Mamaroneck REVIEW THE
July 29, 2016 | Vol. 4, Number 31 | www.mamaroneckreview.com
Army Corps project hits another roadblock
THE
TRUMP
By JAMES PERO Staff Writer
CARD?
Donald Trump accepted the Republican Party’s nomination for president at its national convention in Cleveland on July 21. The four-day gathering brought out some of the party’s biggest names and supporters. For more, see page 6. Photo/Charles McLaughlin
Rye threatens lawsuit over Playland redevelopment By JAMES PERO Staff Writer A legal battle between Westchester County and Rye could be imminent after city officials threatened to sue for a say in the future of Playland. In a letter to County Attorney Robert Meehan dated July 18, Michael Gerrard, who was
retained by the city of Rye, asserted that Rye, not Westchester County, should enjoy the status of lead agency for an upcoming round of capital projects at the amusement park. “Unfortunately, the county hasn’t followed the law,” said Rye Mayor Joe Sack, a Republican. “Months ago, apparently, the county had declared itself
lead agency.” According to Sack, the county declared itself lead agency in May. Gerrard told the Review that if the county continues to ignore the city’s request for inclusion into the park’s process, litigation will be imminent. “I think [a lawsuit] would be a fair assumption,” he said. “We
would only file a lawsuit if we thought we had strong grounds.” The city has set a July 28 deadline, after press time, for the county to respond before filing an Article 78 proceeding. According to Gerrard, the county has yet to respond, as of press time, but Ned McCormack, PLAYLAND continued on page 9
Even despite a more stringent review process from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a $75 million flood project drew lingering concerns from the village Harbor and Coastal Zone Management Commission, which deemed the project “potentially consistent” last week. At a meeting on Wednesday, July 20, the commission—which was asked by the Department of State to help determine whether or not the project complies with the village’s Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, LWRP—found that the project still contradicts a portion of its waterfront policy. “The [harbor commission] determined unanimously there were seven policies in the LWRP that were potentially consistent if certain attributes we modified or changed,” commission member Clark Neuringer said. “At this point, they could not be considered consistent.” Among the major concerns identified by both the harbor commission and consultants hired by the village to evaluate the newest iteration of the project was its impact on the surrounding environment. An analysis by hydrologist Paul Rubin—a consultant hired by members of the harbor commission to help assess
the project—stated, “As planned, [the] project design will degrade aquatic ecosystems, wildlife habitat, water quality, and fishing and recreational opportunities while diminishing river access….” Cindy Goldstein, chairwoman of the harbor commission, said that these concerns could be addressed by considering alternative methods of flood mitigation that rely less heavily on structural engineering. “A major concern of the whole project was that alternatives that would not be so potentially damaging to the environment are available,” she said. “Those alternatives weren’t investigated by the Army Corps to the extent they should have been.” While members of the harbor commission have shown reservations about the flood plan, members of the Army Corps have expressed concerns of their own; namely worries that opposition may put a stop to the project once and for all. Gene Brickman, deputy chief of the Army Corps’ planning division—who has also worked on a previous iteration of the flood mitigation project in the ‘80s— spoke to a full audience at the commission meeting. “The only thing that’s going to stop this project is you,” he said, addressing residents in attendance. PROJECT continued on page 8