Preparing for November 18 public hearing on Chappaqua Crossing zoning and Master Plan changes

Tuesday, November 18, 2014
by Christine Yeres

Town Board members have said they intend to make a decision on the Chappaqua Crossing application for retail rezoning before year’s end, and they will likely close the public hearing at the end of the November 18 public hearing.  Despite the advice of the Planning Board, Town Board members showed in their meeting on Monday that they intend to keep approval authority for the preliminary development concept plan for themselves.  “We’ve consulted them already,” explained Greenstein, “and we’ll continue to listen to them.” The plan has been made better by the Planning Board, he said. But formal power-sharing is too complicated.

According to the Town Board’s counsel, Nick Ward-Willis, if and when the Town Board votes to adopt the retail zoning, it could also approve a preliminary development concept plan (PDCP), possibly with a formal referral to the Planning Board before the PDCP “goes final.”  After PDCP stage, Summit Greenfield would return to the Planning Board for site plan approval.

Traditional Neighborhood Development

Although the Planning Board felt that implementation of the “Traditional Neighborhood Development” principles for which it advocated fell short of the mark, and the County Planning Board expressed disappointment that the proposed plan for Chappaqua Crossing was not more genuinely “mixed use,” Greenstein has called it “a hybrid,” and “a compromise.”

“The current proposal,” Greenstein has said, “while not perfect, has been significantly improved.”

Size of the retail and traffic

“We’re considering [approving] 120,000 square feet,” said Town Board member Jason Chapin, “but I still have significant concerns about traffic and about the proposed changes to the intersections at Roaring Brook Road at 117.”

“The two case studies,” continued Chapin, “with two developments with a Whole Foods—Kings Crossing and Milford Marketplace, and those are both considered successful developments—are both less than 120,000 square feet.”

“The plan originally put forth was 120,000 square feet,” Greenstein pointed out, “but that includes a 25,000-square-foot gym, so really we’re talking about 95,000 square feet of retail.”

“If we can minimize the traffic impacts,” said Greenstein, “we will certainly try to do that.  But the gym is not retail, and there’s no pharmacy [proposed] any longer.”

“With a Whole Foods of 40,000 square feet and a gym of 25,000,” said Chapin, “you have to consider traffic for each and what other types of retail would create greater traffic.  Consider if you have a gym you want to know when most of that traffic is generated so you would want to look at types of retail that generate traffic in the middle of the day or toward evening—so a restaurant or two restaurants.”

“Having less office space would mitigate traffic as well,” said Greenstein.

Revenues

“People are talking about tax revenues that are so important,” said Greenstein.  “Well, retail generates more taxes than office space.  And the Planning Board’s AKRF study says that if you’re going to do it [approve retail], you want it to be successful.” [AKRF posited that granting the full 120,000 square feet of retail could help ensure the success of the shopping center.]

“The more stores, the more rent,” explained Town Board member Adam Brodsky, “—the more valuable the property, the more tax revenue.”

Citing a Whole Foods quarterly report, Chapin said, “The average Whole Foods is 36,000 square feet and generates $30 million a year [in sales]—which is $10 million more than a normal supermarket [such as A&P].  So this tells me this would generate significantly more property taxes than an A&P.  We know from our town assessor that he can’t put a value on the property until we know who the tenants are.  The community wants us to say what the exact number is, but we can’t provide that.”

The assessor, explained Brodsky, “looks at the rental income from the property, puts a factor on that and that’s the tax bill.  The retail market rents at three times what office space does, so the space would be leased for very high rent.”

The public hearing continues on the evening of Tuesday, November 18.  According to Supervisor Greenstein, the Town Board will continue its discussion of the draft legislation in the work session preceding the hearing.  Deputy Supervisor Lisa Katz has invited residents to speak with her about Chappaqua Crossing on Monday, November 17, at Lange’s, between 9:30 and 11:30 a.m.
_______________________________

To see the draft rezoning legislation, click HERE

 

 


Comments(34):
We encourage civil, civic discourse. All comments are reviewed before publication to assure that this standard is met.

Jeez - look at this - another headline about ANOTHER public hearing on CC!!
Didn’t we just have a public hearing on CC and one before that and many many before that. It’s been 10 years and the last 2 years exclusively on retail at CC.
I stopped attending these meetings and I can’t even watch the replays anymore. This entire process has turned off many residents.
I know each and every NIMBY and I know exactly what they are going to say before they take the microphone. There is nothing left to say. They offer nothing new and their old arguments and objections are entirely without merit. Build this already.
I will be interested to see if this little militant group, who have hired their own lawyer, follow they on their threat and sue their fellow residents. I’m most interested to know who they are other than the same 4 or 5 that speak regularly.
This is going to be great. In a few years after its all done we will look back and thank the town board for doing the right thing. And those objecting will look back and realize all their angst and anxiety was all for nothing.

By Rob M on 11/15/2014 at 8:14 am

Yeah - whoopee - another public hearing on Chapp Crossing. Is there anything left to say? Here they come - Wetz, Gladstone, Tobin, Reinmann, Napoli and all the others we have heard from so many times. Another TB meeting ending near midnight. Does it even matter? Maybe a few more supporters will come forward even a few more from the CC community as they are starting to poke their heads out. Maybe we get another threat from The Citizens for Responsible Zoning -CRZ. Will they threaten to sue us? Will they have the courage to identify themselves and not hide behind the one or 2 who come forward?
I implore the town board to vote yes and get this improved. It seems that for years almpst every town board meeting when this is the topic goes till midnight. You have lost me and other residents that might normally engage attend and get involved. We have been pushed aside as these nimbys monopolize and dictate the narrative.

By resident on 11/15/2014 at 11:55 am

Whole Foods in White Plains “spans” 36,000 square feet (according to a Whole Foods press release.)  And that store is huge. They are talking about 40,000 square feet here. That’s a monstrosity. I live on the other side of town.

By Bigger than other Whole Food stores on 11/15/2014 at 2:22 pm

I implore the town board to vote no.  I too live on the otherside of town. 

By No on 11/15/2014 at 6:26 pm

The whole foods in white plains is smaller than every conventional supermarket around here, except mrs greens

By It's small on 11/15/2014 at 6:31 pm

The A & P in Millwood is 20,000 square feet. This proposed Whole Foods would be 40,000 square feet - double the size of Millwood A & P.

By Double the size of Millwood supermarket on 11/16/2014 at 8:31 am

The upstate community in which we bought property, hoping to retire up there Sunday, would never tolerate a developer plopping a 120,000 square-foot supermarket in the middle of a residential area. That is why we are going to accelerate our plans to go up there and live.  Our Chappaqua property will be adversely affected by this hideously offensive development.  Fortunately for us, but not for many others, the high taxes in New Castle led us to conclude years ago that it was unrealistic for us to expect to retire here. Therefore, we made other plans. 

For years, I have felt very sad and distressed at the thought of giving up our lovely home in a wonderful, semi rural neighborhood. I should actually thank Rob, because now I don’t have to feel bad anymore.

As for those who have been continually bashing the critics of this ugly and offensive project, with no regard for the people along Roaring Brook Road and Cowdin Lane – where I don’t live by the way – whose lives will be wrecked by this development, shame on you all. I hope you really enjoy your overpriced vegetables. The food is better, and much cheaper, at the farmers markets. But then, if you are not aware enough to realize that, and not community- minded enough to care what happens to your neighbors – if all you can do is call them names – then I guess you deserve to pay five dollars for an old zucchini.

By Lawrence Farms East Resident on 11/16/2014 at 10:13 am

Town Board - I join the chorus in favor of CC recognizing that this has gone on far too long. I agree prior comments and recognize that this developer should have been embraced and negotiated with as a valued land owner/tax payer. Instead Summit Greenfield has been vilified -painted as some big evil developer. To the contrary, they are our neighbor-potentially contributing $millions every year to our tax base.
Fortunately it looks like progress/resolution are close at hand. One important point. It seems to me that there is a preoccupation with the total size of the plan currently proposed as 120,000 square feet. Changes/compromises apparently have been ongoing for as long as retail at CC has been on the drawing board. The total size is less important than the type of retailer/ merchants that will occupy the space. What good would it be to shrink the size to say 90,0000 sq ft and fill it with high traffic type tenants. A smaller foot print can actually bring more traffic than a larger one. 120,000 sq ft is fine provided the occupants run businesses that bring patrons at inter-dispersed times-spread out over the course of the day. A supermarket has ebb and flow of traffic but generally spread out. A gym is busy on weekends (especially mornings)-that’s good because there will be no Greeley and other school traffic (buses and drop off- pickups). Conversely and only as an example, a movie theater has a burst of traffic as movies start and end. Restaraunts are busiest for lunch and dinner and generally not when school traffic is on the road. My point is that you shouldn’t get hung up on 120,000 sq ft vs 70 vs 100.  It’s far more important to influence the developer to make sure the retailers create an even flow of managble traffic. You must balance the needs of the community (which includes the conveniences and amenities CC will bring and TAX revenue) with the developers needs to make this a viable and successful development. Keep up the good work!

By Jk on 11/16/2014 at 11:17 am

So now the anti CC and NIMBYs are experts on the size of Whole Foods. Given their huge success and how they have revolutionized the super market, I expect that Whole Foods knows and understands the size store it needs. If I recall the WF in White Plains is in a space that they did not build or design. It is in a building once occupied by Fortunoff. To nit pick over 36,000 ft vs 40,0000 sq ft vs 45,000 is petty and shows the depths to which the anti CC will stoop.
You folks find fault with everything no matter what is suggested. You all protested the original plan which called for 60,000 sq ft supermarket. You all said it was too big and would invite a sub standard ” pedestrian” market like Stop n Shop. So the developer changed the plans to a 40k sq ft supermarket and get the best and most highly regarded sought after grocer - Whole Foods! Now you say 40k sq ft is too big -

By Build it on 11/16/2014 at 1:42 pm

dear Lawrence Farms East Resident - good for you that you have the money to buy upstate property and still leave here. Your comment is extremely illuminating. You say your upstate community in which you bought property would never tolerate this type of dbelopment. Fair enough but consider the following- does your upstate community have a 110 acre commercially zoned property that once was the home to a huge publishing empire with 5000 employees? Does your upstate community sit right on top of a parkway a commuter rail line and a state rd?
You site our high taxes as a reason you concluded ” years ago” that it’s unrealistic to retire here. And what do you suppose contributes to our high taxes? Let me give you a clue - we have almost no tax revenue from commercial/ retail. Residents foot the bill. That’s another reason to develop CC.
Enjoy upstate. Sell now before you and your neighbors lives will be ” wrecked”. What a bunch of BS. I guarentee when complete , CC will enhance and improve our commnity including the Lawrmce Farms East/ Cowdin gang.
Interestingly more and more of your neighbors disagree with you as they have slowly come out in support of CC. Peace and happiness in your retirement.

By I'm staying on 11/16/2014 at 2:52 pm

Bounded by a large public school campus

Formerly housed 5000 daily readers digest employees

You are overstating your discredited point by quite a bit

 

By Dear Lawrence farms east continued on 11/16/2014 at 2:59 pm

@Lawrence Farms East Resident- good luck and enjoy your upstate community. I hope you made sure that this new house is not right near train tracks that rumble and vibrate day and night and boy that loud train whistle at 5:20 am!!!
I trust your upstate retirement residence is nowhere near a parkway or a state truck route. I am sure you won’t be in close proximity to a commercially zoned 100+ acre office complex.
I can recommend a good real estate broker for the sale of your current abode. Fortunately for you, real estate prices have done very nicely in your community even with the retail plans now widely known. Real estate brokers are heralding the coming Whole Foods and it’s turning out to be a selling point not a detriment.

By Ronnie on 11/16/2014 at 4:46 pm

Jk,

Please support your assertion that SG will be contributing millions of dollars each year to our tax base.

Thank you.

By thank you on 11/16/2014 at 6:26 pm

Ronnie, Of course real estate brokers are heralding this .  There will be a mass exodus and more sales for them.  Like block busting in the old days.  You really have no idea what this will do to that area and you do not care.  YOU MUST SHOP !!!!

By of course ronnie on 11/17/2014 at 11:54 am

Dear Ronnie:

Nasty, nasty, nasty.

My upstate land—no house yet, but soon—is former farmland, near a county road.  Trucks do in fact rumble down that road, although we don’t hear them from our property because, like 117 (until tomorrow night), they do not serve a huge retail complex in our backyard. The train tracks are far enough away—sort of like Metro North—so that we hear a whistle now and then; we like whistles. 

Our property is also not far from a NYS parkway that, like the Saw Mill, doesn’t permit truck traffic. That is another good reason not to build a 120,000 sq foot retail center nearby:  no good access, except via the county road. 

So we have the train, the truck route (moderate, not heavy traffic, no 5 a.m. deliveries in our backyard), and the parkway (no commercial traffic, hence the trucks can’t use it).  What we don’t have is a bunch of dunderheads who are dropping a 120,000 sq. retail center les than .2 miles from our semi-rural neighborhood.

We don’t need (no calls, please) a realtor.  We aren’t leaving yet, for one thing, and also are in the business and can sell the house without help. Guess to whom we will market?  Naive buyers from NYC who will be THRILLED to know that they are near Whole Foods, but too inexperienced to understand what living near the sole access route to a 120,000 sq foot suburban retail center will mean.

So I guess my message is that we have an out, we think, although we know that others don’t:  and that those of you who are supporting Rob and the Board can live in the mess that you are making.  You’re too blinded by the idea of tax dollars—not coming, by the way—to see what you’re doing.  I am happy that I won’t be here to see the results.

By Lawrence Farms East Resident on 11/17/2014 at 11:55 am

Love all the nasty comments - but you will be here with your big, big mistake and at least some will be elsewhere not listening to your nonsense and enjoying peace and truck-free quiet.  What’s the matter - are you disappointed that people can leave you in the mess you are creating?  You wanted us all stuck here with you?
Commercial is not retail and cars are not trucks. Trucks can’t deliver via the Parkway.  What we have now is a suburb with an office complex and a commuter train.  Not a shopping mall. 

So after we who live nearby have been trying to be sensible for years, and listening to all the claptrap about NIMBYs, it is over -  you get your shopping center in steroids and traffic jams, the people on Cowdin Lane and Roaring Brook are ruined, and anyone nearby who can leave, leaves.  SG makes a whole lot of money and Rob finds out that the deal he made re downtown is a whole lot of malarkey.  Don’t swim with the Sharks unless you are a Jet. 

And just to bust another fantasy, property way upstate is relatively cheap, and ours was bought with a small legacy from a parent who worked for 30 years in a department store.  We aren’t rich and, like the parent, not stupid or greedy, either.  We not retiring; we’re relocating.  Boy, am I going to enjoy coming back to visit and seeing you all stuck on 117. 

By Lawrence Farms East Resident (for now) on 11/17/2014 at 11:53 pm

hey Lawrence Farms East Resident- funny you say that the buyers of homes in the Lawrence Farms East / CC community will be ” naive buyers from NYC”.
You live there - you bought there. Perhaps it was you who was naive when you bought next to a 110 acre commercially zoned property next to train tracks, next to a parkway, next to a high school campus and next to a truck route. I guess you were naive thinking Readers Digest would live forever.
I grew up in Brooklyn then moved to NYC. I lived in a small house on a block crammed with identical houses. My apartment in NYC was on the upper west side. People like you are so jaded and out of touch with reality that you think a quality market at CC which will only be seen from the parkway , will ruin your pristine lives. Compared to row houses, apartment living, our even modest homes on modest parcels of land your homes in your community even with retail at CC are in the top 1% of the top % 1.
Come down off your high horse. Or ride your horse to your new upstate retirement home. Either way our community will be much improved.

By Resident on 11/18/2014 at 7:52 am

I’m from Brooklyn too.  Red Hook.  I know the difference between An office complex and a and shopping center. So do you. You are picking up Rpb’s mantra that this space was always commercial and borders Metro North. There is a difference between commercial and retail, and you know it..  So did whoever wrote the zoning code. Me ce the need for a variance.

I know the difference between cars and trucks, too because I live for many years In NYC on a truck route. . There are not a whole lot of trucks on 117 right now, but there will be.  The truck can’t take the sawmill. You know that too, don’t you?

So I’m not pristine friend. I grew up in a neighborhood a lot worse the one that you describe. We were very happy to move up here and very lucky, we thought, that despite the fact that we knew nothing about the suburbs, we lucked out by choosing a house in what turned out to be a quiet area. Now that we have the whole picture - here, 120,  Target -  we are fully aware of what Rob and company are doing to us. 

Our present home is not a palace, and we don’t own a lot of land upstate, but the upstate lamd is the better choice, now that you people have decided that you want to make a fortune by turning an office complex into a circus.

By Lawrence farms East on 11/18/2014 at 8:32 am

Lawrence Farms east-
At the same time Readers Digest employed close to 5000 people (most drove/bused at crunch time commuting hours) Grand Union owned and operated a huge regional distribution center in MT Kisco. That center serviced multiple Grand Union Supermarkets in the North East. That distribution center operated 24/7 with multiple 18 wheeler trucks full of supermarket supplies left to make deliveries and then returned empty. Then they repeated the process every day. Because the saw Mill does not allow trucks, Rt 117 was only one of 2 ways to and from Mt Kisco. I assure you there were more trucks on 117 then ,delivering to multiple Grand Unions then there will be trucks delivering to Whole Foods and a few other retailers at CC. Then consider and add to that the morning and evening traffic in/out of Readers Digest as workers came and went and the Greeley student drop off/pick up and faculty traffic. It was congested. 
We all survived that. The world did not collapse. We had some traffic- big deal. Property values didn’t crater and buyers didn’t avoid the area because of these trucks, traffic, office workers and students(buses) and faculty. Pointed out by others is the fact that since Readers Digest vacated and CC has been 80% empty the Lawrence Farms East community has forgotten how things used to be. We have become spoiled by the quiet and underutilization. If Readers Digest and Grand Union Dist Center (with all its trucks on 117) would to magically want to come back, all of you would be just as opposed as you are now to CC.

By Also Lawrence Farms on 11/18/2014 at 9:50 am

Dear Resident:

Your comment is typical of the comments that you’ve made here:  not merely full of misstatements about the RD property, which was zoned for commercial, not retail use, or about the differences in traffic, noise and waste (as in “garbage”) created by retail v commercial development, but full of false assumptions about your neighbors.

Did you grow up in Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst? Sounds from your description that you may have.  Many Brooklynites end up in Westchester, and most of them are working professional couples, not the top 1% of the top 1% that you imagine.  (Maybe you’re thinking of Bedford or Greenwich.)  Their homes are their major investment and they’ve used their money & skills to improve those homes. They saw values drop during the Great Recession. 

Now we in the RD vicinity see the quality of life that is so valuable to us-to my family, because we lived with the difference -sacrificed because the Board thinks that it can make a deal with the developer for a few projected dollars. (I hope you don’t believe the “fear of litigation story, because it’s just a flimsy excuse for a business deal - as Lisa Katz suggested at the last meeting when she challenged SG’s attorney.)

When we moved here, all roads looked empty, merely because they weren’t Amsterdam, Columbus or 10th Ave.  The Saw Mill and 117 sure did not look like the Gowanus Expressway.  We now know the difference between a big retail center and an office park. We know that the Saw Mill is not the Gowanus because trucks are not allowed on the Saw Mill. We know what will happen to 117 when deliveries begin at CC.  We know the difference between a 2-lane road, and a traffic circle with on/off lanes.

That’s why, when we sell, we’ll look for someone who knows as little as we did when we moved up here.  No one with any sense would invest in a property in our location after Rob and the Board allow 120,000 square feet of stores, plus condos, to be built around the corner.

By Lawrence Farms East Resident (for now) on 11/18/2014 at 11:34 am

I am not for or against retail at CC. What I object to is SG expecting the town to bail them out after they were cuckold by Readers Digest who must have known that they were going to file for bankruptcy. The Carpenter town board failed to protect the town and was remiss in many decisions. In addition I object to the manner in which SG has commandeered the comments on this matter, it is obvious that SG has retained a marketing firm in an attempt to sway public opinion. Also objectionable is the SG attorney bully who waved a lawsuit document in the faces of the town board in a disrespectful aggressive manner (Jessica’s presentation for her group was understandable and not comparable). The last town board election was proof that the majority of residents oppose SG’s inappropriate proposals. If the town board approves SG’s application, I support Jessica’s group’s right to take legal action although I will not contribute to it since I remain neutral in this matter. I do not care if town funds are expended to deal with legal action since all folks have a right to due process.

By The last town board election on 11/18/2014 at 12:33 pm

There is no difference - a threat of a lawsuit is a threat of a lawsuit. Jessica waved her lawsuit document at the town board meeting too. Her message was build approve it and we will sue. SG message was don’t approve and we will sue.
I am offended either way. The difference is if Jessica and her group sue she will be in effect suing her own community. SG has endured a 10 year saga (2 of which is retail) largely because of Jessica and her neighbors. Had they been dealt with and worked together there might have already been an acceptable resolution. But how do you negotiate with a group that refuses to budge and insists on obstructing and making false claims in order to gain support
We know who SG is. We know their executives and their lawyers. Jessica represents a group that we can only guess who is involved. If this CRZ insists on carrying out their threat than I hope they at least have the decency and courage to identify themselves. Hiding behind some cute name is cowardly. But then again these are the same people who didn’t think twice to ruin a town survey and fear monger.
Enjoy the Town Board meeting folks. Been there done that and tired of the parade of the same people saying the same thing.
Id rather watch Seinfeld and Big Bang reruns!

By 10514 on 11/18/2014 at 3:56 pm

I have been here for 25 years and remember the Grand Union distribution center when it was going full tilt.  The vast majority of the trucks to and from that location did not use 117 through Chappaqua.  They used 684 to reach and exit the area, getting on and off at the exit for Route 172 towards Bedford. They reached the distribution center by turning up 117 across from Northern Westchester Hospital.  only a small portion of their truck traffic went to the Grand Union that became Dagastino’s and then Walgreens.
Good luck to whoever is following the 18 wheelers on 117 when King Street is covered with snow and ice.

By As For the Former Grand Union Distribution Center on 11/18/2014 at 5:51 pm

For those of you who continually knock the residents who are against this project, you should live in their shoes for just an imaginary moment. Drive along Roaring Brook Road at 6pm, or 7pm… or 8pm…. or even 9pm… on a winter night and enjoy the peace and the darkness and then imagine it with this 120k square foot center lighting up the neighborhood - and outright offense to the senses and the environment. Those who conceived it and those who now support it are nothing but selfish and completely clueless to the effects it will have on our community.

Perhaps we should create a trading post - where the people who live near CC and oppose this project can pick from a comparable house owned by one of you “supporters” who do not live near CC. Any takers among you supporters????  I assume not.

By Don't knock NIMBY until you try it on 11/18/2014 at 9:36 pm

Take A Step Back: SG filed a State and a Federal lawsuit against the town on the concocted complaint that they were not being permitted to make “economic use” of their failed investment even though there were existing zoning laws in place when they purchased the property. The State lawsuit was thrown out by the Court and for inexplicable reasons the prior town board suggested retail if SG would drop the Federal lawsuit.

Fast Forward To The Future: The town board approves the retail development and SG makes an application for additional retail, the town says no, SG or a future property owner claims they are not being permitted “economic use” of their property and files a State and a Federal lawsuit against the town. Now the town is back to where they are right now. What makes the town board 100% sure that the zoning they are considering to accommodate SG will not be subject to future challenge and will be insulated from State and Federal lawsuits. It is likely that the town board is attempting to put out a near term fire without understanding that that is not possible to prevent future “economic use” lawsuits. There is no difference in the challenge ability of the existing zoning when compared to the proposed zoning; in fact, the proposed zoning is probably more subject to challenge than the existing zoning since the proposed zoning allows retail as a permitted use.

Tread Carefully Town Board: You are on the cusp of making a major blunder.

By Resident1 on 11/19/2014 at 1:40 pm

Performance Bond: What happens if SG builds the retail portion of the development and then opts to not build the residential portion of the development? Does the performance bond cover this possibility? How is the town board protecting the town from this scenario and is the method enforceable? Suppose the old tried and true “economic use” rears its ugly head again?

By TB2 on 11/19/2014 at 2:00 pm

@ Resident1 - your scenario fits nicely with the anti retail scenario but conveniently omits the most important fact. In between your take a step back and fast forward to the future you mention what happened in between but give it little gravitas. That is the fact that it was the Town Board of New Castle that told the developer that we needed a supermarket and they should go back to the drawing board and bring us plans for retail at CC. So if this lawsuit should come up again and the claim is denial of “economic use” their case is that much stronger. The courts do not care that we have some new town board members. The courts will see a developer that has spent 10 years presenting various plans , most of which were rejected and denied. One of which was greatly downsized impairing economic use. The courts will see that the past 2 years have been dedicated to bringing plans that the town board has requested. They will see multiple changes , compromises, and accommodations in order to satisfy various boards and resident concerns.
Should there be another lawsuit the developer certainly has a much stronger case. Two separate teams - two separate law firms employed by our town agree on that.
The town board should approve this because it’s in the towns best interest to bring these amenities and tax revenues to the community while avoiding a long costly and losing lawsuit.

By Another resident on 11/19/2014 at 4:15 pm

Another resident,

When you understand the financials of the poor deal, get back to us.

Your rendition of the legalities and its beginnings are flawed as well, ala Greenstein.

By get back to us on 11/20/2014 at 4:56 pm

@Another resident - Although Susan Carpenter and her supporting associates on her town board offered another alternative to SG, the retail offer was made while an SG initiated lawsuit was in progress. There was nothing written in stone, there was no guarantee that SG’s retail plan would be approved,; there was nothing more than an agreement that the town board would review SG’s proposal. The town board is under no obligation to accept SG’s retail proposal which would require a change in the existing zoning. The town is under no obligation to change the zoning especially for a highly unusual change in zoning. The fact that SG has been at this for ten years is simply because they have been trying to place a square peg into around hole; in fact, SG dug that round hole when they purchased the property and they expect the town to dig them out. I agree with remarks made by Resident1, rezoning for retail sets the stage for additional future retail. The town board should reject SG’s retail proposal.

By Reject retail on 11/20/2014 at 5:39 pm

to get back to us - the legalities of the situation is best left to the experts and the lawyers who know and understand this far better than the emotional commenters on this blog. To that point, the town of new castle has had 2 seperate and independent law firms involved on this retail proposal. Both law firms independent of each other have concluded that SG is in solid legal footing. Board member Brodsky is a real estate attorney and he also understands the strength of SG’s case.
So who should we listen to? Independent and expert lawyers or emotional self serving NIMBYs ?

By Resident on 11/21/2014 at 8:30 am

Yes it is a zoning adjustment from one form of non residential to another. No it is not a huge, major cataclysmic change. ...... To an area that is set apart into itself, except as to 15 homes out of 5000

By Stop the lies on 11/21/2014 at 11:36 am

What “two independent law firms” - and where are their conclusions, may I ask?  There are none.  SG is not on “solid legal footing” - commenters like you just keep saying so.

Who should we listen to? People who will be most affected by this zoning change, the people you like to call “NIMBYs”.

By Some legal-eagle you are on 11/21/2014 at 1:14 pm

Resident,

Saying something does not make it true. 

Adam,  are you onboard with how this poster has characterized your view ?

By Adam ? what say you ? on 11/21/2014 at 1:20 pm

Amazing how people are to wrapped up to see this board has been taken over by a bunch of SG trolls.

By Wake up! on 12/09/2014 at 12:19 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.