Negative reaction prompts town board to withdraw proposed change to PB review
February 11, 2011
by Christine Yeres
Board closes public hearing, provides updates on Chappaqua Crossing:
• SEQR timetable
• Parking plan
• Application for sewer extension
Last Friday, February 4, NCNOW.org reported that the New Castle Planning Board had agreed at a meeting on January 24 to a change in the town code, proposed by the town board, that would limit the planning board’s oversight authority regarding entrance/exit requirements on buildings greater than two-stories. See “At town board’s urging, planning board agrees to cut back on oversight authority,” NCNOW.org, February 4, 2011.
At that January 24 planning board meeting, JoAnne Meder of F. P. Clarke Associates, the planning consultants to the town board, explained: “The town board decided it might be appropriate to not require individual unit access [to the outside] for multistory buildings.” The change in law would leave the planning board with authority to waive the separate entrances requirement only in two-story buildings, giving three-or-more story buildings “an outright exemption,” according to Meder.
Residents reject removal of planning board authority
Friday’s article, as well as a letter to the editor the following Monday, “Letter to the Editor: Is New Castle ready for apartment buildings?,” February 7, 2011, led to a barrage of letters to the members of the town board from New Castle residents criticizing the proposed change.
A public hearing on the proposed change had been noticed for this past Tuesday’s town board meeting. But before residents could question the board about their proposal to eliminate the planning board’s authority to grant a waiver on a case-by-case basis of the separate entrances requirement on buildings taller than two stories, the town board rescinded the proposed change.
Even so, ten minutes into Tuesday’s town board meeting, two residents questioned the board’s intent in proposing it in the first place.
“Why consider it now?” asked Betty Weitz, “when you have no other applicant but Summit Greenfield? You have the [five-story, shared entrances] zoning you need at Hunts Lane.” See “Town board eases the way for affordable housing in downtown,” NCNOW.org, June 25, 2010.
“The provision was not aimed at Reader’s Digest or any other particular property,” responded Town Supervisor Barbara Gerrard. “It was supposed to give the planning board more opportunities to have housing – wherever it’s located – to have more flexibility. But in reading it again it looks as though it may not do what it was intended to do, and that’s why we’re going to table it.”
Gerrard concedes proposed change has opposite effect of what was intended
Rob Greenstein, a resident who has spoken and written frequently on the subject of residential development on the Reader’s Digest property, asked, “What flexibility would that code change give the planning board?”
“At the moment,” responded Gerrard, “buildings all have to have separate entrances for each apartment, and there may be buildings where that is extremely costly, almost cost-prohibitive, and so giving the planning board the opportunity to review the particular site and decide whether or not a different type of entrance would be more to their liking is what we intended.”
Greenstein countered: “The planning board currently can grant them a waiver, so you’re just taking away their ability to [decide].”
Gerrard stated: “That’s why we’re not voting on this today. We’re sending it back to counsel.”
Greenstein inquired: “Is there a benefit to the town board [of this change in the law]?”
Gerrard responded: “You have to put into context the fact that every one of the 31 jurisdictions in Westchester County is going to be affected by the housing settlement and it behooves us and the rest of those communities to make sure we don’t have provisions in our code which make it more expensive or could be argued to be prohibitive for affordable or affirmative housing.”
Greenstein asked: “Does the planning board have a track record of abusing their discretion?”
Gerrard replied: “I think you have to ask the planning board. I don’t have a record of every decision they’ve made.”
Greenstein pointed out: “Because you’re taking away their power, I would think that somewhere along the way you might think they had abused their power or you think they’re not exercising their power properly.”
Gerrard stated: “We’re not acting on that law because it has been read to be the opposite of what we wanted to accomplish.”
Gerrard and counsel decline to discuss deed restrictions at Chappaqua Crossing
Gerrard then closed the public hearing and opened the comment period. Greenstein returned to the microphone to comment. Characterizing “opening the residential door [at Chappaqua Crossing]” as “a huge concern to residents,” he asked town board members and the board’s counsel, Clinton Smith, whether they were considering making use of deed restrictions to ensure that – if the town board allowed any residential [at Chappaqua Crossing] – the developer would not return for more residential.
“It’s in no one’s interest to have this come up again in three or five years down the road,” stated Greenstein. “Have you thought of having Summit Greenfield sign a deed restriction, so that even if they sell the property the restriction would pass to the new owners?”
Gerrard replied: “We are familiar with [the concept of deed restrictions].”
Greenstein countered: “Saying you’re familiar with it doesn’t mean you’re pursuing it.”
Gerrard informed Greenstein that the public comment period was not a public question-and-answer period and encouraged him send his questions, in writing, to board members. Board counsel Clinton Smith stated: “I’m not going to speak at a public meeting about the different options that might have been considered and might be chosen or rejected [by the board]. There are a lot of different factors that go into that and what that decision might be and the manner [in which] it might or might not be presented to the applicant. It’s not something I would choose to discuss at a public meeting. It’s something the town board and consultants are familiar with and would give thought to.”
During the public comment, David Yeres suggested to board members that, with regards to the Chappaqua Crossing matter, as clients of both internal and external counsel, they should undertake the additional expense to get their legal advice in writing. “As a client, which the board is here, you’re making decisions. Anything less than a signed opinion should not be relied upon because the town will bear the risk of the advice and whoever gave it should be responsible.”
“The board should not,” he cautioned, “find itself in the position of saying, ‘Yes, we got advice from counsel. No, we didn’t get it in writing.’”
SEQRA’s environmental review timetable
Weitz and Greenstein elicited from Gerrard and Smith some additional information on the status of the environmental review process for Chappaqua Crossing. There are four major steps remaining: accept FEIS; make findings; hold public hearing for zoning change; vote on whether to approve the zoning application.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) – a town board endorsed statement of the environmental impacts of the proposed project and alternatives – is currently being drafted by the town board’s consultants. The board expects to receive the final version from their consultants by the end of February, and formally accept the FEIS shortly after that. Once accepted, the FEIS becomes a public document.
The town board is not permitted to issue its findings based on the FEIS for 10 days after it has accepted the FEIS and made it public. During those ten days, anyone may submit comments on the FEIS to the town board as the lead agency. At the end of those 10 days, the board has 30 days within which it must complete its findings. The board’s findings are their conclusions based on the record of facts in the FEIS. If the board meets is goal of accepting the FEIS at the end of February, they expect they will issue their findings by the end of March.
At the same time or after issuing its findings, the town board must hold a public hearing on the Summit Greenfield’s application to change the zoning to allow a multifamily planned development (MFPD) at Chappaqua Crossing.
Then the board will make its decision and vote on the developer’s application.
Summit Greenfield’s new parking plan utilizes the 6.5 acres donated to the town
Betty Weitz asked the town board whether the developer had responded with a parking plan that is acceptable to them. Town board counsel Clinton Smith responded, “A response did present a plan in which a sufficient number of spaces was shown on the property as configured. That site plan is still under review. So the answer is they responded with a plan that met the town requirements, but the practicality and feasibility of that plan is still under review.”
That plan, apparently, shows 320 additional needed parking spaces positioned on the 6.5 acres originally proposed in Alternative I as land donated to the town. In Summit Greenfield’s most recent response to the town board’s outstanding questions on environmental impacts, dated January 13, 2011, Andy Tung of Divney Tung Schwalbe, engineers for the developer, proposes that “[t]he 6.5 acres of land in the southeastern portion of the site would no longer be donated to the Town, but generally the same area, including approximately 3.5 acres of B-RO-20 land and 3 acres of R-1A land, would be offered to the Town for interim recreational use until such time as the Town Board or Planning Board determines that the landbanked portion is needed for parking.”
In an accompanying letter, Summit Greenfield’s counsel, Stephen L. Kass, stated, “Given the Town Board’s newly stated concern that Chappaqua Crossing provide sufficient parking for future commercial tenants, the Applicant believes the most appropriate course would be to defer the previously proposed donation of this land for recreational purposes unrelated to the project and to make that recreational use terminable if the Town decides those 320 spaces are needed for commercial parking.”
No movement on request for sewer district extension
No action has been taken by Westchester County on the request by the town for a sewer extension for Random Farms, Yeshiva, Riverwoods and Chappaqua Crossing. Clinton Smith explained, “The County, we believe, will not act on sewers until the town finishes the environmental study [of Chappaqua Crossing] because that environmental impact statement is something that will have to be considered for expansion of the sewer district.”
Divney Tung Schwalbe Memo of 1-13-11.pdf
Letter from SG attorney Stephen L. Kass, Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP, 1-13-11
___________________________
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.
Do “deed restrictions” hold up in bankruptcy if a commercial property is not viable with them in place?
Now SG is taking back its donation of land to the town? Are they suggesting that the land across from the high school that currently has several houses on it become a parking lot in the future? Add this to the bs that is this proposal. SG is trying to call the town’s bluff so to speak. “Ok, you want enough parking then we will take back the land and make it as inappropriate as possible.” What a load of crap.
The town folk here got way too complacent and complimentary of this board after their recent letter to SG, but do not underestimate now. There is a good chance they approve this in some manner that includes residential. That will drive up your taxes, your school taxes, make an already overcrowded road more so, and change the character of this town forever.
I attended my first Town Board meeting on Tuesday. When a constituent asked a question, our Supervisor told him, “this is a public hearing, not a Q&A.”
Can someone please tell me what is the process to ask questions and get answers from our Town Board?
I’d also like to add that I was very impressed with the people who spoke at the meeting. I was equally disappointed with the manner in which most of them were treated by the board and especially our Town Supervisor. It was as if the residents were considered their opposition as opposed to constituents the board members are elected to represent.
Robin Murphy you ask a very good question about the ” Q&A ” response from our
supervisor and you make an equally important observation about the boards and the supervisors defensive and offensive tone to the questioners.
Thank you.
I did not attend the last meeting but I don’t disagree about a tone of “opposition” coming from the town board, at least from time to time. But I think it is possibly a product of a very tense situation where everything is subject to great scrutiny. This situation with Chappaqua Crossing has ended up being so way beyond the ordinary for our usually quiet hamlet that it has been a tremendous strain for all concerned, including our town board. Be assured, however, I am strongly against CC and I have not like the tenor of the board proceedings at some times.
Thank you NCNOW for such thorough, comprehensive, and incisive reporting on this meeting and the background information.
You have provided important facts of which I and, I am sure, others were not aware. It was truly educational.
It IS hard to understand why the TB would attempt to change the town code now other than to serve the needs of Chappaqua Crossing. As your article noted, there is no other applicant that would require this change.
We assume that since the TB “tabled” the issue of giving up discretionary power to decide on separate entrances for taller buildings(over 2 floors) according to application, that the power will revert back to the planning board from whom it was taken and where it belongs.
By removing this fundamental function from the planning board, it takes away all oversight and concentrates decision-making power in the town board, which is an unhealthy state of affairs for any form of government or governmental agency.
What ever happened to the petition that was going to be filed requiring a majority of the TB to vote and since they recused they couldn’t?
mr/mrs murphy, you gave only one half of the supervisor’s answer in that exchange with rob greenstein. she said it’s not a Q and A but that he could write his questions to the board and that the board does answer people’s letters. now I might prefer an answer in public (i do, actually)—but it’s wrong to leave off that last part of what the supervisor said.
The situation with Chappaqua Crossing is very tense indeed. I do completely see the sense in the board’s counsel not wishing to share with Mr. Greenstein what points of negotiation the board may be considering, but I’m still very glad that Mr. G asked the questions. And the board did in fact cough up information (despite the supervisor’s statement that comment doesn’t mean Q & A—just Q’s) that we didn’t have before. About timetable and sewers and Summit Greenfield taking back the 6.5 acre “gift.” So it was worth trying, Rob. And thanks for the answers the supervisor did give. Keep on trying. And NEWCASTLENOW keep reporting.
Dear Murphys, Robin’s “first town board meeting”? As Republicans or Tea Partyists (or both), it sounds as though you’re preparing to run for office in November? It’s a healthy thing to have candidates of different parties to choose between. Are you declaring?
To In Answer To Robin Murphy,
Sorry, that wasn’t on purpose. I think I must have been so taken aback with the scornful demeanor and tone of our supervisor that her suggestion didn’t register with me.
In any case, maybe you can answer my question: how does one ask questions and get answers from the town board? If we are supposed to send them in writing, where do we send them and how do we get the answers?
Robin Murphy is right to question WHEN the Supervisor finds Q&A appropriate. That is the point, it is not this person’s job to write a report on the meeting.
The expectation is that public business will be conducted in a public forum where there can be public dialogue. A public meeting is the appropriate place for Q&A.
If someone writes a letter, as the Supervisor suggests, and IF she/he gets a reply, that is a private exchange not a public conversation.
The Supervisor’s response was evasive. We need disclosure—in short, transparency from this governing body. This town board has a history of treating public business as their own private affair, as if it is no business of the residents and taxpayers of this town. I agree, she does not treat people who speak at public meetings respectfully.
Perhaps, we can establish a public forum in this newspaper where readers post their questions for the Supervisor and she responds.
The questions that residents ask in public are questions that should be answered in public. If the supervisor is willing to answer a question in writing (as she said board members are very willing to do), then why not answer the person who asks them, in public?
The only good reason not to answer a question on the spot is that board members might want to think carefully about their responses. But then say so! And then make the response in public at the next meeting, perhaps.
As it stands now, the only time board members are required to answer questions is when they are running for office. Once elected, they needn’t answer questions in work sessions or in regular meetings. How can this be??!?!
I was very impressed with Mr. Greenstein’s performance. It is very clear that the Town Board is being bullied, perhaps at the Supervisor’s lead, by its own counsel, Clintn Smith. The fact that Clinton Smith’s business partner is advising the Planning Board is a direct conflict of interest. I truly believe that Clinton Smith and the Supervisor think the residents are a bunch of morons. First they try and sneak through 200 units - thank god for the School Board stopping them. Second, they try and snooker through handcuffs on the Planning board. Two steps are critically needed:
1) Clinton Smith needs to be replaced with unbiased counsel with more experience who represents residents, not the developer’s interests.
2) This town needs to have a resident run next time around against our incumbent Supervisor. The stakes are too high and the obsessive political focus on affordable housing at any cost by this Town Board is destructive. I have no problem with affordable housing as long as it does not result in this Town becoming “unaffordable” for all of those who have to subsidize. Time for a change across the board!!!
Rob Greenstein would be an excellent person to have on our Town Board. It would be nice to have someone who represents the residents and not the special interests.
If he’s interested, Rob Greenstein would be great. We need a Town Board that is working hard for the good of the town. We need legal council focusing on legal arguments to support what is in our interest, not just throwing up road blocks. If the Town Board does anything other than clear denial of Summit Greenfield’s request, getting elected to the Town Board will be easier than getting elected to third grade class president.
