PRESENT: KATHERINE S. CARSKY, CHAIR, LEGISLATORS

LATIMER, DELFINO, LA MOTTE,

ALSO PRESENT: PAT BARR, DELORES MULVEY, THOMAS BARR, BARBARA HAND, MARIE LIFRIERE, FRANK LIFRIERE, CITIZENS FOR PARKLAND; ALICE THOMAS, DEWEY BALLANTINE; JOEL RUSSELL, AIRPORT MANAGER; P. LYNN, OLIVA, COMMISSIONER OF PLANNING, ED BURROUGHS, PLANNING DEPARTMENT; JOSEPH PETROCELLI, TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONER, ROB BRACCHITA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; AL DEL BELLO, WESTCHESTER LAND TRUST; CAROLYN CUNNINGHAM, FCWC AND NRDC; DORIS SIMON, CENTRAL WESTCHESTER AUDUBON SOCIETY , CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR OPEN SPACE; MARIAN ROSE, SIERRA CLUB, LOWER HUDSON GROUP, VINCENZA RESTIANO, YONKERS CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT; SYMRA BRANDON, MINORITY LEADER OF THE YONKERS CITY COUNCIL; RICHARD MARTINELLI, MAJORITY LEADER OF THE YONKERS CITY COUNCIL; JAY HASHMALL, CITY COUNCIL ATTORNEY; DAVID MCKAY WILSON, GANNETT SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS; DAVID SLOANE, PRESIDENT-CITIZENS FOR PARKLAND; JAN BLAIRE, CHAIR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COUNCIL; LEGISLATOR ANDREA STEWART-COUSINS; LEGISLATOR LOIS BRONZ; LEGISLATOR SUZANNE SWANSON, PAT GORSKI, CLERK

Mrs. Carsky opened the meeting at 2:40 p.m. and moved that the minutes of March 17, 1997 be approved. The motion was seconded by Mrs. LaMotte and carried 2 to 0. Mrs. Carsky presented letters from members of the Audubon Society expressing concern about the proposal to cut trees at the Airport. She then introduced Commissioner Oliva who presented the Draft of the Statement of Findings regarding the Westchester County Airport Projects. The Commissioner directed the Committee’s attention to page 14 of the Statement of Findings. Regarding the development of two new Fixed Base Operator ("FBO") sites, the Echo and Hotel sites have been determined to be the most appropriate locations for meeting the objective of consolidation of light general aviation with the least adverse environmental impact. Commissioner Oliva stressed that great consideration has been given to the relationship of the proposed development on these sites to adjacent, non-Airport properties. The following items will be included as part of the site development plans to enhance the relationship between the FBO sites and the adjacent land uses:

At the Echo site, opaque fencing (chain link with slats) will be installed on the west side of the Echo development, extending southwesterly from the existing berm. This fencing, in combination with the wide expanse of wooded area on the Airport property to the west that will remain unchanged , will provide additional screening of the aircraft and T-hangars at the Echo site from the Friends Meeting House and properties to the west. The Commissioner said that this proposal had been discussed with the Friends.

At the Echo site, along the Hangar E access drive, additional conifers would be planted. This would provide additional screening from the Echo site for Wolf Lane residents. According to the Commissioner, The Friends had asked for additional fencing to provide screening for Runway 111. The Planning Department said

that putting a fence at the end of the Runway was not possible because of safety considerations. If desired by the Friends, the County might be able to place some fencing on their property.

Commissioner Oliva said that as good as fencing is, it does not replace real trees. Commissioner Petrocelli pledged to work with the Friends to find an acceptable mitigation solution.

Included in the FEIS is the fact that a berm will be constructed between the Hotel development area and the Fox property. It will be heavily planted.

Mr. Delfino pointed out that the biggest problem Mrs. Fox has is that she can see the planes take off. Not only does her house rattle, but the sight of aircraft taking off is disconcerting.

Mrs. Carsky said that as she understood it, except for plantings, it will not be possible to screen her property.

In response to Mrs. Fox’s questions about the hours of construction, Commissioner Oliva said that they will be limited to a daily average of eight hours. Mrs. Carsky asked if the Findings Statement could specify eight daylight hours, and Commissioner Oliva agreed.

Commissioner Oliva said that at both FBO sites, the height of the lighting poles will be re-evaluated so as to install the minimum height required for public safety. All lights will be angled and no direct light source will be visible from off-site.

Mrs. LaMotte asked if the FEIS could reflect that it will be a directional light. Commissioner Oliva said that it was already in the document.

Concerning late arriving aircraft, Commissioner Oliva said that they would be parked in an "after hours parking zone" in which aircraft

departing or arriving after hours would be parked in designated areas only and the County will assign parking spaces closest to residences to infrequent flyers. She pointed out, however, that all such measures were subject to safety and security considerations.

The County has already installed a pilot controlled lighting system which helps reduce the ambient glow after 11:00 p.m. This system allows pilots to remotely activate the runway and taxiway lighting system through the aircraft’s radio as they approach or take off.

With regard to Stormwater Management System Modifications, both alternatives for stormwater management would not have significant adverse environmental impacts. Expansion of existing basins A and B could be more readily accomplished. Proposed new Basin C would require the removal of trees, possible rock excavation, additional wetland impacts and the establishment of an off-site control for the outlet structure.

Regarding trees, on County property, trees will be evaluated on a three-year cycle. This was done to address the concerns of residents and Legislators.

Mrs. LaMotte wanted to know what the County’s policy was when it contracted out for tree removal. Does the County oversee the actual work? She referenced the clearcutting done near the Friends’ land and said that she thought some of the shrubs could have been spared.

Commissioner Oliva pointed out that there is now a County Tree Ordinance in place and that no unnecessary cutting would be done.

Commissioner Petrocelli pointed out that the County wanted to identify specific trees as opposed to specific areas.

Legislator Latimer said he doesn’t have a problem with a three- year cycle, but wanted to know the environmental basis. Commissioner Oliva said that the three-year timeframe is the shortest reasonable period that could be allowed. Each tree removal or trimming project would be done under the supervision of an arborist.

Commissioner Oliva said that additional plantings would be done. She mentioned the concept of a one-to one replacement and said that it would be inserted into the Findings document.

Off property, permission of property of owners will be requested to cut trees. Mr. Latimer asked why they word requested, rather than the word required was used. Commissioner Oliva agreed to make the change to the word required.

The Committee agreed that the use of the word requested on the top of page 16 should be left as it made sense in that context.

Regarding wetland mitigation at Hangar E, it will be implemented in accordance with the proposal of the Army Corps of Engineers.

Mrs. Carsky said that she sent a memo to all Legislators asking if they had any further items or concerns they would like to have addressed and, to date, she has not had any response.

Mrs. Carsky recognized Carolyn Cunningham of the Federated Conservationists and the Natural Resources Defense Fund.

Mrs. Cunningham addressed the wetland mitigation. Commissioner Oliva said that Basins A and B would be preferred. Mrs. Cunningham said that A and B weren’t really working. She was concerned about the monitoring of A and B and Commissioner Oliva said that she would be happy to share the results of the monitoring and mitigation of Basins A and B. Mrs. Cunningham also said she

hoped this information was being shared with the Department of Environmental Conservation regarding water quality.

Jan Kent, an airport pilot, urged the Legislators to do what is necessary to get these construction projects under way. The pilots have been waiting for these improvements for over two decades and this and that they faced serious safety concerns until the projects were complete.

Mrs. Carsky responded that the Board wanted to do a thorough job and address everyone’s concern.

Commissioner Oliva said that unless she heard other concerns from Board members, she would put the FEIS into final form. She also stressed that she was available to meet with any Legislators who had specific questions or concerns regarding the Findings Statement.

Mrs. LaMotte said that she hoped Commissioner Oliva would meet with the Friends to make sure their concerns were addressed.

Mr. Latimer and Mrs. Carsky agreed to work on the issue of timing - when the Findings Statement could be brought to the full Board for action.

Mr. Delfino asked that when taking the concerns of the Friends into consideration, please include the residents of Wolf Lane, especially Mrs. Fox.

Mrs. Carsky then concluded the first part of the Committee meeting and went to the second item on the agenda. The leadership of the Yonkers City Council had requested an opportunity to appear before the Committee to address the question of the Rory O’Moore Parcel. The leaders hoped they might be able to answer any unanswered questions (especially from the County’s environmental

community) or to clarify any concern about the City’s home rule request.

Mrs. Carsky told the Leadership that she would provide the opportunity for them to do so and subsequently contacted the heads of all of the environmental groups who had expressed interest in the Rory O’Moore parcel.

Mrs. Carsky then entertained any questions from the environmental community and the Legislators to the leaders of the Yonkers City Council.

Mr. Latimer said that in calling this meeting, there are two different points represented. The pivotal question is whether this land is perceived to be parkland and if it is considered such, does the decision made with regard to this parcel set a precedent for every other parcel of land in the County.

Mrs. Restiano said that as the proponent of the Mariner’s Point proposal, she understands environmental issues and is supportive of them. However , having been a council member during some of the City’s most difficult times, gaining control of this property is vital to the survival of the City. She has always supported efforts to obtain more greenspace. The Council has drafted another resolution asking the County to release the reverter on this parcel. In addition, the City has been in contract with their legal representative re: the Federal Desegregation lawsuit, and it is hoped that this time they will be able to separate this parcel from the issue of parkland and to convey to the Legislators just how important their decision is.

She introduced Jay Hashmall, the Attorney for the Yonkers City Council, who has drafted the new sections of the home rule resolution.

Mr. Hashmall contended that this parcel wasn’t parkland, but rather surplus land and the City Council made the decision to use this

surplus land to help the City overcome its desegregation problem. It is hoped that that the County Board will draft appropriate legislation to help the City gain control over this land.

Henry Neale, speaking as and environmentalist and as the attorney retained by the homeowners who live in the area surrounding the Rory O’Moore parcel, said that the Board already had considerable discussion on this matter and, after a lengthy debate at a special meeting called for March 17th, the matter did not receive the 12 votes it needed for passage. Mrs. Carsky pointed out that the prior vote was based on a letter to the Chairman of the Board sent by the Mayor of Yonkers. This request was being made on the basis of a home rule request resolution which was adopted 6 to 1 by the Yonkers City Council.

Mr. Neale said that as it refers to the parkland issue, the resolution is word-for-word identical to the resolution adopted by the City of Yonkers in 1996. Mr. Neale urged the City to find an alternate site. He contended that Parcel HH is parkland. Mr. Neale offered to spread out the survey maps and trace the deeds. Mrs. Carsky declined his offer. Mr. Neale said that the Resolution passed by the City Council in 1996 referred to parkland. Nowhere did it refer to the land as County parkland. Mr. Neale stated that the Board voted on this matter on March 17th. Seventeen Legislators were present the vote was 9 to 8. At the March 24th Board meeting, no one made a motion to reconsider the vote taken on March 17th. Mr. Neale told the City that it was time to move on and select an alternate site.

Mr. Martinelli said that this was the first opportunity to find sites in the City without Federal intervention. The City Council is still unified in its intent and certain of the correctness of its decision. This is not a parkland situation. It’s Yonkers taking control of its own destiny. This is not an environmental or parkland issue. He pointed out that the City was going to identify other parcels to make up for taking the O’Moore parcel. From a planning perspective, the City officials feel that this is

the best site for the housing. The City intends to make up for the land that is taken away. He pledged that the Council is committed to doing this. He said the land was open space, not parkland.

Jan Blaire, Chair of the County’s Environmental Management Council, said that if other sites had been identified, what makes the Rory O’Moore parcel a better choice. Mr. Martinelli said that this was the first time the City was permitted to pick its own site and, from a planning perspective, it’s an excellent site. Also, there was ease access to the site. Mrs. Restiano pointed out that the City had a very short time to pick the site. This was an opportunity for the City to show the Judge that it could move quickly, pick a site and not put stumbling blocks in the path of the Federal mandate.

Marion Rose of the Sierra Club asked if there had been an environmental assessment done and asked what effect taking this parcel would have on the citizens who use the park. Mrs. Restiano said that the only impact is the one it would have on the City. Mr. Hashmall said that once the City had control of the parcel, an EAS would be done. Speed in designating the site was paramount. The alternative was School 15, and the City has decided that it should be rebuilt and used as a school. Mrs. Restiano said that the City continues to add 1,000 new students a year to the school population and that this trend is expected to continue.

Mrs. Restiano said that the proposal was for 34 semi-attached homes that would blend in the community.

Mr. Neale asked if an effort might be made to bring the County into the Federal action and whether or not the City presently intends to seek judicial relief against the County. Mrs. Restiano answered no.

Thomas Barr of Citizens for Parkland said that he could pick out the Rory O’Moore section of parkland from the County Parkland map on the wall of the Committee Room.

Pat Barr of Citizens for Parkland asked if the City intended to replace the trees in the area where the housing was going to be placed. Mrs. Restiano said that she was replacing adjacent land that is not dedicated parkland and that they would be adding additional parkland in other areas of the City.

Mrs. Restiano said that Museum School and School 4 were taken by the Judge. In 1991, 8,000 units of housing were to be built. Already 100+ units are going up. The affordable housing has to be placed throughout the City. There is a great deal at stake here. One has to live in the City to know what it’s like to live under Court Order. The wound that has been opened up is tremendous.

Mr. Neale said that Gannett newspaper had fanned the flames of anger.

Regarding Mariners Point Mr. Neale asked if it wasn’t correct that funding was obtained through the good officers of the Open Space Program? Mrs. Restiano responded that $500,000 was obtained through the Program and the rest through the City.

Mr. Neale asked if it wasn’t also a fact that Mariner’s Point was acquired to add to the Yonkers Parks System, not to replace the Rory O’Moore parcel.

Mrs. Restiano responded that if the City was willing to replace the trees and the property on a one to one and a half basis, wouldn’t it be doing enough environmentally to permit the City to compensate for the Rory O’Moore parcel

Mrs. Simon of the Audubon Society said that it takes years to replace the trees and that the City should deliberate very carefully before taking a heavily wooded piece of property.

Mrs. Cunningham said she was concerned about precedential value of this proposed action. From an environmental point of view, how can anyone say that this is a non precedential action. Since the environmental community has fought so hard to get parkland, it’s difficult to see how it can be given away.

Mrs. Restiano said that the City and County must work together to see that it doesn’t become precedential.

Mrs. Rose of the Sierra Club asked whether anything had been done to evaluate the impact that placing housing on this parcel would have. Mrs. Restiano responded that, for the past 10 years, the City has been under the Federal Housing Implementation Office and that every parcel in the City has been evaluated for housing. Therefore, environmental issues have been addressed during this review of the parcels.

Mrs. Brandon says that the Fair Housing Office should have a book addressing environmental impacts and that they would make it available to the Sierra Club.

Mrs. Restiano said that the City can’t grow economically or any other way until it gains control of the housing issue. The judge has given the City another 30 days to resolve this issue.

Mrs. Stewart-Cousins said that the City is in a situation that far exceeds civility, housing or growth. It is trying to grapple with the issues of racism and inequality and the issues go far beyond trees and grass. The City is in a desperate situation. The City has joined with the Mayor, the State Senate, the State Assembly, the NAACP, the Governor and the Judge and finally is on the right track. The Majority of the members of the Board of Legislators is willing to step aside and let Yonkers control its own destiny. Unfortunately, the minority has prevailed. The Board needs to put its emotional issues regarding the environment aside and allow the City to control this parcel.

Marie Lifieri of Citizens for Parkland asked why the two are being tied together. To solve housing, why go to parkland?. There is only one reason - parkland is cheap.

Mrs. Brandon said that this is the first time that everyone has come together on the housing issue. This is unheard of. She’s not against parkland, but if the City can’t move forward, the Judge will take control. A lot of people want to see this coalition fail. Many people in her district need affordable housing. There is not a lot of decent housing on the west side. She doesn’t want the City to go backward.

David Sloane, President of Citizens for Parkland, asked to be recognized and be allowed to speak as the leader of an environmental group. Mrs. Carsky asked how long his organization had been in existence. He responded that they first organized in December of 1996, but did not have a name until January of 1997. Mr. Sloane said that Mayor Spencer came before his group in December of 1996 and said that he was going to designate this parcel for housing because it was free.

Mr. Sloane asked why Parcel HH was picked, when School 15 was the first site designated. He said that his group was in favor of affordable housing and didn’t think the process should be stopped.

Mr. Sloan also said that Mayor Spencer indicated that School 15 was needed as a neighborhood school.

At 4:10 p.m., the Committee went into recess on motion of Legislator Latimer, seconded by Legislator LaMotte.

At 4:15 p.m., the Committee reconvened.

Legislator Latimer addressed the subject of an act that was sent to the Board by the County Executive (Item 10 on the agenda) which would rededicate a portion of Playland Park to be included in the adjoining Edith G. Read Natural Park and Wildlife Sanctuary. Several weeks ago, the Board passed an act dedicating the Marshlands as passive parkland. Mr. Latimer tried to have Read Sanctuary similarly dedicated, but there were issues between the County and the Friends of Read Sanctuary that couldn’t be bridged. Mr. Latimer has settled upon proposing modifications to Committee Report and SEQRA Document which would satisfy everyone’s concerns.

Mr. Latimer proposes adding the following language to the Committee Report, "Your Committee views this Act as consistent with the Resolution passed by the Board of Legislators in 1985 which outlined the legislative intent for formal dedication of the original acreage of the Read Sanctuary. Taken together, this Act and the 1985 Board Resolution, makes a clear statement regarding the purpose of this Park and Wildlife Sanctuary, as being set aside for passive recreation in perpetuity."

To the Environmental Resolution, Mr. Latimer proposes adding the following "Whereas" clause:

"Whereas, this Honorable Board has previously passed a Board Resolution in 1985 to protect this Park and Wildlife Sanctuary for passive recreation purposes; and"

Mr. Latimer said this act as consistent with what the Board did in 1985. It says that the legislative intent is the same in 1997.

Mrs. Carsky asked why these amendments were necessary.

Mr. Latimer said that they demonstrate that the Board doesn’t view this act as a diminution of what it considers to be passive parkland. In the years to come, if someone looks back, he or she will have a clear picture of the Board’s intent as it relates to passive parkland.

Mr. Latimer said that in passing an act, the Board is taking a stronger stand than passing a resolution. He further said that the act dedicates only 7.1 acres instead of the entire parcel. This couldn’t be done because metes and bounds were not available.

Mrs. LaMotte asked if there were any plans to do metes and bounds for the Read Sanctuary.

Mr. Latimer responded that he couldn’t come to an agreement with the Administration.

Mr. Latimer went on to say that all this additional language does is to reinforce the intent of the 1985 Resolution, giving the County some additional protection should anyone seek to violate the Board’s will as it relates to the designation of passive parkland.

Mr. Latimer stressed that he was not seeking to be confrontational with the Administration. The steps the Committee is taking advances what was accomplished in the 1985 Resolution and is a reasonable way to deal with the issue.

The legislation, with Mr. Latimer’s amendments, was then moved by Legislator Latimer, seconded by Legislator Delfino and carried, 4 to 0.

Mrs. Carsky then asked the Committee to consider Item 20 on the agenda, a proposed local law to amend Clean Air act by repealing Chapter 595 of the Laws of Westchester County in relation to implementing portions of the New York State Clean Air Compliance

Act and establishing local administrative fees, penalty provisions and an appeal process for alleged violators of said Act.

The Resolution setting the public hearing, as well as the Local Law itself, was moved by Legislator Latimer, seconded by Legislator LaMotte, Carried, 4 to 0

On motion of Legislator Latimer, seconded by Legislator LaMotte, the committee adjourned at 4:25 p.m.