Letter to the Editor: Keep it simple, allow SG to develop the property as purchased
March 18, 2011
by Lee Bowen
Dear Editor,
Summit Greenfield returns with yet another list of demands in order to facilitate their proposed commercial and residential plans for the former Reader’s Digest property. These amendments would benefit the developer, and only the developer. Once again they come before our town board asking for more concessions and zoning changes that would create a future negative impact on Chappaqua.
The amendments requested:
• Remove the restrictions on the number of office tenants (currently 5) and that one tenant is required to occupy 200,000 sq. ft.
I don’t believe we should allow any developer of a property in town to have the ability to develop an unlimited commercial or residential development. The town must retain control so this and future developments do not get out of hand.
• Create a multifamily planned development zone (MFPD) so the developer can build 199 units of housing by asking the town to rezone the property and change our town’s development plan map.
Why is building 199 residential units not harmful to Chappaqua? Why would you create a MFPD zone outside of town when the point is to be in town? How can anyone consider the business office park at Chappaqua Crossing to offer the access to shopping and community facilities that is a condition of the MFPD zone?
• Increase the town’s height limitations so the developer can build higher buildings.
No one could claim that five-story apartment buildings in the middle of single-family houses are in keeping with the character of a neighborhood. Why do we want to aid the developer in getting a higher return on his investment through dense residential development when what the town most needs from its last sizable commercial property is commercial revenue?
• Change existing requirements regarding off-street parking and loading facilities.
Summit Greenfield is asking to be allowed to provide fewer parking spaces for its commercial space than our town requires. Why should we make an exception for this developer? And if we allow 199 residential units to be created, then we are requiring up to 400 additional residential parking spaces to be created. That crowds out parking for the commercial tenants.
• Reduce side-yard setbacks
This seems mainly to affect the placement of the gatehouse on the property rather than residential or commercial buildings.
In the end, let’s keep this simple. The property is currently zoned commercial with 21 one-acre potential residential building sites. That’s how the developer bought it; that’s what he should develop. Commercial property is so scarce in this town and our commercial revenues so small that we need to maintain what little we have, since the tax benefits are greater to the town than those that housing provides. Raise the tenancy cap a little more, but be prudent and thoughtful. No developer should be allowed to have unlimited tenants. “Unlimited?” That makes no sense. Our town must maintain control over parking and traffic.
To the Town Board members allowed to vote on this issue: Raise the tenant restriction to reasonably fill the existing space that is not rented, but please do not grant the other amendments.
Lee Bowen
___________________________
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.
“Common sense is instinct, and enough of it is genius.”
Josh Billings (American Humorist, 1818-1885)
Thanks Lee for keeping it simple.Let’s hope the Town Board follows your(and Josh Billings’)lead.
Amen.
Thank you for stating it so simply. Let’s hope the powers that be listen.
THE NERVE!!The developer is suing the town / town board and now they submit a new list of demands? We should suspend all hearings and suspend all consideration of any ammendements until the lawsuit is resolved. What do the lawyers have to say about this? your thoughts….
Dear Resident Taxpayer: Very good question. “What do the lawyers have to say about this?” Not “what do all the people who oppose any single thing the developer proposes no matter what”. What do the lawyers think, with a realistic unemotional unbiased sober experienced evaluation of this?
I fear such an evaluation will not appear on this site, nor elsewhere, until a judge rules and we have to then deal with the consequences of all the “just say no” crowd.
I hope I’m wrong but I don’t think so.
That there exists a “Just Say No” crowd is a myth propagated by the developer. “Oh, those people don’t want ANYthing to change at Reader’s Digest—they say No to everything!”
This has never been true. The opposition to what SG proposes has been much more nuanced than “No.”
The developer has run roughshod over the community. His brochures claiming ridiculous tax benefits to the town and school district were met with skepticism at first, and his persistence in sending out these claims by mail over and over is what turned residents’ skepticism to scorn. Please, Clittle, imagine how it looked to people who were NOT the developer. Come on. This guy has a history. Who can forget that he originally proposed a condo development of 348 housing units?!? Then 278, now 199—and complaining about the town all the way.
This kind of sort of tends to make people think he’s not that into commercial development—which is what sensible people want to see promoted at that site. Our town desperately needs commercial revenues to relieve residential taxpayers. His reluctant downsizing of his project has people believing that all he has in mind is to crank it back up as soon as he gets his next chance—not just back to the 348, but to DOUBLE that number, as he has always claimed his “density bonuses” entitle him!
When did this developer ever sit down to speak honestly with people rather than push his highly suspect PR? The fact is no one trusts him anymore. That’s HIS fault, not residents’ fault. HE was the newcomer here. He got off on the wrong foot and just kept stomping on the town. He’s still stomping, now with this lawsuit.
Oh good lord, how can anyone say lawyers won’t weigh in on this site? So many have already with thoughtful, respectful and informative posts. The archived articles are full of them.
You want “realistic”, “sober” and “experienced” evaluations? Go to Rob Greenstein’s letter on today’s front page. Go to “Think Again’s” posts in the archives. They are thorough and thoughtful and very illuminating. Also, take a read of the Frooks case mentioned in other posts.
From a prior post:
“Frooks” is certainly of help. Y’all should read it.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3730749940844601008&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
By ~~~~ on 03/07/2011 at 1:05 am
For “Think Again” go to the archives link above highlighted in blue “HERE” and scroll down to:
No surprises in Chappaqua Xing lawsuits, except for odd timing, March 1, 2011
And
Letter to the Editor: Commenter explains why partial residential plan at Chap Xing is a mistake
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
I totally agree with the post at 9:06.I have talked to lots of people in this town about the RD property and every single one has well reasoned concerns about the proposed residential development and every single one supports further commercial use. Not one is just saying no.And I have not seen anyone make a post on this site opposing the development “just because” they don’t want change.What I have seen are people’s posts expressing opposition being consistently mischaracterized as “just say no” posts. The “just say no” crowd is indeed a myth.
