Open letter to the Town Board: Plain English answers, please, to Chappaqua Crossing questions
October 22, 2010
by Suzanne Chazin
“Residents deserve to know what their elected officials are thinking.”
Dear Supervisor Barbara Gerrard, Board Member Robin Stout and Board Member Michael Wolfensohn,
I have been following the rezoning issue of Chappaqua Crossing for several years now and am surprised that the further this issue progresses, the more complicated and confusing it has become to me. What seems to me to be a fairly straightforward issue of a developer pushing a moneymaking project onto an unwilling town has turned into a morass of legal hairsplitting. I have tried to get clarification in emails from some of the Board Members but have not always received responses. Perhaps the three remaining Board Members could offer some responses in plain English to everyone in town to give us an idea of what they are thinking. Here are some of my questions:
1. When will a final decision on this issue be made?
2. What still needs to happen before the three remaining board members make their decisions?
3. What factors are being weighed concerning the pros and cons of allowing high-density residential development?
4. What factors does the board feel are the most compelling in making their decision?
5. If the board were to vote in favor of Summit Greenfield, what are the pros and cons for the community?
6. If the board were to vote against Summit Greenfield, what are the pros and cons for the community?
7. How will the school board’s findings and opinions weigh into the board’s decision for or against rezoning?
8. How does the threat of Summit Greenfield suing the town weigh into the board’s decision for or against rezoning?
9. What information or independent findings presented so far does the board consider most helpful?
10. What information that has been presented so far does the board consider most misleading or contrary to independent findings?
11. Does the board realize that residents appear to be overwhelmingly against residential development of Chappaqua Crossing? How will they factor this into their decision?
I would greatly appreciate a plain English response to these questions from each member of the board. Residents deserve to know what their elected officials are thinking.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Chazin
___________________
To see NCNOW’s archived articles on Chappaqua Crossing, in chronological order from newest to oldest, click HERE.
Ms. Chazin has hit the nail on the head. The Town Board has remained silent throughout the process. This lack of healthy discussion is the result of the Supervisor’s intolerance of legitimate debate, the domination of the Board by one political party and the disinclination of the other Board members to engage in any meaningful dialogue or analysis. An example of this “group-think” is the Supervisor’s abrupt comment, in effort to stop any debate about Mr. Buckley’s possible recusal, that “there is no conflict.” Mr. Buckley recused himself a few days later due to an apparent conflict. This conflict should have been recognized and discussed openly by the entire Board years ago, four of them are lawyers, but it never was discussed. This is what happens when one group is allowed to dominate the process. The opposite party bears blames here as well for abdicating its resposibility of offering credible candidates during election time.
The three remaining Board members need to answer Ms. Chazin’s questions and engage in open dialoque with the Community.
Seconded. And, bravo.
I also have a question - just one question to the lawyers who sit on our Board. IF you change the zoning laws from commercial to residential to accommodate this developer will you also do the same for any New Castle resident that would like to use his/her home for a commercial endeavor? After all, many of us are suffering financial hardships (like Summit Greenfield). Will a New Castle resident be able to turn his/her home into a boarding house/hotel/B and B to take in some extra revenue? Or perhaps change residential to commercial zoning so that a homeowner can run a business, restaurant, or even a pre-school. If you will change our laws for a developer so that losses are mitigated will you also have to give the same consideration to the resident that lost a job, lost value in their home, or had retirement plans wiped out? Please answer that question as I have already heard the board discuss fear of law suits. What’s to stop a New Castle resident from suing if you accommodate the developer but not the resident?
