Open letter to the Town Board: Hunts Lane proposal makes Chappaqua Crossing wholly a liability
Monday, December 13, 2010
With eight comments since Monday
Betty and Leonard Weitz
Dear Members of the Town Board,
We commend the Town Board for its foresight and wisdom and for working so hard to solve the affordable housing issue.
The Hunts Lane development proposal that you are considering is responsive to the requirements, intentions and spirit of the Westchester Fair Housing Settlement while, perhaps, still needing further revision.
We believe that the Hunts Lane development of affordable units now defeats any reason for surrendering the commercial base of the Reader’s Digest site to residential rezoning, especially given the overwhelming number and gravity of the negative factors that have been cited. The fact that Hunts Lane more than satisfies the required number of units (750 units distributed among 31 communities means that we should be building a maximum of 24 units or possibly less) makes Summit Greenfield’s offer of 10% affordable units redundant as well as inapplicable. (Inapplicable since, as it has been established, Chappaqua Crossing fails to meet the significant criteria, both for an MFPD and for affordable housing, of proximity to community facilities and to public transportation.)
The Hunts Lane proposal satisfies the conditions of an MFPD and of affordable housing that our town code, SEQRA and the Settlement require while Chappaqua Crossing is devoid in all respects. It is worth considering that the Hunts Lane number of units is high given the requirement of 750 to be shared among 31 communities and given the size of the site. However, as Mr. Greenstein points out, one significant issue that Hunts Lane fulfills which Chappaqua Crossing does not is that community facilities are within the half-mile requirement. Shopping, public transportation, library, post office, pharmacy, a hardware store, delis, Dunkin Donuts and Starbucks, a variety of restaurants and take-outs, senior community center and more are within walking distance, plus there are sidewalks.
The Hunts Lane proposal, properly revised, reduces Chappaqua Crossing to a total liability for the town given such serious issues as: Severe traffic problems, negative revenue, burden on the school district, a lack of sufficient sewers, negative ecological impacts, an overload on town services, destruction of the character of the landscape with eyesore buildings (urban structures in style and scope in a non-urban setting), incursion on surrounding neighbors, and erosion of our commercial tax base.
The truth is that there are now no positive aspects to the residential component of Chappaqua Crossing. The fact is that the town does not need $1 million townhouses and $700,000 condos, especially when you consider that there are well over 200 houses for sale in Chappaqua presently, many in that price range, and that we have over 600 condos in the town.
As Susan Carpenter, chair of the planning board, pointed out at the planning board’s December 7, 2010 meeting, Summit Greenfield has not presented an analysis that demonstrates the need for the price range of housing that they are proposing, as they must do in applying for the MFPD zoning. We already have more than a sufficient number of homes in this identical price range. Summit Greenfield needs to establish justification for residential rezoning to build $1 million townhouses and $700,000 condos. The idea behind MFPD, the Berenson decision, the Westchester Fair Housing Settlement for affordable housing, work force housing, and other concerns of the town is to provide a variety of housing rather than only the high cost category proposed in the Chappaqua Crossing application.
The Hunts Lane proposal, with appropriate adjustments of numbers and of architecture for both functional and esthetic reasons, offers the opportunity to fulfill our obligation and adheres to the most salient requirement of location. And we have the certainty that the Hunts Lane units will be built as affordable units since that is the sole mission of the developer on this site. On the other hand, Summit Greenfield is building primarily market units. We cannot know nor can we ever have control over the staging of construction on the Chappaqua Crossing site. It is possible that the market rate units will be attempted first and that the developer will never reach the point of building the affordable units.
Mr. Greenstein has hit the nail on the head. The Hunts Lane project has made the Chappaqua Crossing proposal, whose questionable value hinges solely on the limited offer of 10% of their project for affordable housing units (which do not meet the MFPD and affordable housing requirements), redundant. Chappaqua Crossing is now only a liability for the town.
Thank you, members of the town board for your vigilant and skillful attention to these issues and for the arduous effort that you have so generously expended. We commend your patience in confronting an issue as serious as the residential rezoning of the Reader’s Digest site that portends such grave consequences, now and in the future, for this community.
Betty and Leonard Weitz
Betty and Leonard Weitz are 100% correct in their reasoning behind the Berenson decision. The Berenson doctrine deals with Exclusionary Housing. The Berenson Doctrine held that towns had to consider housing needs of the region and provide for a balanced and integrated community by including multifamily housing. Who are we exluding (i.e. discriminating against) if we deny townhouses priced between $700K-$1M especially when you consider “that there are well over 200 houses for sale in Chappaqua presently, many in that price range, and that we have over 600 condos in the town”?!?! We do not have to worry about a meritorious Berenson attack from Summit Greenfield.
As far as Afforadable Housing, which is different than Exlusionary Housing, the Hunts Lane development proposal is absolutely “responsive to the requirements, intentions and spirit of the Westchester Fair Housing Settlement”. The Hunts Lane project will provide the mandated Affordable Housing units we need. We don’t need Summit Greenfield’s non-compliant Affordable Housing units.
Clinton Smith, counsel to the town board, once stated “the board is cutting the salami thinner,” preparing to say, in effect, “This is how we would like to see [the project] done.” But, we don’t need their salami. Our zoning Laws are not exclusionary and we don’t need their non-compliant Affordable Housing units. Forget the salami, forget residential. Our Town Board must say no to residential re-zoning.
Lift the 4 tenant commercial restriction, that’s it!
We do not need affordable housing. The people who live here can afford the housing. No offense, but if you cant afford to live in Chappaqua, try one of the more affordable towns. That’s how life works, you cant live everywhere you want to. Sorry, just reality.
To Fellow Resident j.Johnson,
Westchester County settled a lawsuit with HUD that legally obligates 31 specified communities in the county to build a total of 750 affordable housing units. We are one of those specified communities.
We are legally bound by the Westchester Fair Housing Settlement to build the appropriate number of units.
The town board is trying to find the best solution, one that meets the requirements of the mandate while serving the best interests of the community at the same time.
Hunts Lane is the best location for all concerned that has been proposed for the reasons cited above.
It is not a matter of some or none but of where. We need to build affordable housing.
Actually, whether you agree with affordable housing or not, we have a legal obligation to comply with the Westchester Fair Housing Settlement. That’s the reality.
Please let us have more affordable condos.
The community has to be sensitive to less wealthy people.
Summit is a good thing.
Mr. McG, 179 units of this high-density development is market-rate townhouses and condos priced between $700,000 and $1,000,000, certainly not priced for “less wealthy people”.
Only 20 are proposed as affordable, and with no guarantee that we’ll ever see them built. The affordable was supposed to be the carrot, but it’s a very elusive and expensive carrot, considering what the project means in cost-benefit terms. I’ve just come from the board of ed meeting. Board member Alyson Kiesel showed figures from the school board’s experts in two scenarios - both of which take into account 60 townhouses taxed fee simple:
Most Likely Scenario: 198 students at a cost to the school district over 20 years of $101.1 million
Conservative Scenario: 127 students at a cost to the school district over 20 years of $53.3 million
The plan for residential condos that Summit Greenfield is pushing on the town will bankrupt the taxpayers of New Castle! The community would certainly be forced “to be sensitive to less wealthy people”, since those “less wealthy people” will be US!
@j. Johnson
Your absolutely right. We don’t need affordable housing. We need twice a week garbage pickup and real paving on our roads. The gazebo, maybe we can do without, but really, what’s a few hundred thousand dollars to people who can afford to live here?
We’ve got one of the best school districts in the country, but those property tax increases sure are annoying. I’ve got an idea. Let’s cut the teacher’s salaries (most of them probably live somewhere “more affordable” so they don’t really need to take home the big bucks like the folks who live here) so we can keep property taxes down.
Affordable? That’s for other towns, not New Castle. I say that everyone should stop complaining about their property taxes. If you can’t afford the property taxes you should move someplace “more affordable”. That’s how life works, right?
“We are legally bound by the Westchester Fair Housing Settlement to build the appropriate number of units.”
Really? It is my understanding that the defendant in that False Claims Act lawsuit that is the subject of the settlement was Westchester County. Was the Town of New Castle a defendant in the lawsuit?
If not, then how is the Town of New Castle “legally bound” by a settlement made by a different political entity?
@Bobon McGroin ... it’s good that employees of Summit developer gets to post also…
The Westchester Fair Housing Settlement is not just about providing affordable housing; crucially, it’s also about residential desegregation. Predominantly white communities like New Castle are subject to the Settlement. If New Castle were racially diverse, it would not have been included as an eligible community under the terms of this Settlement.
I am aware of the history of residential covenant restrictions based upon race and ethnicity that had been in place in several subdivisions in this Town. Of course, it’s been a very long time since these were enforceable. I presume the continuing lack of diversity is due to very high home prices rather than because of racial discrimination by residents, town officials or real estate agents.
Did the Berenson decision, which allowed for the development of multifamily (condominium) projects in Town, increase racial diversity? I don’t know for certain, but I doubt it did. Regardless of one’s race and ethnicity, the cost of housing here is very high in relation to the county median household income, and so non-minority applicants might outstrip minority applicants for this project. Accordingly, it seems that an affirmative action approach would be necessary for this new project to meet the goals of the Settlement.
A more appropriate and less offensive site than Hunts Lane is the site of the yellow building located across the street from the post office; this site which formerly housed a restaurant has been abandoned and in a state of awful disrepair for many years. Any comments?
