SG releases results of its survey of how residents feel about Whole Foods and retail at CC ...

... Brodsky says surveyors seemed able to “tailor” responses
Friday, July 25, 2014
by Christine Yeres

An exchange between Town Board member Jason Chapin and attorney for Summit Greenfield John Marwell about their mutual frustration over the Chappaqua Crossing application led to a presentation of the results of a “community survey” undertaken by Summit Greenfield confirm for itself that it was “on the right track” in proposing the new “main street” configuration and smaller stores in its grocery-retail application.

“I think we’re waiting for another memo from the Planning Board,” said Chapin to an offer from Town Planner Sabrina Charney to go over the zoning amendments that were the subject of the public hearing. “So I’d prefer to hear from the Planning Board first, and do it all at once.  I think I and many others are still struggling with the numerous changes to this proposed plan.  I’d like to know more about the stores and the specifics of the stores that are being proposed so we can have a better sense of the impact on traffic and the neighborhood, and also the two hamlets.  And more specifics on the stores will give us a better idea of the potential tax implications.  I’m also interesting in hearing from the Planning Board, the Master Plan Steering Committee, and Pace [Land Use Law Center] on the Town Development Plan [a/k/a Master Plan] and the issues related to Chappaqua Crossing.  It seems each time we have a public hearing we’re going over information and some of it’s new—and it’s very frustrating. I feel we’re not moving forward, we’re moving sideways—so I think it’s very important that we talk about concrete details so we can make a decision on this.”

“We share your frustration,” said Marwell.  “Over the last several months we have sat listening respectfully to repeated comments and criticisms of the neighbors and adjacent property owners and we sensed a disconnect as we look at the blogs and commentary and what we hear in the community.  We don’t see the landslide of criticism that we sit here and endure [at public hearings].  We were puzzled by it.  As a result, we engaged a professional surveying firm to get a sense for what the silent majority or others in the community are feeling about it.  As you look in the blogs, there are those who seem to state that they support this project and don’t come out to the hearings because they’re intimidated because they get insulted and abused.  We wanted to try to get a sense of a cross-section of the community.  The professional surveying firm [we engaged] felt that in order to get a fair representation of the community they needed to interview 580 residents.”

“And I just want to make it clear to the public that this was not a survey authorized by the Town Board,” said TB member Lisa Katz. “This was a purely Summit Greenfield-sponsored survey.”  There had been some misunderstanding, she said, that it was a town survey.

“I heard [a surveyor] at Starbucks telling people they were doing this on behalf of the town,” said TB member Elise Mottel.

Marwell responded that the impression was immediately addressed and corrected.

“And I’m interested in hearing the results, but afterwards, I actually want to make a comment regarding the format of the questions and the way in which they were asked,” said TB member Adam Brodsky, “because I think it’s instructive as far as the results.

Marwell turned to Andy Tung, Summit Greenfield’s planning and engineering consultant, to explain.

“Summit Greenfield did engage a firm to take a survey within the community,” said Tung, “to obtain impressions from residents on the “revised Preliminary Development Concept Plan [PDCP] that incorporates ideas and concepts changed in working with town representatives to change the layout for both the retail and residential at Chappaqua Crossing, more specifically to incorporate various streetscape elements of Traditional Neighborhood Design [TND], and with the main entry drive [from Bedford Road to cupola] as the organizing element, the connector between retail, residential and office uses and to relate them better to one another.”

Now that larger stores are less attracted to the changed “main street” layout, Summit Greenfield may have to be able to lease to the smaller stores more typical of Traditional Neighborhood Design, hence Summit Greenfield’s proposed change to the draft zoning to remove the original limit of only four small stores.  Although one month ago Greenstein called the change to smaller stores “a non-starter,” the smaller-store language change did appear in the draft legislation that was a subject of the public hearing last Tuesday.

“Whole Foods as the anchor retail tenant and smaller stores were the assumptions in our latest application,” said Tung.  “We looked for third-party confirmation that those two ideas in the community were valid and appropriate, mainly for the purposes of Summit Greenfield, to confirm that Chappaqua Crossing was heading in the right direction.  We wanted the opinions and views of New Castle residents, to speak to them face-to-face rather than over the web or by phone, in a three-to-five-minute survey.  It took place over two and a half weeks, with the proper permits from town hall.”

The survey was carried out by five surveyors in the last month from Robin Liebowitz’s firm rkl3dat various locations at the downtown hamlet, the Chappaqua Farmers Market, the train station, and at Chappaqua Crossing itself.  Given New Castle’s population of 17,500—12,150 of them adults over the age of 18—the firm decided, Tung explained, that a statistically appropriate sample size would be 580.  Surveyors interviewed around 100 more than that, as they discovered that some interviewees were from out of town, mainly from Mt. Kisco.

Question: Have you heard that Whole Foods may be moving to Chappaqua Crossing?

84% of those surveyed had a general awareness of the proposal and “that Whole Foods may come to the Chappaqua Crossing retail area,” said Tung.

Question:  How do you feel about Whole Foods moving to Chappaqua Crossing?

67% of them said they were interested in seeing a Whole Foods at Chappaqua Crossing.

26% had concerns about retail and Whole Foods at Chappaqua Crossing.

Those who expressed concern were asked an open-ended question as to the source of their concern.  For 64% of them it was traffic, for 18% believed retail was not appropriate there, in proximity to the residential neighborhood or to the high school.

Question: “What other type of retailers would you like to see located alongside Whole Foods?”

74% said their preference was for smaller stores, 6% said medium or large, 20% had no preference.

Overall, this survey was done by Summit Greenfield, said Tung, “to demonstrate to itself that Chappaqua Crossing was basically on the right track with the supermarket and retail in the new [“main street”] configuration in the proposal of April 2014 [which also asked that the limit on the number of smaller stores be lifted entirely].”  He offered to send the PowerPoint presentation to the town to add to its documents on Chappaqua Crossing.

In the public comment that followed, New Castle resident Lynn Lambert said, “I was disturbed by the presentation of that flawed survey.  It was flawed at the get-go and entirely wrong to share it on any town vehicle. At least at the beginning who knows how many people were told who was sponsoring the survey?  I’m embarrassed as a town resident to have it presented [here, in the public hearing].  It’s a flawed survey.”

TB member Adam Brodsky agreed with Lambert that the survey was flawed, and expanded on his earlier comment that the survey questions he overheard had been “instructive.”

Brodsky had overheard the survey questions being administered.  “I was on the train platform,” he said, “and sat next to someone who was taking it.  I thought the questions and the way people were asking the questions—they were tailoring them in such a way as to kind of get the answers they wanted. So it goes into the mix and I understand and appreciate their effort, but I was just very taken aback by the process.  To say that I thought it was awkward is an understatement.”

Tung presented the following PowerPoint summary of its survey to Town Board members.  The survey, according to several residents who took it, consisted only of questions; there were no pictures or maps presented.

In a statement released the day of the public hearing from Geoff Thompson of Thompson & Bender, Felix Charney a principal of Summit Development and an owner of Chappaqua Crossing, said of the survey, “The results demonstrate that New Castle residents recognize and support having a first-class local supermarket and additional shopping and dining opportunities at Chappaqua Crossing. The need for a supermarket in Chappaqua is clear, and having Whole Foods Market at Chappaqua Crossing along with high-quality small retailers and restaurants in an attractive traditional neighborhood style development is an excellent adaptive reuse of a part of the former Readers Digest site.”

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Town of New Caslte Board Meeting 7/22/14 from New Castle Media Center on Vimeo.


Comments(44):
We encourage civil, civic discourse. All comments are reviewed before publication to assure that this standard is met.

Question should have been do you favor retail development at all, not what you favor. It’s not a foregone conclusion, which is what the entire point of this “survey” is.

By Wrong Question on 07/29/2014 at 9:04 am

I participated in the survey and was surprised that one of the first questions wasn’t “Have you participated in this survey before?”.

The same surveyor approached me twice on two different days at the train station.  On the second day I said “Not you again!” and they continued with the survey.

Now that the “data” has been published it’s even more silly.  A “No” has been represented as “I am concerned because” and any response other than “go away” became “It will be great to have a supermarket back in Chappaqua”.

Are they kidding?

By Garbage in, garbage out on 07/29/2014 at 9:13 am

I was approached at the Farmers Market and asked if I was interested in answering a few questions. I was told that the survey was being conducted by an independent surveying firm hired by the developer/owner of CC.  Contrary to Mottel’s assertion – I was not told that it was on behalf of the town. The surveyor was polite- it took about 6 minutes-the questions were fair and balanced. The developer has paid n submitted many studies- environmental, traffic, effects on downtown, and this survey. The town has conducted studies. It is unfair and selfish that the small NIMBY faction has dominated this debate all these years. Katz is on the TB. Brodsky owns downtown real estate. Napoli is a downtown developer and sits on the Master Plan committee.Tobin, Weitz, Reinmann dominate meetings.
In every study/survey- the majority of residents wants Whole Foods and retail.
It is absurd to dismiss/invalidate a survey-study simply because it was paid for by one side or another. Surveys cost money – somebody must pay. My answers did not change – my feelings about a Whole Foods were not influenced because Summit Greenfield paid for this survey. My answers would have been the same if Lisa Katz paid for the survey
Katz and Brodsky are already trying to invalidate the intentions and results of this survey. The only other survey was done online before the election as an informative community based survey organized by 2 residents (Greenburg/Whitehouse). I never participated in that survey because after 2 days the survey was taken down because many folks living near CC and opposed to development gamed the system by competing multiple surveys.  I could not believe my neighbors were capable of such a thing until a friend forwarded me a text she received from a Lawrence Farms East resident instructing her on how to complete multiple surveys using multiple devices and computers, The sender boasted that she had done it 5 times and her husband was going to use multiple computers at work.

By Chappmom on 07/29/2014 at 9:25 am

Your surveyors didn’t show the map of the place and never said how big the proposed area is. Try the survey again, with those questions INCLUDED.

By hah! some survey on 07/29/2014 at 9:26 am

The editor has once again shown her nimby bias and lack of objectivity.
The by- line under the headline says- Brodsky says surveyors seemed able to ” taylor” responses….
She wants the reader to think that the survey was biased based on Brodsky comment. She even emphasized it with quotation marks.
Surveys studies plans all cost money. Professionals do not do it for free. Some person or some organization must pay. How cynical to think that results must tainted!!!
If that’s the case - should the town pay for a survey ( which would be total waste of $$$ we don’t have) - one might dismiss its findings because it was paid for with tax payer money.  That means no survey and no study is valid.
I’ve seen the sausage being made at the Master Plan hearings - enough said.

Editor’s Note:  It’s news iff a town board member who listened to the survey stated that he had the impression that the survey sounded able to be “tailored.”

By Resident on 07/29/2014 at 9:39 am

I’d much sooner trust a survey conducted by a professional organization commissioned by Summit Grenfield than any survey ( professional or otherwise) that had Katz involved. She is so over the top opposed to anything at Chapp Crossing that her involvement compromises the entire exercise.
Maybe her survey will ask about sewage treatment facility and school shootings.

By Rayj on 07/29/2014 at 9:44 am

” how do you feel about Whole Foods moving to CC” is not a loaded or biased question.  The question does not imply or assume that WF is a foregone conclusion. Those opposed can say so. All those already questioning the validly and survey results are clearly NIMBYs. They insult the intelligence of the rest of us as they assume we are being manipulated with slanted biased questions. The survey was fair and it allowed residents ample opportunity to make their feelings understood.
The developer has been asked many times over many years to prove certain things. They have been asked to provide data and statistics regarding resident sentiment, traffic, impact on downtown, impact on environment . They have been asked to make design changes and change stores sizes and components. In most instances they have come back to the town board and residents with response studies and changes. Gone is the dreaded ” strip mall” replaced by a town square design ( as suggested by New Castle Town Planner Curley). Gone is the 60k sq ft supermarket potentially home of ShopRite replaced by. 40k Whole Foods. A traffic study completed by a highly regarded expert with a PHD. Environmental studies and impact studies also submitted and now this survey.
NOTHING will satisfy the NIMBYs. They dismiss and insult.  SG continues to cooperate and respond. This is another piece of ammunition should they sue us.

By Really? on 07/29/2014 at 10:14 am

With 84% awareness – I don’t think anyone who took the survey (me included) didn’t know where they were going with the questions.  Contrary to what Adam says, it’s not like the surveyors were using a Jedi mind trick.

This is a perfect example of why not to waste Town taxpayer money on a survey – the opposition will not be happy unless the results show what they want.  The survey shows most want Whole Foods – Oops, the survey must be flawed. 

Don’t forget this is the second survey – remember what happened with the first?   

By NIMBY IN, NIMBY OUT on 07/29/2014 at 10:54 am

I participated in this survey. I was approached at the train station. I was informed and shown ID indicating the survey was being conducted by a professional survey firm hired by ” the developer at CC”. I was not tricked coerced or misled. The questions were simple and fair. I had the opportunity to add comment and opinion.
It is a shame that the results - majority of residents support retail at CC- are already being dismissed and invalidated by NIMBYs Katz and others.

By Commuter on 07/29/2014 at 11:14 am

Are you people SERIOUSLY going to believe in the integrity of anything SG is actively involved in? “wrong question” and “garbage in, garbage out” have nailed it. If you believe their results, you’ll also be relieved to hear that the traffic consultant they had been relying upon was surprised to learn ,from a resident attending a previous town board meeting, that there is presently a back-up of cars on 117 at the traffic light @ 5:30pm during weekdays. i’m sure they’re selling a bridge somewhere too….
Wise up chappaqua neighbors…

By Are you kidding me?? on 07/29/2014 at 1:24 pm

Mr Marwell is one thousand percent correct! There is a huge disconnect between the repeated criticisms and comments from neighbors of the adjacent property ( Chapp crossing NIMBYs) and that of the rest of the community. The NIMBYs dominate and monopolize all public discussion and board meetings when the topic of CC is on the agenda. The rest of us stay away and do not subject ourselves to their loud disrespectful and self centered behavior. Like me, ,many support retail at CC and occasional write a comment. At BBQs - ball fields- school events- commuter trains- the gym- and in town we discuss latest developments at CC. Most / many/ majority support Whole Foods. We are not insensitive to adjacent homeowners but feel the property is big enough and road access sufficient especially since Readers Digest / Grand Union distribution center handled traffic.
I give Summit Greenfield credit for seeking out some clarity and commissioning a professional survey firm. No surprise the NIMBYs dismiss this survey.  The bottom line is that the NIMBYs do not represent the community. They have opposed every plan and every iteration the developer has presented. It’s time we move past them and get on with it.

By Build it - we will come on 07/29/2014 at 1:35 pm

Right on cue . Betty Weitz starts it off and challenges the SG lawyer in his characterization of the people who regularly attend these meetings in opposition of retail at CC. She stated “we do not insult each other , we are very civil”. I am amazed she can say that. Did she not attend the many meetings where her neighbors yelled and screamed at the TB. My goodness, Lisa Katz was front and center in all this. Mr Gladstone has publicly called our Supervisor a “liar” How can Betty say we are all civil?
She then dismisses the blogs saying “ Its amazing how they seem to have the same voice. How repetitive the phrasing is. It is amazing they say the same things and same nasty terms. As if someone is trying to divide this town.”  I assume Betty is referring to those in favor of retail at CC but off course we know that many opposed to Whole Foods and retail at CC also repeat the same phrasing and also have the same voice. This is typical NIMBY thinking. Betty thinks its ok for NIMBYs to talk with one voice and repeat the same claims like dangerous traffic, destroy downtown, ambulances stuck on Rt 117, property values hurt etc etc. That’s OK – but when people in favor of retail post comments she insinuates it is the work of one or handful of people.
Betty – if anyone is dividing this town it’s the NIMBYs. I am sure you agree with Ms Katz and have already dismissed the SG sponsored survey as biased but it was done with good intention and this town is largely in support of Whole Foods at CC. Those who comment in support are not dividing this town. The small but very vocal minority of NIMBYs that repeat their fear mongering overwhelm us at TB meetings are the dividers.

By Resident on 07/29/2014 at 2:50 pm

I hear over and over again about people complaining that the “NIMBY"s are “dominating” the discussions.  Public hearings are not only to express opposition to things.  If there are so many of you who support this, and if you see 15 “NIMBY"s at a meeting, then go round up 30 of your friends and neighbors who support it and dominate THEM and send a real message.

By enough complaining on 07/29/2014 at 2:58 pm

Lisa Katz points out that this was not a town sponsored survey. She informs us it was paid for by the developer indicating it is bias and not to be trusted. She and her nimby friends including editor Yeres repeat their desire to use tax payer money and commission their own survey. Using Katz logic , if Town of New Castle pays for a survey the results will be biased and should not be believed because it was paid for by New Castle. The same standard must be applied. You/ we either trust and have faith in a professional firm that conducts surveys or you do not. In Katz case ( Mottel & Brodsky too) she believes since it was paid for by SG it’s garbage. Then if we pay for one it must also be garbage. This is another reason not to waste tax payer money on a survey.

By Robert M on 07/29/2014 at 3:09 pm

I was told that it was on behalf of the town.  Even when I pressed for more information I was told it was being conducted with the town and Summitt Greenfield.  I understand that Summitt Greenfield corrected the surveyors when there were questions, but it is clear that Summitt Greenfield was trying to have it both ways.  They got caught.
The surveyor asked if I would like a high end restaurant like Mario Batali’s. 
She was completely unaware of the size or scope of the proposed project.

By I was surveyed on 07/29/2014 at 3:24 pm

I STRONGLY encourage everyone interested in both sides of the story to watch and listen to John Marwell - SG attorney.. I am referring to his follow up comments and his eloquent dissertation of the timeline at CC. He can be seen- heard on the above TB video at precisely the three hour four minute mark. That is 3.04.30
Having just watched it , seems to me that SG has a very strong case that they have cooperated, made changes, took direction from residents and the town board for 8 years! SG was encouraged by our TB to get a Whole Foods after losing our only supermarket. The courts do not care that an election has replaced one town board members. I was not aware of this timeline. I now understand why SG has such a strong case should they be denied again. Ms Katz states she will ask for a moratorium. Will Katz pay for our legal fees? Will she pay damages when we lose the case?

By Objective bystander on 07/29/2014 at 3:57 pm

I do not favor retail development at all.

By Anita Beeber on 07/29/2014 at 4:02 pm

The development map shows that the worst of it is the 111 units. 500 people including 80 affordables with 150 permanent cars 20 yards from my house would worry me more than retail which is 200 yards away and cannot be seen or heard.

The kids from the units will explore my back yard. The retail customers park, shop and go. The NIMBY vocal Hamas style ‘mortar’ shots are aimed at the wrong target.  Good. They deserve to waste their own time and money.

The survey says what the non-nimby world knows: 67% of 84%= 56% overall in favor, with 20% who don’t care. Deal with it

Editor’s Note: 

20 of the 111 are affordable.  And where are you getting 500 people from 111 residential units?  And I don’t think that anything is 20 yards from any existing residence.

And your math:  Let’s say 100 people took the survey.  84 of them said they were aware of the possibility of Whole Foods at CC.  Of those 84, 56% of them favored the idea.  That’s 47 (or 47%)—of the (say) 100 who took it. 

And actually, of the 584 people who said they were “aware” of the possibility of WF at CC, 96 of them then “skipped” the next question, “How do you feel about Whole Foods moving to Chappaqua Crossing?” 

We have no way of knowing whether the 96 who “skipped” the question were part of the 84% of “aware” interviewees or the 16% of those who were “unaware.”  And they might have “skipped” the question either because they were aware of it and disapproved of the project, or aware of it and approved of it, or were unaware and approved of it or unaware and disapproved of it. 

Now what does that signify for the 47% who were in favor of the idea?  We can’t know from the information provided.  Perhaps the survey firm has more details than were presented in the summary.

By NIMBYS are fighting the wrong fight on 07/29/2014 at 5:03 pm

Dear Editor- I agree with resident. giving Brodsky a by- line sub headline with his assertion that the survey was tailored seems overly biased. Your response that it is news if a TB member had that impression is bogus. There was plenty of other ” news” that came out of this public comments section including more information from the traffic consultant and from SG attorney. You chose not to give those news items headline because it doesn’t help the NIMBY cause- your cause.
Besides what good is Mr Brodsky’s opinion- he is a downtown property owner ( his employer/family is). He is conflicted. Retail at CC is linked so how can he possibly be objective He should recuse himself on these matters. Katz is the poster girl for NIMBYs. Nothing will please her. what a waste of time.
The more I watch and listen the more impressed I am with Greenstein. He is mellowing. He has been respectful and polite. He is taking it all in. He gets it.
No good can come of a master plan - it’s a total waste of money. Katz Brodsky and others with agendas will influence the MP questions and it’s results. They cry about SG commissioned survey and studies but anything they get their hands on will be much worse.

By Fair is fair on 07/29/2014 at 5:47 pm

One voice Betty Weitz- Really?
You claim that it seems to you those of us who support Whole Foods retail at CC speak with one voice. You speak of repetitive phrasing and nasty terms used. You appear to be suggesting that the blogger and writers are the same 1 or 2 people. That is right out of the nimby play book. You people can’t possibly fathom that there is support for this development. When faced with comments of support you insist it must be the work of only a few. You have been doing this for years. In the past claims that supported retail at CC must be written by employees of Summit Greenfield.
Hypocritically you ignore the many similar comments in opposition to retail at CC. Read the nimby comments and you will see the same phrases the same terms the same the same nastiness and repetitive fear mongering.  NIMBYs criticize supporters calling us selfish. They say we are spoiled because we want a supermarket. So who is selfish -who is speaking with one voice? No Betty we have many voices ....

By Tony Bennett on 07/29/2014 at 6:00 pm

Downtown property owner Brodsky thinks the survey was tailored to influence the outcome. Shocking ! And Editor Yeres reports this as NEWS. Another shocker.

By Resident on 07/29/2014 at 6:10 pm

Objective Bystander- thank you for your advice. I fast forwarded the replay of the town board meeting to the 3.04:30 mark and watchd the attorney for the developer.
I thought I was informed and up to speed on the long drawn out debate that is development at Chapp Crossing. After hearing the developers point of view and now fully understanding the timeline and series of events, I fully appreciate Greensteins comments of several weeks ago.
Given the many denials rejections changes and suggestions that SG has endured for 8 years I don’t see how another delay / moratorium will hold up in court. It was New Castle Town board that asked SG to come back with a 200 condo plan - then rejected it. It was NC town board that went to the developer after DAGS closed and suggested a supermarket at CC. It was town officials that suggested Whole Foods and town square design. Then SG complies - delivers what was asked and now we say NO.
Not surprisingly this timeline - the SG side of the story - has not been printed by the editor.

Editor’s Note: Maybe you missed this history by Mr. Marwell:  http://www.newcastlenow.org/index.php/article/index/new_just_shy_of_a_decade_in_holding_cc_sg_sees_grocery_approval_stalled_unt

And this: http://www.newcastlenow.org/index.php/article/index/new_john_buckley_suggests_a_return_to_housing_at_cc_marwell_urges_tb_toward

And in another piece, you’ll find plenty of history in Mr. Tung’s dialogue with Mr. Curley:  http://www.newcastlenow.org/index.php/article/new_planning_board_struggles_with_its_comments_for_town_board_on_chappaqua

And this primer on the retail application, from six months after it was proposed, and reprinted by NCNOW frequently:  http://www.newcastlenow.org/index.php/article/index/new_a_primer_on_the_proposal_for_a_grocery_and_retail_at_chappaqua_crossing

That’s a lot of history.

By Another resident on 07/30/2014 at 6:45 am

It is patently false and absurd to say that the entire history of CC has not been covered by NCNow. 

I was at this meeting and Marwell’s timeline was designed to put his client, S.G. in the best light. That is his job.  Betty Weitz outlined the actual timeline with all the changes that S.G. has gotten from the town.  It was the second time she spoke at the meeting.
I suggest that you listen to what she said or at least read the transcript

Her point about just who is behind all these posts aching for retail at CC was well taken.
I too am suspicious .  Why do they not come to meetings ?  Who are they and where are they ?

By the true history on 07/30/2014 at 12:40 pm

To the true history- you are talkng classic nimby talk. You are suspicious because you don’t know who is behind all these posts in favor of retail at CC. Let me tell you from personal experience I attended a town board meeting pre- election. I submitted a card so as to have my name called to speak. I was going to support the idea that we keep an open mind and find a workable solution , a compromise to bring a grocer and other modest retail to CC. I had other thoughts to share as well. I sat there well past 10:30 pm. I endured a parade of hysterical NIMBYs going to the podium proclaiming the end of civilization as they know it. Lisa Katz ( pre town board) screamed at and insulted board members insisting ” nobody wants this”. I left before my name was called.
Clearly based on the online survey conducted by D Greenburg and this latest survey by SG indicates there are plenty of people in town that support retail at CC. I don’t know if it’s 50% or 75% but suffice to say many people are in favor. You ,the NIMBYs think that because we don’t come out and participate in town meetings that we must not exist. You and Betty think we are a few people writing over and over and completing surveys. I need not remind you it was the NIMBYs that stuffed the ballot box with Dawns survey. 
You ask -who are they and where are they.  We are everywhere. We are tax payers. We are moms n dads that want Whole Foods. We respect your nimby concerns and expect town officials to bring a well planned multi usage facility to CC.

By Ronnie on 07/30/2014 at 3:00 pm

@true history- are you suggesting Marwell is not telling the truth? Based on the links editor Yeres provided it seems very apparent to me the timeline is accurate. I had a keen interest in the early proposal for age restricted housing. I watched and listened to residents near CC object to this SG proposal. They incorrectly insisted that age restricted housing was not enforceable. At the then Supervisors direction SG came back with approx 200 condo plan. But that was rejected. Fast forward to another Supervisor and board that suggested retail at CC and a high end grocer to SG. Now we have another board and the same reidents are pressuring again.
I know there were several changes along the way but my takeaway is that over the course of 8 years and 3 Supervisors this developer has gotten the run around.

By Emptynester on 07/30/2014 at 3:18 pm

This was to be all inside the existing building.  Now it is 120,000 square feet of all new buildings.  SG never intended to use or to repurpose the building.  They were clearly the wrong developer for this project.  There are developers across the country who do a beautiful job of repurposing buildings.  SG does not do those kinds of projects.
You are correct in that this was poorly handled by each successive board and their lawyers from the beginning.  That does not mean that the town as a whole should suffer because of poor leadership.  It is not too late for the TB to do the right thing and refuse this rediculously large invasion that makes no sense and does not benifit the town in any way and certainly not financially.

We do not know how many people do want this development and “we ” includes you.
I do not live in that neighborhood so cool your jets on the name calling.

By stop the name calling on 07/31/2014 at 12:21 am

You ask if Marwell’s is telling the truth.  That would depend on how you characterize omission.
Again I suggest that you listen to Betty Weitz’s comments st the end of the meeting.

By true history on 07/31/2014 at 1:37 am

@Stop the name calling- maybe at some point this was all supposed to be inside existing buildings but objections from NIMBYs and feedback from the community and town officials pushed the developer to make changes. Inside the existing buildings was characterized as a strip mall. With town planner Culreys siggestions a town square design was utilized. A change to accommodate and satisfy new castle residents and NIMBYs. The original supermarket foot print was 60,000 sq ft and NIMBYs complained it was too big and invite in a ShopRite / Stop&shop; type market. They didn’t like that. It was too pedestrian and not upscale enough. Whole Foods was suggested and a smaller building designed. Whole Foods would only commit if they had a stand alone building not a retrofitted dynasour of a building used by a Readers Digest.
It seems to me that many if not all of the changes from the original retail proposal was done because that is what was asked of the developer. That includes requests made by prior Supervisors and Boards.
At the end of the day the NIMBYs will accept nothing. They make objections they make suggestions the developer makes accommodations they object again.

By Resident on 07/31/2014 at 11:38 am

@ Resident,

Bull.

By another resident on 07/31/2014 at 3:08 pm

@ Resident,

What you say is so slanted and has been refuted so many times over that all I will say to your post is. BULL.

By another resident on 07/31/2014 at 3:31 pm

Don’t take my word for it. Ask our last New Castle lawyers and ask our current New Castle lawyers. Both will tell you that Summit Greenfield has a very strong case should they be denied again and reinstate the previously suspended lawsuit. Their case is strong precisely for the reasons I stated above.
If it was bull 2 law firms would not be telling us that SG has a very strong case.

By Resident on 07/31/2014 at 7:50 pm

While Resident suggests asking the town’s current and former counsel what they have told the Board about the strengths or weaknesses of any claims SG might pursue and claims to know what they have said, he or she cannot know unless he or she is a board member who heard from them in the context of attorney client communication.  This is just more speculation.

By Resident: You Cannot Know What the Lawyers Have to on 08/01/2014 at 8:43 am

Resident,

When did you hear either firm say what you say they said ?  And what exactly did they say ?  Please be specific.

Thank you.

By Thank you on 08/01/2014 at 9:50 am

Resident,

Like our supervisor you throw out ” facts “.  without any documentation.
I have been following this all very closely and have never heard what you say.  In fact,
I remember hearing the judge in the case that SG LOST say to SG that they purchased the property knowing full well the zoning restrictions.  Before he was elected the supervisor campaigned on that one verifiable fact.
Hmmmmm

By Hmmmm on 08/01/2014 at 11:23 am

To Hmmmm- throwing out facts without documentation is the tactic of the NIMBYs who oppose this long overdue and beneficial development.
Here are some of your unsubstantiated claims on which you object to Whole Foods- retail at CC…..
It will decrease property values -
It will destroy downtown -
Traffic will be unbearable and dangerous-
It will generate minimum tax revenue-
These are but a few of your statements of facts without documentation. In fact all the NIMBY objections have no basis in fact and you offer no proof. The town and the developer have paid for and conducted studies. Both conclude a benefit to our community and refute your often repeated fear mongoring claims.

By Build it on 08/02/2014 at 8:21 am

Question- What documented facts do the NIMBYs offer supporting their claims of the many negative impacts brought on by a multi use facility at Chapp Crossing?
Answer - NOT A SINGLE ONE!

By Rayj on 08/02/2014 at 9:51 am

Build it and Rayj,

This is really getting tedious.

We get it, you want shopping at any and all costs.  The studies you reference hardly address all the issues we need to understand before going forward with this huge development and change.  You are not honest brokers.  You are campaigning for what you want.

If you were honest brokers and really cared about the town you would want a thorough full master plan like other towns around us are doing.  You would not be standing in its way.

It is true, I do not think that retail at CC is the right thing to do, but if the master plan says otherwise, I would respect that.

By master plan Rob and TB ? on 08/03/2014 at 12:47 pm

To master plan Rob and TB- we get it. You and other NIMBYs oppose retail at CC at any and all costs. You offer no evidence no facts no documentation and no studies supporting your anti retail at CC position. You are not honest brokers. You are campaigning for what you wish to obstruct and you have no interest in what is good and what the rest of the community wants.
You mention other towns. Other towns have not do not update a master plan whenever faced with development. Some do some don’t. A MP is a guide it is not a strict legally binding document. Your repeated insistence that the town do a thorough full master plan review is a thinly veiled moratorium and stall tactic. Besides, what validity and what dependability will your new MP have given the people involved in the process. Conflicted people with personal agendas have ” volunteered” to partipate.
I’ve watched some of the meetings and work sessions and see folks trying to influence the outcome - Katz, Brodsky, Napoli, Tobin, Weitz, on and on….
Should then town board pay for a MP review as has been suggested, wouldn’t the results be tainted and compromised because it was paid for by New Castle? This has been the excuse to ignore studies already done. The traffic study and impact study was paid for by SG. The NIMBYs claim it can’t be trusted because SG paid. It should follow that a study or MP paid for by nimby dominated lobby should also not be trusted. That’s why it’s a waste of money and a charade.
The negative claims and objections by NIMBYs simply have no basis in facts.

By Also a resident on 08/04/2014 at 7:25 am

Also a resident,

You are completely wrong.  I do not live in that neighborhood.  The last master plan was done in 1989. Everything else you say is equally erroneous but I know that that will not stop your self serving lies and deliberate distortions.

But I know that you will not stop your lies.  Nothing will stop your lies.

By Also a resident has no basis in facts, we get it. on 08/04/2014 at 9:26 am

Wow Also! ,

Your dishonest spin does Greenie proud !

By Yikes on 08/04/2014 at 1:19 pm

Why are TB and PB meeting in executive session?  Is this legal?

Editor’s Note:  They are meeting to discuss Chappaqua Crossing with the town’s attorneys.  It is legal to seek legal advice in executive session.

By where is transparency on 08/04/2014 at 6:17 pm

the acronym/term NIMBY is derogatory and should be edited out of comments in order to comply with the guidelines for civility as suggested. gee, panera bread and lululemon sound awesome - can’t wait to skip home in my lemon tights, baguette in hand, to catch the latest from housewives of orange county

By steve walsh on 08/05/2014 at 1:42 pm

Actually, it was our own now supervisor, Rob Greenstein, who stuffed the box with anti-CC surveys on the Greenberg/Whitehouse survey.  Ask him and see if the elected official who claims to be transparent will admit it.

By why the first survey was thrown out on 08/09/2014 at 8:10 am

@why the first survey was thrown out,

Evidence? Proof? Of course not.

By bob on 08/09/2014 at 12:55 pm


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.