Letter to the Editor: Summit Greenfield is the cause of their tenants’ “uncertainty”

January 14, 2011
by Betty and Leonard Weitz

Dear Editor:

The following excerpt from your January 3, 2011, article in NewCastleNOW stated:  “[in a letter dated December 29, 2010, Summit Greenfield’s attorney, John Marwell of Shamberg Marwell Davis & Hollis, P.C., argued that because Reader’s Digest has left Chappaqua Crossing, the property is now in violation of the town’s zoning regulations, a condition which discourages prospective tenants and causes current tenants to question ‘the viability of their continued tenancies.’”

One can be sympathetic to the uncertainty that commercial tenants might experience at Chappaqua Crossing.  What is surprising is that Summit Greenfield is complaining of a problem of its own making, and one they can easily resolve.

Parking difficulties at Chappaqua Crossing from commercial tenant’s perspective

What does Summit Greenfield’s pursuit of residential rezoning mean for a commercial tenant of Chappaqua Crossing?  The first thing that comes to mind is the parking issue.  It is a well-known fact, repeatedly reviewed in both town and planning board meetings, that insufficient parking is of urgent concern. There is simply not enough parking to meet both commercial and residential needs. If residentially zoned, there will not be sufficient commercial parking spaces for employees, patients coming and going to the Northern Westchester Hospital and Mount Kisco Medical Group facilities (that will probably further expand in the future), and various other visitors such as clients.  Another concern is the density and contour of the traffic pattern with the concomitant concern of entry and exit to and from the site.

The issue of traffic has been a serious concern for all the parties.  Summit Greenfield has tried to solve one area of the traffic problem with a right-turn lane that alone did not solve the traffic problems in the area.  Currently, the surrounding roads, such as the long problematic Route 117, must accommodate not only the drivers headed to the Saw Mill from both north and south on Route 117, but also the high school buses and cars.  One has only to listen to the testimony of longsuffering residents to hear about the current traffic snarls, back-ups and dangers to realize what it would mean to add additional residential traffic from Chappaqua Crossing.

Professional ambiance at Chappaqua Crossing

Another question is the professional ambiance of the site. Consider the atmosphere of a mixed residential and commercial facility. Will there be school buses holding up traffic as they collect and discharge their passengers?  Will there be children playing or riding bikes and teenagers congregating in different areas?  In short, how professional and convenient will this environment be for professional office use?

It is Summit Greenfield’s relentless pursuit of residential rezoning that would worry me as a commercial tenant.  Especially since Summit Greenfield could expand and improve the commercial viability, if they were so committed, by withdrawing the residential rezoning component of the application and concentrating solely on restructuring the commercial space. 

Under SEQR, a town board, as lead agency, is prohibited from “segmenting” an application.  What that means is that the town board in the current application cannot grant commercial variances until the residential rezoning segment of the application is resolved.  As Mr. Greenstein stated in his comment in response to Mr. Marwell’s letter:

As Barbara Gerrard recently stated “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.

The town board’s hands are tied since it is subject to SEQR.  If Summit Greenfield would withdraw its residential component, perhaps the town board would be free to move ahead on the commercial aspect of the application.

Tenants may wonder about Summit Greenfield’s ultimate goal

Part of the concern that Mr. Marwell cites might very well be that commercial tenants, both current and prospective, might wonder just how long this site will remain commercial or if Summit Greenfield’s ultimate plan is to work toward total residential rezoning of the entire property.  With that doubt, a company would think twice before expending the resources to shift their operations and they would certainly hesitate to establish their business on a site that has a questionable commercial future.

It is reasonable to suppose that both current and prospective tenants would be concerned and “unsettled.”  Naturally, they would be concerned about their landlord’s commitment to commercial tenancy on the Chappaqua Crossing site since Summit Greenfield is so vigorously pursuing residential rezoning at the expense of its commercial viability. Commercial tenancy on this site appears to be a secondary consideration for this property owner.

That is truly the “unsettled” condition of tenants at Chappaqua Crossing.

There is a solution.  Given the tenant uncertainty that Mr. Marwell cites and the mandates of SEQR, withdraw the residential rezoning component and free the town board to work with Summit Greenfield to enhance the commercial viability of Chappaqua Crossing and grant the commercial variance to the benefit of all.

Betty and Leonard Weitz
______________________________
To view NCNOW’s archived articles and letters—in chronological order, newest to oldest—on Chappaqua Crossing and Summit Greenfield’s application for a zoning change, click HERE.