Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
-------------------------------------------------------------------------X
In the Matter of the Application of Index No.:
FRANK DELEONARDIS, ROBERT DADARRIA, Assigned Justice:
and SHERIECE MCKEAZIE,
NOTICE OF
PETITION
Petitioners,
-against-
Respondents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed Verified Petition dated August 11,
2010 and any exhibits annexed thereto, an application will be made to this Court at an IAS Part
thereof at the Westchester County Courthouse, 111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard on the
28th day of September, 2010 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, for relief
pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) for an order and judgment:
1. Annulling, vacating and setting aside the site plan approval resolution (the “Site
Plan Resolution”) adopted by Respondent Planning Board of the City of Mount Vernon (the
“Planning Board”) concerning property located on Oakley Avenue, Gramatan Avenue and Crary
Avenue in the City of Mount Vernon on the ground that they are arbitrary, capricious and
contrary to law;
2. annulling, vacating and setting aside the ordinance adopted by Respondent City
Council of the City of Mount Vernon (the “City Council”), which approved the text change to
mapping in connection therewith on the ground that it is arbitrary, capricious and contrary to
law;
3. annulling, vacating and setting aside the City Council’s SEQRA Findings
Statement in connection with the Property on the ground that it is arbitrary, capricious, contrary
to law and was not the subject of a “hard look” as required by SEQRA;
4. enjoining Respondent City of Mount Vernon from issuing any building permits in
6. for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper, including
but not limited to, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs related to this proceeding.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to CPLR §§ 7804 (c) and (e),
answering papers, if any, as well as the certified return in connection with the proceedings before
the City Council and the Planning Board which form the subject matter of the above-captioned
proceeding must be served on Petitioners’ attorneys at the address designated below at least five
By:________________________
Albert J. Pirro, Jr., Esq.
1 North Lexington Ave, Suite 15
White Plains, New York 10601
(914) 287-6444
Planning Board
City of Mount Vernon
City Hall
Roosevelt Square
Mount Vernon, New York 10550
City Council
City of Mount Vernon
City Hall
Roosevelt Square
Mount Vernon, New York 10550
Corporation Counsel
City of Mount Vernon
City Hall
Roosevelt Square
Mount Vernon, New York 10550
-against-
Respondents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X
Petitioners Frank DeLeonardis, Robert Dadarria, and Sheriece McKeazie (the Individual
Petitioners are collectively referred to herein as the “Petitioners”), by their attorney, Albert J.
1. This proceeding has been commenced pursuant to Article 78 of the New York
(a) Annul, vacate and set aside the following interrelated approval ordinances
adopted by Respondent City Council of the City of Mount Vernon (the “City
Council”) concerning property located at the intersection of Gramatan Avenue
and Oakley Avenue (Map Page 165.54, Block 1122, Lots 1, 19 and 20) on
Oakley Avenue (Map Page 165.54, Block 1135, Lot 10) and on Crary Avenue
(Map Page 165.54, Block 1135, Lot 1) (collectively the “Property”) approving
zoning text amendments to the PUD-2 Zone to allow residential and non-
residential mixed use development within one-half mile of the Mount Vernon
East Train Station subject to certain restrictions;
(b) Annul, vacate and set aside the ordinances adopted by Respondent City
Council which established the PUD-2 District (as amended) for the Property;
(c) Annul vacate and set aside the Resolution of the City Council adopting the
SEQRA Environmental Findings for the proposed development;
(e) Enjoin Respondent City of Mount Vernon (“Mount Vernon” or the “City”)
from issuing any building permits in furtherance of the challenged Ordinances
and Resolutions; and
2. Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), the City Council
as lead agency had the obligation to take a “hard look” at all potential adverse environmental
impacts.
3. The City Council was arbitrary and capricious when it adopted the Findings
Statement and the Zoning Text Amendments without taking a hard look at all potential adverse
environmental impacts, without consideration of all fiscal and economic impacts and without any
4. The Planning Board was arbitrary and capricious when it approved the site plan
based on the flawed findings statement without conducting any independent environmental
5. The City Council and the Planning Board failed to evaluate environmentally
significant issues prior to their adoption of the challenged Resolutions and Ordinances.
THE PARTIES
6. Petitioner Frank DeLeonardis is a resident of the City of Mount Vernon and owns
real property located at 177 Gramatan Avenue, Mount Vernon, New York in close proximity to
the site of the proposed project. Mr. DeLeonardis is an aggrieved party that is directly affected
at 167 Crary Avenue, Mount Vernon, New York in immediate proximity to the Property. Mr.
Dadarria is an aggrieved party that is directly affected by the actions of the City Council and
Planning Board.
8. Petitioner Sheriece McKeazie is a resident of the City of Mount Vernon and owns
property at 173 Crary Avenue, Mount Vernon, New York in immediate proximity of the
Property. Ms. McKeazie is an aggrieved party that is directly affected by the actions of the City
9. Petitioners suffered actual and concrete harm and became aggrieved when the
challenged Ordinances and Resolutions were adopted, which committed Mount Vernon to a
10. Respondent City of Mount Vernon is a municipal corporation duly organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New York and situated in the County of Westchester.
11. Respondent City Council of the City of Mount Vernon is the elected legislative
body of Mount Vernon and is located in and maintains offices at City Hall, Roosevelt Square,
12. Respondents Planning Board is the appointed body in Mount Vernon vested with
the authority to grant various land use, environmental and zoning approvals. The Planning
Board is located in and maintains offices at City Hall, Roosevelt Square, Mount Vernon, New
York 10550.
13. Respondent Atlantic Development Group, LLC is the Project applicant and, upon
information and belief, the owner of the Property and is duly organized under the laws of the
10013.
JURISDICTION
14. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction and may exercise personal jurisdiction
15. Pursuant to CPLR Section 506(b), venue is proper in this Court because the
determinations complained of were made, and the material events took place, in the County of
BACKGROUND
16. The Property includes the site of the mixed-use Project located at Gramatan
Avenue and Oakley Avenue in the City, which property is designated on the City’s tax rolls as (i)
Map Page 165.54, Block Number 1122, Lot Numbers 1, 19 and 20 (the “Gramatan Site”), (ii)
Map Pages 165.54, Block 1135, Lot Number 10 (the “Oakley Site”) and (iii) Map Page 165.54,
17. The Project also includes the acquisition and/or improvement of certain property
owned by the City of Mount Vernon, as follows: (i) Atlantic’s acquisition of a fee interest in
certain real property in which the City is the record owner, consisting of property currently used
as a surface municipal parking lot, designated on the City’s tax rolls as Map Page 165.54, Block
Number 1122, Lot Number 1 (the “Surface Parking Lot”); and (ii) improvements by Atlantic to
the City’s Municipal Garage (“Municipal Parking Garage”) designated on the City’s tax rolls as
Map Page 165.62, Block Number 1117, Lot Numbers 1 and 14 located at 61 Gramatan Avenue
to amend the PUD-2 provisions to allow for residential and non-residential mixed-use
developments, within one-half mile of the Mount Vernon East Metro-North Train Station, and
subject to certain enumerated restrictions and requirements in: (i) a combination of all three of
19. The Proposed Action included an ordinance to establish the PUD-2 District in the
Project Area.
20. The following chart identifies the various components that, together, constitute
21. The project, as approved by the challenged Ordinances and Resolutions includes a
mixed –use development for the property located within the Project Area. The Project consists
affordable/work force rental units, approximately 20,745 square feet of commercial retail space,
15,107 square feet of amenity space (including outdoor space), and 644 square feet of
community space for the City’s use and a second story municipal garage of 57 spaces.
space, along Gramatan Avenue, and (ii) a 7 story wing, which would wrap around North Third
Avenue.
23. Phase II would consist of a 9-story building, plus a rooftop amenity space,
including approximately 59 affordable senior housing units, 1 unit for a resident manager, 2,915
24. Phase III consists of a 9-story residential building, plus rooftop amenity space,
including approximately 26,432 square feet of amenity space (including outdoor space) and 84
25. The project also includes renovation of the City’s Municipal Garage at the
26. The project required certain text changes to the Mount Vernon Zoning Code
pertaining to the PUD-2 District, which is codified in Section 267-22 of the City Zoning Code
(the “Zoning Amendments”). The Zoning Amendments to Section 267-22 would: (i) allow the
minimum acreage for the establishment of the PUD-2 District to be met by counting street area
between the lot lines; (ii) allow the PUD-2 District to be established for mixed use projects
where the underlying Zoning Districts include either (a) a combination of the NB, C-B and
RMF-15 Districts; or (b) the NB and RMF-15 Districts; (iii) limit the establishment of the PUD-
2 District for mixed use projects to areas within a half mile of the Mount Vernon East Metro-
27. The Amendments also include requirements for the establishment of the PUD-2
District for mixed –use projects, consisting of a maximum building height, maximum coverage,
28. The Zoning Amendments also establish off-street parking space requirements for
mixed use projects in a PUD-2 District, and permitted uses in a mixed use project in a PUD-2
District.
29. The Amendments also provide that a property owners association may own
common lands and facilities in units, the entity that owns the buildings would own and maintain
30. The Proposed Action also included the establishment of the PUD-2 District on the
Project Area.
31. Finally, the Proposed Action includes a Land Acquisition and Development
Agreement (“LADA”) between the City and the Applicant, which will, among other things, set
forth: (i) the terms for the conveyance of the Surface Parking Lot to the Applicant, and (ii) the
Applicant’s obligations concerning the Project, including substantive conditions attaching to the
32. Upon information and belief, the City Council, as the lead agency under SEQRA,
issued a Positive Declaration finding that there was the possibility of a least one significant
33. Upon information and belief, the City Council never adopted a scoping document
(the “Scope”) to serve as the outline for the Project’s draft environmental impact statement (the
“DEIS”).
35. Upon information and belief, the City Council held a public hearing on the DEIS
on December 16, 2009 during which the public and any interested and involved parties could
comment on the Original Project and the alternatives proposed as part of the DEIS.
36. Upon information and belief, on or about June 11, 2010, the Project’s final
environmental impact statement (the “FEIS”) was accepted by the City Council as complete.
37. Upon information and belief, on or about June 29, 2010, the City Council adopted
(1) Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations from among
the reasonable alternatives, the Proposed Actions are ones that avoids or minimizes adverse
environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and that adverse environmental
impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable by incorporating those
mitigation measures that are set forth herein, which have been identified as practicable.
(2) The Proposed Actions are ones that appropriately balance potential adverse
impacts against potential beneficial impacts in the forms of creation of additional housing and
commercial opportunities, generation of tax and other revenues, the overall redevelopment of
vacant buildings and underutilized sites that currently exerts a blighting influence on the
community with a mixed-use development consistent with a strategic gateway to the City’s
downtown.
(3) The written Findings Statement contains the facts and conclusions utilized by the
City Council to make its decision.
(a) Phase I
Consists of a thirteen-story mixed use building with 159 affordable/work force rental
units, approximately 20,745 SF of commercial retail space, approximately 15,107 SF of amenity
space, and approximately 644 SF of community services space which will be leased to the City
and utilized by either auxiliary police or as public access studio, 116 parking spaces located on
two levels (57 public parking spaces dedicated to municipal use and 59 private spaces), and an
additional 118 parking spaces located in the City Municipal Garage.
The commercial retail space in the Phase I building will be accessed through four places
along Gramatan Avenue and two locations along Oakley Avenue. A separate access along North
Third Avenue is provided for the residents of the Phase I Building and a separate entrance along
North Third Avenue is provided for access to the auxiliary space.
As part of the Phase I development, the Applicant has agreed to renovation of the
Municipal Parking Garage located at Sidney Avenue. This revitalization will be conducted in
conjunction with the Phase I building, but will be utilized for residential parking requirements of
all three buildings.
(b) Phase II
No curb cuts, loading areas, or drop off areas will be provided as part of the Phase II
building. Residents will access the site building along Oakley Avenue.
Consists of a nine-story residential building with 131 market rate residential units, 26,432
SF of amenity space and, 84 private parking spaces located on site, and an additional 84 private
parking spaces located in the Municipal Parking Garage.
The Phase III building has two curb cuts along C. Altschuler Place which are used to
access the one floor of parking on site. In addition, one curb cut is located along North Third
Avenue.
39. On July 7, 2010, the Planning Board approved the site plan for the project which
included numerous revisions from the prior site plan under review by the Planning Board.
40. Petitioners respectfully repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in Paragraphs
and every potential adverse environmental impact and to mitigate all such adverse impacts to the
42. The City Council failed to take a “hard look” and simply approved the project as
presented by the Applicant without regard to multiple adverse environmental and economic
consequences.
44. SEQRA requires a governmental agency (e.g. the lead agency and involved
agencies) to make explicit environmental findings when it renders a decision on a matter for
45. An involved agency has an independent duty to review the impacts associated
with its approval and evaluate same and is not bound by the lead agency’s actions.
46. As an involved agency, the Planning Board was obligated to adopt a findings
47. On July 7, 2010, the Planning Board adopted the Site Plan Approval Resolution
which simply incorporated the conclusions in the City Council’s Findings Statement.
48. The Planning Board was arbitrary and capricious in relying upon the erroneous
Findings Statement adopted by the City Council because that Findings Statement did not
49. Petitioners respectfully repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in Paragraphs
review, the most recent revisions to the proposed site plan before voting to approve that site plan
51. When questioned following the vote, only one member of the Planning Board
acknowledged having reviewed the site plan as then proposed on July 7, 2010 prior to voting on
52. Upon information and belief, due to the last minute submission of the site plan,
the Planning Board did not and could not properly review and evaluate the final site plan prior to
53. Based on the foregoing, The Planning Board’s approval of the site plan on July 7,
2010 was arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, without any rational basis and not based upon the
54. Therefore, the Site Plan Resolution must be annulled, vacated and set aside.
55. Petitioners respectfully repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in Paragraphs
56. One of the most significant issues presented to the City Council as part of the
SEQRA review of this project is the potential impact on the public schools should the proposed
57. According to the calculations conducted by the City Council, its consultants and
the consultants for the Applicant, the projected student generation from the proposed project is
sixty-two (62) school children and, significantly, thirty-five (35) of those children would attend
elementary school.
59. However, upon information and belief, Lincoln Elementary School is currently
approximately one hundred forty-five (145%) percent of capacity and cannot possibly
accommodate an additional thirty-five (35) students without severely adversely impacting the
60. The City Council, while aware of the potential severe impact on Lincoln
Elementary School, failed to either avoid or mitigate the significant over capacity the
61. Instead, the City Council’s only response to this severe and adverse impact was to
require that, as a condition to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant use its
“best efforts” to work with the Board of Education to change the attendance zone for the project
area so that children living in the proposed project will attend either Pennington School,
62. However, upon information and belief, while these alternate schools are not as
63. In addition, no study was undertaken as to the potential impacts to these proposed
alternate schools, which are a significant distance from the project area, which is less than a half
64. No review was done to determine how the shift of attendance zones would impact
bus routes or the increase in number of children requiring busing or the overall impacts such a
approvals in the event the Applicant’s “best efforts” to work with the Board of Education do not
66. The City Council has effectively abdicated its responsibility and obligation as
lead agency to study and mitigate this significant, adverse and far reaching impact that could
potentially cause seriously detrimental consequences to one or more elementary schools and the
67. Rather than address this significant problem, the City Council has shifted that
responsibility to the Applicant and to the Mount Vernon Board of Education to determine how to
avoid severe impacts to the children who attend these schools from both existing residences and
68. The City Council, as lead agency, has for all intents and purposes washed its
hands with respect to this significant adverse impact and told the Applicant and the Board of
69. The City Council not only refused to take responsibility for this severe impact, the
findings, as adopted, allow the project to move forward without any mitigation to address the
overcrowding issue at these elementary schools should the Applicant and the Board of Education
70. Even if a resolution is eventually reached, the findings are fatally flawed because
the lead agency did not address this severe impact, and the City Council has not and will not be
71. There is now no way to determine what secondary or unanticipated impacts will
result from any resolution of this issue if some solution is worked out and, more concerning,
72. Once the Applicant demonstrates “best efforts” the project will go forward and
only time will tell what significant impacts will result in the absence of mitigation or what
impacts will result from some unknown agreement between the Board of Education and the
Applicant.
73. Based on the foregoing and the City Council’s complete failure to meet its
responsibility as lead agency, the Findings Statement adopted on June 29, 2010 is arbitrary,
capricious, contrary to law and without a rational basis and must be annulled, vacated and set
aside.
74. Petitioners respectfully repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in Paragraphs
75. The City Council limited its environmental review in connection with the zoning
text amendments to the PUD-2 “floating” zone to the project area for the proposed project being
challenged.
76. Upon information and belief, the newly amended PUD-2 “floating” zone is
applicable to areas significantly beyond the project area studied in connection with those
amendments.
77. Based on the foregoing, the amendments to the PUD-2 “floating” zone and the
environmental findings adopted in connection therewith are arbitrary, capricious, without any
rational basis, not supported by the record before the City Council, contrary to law and constitute
78. Petitioners respectfully repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in Paragraphs
79. During the environmental review of the proposed project the City Council
reviewed and relied upon certain documents, studies, reports and reviews in order to reach the
findings made in connection with the approvals granted in connection with the proposed project.
80. Upon information and belief, some of those documents, studies, reports and
reviews that the City Council relied upon were and are not included in the public record
maintained in connection with the review and approval of the proposed project.
81. The failure to include all relevant documents relied upon by the City Council in
the review and approval of the proposed project in the records available for public review
82. SEQRA and the applicable case law requires literal and exact compliance with the
procedural rules and regulations for the conduct of any environmental review.
83. SEQRA also requires substantive compliance with respect to the open and
interactive process in connection with public participation and review of the environmental and
84. Based upon the failure to include all relevant documents, studies, reports and
reviews in the public record, the findings and approvals were adopted in violation of law and
85. Petitioners respectfully repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in Paragraphs
86. In connection with the review and approval of the proposed project, the Applicant
and the City on June 11, 2009 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”)
governing the process and procedures to be followed in connection with the environmental
87. The MOU, among other things, set certain deadlines in connection with the
environmental review of the project which unreasonably restricted and limited the City Council’s
review of the project and the public’s ability to participate in and review the SEQRA process
88. The MOU was made in violation of applicable law and constitutes a violation of
SEQRA and the regulations promulgated thereunder and illegally committed the City to a course
89. The MOU also contains numerous terms and conditions not included or studied as
part of the environmental review of the project in violation of law and lawful procedure.
90. Based on the foregoing, the findings and approvals adopted in connection with the
(A) Annulling, vacating and setting aside the Site Plan Resolution;
(B) Annulling, vacating and setting aside the City Council’s Finding Statement;
(C) Annulling, vacating and setting aside the City Council’s Amendments to the Zoning
Ordinances;
(E) Enjoining the Applicant from taking any action in furtherance of the Ordinances and
Resolutions; and
(F) Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper,
including but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs related to this
proceeding.
By:________________________
Albert J. Pirro, Jr., Esq.
1 North Lexington Ave, Suite 15
White Plains, New York 10601
(914) 287-6444