Chappaqua Crossing counsel insist they were blind-sided by New Castle Town Board
With 16 Comments since Friday
December 3, 2010
by Christine Yeres
Stephen Kass of New York’s Carter, Ledyard & Milburn LLP and John Marwell of Mt. Kisco’s Shamberg Marwell Davis & Hollis, P.C., counsel to Summit Greenfield, the developer of Chappaqua Crossing, left Tuesday’s town board work session in shock. At noon, the developer’s spokesperson, Geoff Thompson of Pleasantville-based Thompson & Bender announced that the two had felt “completely ambushed” by the town board’s lengthy list of problems with the developer’s final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the project.
“They went into the meeting expecting some minor tweaks,” reported Thompson. “Now we’re suddenly back to 20% affordable [instead of the 10% in the current proposal]? And the board is saying the zoning we’re applying for is not applicable?” Thompson was referring to the developer’s application for multi-family residential zoning (MFPD). The New Castle Town Board and its planning board are still questioning whether the Chappaqua Crossing site meets the town code’s requirements for creation of an MFPD zone. For a complete description of the proceedings at the Tuesday, November 30, Town Board Work Session, see “New Castle Town Board apparently surprises Chappaqua Crossing developer with responses to FEIS,” in today’s edition.
Not a surprise to planning board watchers
In fact, there was little in Tuesday’s litany of changes the developer must make to the FEIS that had not been extensively previewed in discussions the planning board has held over the past month in four one-hour work sessions. Click here to see “Nearing the decision point on Chappaqua Crossing,” NewCastleNOW.org, November 22, 2010, which includes embedded video of the work sessions from NCCMC.
The town board is required by town law to ask the planning board for recommendations on the rezoning application by Summit Greenfield. The deadline for their recommendations is Thursday, December 9, 2010.
It has been observed that typically a legal representative for Summit Greenfield has been in attendance at each of these work sessions. In the last such session, on November 16, the planning board’s consultant Joanne Meder walked the board through a comprehensive overview of the planning board’s criticisms of the FEIS. Both Kass and Marwell remained to hear the entire discussion that night.
No surprises, Gerrard insists
Informed by NCNOW of Thompson’s statements, on Wednesday Supervisor Barbara Gerrard responded: “All these issues have been out there under discussion. Board members have taken them seriously. If the developer didn’t take them as seriously as we did, we have no control over that.”
Thompson asked a NCNOW reporter in exasperation: “If the town cannot afford to get less than the maximum tax dollars that the commercial zoning will bring them, then why leave the cockamamie zoning on the building that doesn’t allow it to be fully leased? Why would you not have removed that long ago?” When Summit Greenfield originally purchased the Reader’s Digest property, it was only zoned for a single commercial tenant. Summit Greenfield petitioned and was granted a change in zoning to four tenants. During the last three years of the environmental impact review, Summit Greenfield has repeatedly requested that the four-tenant restriction be lifted.
Gerrard responded to NCNOW: Both sets of lawyers, Summit Greenfield’s and the town’s, have tried hard to find a way to separate the commercial zoning restrictions from the combined application of commercial and residential zoning, especially once Reader’s Digest Company signaled its intent to leave the premises by year’s end. But the two could not be separated.
“The town board is unable to change the zoning code concerning the commercial space under SEQR [New York State Environmental Quality Review Act],” explained Gerrard, “until the process is completed because it could be considered to be ‘segmenting’ the SEQR process.” One of the primary purposes of SEQR is to force municipalities to look long and hard at large development proposals in their entirety before approving them. Consequently, the courts may not look kindly on “segmentation,” and view it as an attempt to take one part of a project and speed it on ahead.
Thompson characterizes town board’s resolution as “eleventh hour changes”
“This process has gone on for years,’ complained Thompson, “for ten thousand pages, countless millions of dollars spent on consultants for the town, on consultants and lawyers’ fees, and now, at the eleventh hour, for the board to come in with this set of changes is tantamount to saying we need another whole FEIS.”
While it is true that the town board has the authority to require the developer to make changes to the FEIS, making those changes is no guarantee that the town board will approve the rezoning application. The FEIS is simply an extremely detailed record of the environmental impacts of the proposed plan for the property, a record for which the town board bears the responsibility as author. Based on this record, the town board will ultimately decide whether to approve the developer’s plan, approve it with modifications, or disapprove it entirely.
Summit Greenfield will consider its options
“This is a huge step backwards for Summit Greenfield and the entire town, and we feel that this was a real stab in the back,” reiterated Thompson. “We’re going to look at whatever options we have, catch our breath, and figure out what’s happened.”
“This has not gone down well with Summit Greenfield,” Thompson added, “and it was handled in a pretty horrendous way by the town board.”
______________
To find all of NCNOW.org‘s archived articles and letters to the editor on Chappaqua Crossing, listed in chronological order, click HERE.
I disagree that this “was handled in a pretty horrendous way by the town board.” The final stages of SEQR requires input from the planning board. The planning board raised legitimate concerns - the same concerns that have consistently been raised by the residents. The Town Board has listened. I believe our Town Board has handled the SEQR process professionally.
This is a surprising and disappointing reaction from the developer’s team. They should have understood how the process works and should have understood that there are people on our planning board and town board who are fully committed to an honest and thorough assessment based on the facts and on the overall best interest of the town.
Perhaps this is an issue of fundamental assumptions being wrong. When their representatives say: “If the town cannot afford to get less than the maximum tax dollars that the commercial zoning will bring…..” it certainly sounds like they have been assuming that the only factor on the table here is getting the maximum in taxes. If they had listened to the community at all (as our board members ARE doing) they’d have understood that there are multiple factors that we’re sophisticated enough to weigh - revenue, traffic, low income balance, school impact, etc.
I continue to appreciate the hard work being done by the planning board and the town board.
I feel bad for the developers. it is next to impossible to do business in this town. The community opposition to this project is fierce and the board is responding to that. the town needs the revenue this project will bring but politics gets in the way. in the meantime, they tax the rest of us and spend money, frivolously, on things like a gazebo nobody wants and a 30% raise for the Supervisor. this town was run conservatively, once upon a time, now it’s only a matter of time before it ends up like all entities run by liberals.
I have been upset and generally unsatisfied with the lack of communication, handling of town matters, and “tone” of our Town Board (and attorney C Smith). However, I am very pleased that our Board appears to be hearing its constituents-The tax payers and residents of New Castle. I applaud their tough stance in this matter and encourage continued vigilance in making sure that this developer does not game the system and allow a commercially zoned parcel of land (Chapp Crossing) to be rezoned for residential. We have all experienced various degrees of financial hardship of late and no one is changing the rules for us. It’s commercial - keep it commercial. Throw up every obstacle and roadblock possible. Thank you Town Board- keep up the good work!!!
The developer has to be kidding!! If they stopped their sledgehammer approach and treated the community residents with the respect we deserve as opposed to the “dopes” that they think we are,we would already have had a commercial solution here. The developer made a bad financial investment and is trying to place it in the hands of the residents to absorb the financial loss through a ridiculous residential “condo” plan to take from our taxpayers. The developer should either come up with a commercial solution that it is already zoned for or sell the property!!! The Town Board members now appear to be finally acting like the fiduciaries they should have been all along. Better late than never. Keep up the good work Town Board!!! It is never to late to dig yourselves out of the hole!
The fact the Developer feels blindsided and stabbed in the back just goes to show how disconnected they are from our community. The residents have very publicly objected their proposals for years.
To “not the way to do business”, you are correct…..with only 3% of our tax revenues coming from commercial property “it is next to impossible to do business in this town.” We absolutely need more commercial tax revenues, and I would think conservatives would support that position. As Supervisor Gerrard pointed out, the town’s “not-so-diverse tax base is unsustainable”.
And when you say “the town needs the revenue this project will bring”—whose calculation of revenues are you relying upon? The developer’s? Because his is the only one that shows huge returns, especially in his brochures to our mailboxes, where he claims $5.2 million in 2015. Is THAT the number you’re banking on?
The developer’s contrived reaction is hardly a surprise. They know how to play this. But for those of us from the town, it’s no game. Following the developer’s proposal will likely mean a significant transfer of wealth from current residents to the developer’s owners. No thanks!
The town board has shown that they are not in the pockets of the developer, but rather they are simply representing the interests of their constituents by following the law. They are doing what we hired them to do, and their current political popularity and the historical imprint that they leave on the town along with their own future reputations will reflect the strength they are showing.
Thank you to all Town Board members,
The developers will now understand the people in New Castle are not about to believe in the extravagant brochures they send to our mail boxes; the last one asking us to “move on” if I remember correctly.
Now it’s time for them to move on and understand we need tax revenues from commercial property.
When they say they’ve been “stabbed in the back”, I ask who were they listening to? We as a community have been openly voicing our opinion against their proposal for years.
Maybe their surprise comes from realizing this Town Board addresses the interests of their community.
We want to express our appreciation to the New Castle Planning Board whose work sessions on video reveal their extensive and incisive analysis of the Chappaqua Crossing development project. The knowledge and extraordinary ability that they have brought to this application is unsurpassed. Thank you for your brilliant evaluation.
The New Castle Town Board should be commended for their professional response to the Chappaqua Crossing FEIS. One would hope that the Summit Greenfield attorneys would appreciate the fact that the town board has acted responsibly since it must attend to the requirements of SEQR, adhere to the town code and all legal mandates in carrying out their duties. The board’s response to the FEIS is clearly in line with carrying out its official obligations.
As stated in the article, a Summit Greenfield legal representative has been present at each planning board work session. There was a comprehensive review of the project in the last session, on November 16, where the very points cited by the town board in their response to the FEIS were clearly stated by members of the planning board.
Thank you Supervisor Gerrard, Council Member Robin Stout, and Council Member Michael Wolfensohn for your diligence.
Dear NCNOW:
The developer’s attorney were “stabbed in the back”!!!!
Were the New Castle PD called to the meeting? This is blotter material! A stabbing AND a robbery, since the lawyers talk as though the board stole from them? But the town board never promised them—and still does not promise them—anything.
Thanks for covering this “non-crime.” And Yay Town Board!
If I remember correctly, the developer has been at all of the meetings. Based on the community’s concerns and the Town Board’s appropriate and responsible response to them, I fail to see the ambush. Many thanks to the Board for hearing the voice of the community.
Speaking of watching Town meetings on video, if you watch the November 23rd Town Board meeting, you will see Betty W give a reasoned and passioned statement about the issues this project raises which turned out to be most of what the town board questioned in the motion. Thank you to Betty for taking the time to research and go to board meetings.
I think I would advise developers to hire a counselor for each of their undertakings, to advise them on how to interact with local communities. People aren’t dopes anymore, since the big economic collapse. They are and will be much more circumspect about all kinds of financial claims from now on. It would have helped this developer immensely to have approached this community more honestly to begin with. There are just so many of us who know how developers work, there’s no sense in pitching us in the way he did. So here’s a whole new job category: Development Counseling, or Development Psychology. It would help also for the counselor to be somewhat expert in the environmental review process, and to have some understanding of economics.
The developer and its counsels still didn’t get it. It’s not the town board that opposes the rezoning; it’s the whole town (except for a few imposters pretending to be residents here). I haven’t come across anyone in my neighborhood that would support the rezoning. The developer mistakenly thought it was ambushed. It’s actually worse than that - the developer is drowning in the pool of the strong will of the residents who are simply not dopes.
What were the terms of the sale at the closing? Granted it was a different world in so many areas but I don’t understand how the sale was allowed to go through if it was being considered as a complete residential property.
Why are so many of you afraid to sign your real names? Are you ashamed of what you’ve written? If so, don’t write.
“Doing business” does not mean making a deal with anyone, anywhere, regardless of how bad that deal is or else we could call playing Three-card Montie on the street “doing business.”
As much as I disagree with the “blind-sided” part of the title, I was delighted to read this article and would like to express my appreciation to the Town Board for listening to the residents’ long list of serious concerns over the residential re-zoning proposal, and also for protecting the interests of all those who are in opposition of such proposal (i.e. the overwhelming majority from what one can gather from Town Hall meeting and this forum) by voicing our concerns to the developer.
I understand that there is still more work to be done but, like many others, I too believe the Board deserves our thank you for the hard work to date and would reiterate my full support of the Town Board on holding their ground on this very important matter.
