RyeCity REVIEW THE
April 28, 2017 | Vol. 5, Number 17 | www.ryecityreview.com
Council axes Crown Castle proposal, awaits litigation By JAMES PERO Staff Writer
The city of Rye will finally look to redraft its master plan, a guiding document that hasn’t been updated since 1985. One of the issues that Rye still faces today is flooding, as seen here on Elm Place. For story, see page 9. File photo
City files Playland notice of appeal against county By JAMES PERO Staff Writer In an executive session late last week, the Rye City Council voted to file a notice of appeal that could mark the beginnings of another legal battle between Westchester County and the city of Rye over Playland. The notice of appeal, which was filed on April 21, comes as a result of a denial by a state judge in March who threw out an ini-
tial Article 78 filed by the city last year that sought lead agency status on planned capital projects at the park, which sits adjacent to some of Rye’s residential neighborhoods. The notice serves as the first step toward filing an official appeal, and from that point the council will have approximately five months to finalize its decision to enter back into litigation with the county. Rye City Attorney Kristen Wilson said that while the city has been
in consistent contact with the park’s new manager, Standard Amusements, including a recent executive session meeting between the two parties in the hopes of coming to some type of agreement, there has been little contact with representatives from the county. This week, Dan Branda, a spokesman for County Executive Rob Astorino’s administration, reiterated the county executive’s hard stance against PLAYLAND continued on page 5
With the denial of an application from telecom contractor Crown Castle that seeks to install wireless equipment citywide, the city will move forward on a more stringent environmental review, likely facing litigation in the process. According to Rye City Attorney Kristen Wilson, from here the council will begin the process—initiated by a positive declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, SEQR—of determining just how the installation of wireless infrastructure will affect Rye’s neighborhoods. Wilson said that both decisions from the council, which took place on April 22 following the annual joint meeting with the Rye City Board of Education, will likely lead to litigation by Crown Castle,
proposal, barring the introduction of a preliminary injunction from Crown Castle which she says could temporarily halt the city’s review process. The decision to reject the proposal, which aimed to install 72 nodes across the city, many adjacent to residential properties, comes after more than a year of deliberation by the council, hearings in front of the public—some of which grew contentious—and negotiations with Crown Castle. While Crown Castle seeks to bolster cell service in the Rye area, residents have protested the installation of nodes citing the potential for adverse effects on property value, and initially, concerns over the equipment’s impact on public health, which soon fell by the wayside. According to City Councilwoman Julie Killian, Republican, the
Crown Castle will sue, but “I think we don’t know when.”
– RYE CITY ATTORNEY KIRSTEN WILSON, after the City Council voted to reject the application who is being contracted by Verizon Wireless to install nodes—wireless signal-emitting equipment—across the city. “I think Crown Castle will sue, but we don’t know when,” Wilson said. Regardless of a lawsuit, Wilson said the council would continue its environmental review of the
City Council elected to reject the proposal in hopes of negotiating with Crown Castle to help minimize the plan’s impact on Rye neighborhoods. “The application as they presented to us was not good for Rye, so we turned them down,” she said, PROPOSAL continued on page 8