Walgreens (232-06)
Is this What We Want in Rosedale?
These photos were obtained from the Walgreens web site where they are displayed as examples of a typical store configuration.
At the September 19, 2006 meeting of the Planning Board of the City of White Plains the Walgreen Co.
approached the Planning Board with a proposal to replace the existing Bob Hyland’s Sports Page
structure (1205 Mamaroneck Avenue) with a Walgreens store.
The proposed Walgreens would be approximately 8,200 square feet in size, compared to the old Sports
Page which is 6,600 square feet in size, replacing the current structure and adding an additional 1600
square feet. The new structure would also stand 25 feet high, taller than the current building and would
be situated towards the center of the property.
In doing so, 42 parking spaces will be created facing the property lines in a horseshoe fashion around the
store. Based on estimates on the Walgreens web site, there may be 15-20 employees at the site, some of
whom will need parking, thereby reducing the available parking for patrons. The horseshoe configuration
was also used to allow tractor-trailer deliveries towards the back of the store.
The presenters also proposed a 16-foot retaining wall to be installed at the back of the property with a
screening fence on top of it. Planning Commissioner Susan Habel informed the presenters that such a
retaining wall was not allowed.
The store will not be a 24hr location. However, as the developer stated, it will have “typical business
hours.” The anticipated hours of operation are from 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. (typical?). Which means
that this location will be a hub of activity from 6am (employee arrivals) through 11pm (store
closing/inventory). This site will also include a drive-thru Pharmacy window that will certainly impact
traffic flow to and through the property.
As to traffic, the presenters anticipate altering the median on Mamaroneck Avenue. They propose two
entrances to the site and one exit to Mamaroneck Ave. The impact to traffic flow will be considerable
throughout the day. The intersection of Rosedale and Mamaroneck is already congested during the
morning and afternoon rush. The current businesses in the area have low volumes of traffic flow. The
location will bring traffic not only from downtown White Plains, but also from Mamaroneck, Harrison,
and even Scarsdale.
The area is designated as a B2 zone, which is known as a “Neighborhood Business” area. The
“neighborhood” designation is used to differentiate an area from a B3 or “Intermediate Business” zone,
among others. Being the second largest chain of its kind in the United States precludes it as a business
that would serve the local community as opposed to a business that would attract patrons from across the
Page 1 of 2
Dated 9/20/06
Walgreens (232-06)
city as well as adjacent municipalities. This is fine in a “downtown” location that is business intensive
and can handle the traffic and the noise. However, this location is in the heart of two neighborhoods, not
a downtown area. True, there are other businesses that currently occupy the sites nearby, however, these
are all low impact businesses and structures that have not adversely affected the look of the neighborhood
or the traffic patterns.
I have no problem with Walgreens trying to get a foothold in White Plains; this is just the wrong place for
it. Walgreens claims it is trying to break the CVS monopoly in the area. How is this accomplished at the
south end of the city? To compete they should locate space in the downtown business district. If trying to
break the monopoly was truly the case, why did they let the old Food Emporium location go to CVS that
outbid them to keep them out? Walgreen’s revenue, according to their web site, was greater than that of
CVS. So money was not an issue. Money was and is an issue for the current owner/seller and you cannot
blame them for trying to get the most that they can. Walgreens is perhaps one of few businesses that
could easily afford the exorbitant cost of the location.
The presenters invoked the theories of capitalism and competition. What happens to the pharmacy that
has been at the neighboring location for so many years? If the Walgreens is approved, Rosedale
Pharmacy is out of business. Then what happens to that site? Will the landlord of the site then try to
force out the dry cleaners and sell the property to some other chain? The presenters felt confident that the
board would agree with them that they had “to break the CVS monopoly.” When questioned as to the
reasoning for such a store in a site that at the very least seems inappropriate, the developer replied that
White Plains was changing and this was happening all over and this is just the way it is. Must it be
inevitable that we lose our neighborhoods to this type of development? Why not a truly neighborhood
business such as a restaurant, bakery, café, hardware store, flower shop, etc.?
After the developer's presentation, planning board member, Cass Cibelli vocally questioned the intent of
this project and whether it was an appropriate one for Rosedale. The issue of capitalism was dismissed as
being short sighted and inappropriate considering the family owned business's presently at the site, in
particular the Rosedale Pharmacy, would be put out of business. Cibelli stressed the issue of trailers
delivering goods and causing undue noise, congestion and fumes for the residents abutting the site. When
the developer proposed a modified schedule, Mr. Cibelli dismissed such a notion immediately by stating
that traditionally retail operations of this size receive well after closing hours. Additionally, it was
submitted that the nature of Rosedale and a Walgreens are diametrically opposed and that the application
is a reach. A family restaurant type of operation is conducive to the location and this application is out of
touch with the intent of development and the rational management of development.
As you can surmise from what you just read, we have a major issue to deal with here, not to mention the
arrogance with which the presentation was made. The next Planning Board meeting will be on October
10, 2006.
Whether you oppose or favor the proposal you are asked to contact me at [email protected] or at my cell
914-582-5003 so that we can set up a time and location (quickly!) for us to meet as a neighborhood to
debate the issue. Now is the time to make your opinions heard, once approval is given it will be too late.
Let’s make sure the developer sees and hears us on October 10th.
Thank you for your time,
Patrick Sevcik
5 Cedarwood Road
Page 2 of 2
Dated 9/20/06