Summit Greenfield breaks its silence in court papers
Monday, May 9, 2011
by Christine Yeres
For almost a month, Summit Greenfield, the owner of Chappaqua Crossing, has remained silent in response to the New Castle Town Board’s April 11 decision to grant a zoning changes at the former Reader’s Digest property to permit 111 units of housing to be constructed at Chappaqua Crossing and allow an unlimited number of commercial tenants. All inquiries to Summit Greenfield and its spokesperson, Geoffrey Thompson of Thompson & Bender, have garnered only “no comment” responses.
On Friday, May 6, Summit Greenfield broke its silence with amended complaints in both its federal and state court cases filed originally on February 28.
In the amended complaints Summit Greenfield alleges that the New Castle town board’s six-year environmental review process was, in effect, a series of “deliberate delaying tactics” designed to “prevent the development of affordable housing.” According to the developer’s press release, the town board’s April 11 “approvals” [quotation marks are Summit Greenfield’s] “amounted to a sham process intended to create the illusion of regulatory approvals” which in no way alter the developer’s determination to pursue its cases in both courts.
In its decision on April 11 the town board approved 111 units of housing, 60 of those as fee-simple townhouses, 31 as market-rate condominium units, and 20 “fair and affordable” housing units that would comply with the Westchester County’s 2009 housing settlement with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
___________________________
• The two amended complaints: Amended Complaint in federal suit, and Amended Complaint in state court case.
• See “No surprises in Chappaqua Xing lawsuits, except for odd timing,” NCNOW.org, March 2, 2011.
• To view NCNOW’s archived articles and letters—in chronological order, newest to oldest—on Chappaqua Crossing and Summit Greenfield’s application for a zoning change, click HERE.
The only sham here is Summit Greenfield asserting it cares about affordable housing.
where is the money, to fight this lawsuit, going to come from?? the sad part is, the vocal, mean, unreasonable, unmovable opposition to development, will not be footing the bill for this.(the board should review the records and look into the legality of making them pay!!) how could no one have seen this coming??
The fact that SG was going to sue unless it got its way was not and is not a reason for the Town to knuckle under to its demand to rezone what it knew was commercial property when it bought Reader’s Digest. SG’s lawsuits, as filed and now apparently as amended appear to be in the nature of SLAPP suits (Strategic Litigation Against Public Policy).
I will refrain from commenting further until I have seen their Amended Complaints but it is noteworthy that while they speak of economic viability as the reason they reject what the Town Board approved as insufficient, they have never shared any information with the people of New Castle as to what it takes for this development to be “viable” by their definition (or how they define that term here).
This certainly makes me understand why so many have expressed the concern that once SG “gets its nose in the tent” and starts residential development, they will keep coming back to say they need more units for the project to be viable.
Sometimes you have to defend against baseless lawsuits. Sad fact of life in 2011.
Just goes to show that when you play with the devil, you get burned. What a stupid Board decision to have given them any residential in the first place. Clearly not what the residents wanted, and now we all get to pay in so many ways.
The commercial restrictions are lifted, aren’t they? Market the commercial then! I don’t understand their argument that the town is obliged to approve the whole plan, including both residential “villages” in order to make the commercial work, and that if they don’t do so, they have acted unfairly and arbitrarily. Does this make sense? Does a town owe it to a developer to give them a way to make money enough to support their game plan? I am not looking for legal strategy type answer. Just common sense thinking please. Sorry lawyers, not a swipe at you.
I think SG has not even paid for all the costs going into the DEIS, which are substantial. Under the law, this study had to be done and SG was obliged to pay for it. They have not and as I recall the town now has to counter-claim in the lawsuit brought by SG for the unpaid DEIS costs. This is a legal obligation stemming from state law, not the town board, and regardless of claims that the process took too long, they are supposed to foot the bill. SG was well aware of this right from the start. Yet they opt to fight it. They would pay, I assume, if they got everything they are seeking approved. But short of that, they will make things difficult at every turn.
While I was opposed to partial residential, in large part, because I think Summit Greenfield will not stop with just the first batch of units or the restrictions placed on development. So I believe we will constantly be in a battle over how large the development should be. Yet there are a number of people in town who do not agree with my view and support the board decision. To be fair, while I would say the board went against the views of a large segment of the community, I would also say that they are supported by quite a few residents and perhaps a majority. Without a vote, we will never know. I have yet to come across anyone who is opposed to affordable housing however and that is just made up by the developer as far I have been able to discern.
I was a fence sitter but am now completely put off by the developer. They want everything in their plan, period. How can anyone think any different at this point?
There is no compromising, no middle ground on the extent of the development since their agenda is to make money for their shareholders and they have now made it clear in the amended complaint, that to do so, they need the whole plan. Other considerations fall by the wayside as a result. Profit-making is part of the capitalist system obviously but we are not dealing with a company seeking to market a new consumer product that you can either buy or not. No, we are dealing with real estate development which will have an extremely long lasting impact on our community and as towns in this state are entitled to do, and in fact, obliged to do, the impact on the community as a whole is to be considered by the town board. But this doesn’t fly with the developer. The board tried but anything short of the whole thing is going to be rejected. Read the amended complaints:
Does this mean that if the store owners downtown say they need to add height onto their buildings so that they can rent out apartments to support the ground floor businesses in this bad economy, the town has to approve that or be accused of wrongdoing and face a lawsuit? I don’t see any difference except for scale.
This issue between Summitt and Chappaqua is not as simple as some of you commenters would suggest. The fact is that how we use land changes over time. What may have been viable commercial property when Readers Digest built the site may not be viable now. Land use changes over time to meet the needs of a community and to permit a land owner to do with its land what it wishes, within reason. Our economy has changed. Commercial property would certainly be the best option, but if the property cannot be utilized as commercial property (and it’s looking like it can’t at this point), then the town has to work with the owner to reach a fair compromise.
The SEQRA laws were put into place to ensure that fairness and to ensure that the development is sound from an environmental perspective. It is wrong for some of you out there who know the law to try to simplify things for lay people in a way that is so inaccurate.
A couple thoughts: the board came up with something that many would call a fair and reasonable compromise; it is clear that what is good for the community is retaining commercial tax base which is what that compromise mentioned above does, among other things; SG has not yet marketed the property without prior commercial tenant restrictions, which the board voted has now voted to remove and so to say the commercial side is not viable is inaccurate; many, many prior posts on CC have made it clear the issue is anything but simple; the law does not allow any of us, including homeowners and developers alike, to do what we wish with our property, particularly if there are environmental concerns as there are with this particular site, which is why we all must adhere to applicable zoning laws even if you or I might call them unreasonable.
While I will not comment on the fairness of the Town Board’s decision, Chappaqua is seriously falling behind in terms of real estate values compared to other upscale communities in Westchester. To me, some of the biggest reasons are the high property taxes and lack of an interesting downtown commercial base. Both of these are promulgated by poor judgement of the Town Board and Planning Board. Most importantly, if an entity puts forth a proposal to one of our Boards they deserve a prompt response without years of wasting time and money. I am not saying we just say yes to all Development proposals, but we should say yes or no in a fair period of time. Also, the only way to reduce taxes is to cut spending (which I do not suggest) or increase our commercial base and allow for some increased development so we can spread the pain.
