After a long and difficult labor, an FEIS is born
As of Tues., Mar. 29, all eight volumes are mounted on the town’s website.
Monday, March 28, 2011
by Susie Pender and Christine Yeres
New Castle Town Hall felt like the waiting room of a maternity ward, as months of exhaustive review of the Chappaqua Crossing project stretched from Friday night into Saturday and ended with the delivery at 2:00 a.m. of a 300-pound document in multiple boxes wheeled in to the exhausted parents on a dolly.
Cheerful with fatigue, Supervisor Barbara Gerrard and council members Robin Stout and Michael Wolfensohn officially adopted the result of their labors, a final environmental impact statement (FIES) for Chappaqua Crossing. Click HERE to download Volume I. [UPDATE: As of this morning, Tues., Mar. 29, the complete FEIS, all eight volumes are posted.]
As interested parties crowd round the document with hopes and fears for its future, they might conclude from a first look that the town board has certain plans in mind: a life mainly in business, with residential reduced by half or more, and it won’t be very tall.
Elated to get it out the door
The estimated time of arrival for the FEIS was 4:00 p.m., Friday, March 25, which was postponed until 7:00 p.m., then dragged on until 2:00 a.m. In the end, problems producing the hard copies were what held up the release of the document. Volume I of the FEIS was posted on the town’s website Saturday and cardboard boxes containing the entire eight volumes were delivered to the Chappaqua Library on Saturday as well. The remaining volumes will be available for download on Tuesday or Wednesday of this week at http://chappaquacrossingreview.mynewcastle.org/.
When it appeared that the blessed event just wasn’t going to happen on Friday night, Supervisor Gerrard refused to give up and wait until Monday. “We wanted more than anything else to get the FEIS out so that the public can have time to review it and come to the public hearings on Monday, April 11,” she explained. “It’s a little unusual for a lead agency [the town board, in this case] to have had the responsibility for putting together this document.”
“Usually the applicant crafts the document,” Gerrard pointed out, “taking the lead agency’s direction. But back in January the applicant made it clear that no matter what we told the applicant we wanted, we weren’t going to get it. And we regarded it as essential that we get the document finished. The level of agitation for people following it closely was just too high. Even people not following closely were, like, ‘Just get it done!’ And the applicant was anxious to have the restriction on the number of [commercial] tenants lifted.” This tenant restriction is one of the five proposed amendments to the town code that were the topic of the public hearing begun on Tuesday, March 22, which will be reopened again on Monday, April 11.
FEIS offers hints of findings to come
Shortly before the FEIS was formally adopted at 2:00 a.m., Council member Robin Stout read a brief statement into the record. He described the two “potential projects” the board had examined in the FEIS: the Proposed Action, to keep 520,000 square feet of office space and build 278 housing units; and the Modified Project, to retain 662,000 square feet of office space and create 199 housing units.
Both projects, Stout said, would create residential units in two areas, an East Village and a North Village. The Modified Project, he emphasized, would include “20 units of housing which would be compliant with the Westchester Fair Housing Stipulation.”
“The FEIS examines the environmental impacts from both proposed projects, and concludes that both projects would result in certain significant adverse impacts which are identified in the FEIS.”
His conclusion, which he reiterated later in a telephone call, was: “This is the largest remaining parcel for any development in the town. I have two goals: to try to maximize the relatively minimal commercial base we have and yet, at the same time, encourage a diversified housing stock.”
Then at 2:10 a.m. Saturday morning, immediately after adopting the FEIS, the three members of the town board announced two additional amendments to the town code to be considered at the public hearing continued from March 22 to Monday, April 11, a week beyond the April 4 date originally set.
One proposed amendment would create a 30.6-acre Multifamily Planned Development (MFPD) district of “Medium Density Residential” in the East Village of Chappaqua Crossing leaving the remaining 83.1 acres zoned as “Research/Office Business.” The second amendment would create a 29.4-acre MFPD district of “Medium Density Residential” in the North Village of Chappaqua Crossing, leaving the remaining 84.3 acres zoned for “Research/Office Business.”
Viewed alongside the original five amendments proposed by Chappaqua Crossing’s developer, one of which proposes the creation of a single 61.6-acre MFPD district encompassing both the East and North Village areas, it would appear that the town board is providing for the possibility of considering changes in zoning for the North Village and the East Village independently.
Add to that the repeated mention in the FEIS of a 55-foot height allowance for the North Village apartment buildings as “not consistent with the character of the neighboring residential community” as well as the stated importance to board members of maximizing the site’s commercial office space potential by providing sufficient parking, and it seems the board may be signaling its preference for an East Village-only MFPD. If so, the 111 housing units shown mapped in the East Village could be further reduced to only those units that sit in the existing sewer district, 79 units including the 20 affordable housing units. The other 32 units are outside the defined sewer district.
Indeed, in its FEIS, the board considers this possibility explicitly, saying: “For example, to allow some component of the MFPD district to be mapped, a distinction could be drawn between the North Village MFPD area and the East Village MFPD area so as to map one of these areas with the MFPD zoning but not the other.” [See a map of the “Modified Project” below.]
Adverse impacts unique to the North Village proposal
At page 130 of Section III of the FEIS, the board mentions: “Protection of existing viewsheds – from the perspective of adjoining properties or longer-distance vantage points – is an important planning objective of the Town. Community character is defined to a large extent by the views experienced by motorists as they are traveling through the Town. The increased visibility of the North Village buildings under the Modified Project would be contrary to the Town’s viewshed protection objectives and would create an adverse impact on community character.”
The negative impact on “Community Character” is noted at page 128 of Section III of the FEIS. “The proposed residential building height increase that would be authorized by the proposed zoning text amendment to Town Code §60-426.2(d) would allow for the construction of multifamily residential buildings that are not consistent with the Town Development Plan (TDP) policies concerning the type of multifamily residential development that is considered appropriate for New Castle and would not be consistent with the character of the neighboring residential community.
Concluding, at pages 130-132 of Section III of the FEIS: “However, the dimensions and bulk of the proposed North Village buildings would be at variance with the scale of residential development in the surrounding residential neighborhood, and possibly with the scale of existing and future commercial buildings on the B-RO-20 District portion of the Project Site as well.”
In addition, the North Village is proposed to be situated on top of current parking, and in the FEIS the board indicates a desire to retain as much parking as possible to accommodate parking needs generated by the commercial uses of the property. “Adequate parking is essential to the long-term viability of the commercial floor area,” the FEIS states at page 30 of Section III.
Preservation of commercial opportunities consistent with Town Development Plan
At page 22 of Section III of the FEIS, the board explained why the Town Development Plan, created in 1989, designated most of the former Reader’s Digest property for “Research/Office Business.”
“As with the Proposed Action, the Town concludes that the Modified Project is inconsistent with the Town Development Plan because it would rezone a substantial area of the Project Site that the TDP designated for ‘Research/Office Business’ to a residential use. The reasons stated in the TDP for designating most of the project Site for ‘Research/Office Business’ – the desire to maintain or expand the Town’s tax base, particularly its nonresidential tax base, at a location well served by one of the parkways that traverse the Town – continue to be applicable to the Project Site today.”
“Because the IBM Hudson Hills facility discussed in the TDP was never constructed [the result of its transfer from New Castle to Westchester County for the creation of the Hudson Hills Public Golf Course and its subsequent removal from the tax rolls], the TDP’s designation of the Project Site for ‘Research/Office Business’ use would appear to be even more important today than it was in 1989, because the Project Site is the only remaining site in the Town for large-scale office, research or laboratory space that is presently zoned for commercial use.”
“As with the Proposed Action, the Modified Project will severely limit the opportunity for the construction of any future office, research or laboratory development at the Project Site and thereby severely limit the potential for the Town to expand its non-residential tax base within the area of the Project Site that the TDP designated for ‘Research/Office Business’ uses. The Modified Project would also result in the loss of existing commercial parking spaces at the Project Site.”
“The Town concludes that the Modified Project is in material conflict with the Town Development Plan, and that this conflict is a significant adverse environmental impact. As explained in FEIS Section II, the Town reached the same conclusion with respect to the Proposed Action.”
FEIS does not address potential density bonuses
The board made a point in the FEIS, at page 20 of Section III, to state that the FEIS does not address the possibility of density bonuses. “The Applicant has noted that additional density bonuses may be available for several project features in the MFPD District, such as affordable housing, underground parking, and open space preservation. Like the Proposed Action, however, the Modified Project does not seek any density bonuses. In view of the fact that no density bonuses have been sought by the Applicant as part of the Modified Project, density bonuses and any resulting impacts have not been discussed or evaluated in this FEIS.”
Residents have been concerned that if some residential development were allowed at Chappaqua Crossing, that the developer, as he has threatened, would ask for density bonuses that could increase the number of residential units substantially. This pointed statement by the board in the FEIS coupled with the board’s apparent intention to treat the two “Villages” separately when considering rezoning as MFPD districts, would seem to indicate that a whole new SEQRA process would need to be conducted to obtain permission for additional residential use.
Rob Greenstein, a New Castle resident who has been the leading advocate for no-residential at Chappaqua Crossing, commented: “It’s an intriguing concept. The FEIS has documented many of the social, environmental and economic impacts of this project on the community, many of which have been expressed by residents. By making the East Village and North Village separate MFPD applications, and denying it in the case of the North Village, the Town Board may be able to preserve the viability of the commercial use in what would have been the North Village while effectively limiting the residential development in the East Village.”
The analyses presented in the FEIS regarding traffic, projected school population and revenues to the town and school district to be generated by the project relate specifically to the Proposed Action and the Modified Action. Until the town board acts on the conflicting amendments proposed to alter the town code – whether to permit an MFPD covering both the North and East Villages, or independent MFPD zones for each village, or just one MFPD zone for the East Village – all that can be concluded at this time regarding those analyses is that the impacts will be reduced if only the East Village MFPD is allowed.
The next step in this process is for the board to release their Findings, no sooner than 10 days after the adoption of the FEIS, but no more than 30 days.
Map of Modified Plan
The two U-shaped buildings in the upper right corner are the “North Village;” the “East Village” is located in the center of the property and contains both apartment buildings and townhouse clusters.
___________________________
To view NCNOW’s archived articles and letters—in chronological order, newest to oldest—on Chappaqua Crossing and Summit Greenfield’s application for a zoning change, click HERE.
Only a woman would come up with that headline!
What does this all mean? Has, or will, residential development been denied in the North Village?
I think, but am not certain, that the FEIS is a tool for evaluation but does not directly state one way or another the board’s ultimate view of the two proposed plans. However, statements/conclusions in the FEIS about the impact of the respective plans could lead one to conclude that one plan is more viable over the other or that both plans are not viable. The actual vote is yet to come. I hope others more informed will weigh in on this though. You folks know who you are! Please tell us.
The New Castle Town Board will have the option to vote for less residential rezoning for Chappaqua Crossing, based on two new local laws being considered.
Each proposed law, which came as new developments coinciding with when the board voted early Saturday to adopt a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), would allow for the creation of a Multifamily Planned Development zones (MFPD) separately for the “North Village” and “East Village” housing clusters on the north and east ends of the site. This stands in contrast to developer Summit/Greenfield’s application to create one MFPD that covers both areas. That scenario is still being considered by the Town Board in the form of another proposed local law.
Clinton Smith, the town’s attorney, said the board will have “a series of laws that they can pick and choose from.”
When asked if this was an attempt to offer a compromise between the developer and opponents of residential rezoning, Smith denied that this is the board’s intent. Instead, he likened it to giving the board tools that are best for the town for the process.
The two rezoning local laws will be up for an April 11 public hearing, along with the five existing rezoning proposals. Those include the broader MFPD rezoning proposal that Summit/Greenfield has asked for, as well as a rezoning change that would raise the maximum building height in an MFPD to 55 feet, which would enable the developer to have its North Village condos.
Before the real estate deal was even finalized, as Reader’s Digest employees, we trudged up to the auditorium building for a general company meeting. Lo and behold the building already had the letters “Chappaqua Crossing” on it, leaving many employees to wonder “what’s that?” That’s how Summit Greenfield operates, put up the fancy signs and it will be a reality. Make the town think they have to vote for one of their plans. Inch by inch they will attain their original goal of developing the entire property. If anyone thinks they will stop at a smaller development plan…think again!
I see these as the questions that need answering by the board:
1. The RD property does not meet MFPD requirements, mainly on account of:
a. lack of sewers (though there is one area covered by sewers - PART of the East Village, none of the North Village) and
b. it is not near shopping and train transportation
2. The fact that the developer has included 20 affordable units in a plan of 199 housing units still does not make the site appropriate for MFPD in the first place - unless he creates a third hamlet at RD with shopping.
3. So if we create an MFPD zone even on part of the property because we want the 20 affordable units (although we have no idea what that number will be if there’s no North Village in the picture - the developer might say he can afford to make only ten or five or no affordable units if limited to the sewered part of the East Village) don’t we open the entire property up to MFPD (yes yes with another NYS environmental review to precede it) if sewers should ever come along?
4. If sewers ever come along, won’t the developer naturally come back with MFPD requests that make use of the aforementioned density bonuses - doubling whatever would ordinarily be allowed?
5. And won’t it then be impossible to prevent him from “sacrificing” the commercial operation and its parking needs to the higher return-on-investment of residential MFPD?
They will never, ever stop until they have developed the whole property. They sued this town already over something completely made up. That is a fact! Imagine what they will do once they get their foot in the door on residential.
