As the Business Journal reported back in August as likely, residents from the Grassy Sprain neighborhood of Yonkers have gone to court in the latest stage of their opposition to plans for changes at the UPS distribution site at 555 Tuckahoe Road.
They have filed an Article 78 proceeding seeking to reverse, annul and declare null and void the city”™s approvals of plans that involve making physical changes and expanding operations at the site.
The filing was made in State Supreme Court in White Plains by Attorney Joel H. Sachs of the law firm Keane & Beane on behalf of the Grassy Sprain Civic Association, Sprain Lake Knolls Civic Association, Winchester Homeowners Association and 13 individuals.
The Notice of Petition filed with the court names as respondents the Yonkers Planning Board, its chairman Roman Kozicky, Yonkers Housing and Buildings Commissioner Vincent Pici, Tuckahoe Owners LLC, Alfred Weissman Real Estate LLC and United Parcel Service Inc.
On Nov. 6, Sachs advised the Business Journal that the court issued a requested restraining order to block any new construction work by UPS that went into effect immediately and will last until at least Nov. 30, which is the date for a hearing on residents”™ request for a preliminary injunction.
The distribution center consists of a 22.6-acre property divided into three sections, with the first and third sections totaling 15.6 acres and improved with the two-story 303,887-square-foot UPS distribution center building along with related surface parking and infrastructure. The other section consists of a 150-room hotel operated by Hampton Inn & Suites and was not involved in the planning board actions.
The lawsuit asks the court to dismiss the planning board”™s actions that determined a full environmental impact statement would not be necessary for the project, approved a truck refueling depot for the site while granting a waiver of the zoning code requirement that fuel storage tanks be placed underground and granted site plan approval for UPS, Weissman and Tuckahoe Owners.
“There are approximately 2,000 households surrounding the site on three sides,” Sachs told the Business Journal after the lawsuit was filed. “This UPS distribution center is like a little island surrounded by residential uses.”
Sachs said that they want the court to rescind the planning board”™s negative declaration regarding environmental impacts and demand that the planning board issue a positive declaration so that an environmental impact statement would have to be prepared.
“We sued the chairman of the planning board because we want the planning board to actually hold a public hearing on the site plan application,” Sachs said. “The chairman, Mr. Kozicky, determined that there would be no public hearing at any time on the UPS site plan application even though it affects several thousand people.
“We were never allowed to speak at any planning board hearing, never allowed to present our views, never allowed to question the planning board, never allowed to question the applicant UPS, never allowed to question their consultants and the whole planning board review was basically a two-way dialogue between the planning board and the UPS representatives and our clients were completely shut out of the site plan review process, which we claim is also a violation of due process.”
The lawsuit claims that an employee parking lot being built to the north and rear of the warehouse is being done illegally and in violation of a pledge previously made to residents that the area would be preserved as greenspace.
“I think we can show irreparable harm and we may be requesting the court for some kind of preliminary injunctive relief,” Sachs said. “Our clients”™ position is that we don”™t think UPS is going away; they”™ve evidently signed a long-term lease for the site.
“The problem we”™ve had since day one is that they”™ve completely ignored the concerns of the neighbors. They”™ve completely ignored the significant environmental impacts with the 24/7 operations, with noise, with odors, with refueling and they have a large number of vehicles that they are going to have onsite for delivery of packages. They have trailer-trucks coming in from the airports in the middle of the night with overnight deliveries.”
Sachs again expressed a willingness to sit down with UPS and attempt to address the various issues.
When asked by the Business Journal for reaction to the lawsuit, a spokesperson for the city of Yonkers said, “We believe the city and the board acted lawfully and we believe this lawsuit is without merit.”
