Board of Ed votes 4-1 to sign petition requiring super majority vote by town bd on Chap Xing
[With 46 COMMENTS since Monday]
Monday, November 1, 2010
by Susie Pender
At its 7:45 a.m. special school board meeting this morning, the members of the board of education of the Chappaqua Central School District voted 4-1 in favor of requiring a super majority vote of the town board to approve the zoning change requested for the proposed Chappaqua Crossing development.
Board President Janet Benton, the only member who voted against the resolution to sign the petition, cited two reasons. “As a board member, I feel uncomfortable taking an action that makes it harder for another board to do its job,” she stated as her major objection. Her vote was also based on what she perceives as the appropriate role of the school board under these circumstances. “It is the school board’s role to show our concerns and provide information and analysis to make the town board as informed as it can be.”
She noted, in addition, that the district’s support of this petition was “not particularly important,” since, as she understood it, the organizers had obtained more than enough signatures for the petition to be effective in accomplishing its goal of requiring a super majority. With a five-member town board, action by super majority vote requires four members to vote in agreement. Two members of the five-member town board have already recused themselves from the vote due to conflicts of interest.
Board Member Randy Katchis stated, “This is a door we can walk both in and out of. We have the ability to remove our signature from this petition if the effect on the school district [of the Chappaqua Crossing development] changes and mitigates our concerns.”
Board Member Jeffrey Mester pointed out in voting to sign this petition, the school board is not taking a position on the merits of the Chappaqua Crossing proposal.
From Friday, October 29, 2010:
Board of Ed calls for special meeting on Chappaqua Crossing, Mon., Nov. 1 at 7:45 a.m.
The Board of Education of the Chappaqua Central School District has announced a special meeting for this Monday, November 1, at 7:45 a.m. in Room 204 at Grafflin Elementary School to discuss, according to the notice of the meeting, a “Chappaqua Crossing Development Proposal Resolution pursuant to Town Law §265.”
On Friday, October 22, the Cowdin Lane Homeowners Association hand-delivered a petition to the Education Center on Roaring Brook Road, which they are asking the school board to sign on behalf of the district, which is a property owner adjacent to Chappaqua Crossing.
According to School Board President Janet Benton, the school board will meet briefly in executive session, if necessary, at 7:45 a.m. to discuss the petition with the district’s counsel. They will promptly reconvene in public session to consider the petition request. “We could approve the signing of it, decide not to sign it or table it,” explained Benton.
According to Rob Greenstein, one of the organizers of this petition drive, the Cowdin Lane Homeowners Association plans to file their petition with the town board sometime on Monday, November 1. They believe they already have sufficient signatures of adjacent property owners to meet the 20% requirement.
Town Law §265: A tool for property owners directly impacted by a zoning change
Under Town Law §265, which is a state law with statewide application, property owners who live adjacent to a property that is subject to a rezoning application can protest the rezoning by signing a petition indicating their objection to the rezoning. If owners representing 20% of the adjacent property sign the petition, then the town board can only approve the rezoning application by a super majority vote. In the case of a five-person board, that would mean four votes to approve the rezoning.
Of the five members of the New Castle Town Board, two members, Elise Mottel and John Buckley have recused themselves from voting on the Chappaqua Crossing rezoning application due to actual conflicts of interest or the perception of conflicts of interest. That only leaves three members to vote on the application: Town Supervisor Barbara Gerrard, Robin Stout and Michael Wolfensohn.
Case law concerning Town Law §265 indicates that the calculation for the super majority is based on the total number of board members and not on the number of board members who are available after recusals. It also makes clear that this super majority requirement trumps other considerations, such as the fact that members have recused themselves.
Technical requirements of a Town Law §265 petition
There are three ways to mount a protest to a rezoning application under Town Law §265:
1. People who actually live within the area to be rezoned can file a petition, which is obviously not applicable in the case of Chappaqua Crossing.
2. If owners of 20% of the property that is immediately adjacent to the property proposed to be rezoned sign a petition protesting the rezoning AND their property is within 100 feet of the property being rezoned, they can require a super majority vote by the town board.
3. If owners of 20% of the property along the frontage of the property proposed to be rezoned sign a petition protesting the rezoning AND their property is within 100 feet of the property being rezoned, they can require a super majority vote by the town board.
Under the second methodology, property owners on Roaring Brook Road, Cowdin Lane and Bedford Road may be eligible to sign a petition as long as their property is within 100 feet of Chappaqua Crossing.
Under the third methodology, the frontage of the Chappaqua Crossing property is determined by reference to local town code defining “frontage,” which is typically the front of the property. With its irregular shape, disparate lengths of sides and the orientation of the buildings on the property, it would appear that the frontage of Chappaqua Crossing is Roaring Brook Road. The Education Center and the entire Horace Greeley High School property could be considered in calculating 20% of the property owners along the frontage of Chappaqua Crossing, which is why residents approached the school district to sign this petition.
___________
Need to catch up what’s happening with Chappaqua Crossing? Visit NCNOW’s archives for a complete list of all articles and letters to the editor on this subject, in chronological order, newest to oldest, by clicking HERE.
Very, very well played!
After all of the clamoring about listening to the voice of the people and calls to use the democratic, electoral process to replace the Town Board and/or put the rezoning up for a referendum, the new plan is to give a handful of residents veto power over any rezoning of the RD property. How fortunate that Councilman Buckley recused himself before this petition was presented.
If the School Board signs on, it will send a crystal clear signal that Town residents who don’t live in the CCSD are truly “outsiders” whose views on Town matters can be safely ignored. A petition of our own seeking to consolidate with the Town of Ossining is looking better and better. Can we count on the CCSD residents’ support when our petition comes before the Town Board?
“Under Town Law §265, which is a state law with statewide application,...”
A state law with statewide applications? You don’t say?!?!? C’mon NCN, you can write better than that. You’re writing about the schools after all.
THINK ABOUT A 65% INCREASE OF PROPERTY TAX OVER THE NEXT 6 YEARS. THEN AN IRREVERSIBLE CHANGE TO THE SCHOOL SYSTEM. RESULTING IN THE END OF CHAPPAQUA AS YOU KNOW IT TODAY. OR, JUST PAY THE TAXES NEEDED, THINK OF IT AS AN INCREASE COST OF BEING CHAPPAQUA; AND FORGET THE HOUSING PROJECT.
@ West Ender
IF the school board signs on it simply means that the school board is acting as a fiduciary to its residents. You are not suggesting that the CCSD school board consider people in the Ossining school district are you? They weren’t elected by them. It is the town board that has to decide this not the school board. The school board is simply asking that the project in its present form be modified by either making all the units but the county stipulation ones fee simple or having the developer put up a bond against his number 58 students. There are probably a few other ways to mitigate the risk also. You yourself have said you had no issue with those solutions.
It seems as if that state law simply says that with a zoning change this big and this important that you need a super majority of the town board. It is still in the town board’s hands.
Does this mean we would need two new Board members to have a valid vote for any rezoning?
West Ender,
This law exists for a reason. Rezonings are a big, big deal. Especially Chappaqua Crossing. The school board members have a fiduciary duty to protect it students and taxpayers. The traffic at the high school is horrific and the proposed development will substantially increase the dangers to the students. Shouldn’t the school board vote to protect its students in any way possible?? Isn’t that the whole point of being a fiduciary?
What don’t you get???
@to West Ender….there you go again. Law 265 exists for a reason and this is exactly the type of circumstance when it should be invoked. Hats off to CCSD Board! An outsider, in this case a developer, buys commercial parcel of land (readers digest - now Chapp Crossing) and now wishes the Town Board to change zoning so that the developer may build residential tax advantaged condos at the expense and hardship of residents. The CCSD Board exists to oversee the school districts interests and should certainly use every measure available to them. As I said- Law 265 exists for this very reason. In your world, that of an OUTSIDER and not in the CCSD, you would prefer that our school board look out for your interests over the interests of residents, neighbors, and school district homeowners. As usual West Ender, your self serving transparent interests come shining through. Best you not distract the rest of us from the real issue here. Perhaps you should focus your energy and work with your school board - Ossining- so that it may improve and enhance your home value
@Stuck in the Middle
I agree that the CCSD board should not consider the impact on those living outside the district when they decide on this request. I also agree that the New Castle Town Board should be making the final decision on zoning changes. This petition is not about forcing the Town Board to ensure that the school district is not adversely impacted financially, it is about tying the Town Board’s hands and preventing them from approving any zoning change without the approval of a tiny number of property owners who adjoin the RD property.
I haven’t checked the tax maps yet, but a quick count online shows perhaps 30-35 properties other than those owned by the CCSD that may qualify for signing a petition under the law cited above. If everything plays out as stated in the article, less than 10 property owners (since 20% have to sign on and I assume they already have) now have an effective veto over any zoning changes to the RD property. I think it would be unseemly for the CCSD Board to participate in a scheme that prevents the elected government of the Town from making land use decisions that are clearly not the responsibility of the school district.
continued…
continued from above…
With two members already recused, it is impossible to get a supermajority vote on a five member board. Simply filing a valid petition effectively prevents the Town Board from approving a zoning change, even if all three remaining members vote in favor. West End residents have seen our attempts in Albany to get segment equalization rates fail using similar logic. Our application received two affirmative votes on a five member board with one vacancy and one member who had not attended meetings for months due to illness. A 2-1 vote by those present in favor of our application was still a “No”. In the case of Chappaqua Crossing, even a 3-0 vote for a zoning change would still fail becuase the required supermajority is 4 votes in favor.
I would prefer a compromise solution that mitigates the potential financial impact on the CCSD and maintains (or increases) the Town’s tax revenue from Chappaqua Crossing. Others have stated that they are opposed to residential development no matter what, and if the potential financial impact to the CCSD fails to stop a zoning change they will simply look for another avenue to preserve the status quo. I believe that with this provision of state law they may have found it.
If those opposed to a zoning change can persuade a majority of the Town Board to vote against the change, I may disagree, but have to respect both the process and the outcome. Allowing a handful of residents to prevent the Town Board from making a decision (either for or against) we empowered them to make when we elected them is unseemly and decidedly undemocratic.
The asking for a bond is a great idea—let the developer put his money where his mouth is. If he is right—and really believes it—that there will merely be 40-50-60 student, it would be a small cost compared to his overall profits. If he is wrong—and how could he possibly be right?—then he is held to be responsible to his (often repeated, in flyer after flyer) promises as to how the development will lower taxes. This taxpayer cannot imagine how 170+ new housing units in Chappaqua could generate only four or five dozen students.
West Ender, Town Law §265 is a state statute that has been on the books for over 100 years. The legislature intended that property owners most affected by a proposed zoning change have the ability to require the super-majority. This is why the statute has strict standing requirements (adjacent and 100 feet). Cowdin and other residents are simply exercising a longstanding right provided under state law. No one disputes that the RD rezoning will significantly impact the Town for years, if not generations. As such, it is entirely appropriate that a decision this important be put to a super-majority vote.
This isn’t the resident’s fault if they cannot have a valid vote. It is the town board members who have conflicts. The town can challenge this petition (which would be a good indication of which way they are leaning on this decision), they could I guess try to bring back a recused member (difficult I imagine) or the developer could challenge this and/or amend his application so that this is not an issue. It brings him to the negotiating table, right?
Or, the developer could sell to the Donald. Here is an article in The Patch (http://chappaqua.patch.com/articles/rep-trump-intereseted-in-chappaqua-crossing-if-current-proposal-fails) that indicates that Trumps rep says the Donald might have an interest in building a museum or something.
@Rob Greenstein
If you want to require a supermajority vote of the Town Board by invoking Town Law Sec. 265, you are well within your rights to do so. Can you please explain to me how a supermajority vote of four “Ayes” is possible when two of the five Town Board members have recused themselves. You are not requiring a supermajority vote because there can be no supermajority vote by the current board. By calling for and obtaining Buckley’s recusal, the Cowdin residents are now using Town Law Sec. 265 to obtain a veto on any land use decision regarding Chappaqua Crossing that they disagree with.
There are thousands of property owners in New Castle and tens of thousands of voters. Do you believe that it is “entirely appropriate” that less than a dozen property owners adjacent to the RD property have the right to overrule the elected Town Board if they disagree with a zoning change? If you truly believe that a supermajority vote is “entirely appropriate”, let the full five member board vote.
If you have the signatures to file a vaild petition without the CCSD signing on, go ahead and do it. Don’t make the school district your accomplice in this end-run around our democratic system.
My suspicions are now confirmed. West Ender IS Summit Greenfield.
It’s been the west end of Connecticut all along!
Apparently, we are not allowed to comment and refer to another blog. So think of the thing a pirate wears over their eye, put the name of our town that begins with a “c” in front of it with a period between the two words followed by a dot com and you will see an article that refers to Donald Trump having an interest in the property as a commercial venture. It shows that there are alternatives to shoving through a zoning change that has no benefit to the town and bails out the developer.
If the comment publication standard is civil, civic discourse, pithy and polite discourse as noted at the bottom of the page, it is too bad NCN is afraid of mentioning another blog.
West Ender,
Do you believe that it is “entirely appropriate” that an elected Town Board disregards the concerns of the overwhelming majority of the residents? Do you believe that it is “entirely appropriate” to let 2 recused board members vote with admitted conflicts of interest?
You are off way off with the number of voters in New Castle, as well as the number of property owners who have signed the petition. And, by the way, the school district is not an accomplice, they are an adjacent property owner exercising their rights and, more importantly, fulfilling their duty to our community.
And don’t despair, there are other options for that beautiful piece of property….... representatives for Donald Trump called the Town weeks ago and are still waiting for a return call?!?!?!
@Tough Luck
If I were Summit Greenfield, I would sell the property to Donald Trump.
Nice try West Ender! We know who you are.
Agree with “Tough Luck.”
West Ender’s arguments are obviously those of lawyers. (just look at the language.) Hmmm,wonder whose lawyers they could be.
Bet the S-G lawyers are very busy. There is a frantic tone to their blogs.
Do they get double time over the weekend?
West Ender,
You are Summit Greenfield. So why don’t you sell the property to Donald Trump?
Janet Benton, what guts and principle. As much as people may be against Chappaqua Crossing, it doesn’t mean we throw out our principles and processes (and maybe laws) just to get our way. We are seeing a much larger version of this in the White House, where President Obama has thrown out law and forced companies to break contracts via threats and intimidation (witness Chrysler and its creditors) and the manipulation of the Constitution in passing a healthcare bill that never had a vote.
Shame on the 4 members of the Board—I love you guys and appreciate the work you do for us, but this was way out of line. You’ll get away with it, but it’s way out of line. My experience is that such victories don’t taste very good after they’ve sat around for a while.
West Ender, you disagree with other posters here, and you write like a lawyer (and maybe you are)....therefore you are Summit Greenfield. After all, what sane, reasonable person could possibly disagree with the obvious facts that Chappaqua Crossing should remain an empty shell, producing no tax revenue and leaving us with constant tax increases and no source to backfill the hole? This is so ugly, people.
And can’t you just see those poor, shy and demure Trump people sitting at their desks staring at their phones, their fingers crossed, waiting anxiously for New Castle to call so they can build their museum? Their feelings hurt because Barbara Gerrard blew them off (allegedly, zero facts to support this). Wake up.
If they buy it, my prediction is they will buy it and bring in their lawyers and kick our butts and turn the property into absolutely anything they want. And suddenly negotiating in good faith with Summit Greenfield will be nothing but a deep regret of the just say no crowd.
I know, I know. I must be Summit Greenfield too.
Well, clittle, you certainly argue on the side of SG, but that doesn’t mean you are SG. I think it does mean, however, that you are in the minority on this issue.
Where are the masses that support this development? I’m not seeing them anywhere. What we do seem to have though, is a town board of only three people to decide on a very major issue, and it is raising a lot of concern. I think residents are trying to look out for themselves, and why not?
Do you disagree with the right of those residents immediately affected by the zoning change to require a super majority? I would want that right if it was me.
Don’t assume your taxes are going to go up if SG doesn’t get what it wants. Unfortunately, you can probably assume that your property value will go down if it does. Is that how you want to get your tax break? I don’t.
Clittle,
You seem to be misguided. How you can say it is out of line for the 4 members of the school board for voting to protect its students and precisely an action based on principle. They supported an established law that is designed to protect landholders from capricious rezoning decisions. I commend them for what they did and candidly, have to question Janet Benton’s vote. Isn’t it more important to protect students than to march in lockstep with the town board simply to be cordial? I believe that is how our town and country have gotten into trouble - politics above principles…
I voted to sign the petition. Here is a link to my reasoning behind the vote. http://blog.newcastlealternative.com/
I applaud the CCSD for doing the right thing, and for JSM for sharing his thoughts with us. This is the type of openness that we need, and many feel we are not getting from the Town Board.
If the Town Board wont protect its residents then the school board should! Chappaqua Crossing’s bid to go residential is an end around designed to mitigate the developer’s bad timing and decision. Law 265 exists to protect residents and tax payers. Residents-tax payers should enforce whatever necessary to prevent this rezoning. Shame on Janet Benton for not supporting this. She claims she did not want to make the Town Board’s job more difficult. She ignores that the town board has not been acting in residents’ best interest. So why should she care about protecting them? She also states that she doesn’t think the school board should get involved in the town board’s business. Rezoning Chapp Crossing to residential will greatly impact our schools therefore it is a school board matter. Perhaps Ms Benton is still stuck in the past when she pushed through Seven Bridges Middle School and split our small community in half. We will forever be paying for that huge mistake - thank you Janet.
@To CLITTLE…you applaud Janet Benton for her guts and “principles over process” stand. I disagree. She voted NO so as not to offend the Town Board. She didn’t want to make their job tougher and in so doing she turned her back on her primary responsibility which is to serve the students (and their tax paying parents) of CCSD. Law 265 exists to protect a community. Voting to enforce a law that already exists is the fiduciary responsibility of our elected officials. You made a comparison to White House politics in your comment sighting “throwing out laws…intimidation. and throwing out laws without a vote”. The school board voted to uphold an existing law and procedural vote that is intended to protect residents. Residents pay taxes that support the school system. Zoning changes impact the school district, it’s budget, and ability to properly educate (class size, resources, busing etc). So of course the school board should weigh in on this. I wonder what Janet Benton is thinking to shirk her responsibility to us.
This is a town board decision, not a school board decision. The school board is playing on the wrong field. The schools are impacted by what happens at Reader’s Digest, but this is for the town board to determine with input from the school board. I haven’t spoken to Janet or reviewed her position in detail (but will try to see where she has expressed it so I understand in more detail) but no one on that board is more qualified and knowledgeable about the rules, processes, and principles than her—and she has been beyond outstanding running our school board over the years. Her vote should give everyone pause—why would someone so good, so balanced, so knowledgeable, so concerned with the welfare of our children, vote against the school board’s role in this???? Unfortunately many in the anti-SG crowd don’t want to think about this, and for that matter don’t care about the legal or appropriateness of the school board doing this—they just know that the board voted with them, and right or wrong they are glad. This is where democracies begin to break down (a little dramatic but you get the idea).
@To CLITTLE…Not sure where you are coming from. IF as you say “the schools are impacted by what happens at Readers Digest” then of course the School Board should weigh in on this. The school board (ex - J Benton)are upholding its responsibility to the students and their tax paying parents by getting and staying involved in this debate. Voting to uphold a law that exists to protect our community and schools is exactly what they should be doing. They are playing on the appropriate field- you CLITTLE are on the wrong field.
As far as your unwavering support and praise for Janet…perhaps you should recall the contentious and divisive debate years ago that resulted in building an unnecessary middle school that is currently underutilized and responsible for our out of control school budget. With J Benton at the charge the school board ignored demographic experts that told us that the student population would decline (and it did) making this school an expensive permanent drain. The resulting redistricting divided our small community while we see many local communities larger and smaller than ours thrive with one middle school and one high school. Had that middle school not been built, our taxes would be lower and our schools would be sufficiently filled to better mount a push back against Summit Greenfield. Because of excess capacity in our schools it is difficult to argue that Chapp Crossing would strain capacity. I am surprised you don’t see the result of Seven Bridges School…
I agree with you - her vote should give everyone pause- we should recognize that she is more concerned with upsetting the Town Board than protecting the community. Last I checked the town board approved a $200k gazebo, eliminated twice weekly garbage pick-up without community input, retired many workers not to be replaced (indicating they probably weren’t needed all along). I think it’s time others challenged the Town Board and I applaud our school board for doing it!
@CLITTLE… did you say JB is so concerned with our children? My children were split apart from many of their friends and forced to go to the “new” middle school years ago. It was traumatic and extremely unsettling for many of us. After the fact many have admitted that they should have voted against Seven Bridges but they blindly followed the wisdom of the CCSD school board then in control. Apathy by many in the community who did not turn out to vote resulted in a close passage of a huge budget and building of Seven Bridges- which is now terribly underutilized. CLITTLE, you do not speak for me and the many others that watched our kids separate from their elementary school friends as we were redistricted to new school. Is that what you mean when you say she is concerned with the welfare of our children? Certainly not my children.
@Clittle….so the other 4 school board members are wrong? and only Janet is right? Only she is balanced and concerned with the welfare of our children?I am in the anti-SG crowd and think the 4 CCSD board members that voted in favor are in fact looking out for my best interests and that of my school age children.
I just moved to Chappaqua and I am trying to get up to speed on this debate. I have read several posts about the disadvantages of the new condos, and they seem to make sense because the risk seems to be on the taxpayer and not the developer. However, can someone explain the advantages of adding the new condos? It doesn’t seem like the incremental property tax generated outweighs the potential risk of increased school taxes.
Isn’t it strange how West Ender disappeared after being called out (the language was a dead giveaway) and now “Clittle” appears arguing that they are NOT using legal language?!
Someone is upset by this new development—the CCSD vote.
Clittle,
Such consistent and urgent lobbying for Chappaqua Crossing and your rush to defend West Ender and deny their possible involvement.
“Methinks thou doth protest too much.”
I didn’t disappear, I’ve been very busy getting all of my paperwork in order since now I have to sue both the Town and School Boards 
Come on… Do you really think that Summit Greenfield or their attorneys would really post anonymously here? If I were directly involved, I would think I had enough common sense to stay off local blogs.
I’m exactly what I claim to be, a resident of the West End who wants to see the tax revenue to the town from Chappaqua Crossing increase. If you live in the CCSD, then an increase in town tax can be offset by a decrease (or smaller increase) in school tax. For those of us outside the CCSD, an increase in town tax is just an increase in town tax (which many of us would gladly shoulder, however, if there was a town wide revaluation at market value that freed us from the CCSD-centric equalization rate).
2011 is right around the corner. Anyone want to run for town supervisor or town board?
This is so sad. This is the level opponents of SG will stoop to. It says a lot about the intellectual integrity of many (not all, probably not even a majority…but very influential) group who “just say no”. How a community of so many intelligent and accomplished people devolves into this I just don’t understand.
Clittle, clearly you have very cartoonish view of what the opponents of the proposal to redevelop the RD property really oppose or stand for. Both you and those talking to you through this comment section should stop taking the bait. You both sound as though you just love to hear (or read) yourselves talking. Spare others the accusations and the hand-wringing. Just stick to the arguments.
The zoning belongs to the people of New Castle. They may change it or deny a change to it. Neither the developer nor the town board has made the case that the town of New Castle will benefit from what the developer now proposes. Many indicators point not only to “no benefit” but to REAL COST for the town. I think the town is very lucky that opponents of the proposal have really applied their brains to examining this project with clear heads despite the spin we’ve all be subjected to. Spin from the developer, silence from our representatives.
To CLITTLE…Perhaps our community as described by you as intelligent and accomplished, understands the risks associated with Chapp Crossing and its negative financial ramifications. After all we are intelligent and accomplished. We got here by making intelligent choices, exercising our rights, evaluating opportunities, and making choices. The vast majority of us choose to oppose SG because we see them as an outsider trying to game the system. They bought a commercial parcel of property and very quickly decided to turn it residential. First with senior housing, then with condos, now with a variation of condos, etc. They presented a ridiculously low estimation of the number of students living there and continue to back peddle and change. We can ill afford to allow a high-density condo development which would require the rest of us to subsidize students living in Chapp Crossing. Higher taxes for the rest of us so SG can recoup some of its bad investment is simply NOT an option. So put me in the “just say no” camp as well. I see no upside to increased taxes, increased traffic, increased student population, endless construction and disruption. What for? So SG can be made whole on a poorly timed investment. SG should be spending money and energy focused on making Chapp Crossing a desirable commercial campus so that when the economy turns they will once again have commercial tenants. This is the intelligent argument against SG and Chapp Crossing. We have yet to hear why you think this project will be good for our community!!!!
Cartoonish? Love to read myself? I’m not sure how you get that judge but it’s in keeping with the ad hominen attacks on anyone who has an open mind about the RD property. My principle argument is that the Town Board owns this decision, not the School Board. That is the argument I’m making. And that the most experienced, widely respected, and neutral member of the School Board voted in agreement with my position. My secondary argument is that despite this principle, most who agree with the majority of the School Board have not stopped to think about the appropriateness of the School Board encroaching on jurisdiction of the Town Board. Or, they have stopped to think about it and they don’t care, because in this case the vote went their way. As a matter of principle I say, what happens with the School Board encroaches on something else where they don’t have jurisdiction, but their position isn’t in agreement with yours?
Now I have reread what I wrote to see if it was cartoonish, or if it was just me trying to read what I wrote for my own pleasure, and I’m pretty convinced that neither of these characteristics apply! : )
to CLITTLE….Rule #265 has no stipulation as to which person, party, or organization can invoke and enforce it. The school board is doing nothing wrong and nothing inappropriate. In fact the school board is doing what its constituents require- that is to look out for the best interests of students and tax paying parents. The school board has a fiduciary responsibility to keep the budget appropriate and deliver the best possible education for our students. I would prefer they do their job while you would prefer they not ruffle the feathers of a town board that has not exactly demonstrated competence lately (gazebo. garbage pick-up, budget, etc). The Town Board often makes decisions that impact (encroach as you say) the school district. Why shouldn’t the School Board do the same? You describe yourself as open minded yet i see no evidence that you have evaluated the dynamic between these 2 Boards. Their responsibilities and decisions often impact the other. It seems reasonable that one should push back when the outcome can be harmful to the other. Once again - thank you school board!
Clittle/West Ender (SG?),
You are cartoonish as others have said, a caricature, that is why who you and your intentions are suspect.
You don’t have “an open mind,” you have an obvious agenda which advances its own interest in opposition to what is good for our community.
There is no tax benefit, only the risk of an extreme increase in taxes. That SG propaganda (just like the unenforceable age restriction they finally had to admit to) is what makes you suspect.
Yes, you stopped using legal language, but now you are spewing the SG propaganda. The so called “tax benefit” is their main argument, and that claim (just like the false age restriction) is not just weak but spurious.
TO CLITTLE…who do you speak for when you say “the most experienced, widely respected, and neutral member of the School Board voted in agreement with your position”. Who elected you the representative speaking for the community regarding this school board member? Your opinion is not shared that this member is necessarily neutral (recall her very opinionated and public support for Seven Bridges Middle School- hardly neutral). And because of that very contentious issue and others (budget, turf field, etc) she may not be as widely respected as you think. Maybe she is and maybe she is not but what is clear is that your opinion and your voice does not speak for the community. By your logic we have only 1 school board member thinking clearly here and the other 4 are inexperienced, not neutral, and not respected. I and most others respectfully disagree. Thank you to the 4 CCSD Board members that are looking out for us!
Clittle-West Ender, Whoever you are,
Find it amusing that you, of all people,accuse others of ad hominem arguments.
The reason should be obvious.
So I am not only Summit Greenfield and their attorneys, but now I’m CLittle too??
Off the top of my head, I can come up with about half a dozen user names attached to posts here (and one “real” name, assuming that Jim McCauley is truly posting under his own name) making arguments for a resolution of the rezoning that was not “No, not under any circumstances”.
I’m amazed at how I have morphed from being an “outsider” who is just bitter because my home in the OUFSD did not turn out to be as good an investment as if I had bought in Chappaqua (and although I doubt many of you would comprehend why anyone would consider such heresy, not being in the CCSD was a deliberate decision), to the attorney for Summit Greenfield, then to the developer themselves and now to a sock puppet (posting as CLittle) too. Is it really so far fetched to believe that there may be more than one person posting on this site who believes that some sort of compromise deal with the developer would be in the Town’s best interests?
I’ve presented my arguments and I’m pretty sure I haven’t called anyone names. I’ve been taxed since moving here based on questionable assessment practices in Ossining and a CCSD based equalization rate that artificially inflates values in the West End. Someone from the West End decided that it would be a good thing for this side of town to be represented and ran unsuccessfully for Town Board a couple of years ago. You have all made it clear how foolish an idea that was. We’re “outsiders.” Go ahead and pat yourselves on the back for “figuring me out”. You live in Chappaqua, you couldn’t possibly be wrong (ok, you can probably count that as name calling).
Town Board,
Why is there no transparency where you are concerned as there is with the school board?
The school board does keep the community informed. Where are you?
We need to know what you are thinking and what you are doing.
Anything else is unconscionable.
Utilize this public forum of our community newpaper to keep your
constituents informed, please.
We respectfully request your reply.
