School board to spell out impact on school district of CC developer’s newest proposal
September 17, 2010
by Susie Pender
In a letter to the New Castle Town Board yesterday, the Board of Education of the Chappaqua Central School District informed the town board, as the lead agency and final decision-maker, that they will submit a response to the most recent proposal by Chappaqua Crossing’s developer, the “Modified Project” or “Alternative I,” which was contained in the revised Final Environmental Impact Statement delivered to the town board on July 23, 2010.
A copy of the letter was sent to the community last evening through the school district’s email messenger service with the following straightforward message:
“The Board of Education continues to be concerned with the potential impact of the Chappaqua Crossing development on the Chappaqua School District. We attach here our latest communication to the New Castle [Town] Board.”
The letter made three major points. The school board has retained the White Plains-based law firm of Keane & Beane, who are experts in land use issues. The firm was initially retained this fall to examine the possible sale of the Zauderer property owned by the district.
According to School Board President Janet Benton, the school board will look to the firm to retain the professional services of an expert in real estate development who can analyze the impact of the developer’s proposal on the Chappaqua Central School District. “BOCES [on whom the district relied for information in its prior submission] does what they do well, but what they do is limited,” explained Benton.
The school board took the position in their letter that certain of the issues raised in their prior submission regarding the developer’s earlier proposal have still not been addressed by the developer or the town board, especially regarding taxes.
The school board expects to provide their submission in a timely manner. “Our lawyers met with the town’s lawyers this week, and we know that time is getting short. I would guess we would make our submission in three to four weeks,” Benton suggested. In their letter, the school board asked the town board to extend time for the district’s submission, if necessary.
Letter from school board to community
A copy of the letter from the school board to the community is reprinted below.
Dear Community member,
The Board of Education continues to be concerned with the potential impact of the Chappaqua Crossing development on the Chappaqua School District. We attach here our latest communication to the New Castle Board.
Sincerely,
Chappaqua Board of Education
Ms. Barbara Gerrard, Supervisor
Town of New Castle
200 S. Greeley Avenue
Chappaqua, New York 10514
Dear Supervisor Gerrard and Members of the Board,
The Chappaqua Central School District (CCSD or “the District”) requests the opportunity to submit a proper response to the recently released draft Final Environmental Impact Study (FEIS) of the proposed development at the former Reader’s Digest Association (RDA) property.
As a result of changes to the proposed development, recent public statements by the Town and developer as well as unclear statements and claims in the FEIS, the CCSD feels compelled to submit additional material information responsive to the new primary Alternative I of 199 units, including 20 affordable units. The Board of Education has retained the law firm of Keane & Beane as counsel and expects them to contract with additional professional services to assist us in preparing our submission.
The Town of New Castle, as the lead agency, has a duty to respond to risks and environmental issues raised by interested parties. In our previously filed response to the DEIS (attached) the CCSD raised serious concerns regarding certain issues that we believe have not been addressed by either the developer or the Town. There is no proposed mitigation to the financial impact on the school district tax payers. Reliance upon projections and general assurances provided by the developer that this will be tax accretive to the District without explanation of how the developer is proposing to mitigate effects and guarantee its representations does not adequately address our concerns.
We anticipate a timely submission. However, we respectfully request that in the event our expert analysis of the new proposal cannot be completed within the prescribed limits that the Town and Developer agree to a reasonable extension of the deadline.
Sincerely,
Chappaqua Board of Education
Janet Benton, President
Gregg Bresner, Vice President
Randall Katchis, Alyson Kiesel, Jeffrey Mester
tm
____________________
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 the Chappaqua Board of Education has a grasp of key Chappaqua Crossing issues that may be eluding Town Hall.
I very much applaud the efforts of the Chappaqua Board of Education. I honestly think, however, that the analysis can be greatly simplified. Since the town is the risk taker in this equation, I think expectations are of little relevance. Simply put, unless there are is adequate compensation or mitigants for these risks, it is imperative to utilize adverse assumptions for both (i) the additional school students from Chappaqua Crossing and (ii) district enrollment. This is not unlike the prior assumptions for the 55+ community. There were risks, so the 55+ assumption was eliminated (unfortunately after years of debate). The same can be said for the above points. Put the onus on the developer to convince the town that it is not plausible for there to be 150 - 250 additional students from the development or for the district enrollment to remain at the current level. The combination of these scenarios would be disaster, so there has to be zero tolerance for exposure on these points.
