March 22 hearing on Summit Greenfield’s proposed amendments to town code

March 18, 2011
by Christine Yeres

Next Tuesday, March 22, the New Castle Town Board will hold public hearing on five amendments to town law proposed by Summit Greenfield, the owner-developer of Chappaqua Crossing, the former Reader’s Digest property. These amendments, if adopted, would facilitate its proposed development. The public hearings will begin at 7:45 p.m. and will include opportunity for public comment.

Town Supervisor Barbara Gerrard announced previously that the town board would, by the time of these hearings, have finished their review of the Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the proposed Chappaqua Crossing development. But in this Tuesday’s work session, she stated that that even though she, Robin Stout and Michael Wolfensohn have not finished with their review, these public hearings will not be postponed and will take place as scheduled. 

The procedure for the public hearing

The board will make use of index cards for people to sign up to make a comment. Counsel to the planning board Les Steinman will give a brief description of each amendment.  “As with all public hearings,” Gerrard stated in a Supervisor’s Report issued yesterday, “this is an opportunity to express your comments on the proposals before us.”  Gerrard will encourage commenters to keep their remarks to three or four minutes’ duration.  For the complete text of Gerrard’s statement, click HERE.

So that residents will have the opportunity to comment on the amendments within the context of the full statement of the FEIS, Supervisor Gerrard has announced that at the conclusion of the hearings on March 22, she will adjourn them, not conclude them, and continue them on Monday, April 4.  The FEIS, Gerrard stated in yesterday’s Supervisor’s Report, “will not be available for adoption” by the board “before Friday, March 25, 2011.” Once the three board members adopt it, the document will be posted on the town’s website and be made available in hard copy at town hall and at the Chappaqua Library.

Summit Greenfield’s amendments would facilitate their proposed development

The subjects of the five amendments to be discussed on March 22 are:

•  the removal of the restriction on the number of office tenants, now limited to five, with one required to occupy 200,000 square feet;

•  a change in the town development plan map and the town’s zoning to create a multifamily planned development zone (MFPD) at Chappaqua Crossing where Summit Greenfield proposes to construct 199 units of housing;

• an increase in building height limitations in the proposed multifamily planned development zone at Chappaqua Crossing;

• a change in off-street parking and loading facilities requirements to reduce the required number of parking spaces in the business district at Chappaqua Crossing; and

• a reduction in side-yard setbacks.

Helpful background reading to prepare for the March 22 and April 4 hearings

For a discussion of the particulars of the amendments, see “Town board sets March 22 hearing for changes in town law proposed by Summit Greenfield,” NewCastleNOW.org, February 25, 2011.

_____________________________________________
[The New Castle planning board addressed these subjects in great detail in a memo to the town board in December 2010.  Click HERE to read the 23-page pdf.

See also minutes of the town board work session in which town board members discussed these issues in detail.  Click HERE for the nine-page pdf.]
_____________________________________________

For full text of the proposed changes to town law, in pdf, click below:

Building Height Restrictions

Number of Business Tenants Allowed

To Map a Multifamily Planned Development Zone

Side yard setbacks

Off-street parking

___________________________
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.


Comments(2):
We encourage civil, civic discourse. All comments are reviewed before publication to assure that this standard is met.

If SG has filed a law suit against the town, would we be within our rights to suspend consideration of their application until the lawsuit is resolved? I can’t see how this wouldn’t be an advisable thing to do, as time would appear to be on our side.

By Legal Strategy on 03/18/2011 at 9:13 am

Everyone should read the comments of the Planning Board to get a sense of the issues that continue to plague this proposal. You will at the same time develop a great appreciation for the time, thought and analysis the board members have devoted to this project. Usually the aggrieved developer sues the municipality because of alleged failures to give them a fair hearing or of raising questions where the developer claims none exist. The Planning Board deserves our thanks for being so thorough on our behalf.

By Impressed and grateful on 03/21/2011 at 4:00 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.