Letter to the Editor: Should a lame duck administration decide the fate of our community?

With 108 comments since publication
Monday, June 24, 2013
by Rob Greenstein

With five months left on the terms of Supervisor Carpenter and Councilman Stout, the Town Board is steam-rolling ahead with the approval process for retail development at Chappaqua Crossing.  The Town Board has appropriated the decision making process in the face of negative advice from their own appointed Planning Board.  They have not listened to the Planning Board, residents, or even commonsense.

Town Administrator Penny Paderewski has publicly stated that the current Town Board will be voting on Chappaqua Crossing before their term ends.  How can she possibly declare that the current Town Board will be voting on Chappaqua Crossing?  How could anyone know when that vote will take place, since the review is supposedly still ongoing?

Has the current Town Board already made up their minds?  Are they rushing to complete the process to vote before their term ends? And should a lame duck administration be making these important decisions?

Development at Chappaqua Crossing

We all know there has to be development at Chappaqua Crossing, and there will be.  In 2011, I commended the prior administration when they approved 111 residential units.  I stated that I believe the town board did everything possible to maximize the tax revenue while protecting the commercial viability of the property.  I stated that they acted in good faith to balance the conflicting interests of the community.  By giving Summit Greenfield 111 residential units—60 fee simple townhouses, 31 market rate condos and 20 affordable housing units—the Town Board may have blunted Summit Greenfield’s Berenson legal offense in its lawsuit against the town and proved wrong the specious accusation that our community is opposed to affordable housing.


One year later, on March 16, 2012, I wrote a letter stating that we should foster a working relationship with Summit Greenfield as we take each other’s interests into consideration.  I suggested a high-end specialty grocery store – like Whole Foods - at Chappaqua Crossing. 


I believe Whole Foods will be coming to Chappaqua Crossing.  I also believe most residents – including my wife - would be excited about a Whole Foods at Chappaqua Crossing.  However, even if a Whole Foods is coming to Chappaqua Crossing, as I stated Last March, we must still take into consideration each other’s interests.  Does the Whole Foods come with strings attached?  What else will come along with a Whole Foods?  Are we willing to accept a lineup of fifteen chain stores that may not be so desirable?  While we could accept a Whole Foods with the right conditions at Chappaqua Crossing, we cannot accept a third business district that will cannibalize our existing business districts.

The problem is that Summit Greenfield wants to turn Chappaqua Crossing into the next Kings Crossing.  In 2003, Summit Greenfield bought a contaminated 11-acre piece of property for $8 million.  In 2012, it was sold for $60 million. 


The stores at Kings Crossing are a Whole Foods, Petco, CVS, Chipotle, Five Guys and a Chase Bank office. They’re located next to a vast Home Depot.  On December 4, 2012, Engineer and Planner for Summit Greenfield, Andy Tung, walked Planning Board members through the proposal for a grocery and retail shopping center at Chappaqua Crossing.  When discussing possible tenants, Tung stated “there would likely be a sit-down restaurant, probably two.  Most likely national chains in the 5,000-SF-plus category. A Chipotle’s or a Five-Guys. There could be what we call a “junior anchor” a store of 15,000 SF that might e a Petco or Staples. Not a department store, but a store you might go to for daily or weekly needs. Then a smaller store something like a Sylvan Learning Center. As I’ve learned, each grocery store has a group of smaller tenants that kind of follow it around.”


The big difference is that Chappaqua Crossing is not a contaminated 11-acre piece of property.  It would sit on the other side of a six-lane intersection, across from our high school.  The problem is that this strip mall is being built in the middle of a residential area.  The problem is that it will cannibalize our two existing hamlets, and be a traffic nightmare.

Town Board has compromised the decision-making process

The planning board has practically begged the town board to stop the race to change the zoning. Yet despite the negative input the Town Board is pressing ahead with Summit Greenfield’s application.

On October 2, 2012, when discussing rezoning for retail at Chappaqua Crossing at the Town Board’s request, Planning Board members asked right off the bat, “Why so big?” Planning Board members wanted more detail on the type of store, the amount of traffic, and the effect on the two existing commercial centers of the town.  “I feel this is introducing a third commercial center into New Castle,” said planning board member Sheila Crespi, “which I feel the master plan did not anticipate. This is a significant change to the character of the town, a community that’s unfolded over years. This needs to be part of a much larger community discussion.” 

“Once you move forward, there’s no going back,” continued Crespi,” and so it really behooves us to have a real community discussion, in forums that go out into the community to find out whether this is something the community really wants or whether it’s [the result of] dismay over losing D’Agostino’s.”


On October 16, 2012 planning board members revisited their concerns.  Planning Board member Tom Curley stated “planning should precede zoning and the legislation should wait until the community has gone through the process of understanding what they really want to happen up there.”

“Yes. We’re rushing to put the zoning in place,” said Sheila Crespi, “but first should come the study to see if there’s something viable there and that it’s something the community wants. This is sort of leapfrogging to talk about putting the zoning in place.”


On May 7, 2013, Planning Board members discussed the negative impact to the surrounding residential area.  If the hamlet areas are, in fact, harmed by the grocery-retail development at Chappaqua Crossing, said Crespi, the developer should address in the EIS (the “Environment Impact Statement”) the reduction of taxes from the hamlets as well as the reduction in value of residential properties surrounding Chappaqua Crossing.  “Sometimes you see around retail areas that there is a degradation of the residential properties to the extent that it and can no longer be valuable as residential and begins to convert to non-residential uses. You see that around shopping areas. [The applicant should] discuss whether that is a possibility particularly along Roaring Brook Road, where some of those homes are going to be directly across from a shopping center. That is going to be their new vista, a shopping center as opposed to a parking lot that exists there, as well as the traffic impacts along Roaring Brook Road.”

The planning board was concerned about student safety, and the potential problems of locating a large shopping center across the street. Crespi stated “Kids will want to get there, they’ll have to cross six lanes of traffic to get there. Only seniors now are permitted to leave campus now (an enforcement issue for the school district), traffic—at certain times of day high volumes. That, plus safety are community character issues. Also signage potentially visible from the Saw Mill—certainly a visual impact and character of community issue.”


Retail rezoning is not consistent with the Master Plan

The retail rezoning at Chappaqua Crossing is clearly not consistent with the current Master Plan. The 1989 Town Development Plan, which reaffirmed the 1968 Town Plan of Development, set forth the position the all future local business development be confined to the Town’s existing two hamlet centers. It was determined that these areas would be able to adequately meet the needs of the Town’s growing population, and any expansion outside the hamlets would be contrary to the objective of maintaining the Town’s predominantly residential character.

This town board is responsible for delaying the master plan review and are making residents pay the consequences

As far as amending the Town Development Plan (TDP), Curley stated “maybe [the TDP] should be a lot more definitive with regard to policy intent than it currently is about retail on that piece of property, inasmuch as there are no statements in the TDP about retail on that piece of property.”  “So much so that I think if we have a set of specific values we really want to apply to this piece of property we ought to use the TDP to be fairly specific about those. We do have an applicant before us now who is, in my estimation, working in good faith. We also however have no guarantees—nobody does—that this applicant is actually going to be the developer who is going to do this project. Things change. We have not put any cornerstones in the ground yet. And if we’re going to go ahead and go through the process of memorializing our desires on this piece of property through a TDP and then through a zoning [amendment], we ought to do it not without regard to the energy and the interest that are moving forward but also not without losing sight of the larger issues with respect to the property and potentially what it could be and the quality of life issues that we’re trying to address through this [EIS, environmental review] process. In a perfect world we would have gone through this [TDP review] a long time ago and we wouldn’t be going through it right now.”

The Town Development Plan recommended against “a third commercial center.”

“It seems to me,” said Crespi, “that the 1989 Town Development Plan didn’t so much remain silent on the issue of commercial retail development as recommend against it. So it seems to me what we should be talking about in the cover memo is a sort of change of priority. We’re stepping away from the policy recommended in 1989 and it’s now being proposed that the town development plan embrace a different priority, which is the creation of a third commercial center. That was something the 1989 plan specifically did not recommend. So rather than say that it was inadequate we really need to acknowledge that what the TDP said in 1989 is that we shouldn’t do it, and that now the town is rethinking that.” (The emphasis is mine.)


Why is the town conducting a Master Plan review if they’re not going to use it as a guide as they consider creating a third retail hamlet?

How can we know if the retail rezoning at Chappaqua Crossing will accomplish a legitimate public objective if those objectives are not clearly identified before the zoning change is considered?

Why would the Town spend valuable and limited resources reviewing an application for a shopping center that that might turn out to be totally inconsistent with the updated Master Plan?

Why is the town undertaking the review and updating of its Master Plan if they’re not going to use it as they consider a project that could forever change the character of New Castle?

Instead of making selective edits to the 1989 Master Plan to permit a shopping center of dubious composition at Chappaqua Crossing, elected town board members should let the Master Plan Review Steering Committee do what they were appointed to do: compile updated data, updated projections, an updated understanding of environmental and business concerns and, most importantly, invite meaningful participation from the community.

And should a lame duck administration be deciding these issues?

Too many unanswered questions

There are too many unanswered questions. Rather than negotiating the size and types of retail stores at Chappaqua Crossing behind closed doors by means of a rubber-stamp “study” by its new consultant, AKRF, the Town Board owes it to our community to issue a moratorium on new zoning ordinances until the Master Plan is updated and this November’s election behind us.

Before deciding unilaterally that this project will go forward, town board members should be held to prove – and they haven’t yet—that the New Castle community believes this permanent change to its character will benefit the town.  The town board should defer final decisions on these projects until the entire town can be polled.  Let the voters decide if they support this project.  The Steering Committee can use the results of the poll, do the work they were appointed to do, and properly amend the Master Plan.

We encourage civil, civic discourse. All comments are reviewed before publication to assure that this standard is met.

When we elected the Town Board, we expected they’d serve their full term and tackle all the issues on the table during their term. We didn’t have a provision on the ballot that said “if something is a bit controversial in the latter part of their term, we’ll hold off until the next Board is elected.”

It seems awfully self serving for a candidate running for Town Board to suggest that we ask the Board to hold off on considering this issue until the new Board, on which this candidate hopes to be serving, is in office.

I have a high degree of confidence that the current members of the Town Board will do their job with the integrity and intelligence they’ve consistently brought to the table.

By How Democracy Works on 06/24/2013 at 6:09 am

Rob Greenstein
You need to show the voters that you are more than a one-trick pony.  You want the current board so that YOU can have a vote in the decision - which I believe is the only reason you are running.

By face it on 06/24/2013 at 6:09 am

I’ve asked this before and I will ask it again:  Why is is that prior to your announcing your candidacy, many of your SG posts had lots of exclamation points, words like STRIP MALL (heaven forbid!) always in big bold letters and references to “death squads”, and now your comments/letters don’t?  Once you decide which is the real you, could you let the voters know?

Looking forward to your transparent reply.

By can't change your spots on 06/24/2013 at 6:32 am

Let’s put this out there, because it must be said at this point. Is Susan Carpenter on the take from Summit Greenfield? Should we not investigate why she came up with this proposal and what she may have to fain from this personally? why in the face of strong opposition from the planning board?

Former Yonkers City Councilwoman Sandy Annabi is in jail for having sold her vote for the Ridge Hill Project. It is not inconceivable that we are witnessing our own version of his play out. Aside from vehemently protesting the development, why aren’t we calling for an investigation of Carpenter? It IS quite odd that Carpenter and the board went to Summit Greenfield with the suggestion of retail and not the other way around.

By Putting it out there on 06/24/2013 at 6:40 am

If you want to be taken seriously, stop with the scare tactics over Home Depot and acknowledge that none of the potential tenants you have named would be drawing business from the downtown Chappaqua business area. In fact, drawing more shoppers to the area might actually result in more shopping and dining in Chappaqua proper.

By Sick of this discussion on 06/24/2013 at 7:24 am

I am pretty sure the departing board member’s terms expire on December 31st.  Until then, they should continue to do the job for which they were elected.

I am pretty sure that the newly elected board member’s terms start on January 1st 2014.  That is when they can and should start making decisions around here.  Hopefully, that is you Mr. Greenstein.

By Gary C on 06/24/2013 at 7:43 am

Sick of this discussion,

Please read my letter again.  I did not say a Home Depot was coming. 

Although, now that you’ve raised the point, keep in mind that even after this strip mall is constructed, there is still 400k/sq feet of of office space.  Unlike the retail space, there appears to be no effort to lease that 400k/sq feet of office space.  You would be naive to think that SG won’t seek another bailout when they attempt to change the zoning on that remaining 400k.  And with the retail zoning in place, it’ll be more difficult to stop them. 

By Rob Greenstein on 06/24/2013 at 8:07 am

Mr Greenstein – I cant believe my eyes- I had to read your letter twice to make sure that I understand that you are conceding that a Whole Foods will be coming to Chapp Crossing. YOUR exact words I quote –“ I believe Whole Foods will be coming to Chappaqua Crossing.  I also believe most residents – including my wife - would be excited about a Whole Foods at Chappaqua Crossing.”.
Several months ago I wrote few comments in NCN to the effect that I have an open mind as to development at CC and that I have faith our elected officials will work with the developer to deliver a mixed use property that will include a Whole Foods type supermarket and other ancillary retail. I do not believe that a 1990’s style strip mall will be built. I wrote that a Whole Foods, Soul Cycle, GNC Nutrition would be great additions to our town.  Your response to my comments were nasty, disrespectful, and insulting. You told me I was dreaming (words to that effect) if I thought Whole Foods and these others stores were in the plan. You went on to accuse me of working for the developer as you did with many others who have an open mind about retail at CC.
NOW you write that a Whole Foods is coming and that “most residents” (your exact words) “would be excited about” it.  Your hypocrisy is embarrassing. What, now that you are running for Town Supervisor you recognize that residents in our community might actually believe that our Town Board can negotiate a deal that will deliver controlled retail along side some residential and commercial properties that will enhance our community and bring in sorely needed tax revenue? All of a sudden you see the light and admit a Whole Foods is coming – and your wife is excited about it- I am laughing out LOUD!

By Chappmom on 06/24/2013 at 8:39 am

I realize that Penny is buy earning her $182,500 salary but when will she give us her opinion on this?  Also, how can she possibly know when a vote will be taking place on Chappaqua Crossing retail rezoning?

While many people are blissfully ignorant about the mismanagement of our town, those who follow this stuff deserve answers.

By A Penny for your thoughts on 06/24/2013 at 8:41 am

Thank you, Mr. Greenstein, for your letter.  There will be loud opposition to your common sense approach to the issue, (ie. follow the Master Plan, listening to the various Town Boards that oppose the scope of development at CC) and that is to be expected since you are taking on the political machine that runs New Castle.  I expect much of it will take the form of critics who will question your integrity.  These critics will sanctimoniously masquerade as concerned New Castle residents instead of revealing that their true allegiance is not to New Castle, but instead to keeping the political status quo in New Castle.  Ignore these critics, stay the course, advocate for what you believe to be best for New Castle, and you will berewarded by the people of New Castle in November.  We, the people of New Castle, hunger for and seek honesty and transparency in our local government, two items that the current Supervisor and several Town Board members have unilaterally and shamefully decided the residents of New Castle do not deserve. 

By B on 06/24/2013 at 8:45 am

Chappmom, why would this surprise you since I was the one who suggested a Whole Foods over a year ago?  I did not suggest a strip mall with 15 chain stores, and therein lies the problem.

By Rob Greenstein on 06/24/2013 at 8:53 am

before reading one word, i knew from the heading this was gonna be from rob greenstein.  please go away.  you are one of the main reasons why the town has been at a standstill, for years.  the only time you were somewhat silent was when chappaqua crossing was suing the town.  why you weren’t named as a defendant, is a legal mystery to me.  if you are elected to the board, the town will never recover.

By mytwocents on 06/24/2013 at 9:05 am

I Agree wih Gary C. that the departing board members should continue to do the job for which they were elected.  But, I don’t think this is about whether the current board members have a right to vote, they clearly do.  It’s about whether it’s the right thing to do when it’s such a controversial subject.  No one was talking about residential rezoning when they were voted into office.  Plus, the fact that the only board member who is up for relection is opposed to the project is proof positive that the Town Board is well aware that the residents are against this ill-conceived, poorly planned project yet they are steamrolling ahead with it.  That’s the travesty.


By Why rush the process on 06/24/2013 at 9:23 am

My two cents,

Please read my letter on November 4, 2011 re: titled “Letter to the Editor: GOP is wrong to call handling of Chappaqua Crossing ‘a fiasco’.  If you recall, I also stated - many times - that the developer’s legal postion was weak, and it was in fact dismissed.  Although that didn’t stop the current administration from capitulating to their demands after their lawsuit was dismissed.


I would be more than happy to post links to the 30+ letters that were published in NewCastleNOW covering such topics from the 2011 election, the ward system, the need for the town board to work more closely with the school board, turf, revitalizing our downtown, starting a chamber of commerce, resential development @ Chappaqua Crossing & retail develpopment @ Chappaqua Crossing. 

By Rob Greenstein on 06/24/2013 at 9:37 am

Greenstein - are you kidding? You suggested a Whole Foods over a year ago? You have a short memory but I don’t. Your position for years has been that this parcel of land that once housed Readers Digest is zoned for commercial only and that we and the Town Board should not budge. You often stated that SG must find commercial tenants and that no zoning changes should be made. Let me remind you that you also suggested we move the Metro North Train station to CC along with Police and Town Hall. You also, thru your petition, suggested a sewage treatment facility was included at CC. I have not forgotten your mean spirited responses to many. Stop pretending to be a reasonable man willing to compromise. Your actions speak louder than your words.
If at some point you thought Whole Foods at CC was a good idea it was only after years of objection and nastiness when you were absolutely dead set against any compromise with the developer. Only after years of delay, obstruction, and lawsuits did you recognize that our Town Board must negotiate with SG so that they can use their property, the town gets much needed taxes, and residents get a supermarket. Now you try to pretend you championed a Whole Foods all along. What a joke -LOL

By Chappmom on 06/24/2013 at 9:39 am

Mr Greenstein- taking credit for suggesting a Whole Foods a year ago is outrageous and insulting to all of us that have been following these developments for years. You stood opposed to any progress or any development at CC that required a zoning change. Many had suggested a Whole Foods type upscale market years ago when Summit Greenfield began to formulate plans. Now you saw you thought of it a year ago.
Did you think that SG would build a stand alone Whoe Foods and nothing else? You seem to object to other retail adjacent to Whole Foods suggesting a ” strip mall with 15 chain stores”.  Excuse me, but doesn’t the Napoli plan, which you repeatedly and vocally support, call for the building of 15-20 new stores downtown side by side attached to each other. Isn’t that a “strip” of new stores? When asked if any or all of those stores might be chain stores you and Napoli remain silent. So it’s ok or chain stores to come to downtown Chapp but not OK for them at CC? The more you speak the bigger hole you did for yourself.

By Resident on 06/24/2013 at 10:05 am

“Putting it Out There” wrote a truly nasty and offensive comment here that suggested that since a politician in Yonkers had been arrested for corrupt practices, we should investigate Susan Carpenter.

That’s a shameful and malicious allegation. I sometimes don’t agree with Susan but I have never ever questioned her integrity. If you have a scintilla of evidence, bring it forward. Otherwise, crawl back under your rock.

By your logic “Putting it out there”, you should be calling for an investigation of Rob Greenstein since he has been vocal and active around this development issue. “Obviously” he must only be motivated by $‘s.

You should apologize.

By Putting It Back In There on 06/24/2013 at 10:24 am

I agree with RG.  It’s even worse with the Conifer project.  They are not only ignoring their own planning board but they are also ignoring the Architectural Review Board.

By Town Board is running amok on 06/24/2013 at 10:25 am

Should a lame administration decide the fate of our community?

By Better question on 06/24/2013 at 10:40 am

No need for the person who suggested that Susan Carpenter is “on the take” to apologize.  Carpenter is as honest as the day is long, but it’s no wonder that people have that impression.  The town board (and especially Susan Carpenter) do very little to explain the situation to residents.

I’ll apologize and say “Sorry it looks this way!—Town board members, do a better job!”

By Apologize? No. on 06/24/2013 at 11:00 am

Greenstein-letter above is full of hypocrisy and lies.Under “Development at CC” you claim you commended the prior administration for approving 111 residential units. 1 year later March12, 2012 you wrote stating that “we should foster a working relationship with Summit Greenfield” You conveniently left out that multiple plans and proposals including a much bigger condo plan was rejected, delayed , and stalled including age restricted housing. You objected to all. Your position forever was that SG bought commercially zoned property and that they must utilize it accordingly. You opposed any-all zoning changes. Your position repeated often,was that SG made an investment in a commercial zone and too bad for them if it isnt working out You stood opposed to any/all plans they presented requiring a zoning change. You accused them of not trying to find commercial tenants-you disparaged them and our elected officials. Now you write this nonsense indicating that you are a reasonable person who always wanted open dialogue (foster a working relationship) with SG. You have been anything but. You bullied, criticized,and smeared any/ all that disagreed with you.
Above you included several links to articles/letters you are referencing from your past submissions. Include your comments where you stated SG bought commercial property and we should not budge – too bad for them. include links to comments you made accusing SG of manipulation, underhandness, and other offenses. Why don’t you include the comments you made to residents accusing them of working for the developer simply because they thought retail at CC is workable. You insult and belittle and now try to present yourself as a man of reason who only wants to sit down and talk out a solution. Where has that approach been all these years? This letter proves you are all about running for Supervisor for one reason only. You contradict yourself and flip flop even when the facts prove you incorrect.

By Chappaqua 10 on 06/24/2013 at 11:06 am

Resident, trying to divert attention to the Napoli Plan might be a good political strategy for you & your fellow board members to hold onto your monolopy of our town but it doesn’t serve the interests of our community. 

Please show me support for this project. 

Are you afraid of a town wide survey? 

Although I’m not married to the Napoli Plan as I’ve said a number of times - read my comments under the turf article - lets also put the Napoli plan to a town-wide survey?

By Rob Greenstein on 06/24/2013 at 11:06 am

Mr Greenstein – if you are going to run for elected office you ought to understand how politics works. At the highest levels like the White House to State and local governments politicians and administrations reach the end of their servitude. They become lame ducks because their term is up or they have announced retirement, or a new administration will be replacing them. The wheels of government do not simply stop until the next official or administration comes in. Decisions are made, laws are passed and policies continue. What would you have them do – stay home? Mayor Bloomberg is done after this term – he is a lame duck – should he just stay at his house in Bermuda and mail it in?
Heaven forbid we get another damaging storm this summer/fall. Should that happen and we have power outages and disruption to our community wont we and you demand that our Town Board respond appropriately? Or will you allow them to do shirk responsibility because they are lame ducks. Of course not. You will expect they do their jobs up until they serve their terms. The same must be said of ongoing negotiations with other outstanding and pending projects, proposals, and plans. Or would you rather they take the next 5 months off until you run for Town Supervisor?
The only thing transparent about you is your relentless , stop at nothing opposition to retail at CC and your lack of respect for all that have a differing view- including our Town Board. I applaud and support the Board. I look forward to a Whole Foods at CC and trust our officials will negotiate something that we all will benefit from.

By Patty on 06/24/2013 at 11:18 am

Please tell me that Penny doesn’t make $182,500 a year.  I think I’m gonna be sick.

By Say It Ain't So on 06/24/2013 at 11:21 am

@Rob Greenstein- you really have some nerve. In your response to Chappmom you say that you ” was the one who suggested a Whole Foods over a year ago”. What a joke. YOU were the one that for years opposed any plan that required a change in zoning and Whole Foods would require a zoning change. All the while you opposed others - NOT YOU- were keeping open minds and suggesting Whole Foods or a similar market. Now tat you are running for office you take credit for the idea of Whole Foods at CC. Have you no shame?
What next - you going to tell us you invented he Internet?

By Embarrassing on 06/24/2013 at 11:51 am

The problem with the proposed retail at Chappaqua Crossing and the Conifer Affordable Housing proposal is that both proposals were fashioned by the Town Board without any public input.  Simple as that.  I am afraid for the future of New Castle since the advice of our Planning and Architectural Review Boards are being ignored. The Town Board, which is hell-bent on voting in favor of both proposals before their terms run out this coming December 31.  Why would the Town Board do this other than good old fashioned one-party politics?  Yes, in order to protect the former Town Supervisor, our current Supervisor will stop at nothing, even if that means giving the green light to Conifer’s giant apartment building.  Everyone agrees the location is incredibly stigmatizing, demeaning and worst of all racist since the intended inhabitants are all African-American and Hispanic.  Is this the best that New Castle can do to ameliorate past discrimination?  I hope not.  In fact, the location of the building seems to do exactly the opposite of it’s stated purpose and furthers discriminatory housing instead of lessening it.  Ironic.  Turning to Chappaqua Crossing, the exact same politics are at play.  Why else would the Lawsuit we as a Town were winning instead be settled on terms spectacularly favorable to the developer with ZERO input from the people of New Castle?  Politics, raw politics.  Instead of letting the Lawsuit run its course and most likely emerge victorious, the Town Board seized upon the Dismissal of the Lawsuit as against the individual Town Board members and ran, literally ran, to SECRETLY settle the case we were winning!  Hubris?  Chutzpah?  Unfortunately, this Town Board possesses neither - it was just politics.  The difference here is that the current Town Board has made decisions based on politics that will forever alter the very fabric of what we know as New Castle, and cares not what the people of our town have to say.

By B on 06/24/2013 at 12:02 pm

The town board should apologize to residents for making unilateral decisions without regard to what residents or even the Democratic party wants. The two people on it who do not intend to run again for office (Carpenter & Stout) have taken this board and gone rogue! 

I agree that the commenter who suggested that there must be Summit Greenfield money somewhere in this equation should NOT NOT NOT have to apologize.  The Democrats have forgotten that they need to be in touch with residents.  This board explains nothing to people.  Oh yeah - there’s one thing they keep explaining: that the decision to put 120,000 SF of strip center at Chappaqua Crossing is theirs alone to make, no matter what advisory boards or residents say.

By no apology on 06/24/2013 at 12:41 pm

Don’t care much about what goes at Chapp. Crossing.  DiCicco’s just opened in Armonk and it’s fabulous.  Will be definitely shopping there as I know others have.

By cold hard facts on 06/24/2013 at 12:47 pm

Mr Greenstein- thank you for your letter and for including links to letters written in the past regarding retail at CC and negotiations with Summit Greenfield. I call you and all readers’ attention to the letter you wrote on March 16 2013 titled “Move town hall and Police to Chapp Crossing”. In it you clearly state and I quote you – “I was very happy to hear that the Town Board is considering rezoning Chappaqua Crossing for a grocery store.  As I mentioned at Tuesday night’s Town Board work session, I believe a high-end grocery store—like Whole Foods ..would do very well…”
To be clear Rob, this was NOT your idea. A Whole Foods at CC was suggested and discussed long before you wrote this letter – so please don’t be taking credit for the idea.
But I digress- if you scroll down to the comments section of this letter to the editor you will see a comment from Rob Greenstein dated 3/19/13. In your comment Rob you write and AGAIN I QUOTE YOU – “I NOW agree with those who say that a supermarket at Chappaqua Crossing may not be ideal.  The resulting traffic and the distraction to the downtown commercial district are legitimate concerns…” You go on to say that the supermarket should instead be located at the town hall location.
So Rob – first you write a letter to the editor suggesting a Whole Foods at CC. Then 3 days later in comments to YOUR very same letter , in the comments section, you reverse and say it is not a good idea. So which is it Mr Greenstein? You want to take credit for the idea but then you stand in opposition to it. Its here in black and white. You certainly are the politician. You were for Whole Foods at CC before you were against it – all in the span of 3 days – all in the body of your own letter. Talk about flip flopping and playing both sides- jeez!
You cant make this stuff up!

By Who you foolin? Not me on 06/24/2013 at 12:55 pm

Aside from the humor gleaned from your article titled “... decide the fate of our community” implying parallels between retail development and toxic waste disposal, I was very, very pleased to learn a Whole Foods is coming to our community! And no one is going to force me to eat in a Five Guys that may in same retail space just like no one is forcing me to eat in our pricey “dowtown” take-out eateries. Btw, for someone who proclaims to know what is best for everyone, did you ever see a standalone supermarket like Whole Foods anyway!?!? This paints you either as a very naive person, or one who is very disingenuous . . . I do agree with you that our town needs a change from politics as usual, but should we really place our fate with you?

By GREAT NEWS! on 06/24/2013 at 12:59 pm


Read the Town’s Board’s press release dated March 8, 2012 when they proposed to create retail zoning that would allow for construction of a full-service grocery store and ancillary retail stores on a portion of the Chappaqua Crossing campus.


Read the comments after that article. I suggested a Whole Foods @ a work session a few weeks earleir. 

By Rob Greenstein on 06/24/2013 at 12:59 pm

Lots of energy here trying to disparage Greenstein.  Here’s a question for you all.  You’re criticizing him for not acting like a member of the town board politboro - as though they’re exemplars of democratic representation.  I believe that if he has spoken in extremes, he has done so in order to counteract the deliberate bad actions (and disregard of residents’ wishes) of the town board in pushing both Conifer and Chappaqua Crossing - and it’s perfectly understandable.  Go Greenstein.

Oh, and to “where’s the money” (or whatever name that was) - no town board member takes money from anyone.  But I can understand that it would look that way to outside observers - and everyone outside the town board are outside observers.  They say nothing to fix that.

By Greenstein's forgiven on 06/24/2013 at 1:10 pm

To Rob Greenstein - for years many in the community have been frustrated by lack of quality supermarket in our community. Even when DaGastinos was open we wanted better. Certainly after DAGS closed the idea for a Whole Foods type market was suggested at CC . For you to suggest it was your idea is insulting. Maybe you did write about in one of your too many to count letters and comments but it certainly wasn’t your idea. Come to think of it everything I can recall of your activism is all about stopping progress at Chapp Crossing. Like others hav already said, you stood adamently opposed to any project by SG that required a zoning change. You also harp on need for revised master plan before moving forward. So why didn’t you say that when you now want credit for the idea of a Whole Foods. You are not to be believed because you are not truthful with us.

By Another mother on 06/24/2013 at 1:35 pm

I don’t think Susan Carpenter or any of the TB members are getting payouts but what about Clinton Smith’s law firm?  Do they get paid more for the additional services performed?

By Follow the $$ on 06/24/2013 at 1:37 pm

There was indeed broad support in town to replace D’Agostino’s with a similar sized grocery store, plus or minus 15,000 square feet, possibly with a Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s.  The Town Board took this support from Rob Greenstein and the townspeople - and bastardized it into a 66,000 square foot mega-market plus an equal amount of ancillary retail.  The 130,000 square foot of retail can hardly be described as containing a “grocery store”, but the Town Board persists in calling it just that, and it is one hell of a misnomer since the “grocery store” will be more than 400% larger than D’Agostino’s.  Oh, and this 130,000 square feet is just the beginning of retail at Chappaqua Crossing since 400,000 square feet of unused space is waiting inthe wings.

By B on 06/24/2013 at 2:05 pm

Great News, is that really your take on my letter that I was “implying parallels between retail development and toxic waste disposal”........come on, let’s keep it real.

In response to your question, yes I have seen stand alone supermarkets like Whole Foods - see Stu Leondards in Danbury, CT.

And I don’t recall saying that it needs to be a stand alone supermarket.  My position is that we don’t need to accept a lineup of 15 chain stores &/or a 3rd business district that will cannibalize our existing business districts.  How about a Whole Foods with a movie theatre or performing arts center?  How about a Whole Foods with a fitnees center with a gym, pool & tennis?

I’m sorry but I care about our downtown.  I believe our downtown is the heart & soul of a community, and I’m not willing to sell it out in order to give Summit Greenfield a bailout. 

Bottom line, we should not accept a strip mall with 15 chain stores.  Maybe Penny, Buckley & Mike W. think we should, I don’t know.

By Rob Greenstein on 06/24/2013 at 2:31 pm

Mr Greenstein- you have written so many letters and so many comments it hard to keep track . Many contradict things you stated at an earlier time. I see you included the letter you wrote last year suggesting a Whole Foods at CC would be a good idea. It is difficult to reconcile that with your numerous rants against Summit Greenfield whereby you implored the Town Board to reject all requests from SG for a zoning change which would allow anything other than commercial use. You take credit for the Whole Foods idea but as pointed out above you summarily rejected your own idea in the comments section of your own submission.
When suggesting a Whole Foods be built at CC did you think that a Whole Foods and ONLY a Whole Foods would built? Show me a stand alone isolated supermarket anywhere. It doesn’t exist. Supermarkets and retailers need to be near one another to prosper. So to take credit for the idea which you are now doing and not recognizing that a supermarket at CC would naturally include ancillary retail shows your lack of knowledge. If this is any indication of how you think and how you will operate as Town Supervisor I suggest you rethink your candidacy. Shoot and ask questions later is a poor strategy.

By RC on 06/24/2013 at 2:56 pm

Mr Greenstein- you have written so many letters and so many comments it hard to keep track . Many contradict things you stated at an earlier time. I see you included the letter you wrote last year suggesting a Whole Foods at CC would be a good idea. It is difficult to reconcile that with your numerous rants against Summit Greenfield whereby you implored the Town Board to reject all requests from SG for a zoning change which would allow anything other than commercial use. You take credit for the Whole Foods idea but as pointed out above you summarily rejected your own idea in the comments section of your own submission.
When suggesting a Whole Foods be built at CC did you think that ONLY a Whole Foods would built? Show me a stand alone isolated supermarket anywhere. It doesn’t exist. Supermarkets and retailers need to be near one another to prosper. So to take credit for the idea which you are now doing and not recognizing that a supermarket at CC would naturally include ancillary retail shows your lack of knowledge. If this is any indication of how you think and how you will operate as Town Supervisor I suggest you rethink your candidacy. Shoot and ask questions later is a poor strategy.

By RC on 06/24/2013 at 3:25 pm

People thought the original town board that dealt with Chappaqua Crossing was “on the take” too.  To many, nothing else explained why 348 condos (the original proposal) would even be considered.  So now people are thinking the same thing about this board to explain why 120,000 square ft of retail is being considered. 

It’s not true about either board, but I blame government for communicating very poorly.  Shame on town board members.

By Shame on TB members on 06/24/2013 at 3:50 pm

There certainly has been a lot of energy trying to disparage Greenstein.  I’d like answers to his questions:

How can Penny Paderjewski know when that vote will take place, since the review is supposedly still ongoing?

Why is the town conducting a Master Plan review if they’re not going to use it as a guide as they consider creating a third retail hamlet?

How can we know if the retail rezoning at Chappaqua Crossing will accomplish a legitimate public objective if those objectives are not clearly identified before the zoning change is considered?

Why would the Town spend valuable and limited resources reviewing an application for a shopping center that that might turn out to be totally inconsistent with the updated Master Plan?

Why is the town undertaking the review and updating of its Master Plan if they’re not going to use it as they consider a project that could forever change the character of New Castle?

Should a lame duck administration be deciding these issues?

By Curious George on 06/24/2013 at 3:55 pm

Does anyone think that the owners of a shopping center that’s even just a little hidden from 117 and the Saw Mill will want to build their requested stores without having a big bright sign listing all of the stores in the strip center that they hope to build. I just hope that the Town Board and everyone else who is supporting Summit Greenfield wont think that its a great idea to let Summit Greenfield plop a great big sign listing all the store on the Saw Mill side of CC and at the Rt. 117 entrance (and, while we’re at it, how about across from Greeley?)

By Why not put giant signs on the Saw Mill and Rt. 11 on 06/24/2013 at 4:10 pm

Hey Rob Greenstein – Who You Foolin sure does make a good point and catch you in a lie. I just read the letter you linked in the body of your above letter. http://www.newcastlenow.org/index.php/article/index/new_letter_to_the_editor_move_town_hall_and_police_to_chappaqua_crossing
In your letter you support a Whole Foods at CC but then in the comments section of your own letter you clearly state that it is not a good idea. Huh? So which is it Rob? You propose the idea in your letter to the editor (which was not original – others had suggested Whole Foods at CC long before you) but then you refute your own idea with your own comment. Now you can say you were in favor while you can also say you are opposed. How dishonest can you get? For the record as a stay at home mom many of us have yearned for and discussed a Whole Foods at CC long before you wrote about it and long before you laid claim to the idea.
When you suggested a Whole Foods would be a good idea at CC, did you think that a Whole Foods and only a Whole Foods would move to CC? That is a preposterous and naïve assumption. No supermarket or retailer would come as a stand alone. A Whole Foods or any other market would have to be part of a larger retail complex. Hey it was your idea – right?
Since you are clearly reading these comments, why is it that you ignore many who ask questions and point out your many inconsistencies but you only selectively respond. I thought you are a candidate of Transparency. Then answer all of us. I missed your response to the many that are seeking an explanation regarding your support of the Napoli strip mall with its chain stores while objecting to same at CC. I am not a Board member and I don’t work for SG. And we missed your response to those inquiring what and who changed your mind after declaring you would not run for Town Board. You a Democrat on a Republican ticket running for Town Supervisor, requires an explanation. Why so quiet? Why not respond to these? 

By mother of 3 on 06/24/2013 at 4:12 pm

Who needs TV or Radio when we have Rob Greenstein on NewcastleNow. First he is oppossed to any zoning change that will allow Chapp Crossing to be developed. Then he says it was his idea to build a Whole Foods at CC. But wait - building a Whole Foods at CC would require a zoning change. Then he says he is oppossed to retail at CC because it was zoned for commercial only and that a Whole Foods would hurt downtown Chapp. But he doesnt at all seemed concerned with the Napoli plan for downtown that will bring an additional 15 stores and traffic to downtown. He opposses retail at CC because of dangerous traffic to Greeley students but is ok with the traffic at Bell School. He says retail at CC will imperil downtown merchants but Napoli plan will do equal or more harm. He says reatil at CC will change Chapp forever but ignores the very same consequences in his support of Napoli. Then if one should mention his support of the Napoli plan he says he is not married to it. He also thinks that linking his support of Napoli to his campaign and stated positions must mean you are a current Board member (as he said to “RESIDENT” above). Justlike if one supports our Board and retail at CC one must work for SG. Just like Whole Foods- he was for it before he was against it.  He wants to be a candidate of transparency but wont answer most questions we ask of him.
His flip flops and attempts at removing his foot from mouth is more entertaining than Mad Men and ESPN.

By so entertaining on 06/24/2013 at 4:25 pm

hey rob, where do you stand on the hunts lane proposal for affordable housing?  your silence on this issue is deafening.

By question on 06/24/2013 at 4:33 pm

Good question, question.

Like Chappaqua Crossing, the Town Board has appropriated the decision making process in the face of negative advice from their own appointed Planning Board & the Architecural Review Board. 

I am not in favor of affordable housing at any price.  When Summit Greenfield was using the affordable housing units as a carrot to get their project approved, my position was that we didn’t need their carrot.  Summit Greenfield was dangling 20 affordable units as a carrot in the rezoning proposal.  My position was that while affordable housing is a commendable goal, we can’t afford this dangling carrot when it’s bundled with a dense residential development.
http://www.newcastlenow.org/index.php/article/index/new_open_letter_to_the_town_board_chappaqua_crossing_the_stick_carrot.  Much has changed since 2011.  The Town Board approved 20 affordable housing units @ Chappaqua Crossing.  If we need more affordable units, we can & must do better than Hunt’s Lane. 


By Rob Greenstein on 06/24/2013 at 5:07 pm


Planning Board is critical of Hunt’s Lane Project

In a July 24, 2012 work session, Planning Board member Tom Curley: “There isn’t anything I’ve heard that corrects or addresses the monitor’s concerns that the site isolates residents of the building. The site is not integrated to the scale of the community and it’s very near an industrial site with vehicular traffic. I go through that intersection once or twice a day to dispose of yard trash. You know what’s down that road: buses, a compacting facility for recycling, grinding yard trash into compost, town trucks and a dead end.”
“The fact is there’s a railroad, a highway,” continued Curley, “and not only a highway, but a highway ramp—and those facilities on Hunts Lane suffer the daily impacts of all that traffic right by your door [of the project on Hunts Place]. With respect to the neighborhood, you’re actually in an industrial zone. Even though the site may be in a residential zone, that doesn’t mean it’s a residential site—and the monitor’s concerns demonstrate that it’s not a residential site.”

ARB was just highly critical of the design

On June 4, 2013 Three Planning Board and all five Architectural Review Board members met Tuesday to discuss the advice they will pass on to the Town Board on the proposed Conifer project at Hunts Lane.
“I’m not looking to save you money,” said Kaplan. “I’m looking to have the entire building be of higher quality, with a better kind of window and better cornice line.”.  ARB member Terrence Dunn asked Schoch “Why triple glaze windows? Because it’s between a highway and a railroad track?” 


By Rob Greenstein on 06/24/2013 at 5:12 pm


“We’d like to go on record that with this current submission we would not approve this with what we have,” said Kaplan, after consulting with other ARB members.
Both boards expressed their preference for a lower building and a visual analysis of the site, that is, with views of the building from different locations.

At least the Town Board is consistent when it comes to ignoring their own appointed boards whe nit comes to the biggest issues facing our community.

By Rob Greenstein on 06/24/2013 at 5:13 pm

Shouldn’t we be demanding transparency from all our candidates?  Some complain no matter what Greenstein says or does.  Some even say he should be more transparent.  What a joke! 

Where are the calls for the DEMS to be transparent?  Has Buckley ever written a single letter addressing an issue?  Has Penny?  Has Wolfensohn? 

Actually Wolfensohn has, he addressed the cup cake scandal.

By Transparency is a 2 way mirror on 06/24/2013 at 5:48 pm


Are you implying your comfortable with a 380,000 sq feet Stew Leonard’s like megasupermarket since that is the only type of supermarket capable of standing alone?  Just trying to keep it real . . .

By GREAT NEWS! on 06/24/2013 at 5:56 pm


In your response to Great News, in your words, you asserted: “How about a Whole Foods with a movie theatre or performing arts center?  How about a Whole Foods with a fitnees center with a gym, pool & tennis?”

Are you now actually OK with a supermarket at CC?  How does this reconcile with your previous 3/19/12 assertion (again, your words): “I NOW agree with those who say that a supermarket at Chappaqua Crossing may not be ideal.  The resulting traffic and the distraction to the downtown commercial district are legitimate concerns.  I think any new grocery store should be at the town hall location, through a swap with Summit Greenfield for town hall space there.”  Have those traffic and distraction concerns of yours now been alleviated? What study alleviated those concerns?  Simply put, and for the record, are you OK with a supermarket at CC contingent it is standalone or even coupled to a multiplex movie theater?  Just want to know what I’m voting for or against this November . . . 


By Rt. 133 Resident on 06/24/2013 at 6:46 pm

Rob Greenstein- I take issue with your example that Stew Leonard’s in Danbury is a stand alone supermarket. First of all Stew Leonard’s in Danbury can hardly be called a supermarket in the context of this discussion and when comparing it to Whole Foods. The Danbury locatin is more like a family destination and amusement center. I don’t know when you were there last but last time I shopped there we took the kids because they have farm animals, a petting zoo, and amusement park type rides. They also milk cows and make cotton candy and fresh ice cream before your eyes. They have Santa at Christmas (they sell Xmas trees too) and have Easter egg hunts. Next to and not attached is one of the biggest wine and liqueurs stores I have ever seen. Just down the road stands appliance, furniture, and electronic stores. Also on the same stretch of road are some restaurants, a Starbucks and banks.
Sorry Rob - you are wrong about this too. Stew Leonard’s of Danbury is not a traditional supermarket and it hardly stands alone.

By Shopaholic on 06/24/2013 at 8:10 pm

Rob, keep writing letters.  Keep telling us your postions.  Be transparent.  Be yourself.  But, please stop responding to these posts.  You are dealing with a bunch of children.  I fear some of these children actually sit on our town board.  You are a man among boys.  They are children.  Stay the course.

By Man Among Boys on 06/24/2013 at 8:54 pm

Stu Leonards in Danbury is a perfect example of a high-end supermarket without a strip mall. 

The problem is that our town board are a bunch of wimps.  They gave away the farm to suspend the lawsuit.  What a joke!  What does suspending the lawsuit even mean?  We suspended a lawsuit that was already thrown out by one Court.  The attorneys for Summit Greenfield must’ve had a hearty laugh over that one. 

After that pathetic negotiation, what did you expect Summit Greenfield to do when we offered them retail rezoning for a supermarket?  They took a foot.  They took a 15 chain stores. 

Our response should’ve been no way.  Instead, we are bending over backwards to give it to them as fast as possible. 

This would be funny, if it wasn’t so pathetic.

By Give an inch, take a foot on 06/24/2013 at 9:27 pm

Keep cool drink lots of water, maybe a Vodka every once in a while, or a nice COLD Captain Lawrence Beer - THE BEST BEER ON EARTH ! Remember this and keep it dear to who you are -  THE COMMUNITY HAS AND HOLDS TRUST IN YOU! We like you, we like your style, we like your integrity, we like that you are honest, we believe in you! Now you are making the power brokers nervous, do your thing, keep doing it, and don’t let up! You are 100% correct!

By WE HAVE TRUST IN YOU RG! on 06/24/2013 at 9:51 pm

Rob Greenstein, as I predicted in my first comment to your letter, there will be plenty of falsely sanctimonious posters questioning your integrity, and sure enough, plenty have popped up today!  I don’t know, or much care, who thought of Whole Foods at CC first or second or third - and the posters today don’t care either, since by amd large they support the Town Board’s current retail proposal for CC and only seek to tear you down in advance of the November election.  The real point is that you had the courage to stir up the hornets nest and question the authority of the current, almost expired, New Castle Town Board to make extremely important decisions in their waning moments in power.  Personally, I could care less about your political party or when you suggested something.  To get my vote, all I need to know is that if elected, you promise to run this town with the input of the townspeople, as opposed to the complete disregard of the desires of the residents of New Castle exhibited by the current Town Board.

By B on 06/24/2013 at 9:53 pm

To B and others:

The average supermarket size is 46,000 sq. ft. and generates $385k in weekly sales (http://www.fmi.org/research-resources/supermarket-facts). Successful supermarkets usually are grouped with other stores so they can support each other. Summit Greenfield has proposed a 36,000 to 66,000 sq. ft. grocery store/supermarket and a handful of other retail stores to support it. The retail proposed at Chappaqua Crossing is 120,000 sq. ft. or about 20% of the existing office space on the property. The review process has not been completed. Nothing has been approved. The proposal could be approved, denied or altered. If altered, the supermarket could be less than 66,000 sq. ft. and total retail could be less than 120,000 sq. ft. We can all speculate why D’Agostino’s closed. I personally think it was too small, too limited and too expensive to be sustainable.

By Jason Chapin, Town Board on 06/24/2013 at 10:10 pm

I would love to hear the Dems respond to this letter.  Why are they ignoring their own planning board.  Why not do the Master Plan first?  Why are they rushing this decision?

Instead of answering these important questions, they chose to attack the messenger. 

The only flip flopping I see are local dems posting on this blog.  They are like fish flopping out of the water.  They are in trouble and they know it.

By Dems are running scared on 06/24/2013 at 10:30 pm

Make no mistake about it, there was backroom deal.

October 16, 2012 Summit Greenfield submitted a “Preliminary Development Plan” for the addition of a “retail component” on the property. http://www.newcastlenow.org/index.php/article/index/new_chappaqua_crossing_submits_preliminary_plan_for_retail_development

December 11, 2012, the Town Board unexpectedly voted toward the end of its Tuesday night meeting to enter into a settlement with Summit http://www.newcastlenow.org/index.php/article/index/new_town_settles_fees_with_summit_greenfield_lawsuits_are_suspended

March 8, 2012, Town Board issues a press release when they proposed to create retail zoning that would allow for construction of a full-service grocery store and ancillary retail stores on a portion of the Chappaqua Crossing campus.

In that press release, they say they welcome vigorous community input. 

Really?!?!?  The process was a complete SHAM!


By Rob Greenstein on 06/25/2013 at 5:55 am

Great News,

Yes, I would be more comfortable with a 380,000 sq feet Stew Leonard’s like megasupermarket instead of 15 chain stores that may not be so desirable, and will cannibalize our existing business districts.

By Rob Greenstein on 06/25/2013 at 9:59 am

Jason Chapin,

Town Administrator Penny Paderewski has publicly stated that the current Town Board will be voting on Chappaqua Crossing before their term ends.  How can she possibly declare that the current Town Board will be voting on Chappaqua Crossing?  How could anyone know when that vote will take place, since the review is supposedly still ongoing?

By Rob Greenstein on 06/25/2013 at 10:01 am

Mr. Chapin,

As you have already said, you believe that a supermarket must be a large one to succeed. I heartily disagree.  Decicco’s is one example of a smaller highly successful market.  Mrs. Green’s is yet another.  By your comments here and at meetings you have told us you believe that we need a much larger store.  You use some studies to support your position.  Please stop saying that you have not made up your mind.  You voted to change the zoning at CC to retail.

Please tell us why you supported the market study that excludes CC from its purview. As someone who has followed this issue it is clear that this study, because of this exclusion is inadequate.  Why did you sign off on it ?  Also, would you please tell us when this decision was discussed among the TB.

Why are you against a moratorium on all development until the Master Plan update is complete.  We are in this sorry position because of decades of no planning.  Why are you against sensible, thoughtful planning ?

By Bob on 06/25/2013 at 10:23 am

Mr. Chapin,

The two examples I gave,  Decicco’s and Mrs. Green’s are each 20,000 square ft.  Would you argue that they are not successful ?

By Bob on 06/25/2013 at 10:29 am

What do you mean much has changed since 2011?  You are not allowed to alter your position based on changed circumstances.  You will never survive on this town board.  You need to make a decision & stick with it regardless of what you hear or learn.  Do not waiver.  Stick to your guns. You are always right, they are wrong.  Be arrogant.  Be stubborn, like a mule.

By Mule on 06/25/2013 at 10:51 am

Rob, you are flat out wrong in asserting the New Castle Town Board process is a “SHAM” when it comes to community input.

I’ve personally spoken with multiple members of the Board and they’ve each listened thoughtfully and we’ve had rational and reasonable discussions. I often don’t agree but I respect and applaud the Board members for their service and integrity.

If you truly want to make a difference in our town, I’d suggest a change in approach is in order - stop with the big speeches and long winded diatribes in NewCastleNow and try listening as part of an honest and open dialogue.

By Rob Greenstein is Way Off Base on 06/25/2013 at 12:27 pm

To Rob Greenstein is Way Off,

I could not agree with you morel…....“If you truly want to make a difference in our town, I’d suggest a change in approach is in order”.  We definitely need a change in approach.  We need a new approach!

By Rob Greenstein on 06/25/2013 at 12:56 pm

Mr Chapin- do not get in the mud and stoop to the level of Rob Greenstein. Dont respond and lower yourself to his level.  You have already responded adequatly and hè is just trying to bait you. Just look at the headline of his letter - lame duck - fate of our community. Please- what a drama queen.  Does he expect you and the board to take the next 5 months off?
It is hè who should be answereing questions not you. He said hè wasnt running for office yet hè à Democrat ( and hè often is critical of Dems) is now candidate for Supervisor on the Republican ticket. He should also answer questions regarding his relationship with Napoli because Things that he objects to at CC dont seem to bother him with Napoli- like master plan, traffic, safety, Harm to merchants, and changing charecter of our town forever. These are bad at CC but in his eyes are ok for downtown with Napoliville. His response? Im not married to it. Hah- hè Sire sounded committed whenhe spoke at Town meetings and he was unwaivering in his counters letters and comments supporting Napoli. If he has nothing to hide let him respond to the circumstances around his candidacy and his support for Napoli.
Greenstein has been belligerant , disrespectful, and dishonest. Hè takes so Many positions, Flip flops, and then denies his stated position.

By Ignore RG on 06/25/2013 at 1:29 pm

Every great leader needs a great team, and outside help in order to do their thing, that we all in our New Castle community love that which you are doing. If you need outside help, what Agency would you call to help you implement your vision and stance, and more importantly preserve the review process that you hope to enact and oversee before it is too late on many different issues throughout New Castle? Who can you call to give a very loud and clear signal, as they stand by your side, that you mean business in protecting the interest of New Castle? Who are you gonna call, or who should you be calling for PR Support, that perhaps later on evolves into more then just PR Support? Should you and the AG’s Office appear together solidifying what you are trying to effect? Who is a big wig that you can call that sends a signal of game over to the power brokers? That honesty, fair dealing, thoughtfulness, consideration, and basic elements of common sense and understanding, as well as the ability to listen, learn, and adjust, now has a chance of coming back into the inner workings of town hall. Who outside of New Castle is willing to align themselves with you, and help you become our next Supervisor? RG your in the game, so jump in with both feet and mean it!

By RG ! on 06/25/2013 at 3:22 pm

@ Rob Greenstein is way off,

I would love to listen as you suggest.  Please tell us where the Town Board holds their secret meetings and I will come to listen.

By the way, Greenstein has called for open public discussion. He wants them BEFORE decisions are taken.  It is inconceivable that you are satisfied with the sitting T.B.

Nice that they listened to you, but they have already changed the CC zoning and are moving ahead with the Conifer project.  They are finally doing a market study but CC and Millwood are not included.  They refuse to include these two projects in the update of the Master Plan.

I have not decided who I will be voting for, but I sure am happy to have him in the mix. 


By you must be kidding on 06/25/2013 at 4:05 pm

Mr. Chapin,

You have made much of the petitions that you have unfairly and deliberately trashed. You have used them to further and support your own prejudice.

I would like to see an honest petition as to whether the residents want a third hamlet with your super sized market at CC . 

By Bob on 06/25/2013 at 4:19 pm

Regardless of whether you agree with his politics, his approach or his position on these issues, Rob has continually stood out front and signed his name to each of his comments. He has done it at town meetings and on these discussion boards. You know who he is and his motivations. It is absolutely comical that people refuse to sign their names. Be seen and heard, people. This is your Town. Your voices matter (regardless of position).  It would be helpful to understand everyone’s motivations as opposed to using these boards for nameless sniping.

-Dave Bialek, Chappaqua Resident

By Dave Bialek on 06/25/2013 at 6:06 pm

Ignore RG, kudos to you for yor political points.  No doubt the Democratic party will repeat them over and over again.  But, here’s a little secret, the people of New Castle who follow this stuff are not idiots.  They see thru your baseless attacks - no matter how many silly names you use. 

Since Mr. Chapin has taken it upon himself to speak for the Democrats, he owes it to the community to answer the questions. 

Town Administrator Penny Paderewski has publicly stated that the current Town Board will be voting on Chappaqua Crossing before their term ends.  How can she possibly declare that the current Town Board will be voting on Chappaqua Crossing?  How could anyone know when that vote will take place, since the review is supposedly still ongoing?

Why was Millwood excluded from the market study?

Why are you against a moratorium on all development until the Master Plan update is complete?

Be transparent.  Saying it is not enough.

By Rob Greenstein on 06/25/2013 at 6:52 pm

So Mr Greenstein do you promise not to vote on any important matters during the final 6 months of your tenure if you somehow are elected?

By yeah right on 06/25/2013 at 8:57 pm

To Mr Bialek - with all due respect,  you give Greenstein way more credit than he deserves. If you have been following along for the better part of a year you would understand that most people partipate anonymously on this and most blogs/ websites. On this blog, NCNOW,  whenever one disagrees with Greenstein on this issue his response has frequently been hostile and men spirited. He has been accused of bullying and nastiness and the proof is in his many past comments. Why would one publish a nme and be subjected to that? Now that he is a candidate we can expect a softer RG -maybe. You say Greenstein has stood out front at town meetings and comment boards and I agree. But examine his words and his conflicting contradictions and he has little credibility. Just look at these comments. He is the candidate. It should be he answering the questions. Example- he wants credit for the idea of Whole Foods at CC but he also included in his older letter his own comment stating its not a good idea. So what is it? He refuses to address his very vocal support of Napoliville. And he won’t come clean about his running for Town Supervisor after he repeadtly stated he was not running. He is a Dem on a Republican ticket and he won’t disclose the circumstances- who chose him- what back room deal ( his words) took place? Like I said he is the candidate and if he was truly out front as you suggest he would answer.  But he would rather attack Chapin and the Board. And if you support retail at CC and our Board he will accuse you of working for
Summit Greenfield.

By Resident on 06/25/2013 at 9:30 pm

How safe is the New Castle Now web site? People that you don’t know or see in our town halls would love to know who is backing Mr. Rob Greenstein? Do you have any idea how ugly the people who control town hall can get? Do you think we have a very simple town hall? There are people in the community that if they openly supported Rob Greenstein for Supervisor, they would feel the full weight and burden of town hall in a very destructive and destroying way. The people of influence would even be able to reach into their place of employment. I hope that when posters post here, that indeed their identity is protected and not subject to being exposed. Some in the community know exactly how town hall works, and some maybe don’t want to acknowledge how town hall works, or perhaps look the other way, or worse, participate in certain agendas because they have no choice but to be corrupt. I hope that Greenstein is the real deal, because we need him to clean up town hall. Laugh all you want, go ahead and joke, but the service that NewCastlenow provides is so valuable, it can bring me to tears! RG, I hope you are real !!! Comical…..no….. this is no laughing matter. RG needs a really big wig to stand by him and guarantee his victory! Some people have just no idea or clue as to what really goes on! Thank you NewCastlenow for protecting everyones identity!

By Comical on 06/25/2013 at 9:59 pm

Bob- mr Chapin was correct when he pointed out the petition was flawed. I signed the petition because I was told and it was written in the petition that a sewage treatment plant was included in the Chapp Crossing development. Regardless of the weak excuse as to why false and misleading statements were in the petition, the fact remains that many people like me signed it believing the what it contained was true. When it was disclosed that many misstatements and lies were in the petition Greenstein continued to tout the many signatures he collected. When it came up at a Tiwn Board meeting when Greenstein Again bragged about all the signatures, Mr Chapin correctly, politely , and respectfully pointed out that the petition was inaccurate and therefore many signatures were likely obtained fraudulently as mine was. He did not trash anything or anybody.
I respect and admire the Town Board. They have a thankless job. The CC situation is difficult and the delays and obstruction must stop. Progress must be made and TB is moving in that direction. Mr Greenstein is now a candidate and instead of insulting the board he ought to clarify his own conflicting positions and explain his poor behavior.

By Robert - my real name on 06/25/2013 at 10:12 pm

To Bob:

Decicco’s and Mrs. Green and the Village Market are all successful specialty stores. It would have been fine with me if any of them had taken over the D’Agostino’s space.

By Jason Chapin, Town Board on 06/25/2013 at 11:22 pm


If Decicco’s and Mrs. Green had taken over the D’Agostino’s space would the Town Board had proposed to change the zoning at Chappaqua Crossing to allow for construction of a full-service grocery store and ancillary retail stores?




By Rob Greenstein on 06/26/2013 at 6:18 am

Mr. Chapin,

The Dags space had been a grocery for at least 50 years. If the town had had proper planning / zoning in place the Dags space could have been retained as grocery only.

Scurrying around at the last minute, as Ms. Mottel, did was foolish.  What the TB is doing now with its zoning change to retail at CC is foolish and short sighted.  All development should be on hold until the Master Plan update is finished.  All parts of the town should be included in the update.  That would be the responsible way to go.
There are existing supermarkets within a 5 mile drive in all directions.  Your call for the NEED of another supermarket with no study at all is foolish.

By Bob on 06/26/2013 at 7:33 am

So if the current board votes on the issue 6 months from now before the end of their term, how exactly is this “rushing” or “steamrolling”?  Especially given how long this has been going on?

By we're not fooled on 06/26/2013 at 7:35 am

Are you kidding me?  He is not the who is hostile and mean spirited.  Have you read the comments above? Who is attacking whom?  I have been reading Rob’s letters & comments for years, I have found him to be someone who is open to new ideas & opinions from others.  You may not like some of those ideas but there’s a benefit in discussing them…openly.  He is bringing people into the process & getting residents involved.  That’s exactly what we should want from our elected leaders. 

Enough of the nonsense on remaining anonymous. What’s “scarier”? Rob arguing a point in a manner that makes you uncomfortable or our elected officials making decisions that clearly oppose the wishes of the residents? Make yourself heard and known.

By David Bialek on 06/26/2013 at 7:37 am

I have real concerns that all of this overheated rhetoric so far out from the election will serve to make people even less likely to listen and vote.  We have at least two town-altering projects at critical point and we need as much of the electorate involved as possible.  This can only happen if conversations are calm and rational and not “he said, she said” sort with citations from long-ago articles.  Chappaqua commuters, parents, etc. are busy people—we don’t need history lessons but rather “real time” analysis of where things stand.

By Dawn Greenberg on 06/26/2013 at 7:45 am

To Robert-my real name,

I was at the public meeting when Chapin angrily trashed the petition.  You are wrong.
What you describe as inaccurate info was from the town’s own record, from the town’s counsel, Les Steinman.  You can blame the town for the confusion, but you won’t.  Whatever your reason for signing the petition your post implies that you think it is a good idea to back the proposed change to retail at CC. Why not say that?

By You are wrong on 06/26/2013 at 7:54 am

Really?  Have you read the posts above? Who is being hostile to whom? Also, I have been reading Rob’s letters & comments for years, I have found him to be someone who is open to new ideas & opinions from others.  You may not like some of those ideas but there’s a benefit in discussing them.  He is bringing people into the process & getting residents involved. That’s exactly what we should want from our elected leaders. My entry is not an indictment of the current board. It is simply a call for openness and honesty. Comments made by those who hide their names hold no merit. How do we know who is behind them. You, Mr. Resident, could be (for example) the same person posting all of the Greenstein opposition. How would we know?

If you are a sports fan, you would agree that there is nothing more frustrating and annoying than to have a player make “anonymous” unattributed comments to the press. My point is simply that back row sniping is unproductive. Be heard. Be known.

By Dave Bialek on 06/26/2013 at 10:09 am

Ms. Greenberg:

There might be more “calm and rational” discussions if Mr. Greenstein would cease writing letters like this one that make this whole situation out to be armagedddon.  “The fate of our community”, “The end of Chappaqua as we know it” and “death squads” are all terms used by him in describing this.  Please.

By the real deal on 06/26/2013 at 12:24 pm

Resident, I think what Bialek is trying to say is get a backbone.  Be a man like Greenstein & use your real name.

By Marc L. on 06/26/2013 at 12:31 pm

Mr Bialek,

You certainly make good points about our candidates being open to new views and bringing a breath of fresh air to the town electorate.  However, i respectfully disagree with your calling out those who do not use their own names.  If you have indeed been following past blogs, you would have witnessed very inflammatory and hostile responses from Mr. Greenstein when defending or asserting his positions. One needs to look no further than the title of this blog to get an indication of Mr. Greenstein’s style.

With respect to anonymous bloggers being the same person, that is just regurgitation of Mr. Greenstein’s view of anonymous bloggers, which wisdom i will allow to speak for itself.  Regarding our elected official’s opposing the wishes of the citizens; what wishes?  The wishes of those who signed a faulty petition, the wishes of about 100 anti CC development citizens who show up at town meetings from a town populous of around 17,000 . . .

In closing, I am not in favor of retail development at CC as currently proposed, but nor I am in favor of Mr. Greensteins scorched earth style which may in the end do more harm than good.

By FG on 06/26/2013 at 1:33 pm

Does seem like a reasonable request that Rob Greenstein answer some of those questions.

By Chapplifer on 06/26/2013 at 2:11 pm

I suggest you reread RG’s letter.  The Town Board has the right to vote on issues with 5 months left on their term.  However, they should not rush the vote to do just that.  They should not ignore negative advice from their own appointed Planning Board to do just that.  They should not push aside the Steering Committee & properly amending the master plan to do just that.

By Keep it Real on 06/26/2013 at 3:10 pm

FG, fair enough about your views. I just totally disagree with the anonymity. Who cares if Rob or anyone else is nasty? Does it really have any impact on your or anyone’s life? Find that hard to believe…
Feel free to call me Dave.

By Dave Bialek on 06/26/2013 at 8:52 pm

Armonk is leaving Chappaqua in the dust.  Armonk Square is incredible.  It’s amazing what can be accomplished with good planning.  Shame on us!

By Armonk envy on 06/27/2013 at 6:11 am

Does seem like a reasonable request that Jason Chapin answer some of these questions especially why Millwood was excluded from the market study?  Aren’t we part of New Castle as well?

By Millwood lifer on 06/27/2013 at 6:33 am

FG, your post demonstrates how the Democrats conventiently confuse apathy for a mandate.  The Democrats feed off that apathy. 

Those who are involved sign legitimate petitions (850 residents), and show up at town board meetings (> 100 residents).

As far as the other 16K residents, the Democrats confuse their apathy for a mandate.  It’s how the DEMS get elected (residents show up & vote down party lines), and it’s how they push thru their agenda.

That apathy might serve the interests of the DEMS but it doesn’t serve the interests of our community.

By Apathy runs rampant on 06/27/2013 at 7:03 am

for once and for all, Whole Foods will NEVER agree to open a store in chappaqua crossing. The density will not support it. Open your eyes and LOOK at all the other Whole Foods stores in the NY metro area. They are all strategically placed near high volume roadways (the SMP is not one) and in locations with reasonable commercial rent space. If Greenstein is making idiotic comments about a Whole Foods coming to this space, he should have his head examined. He clearly knows nothing about how the grocery business works!

By reality check on 06/27/2013 at 8:40 am

People, get a grip.  Like Dawn said, we have at least two town-altering projects at critical points.  Lets stop with the nonsense about hurt feelings because someone responded approriately when attacked.  Like someone else wrote, Armonk is leaving us in the dust.  We need real leadership right now.

By Mechant on 06/27/2013 at 9:15 am

This is not about Democrats vs Republicans.  This is about the sitting Board and how it approaches major decisions.  Agree or disagree, but it is not about party affiliation.  That is just an angle used to disparage them. 

Many of the 850 were duped into signing a petition that was erroneous.  Stop using that as ammunition.  100 residents showing up at Board meetings could just be the vocal minority.  I agree that this decision needs to be taken slowly and thoughtfully but some of the arguements on this board are really foolish.

By Stop with the Democrat nonsense on 06/27/2013 at 9:16 am

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t Armonk Square similar to what Napoli is proposing?  It’s a row of stores behind an existing row of stores which face their main street.  Plus, Napoli’s plan would add parking, add a turf field & a performing arts center. 

Armonk made their downtown stronger.  I commend their leaders for their vision. 

No offense to the people who fear change, but if you’re not in favor of progress, move!

By Be Like Armonk on 06/27/2013 at 9:54 am

What everyone needs to understand is that all politicians have pet projects, and town boards are no exception.  Pet projects serve to the benefit of only a few and cost everyone one else money and problems.  The proposed retail at Chappaqua Crossing and the Conifer Affordable Housing proposal are the PET PROJECTS of Supervisor Carpenter and Councilman Stout.  If they were TRUE representatives of the town, these projects would have been cancelled long ago.  Supervisor Carpenter and Councilman Stout want to have their names associated with approving BIG projects even though the overwhelming majority of the Town they are SUPPOSE to represent DOES NOT WANT THEM!!!

By pet projects on 06/27/2013 at 10:33 am

Dave Bialek, are you Rob’s business partner?  Why don’t you state that?  Rob Greenstein when you say (over and over) that Penny stated publicly that the Board would vote on the issues before the new Board why don’t you let everyone know she said (something along those lines—more like those issues would probably be resolved before next year) that on chappaqua moms in the context of you attacking her the day she announced that she was going to run.  I remember at the same time she said she was not going to run her campaign on any type of blog and that she would be making her statements on issues publicly.  It is probably why no one has heard from her here. She told me she will be making her views known.  If you see her ask her. She is more than willing to speak with anyone about anything.  She’s around Town all weekend and you certainly know where to find her during the week.

By Let's be transparent please on 06/27/2013 at 10:46 am

Armonk also has traffic lights.  Gasp.  Like they say, you’re either moving forward or getting left behind.  We are behind.  We need to move forward.  We need a change. 


By Merchant on 06/27/2013 at 12:16 pm

I remember that exchange on Chappaqua Moms between Rob & Penny. If I remember correctly, Penny also stated she will not respond to people who are not asking questions respectfully.  So, remember to be respectful when asking her questions.  Penny has a sharp tongue & she’s not afraid to use it.

By Chappaqua Mom on 06/27/2013 at 12:46 pm

“Let’s be transparent please”,
Rob is an attorney. I run a sports marketing company. So, no. We are not business partners.
My sole point here is that if you are going to attack one’s credibility, attach your name. I continue to attach mine, I welcome you to do the same.

By Dave Bialek on 06/27/2013 at 2:02 pm

To Chappaqua Mom
Rob attacked Penny the day she announced she was running.  Sharp tongue or just wanting people to be respectful of one another.  Please re-read the post. I have never seen Penny to be sharp with anyone unless provoked.

By another chappaqua mom on 06/27/2013 at 2:37 pm

I have just read all these comments. Wow! 

Someone said Rob Greenstein was one of the main reasons why the town has been at a standstill, for years.  Someone else called for an investigation of him.  He was called naive, disingenuous & dishonest.  He was questioned about possible secret business relationships with both Napoli & Mr. Bialek. 

It seems apparent to me that those making these nasty attacks are very likely affiliated with the political machine that runs New Castle.  The are fighting for their political lives.

Rob is fighting for us.  Thank you, Rob!

By Merchant on 06/27/2013 at 2:56 pm

Wouldn’t it be great if the Democratic political machine were as passionate about doing what’s best for New Castle as they are about protecting their jobs.

By 10546 on 06/27/2013 at 3:44 pm

No one should question whether Mr. Greenstein zealous represents the best interests of the merchants by thwarting competition from a third retail location. However, as a candidate for town supervisor we can question whether these poignant views zealously represents the best interests of the community at large.  There are those, whether a “minority” or “majority” (which outside of a referendum, we will never truly know what it is) who would welcome with zeal shopping that is alternative to what is currently available in our existing hamlets.  Why does such a third shopping district mean the demise of our existing hamlets and causation of the destructive fate of our town? I, for one, cannot imagine leaving my dry cleaner service in chapp nor pharma (and gift needs) from drugmart in millwood regardless of what moves into CC.

By FG on 06/27/2013 at 4:24 pm

Our community could use some passion on the Town Board.  Love him or hate him, Rob is passionate!  He did a wonderful job with the chamber.  Believe you me dealing with some of us ain’t easy.  He can dish it out but he can take it also.

By Another merchant on 06/27/2013 at 4:27 pm

FG, we are finally making some progress in downtown Chappaqua and now this.  I am a taxpayer just like the owner of Chappaqua Crossing.  My interests should be taken into consideration as well.  I talk to my customers all day long.  They do not want 15 new chain stores.  They want the town to focus on downtown Chappaqua.  They appreciate what Rob has done for downtown Chappaqua, and so do I.  Where is the support fot this project?  I don’t see it. 

By Merchant on 06/27/2013 at 5:23 pm

Comical makes a scary point about the need for all of us to protect our identities on this blog.  Call me naive but I had no idea how ugly the people who control town hall can get.  Apparently, “there are people in the community that if they openly supported Rob Greenstein for Supervisor, they would feel the full weight and burden of town hall in a very destructive and destroying way”.

That’s scary stuff.

But, as we know, town hall is a building filled with people who work inside.  Who are these destructive people inside town hall?  Are they employees, like Penny.  Are they town board members? 

Are Penny & town board members aware of such activity?  Shouldn’t they be held accountable for their actions &/or those working under them?

By Scared on 06/27/2013 at 8:24 pm

Let’s face it—Mr. Greenstein is using this forum to further his political aspirations and to further the interests of the merchants in town.  Many of us would love a grocery store at Chappaqua Crossing, and he has sided with the interests of the merchants in town over many of our wishes.  And many of us realize that the town board is only doing its job in working towards approving affordable housing at Hunts Lane; Greenstein and the vocal opponents have come up with no alternative to meet our obligations under the housing settlement, or to meet our obligations under the Chappaqua Crossing Lawsuit.  I am sick of all his complaining, without coming up with any solutions.  It would be financial and legal suicide for the to turn down both of these proposals, and we taxpayers would have to pay.  The town would suffer financially and risk HUD invoking eminent domain, building big buildings wherever they want if Hunts Lane is not approved. Thank you, town board, for putting up with all the abuse you have put up with over the past 2 years.  I pray that Penny, John and Michael get elected.

By No solutions is not a strategy on 06/28/2013 at 7:50 am

Put both issues to a poll this November. Let’s debate the pros, cons, risks & rewards.  Please don’t use baseless claims of what the residents want to push thru your agenda.  We are not idiots.

By Marc L. on 06/28/2013 at 9:03 am

No Solutions is not a strategy,

I noticed that your did not mention the 15 chain stores @ Chappaqua Crossing.  You also sounds like someone not willing to stand up for your principles.  I sincerely hope you are not our town attorney.  It is scare tactics like this that demonstrate why having a former supervisor with a political agenda as our town attorney is not the best choice for our community.

By Keep it Real on 06/28/2013 at 9:33 am

I can’t believe my eyes!!! You change like the wind.NO we don’t want a supermarket at chapp. Crossing!!!

By HFR on 06/28/2013 at 12:14 pm

To Keep it Real,

Are you serious about the scare tactic allegations regarding a lawsuit that was already filed or one that will be filed if the town does not meet its affordable housing obligations? Those are undeniable facts and not scare tactics . . . examples of scare tactics, could be, let’s say, sewage treatment plants, neon signs, roaming death squads, the destruction of our existing shopping hamlets, the fate of our town, inept (to put nicely) board members, etc . . . and to top it off you make the baseless allegation that the post was written by the Town Attorney, this sounds like the smear tactic platform of someone running for town supervisor . . .

By Chapp Resident on 06/28/2013 at 12:52 pm

to: By No Solutions Is Not a Strategy
” It would be financial and legal suicide for the town to turn down both of these proposals, and we taxpayers would have to pay.”

Not sure where you learned about financial & legal suicide;nobody that I am aware of has stated what the financial ramifications are (for our town) if retail is approved or not approved at C.C. I will remind you also that the property was approved for housing….but nothing has been built. If retail is approved, the property will definitely be worth a lot more. How do you know whether SG’s real aim is just to sell the property to another developer and re-coop some of their loss?

By M.Harris on 06/28/2013 at 1:45 pm

I am a regular reader/poster on this site but this particular discussion is making my head spin.  It is not advancing communication—too vicious for one thing.  We all have to calm down and be mature!

By Oy oy oy on 06/29/2013 at 5:55 pm

Should of had a “Hey” in front of RG ! Example: Hey RG. Should not have been just the two letters R ....G

By Correction! on 06/30/2013 at 11:24 am

It is an awful lot easier for a current board member to make a decision on this hotly contested Conifer issue if that person will not be around to deal with future heat once the project is built.  For example, at the first car accident at the bottom of the off ramp from the Saw Mill, and there will be many of those, there will be tremendous outcry directed at all who voted for this project.  Same for the first emergency response causing difficulties for the fireman and delays in getting help and requiring the closing of the Saw Mill.  Same for kids darting in and out of traffic causing as they try to get to the only green space they have by the Bell School.  I am fearful for them and the drivers. Well, if you are not going to be in office or on the board when any multitude of the inevitably becomes a reality, it ain’t your problem gonna be your problem is it?  Human nature tells you that makes a current vote so much easier.

By Human Nature on 07/01/2013 at 9:56 am

@Human Nature,

Every year there are members of the Town Board that are either transitioning in or transitioning out. Does that mean they should never make an important decision because they won’t have to deal with the consequences?  The Town would be paralyzed by this way of thinking.

By A common occurrance on 07/02/2013 at 9:01 am

I sincerely disagree with your perspective.  I have lived here a long, long time.  It is very uncommon for a New Castle town board to be faced with a truly major decision like Conifer that will impact the community for many generations to come (then of course there is Chappaqua Crossing, but I am dealing just with Conifer).  Yes, the board makes “important” decisions routinely, but Conifer is way more than that and a vote to allow the building will impact me and everyone else in the community, including those living in such an unfortunate location, for as long as I am alive that is for sure.  It cannot be undone!

By Human Nature on 07/02/2013 at 2:19 pm

To A common occurance: (sic) There is a most important difference between the current Town Board and the many Town Boards that have preceeded it.  The current Town Board has seen fit to initiate and shepherd through to completion two proposals, Hunts Lane and Chappaqua Crossing, that do not have the support of the community.  The Town Board is ignoring: advice from the Planning Board, advice from the Architectural Review Board, current zoning laws, the Town’s Master Plan and the vociferous opposition by townspeople that own this town - and appears poised to approve these two proposals on their way out the door.  Never before in New Castle has a Town Board seized control of the very future of our town.  Since the Town Board answers to no man (or woman) and their carefully scripted actions are vetted and protected by the Town’s Attorney, the best we can hope for is public outcry by New Castle lovers such as Rob Greenstein causing enough shame to fall upon the current Town Board to make them do the right thing for New Castle.  In this case, that means waiting for the Master Plan to be updated and for appropriate studies regarding the proposed developments to be completed.  If the Town Board is so confident that it is doing the right thing for New Castle, why the rush, since the next Town Board would surely approve both projects based upon their individual merits.  It is precisely because the Town Board knows there is no support for these two proposals that it fears if they do not as approve them now before the end of their term, they will never be approved.  Perhaps the only thing this out of control Town Board will be stopped by is a Lawsuit, since, sadly, that seems to be the one thing that the members of the Town Board fear the most.

By B on 07/03/2013 at 4:50 pm

I for one would be very happy to have a Whole Foods nearby. I’ve also read that Equinox would be interested in coming to Chappaqua Crossing. Another great new addition in my opinion. These high end tenants would only help to increase our property value and make the area more attractive. Putting high end retail into Chappaqua Crossing would not detract from downtown Chappaqua at all. It would bring more interest and business to the area. Blocking progress will make the area stagnant and stodgy.

Editor’s Note: This article is OLD.  Your comment won’t be seen here.  Find an appropriate article on the front page—this one should do:


and submit your comment (or another) again?

By Resident Foodie on 03/06/2014 at 9:51 pm

Post a comment:

Display Name*:

Your Display Name will be associated with this comment on NewCastleNOW.org. We encourage commentators to use their real name or initials.

We encourage civil, civic discourse. In other words, be pithy and polite. All comments will be reviewed before publication to assure that this standard is met.