LATEST NEWS: (3/15/12, 9 a.m.) Click Here to Learn About Sunshine Week and... Meet Local Hero Nominees: Doris Lipson Sassower​, Carl Albanese​, Eli Vigliano and Elena Ruth Sassower

UPDATE: (3/5/12, 4 p.m.) On Friday, March 3, 2012, City Clerk McPherson finally confirmed there was "no deadline," still time for written Public Comments to be submitted for consideration at tonight's Common Council Regular and Stated Meeting, at which an " Ordinance ... amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of White Plains with respect to establishing Bed and Breakfast Use as a principal permitted use in the R1-30 Zoning District" is listed on the Agenda, headed by "First Reading: Ordinances, Item 38," conspicuously without my name as Petitioner, shown.

Further confirmed by Councilman David Buchwald that same day was that such would be accepted, even after tonight's Meeting. I truly appreciate all your letters of support, including the wonderful Letter of Support, just received from the 3000-member Professional Association of Innkeepers International (PAII) of my Petition for a Bed & Breakfast Zoning Ordinance Amendment.

 

However, guess what? Without the slightest explanation for the arbitrary and capricious turn-about, I just today received the following City Clerk McPherson's e-mail, dated Mon 3/5/2012 12:38 PM "In relation to Items 2 and 4 on this evenings calendar, the Mayor will grant you the privilege of the floor. The public comment period for Item 38 was the public hearing on February 6, 2011. The Citizens to be Heard provides the forum for the other matters you, or Mr. Vigliano wish to address." What better proof that "anything goes" in this City? Tonight's Common Council Meeting will definitely NOT be dull. One way or another, I will make every effort to be heard tonight and will ask that the official minutes of tonight's Meeting and Citizens' Half Hour preceding it record my strenuous objection to the denial of my Citizen's right to be heard, under our federal and New York State Constitutions, as well as under our New York State Open Meetings Law, as proponent of the Bed & Breakfast Ordinance that is the subject of Item 38. It appears that this City administration does not subscribe and does not care if the whole world knows it, to the view attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," which is what the principle of freedom of speech is all about.

To clarify where we are now, my Petition, dated November 4, 2011, sought a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, expressly declaring Bed & Breakfast to be a "Permitted Accessory Use" and a "Customary Home Occupation." That is the one I submitted at the conclusion of my Statement at the February 6, 2012 Common Council Public Hearing. Shockingly, that is NOT the Ordinance now on the March 5, 2012 Meeting Agenda as Item 38, stated to be the one making it a Permitted Principal Use that I had expressly rejected. The Agenda, also, fails to identify that I had submitted a superseding one, at the conclusion of the February 6, 2012 Common Council Public Hearing on my matter, as shown by the as shown by the City's Public Access Cable TV Video of that Hearing.

I submit that the public has a right to know the whole story, one identifying that I sought to have the listed proposed Ordinance replaced by one making clear the two above-mentioned vital purposes I wished to achieve by the minimal changes involved, making no material difference whatever to the Planning Board's disapproval, as stated in the Nine Agency Communications it considered, which, by the way, were not all unanimously opposed to my Petition.

As I stated in that Video, it was not until I finally got a look at the City's typically late Friday p.m. posted Agenda -- the very day of that Hearing -- that I had the 11th hour opportunity to analyze the Nine Agency Reports listed as "Communications" relating to my Agenda Item. Incredibly, I was never even provided copies of such documents, as requested before -- and after -- the due process-less January 17, 2012 Planning Board Meeting that disapproved my Petition, dated November 4, 2011. All, expressly without a Public Hearing, as allowed to other Amendment Petitioners or otherwise allowing me to be heard to address, one by one, the spurious objections raised in those Reports that were negative, as I repeatedly attempted, and was ready, willing and able, to do, but, nonetheless, curtailed or suppressed in my attempts to be heard to present the true facts to the contrary.

The Video of the January 17, 2012 Planning Board Meeting plainly shows that not only did Planning Board Chairman, Michael Quinn, preclude me from being so heard, in gross violation of my federally and state-guaranteed constitutional due process and equal protection rights, but that he did so, in an abusive and inhumane manner, including rude, discourteous, demeaning and humiliating treatment, and toleration of such from other Board Members, without the slightest reproof to them. Indeed, the Videos of all three other Planning Board Meetings show that such was Chairman Quinn's standard modus operandi, with respect to his conduct, as Chairman, of all three prior such Meetings, vividly exemplifying his utter unfitness for his Chairmanship or any other public position. Most certainly, those "on the job" performances disqualify him for any Mayoral and Common Council re-appointment thereto.

Fortuitously, such intention is reflected on the March 5, 2012 Agenda, under "APPOINTMENTS "Item 2. Communication from the Mayor in relation to the appointmentof Michael Quinn as Chairman of the Planning Board to a term that will expire on December 31, 2018"--a most opportune time for me to speak out against such intended monstrous decision -- given that I complained bitterly about Chairman Quinn's appalling behavior, as recently as by my e-mailed my nine-page letter dated February 27, 2012 to Mayor Roach and Common Council Members, not to mention at the February 6, 2012 Common Council Meeting. My low opinon of Chairman Quinn was echoed by Public Comment at that Meeting from a member of the audience, whom I barely knew, but by name, Paula Piekos, and by reputation, as an upstanding and concerned citizen, demonstrated by the fact that she was unafraid to speak out compassionately on my behalf and share her incisive observations of Chairman Quinn, as seen by her on the Video of that Planning Board Meeting, as well as her own personally painful experience with the Planning Board.

From my very first appearance before the Board on July 19, 2011, Chairman Quinn chose to proceed, by ignoring my repeated objections, on the knowingly false and concocted mis-characterization of my Use Variance Application, as one "to establish a Hotel" on my property. It was quickly evident that he relied completely on Planning Department Commissioner Susan Habel�s mis-statements to that effect, "rubber stamped," as they were, by Senior Corporation Counsel, Arthur Gutekunst and accepted by the Board. As shown by the Videos of all Planning Board Meetings on my matter, that was equally true as to other issues, as to which Chairman Quinn openly took his cues from Commissioner Habel, turning in her direction or conferring with her in whispers or overtly from time to time in the course of the Hearings and before his various rulings, on occasion leaving his seat and going right up to her or she coming down from her seat to confer with him, in similar reliance upon her biased misrepresentations and opinions on those questions,including legal ones, although she is not a lawyer, a highly objectionable practice followed by him at all subsequent Meetings.

Egregious misrepresentations were also made by non-lawyer Building Commissioner Damon Amadio, who was permitted to make the same knowingly false and defamatory comments concerning me and my property, as had been previously made by Councilman Boykin at the July 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing on my Use Variance Application, at which he was also present, again without affording me the time to refute them, as was no less the case when I appeared at such earlier Public Hearing, run by the equally incompetent Chairwoman Cecilia Bikkal, who, likewise denied me my constitutional rights at both Public Hearings, held by her on July 6th and on October 5, 2012 due process-less Zoning Board of Appeals'(ZBA) Public Hearings, with the same predictable, pre-determined arbitrary and capricious outcome. Both Boards were plainly controlled by Planning Commissioner Habel. All three showed complete ignorance of and/or insensitivity to "conflict of interest" rules of law and ethics -- both Quinn and Bikkal, having allowed themselves to be, and appear to be, compromised in their duty to act independently of Department Commissioners, when they are serving as Hearing Officers with quasi-judicial powers in rendering their decisions, whether, as the Planning Board does on referrals from the Common Council, as well as from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

As stated at the February 6 Common Council Meeting, the reason for my rejection of the Ordinance, now Item #38 at tonight's Common Council's Meeting Agenda, was my conclusion that, if enacted, it would be illegal because the White Plains Zoning Ordinance allows only one Permitted Principal Use in a residential neighborhood. Both Planning Commissioner Habel and Senior Corporation Counsel Gutekunst surely knew that. If I, albeit a trained lawyer, but not a zoning law specialist, could readily see, by legal rules of construction that apply the doctrine of strictissimi juris, (the strictest letter of the law) to zoning cases, that would compel such conclusion, how could they not? So, were they "setting me up for defeat," even were I to overcome all their other objections, which I could easily have done?

As acknowledged to Mayor Roach on his direct inquiry, I did, indeed, "understand" that my disavowal of the original Ordinance was against my own personal interest. Doubtless, it would slow things along, which would, and has, added greatly to my discomfort level. However, I expressly withdrew my consent to it, with the reasonable expectation that the limited change I wished made, reflecting my true intent, was minor enough to avoid the predictable delay involved in what City Clerk, Anne McPherson identified in her confusing Friday, February 10, 2012 4:47 PM e-mail to me, telling me that "If it is not your wish to withdraw your current petition, then your three proposed amendments, as enumerated above, will be filed and no further action will be taken on them." with yet another Common Council referral back to the Planning Board for another prolonged round of re-drafting -- a senseless course of action devoutly not wished by me.

That was the very reason why, with the invaluable aid of my real estate specialist legal advisor, Eli Vigliano, Esq., on the day of the February 6, 2012 Public Hearing, I rushed to bring with me an acceptable replacement for tonight's Common Council Agenda, one, not vulnerable to the illegality objection. That is the one I submitted at the conclusion of my presentation and, in the following two days, when, under less intense time pressure, I noticed a couple of inadvertent,insignificant,non-substantive clerical errors. So, I quickly refined my replacement proposed Ordinance to satisfy my personal high standards and immediately transmitted it to the Mayor, Common Council Members, the Corporation Counsel and all involved Appointed Public Officers, including the City Clerk.

No matter. Once again, days passed with no response from anyone at City Hall, other than the Friday, terse one from City Clerk McPherson 2/10/2012 4:47 PM. She stated that, if I did not confirm that I would "withdraw [my] former Petition," which I had already stated I would not, in answer to that specific question Mayor Roach had asked me, and "submit a new proposed petition to be on the March 5, 2012 Common Council Calendar, then my "three proposed amendments ... will be "Filed and no further action will be taken on them," for which no legal authority was cited.

The only response I received to my Thursday, February 16, 2012 2:53 PM three-page reply to City Clerk McPherson's email to the same Elected Public and Appointed Officers designated recipients, I had sent mine to, in which I complained about the non-responsiveness to the specific questions I asked in my two two emails to her and all such recipients on Wednesday, 2/8/2012,12:14 PM and Tuesday, February 07, 2012 4:52 PM, as to whether a vote would be taken and I would be allowed to speak.was the one I received the very same day, Thu 2/16/2012 4:58 PM from the Planning Department/Board, stating "As per the email communication from the City Clerk, dated February 10, 2012, there is no matter on the February 21, 2012 Planning Board agenda relating to 283 Soundview Avenue.- Eileen McClain."

That left me still in the same quandary, such that I did not know until late morning, March 3, 2012 whether or not my proposed superseded Ordinance and/or my proposed replacement, as revised, would be on tonight's Agenda. But, of course, the latter would have been too quick, easy and inexpensive a "fix" for the City to accept, especially coming from me!

In all that lapsed time, the "guessing games," continued, with no response whatever from any of the key Elected and Appointed City officials, who callously continued to play "cat and mouse" with me, arrogantly choosing to ignore my reiterated inquiries and requests to know: (a) whether or not (since it had denied, by silence, my and patriot, Carl Albanese's requests for a Work Session/Special Meeting at City Hall or at Soundview Manor, such being regularly afforded to other Zoning Ordinance Amendment Petitioners), it would accept my standing invitation to meet with me to work out a sensible, speedy resolution of our differences in advance of tonight's Common Council Meeting Agenda, so as to permit me to make appropriate arrangements therefor or even (b) whether or not my Item would even be on that Agenda.

Of course, that was over and beyond the City's continuing to date, failure and refusal to reply to my nine-page February 27, 2012 letter to the Mayor and Common Council, with copies to relevant appointed Public

Officers -- particularizing the undenied, undeniable, documented criminal and unethical conduct relating to my serious and stunning complaints of biased, conflicted and corrupt municipal decision-making in all matters related to me.

Unquestionably, such was part of a common plan, designed by these complicitous co-conspirators, to wear me out by foot-dragging and other well-known forms of "stonewalling," including diverse dilatory and obstructive tactics, like the unreturned phone calls, the unanswered correspondence, including FOIL requests, and my repeated reminders thereof, etc., etc. Because of such ong-standing pattern and practice of discriminatory and abusive treatment of me and other official municipal misconduct I have suffered for many years on the part of this City, I have, unfairly, been compelled to spend huge chunks of my precious time in a stream of ever unresponded-to e-mails to our municipal Elected and Appointive Public Officers -- irretrievable time and energy, not to mention the money I expended, in a good faith effort to spare the City property taxpayers, including myself, the ordeal of spending still more of their and my finite resources in what otherwise would come to pass.

Over and again, I did my very best to avoid being drawn into yet another "exercise in futility" by having to re-start the legislative and administrative processes once more. That, I will not, cannot, do under present circumstances, physically, emotionally, or financially -- without this City's assurance of CHANGE happening now, by positive expressions of support, in words and actions.

My position, pure and simple, is, and always has been, a straight-forward one, as documented by the voluminous record of my meticulously compiled, extensive, comprehensive and dispositive submissions over the last nine months, in support of both my Use Variance and Zoning Amendment Petition: to wit, that Bed and Breakfast is a federal and state, constitutionally and statutorily-guaranteed land use as a matter of right and declared public policy, NOT discretion.

Such usage is one that may be limited, as in the State of New York, which, for many years, has made it available for "up to five rooms" and "up to 10 roomers." However, it can NOT be denied outright, as the City of White Plains purports itself empowered to do. Again, the doctrine of strictissimi juris comes into play to compel the City, not the Petitioner, to bear the heavy burden of making an evidentiary showing of compelling reasons to the contrary, such as those based on matters of health or public safety.

No such reasons exist in this case, where such usage was, not only pre-existing for more than 18 years when I made my Use Variance Application on May 12, 2011, but also, "grand-fathered," as Soundview Manor is, as a matter of New York State law and declared public policy, and so confirmed to me by the New York State Residential Code Enforcement Office before I attended the July 6, 2011 Public Hearing on my Application.

Surely, there must be a public outcry at the shameful and scandalous time and money-wasting travesty that has occurred in our City Hall relative to my Bed & Breakfast Use Variance Application and my Bed & Breakfast Zoning Amendment Petition for nearly ten months -- a "slap in the face" of those of us who expect that democratic values should be practiced and protected, not perverted and destroyed, in their own home town.

There should be "zero tolerance" for leaders who show NO leadership, when it serves their private and political conflicting interests to do so -- closing their eyes and ears when they see before them the betrayal of their sworn Oaths of Office taken "to uphold the Constitution of the United States, the New York State Constitution and the City Charter of White Plains" and the subversion of all that the patriots of our American Revolution held dear, fought for and gave their lives for. What has already happened here can only be viewed as the work-product of a "White Plains City-Controlled Police State." Our citizenry must not allow that repugnant "State" to continue to destroy the quality of life in our White Plains society, as well as our valued property and personal rights and freedoms, even if it means an "Occupy City Hall" protest by all who love this City and care deeply about the wrong road it is taking.

As for me, this City's Elected Public Officers' continued brazen disregard of their proper duties -- including their duty to choose well-qualified individuals to serve as their Public Officer appointees, based on merit, not cronyism, the duty of compassion for its senior citizens, of concern for historic preservation, accountability and transparency. All these values they profess to care about when they are running for and post-election, because they are now "politically correct" to espouse publicly, but not to actually put into practice. That "above the law" attitude may well be the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back" that pushes me, as a matter of principle, to avail myself of legal remedies available by "going to Court." These include, but are not limited to, a federal civil rights action to enforce and vindicate not only my rights, but also those of our rightfully aggrieved Public.

Then, at least, the lawyers whom I engage, will, assuredly, not only seek compensatory and punitive damages, but be entitled to an attorney fees award, computed at reasonable market value, plus costs and disbursements, at the end of the day -- rather than I continue my search for redress in the City of White Plains, where I, a pro se, litigant and trained lawyer, have nothing to show for my nine months of hard labor, but a miscarriage of justice.

By its litigation-generating tactics, the City may come to face the reality of spending more money that it does not have to defend itself, at the cost of our long-suffering citizenry. That is, plainly, NOT a smart decision, not only from the economics of it, but also from the viewpoint of revenue and job creation, as well as of preservation of White Plains' rich historic cultural heritage -- both, as borne out in the countless Letters of Support the Mayor and Common Council have received on my behalf, including the March 3, 2012 Letters from the Professional Association of Innkeepers International, as well as from the Westchester County Historical Society, all incorporated by reference herein.

 

 

Finally, I request that this Statement be filed and spread upon the record of tonight's Common Council proceeding.