1 / 42

The Parcel B application: A violation of Supreme Court Ordered Stipulations,

The Parcel B application: A violation of Supreme Court Ordered Stipulations, Town of Harrison Law, New York State Law, and an illegal subdivision. VIOLATION OF 1984 STIPULATIONS —ONE BUILDING. May 1984 Stipulation ( Exhibit A ). October 1984 Stipulation ( Exhibit B ).

kimi
Download Presentation

The Parcel B application: A violation of Supreme Court Ordered Stipulations,

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Parcel B application: A violation of Supreme Court Ordered Stipulations, Town of Harrison Law, New York State Law, and an illegal subdivision.

  2. VIOLATION OF 1984 STIPULATIONS —ONE BUILDING • May 1984 Stipulation (Exhibit A). • October 1984 Stipulation (Exhibit B).

  3. Time Table of Approvals for Parcel B Town Board Unilaterally Approves (1) Special Exemption Use Permit for a Planned Office Park in 3 Buildings of 355,000 sq. ft.; (2) Site plan for two different site plans; and (3) Enters into May Stipulation of Settlement MAY 1984 Related applies to Planning Board for Site Plan approval for a SINGLE building of 355,000 sq. ft. to be constructed in two phases and other conditions set forth in October 1984 Stipulation and shown on revised site plan. November 1984 Planning Board grants Site Plan approval limited to a SINGLE Building of 355,000 sq. ft., constructed in two phases, as per the October 1984 stipulation. November 1984

  4. VIOLATION OF 1984 STIPULATIONS —ONE BUILDING • May 1984 Stipulation (Exhibit A). • October 1984 Stipulation (Exhibit B).

  5. Time Table of Approvals for Parcel B Town Board Unilaterally Approves (1) Special Exemption Use Permit for a Planned Office Park in 3 Buildings of 355,000 sq. ft.; (2) Site plan for two different site plans; and (3) Enters into May Stipulation of Settlement MAY 1984 Related applies to Planning Board for Site Plan approval for a SINGLE building of 355,000 sq. ft. to be constructed in two phases and other conditions set forth in October 1984 Stipulation and shown on revised site plan. November 1984 Planning Board grants Site Plan approval limited to a SINGLE Building of 355,000 sq. ft., constructed in two phases, as per the October 1984 stipulation. November 1984

  6. VIOLATION OF 1984 STIPULATIONS —ONE BUILDING • November 13, 1984 Site Plan – One Building (Exhibit C). • November 20, 1984 Letter of Al Pirro – One Building (Exhibit D). • November 30, 1984 Site Plan Approval – One Building (Exhibit E).

  7. VIOLATION OF 1984 STIPULATIONS —ONE BUILDING • November 13, 1984 Site Plan – One Building (Exhibit C). • November 20, 1984 Letter of Al Pirro – One Building (Exhibit D). • November 30, 1984 Site Plan Approval – One Building (Exhibit E).

  8. VIOLATION OF 1984 STIPULATIONS —ONE BUILDING • November 13, 1984 Site Plan – One Building (Exhibit C). • November 20, 1984 Letter of Al Pirro – One Building (Exhibit D). • November 30, 1984 Site Plan Approval – One Building (Exhibit E).

  9. Parcel B’s Approved Site Plan, 1984 Source: http://www.johnmeyerconsulting.com/parcelb/DEIS/VOL2/TEXT/APPENDIX%20S/SITE%20PLAN%20APPROVAL%20RESOLUTION.pdf

  10. Parcel B’s Approved Site Plan, 1984 Source: http://www.johnmeyerconsulting.com/parcelb/DEIS/VOL2/TEXT/APPENDIX%20S/SITE%20PLAN%20APPROVAL%20RESOLUTION.pdf

  11. Parcel B’s Approved Site Plan, 1984 Source: http://www.johnmeyerconsulting.com/parcelb/DEIS/VOL2/TEXT/APPENDIX%20S/SITE%20PLAN%20APPROVAL%20RESOLUTION.pdf

  12. Parcel B’s Approved Site Plan, 1984 Source: http://www.johnmeyerconsulting.com/parcelb/DEIS/VOL2/TEXT/APPENDIX%20S/SITE%20PLAN%20APPROVAL%20RESOLUTION.pdf

  13. VIOLATION OF 1984 STIPULATIONS —ONE BUILDING • November 13, 1984 Site Plan – One Building (Exhibit C). • November 20, 1984 Letter of Al Pirro – One Building (Exhibit D). • November 30, 1984 Site Plan Approval – One Building (Exhibit E). • Decisions do not preclude this issue. These decisions were rendered on a Motion To Dismiss and do not set precedent and are not law of the case.

  14. Question Whose Decision is It to Say Whether Applicant Complied With Stipulations?

  15. Question Whose Decision is It to Say Whether Applicant Complied With Stipulations? • Answer: The TOWN as per the 2005 Appellate Division Decision (Exhibit F).

  16. SECOND VIOLATION OF 1984 STIPULATIONS – SALE OF PROPERTY TO NESTLE • Schedule 20 – “Status of Compliance with the Stipulation contract of sale” (Exhibit G) • Purchase Corporate Park Associates admits to non compliance to stipulations

  17. THIRD VIOLATION OF 1984 STIPULATIONS – SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS • Conflicting information regarding square footage of existing and proposed building. • Alice AvRutick, Planning Board member, April 11, 2007 stressed the importance of applicant clarifying the FAR. She stated, “actual verification of the existing building in that floor area can only be made by an as-built survey calculation performed by a licensed professional land surveyor. None of this has been done.” • Ms. AvRutick’s request remains unanswered: No certification of F.A.R. with a physical survey has been conducted by an independent surveyor. • F.A.R. compliance must be evaluated by Planning board Sources http://www.town.harrison.ny.us/docs/PlanningZoning/ParcelBOfficeBldg/Volume%20I%20Appendix%2003.pdf http://www.town.harrison.ny.us/docs/PlanningZoning/ParcelBOfficeBldg/Volume%20I%20Appendix%2011.pdf

  18. FOURTH VIOLATION OF 1984 STIPULATIONS – CONCERNING MANHATTANVILLE ROAD & PURCHASE ST • Road widening of Purchase Street is prohibited in the stipulations.

  19. VIOLATION OF 1988 HARRISONMASTER PLAN • The Master Plan language is clear "Areas recommended for commercial office expansion include the southern portion only of the Whitelaw-Reid property, and only on the condition that access is provided through Manhattanville Road to Westchester Avenue."(Exhibit H 1988 Master Plan Update, Page 80. Section 5.81-Purchase Sector Land Use Plan) • According to the New York State Town Law (§272-a (11)) once a comprehensive plan is adopted by the local legislative body, all of the local government’s land use regulations must be in accordance with it. • After Manhattanville sold the land “the Whitelaw-Reid property” became known as Parcel A, Parcel B and Parcel C.

  20. The Whitelaw Reid Property referred to in the 1988 Master plan is now known as Parcels A, B and C

  21. ILLEGAL SUBDIVISION • Relevant Statutory Provisions • NY State Town Law Section 276(4)(a) (Exhibit I). • NY Planning and Zoning Enabling Acts (Exhibit J). • Town Code of Harrison Section 204-4 (Zoning and Subdivision) (Exhibit K). • NY Real Property § 337 (Exhibit L). • Grubb & Ellis Offering Memorandum for Parcel B (Exhibit M). • Ownership Interest is 23.75 acres. • 1991 Ground lease (Nestle and Purchase Corporate Park) (Exhibit N). • 11.25 acre “carve-out”. Minimum 35 acre parcel. Not a “Sale and Lease-Back” of 35 acres, but 11.25 acres sale – lease for $1, buy for $1. • Applicant is the lessee of approximately 11.25 acres that was “carved out” of Parcel B pursuant to a lease agreement dated 1991 with the fee owner of Parcel B, Nestle USA. • Lease requires Tenant to simultaneously apply for rezoning and subdivision approval. • Rezoning and Subdivision shall mean a subdivision of the land into two (2) separate lots, one comprising the Leased Land and the other comprising the Retained Land.

  22. SFEIS DEFICIENCIES Failed to address all comments Traffic data outdated Shoehorning Wetland permit requirements Landbanked parking violation

  23. SFEIS DEFICIENCIES Failed to respond to all substantive comments NYCRR 617.9(b)(8): “A final EIS must consist of: … the lead agency's responses to all substantive comments” March 19, 2007 Letter: 36 Transportation Comments (LBG) - No responses provided April 11, 2007 Public Hearing: Parking Landbank Comments (Ms. AvRutick) - No response provided

  24. SFEIS DEFICIENCIES • Traffic data outdated; Impact underestimated • SFEIS Existing Conditions: 2006 • SFEIS Build Conditions/Impacts: 2008 • Anticipated Build Year: 2012 (?) • 4 years of traffic background growth

  25. SFEIS DEFICIENCIES • Shoehorning • Placement of proposed building in corner of Parcel B

  26. SFEIS DEFICIENCIES • New parking and stormwater basin in wetland buffer (SFEIS) • TOWN CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR WETLAND PERMIT ARE THAT THE APPLICANT DEMONSTRATE THAT: • The proposed regulated activity is compatible with the public health and welfare; • The proposed regulated activity is reasonable and necessary; and • There is no reasonable alternativefor the proposed regulated activity on a site which is not a freshwater wetland or adjacent area. • NO REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE TO IMPACTING WETLAND? • HOW ABOUT THE ORIGINAL SINGLE-BUILDING SITE PLAN?

  27. SFEIS DEFICIENCIES • “But there's nothing to be built on the land bank site unless the Applicant comes back to the Zoning Board or Planning Board and has it removed and has it changed...” • (Ms. AvRutick. Member of the Planning Board; DSEIS Public Hearing, April 11, 2007). • “Yes, we will clarify that in the FEIS” • (Mr. Guccione, (for the Applicant); DSEIS Public Hearing, April 2007). • FSEIS: - No clarification provided • - No request to remove previously allocated landbanked parking Landbanked parking violation

  28. SFEIS DEFICIENCIES Failed to respond to all substantive comments NYCRR 617.9(b)(8): “A final EIS must consist of: … the lead agency's responses to all substantive comments” March 19, 2007 Letter: 36 Transportation Comments (LBG) - No responses provided April 11, 2007 Public Hearing: Parking Landbank Comments (Ms. AvRutick) - No response provided

  29. DEVELOPMENT ON LANDBANKED PARKING FOR EXISTING BUILDING LANDBANKED PARKING FOR EXISTING BUILDING “But there's nothing to be built on the land bank site unless the Applicant comes back to the Zoning Board or Planning Board and has it removed and has it changed...” (Ms. AvRutick. Member of the Planning Board; DSEIS Public Hearing, April 11, 2007). “Yes, we will clarify that in the FEIS” (Mr. Guccione, (for the Applicant); DSEIS Public Hearing, April 2007).

  30. Parking deck – proposed building 88 landbanked parking spaces – proposed building Parking deck – existing building Surface parking – proposed building Landbanked parking spaces – existing building Surface parking – existing building

  31. www.pepany.com

More Related