L to E: The TB can—and should—vote “No” to retail at Chappaqua Crossing

June 20, 2014
by Rita Tobin

Having attended the Town Board meeting on June 10th, I have a few comments to add to those made at the meeting.

First, I was offended that Summit Greenfield’s attorney began a public meeting by threatening the Town, in so many words, with a law suit. He referred to a letter sent to the Board by SG, dated June 9th; the public should see that letter.

Even more troubling is that the Town’s attorney appears to be willing to provide those members of the Board who favor granting the variance with the fig leaf of a supportive legal opinion.  S-G claims that, because the former Board accepted the supplemental SEQRA findings and stated that the economic benefits of the SG outweighed its defects, the Board was obligated to grant SG its variance.  SG is incorrect.

As many others have pointed out, including in correspondence sent to the Board after the June 10 meeting, the new Plan is markedly different from the old one.  The new configuration of buildings on the site; planned additional construction, smaller; more numerous retail units; addition of a 25,000 square foot gym; lease to regional draw Whole Foods rather than a local supermarket; and – now – planned vegetable farm (what next?  a petting zoo?) both separately and together require a supplemental SEQRA study.

S-G claims that the changes to the project are irrelevant because, according to S-G, the environmental impact of the new plan is the same.  Its traffic expert, John Collins, agrees.  Yet many residents challenged Mr. Collins traffic figures, and Mr. Collins is not neutral – he is an expert paid by S-G.  Moreover, apart from examining whether the new plan would create even more additional traffic on Route 117 and Roaring Brook Road – hard to believe, for example, that only 36 people would visit a 25,000 square foot gym before heading to work in the morning, or that Whole Foods would not attract more traffic than an A&P or Deciccios the Board needs also to consider the potential impact on Chappaqua’s downtown area of many additional small businesses and the effect of a multi-acre vegetable garden on both the environment, and local farmers’ markets.  (Yes, Whole Foods needs to obtain its vegetables from somewhere; but the attraction and competitive potential of locally grown produce is high, and a Whole Foods garden would directly compete with the local produce sold at the Chappaqua Farmers’ Market, an important economic and, increasingly, social and cultural component of our community.)  A traffic expert, especially S-G’s own hired hand, cannot adequately assess the potential impact of these numerous, diverse changes.  We’re certainly not required to take S-G’s word that all such impacts would be the same.

Nor does the former Board’s acceptance of the supplemental SEQRA findings seal the deal on the zoning variance.  As others have pointed out, obtaining a variance is a two-step process.  In taking the second step, deciding whether to grant the variance, the Board has no legal obligation to limit its analysis to the SEQRA findings:  on the contrary, it has a fiduciary obligation to consider all factors affecting the community.  The Board’s broad discretionary powers give it the right to accept an environmental study, but still deny a variance: for example, because the planned project, which would require major road construction and intrusion on the rights of property owners,  is out of keeping with the character and goals of the town.

In addition, the former Board weighed environmental against economic interests, based on the assumption – the hypothesis – that the shopping center would be full rented.  S-G has now revamped its proposal, including by asking for additional small-size stores. Those assumptions are out of date.  For starters, the Board did not consider what now appears to be the very real possibility that S-G won’t be able to rent out all or some of the space.  Of what economic benefit to the town would be a failed shopping center?

Moreover, in October 2013, there was no signed lease and no supermarket lessee had been identified. Now we know that the lessee is not a community supermarket, but Whole Foods. 

When members of the public asked S-G last night to see a business plan and copy of the Whole Foods lease, S-G’s lawyer vehemently refused to provide such materials.  By denying the Town materials that could support or undermine what had previously been a mere hypothesis that the project would be economically viable, S-G has entitled the Board to vacate both its acceptance of the supplemental findings and preliminary (i.e., based only on SEQRA) weighing of interests.

What was a bad idea in 2013 remains is a bad idea in 2014.  Moving around the deck chairs does not patch the leaking hold.  S-G’s plan would, at the very least, overwhelm the Roaring Brook Farms/Lawrence Farms/Cowdin Lane/117 area with traffic and new construction, devastate the property values and quiet enjoyment of those properties, and turn Chappaqua from a quiet, peaceful hamlet into a county-wide shopping destination.

This is good for Chappaqua?  No – this is bad.

The Board can – and SHOULD—should –vote “no” on the variance.

Sincerely,

Rita Tobin


Comments(38):
We encourage civil, civic discourse. All comments are reviewed before publication to assure that this standard is met.

Stop. We’ve heard the same arguments a thousand times from the same group of people from Roaring Brook Farms/Lawrence Farms/Cowdin Lane/117 area. Please stop stringing this out and let our town be developed the way that many in other parts of town would like. To our town board: Please VOTE YES on the variance.

By Anonymous on 06/24/2014 at 1:58 pm

The residents adjoining Chappaqua Crossing have already hired their lawyer. While there may not have been an explicit threat to sue if the variance goes through, is there anyone in town who doubts that a lawsuit from the neighbors will follow the granting of a variance? Are you offended by the neighbor’s parading of references to “our lawyer” before the Town Board or is it just offensive when Summit Greenfield does it?

By West Ender on 06/24/2014 at 2:16 pm

For this town or any town to move ahead with a zoning change and project of this magnitude without seeing all of the developer’s financials is madness and shows the residents how once again, they are not doing their due diligence.  They do not know what they are doing, yet they plow ahead.

By another resident on 06/24/2014 at 2:22 pm

Rita - this is pure nonsense. Again you grasp at straws. Where do I start?
First- you shouldn’t be surprised or offended that SG attorney spoke. You and your neighbors announced weeks ago that you hired a lawyer.  The implication is that you will sue or commence some legal action. SG is simply responding and letting you know and our TB know and our residents know that they are prepared.  You fire the shot and are offended when they respond? Really? How naive.
Of course SG traffic expert is paid. Mr Collins like every expert or consultant is paid by one party or the other. By your reasoning no consultant or expert should ever be believed or trusted if they are paid. The appropriate thing to do is judge on credentials and experience. A real expert, one respected in the field drivers accurate and unbiased results. Otherwise they aren’t truly experts , just guns for hire. Google Mr Collins. You will see he has done traffic studies on hundreds of projects including some with Whole Foods. He even did Armonk Sq. From all I can tell the man is well respected, a PHD and an expert for 35 years. I don’t think a paycheck us going to make him dishonest.
Your concern for our Farmers Market is touching but ridiculous. Did you express the same concern for Vinnie at Village Market when the Farmers market started selling fruits and vegetables. After all it must have impacted his business.  We have 3 pizza places , Starbucks , Dunkin Ds and Susan Lawrence for coffee.  Did you worry about Langes when Villarenias opened? 
You and the NIMBYs keep throwing up garbage trying to obstruct. We know you live near CC - it’s not about the Farmers market it’s about selfishness.

By Robert M on 06/24/2014 at 2:38 pm

Rita- the more you talk - the more you write the more you hurt your own cause.
Do you really expect the town board to consider the vendors at the once weekly Chapp Farmers Market? Whole Foods will be an amazing addition to this town. You are so oppossed to any develpement and improvement at CC that it has impaired your judgement. Yes - lets halt retail and Whole Foods at CC because a few vendors sell broccoli, lettuce, and apples Saturday morning at the train station.
Maybe you should start a petition the next time a new cafe comes to Chapp. After all it would hurt Quaker Hill, Le Jardin, Spoon and others. Maybe we should ban any new deli because we already have Langes. No new wine/liquor stores - we have 2 of them downtown.
PLEASE - enough already. We know nothing will make you happy. You want an empty CC. Stop insulting us with your letters and presentations at board meetings.

By Long time resident on 06/24/2014 at 3:22 pm

Could someone explain—perhaps with bullet points, a flow chart, in words of one syllable—what the timing and process is going forward?    I believe this zoning variance vote will seal the deal on retail development going into Chappaqua Crossing, but I continue to get questions from friends and neighbors about who/what/when/how this project will proceed.    I’d like to believe the TB isn’t keeping us in the dark on purpose, but rather they believe we’re all hanging on (and understanding) every word.
Thanks for any helpful responses.

By Dawn Greenberg on 06/24/2014 at 4:33 pm

Dear MS. Tobin, You are entitled to your usual pontifications. But it is just that, one person’s biased view. Your lettert adds nothing new to the debate. You write that challenges by some residents to expert findings destroys the validity of those findings.

Well, in the same manner, I challenge everything you write or think.

By you are only one, uber liberal, nay sayer on 06/24/2014 at 5:28 pm

Thank You Rita,

Please pay no mind to the rabid few who regularly post here .  They are so crazed by their need for their Whole Foods that they know not what they rant.

The majority of the town wants the retail development to be in downtown Chappaqua and in the Millwood hamlet.  Don’t believe me “ranters” ?  Then take a survey or wait for the master plan.

By thank you Rita on 06/24/2014 at 7:28 pm

I can’t wait fit this development to be built.  I suspect it will be beautiful and it will certainly be convenient.  I feel bad for those who live close by because their property values will surely take a hit but this is good for the whole town with the exception of those in the immediate area.

The locals in the roaring brook area have acted line nimbys on numerous occasions.  They objected to the middle school at Greeley (which I recall would ave cost 12 million dollars less than 7 bridges), turf fields, field lights and now this project.  It’s time we ignore their parochial selfishness and do what’s right for the town.

If the local residents don’t like their new neighbors, surely they can just move to a different area of town.

By Build it on 06/24/2014 at 8:55 pm

I trust Susan Carpenter and the former board.  Her actions singularly led to the approval of the findings that now ensure this zoning change.  She understood that 120,000 sf of retail development at this site would not negatively impact Chappaqua and Millwood.  She also rightly dismissed the concerns of those who live nearby as NIMBYism in its various guises of exaggerations and threats.  Some of those people serve on town boards and should recuse themselves for their bias.  Let us respect her wishes and get this approved.  Even Greenstein can see Carpenter’s wisdom.

By Trust on 06/24/2014 at 9:44 pm

Last night’s meeting was not representative of the town. Only 1 election district out of 15 , the NIMBY district, was out in full force. While their traffic concerns have some merit, so do the mitigation plans.  Further Separating the Lawrence Farms pillars to allow for another outgoing land, eliminates the valid concern that the existing narrow road promotes back ups.

There are 14 times more non nimby people in town, than nimbys. By the way, a NIMBY is more like a Jihadist, than Paul Revere, who called out “The NIMBYS are coming, the NIMBYS are coming!”

Editor’s Note: You do not know how many people are for or against the CC grocery retail proposal.  Neither does the Town Board.  A Master Plan review is the only way to know how people feel about it.  It’s not easy to explain to residents why a Master Plan review matters.  But Town Boards know and have known.  It was their responsibility to communicate the importance of it.  It’s the only way to settle this controversy properly. 

By Dear MS tobin on 06/25/2014 at 6:44 am

Dear editor,
there is a broken record aspect of the “master plan answers all questions’ LINE.

Editor’s Note: You don’t see the sense of it because your government representatives have never committed to it themselves.

By Master plan review has the same problem on 06/25/2014 at 7:52 am

Editor - your nimby bias is showing. Town residents , outside of nimby territory overwhelmingly are in favor of retail/ Whole Foods at CC. BBQ, cocktail parties and ball field chatter clearly are in favor of retail at CC. We don’t need a survey or master plan to know this. It’s common sense- something the NIMBYs are lacking. Having read Rita’s latest rant she proves it again. Rita Tobin and her nimby neighbors are also discussed amongst residents and the view of these NIMBYs is highly negative.
The threat of a nimby lawsuit only makes them look worse.
Your call for a Master Plan review is a kind of moratorium that will take more than a year. That simply will not hold up in court and Greenstein is smart enough to know that.
Besides what good is a master plan review when the committee and sub committes are stacked with people with agendas and bias.
Chuck Napoli sits on the commerce committee - how bizarre is that? This has been 8 years of delay stall and obstruct. SG will sue the town of new castle, the town board and they will win.  That means ALL residents, the entire community will have to pay .  In addition we continue to lose tax revenue and the opportunity to get Whole Foods slips away. All this because of a small, loud, selfish militant group of NIMBYs.

By Resident on 06/25/2014 at 8:01 am

Dear editor Yeres- the master plan will solve nothing. It is already proven itself a flawed process with participants that have their own personal agendas. How can Lisa Katz or Chuck Napoli be involved in the process when they clearly are compromised.
While the intent if master planning is admirable and worthwhile it solves nothing in the issue of retail at CC. The developer has been waiting 8 years to advance a plan. SG has been denied delayed obstructed and sent back to the drawing board multiple times. To delay again under the guise and pretext of updating a master plan will not hold up - not after 8 years of delay it won’t.
Besides even if the process were pure the average resident in this town is so turned off by the behavior of the town board and so turned off by the NIMBYs outrageous behavior that we simply will not waste our time going to master planning meetings. I watched some PACE procedures. I observed the comments and questions of the residents involved. Most are not objective and many are regularly seen at TB meetings yelling and screaming- making up wild stories about the impact of retail at CC. Most of us have better things to do with our time. Most of us want retail at CC and no flawed master plan process will accurately reflect this fact. If you doubt this, reread Napoli letter and Tobin letter and tell me you think they are reasonable and rationale. They are not yet they are involved with master planning.

Editor’s Note:  “Most of us want retail at CC.”  Where does that come from?

By Rayj on 06/25/2014 at 9:01 am

Master plan is for overall, town wide zoning review to see where changes, overall, should or should not be made over an entire town.

CC is discrete. We all know what it is, what it does and where it is. Master plan review to include CC is irrelevant, as a practical matter, to the town review as a whole. Theoretically, perhaps. Practically not.

Unless one is a NIMBY that grasps at anything to thwart or delay the project.

Editor’s Note: Sorry, but neither the Town Board nor Summit Greenfield knows the answer to whether this proposal is right for New Castle.  Master Plan is the way to know.

By master plan irrelevant to CC on 06/25/2014 at 10:33 am

Last night Rob

By ob was beat up pretty badly on 06/25/2014 at 10:40 am

Last night Rob was beat up pretty badly with his own words. But, NIMBY insistence that they bought and paid for Rob’s official votes with their elective votes is the equivalent of a large political contributor who feels the same way by virtue of the money given to the candidate.

Both expectations are un-American and wrong. A candidate is elected to use his or her best judgment for the municipality as a whole. Not just for any one special interest. The NIMBYS are, by definition, a special interest whose interest must defer to the good of the town as a whole.

The point is that the NIMBY call of betrayal is really an expression of disappointment with that they thought was the purchase of a candidate, who in the end, is using his long and wide view and discretion and the best interests of the town as a whole as his focus.

Its easy to be a critic. Its hard to be the elected official who is in a fish bowl. Let the NIMBYs bring their lawsuit. It does not scare anyone. I will just make two sets of attorneys a bit wealthier.

There is no way to have any accurate survey given the NIMBY past conduct. The only survey that matters, at all, is of the 5 voting members of the town board.

Editor’s Note:  You don’t understand what a professional survey is.

By Rob was beat up on 06/25/2014 at 10:51 am

I’ve got a great idea—I propose that we build a series of 120,000 square foot shopping centers around town. Let’s build one at the front of Gedney Park - or maybe we should put it across the street on the same road as Westorchard Elementary School.  There is plenty of space there and I think it would be great for the people at the park and the kids at Westorchard to have easy access to a bunch of stores - and boy o boy, we really need the extra retail over there - and just think about all the tax revenue it would add. Yipee!

I think a great place for another 120,000 square foot shopping center is in the Pruyn Sanctuary near the intersection of Seven Bridges Road and Rt. 133. That area is totally underserved by retail and it would be nice for the kids at 7 Bridges to have an easy walk to a shopping center. Some of them have to travel all the way to the existing town after school just to hang out with their friends. Just think what a great hangout another shopping area would be!!! And MORE tax revenue. I’m starting to drool just thinking about it.

How about another 120,000 square foot shopping center right at Chappaqua Swim Club. With Twin Oaks closing, why not just shut down another swim club and replace it with a shopping center. The town would get MUCH more tax revenue from a shopping center than its getting from the swim club and we all know that those poor folks on/near Hardscrabble road have an awful drive to get anywhere if they want to buy some organic produce. Sounds like a slam dunk to me.

Unless all of the comments declaring those who live near CC to be NIMBY’s are Rob Greenstein writing in anonymity (a distinct possibility), those of you posting above against Ms. Tobin should walk a few steps in her shoes - or those who live near CC. There is NO benefit to the town by having retail there. The tax benefit, if any, would probably not even be enough to restore 2x/week garbage pick up so get real and stop using the “NIMBY” card.

By MORE shopping centers, PLEASE!!!!! (all over town! on 06/25/2014 at 7:01 pm

The truth hurts

By Ouch on 06/25/2014 at 9:01 pm

Dear editor- most of us want retail at CC. Yes that’s right. You ask ” where does that come from”?
It comes from living life in Chappaqua. It comes from discussions with commuters going into NYC. It comes from friends and neighbors I speak with on the subject. It comes from conversations witn others at my kids baseball and soccer games. It comes from block parties, BBQs and cocktail parties. It comes from Saturday morning banter at the Farmers market. People are talking about retail at CC. Most people , vast majority I speak with overwhelmingly are in favor. It comes from common sense.
You are so immerssed in anti- retail at CC that you no longer see the forest from the trees. The NIMBYs get together, totally insulating themselves and they think that everybody is against it. In fact Lisa Katz’s exact words during the election is that nobody wants this. Then an informal survey was done and clearly she was dead wrong.
We know you have been honest in informing readers that you live in CC area. You have generally been fair about reporting all views. Lately and especially in this issue, your nimby bias is in full bloom.

Editor’s Note:  Let’s see what the Pace report says.  Your “most people” anecdotal method of survey is all the Town Board has to rely on, since they’re not funding a genuine Master Plan review.

By Rayj on 06/26/2014 at 7:05 am

I am sure you felt just as strongly about the middle school building. Oh wait, like the “editor” you just wanted to make sure the new middle school wasn’t in you back yard.  Same with the turf field and the field lights I sure.  What goes around come around.  I for one and looming forward to a convenient strip mall next to Greeley.  Maybe you should have let them build the middle school there.  Karma stinks eh. 

Editor’s Note: You’ve written the same sentiments before, with the same degree of bitterness.  You’ve got my positions wrong.  I’ve explained them to you before. 

But do let the Town Board know that you want “a convenient strip mall next to Greeley.”

By To more shopping on 06/26/2014 at 7:11 am

Christine- RajY is correct. Common sense community dialogue and normal social activities indicate most people are very enthusiastic with retail/Whole Foods at CC. You repeat the NIMBY mantra of stall, delay and obstruct calling for a Master Plan review and PACE results. First- it will take at least a year. Second- and most important is that the PACE process is already flawed. It was biased from the beginning. The committees /sub committees are stocked with individuals with personal agendas. The anti retail at CC people are all over them. Heck- Lisa Katz is the NIMBY poster girl and she tried to influence PACE from the start. Chuck Napoli sits on the downtown commerce committee and he has investors for his own downtown development plan. The expression is GIGO – garbage in garbage out.
The master plan will not solve a major problem. Downtown has a Walgreens and a RitAid. It has a Starbucks, Dunkin Doughnuts, Susan Lawrence, Sherry B’s. It has 5 banks, 5 real estate brokers and 7 nail salons and day spas! IT HAS NO SUPERMARKET!
There is 110 acres of almost empty non-residentially zoned property at CC. Whole Foods has committed to coming. They are an environmentally friendly and community sensitive company selling healthy organic and natural foods. This is what we want – this is what we need. By WE I mean everybody but the NIMBYs. BTW- I know several that live in/near CC and they are in favor of retail at CC. They just are scared to speak up given the hostility from their militant neighbors.
What is the master plan going to tell us about this? The time has come that common sense and sound fiscal policy (tax revenue) rule the day. The town board has a fiduciary responsibility to all residents – not the loudest and most obnoxious.

By Long time resident living very close to CC on 06/26/2014 at 8:25 am

I love your posting . It is pure derision, nimby style, as opposed to intelligent analysis.  Your post is the “poster child ” for the nimby cause. Keep them coming.

By Dear more shopping on 06/26/2014 at 8:49 am

Editor Yeres position on the second middle school was very clear. She , like me and many others, were opposed to building and funding a second middle school.
However, there were many that firmly believed our schools were too crowded and education was suffering. They believed that we needed a second middle school. The CCSD Board of Ed aggressively promoted it.
Many in the Greeley/Readers Digest community (now Chapp Cross) also wanted a second middle school. They feared their precious little ones were in overcrowded classrooms and would not get the quality education they deserved. The Board of Ed first choice for a new middle school was the Greeley campus. The Greeley/Readers Digest NIMBys went nuts. Just like today , they fear mongered. They made false accusations and claims that middle schoolers should not be in close proximity to high schoolers. They rallied against terrible and dangerous traffic at Greeley with a MS. Experts came and refuted these claims. High School and MS share campuses all of the time (Fox La., Pleasantville). Experts presented statistics of the hundreds of such campuses in NY . Traffic experts told us it was very manageable.  But the NIMBYs kept up their campaign and it threatened passage of the bill. So the Board of Ed caved and moved the MS to 7 Bridges. To build at 7Bridges was $millions more to tax payers.
These NIMBYs wanted a new MS and were prepared to vote for it until they found out it was in their backyard. Then they threatened to vote against it. The NIMBYs thru intimidation and false claims got their way. The MS should never have been built at all but (Yeres position) but thru coercion and fear mongering the location changed and many NIMBYs voted for it – as long as it was Not IN Their Backyard.
Now they are at it again with retail at CC. I hope our town board stands up top them and doesn’t cave- we need it we want it. The NIMBYs are polarizing our community AGAIN!

By Resident on 06/26/2014 at 9:19 am

The decade old middle school debate is worth rehashing. It puts in context the current accusations of selfishness. Today’s NIMBYs accuse those in favor of retail at CC selfish. They accuse us of only thinking about ourselves and not being sensitive to their plight. Put yourself in our shoes they say.
Many residents in the Greeley area which used to be called Readers Digest and is now CC, wanted a new middle school. This was a highly charged debate with residents split through out town. The same NIMBYs of today were the same folks that were prepared to vote yes for a new middle school until they found out that it was to be built at Greeley. Then they organized and campaigned against the new school. Once they pressured the school board to move the school out of their backyard and into my backyard they voted for the new school. It was a very close vote and had the location remained Greeley it would not have passed. 
These NIMBYs that today call us selfish and want our sympathy had no such concerns when they forced the school board to build Seven Bridges.  Thanks to these same NIMBYs we have a white elephant tax payer drain. But as long as it isn’t in their backyard they do not care.
Please spare us your sob stories and exaggerated false claims. We lived thru that once and we are not falling for it again. I hope Whole Foods in all it’s glory comes to CC. This small group should not again be dictating the direction and trajectory for our entire community.

By West side guy on 06/26/2014 at 9:56 am

Since the redundant and expensive middle schools are being discussed, it should be clear we need to Sell Bell.

By bob on 06/26/2014 at 10:35 am

Praise the high being. I want what I want and don’t want what I don’t want. Those who do not agree with me are infidels

By Ayatollah NIMBY on 06/26/2014 at 11:11 am

We never needed a second middle school. The vote was very close.  The second middle school was built because the then school board wanted it to be built. They were wrong then and and time has not made that decision any better.  Look to the bloated top heavy school administration to see your dollars being so poorly spent. 

By we never needed another middle school on 06/26/2014 at 2:49 pm

To Supervisor Greenstein,

You relied on the NIMBY platform to get elected, and kudos for that as you found a way to defeat the Democratic party strangle-hold they held on our town board.  But now that you in, you are clearly too intelligent to stand on a platform constructed on selfishness, deception, exaggeration and outright lies.

Refreshing to see your doing what is correct for all of New Castle and have the zeal to do many amazing and transforming actions for our town, heaven knows we need it! Keep your chin up and fight the good fight!

By The Right Thing on 06/26/2014 at 4:03 pm

‘The right thing’ says it best. Rob was elected to use his best judgment. He is not a puppet of any special interest. If the loyalty issue involved a political campaign contribution and favoritism to that contributor, the unhappy people would cry foul. Rob cannot win for losing. I was opposed to him. Now I feel sorry for him. He has a tiger by the tail

By ditto on 06/26/2014 at 10:07 pm

To Supervisor Greenstein- I voted for you to end the status quo. I voted for you because you promised to be different than your predecessor and not cave in and be manipulated by a party or a developer. To that end I did not vote for you to be manipulated and influenced by a small vocal group of bandits intent on getting their way no matter the cost or lost opportunity to the rest of us.
You promised to be a tough negotiator and bring our community needed facilities and improvements. I admired your work in organizing the merchants forming the chamber of commerce. Unlike your running mates, you demonstrated civic duty and commitment to our community. At least you had some sort of track record.
Please do not cave in and be influenced by the NIMBYs. They care not for anyone but themselves. You above all understand the ramifications and financial loss should the developer reinstate legal action against New Castle.  The choice is simple- build retail at CC with Whole Foods and reap,the taxes and accolades from the community. Or bow to the NIMBYs and we lose tax revenue, miss out on Whole Foods, continue with 100 acres of underutilized non residentially zoned property and be sued by SG. We lose the lawsuit to boot.
Expecting the usual response I categorically deny I am RG. I don’t even know him.

By Long time resident on 06/27/2014 at 6:47 am

Ms Tobin lives near CC and is a pure NIMBY. Therefore, anything she says or does must be viewed through the prism of her bias and self interest.

By The last word on 06/27/2014 at 9:59 am

Rita and Lisa and Jessica and all NIMBYs- I just received an advisory from the New Castle Police Department. It says Route 117 to be resurfaced during July, Intermittent Closures May Occur.
Quick- get out the petition, call and write letters, storm the town board because traffic will certainly result. Ambulances will be stuck on 117 as DPW crews pave the street. People will die. You won’t be able to get out of your streets. Your access to go shopping in Mt Kisco and Armonk will be compromised. Life will change. Property values will plummet.  You will be late for yoga and Pilates.
The sky is falling….....

By Chicken little on 06/27/2014 at 1:16 pm

Last word- you are right.  You views are true with respect to the editor of this blog as well.

By Get real on 06/27/2014 at 7:02 pm

This entire letter should not have published on the front page. It is a biased, one sided NIMBY monograph.

Yes, it is entitled to be read as a matter of freedom of speech, but it’s manner of posting shows the nimby editor’s less than even handed, fair reporting.

It should have been moved to the letters page after 2 days.

By who is really offended? on 07/01/2014 at 9:10 pm

Town Boad,
The election last year was not a referendum on CC regardless of what the NIMBY’s would like the public to believe. I voted for you and am in favor of retail at CC.  Please do the Town a favor and approve the plan.

By Don't cave to the NIMBY's on 07/02/2014 at 6:31 pm

The editor states in these comments states that some commenters (like me) don’t understand surveys. I wrote(but can’t seem to find its publication) that the Nimbys poisoned the survey process such that it is an established fact that all surveys can be and are , here in chappaqua, manipulated both in the taking of the survey and the nimby answer campaign.  Yes I sadly understand how the Nimbys adulterated the process.

Let pace mail out numbered questionnaires which only identify the street of the responder.  Let’s have a public focus group to discuss the questions. No on line responses , no handed out forms.

While everyone’s vote is important, the areas where those votes come from is even more important.  80/20 in the nimby area is no surprise. If it’s 60/40 that is a surprise.
50/50 or better for CC destroys the nimby bias cry against the town board. Results shown both with and without nimby participation will be interesting to evaluate.

By Surveys? on 07/05/2014 at 3:51 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.