipation notes for the purpose of carrying out and/or administering a redevelopment plan for the proposed redevelopment project within the Survey Area, the proceeds of which would be used for the objects and purposes set forth in New York General Municipal Law Section 970-o(h)(i)-(iv); and
WHEREAS, SFC proposes to develop the SFC Project within the Survey Area; and
WHEREAS, SFC has stated to the City Council that the SFC Project is not economically viable unless the City issues tax increment bonds and/or tax increment bond anticipation notes, the proceeds of which would be used to, among other things, finance the construction of some or all elements of public parking facilities, public water, sewer and storm water drainage systems, public road improvements, and other necessary public improvements integral to the SFC Project (the “Integral Public Improvements”); and
WHEREAS, the City may issue tax increment bonds and/or tax increment bond anticipation notes only in furtherance of a redevelopment project duly established under New York General Municipal Law Article 18-C; and
WHEREAS, SFC would be willing to undertake on behalf of the City Council and at SFC’s sole cost and expense a study to determine if a redevelopment project within the Survey Area is feasible.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Yonkers that pursuant to New York General Municipal Law Section 970-d, the City Council hereby finds that it is appropriate and feasible to undertake a study (the “Survey Area Study”) to determine whether a redevelopment project within the Survey Area described in Exhibit 8 to the Application/Petition of SFC is feasible; and be it further
RESOLVED, that pursuant to New York General Municipal Law Section 970-d, the City Council hereby authorizes and directs SFC to undertake the Survey Area Study on behalf of the City Council; and be it further
RESOLVED, that SFC shall undertake the Survey Area Study at SFC’s sole cost and expense; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the City Council does not by this resolution commit to establish a redevelopment project within the Survey Area, but only to authorize the preparation of the Survey Area Study to determine whether a redevelopment project within the Survey Area is feasible; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the City Council finds that the Survey Area Study is a preliminary feasibility study necessary to the formulation of a proposal for action that does not commit the City of Yonkers or the City Council to commence, engage in, or approve any action, and further finds that the undertaking of the Survey Area Study is therefore a Type II action under Section 617.5(c)(21) of the regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act; and be it further
RESOLVED, it is the intent in principle of the City Council that if, upon compliance with the New York Municipal Redevelopment Law, the State Environmental Quality Review Act and other applicable law, and subject to the studies, hearings or findings required under such laws, the City Council establishes a redevelopment project within the Survey Area, then the City Council will, if consistent with such studies, hearings or findings, use its reasonable best efforts to cause the City to issue tax increment bonds and/or tax increment notes pursuant to New York General Municipal Law Section 970-o in an aggregate amount sufficient (taking into account reasonably projected public parking revenues) to fund the construction of the Integral Public Improvements in the project area, presently estimated at not more than $160 million in total cost (subject to reasonable efforts to achieve cost savings), plus required interest, bond or note issuance costs and capitalized interest, when and if SFC commences construction of the SFC Project in accordance with all required governmental approvals; and be it further
RESOLVED, that this resolution shall take effect immediately
Friday, February 2, 2007
http://www.brooklynmatters.com/
Velmanette Montgomery (D) of Brooklyn at the screening. Ron Shiffman, Urban Planner Chaired the pannel discussion after the movie.
Photographs by Martin McGloin ©2007. All rights reserved
I attended the screening at the Pratt Institute last night. Cookie Cutter is my best description of this documentary and the discussion that followed the screening. Exactly what is happening here in Brooklyn, happened in Yonkers with the Ridge Hill Project. More on the screening later.
Isabel Hill the director is willing to show this in Yonkers. It's a must see movie. To whet your appetite check out the trailer on the Brooklyn Matters website.
mmg
http://www.brooklynmatters.com/
For more information on this project visit the Develop Don't Destroy website.
http://www.dddb.net/
REMINDER: DEADLINE for written public comment on SFC PHASE 1 DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT is MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5:
LEGAL NOTICE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YONKERS
Notice of Public Scoping Meeting
For the
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)
For the Projects Known as:
Palisades Point
Cacace Center
River Park Center
and
Larkin Plaza
Wednesday, January 24, 2007 at 6:30pm
Yonkers City Council Chambers, City Hall, 4th Floor
The City Council of the City of Yonkers will hold a Public Scoping Meeting in the City Council Chambers, 4th Floor, City Hall at 6:30 p.m. PM on Wednesday, January 24, 2007. The Council wishes to receive public comments on the proposed scope of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to be prepared pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and its implementing regulations for the proposed mixed-use development projects known as River Park Center, Cacace Center, Larkin Plaza, and Palisades Point. The applicant is Struever Fidelco Cappelli, LLC (“SFC”). The City Council of the City of Yonkers will serve as lead agency under SEQRA.
The public scoping meeting is intended to provide agencies, organizations, and members of the public an opportunity to comment on the range of topics to be analyzed in the DEIS, and to provide input as to the types and methodologies of analyses employed therein. Following the receipt of oral and written comments on the Draft Scope, a Final Scope will be prepared by the City Council reflecting substantive comments received.
A Draft Scope document has been prepared to describe the proposed project, present the proposed framework for the EIS analysis, and discuss the procedures to be followed in the preparation of the DEIS. Copies of the Draft Scope are available at the locations listed below, as well as online at www.CityofYonkers.com.
Oral and written comments on the scope of the DEIS will be accepted at the Scoping Meeting. Written comments will be received thereafter, until the public scoping comment period closes on Monday, February 5, 2007.
Background
In accordance with SEQRA, a DEIS is to be prepared to evaluate the potential impacts of the redevelopment of several underutilized parcels in and around Downtown Yonkers and its Hudson River waterfront. As proposed, the project would create new residential, retail, office, recreational, and open space uses in the four development areas. The primary development components of the proposal include the River Park Center, Cacace Center, Larkin Plaza, and Palisades Point. The application/petition of SFC as submitted to the Yonkers City Council on October 24, 2006 provides a detailed description of the location and build program for each project component, as well as a description of the anticipated related actions.
The proposed project would also include a number of improvements associated with the redevelopment such as new parking structures, amenities associated with re-exposing the Saw Mill River, and various public improvements outside the immediate redevelopment sites associated with necessary transportation and infrastructure improvements.
In addition to the development actions, the proposed project would include a number of related actions that would be discussed and analyzed in the DEIS. These actions include zoning amendments, amendments to urban renewal plans that affect redevelopment of the area, discontinuation of streets, alienation of city parkland, and numerous approvals from various City, county, state, and federal agencies. As proposed, the project includes the adoption of a Municipal Redevelopment Plan in accordance with New York Municipal Redevelopment Law to facilitate the issuance of tax increment bonds (“TIF” bonds) by the City of Yonkers intended to finance certain aspects of the proposed project.
PLEASE NOTE: the close of public comment on scoping applies only to the creation of the DEIS Scope. There will be opportunities for additional comment on the DEIS following its preparation and at a later date.
Contact Persons: Chuck Lesnick, President, Yonkers City Council
Dennis Robertson, Chairman, Real Estate Committee, Yonkers City Council
City Hall
40 S. Broadway, Room 403
Yonkers, New York 10701
(914) 377-6650 (T)
(914) 377-6672 (F)
To Obtain a copy of the Draft Scope:
www.CityofYonkers.com (Bulletin Board Section on the Home Page)
City of Yonkers City Clerk’s Office
Yonkers City Hall, Room 107
40 S. Broadway
Yonkers, New York 10701
Office of the City Council President
Yonkers City Hall, Room 403
40 S. Broadway
Yonkers, New York 10701
Yonkers Public Library
Riverfront Library
1 Larkin Center
Yonkers, NY 10701
This Notice has been sent to:
City of Yonkers, Mayor’s Office
City of Yonkers, Office of City Council Members and President
City of Yonkers, Corporation Counsel
City of Yonkers, Traffic Engineer
City of Yonkers, City Engineer
City of Yonkers,Planning Board
City of Yonkers, Community Development Agency
Westchester County Planning Department
County Office Building
148 Martine Avenue
White Plains, NY 10601
Westchester County DPW
County Office Building, Room 400B
148 Martine Avenue
White Plains, NY 10601
Westchester County Department of Environmental Facilities
County Office Building
148 Martine Avenue
White Plains, NY 10601
Westchester County Department of Health 145 Huguenot St., 8th Floor New Rochelle, N.Y 10801
Westchester County Department of Transportation
County Office Building
148 Martine Avenue
White Plains, NY 10601
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
347 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10017
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation – Region 3
21 South Putt Corners Road
New Paltz, NY 12561
NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Conservation
State Historic Preservation Office
Peebles Island State Park
1 Delaware Avenue
Cohoes, NY 12047
NYS Department of State
Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization
41 State Street
Albany, New York 12231
NYS Department of Transportation
4 Burnett Boulevard
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
26 Federal Plaza – Room 1937
New York, NY 10278
JOAN C. DEIERLEIN
City Clerk
dated: jANUARY 12, 2007
Thursday, February 1, 2007
YONKERS IDA Approval of Resolution for FC Yonkers
Photograph Copyright Martin McGloin ©2007. All rights reserved. Agenda Item #4: "Approval of Resolution for FC Yonkers
Real Estate Committee Meeting - 2/5/07
Real Estate Committee Meeting - 2/5/07
Please be advised that a Real Estate Committee Meeting regarding TIF has been scheduled for Monday, February 5, 2007 at 6:30 P.M. in the City Council Conference Room, City Hall, Fourth Floor, Room 406. Please make every effort to attend. Thank you.
Dennis M. Robertson
Chairman, Real Estate Committee
Chuck Lesnick
Co-Chairman, Real Estate Committee
Please be advised that a Real Estate Committee Meeting regarding TIF has been scheduled for Monday, February 5, 2007 at 6:30 P.M. in the City Council Conference Room, City Hall, Fourth Floor, Room 406. Please make every effort to attend. Thank you.
Dennis M. Robertson
Chairman, Real Estate Committee
Chuck Lesnick
Co-Chairman, Real Estate Committee
RATNER REDEUX
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/cfmx/extapps/envapps/index.cfm?view=detail&applid=654223 http://www.dec.state.ny.us/cfmx/extapps/envapps/index.cfm?view=detail&applid=634256
DEC Permit Application Detail
Application ID: 3-5518-00815/00002
Facility: Ridge Hill Village
Location: Ridge Hill Blvd, Yonkers , NY
Town or City: Yonkers
Applicant: Fc Yonkers Associates LLC
Permit Type: Water Quality Certification
Application Type: New
Date Received: 11/16/2005
Status: Suspended Indefinitely as of 01/04/2007
Complete Status: Complete as of 11/10/2006
UPA Class: Major
Short Description: Proposed Mixed-Use Development. Off-site wetland mitigation within FW MV-4.
Project Description: The applicant proposes to fill approximately 0.9 acres of federally-regulated wetlands in association with construction of a mixed-use development known as Ridge Hill Village. The project site is a 144-acre site located generally between the the south end of the Grassy Sprain Reservoir and the NYS Thruway. The proposed wetland fill is for the construction of a southbound service road west of the NYS Thruway. The sponsor proposes off-site wetland mitigation at the City of Yonkers' Sunnybrook Park, which involves the enhancement of approximately 4.1 acres of State-designate Freshwater Wetland MV-4 (Class I) through the removal of Phragmites australis and the planting of wetland tree species. The Phragmites australis will be removed by cutting and application of the herbicide glyphosate. Compliance with the DEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities (GP-02-01) will also be required and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is under review.
ENB Publication Date: 11/15/2006
Written Comments Due: 12/15/2006
SEQR Class:
SEQR Determination: Positive Declaration
Lead Agency: Yonkers City Council
Environmental Justice: The application is not subject to the Department's Environmental Justice policy (CP-29). Either the permits needed for the project are not subject to the policy or it has been determined that the project would not affect a Potential Environmental Justice Area.
SHPA Status: A cultural resources survey has been completed. Based on information provided in the survey report, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) has determined that the proposed activity will have no impact on registered or eligible archaeological sites or historic structures. No further review in accordance with SHPA is required.
Coastal Zone Status: This project is not located in a Coastal Management area and is not subject to the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act.
Final Disposition:
Permit Effective Date:
Permit Expiration Date:
DEC Contact: Scott E Sheeley
21 South Putt Corners Road, New Paltz, NY 12561
Tel:(845)256-3050
DEC Permit Application Detail
Application ID: 3-5518-00815/00002
Facility: Ridge Hill Village
Location: Ridge Hill Blvd, Yonkers , NY
Town or City: Yonkers
Applicant: Fc Yonkers Associates LLC
Permit Type: Water Quality Certification
Application Type: New
Date Received: 11/16/2005
Status: Suspended Indefinitely as of 01/04/2007
Complete Status: Complete as of 11/10/2006
UPA Class: Major
Short Description: Proposed Mixed-Use Development. Off-site wetland mitigation within FW MV-4.
Project Description: The applicant proposes to fill approximately 0.9 acres of federally-regulated wetlands in association with construction of a mixed-use development known as Ridge Hill Village. The project site is a 144-acre site located generally between the the south end of the Grassy Sprain Reservoir and the NYS Thruway. The proposed wetland fill is for the construction of a southbound service road west of the NYS Thruway. The sponsor proposes off-site wetland mitigation at the City of Yonkers' Sunnybrook Park, which involves the enhancement of approximately 4.1 acres of State-designate Freshwater Wetland MV-4 (Class I) through the removal of Phragmites australis and the planting of wetland tree species. The Phragmites australis will be removed by cutting and application of the herbicide glyphosate. Compliance with the DEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities (GP-02-01) will also be required and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is under review.
ENB Publication Date: 11/15/2006
Written Comments Due: 12/15/2006
SEQR Class:
SEQR Determination: Positive Declaration
Lead Agency: Yonkers City Council
Environmental Justice: The application is not subject to the Department's Environmental Justice policy (CP-29). Either the permits needed for the project are not subject to the policy or it has been determined that the project would not affect a Potential Environmental Justice Area.
SHPA Status: A cultural resources survey has been completed. Based on information provided in the survey report, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) has determined that the proposed activity will have no impact on registered or eligible archaeological sites or historic structures. No further review in accordance with SHPA is required.
Coastal Zone Status: This project is not located in a Coastal Management area and is not subject to the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act.
Final Disposition:
Permit Effective Date:
Permit Expiration Date:
DEC Contact: Scott E Sheeley
21 South Putt Corners Road, New Paltz, NY 12561
Tel:(845)256-3050
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)