Q&A with Supervisor Gerrard about school board’s intended Chappaqua Crossing submission
September 17, 2010
Editor’s note: NCN spoke with Town Supervisor Barbara Gerrard by telephone on Wednesday evening, September 15, about the school board’s plan to make an new submission in response to the Chappaqua Crossing developer’s new July 23 proposal.
NCNOW: Have you spoken to the school board?
Gerrard: No. We’re trying to get our own numbers together to make sure the BOCES numbers reflect what’s going on. We have our own demographer working on it. The town is trying to establish those numbers we have already from BOCES and the numbers that came out long before from the [school] board itself [showing that the school district expected to lose population over the next several years and has the physical capacity to fit more students]. We’ve put together all the numbers of the condos already in town and how many children they generate. [Assessor] John McGrory has some of that information, so we can have a very clear sense of what’s happening.
NCNOW: If the school board has an expert consultant now who says, for example, that Chappaqua Crossing will generate 1,000 students, what do you do with that information?
Gerrard: The town board would have to examine all the information from the various reports and then make an educated decision.
NCNOW: Would you consider the new information as seriously as you would have six months or one year ago?
Gerrard: It depends. It would depend on when it showed up, on who said it, and on the credentials of the consultant.
NCNOW: Is there a date by which the town board will consider the information to have come too late?
Gerrard: We’re awfully far along in the process, and the school board was given the documents as we went along. SEQR [the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act] is very unhappy when material starts coming in near the end of the process.
In SEQR there’s no “Oops, we made a mistake.” The process is already far along. SEQR is expensive, and the courts don’t like indecision. They want a hard look taken, and there are a lot of projects that get pushed through in six to nine months. A [legal] challenge to a project with that kind of timeline is more likely to be successful.
But with Chappaqua Crossing, after all these years, in a subsequent challenge the courts would be reluctant to find a change [in the information submitted] to be acceptable.
NCNOW: Back in June 2009, school board members met with town board members and said, in effect: We think we’ve made a mistake. To the developer’s question of whether we had the physical capacity to fit more students, we responded, ‘Yes, we have the physical capacity.’ What we didn’t say is that it costs us to fill that space; it’s not free. (See “Town and school boards put their heads together to prepare for June 23 Chappaqua Crossing hearings,” NewCastleNOW.org, June 19, 2009.)
School board members told the town board that they would develop more information to support that belief and would submit it during the DEIS comment period. The school board submitted additional information on the last possible date for DEIS comments, September 25, 2009.
With that submission, the school board seems to believe that they did provide you additional information on the fiscal impacts to the school district of the developer’s proposal (See “Board of Education submits its comments on DEIS,” NewCastleNOW.org, September 29, 2009.)
Gerrard: But they never presented it as the school district’s document. It would be like having one member of the town board say something. It’s one member’s opinion, but it’s not the action of the board.
NCNOW: If the school board is now assembling additional expert information on the demographic and fiscal impacts of the applicant’s Proposed Action or Modified Project, how long does the school board have to submit its findings?
Gerrard: They know through their attorneys.
____________________
From NCNOW’s archives: For coverage of Chappaqua Crossing from June 2010 to present, with commentary from readers, click HERE.
For NCNOW’s complete coverage of Chappaqua Crossing, dating from 2007, click HERE.
Sounds like Ms. Gerrard is trying to find a way to minimize and ignore the School Board’s comments. The CCSD have been researching. They’ve been direct in stating their findings and have made a significant effort to communicate their position and concern on the cost to the community of educating the children that Chappaqua Crossing would bring into the schools. At the August school board meeting that is still being broadcast on NCCTV the School Board once again stated reasons for concern regarding BOCES and other numbers that have been disseminated.
The reality is that Ms. Gerrard and the Board have their agenda set. That agenda is approving the developer’s submission. Let’s be clear. The Board and the Supervisor clearly have a horse in this race. It is shocking that with such force from the Town against this, the Board and the Supervisor are still considering the developer’s proposal. Let’s also be clear once more. Come November 2011, each and every one of them should be voted out. Don’t let Chappaqua Crossing become their scarlet letter for us to wear for years to come. Defeat or delay their decision and then vote them out.
Confronting Reality - I agree. The Supervisor and the Board CLEARLY do not have the interests of Chappaqua first. There is no objective view of the current plan that would establish this. Next thing you know they are going to allocate 200k for a gazebo…oh wait! Vote ‘em out next election cycle. There is no reason to accommodate the developer. We need to galvanize potential candidates.
On one side you have the School Board & majority of Chappaqua residents. On the other side, you have the Town Board & Developer. What’s wrong with this picture?!?!?! Send a clear message to the Town Board & Developer - this is NOT acceptable - sign the Petition below.
I hope they book the bigger room for the next meeting!!! There is a meeting about Chappaqua Crossing on September 28. Make sure you are there. Then next November, be sure to vote out the current board.
How many times do I have to say it—the Town Board in Chappaqua is completley non-responsive to the residents of the town because from their perspective they are in office as long as they choose to be. This town has not had a competitive election in years. They “serve” at their own pleasure rather than at the pleasure of the residents of the town.
This won’t change in any way until the residents of this town Wake Up and stop voting a party line ticket every election. I understand why democrats want to vote for democrats at every level of public office, but do we really think our Town Board is going to have a role in extending unemployment benefits or selecting the next Supreme Court Justice?
Chappaqua Crossing is jut one of many areas of gross neglect by this Town Board. Take a look at the shoddy condition of our roads and the downtown generally. Given the level of taxation in this town, we should have a responsive town board, a gleaming downtown and perfect roads. Instead…..
Wake Up!
Gross neglect? That’s going too far. Downtown Chappaqua can certainly be improved, but it’s still a nice place to visit. The roads in Chappaqua are bumpy, but so are most roads in NY.
You are correct By Huh. It is not “gross neglect.” It’s actually very similar to “willful disregard.” We say attract more businesses to South Greeley and Lower King Street, repair the downtown, don’t let municipal structures like our once elegant gazebo fall apart, urge the County and State to fix the main roads when in need of repair not five years later. The reality is they didn’t want to fix the downtown until all bridge work is finished. This is intentional. Make no mistake about it.
They are fine with building many more baseball and athletic fields than a town this size needs or similar towns this size have while spending way too much to do it. These fields now must be staffed and maintained. That means we all must pay more. They also spent a lot on a 9/11 memorial that no one visits and many townspeople spoke against. The manifest empire building at Town Hall resulted in overstaffing and higher taxes.
The Town Administration and Board has made they choices and we continue to pay for them.
