In new site plan SG asks that limit on number of 1,500 to 5,000 s.f. stores be removed

three
Top rendering is of left side of Whole Foods; bottom is of front facade with additional retail on right.  See larger photos in “Read more…”
With 60 comments since publication
Saturday, April 12, 2014
by Christine Yeres

Because the rearrangement of the retail spaces along the main entry drive in the new site plan from Summit Greenfield is not conducive to junior-anchor-size stores, the developer is asking the Town Board to “remove the limit on the maximum number of stores between 1,500 and 5,000 square feet” at Chappaqua Crossing, in order to allow “the mix and size of retail tenants that would complement a pedestrian-oriented shopping street.”  Summit Greenfield also asks the Town Board to add “the growing of fruits and vegetables for sale” as a permitted accessory use.

Reports of the plan developed with Planning Board member, architect Tom Curley, have appeared in NCNOW articles over the last several months.  Curley speculated during his last showing of the plan-in-progress—see PB has a latest look at Chappaqua Crossing “Main Street” of retail and residential, NCNOW.org, 3/21/14—that Summit Greenfield might soon submit it for the Town Board to consider, then pass to the Planning Board for comments. The plan is in, and will be the subject of discussion in a joint Town Board / Planning Board meeting on Tuesday, April 22.  The meeting will include Michael Galante, the town’s traffic consultant on Chappaqua Crossing.

The following parts of the submission—

CHAPPAQUA CROSSING REVISED PDCP SUBMISSION
Latest submissions from Chappaqua Crossing:

APRIL 2014

Chappaqua Crossing 2014 Revised PDCP Description (76.87 MB)

Chappaqua Crossing 2014 Revised PDCP Full-Size Drawings (45.31 MB)

Chappaqua Crossing 2014 Revised PDCP Preliminary Stormwater Management Report (5.51 MB)

—are all available by clicking HERE, but they are large files that you will be invited to download from the site of Divney Tung Schwalbe, consultants to Summit Greenfield.

PREVIOUS PLAN: [retail is shown in yellow]

ONE
Whole Foods was inside the 100 building and 200 (cupola) building, other retail in new footprint in front of it

NEW LAYOUT: [retail is shown in yellow]

TWO Whole Foods and other retail all make new footprint, Whole Foods with its back to Roaring Brook Road, other retail arranged on axis of the entryway from Bedford Road to cupola building.

SOME FEATURES OF THE NEW SITE PLAN:

From the letter accompanying the site plan materials, Andy Tung writes:

The “traditional neighborhood design” configuration of the proposed retail spaces along the main entry drive is not readily adaptable to the parking and loading requirements of mid-sized retailers (“junior anchors” of 10,000 to 25,000 sf) that would typically be found in the more conventional retail center layout of the DSEIS PDCP.  With the exception of a proposed 25,000 sf gym, 40,000 sf grocery, and a 4,000 sf bank, the remaining retail spaces are designed to permit further partitioning to suit smaller tenants.  As the 2014 Revised Retail PDCP was developed to incorporate tenets of traditional neighborhood design in coordination with the Town’s representatives, the Applicant requests that the Town Board remove the limit on the maximum number of stores between 1,500 and 5,000 square feet from the Redrafted Local Law (currently stated as “four” in Section 60-360.8.3[3]) in order to permit the mix and size of retail tenants that would complement a pedestrian-oriented shopping street.  Additionally, to permit the growing of organic produce on the site as described above, the Applicant requests that the town board add “the growing of fruits and vegetables for sale” as a Permitted Accessory Use….”

The new submission claims that traffic volume and tax revenues remain the same as in the old plan. The residential plan remains the same, with a total of 111 residential units, 60 fee-simple attached townhouses in groups of two-to-four units with garages at rear, 51 condos including 20 AFFH units, but in this new plan the Wallace Auditorium remains embedded in the residential development “for community use.”

The Whole Foods space shows as 40,000 square feet with 10,000 square feet of additional retail to its right.  Designated uses are a gym of 25,000 square feet and a bank of 4,000. 

Delivery trucks still enter at Bedford Road, “potential off-site traffic-related impacts and mitigation measures would be the same under the 2014 Revised Retail PDCP [as under the former one].”

With Whole Foods free-standing in new footprint, the 200 Building (cupola) remains office space.


one

two

three

four

five

six

seven

eight

nine



Comments(63):
We encourage civil, civic discourse. All comments are reviewed before publication to assure that this standard is met.

looks good to me

By supporter on 04/05/2014 at 10:57 pm

Was a house sold to CC? Across from Greeley at a CC entrance?

Editor’s Note:  No. It was purchased by a family and is undergoing renovations.

By Question on 04/06/2014 at 4:45 pm

the download shows the cc boundary to include a 1 family house. What is that?

Editor’s Note:  I believe all the houses on the Reader’s Digest side of Roaring Brook Road between the Greeley entrance and 117 belong to SG/CC.

By question on 04/07/2014 at 5:00 pm

Should the people serving on our Planning Boards live amongst the community? If you live so far over to one side of New Castle i.e. really Ossining, do you really care about people who live around Roaring Brook Road, or Old Roaring Brook Road, or near the Kittle House? If your culture and mindset is to use the services of Ossining or Pleasantville, or perhaps Mt. Kisco, on a daily basis; do you have within you the same convictions and beliefs as those who are the downtown land owners and business owners of Chappaqua? How can a Planning Board member really spear head the CC project when he does not even walk around Chappaqua as Mr. John Buckley did, or Michael Wolfenson. One of the most historic and biggest changes ever in the history of New Castle is about to happen, and all due to the talent of various people (primarily one) who are not really part of the community but hold seats on our Planning board. On top of all this we have a person claiming that his hands are tied. Mr. Buckley, calling Mr. Buckley, its your time to shine along with Michael Wolfenson. Mike and John what do you have to say?

By A look at our Planning Board on 04/08/2014 at 6:12 pm

We need the big change and it has taken too long

By Yes big change on 04/08/2014 at 7:11 pm

@ A look at our Planning Board,

Your comment is truly insulting to those that volunteer their time and show great skill in what they do.  Those on the Planning Board have great regard for all of New Castle regardless of where they live.  Do you mean that only members who live in a particular area of New Castle should be able to work on issues that affect where they live?  That is ridiculous and unworkable.  You mention Wolfenson twice yet he lives in Millwood.  It is important to have opinions coming from various viewpoints and not just from NIMBY’s

By Insulting? on 04/09/2014 at 8:54 am

Our Planning Board needs to represent all of the town of New Castle. We are not just Chappaqua, or even just Chappaqua and Millwood.  We need the best qualified people on the Planning Board, people with experience in the issues the planning Board has to analyze.  Mr Curley has a long and distinguished career in Planning, Mr Kirkwood has in the past served with great expertise on the Planning Board.  Mr Kirkwood has a great deal of experience with issues involving the environmental impacts of development. They are from two parts of this Town that often are not represented on Town Boards and Commissions.  The other two members of the Planning Board bring other experience and live in the Chappaqua area.  We have a great Planning Board which has many skills and serves our community without any pay.  Lets appreciate them, not insult them.

By Our Planning Board on 04/09/2014 at 10:41 am

This Planning Board may be great at representing projects around the world, but they seem to be failing both the existing and future landlords and merchants that sit right outside town hall. It would be refreshing to see and hear this Planning Board take up the concerns of the landlords and merchants by demonstrating that they have a plan to help this area of New Castle survive a third hamlet that they are going to be held responsible for approving. I never hear Mr. Kirkwood or Mr. Curley working on any plans to help downtown Chappaqua survive a third hamlet. I agree, they are smart enough to also work in this direction at the same time while working on CC; but they have to NOT approve anything until they create a survival plan that should be approved at the same time as CC. To approve CC is to forget about downtown Chappaqua and have the town board - zoning board - planning board, all collectively poke their finger in the eyes of every landlord - merchant - and business owner. The town boards need to prove that they are not just concentrating on satisfying the desires of CC, and they should not use the Master Plan as a Master Agenda as to NOT address downtown Chappaqua. I really don’t care about projects that have been planned overseas, I only care about projects that have been planned over the Chappaqua bridge.

By Re: Our Planning Board on 04/09/2014 at 6:17 pm

Ahem,..... What is the plan to lower rents…..this is the tenth te I have asked this question. And… What are the rents that the landlords are charging now?  Unless these items are disclosed , the hell with them.

By Dear our planning board on 04/09/2014 at 9:08 pm

In my experience, the rents are not the biggest problem.  It’s no secret what is being asked.  I paid aroind $2000 for 750 square feet on lower King plus 10% of the buildings’ real estate tax (currently about $35000 in total, I believe.).  Not cheap, not terrible.  The bigger problem is bad sidewalk flow, limited parking and just a general lack of consistent foot traffic.  I cannot tell you the times I’ve heard “Where is everybody?”  Until we figure out why people don’t shop downtown, nothing will be solved.  I fervently hope this will be examined by Pace and not limited to a laundry list of what people wish for (Thai restaurant, flywheel, etc.).

By Dawn Greenberg on 04/10/2014 at 6:51 am

Your comment is spot on! However, what you are addressing is not new to the downtown area of Chappaqua. This has been a long standing problem not just since 2008, not just over the past 10 years, but for a very long time. While we hold such high marks for individuals like Mr. Kirkwood, Mr. Curley, and others, they have never ever given any real consideration in placing forth an approach to the Planning and Zoning laws that would, over time, allow the downtown area of Chappaqua to evolve into different permitted “uses” that are currently not permitted. So aside from making sure that CVM installed their emergency roof top generator correctly, they have been unplugged to the issues that really matter. Of course they can claim that they were never told, or did not know; and I would believe them. We need people who care about downtown Chappaqua to understand how it can change its stripes over time to become something else, should the third hamlet destroy it. With all the experience that K and C have, they have to be told this? Come on! Kirkwood has lots of experience, he never thought of bringing into downtown Chappaqua different P and Z laws in all his years of serving our Community? What is the definition of PLANNING? I agree with what the ‘street is saying’ - town hall does not care about the impacts that they are going to have on our beautiful town.

By Re: Dawn Greenberg on 04/10/2014 at 9:16 am

Thank you Dawn for giving us a peek into the rents. Yours appears to be so so. That being said, as for me, I don’t shop downtown because it is too annoying to do so. Also, when I drive elsewhere, I plan to shop anywhere else.

I remember when downtown was like an ant hill of kids, that was pre-7 bridges school. I am afraid nothing can help make businesses thrive similar to pre-internet days…even making parking more convenient.

The only help I see, as to merchant bottom line, is to defer/abate half the rent for a period of time to see if the merchants are willing to stay in business with that help. Its easy for me to say because I am not a downtown landlord. Just a suggestion.

With lower rents and lowering retail prices with advertising, lets see, who knows. I am not in retailing.

Sorry

By finally an answer on 04/10/2014 at 9:22 am

Re: finally an answer - You have hit the nail right on the head. This is why CC can not be approved, unless and until, the town of New Castle addresses creating a new set of Planning and Zoning laws that work within the Board of Health Mandates. You and your opinion represent exactly why our Planning and Zoning Boards have over the past 15 to 20 years failed our Community. Our town boards have been asleep at the wheel in reacting to what HAS BEEN UNFOLDING in downtown Chappaqua for a very long time. Now that a third hamlet is going to be introduced into the local economy, in combination with people who feel as you do; we need to research on a town hall level the kinds of new tenancy’s the town would allow by “right” and not through an expensive process to have an application approved. Our Planning Board has a long standing history of not being able to react in a timely fashion to approve the most easiest applications i.e. emergency Roof Top Generators, and to force all the landlords to go before the Planning Board for changes that they would require from the town in order to attract different kinds of tenants that currently would not be approved, is simply not fair or community minded. But if your mind and body is not in downtown Chappaqua on a daily basis - how could you really ever understand or embrace this position.

By New rules needed on 04/10/2014 at 3:34 pm

Dawn, I agree that parking and ‘flow’ are big problems. I also think that a number of small changes could help to alleviate problems—and encourage people to park, shop and linger. One or two additional traffic flows. Blue ‘P’ signs that pull cars into town lots. Simple stuff that for whatever reason we have never done. These measures won’t solve the hamlet’s problems, but little things do add up.

By Matt Egan on 04/10/2014 at 5:51 pm

downtown is a thing of the past. It must change in the face of CC.
There may be losses to those merchants and landlords, but that is the
“rule” of the “jungle” which does not change anywhere on this planet.
Eat or be eaten, evolve, change or fail.

Downtown stores that will fail will do so because of lack of demand for their goods. NO rule change will alter this fact of life.

Once the downtown becomes or threatens to become a ghost town, methinks the board will evolve to leniency (me-hopes).

You obviously are either a landlord or a tenant. You all must bear the consequences of economic down turn, just like my neighbor who lost his job and is suffering and struggling. Why should you get more help than he gets?

By dear new rules needed on 04/11/2014 at 7:22 am

It is not that I do not agree with you. You are 100% correct. However, we have a town hall with a history of not being able to see past, over, or through, their own rules and regulations. Administrations come and go, but the policy of how the town regulates the denial or approval of an application pretty much remains the same, unless changed. What you say is correct, but lets imagine that perhaps all of us merchants and landlords are correct, that we are getting eaten alive as you say. Do we not need to plan for this possible impact as tied together with the approvals of CC. What 10 new uses would we allow in downtown Chappaqua that we presently do not allow, that would also be approved by the Board of Health. Downtown Chappaqua has the potential to become our own Rt.66, because once the new highway was built out West, no one saw a need to use Rt.66. This potential exist for downtown Chappaqua. Ever see the economic devastation that Foxwoods Casino caused all the little shopping centers and stores just outside the perimeter of the Casino? Same thing may happen to Chappaqua. What are you prepared to see take place in downtown Chappaqua, that presently is not allowed. We need this to be planned for and allowed, so that the transition to such new kinds of businesses are easily approved “as of right”. Again, our town hall has never shown itself to be nimble in approving applications, and this new reality should not become the burden of existing or new property owners or merchants just because a third hamlet will be approved. Does this make sense to you? Because, if not, I really would like to know why.

By Re: dear new rules needed on 04/11/2014 at 10:36 am

I confess that I don’t know the nitty gritty details. 

I am stuck in the 70’s with gristedes Lickety split and the ocean house.  It will be for new merchants to be creative with lower rents.  I also confess the I don’t have answers . 

I see armonk and pleasantville that work. i am merely a kibitzer .  But I know what I don’t like. But it is for the yentas to weigh in on the topic of shopping .

I am glad that I am not rob g.

By Dear new rules on 04/12/2014 at 4:14 pm

has Whole Foods signed an agreement with the Chappaqua Crossing gang?
if not, assuming that they will is a HUGE mistake!

By you know what happens when you assume? on 04/12/2014 at 6:20 pm

I am so glad that this revised plan incorporates a traditional neighborhood design championed by Planning Board member Tom Curley. This is not a strip mall.  This plan preserve the Cupola building and Wallace Auditorium.  The recreation type retail will protect downtown Chappaqua and provide much needed recreational facilities for our town.  I read an article in the Patch that the grocer has expressed interest in growing organic produce on site in a farm garden or greenhouse.  This is actually starting to sound good.

By Much better on 04/13/2014 at 8:58 am

Dear New Rules,

I don’t go to casinos but I take your point. There are charming boutiques that could flourish here with lower rents and more convenient parking. The key point is lower rents.

I still haven’t heard the landlord lobby agreeing to help out despite dozens of entreaties.

We are being pulled in many directions by the special interests., that is selfish interests. But that selfishness is understood and justified….but please don’t cloak that justified selfishness with pretexts.

By Not a gambler on 04/13/2014 at 10:19 am

The rear elevation of the Whole Foods is just a blank wall.  Planning Board during your Site Plan Review of this proposal please require some vertical architectural elements like pilasters, columns, simulated windows, etc. to break up the monotony of this building.

By Blank on 04/14/2014 at 10:24 am

Looks awesome!

By An open mind on 04/14/2014 at 3:39 pm

The first scene in Hamlet mirrors what has happened to our downtown.

The Hamlet grave diggers’ dialogue was that “we begin to die the day we are born”. As to our downtown, it began to die the moment the idea of Seven Bridges School was born.

Before seven bridges, there were so many children running about that it was dangerous to drive on Greeley Avenue. Children spent money and their parents were forced to drive into town to pick them up and the parents spent money.

Cleaving the middle school population brought the downtown foot and vehicular traffic below critical mass. Nothing can fix that dilemma.
The “shop local” campaign was a ridiculous joke.

Killing CC will not revive the downtown nor bring back the children.
Yes, it may hasten the demise of marginal stores. But that is life.
Out of death comes new life.

How about enacting a Business Improvement District “BID” which could
create charming facades and designs in a planned way? The property owners pay that tax. Anyway that is how we did it in 1590 England.

By William Shakespeare on 04/14/2014 at 11:08 pm

What about the traffic?

Editor’s Note:  The town’s traffic consultant for the environmental review, Michael Galante, is scheduled to appear before both the Town Board and Planning Board on Tuesday, April 22.

By The crucial question on 04/15/2014 at 10:41 am

Great points.  Street scape improvements, long overdue, and some innovative zoning- like form based zoning that doesn’t nit pick every new use. Then do a qualitative analysis of our downtown merchant base- what do we have, what have other similar towns found was successful, how might our merchant base change to be more successful.  Its true you can only lead a horse to water, but we could at least give people the information they could use to make their businesses more successful.

By Dear Will on 04/15/2014 at 11:43 am

Other arguments and concerns aside, when was Whole Foods a given?  I recall hearing “grocery” or “supermarket” before the morph.

Camera pans concerned faces of TB and possibly SG rep.

TB member: Gee, TB and SG rep, what are we going to do tonight?

BG: “The same thing we do every night—try to take over the world, us, I mean New Castle.”
[Responses from the various gathered.]

“How will we sell this hot cc project to the community?”

“Yeah, We’ve gotta think bigger than limited residential and a few private professional offices, but already the community is balking.”

“Well, it would like something to replace the old Gristede’s and Shop Rite, so what about adding a supermarket at cc?”

“A supermarket would be a big matzo ball on that elegant piece of property.”

“But people would love to have maybe not a Shop Rite but a Fairway.”

“Fairway!  Fairway is what every body wants.  Great products at great prices.  People would come from all over to shop at Fairway.  But do we want just(pause)anybody shopping at cc?  The traffic!”

“What about suggesting something that’s tony and more expensive, like Whole Foods.  The name itself oozes health, what everybody wants.”

“Good idea.  We’ll word it carefully, like ‘cc will also have the convenience of a market similar to Whole Foods’”

“That says or doesn’t say it all.  I like it.  Good work.”

“Narf!”

By MARS on 04/17/2014 at 5:23 pm

Dear Bill S, Methinks you are right, unfortunately

By un-scholar on 04/17/2014 at 6:33 pm

The economic difference between Fairway and Whole foods is similar to the difference between a New Castle homeowner and her/his once weekly housekeeper.

By the way, that long gone Gristedes was a beautifully charming store, but sadly, hardly anyone remembers it now. But your hard-to-understand posting does show that there has been a change in the New Castle culture. By the way, your dialogue omitted a discussion of the Whole Foods that is thriving in Greenwich.

By dear Mars on 04/18/2014 at 9:48 am

Greenwich discussion.
Greenwich whole foods on US 1 in the middle of the Greenwich business district,
A thriving business at a thriving location-agreed.
Chappaqua Crossing 117 vs US 1, Greenwich, not apples to apples furthermore, designing a fake neighborhood cartoon of Disney facades to help support the big box “grocer” is getting grosser and grosser; inexcusable!

By hit the reset button on 04/19/2014 at 8:31 am

Sprawl, sprawl, sprawl.  That is what Rob Greenstein is promoting—in fact, pushing—for this site.

By Jane P. on 04/19/2014 at 12:13 pm

First of all, CC does not fit the definition of sprawl, which is to expand or stretch out a town boundary. CC is a discrete, self contained, development bounded by a train, highway and large school campus. It is re-working something that already exists.

For cripes sake, what is the Saw Mill River Parkway? Chopped liver?

It is fully understandable that a NIMBY such as yourself will not like anything about it. What, to many of us, seems a charming façade and design a la Armonk Square, which matches the condo unit designs,
to you it is Disney.  I love your comment. It supports what the rest of us know and feel…...NOTHING will make you happy short of killing the development, which undermines your already weak credibility.

By Dear Jane and Reset on 04/20/2014 at 9:02 am

Should CC be designed like the faux colonials in town? The mcMansions on Carolyn place? Tudor? Like The long island style ranch homes? Like the early 1900’s style large homes? Or do you want plain box stores? So now you want a strip mall? I half expect you complain about the color. Do you want brown, beige, white? What color trim? Do you think Armonk Square is Disney?

Your comment appears to be made by a person who is unalterably opposed to the development. It is through that prism your credibility or lack thereof should be viewed by the rest of us.

 

By What is a fake design? on 04/20/2014 at 10:09 am

To:fake design and the rest of you.
First of all there is no unique design going on at summit greenfield property and certainly not discreetly using up a very nice piece of our suburban landscape, that’s sprawl! And if you knew anything other than propaganda techniques such as “we all” and the N word, you would know your comments about styles would be the the solution for a more eclectic mix of styles; the lack thereof being a concern of the Westchester County Planning Commission. A colonial, a Tudor, a McMansion and a Williamsburg or two would be a far more authentic fake traditional neighborhood design; to complete the cartoon, put some people in those fake second floor windows. It is a bad, bad design.

By Push the reset button on 04/20/2014 at 7:10 pm

The focus is now solely on the merits of the development itself now?
The downtown has nothing to do with the CC look, feel etc?

Good. That is only a distraction. While it is a matter of concern, it is immaterial to CC itself.

I see that people see that it is/was the Bell School change that hastened the down town decline and CC has NOTHING to do with the situation that is facing the merchants today.

By So downtown no longer matters? on 04/20/2014 at 9:30 pm

To:fake design,

First of all there is no “designing” going on at the summit greenfield property and certainly not being done discreetly; using up a very nice piece of our or any suburban landscape is called sprawl! And if you knew anything other than propaganda techniques you would know your off hand questions about styles and colors would actually be valid solution’s for a more eclectic mix of styles; the lack thereof is, and as was in the very first CC submission, a concern of the Westchester County Planning Commission. So, a “colonial, a Tudor, a McMansion and a Williamsburg” or two would complete a more authentic, fake Traditional Neighborhood Design.

To complete the “neighborhood” cartoon, sketch in some kids playing outside, some people in those fake second floor dormer windows and oh yes, a juice bar, yogurt hall, and the retail shops traditionally found in neighborhoods. Is it a neighborhood yet?

The reality according to our consultants AKRF; a small grocery and four or five retail/service providers are all that’s required to support the property’s office, proposed residential and surrounding New Castles’ shopping needs. So get out the eraser and start over with some smarter choice’s; start with a small grocery to meet OUR needs not the big box mind set and all that it entails.

By Push the delete button on 04/21/2014 at 9:38 am

The term sprawl, as used by land developers, planners and governmental institutions, refers to the change in trends of land usage, and the change in demographics across given geographies.

Sprawl is generally defined as the increased development of land in suburban and rural areas outside of their respective urban centers. This increased development of real estate in the outskirts of towns, villages and metropolitan areas is quite often accompanied by a lack of development, redevelopment or reuse of land withinthe urban centers themselves.

This trend is often referred to as both urban sprawl and rural sprawl. Although these two terms might sound contradictory, they are ironically referring to the same phenomenon—that is, the movement of development fromurban areas, to rural areas.

Framed in other terms, sprawl refers to the slow decentralization of human occupancy. That is, communities are requiring more land and space to supply the same given population with homes, workplaces, shopping locations and recreation spaces.

The U.S. has experienced a statistically significant increase in the rate of sprawl in the last several decades, and particularly in the last several years. The trend has led to the large-scale loss of natural forests, fields and other undeveloped land, and this increase in land development has not corresponded proportionately to human population increases. It is therefore population redistribution that has led to a wide variety of consequences.

By Jane P. on 04/21/2014 at 10:54 am

Truly informative. We are lucky that CC is built on existing parking lots and semi developed land such that it is not entirely within the definition of “sprawl”.

PS What about population increase and changes in the behaviors, likes and dislikes?

Or is it that you are trying to hold back the certain-to-occur incoming or rising tide with your hands?

By Dear Jane P on 04/21/2014 at 12:46 pm

To Jane P - regardless of which Sprawl definition you subscribe to, none of them apply to Chapp Cossing. CC was zoned commercial. It had a very busy and vibrant campus for a Readers Digest. There were thousands of employees working there. Some even worked weekends and night shifts. There were deliveries, sanitation pick up, visitors, etc - you get the picture. This 110 acre property is being reinvented and optimized to bring benefits to the community. Additional acres are not being gobbled up and no infringement to surrounding community is needed.
In your definition you include that sprawl refers to a slow decentralization of human occupancy. CC will include 110 condos bringing additional human occupancy not less.
This was not / is not property previously unused and unihabited. Because of the loss of a single tenant and office buildings old and unable to compete with modern commercial space, the developer ( with the towns assistance) must make best use.
That’s not sprawl. And it’s not a strip mall.
A well planned multi usage facility to include a badly needed and widely requested high end grocer to our community will be a great addition to Chapp.
Downtown Chapp has its own problems and linking CC to downtown demise is pure distraction. Downtown has been in decline for years, as have most ” Main Street USA” retail. Call it a result of consumer habits, ecommerce, catalogues, and malls or whatever.

By Get over it on 04/21/2014 at 1:07 pm

To “Dear Jane P.”,

Your BS is comparable to Greenstein’s BS.  “Certain-to-occur incoming ”  what the heck are you babbling about.  More Rob Greenstein convoluted BS.  You really must think that this community is stupid. 

By cut the bull on 04/21/2014 at 1:44 pm

Demographics have changed , population has increased, consumer demands have changed, the laws of gravity never change, 1 + 1 always equals 2 except in like minded minds

By Dear change denier on 04/22/2014 at 9:03 am

Dear Cut Bull,

It is understandable why NIMBYS have blinders on and are focused only upon themselves. On the other hand, the broad landscape benefits from the development. I am sorry, but the overall desire by the town, as a whole, trumps personal issues on such a close question.

PS You may not think it is a close question, but the majority of the town does.

The downtown merchant issue plays no part of this any more. Their damage is already in place.

By Tunnel vision, not on 04/22/2014 at 10:48 am

@ Tunnel vision,

You are wrong on so many levels.  I live nowhere near CC.  I have been a resident of the town for 45 years and I care about the ENTIRE town, so in that way, the people living in the surrounding neighborhoods are my neighbors and I do care about what happens to them and to their lives.

You cannot know what the majority of the town wants.  There has never been a credible survey or outreach done.  The master plan update will tell us the true feelings of the community at large.  We should wait until that is completed before going ahead with bringing retail to CC. 

Greenstein has used many scare tactics to now do exactly what he said he would not do while he was a candidate.  He is a hypocrite and has absolutely no credibility.  We need a moratorium until the master plan update is complete.  If at that time we learn that the majority of the town is for 120,000 square feet of retail, all of it new building outside of the already existing buildings at CC crossing, then so be it.  It will still be disastrous for the surrounding neighborhoods, roads and for the downtown hamlet, but at least it will truly be what the residents want.

By cut the bull on 04/22/2014 at 2:53 pm

Times have change a tad since 1969. Don’t you think?

I have lived here 35 years and I want CC. You don’t, and I respect your opinion.

You are a “BANANA’ as coined by a prior poster. No building of anything anywhere.

The majority is for development. Yes, Greenstein let you down, and I for one am glad he tricked the electorate so that the project and the tax revenue (or stopping tax losses) will occur.

By Dear cut the bull on 04/22/2014 at 4:41 pm

Dear Cut the bull,

I suspect that you, being a 45 year resident, by virtue of that longevity, have a low tax assessment, and thereby very low real estate taxes when compared to virtually all the other properties in town.

Of course you are happy with the status quo and do not need or want tax relief (ie increase town wide tax base)... the rest of us most likely are subsidizing your tax bill, strictly as a function of the fact that your house has not turned over in the past 45 year whereas every other property turned over at least once and likely twice during that same time period.

By New resident on 04/23/2014 at 6:12 am

Back to the issue of retail-“Because the rearrangement of the retail spaces along the main entry drive in the new site plan from Summit Greenfield is not conducive to junior-anchor-size stores, the developer is asking the Town Board to “remove the limit on the maximum number of stores between 1,500 and 5,000 square feet” at Chappaqua Crossing, in order to allow “the mix and size of retail tenants that would complement a pedestrian-oriented shopping street.”

In other words, rearranging a strip mall to look like a Main Street does not function.

The re-revised land use zoning increases from 4 retail stores of 1,500 to 5,000 square feet in floor area to no limit; assume the major supermarket anchor has 40,000 and the gym of 25,000 square feet there then is 55,000 square feet to be carved up. The retail shops could number from 11 @ 5,000 sq.ft. to 33 @ 1,500sq.ft.

The intention of the Carpenter Board was to limit the size and number of shops on the Summit greenfield property to protect the hamlet’s ability to compete.  What will the Greenstein board stand for?

By Back to the drawing board on 04/23/2014 at 8:47 am

To “Dear cut the bull and New resident,

Wrong again, I am absolutely not against development.  I am against bringing retail to CC.

New resident, you are fooling yourself or misinformed if you believe that this development will bring tax relief to the residents. It has been shown that any if at all, will be de minimis. 
And that is a very big if. That is the truth. 

No, I am not happy with the status quo.  Among other things, I would like to see the existing downtown developed responsibly. That can happen AFTER the master plan shows us what the entire community wants.

By cut the bull on 04/23/2014 at 9:40 am

NOTHING will save downtown. It is already in decline. CC will hurt it a bit, but most of the damage has already occurred.

Saying that you are for development only for down town is a non sequitur. The issue is CC, not downtown. Down town development does not add to tax base.

By the way, your silence confirms a)that, as a long timer, you are the extreme beneficiary of low taxes which the rest of us must make up for and b) that demographics and population have changed in the 45 years since you moved here. Watching Easy Rider last night (1969) reminded me of you LOL. You may be stuck in 1969, but the rest of us are not.

When you respond, delete downtown from your comments because that is a separate dead issue, vis a vis CC. So what development are your for,
downtown aside?

The Tax issue always ignored, as you do, that CC development STOPS the tax grievances and losses. We can the debate what increases there may be, but it is beyond cavil that there will be a large benefit when development is allowed, that is the CC property value goes up and so does it tax assessments

By DEar cut the bull on 04/23/2014 at 11:19 am

I agree with the posts as regard what is or is not development.
Helping downtown is just that, help. It in no way can be considered any sort of development. To say that it is, to say the least, is disingenuous. I am for that help. I am also in favor of CC

By Downtown help is not "development" on 04/23/2014 at 11:58 am

Editor’s Note:  If I don’t understand the comment, I don’t publish it.

By OMG on 04/23/2014 at 1:53 pm

Allowing development does stop the commercial tax assessment reductions. The debate focused on the increased demand for services that the 111 residential units would create vs. the taxes generated by those residences.

The arguments about the commercial tax increases conceded that there would be an increase in tax revenue to the town, the open question was whether or not that increased cash flow would be worth it as a matter of a value judgment and ‘taste’.

Obviously Mr. Cut the Bull doesn’t think so. I disagree. I have an open mind which he apparently does not.

By Tax relief on 04/23/2014 at 4:44 pm

Tinkering with downtown stores and killing CC….IS….the status quo, duh?

By Dear Mr. Bull on 04/23/2014 at 7:48 pm

There was a survey that has been generally accepted, while not entirely scientific, viewed in the best light for CC opponents, showed that a majority of the town was not “out and out” opposed to the project. I showed that the town was split on the issue.

Because extreme opposers don’t like the idea that half the town disagrees with them, the survey, in their minds, is not credible.

If it agreed with them, they would champion the results on the Gazebo, town hall flag pole and drape a banner on the Horace Greeley statue.

Editor’s Note:  Here is an excerpt from Connie Whitehouse’s survey and the link to more about it:

Nine hundred and thirty-one residents participated in the survey that ran for two days last week to gauge New Castle sentiment about the plan to rezone Chappaqua Crossing to allow for a grocery and retail development.  Designed, as its designer Connie Whitehouse put it, “with the intent of understanding what’s on the minds of community members at this moment,” and collected “to fall naturally,” with “no statistical weights or quotas” incorporated, the results showed that “favorability is in a dead heat” with 48.8% in favor and 48.9% viewing it less favorably.  Traffic is a “key concern,” with only 15% of respondents “satisfied that traffic concerns were answered by the planned infrastructure improvements.”

http://www.newcastlenow.org/index.php/article/index/new_results_are_out_on_survey_of_residents_on_retail_proposal_for_chappaqua

By 4/22 2:53pm response on 04/24/2014 at 8:14 am

Intransigence is the word that describes some of the people who are expressing their opinions here. A new comer has the same rights as a long time resident, maybe more so, since, presumably, new comer taxes are higher and have children in the schools.

As to master plan, Chappaqua Crossing seems to have been planned to “death”. The rest of the town perhaps requires planning AROUND it, especially down town, but certainly no more for CC…..except in the minds of the opposers who are using the master plan issue as a pretext to indefinitely delay the development.


By Observer on 04/25/2014 at 8:35 am

It is a good thing that all views have this forum as an outlet. Even hardheads are to be respected. They are taxpayers and voters too.

By NCN supporter on 04/25/2014 at 9:32 am

Yikes , delay only for personal delay of the indvitable

By Yikes on 04/25/2014 at 10:41 am

Dear Editor - thank you for providing the link above to the Connie Whitehouse/ Dawn Greenberg survey. It should be noted that the results are artificially inflated by those opposed. Recall that while this survey was active, many NIMBYs at CC filled out the survey multiple times voted against retail at CC. It is not a secret that calls and emails were exchanged amongst this community intersecting each other on how to game the system. They used multiple devices multiple times to fill out multiple surveys. As an example 1 person could use a mobile phone, an IPad, a home computer, a laptop and a work computer and complete 5 surveys. Multiply this exercise by the many NIMBY participants that did this and you can quickly see that the survey was poisened and the results unfairly skewed to those opposed.
This is not speculation - it is a fact. I know, I saw one of the emails. It is the reason that the survey was taken down prematurely and before many more residents were able to partipate. It is safe to assume that the real rusults would have shown a larger percentage of those in favor. Another example of selfishness and manipulation by this enclave.

By Greeley grad on 04/25/2014 at 11:15 am

As noted in the excerpt from Connie Whitehouse’s survey ” that ran for two days”. Yes - that’s right just 2 days. I never had the chance to partipate because by the time I had found out about the survey it had already been removed from the websites. It was removed because it was discovered some people, perhaps MANY people in the CC community wre voting many times. People have confirmed this. So Connie took it down because people were trying to manipulate and dishonestly influence the results. Even with that it was a dead heat with as many for as opposed. If we guess and say 20 people voted against it and voted 3 or 4 times each you can see that the results were really in favor. If it was more than 20 and it might have been 50 ( who knows) it might have been a strong majority in favor. I would have voted in favor but never had the chance.
Build this already- it looks great- it’s not a strip mall- it’s been 8 years!!!!!

By Empty nester on 04/25/2014 at 5:05 pm

Greeley Grad, I’m guessing you did not go into fields that would have required math or statistics, because you write:

“It is safe to assume that the real rusults would have shown a larger percentage of those in favor.”

And I’m guessing you did not study politics, government or American civics, because you write:

“Another example of selfishness and manipulation by this enclave.”

By A little learning is a dangerous thing on 04/25/2014 at 10:44 pm

I’d like to know the answer to this question:

How many premier suburban high schools are directly across the street from a shopping center, whether strip-style or main-street?

By A shopping center for Greeley HS on 04/25/2014 at 10:46 pm

I didn’t realize how devious the Nimbys are/were.  Right on rob greenstein.

By Hot poker on 04/25/2014 at 10:48 pm

First of all it will be the entrance to the Greeley HS that will be near the shopping center. The high school and it’s students sits way back into the many acre Greeley campus. Once in the school and it’s environs one will not even know or see Whole Foods.
Secondly let me ask you a similar question….how many premier suburban middle schools( Bell) are directly across from a vibrant busy commuter rail station and next to a main st retail strip?

By To a shopping center for Greeley on 04/26/2014 at 6:54 am

To “to a shopping center for Greeley”: you’ve made my point, and several more. Bell is no longer in a good position. You think that’s a basis on which to repeat those conditions it at the HS?  Bell might have been positioned acceptably in the old days—and when the MS crowd was an older one (6-8) and all in one school. That’s why Bell should be converted into mixed use housing/retail. And I wouldn’t give the train station the descriptor “vibrant” - “busy” yes, “vibrant,” no. And a “main St retail strip”? If Chappaqua crossing gets a grocery and retail, you’ll have even duller conditions on that “Main St retail strip” downtown.

Lastly, you can weigh conditions at Bell against those at Greeley, but it’s Greeley that counts for the launch.

By Bell is no model to repeat on 04/26/2014 at 8:18 am

Although You make an excellent point. It is just another example of NIMBY and obstructionist hypocrisy.

Shopping by Bell is a completely different situation than shopping at Greeley…yeah right.

By Dear Shopping center on 04/26/2014 at 8:36 am


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.