There are numerous discrepancies and inconsistencies in the public record. It is only fair to state this: for the most part the senior fire officials when they spoke on the record were direct and clear, unlike statements and writings by attorneys or presumably by attorneys. But even if the expansion is needed to serve the large area, which reaches far outside East Hills (e.g. North Hills, Brookville, Floral Park) the process needs to be fair and honest, and must seek alternatives NOT in a residential zone, as Harbor Hill Rd. is. Below are some of the numerous problems in the public record to date:

a. What will be housed in the new facility, which is the basis of all neighborhood-impact analysis?:

The fire company legal presentation specifically describes nine fire vehicles to be housed, with the obvious intent of minimizing the impact of the expansion. But it is contradicted by the company president in ZBA testimony.The members and staff of the ZBA made no reference to it.

"It has space for nine (9) vehicles. The increase in garage space will allow the Applicant to properly keep the following vehicles...: two (2) storage trailers..., "bus"..., support van ..., EMS tech car, ambulance, mini rescue vehicle and boat ..., and engine/ladder. One space will remain open for an additional ambulance.... (The Memorandum of Facts and Law in Support of the Application, hereinafter “Memo” p. 3 para. 1).

But testimony by the fire president (James McCann) suggests the purpose is different: “This structure would be able to let us house an additional either quint or pumper along with support vehicles that would be able to have more vehicles respond.” (Transcript p. 28 ll. 20-23 [Transcript page numbers correspond to internal page numbers that match the numbered lines, not physical page numbers of the printed transcript.])

b. What will be done there?:

The Memo suggests the station will not be used for training or daily use and activities. But the testimony of the president contradicts that.The members and staff of the ZBA made no reference to it.

The Memo states, “The substation will remain unmanned and will be utilized by personnel only in emergencies….” (Memo, p. 3 para.3).

In testimony the president states “Right now a member cannot go there on standby. There’s no place for him to really sit. There’s no place for him to relax. And that would give us a suitable area where we could put three or four people on standby, and they would be able to stay there and adequately, you know, man the equipment and get it out in a timely fashion….” (Transcript p. 29, ll. 19-25) [There will be a 670 square foot common room, according to at least one set of blueprints in the village’s Firehouse file.]

c. Justification:

The Memo states “The variances requested cannot be achieved by some other feasible method.” (Memo p. 5 para. 3)

But statements by the company VP in a board of trustees Q&A on July 27 revealed the company did look at alternate locations for the fire house. But no discussion or disclosure of this possibility was conducted during the ZBA hearing. (We are attempting to obtain access to any transcript or recording of that public trustees meeting.)

d. Justification II:

The Memo notes that the variance standard requires determination “Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created.” (Memo, p. 4, para. 1)

But the Memo does not answer that question.

It says “…[T]he population in the service area has substantially increased since the time when the substation was originally constructed….” (Memo p. 2, para 7) It fails to indicate that a large element of that expansion since 1962 occurred by the fire company’s discretionary expansion of its service area, by its own “self-created” policies and decisions. A board member of the ZBA elicited that the fire company is paid by each community it covers. (Transcript, p. 31 ll. 9-13.) The members and staff of the ZBA made no reference to this important legal issue.

e. Justification III:

The Memo states in arguing for the expansion: “The fire company responds to approximately 2,800 calls each year” (Memo p. 2, para. 5).

But a letter from the fire company after community concerns arose essentially disavows this assertion, stating “Many of the current calls do not require a fire truck to even leave the station.” (Roslyn Highlands “Dear Neighbor” letter of 8/2/11, p.1 para. 6).

Furthermore, the company VP told the board of trustees at the village meeting of July 27 that fire trucks currently actually leave the Harbor Hill Rd. facility ONLY 200 some-odd times a year. (Citation: Statement of Dennis Trottier; We are attempting to obtain access to any transcript or recording of that meeting.)

Rather than assuage the concern of residents, the differing numbers in differing circumstances points out a lack of reliability of the statements and filings, calls into question the diligence of the ZBA, and undermines the reliability of the assurances offered to residents who have expressed concerns.The members and staff of the ZBA made no effort to elicit specifics, despite testimony by this writer specifically requesting it at the ZBA hearing. (Transcript, p 41, ll. 1-6, possibly incorrectly rendered in transcription missing a negative.)

f. Disclosure of Impacts:

A series of environmental queries attached to the Application for Building Permit asks inter alia “12. Will the project regularly cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration or electrical disturbance as a result of the project’s operation?” to which the answer X-ed is “No”.

(Village of East Hills Short Preliminary Environmental Assessment Form for 111 Harbor Hill Rd. 1/6/11 by H2M Group. )

Obviously this assertion is baldly inaccurate given the inherent and intrinsic nature of a firehouse. The members and staff of the ZBA made no reference to it.

g. Conflicts of Interest:

Two members of the ZBA (David Diamond and Lisa Blaustein) had substantial personal ties to the Applicant (membership or married to member, respectively ) yet did not recuse themselves from debate, deliberation orvote.

(Application to Board of Appeals by Roslyn Highlands Hook and Ladder et al., Schedule B, and Transcript, p. 44 ll. 8-20.) The members and staff of the ZBA did not publicly discuss this issue.

h. Environmental Impact:

There will be more vehicles responding from the location (see "a." above), hence there will inevitably be greater impact on the neighborhood and environment.

Discussions in the Memo are restricted however to the static architectural nature of the new fire station, not addressing any of the activities to be conducted there.

Hence the blanket assertions “There will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties by granting the area variance” (Memo p.5, para. 2). And “…[T]he proposed variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.” (Memo p. 5 para. 5) The members and staff of the ZBA made no reference to the assertions and lack of impact data in the hearing.

Dozens of homes along the Harbor Hill corridor at least face substantial impact. Beyond that, this was a travesty of public policy. Time is short. We urge residents to join the effort obtain a re-hearing of the variance, as provided by law through a unanimous vote of the ZBA or a court order, and ultimatly to have the "modernization" scaled back and any expanded facility re-located to a non-residential site elsewhere in the fire company's 10-community (that's right) service area. Contact us at (516) 279-8941 or Richard (*AT%) planet-in-peril (*DOT%) org.