Town board approves 111 units of housing in East Village, lifts cap on number of office tenants
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
With 70 comments since publication Tuesday
by Christine Yeres
Following a public hearing in which town board members heard strong opposition to the creation of multifamily zoning at Chappaqua Crossing, the board voted to approve the 111 housing units proposed by Summit Greenfield in its “East Village” as well as a “preliminary concept plan for the East Village” and the removal of the current limit on the number of office tenants allowed. Board members rejected amendments to permit 55-foot building height, the relaxation of parking requirements and the creation of multifamily zoning in the North Village.
Last night’s public hearing began with the announcement by Victor Siber, a resident of Cowdin Lane, that at mid-day the same day a “Section 265” petition signed by 39 residents surrounding the Reader’s Digest site had been filed at town hall that would require any vote to approve zoning amendments for Chappaqua Crossing be decided by a super-majority, at least four of five board members.
Since two board members (Deptuty Supervisor Elise Mottel and Councilman John Buckley) had earlier recused themselves from the matter leaving only three board members (Gerrard, Stout and Wolfensohn), by filing the petition, the 39 residents surrounding the Reader’s Digest property intended to prevent decisions on the amendments.
But by evening’s close, invoking the “Rule of Necessity”—allowing the board to bring back “biased adjudicators” to decide “cases and disputes” over which the board is the sole entity with authority as decision makers—the board had invited back the two recused members. All five board members then voted on the amendments. All voted unanimously on the amendments with the exception of two abstentions by John Buckley when it came to the creation of multifamily zoning in the East Village and approval of its Preliminary Development Concept Plan, a description of what form development must take at Chappaqua Crossing if Summit Greenfield or any subsequent owner should proceed with development.
Some explanation for a stunned audience
Residents had not had the benefit of hearing the board’s statements before they spoke, mainly to oppose the multifamily rezoning of the property. Two affordable housing advocates spoke in favor of affordable housing, one housing choice and “fair and affordable” housing in general, and the other for senior affordable housing. [A more detailed account of what residents had to say will follow later today.] After statements from about ten residents, Gerrard closed the hearing and each of the three board members read statements that explained the votes they made clear they intended to cast later the same evening [links to each are below].
Wolfensohn
In a brief statement of 600 words, Wolfensohn hinted at the efficacy of the restrictions on the development contained in a resolution by the board to be approved subsequently, stating, “To those of you who are concerned that by approving any part of this project would open up the flood gates of residential housing I suggest you look at the restrictive declaration found in paragraph 3 of the resolution adopting the concept plan and the other conditions in that resolution.” The end of Wolfensohn’s statement read, “Lastly, as the proposal continues to move forward, I hope Summit Greenfield becomes a strong member of our community and it is with that in mind I hope they would reconsider their decision and allow the school district to park in their facilities.”
Stout
The subject of Stout’s statement—at 2200 words, the longest—was the inevitability of change, the desirability of affordable housing and the benefits to the community of making room for diverse populations. He expressed the belief that the board’s decisions on Chappaqua Crossing would serve both to nourish the town’s small commercial tax base, and “benefit our community by continuing to diversify our housing stock.”
Gerrard
Gerrard, last to read her statement of 1660 words, spelled out some of those restrictions, contained in a “Resolution to Approve a Preliminary Development Concept Plan,” that would limit the number of residential units at Chappaqua Crossing to 111 units in the East Village and make 60 units fee simple townhouses, 31 market rate condos and 20 affordable. The affordable units would, she believed, be of the type to satisfy the county settlement’s “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” requirements. But if failing to be approved as such, the 20 would still count as “affordable” toward New Castle’s allotment of the pre-existing county goal of affordable housing.
Gerrard particularly addressed the stated concerns of the Chappaqua board of education members, and was highly critical of that board’s report on the effects of Chappaqua Crossing’s residential housing on the schools, stating, “I see no evidence that the East Village would produce very many students in the District, especially when considering the maximum bedroom count numbers we have provided. School children generation is primarily correlated to bedroom count. For that reason the one report indicating many more children in the system than all the other reports predicated was examined closely by me, and I disagree vehemently with choosing Random Farms as comparable to the proposed condominium development. Random Farms homes have four to five bedrooms each. The proposed condominiums have one or two bedrooms.”
Apart from these statements there was little explanation given for the decisions board members made on the amendments immediately following their statements, no questions were invited, and Gerrard adjourned the meeting once the five board members had voted.
The three board members’ statements explaining their decisions on the Chappaqua Crossing amendments appear in their entirety below:
Public Hearing on Chappaqua Crossing Amendments: Statement by Councilman Michael Wolfensohn
Public Hearing on Chappaqua Crossing Amendments: Statement by Councilman Robin Stout
Public Hearing on Chappaqua Crossing Amendments: Statement by Supervisor Barbara Gerrard
Click here for: Preliminary Development Concept Plan
And to view the “Table of Contents” (pick your subject) for the complete “Findings Statement for Chappaqua Crossing” issued on April 11, 2011, click HERE.
[Editor’s Note: More of the story will follow later this week. UPDATE: The documents generated from last night’s hearing (linked above) are also now posted on the town’s website, www.newcastle-ny.org, under “Latest News.”
View the film of the meeting, lasting just under two hours, through New Castle Community Media Center’s “on demand” video, below:
As she read her statement, that was a very angry-sounding town supervisor last night.
The public has been an interference to the board in this process, as town board members have made very clear throughout. It was extremely disrespectful to citizens to set up a so-called public hearing having pre-judged all the issues - and demonstrate clearly that they are annoyed by what people want, and even by what people want to understand. The board has run along as quickly as it could, giving as little help to residents’ understanding as possible.
They think THEY are in charge and that WE are an annoyance.
There was no reason not to make their statements UP FRONT last night. Why pretend that they were open to hear from the public? They have hinted for months that they are deciding by consulting only themselves, but at least last night they might have had the courtesy toward the public to speak their made-up minds BEFORE drawing out residents to speak theirs. What resolution restricting the developer? Where is it? Why was it not read out at the meeting?
New low in public affairs. The supervisor is angry that citizens exercise their rights. And she and other board members have their decisions prepared and ready to read. Only they pretend that residents are there for a public hearing. Shameful.
This has caused me to deeply wonder about this board’s philosophy. It is the height of arrogance to hold a public hearing and respond to the public with canned speeches and sermons.
I’m not pre-judging the board, as the board pre-judged the public hearing. I want to see the resolution and see how this plays out in court. I suspect they’ve given away their only protection against losing all commercial to residential. But let’s see.
Public hearing was a sham. That, I’ve decided already.
Well is this really so bad giving the amount of bedrooms for some units. Something had to be done there. Think back to the amount of traffic when Readers Digest was at full capacity and the time of day that would occur. I wonder if SG still plans to go ahead with their lawsuit.
So how does construction of a residential development of 111 units NOT interfere with the office side of Chappaqua Crossing’s operation?
So let me get this straight. The town board “helped” residents by making the incomprehensible FEIS available to them before concluding the public hearing process, during which they concealed their pre-determined outcome from the very public they invited to come speak to them. You elected us to do whatever we think we should do. Get out of our way.
Wow.
I thought government was supposed to represent the views of the people who elected them. What part of this decision represents anything that anyone who lives in New Castle has expressed at the endless town meetings?
I realize we can vote these folks out, but the damage has been done.
The board must be attending different meetings than I have been.
What a joke that Wolfenstein hope Chap Xing can become a good neighbor—they wll eat up all the benefits of what the homeowners pay in taxes—
One little lawsuit and our elected officials fold and get in-line. What a disgrace for the town after spending so much money….
They can build a gazebo, but not protect our schools…
I wish everyone could drive through the property to see what is being destroyed. The Wallace’s were true preservers of nature and what makes this area beautiful, something that so many of us were standing up for and were blatantly ignored. We all lose here, I just wish everyone knew by how much.
We heard nothing last night that would allay our fears that this development will create a traffic nightmare.
Someone above asks, is this “really so bad.” And the answer, in my opinion, is “no” provided (1) the current approved plan is where the residential will remain, and (2) there is in fact control over the size of the units and bedrooms as they are built. But there are a bunch of reasons to be concerned about the plan being expanded down the road through additional zoning actions and even as the site is developed in the near future, about things being changed as construction goes forth.
For example, there is a lot of concern that the affordable housing units, when built, won’t pass muster according to affordable AFFH requirements. The concept of residential at that site is not what most people object to. What concerns people is that the current plan for some residential will keep being expanded and as it is expanded, it will squeeze the commercial until the commercial is eliminated. This means a big chunk out of the town’s already small commercial tax base and a lot of other problems which have been gone over time and again here and so I won’t state those reasons.
The board seems to think its lawyers have found the answer to controlling the size of residential by putting forth amendments approving the east village and not the north. None of us have seen that reasoning though—if it is out there in one of the many documents, I would like to know where so that I can read. What I think has been published are restrictions on the east village, but not the legal reasoning. I suppose the town takes the position that advice of counsel remains confidential.
People should stop complaining about the town board and the way it’s handled this matter. There was an election a year and a half ago and not one candidate - Republican or Democrat - stepped up to run against the incumbent on the Chappaqua Crossing or any other issue. It’s not surprising that the board seems to be arrogant, because the electorate don’t seem to care or follow through. I wonder if people will remember this so-called public hearing in the November elections.
I know this decision is difficult to swallow for many but I strongly believe that this development will be very positive for the town in the long run. Having lived here for a long time I have seen many projects that were going to “ruin the character of the town” or destroy our schools. No such outcome prevailed.
Our biggest failure here was to collaborate with the developer and maximize the “win-win” for the community. Instead we sat in a closed building and SG slipped proposals under the door, we would reject them and slip our own back out under the door. In doing so we appear to have missed a huge opportunity for town benefits. Additional fields, a parking commitment (can you believe we decided this and didn’t even get a commitment for parking for major Greeley events?), perhaps a town pool or access to certain buildings in the development for events.
A long time ago it was clear to me we were destined for a loss in court, or a solution like this where we backed into it reluctantly but necessarily.
We could have negotiated this settlement 2 years ago, plus benefits for the town. How disappointing that we handled it the way we did.
I am torn. I was at the meeting last night and thought the board was extremely defensive and annoyed with us residents. On the other hand, this has been a very tense process over a number of years, creating a lot of criticism of their actions. These are human beings not robots. Perhaps quite naturally, they are “of course” going to be defensive and annoyed. Yet, I think this process has been overall handled in a way that has antagonized the public.
For example, based on the FEIS, it was clear the Board’s minds were made up by the time it was finished, meaning well before the first half of this public comment session several weeks ago (which came several days before the FEIS was released) and thus before any one of us got to read the FEIS.
I have read a lot of the meat of the document and I learned a lot about the board’s reasoning. Some of that reasoning I agree with, some I don’t. But I am taken aback by the realization that this 2 part public comment hearing was a sham and that the comments of residents such as myself, based on that FEIS, were pointless.
The board came in there last night, the only post-FEIS public meeting, with their minds made up and I thought a few of them were gunning for bear (supervisor, that includes you!). There was a whole lot of lecturing of us residents last night and I suppose the board had had enough of being on the receiving end of that dynamic. Maybe in each instance when a FEIS is mandated, the municipality’s decision is made by the time the FEIS is completed, but from my perspective as a resident, I was angry as it played out last night and then when they invoked the rule of necessity to bring back board members who had been “studying up” the past week so that they could vote, it just drilled in the fallacy of this public comment meaning anything at all.
I know I am not adding much to this dialogue, except the view of someone who has tried to keep an open mind and is trying to be fair to the board but finds it a struggle.
Why should we stop complaining? We have a right to voice opinions about the actions of government (I think that was established in the 1770’s via the Boston Tea Party)—I also think government FOR the PEOPLE, BY the PEOPLE is a basic tenet on our constitution and in this case, the decisions did not reflect the views of the people who elected the board.. (May I also remind you that many recent presidents were voted in with less than a popular majority—so having widespread support is not a precondition for getting into office)
Jeez, that was one unhappy board. I thought the attendees were unhappy and somewhat shocked or maybe confused first and then shocked, but not as antagonistic as the board. I guess it is to be expected since the board certainly has gotten heat, but the energy was not good last night.
Yes, where is that resolution restricting the developer in terms of expanding residential? It was mentioned several times last night including a statement about it being in a particular paragraph in a document, but it went by so quick, I did not catch the details. I would like to read it. Anyone know where it is?
Editor’s Note: It’s paragraph #3 after many “WHEREAS” clauses:
http://www.newcastlenow.org/index.php/article/index/resolution
Hear that sound ? That’s the tremor of New Castle residents heading to the exits. This is an unmitigated disaster. The overwhelming voice of the constituency has been dismissed. There are hundreds of homes on the market, no buyers, and we, in our infinite wisdom, agree to build more ? It’s time to privatize the school system and solve all our problems with a pay-as-you-go formula. We are a privately funded system with public liabilities. Summit Greenfield will never, ever be a good neighbor. They are a for-profit organization that could care less what happens after they cash in their check. So pay taxes and die, just do it quietly.
I would like to commend the Town Board for its conduct of the hearings leading up to the vote and for the openness they showed to all people who wished to comment on the proposal. I realize that many people were not satisfied with the outcome, but there are many people in the town (perhaps, even a majority) who believe that the decision made by the Board last evening was in the best interests of our community. The members of the Town Board were elected by us to use their best judgment in deciding issues of importance to the town. I believe they executed their responsibilities admirably.
I attended last night’s meeting and don’t believe anything was brought up that hadn’t been discussed previously.
The Board has done its due diligence and examined every issue presented by the Summit Greenfield proposals. If you doubt it, peruse through the FEIS - I appreciate the amount of time, effort and consideration the Board devoted to this project.
Many residents hoped for NO MFD approval, and therefore, this decision is perceived as a defeat. I’m wondering if the developer will want to proceed with the MFD as it was approved; in their proposal, the 20 affordable units represented 10% of the total development. As approved, the percentage is now around 20%. Also, 60 out of 111 units will be fee simple - that’s over 50% of the total units, all in the $700,000 - $1,000,000 range. Should be interesting to see what will be Summit Greenfield’s next move.
It would be nice to think that the developer would accept the compromise and go forward to make the best of these approvals as “good neighbor” would. I don’t think that is what we will see. The developer wants money and does not care about this town or anyone who lives here. Developers are never in it for you.
The proceeding was a sham. What was the point of “hearing” residents while the board had already decided? MOST infuriating was Town Board member Stout and his lecture and sermon on what’s good for New Castle residents and our children. HOW DARE he pontificate on his vision of social engineering? The Town Boards job is to weigh and evaluate legal and material issues before them. Why must we be lectured about diversity? We do not need or want Stout to lecture us on his view that “our kids are not experiencing that wide diversity” and how he and the board will fix it. Hidden in his agenda is the not so subtle prejudice of his own in that he must think that affordable housing will be targeting minorities. He did reference the recently released census data which illuminated the growth of Hispanic and Afro American citizens. I guess Mr Stout assumes that affordable (low income housing) is NOT color blind as it should be.
Mr Stout ought to tend to the Towns business and his own child rearing and leave how we bring up our children to us. This is a perfect example of a local town politician that is taking himself way too seriously and far overstepping his responsibilities. Did we really need to hear about his upbringing and the divorce in his family? A developer bought a commercial parcel of land and has done nothing to enhance its commercial viability. Instead SG has focused on rezoning to residential and played our town board like a fiddle. Now that they have approved partial residential the door is wide open to expand further in the future. Mr. Stout addressed this by saying “… our future community and a future Town Board will have the same type of input we have had into this decision. “ What he is saying is- not my problem, let the next Town Board deal with future residential expansion at Chapp Crossing. That is an irresponsible position. The Boards job is to plan for the future and recognize that decisions they make today will have significant impact later.
I have been a resident of Chappaqua for 43 years. Periodically, there have been issues that seem to tear the town apart with voices predicting impending doom for the quality of our life and community character (e.g. school redistricting, the new Middle School, the new elementary school, the bridge etc.). Each time the prophets of doom were proven wrong and the community continued on. Each time our Town Board was attacked (sometimes viciously) and it wasn’t until well afterward that we realized how diligent they had been and how difficult a job it is to deal with all the heated constituencies. I suspect the same is true with this and I thank the Board for their diligence on our behalf. I urge some compassion for our elected officials.
Plain and simple - the Town Board caved. They were threatened with a law suit and they folded like a cheap tent! In her closing remarks Supervisor Gerrard said she was elected to represent the best interest of the entire town. How is it possible that she has heard ALL the objections and all the concerns and still votes for residential zoning. She certainly isn’t representing most of us and has turned her back on all that did elect her to office. How hypocritical of Barbara Gerrard to close with the following statement - ” We make hard decisions – but those decisions should not be based on fear or intimidation, but on reasoned analysis and respect for the law, with a primary regard for the well-being of our community”. Did she actually say fear and intimidation? Because where most of us stand on this decision is that the Town Board caved after threat of SG lawsuit. That is a prime example of using fear and intimidation to get results and our Town Board and Ms Gerrard certainly responded to it by granting SG residential approval.
We have hundreds of houses currently for sale. We will now add 111 more. 51 condos will NOT be fee simple which means any children going to CCSD living in those 51 units will be subsidized by the rest of us. We have taxes going up! We have home values going down because there is too much supply on the market! Now we add 111 more dwellings! And our taxes increase to subsidized families with students that will not be paying their fair share.
What a disgrace! This town board has totally let us down. Where do I make my donation to the legal defense fund that will be suing to block this abomination?
Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me that if you want housing for the elderly, young families, and those on smaller budgets, you want them within walking distance to mass transit and business services. I have elderly relatives in Mt. Kisco who live in an apartment near the train station and mainly because of that location near transport and shopping, their life is full. If they lived a distance away from those services, god help us all, they would have to drive to get anything done. But aside from the need to keep the road safe, their lives would be much more restricted in a more distant location. From my perspective, they are “integrated” fully into their community by virtue of their apartment location in the center of town. I would think that Hunts Lane, because of its location in the center of our town, would allow its residents to be similarly integrated but that CC, because of its location several miles away and without sidewalks, would not. Wouldn’t Hunts Lane be seamless in the sense that it provides “integration” into the heart of the town just like the other apartments that are scattered around that area. Maybe people don’t notice those apartments but they are on the second floor of a number of the businesses, including those over Mario’s which is right next to where Hunts Lane is supposed to go. Isn’t Hunts Lane on par with those but perhaps nicer because it will be new, planned construction?
I commend the Board for its decision. The adjoining neighbors are only concerned about their streets, not the rest of the community. We now know we have overbuilt the schools—we need residents to fill them for the years to come. In addition, there are many Chappaqua residents who want to stay in this town, but want to down-size and would be very happy living at the Crossing.
To Longtime resident- Need I remind you that the building of 7 Bridges Middle School is and was a horrible decision. The prophets of gloom and doom (as you say) warned us that the school was unnecessary. They warned that demographics indicated student enrollment would decline and we would not need to spend $32.5 million on a new middle school. The prophets warned that this new middle school would require multiple redundancies of staff that would drive the budget and our taxes higher.
THEY WERE RIGHT!!!
I dont want to take the chance that they will be right again regarding Chapp Crossing.
BTW - ask the merchants in town how badly the building of the 120 bridge has disrupted their businesses and livelihoods. They would tell you the prophets of gloom and doom were right about that too.
I have not had a chance to read the Finding statement nor the resolution adopting the concept plan. I am very interested in reading those documents. It is my hope & expectation that this board’s work will effectively limit further residential development down the road. We don’t want to live continually threatened to compromise the commercial viability of the property.
I was disappointed that the TB chose to invoke the Rule of Necessity last night, but I was not surprised. We can’t forget that we are being sued by SG. We also mustn’t forget that SG is suing us for 278 units, not 111. To a certain extent, if the filing of the petition had been successful, we could have found ourselves playing into the hands of SG. They are alleging that this process has amounted to a taking of their property. The petition would have put a brake on the project, including the commercial development. The TB has been feverishly trying to finish the process precisely in order to ensure the viability of this commercial property. I suspect that the TB felt they were better off invoking the rule of necessity & voting instead of possibly strengthening the position of SG. Yes, they annoyed their constituents but they had to pick their poison.
The fact that they had already decided their vote before the public hearing is another example of picking their poison. They needed to finish this process as soon as possible but they also needed to have this public hearing. Many, including me, would have preferred that they read their statements before the meeting but it would not have been proper to disclose their votes before the public hearing. The fact is they clearly telegraphed that they would be issuing their findings & vote at last night’s meeting. People following this case were not surprised by that. [CONTINUED]
[CONT]
And no one should be surprised by their votes. That was clearly telegraphed in the FEIS as well.
While I have advocated the position of no residential, as a litigator, I certainly understand the risk of taking this position. And, as a lawyer, I can’t just ignore the pending litigation. By giving SG some residential, the TB may have blunted SG’s Berenson argument and the specious accusation that New Castle is anti-affordable housing & “generalized community opposition” argument (meaning the TB is just listening to their constituents instead of looking @ the negative impacts) since 900 residents signed a petition saying no residential The fact is that the TB may have very well crafted a legally defensible position, and that is not caving. The Town Board “may” have positioned us very well in the pending lawsuit. We’ll see.
Lets face it, I have been highly critical of this TB. But before I judge them, and believe me I will, I’d like to see how the pending litigation ends up. I will Judge them based on that. I will also judge them based on whether we find ourselves in a position to prevent further impingement on our last large commercial zoned property. That remains to be seen.
The project is pretty limited! Can the board actually DO this? This is the paragraph #3 Wolfensohn refers to in his statement:
Petitioner shall record a restrictive declaration on the Property in form satisfactory to Town Counsel (a) providing for the construction of a maximum of 111 multifamily residential units on the MFPD Parcel to be comprised of a maximum number of 244 bedrooms, (b) designating that 60 of those 111 units shall be fee simple townhouses and 31 of those units shall be condominium flats, (c) mandating that a minimum of 20 of the 111 units shall be Stipulation-compliant Affordable AFFH Units (compliance to be determined by the Federal Monitor including, but not limited to, requirements for the dispersal of those units in one or more buildings), (d) mandating that the construction of, and certificates of occupancy for, all Stipulation-compliant Affordable AFFH Units be required prior to or simultaneous with construction of and the issuance of certificates of occupancy for any market rate units, TO BE CONTINUED…
(e) memorializing the obligation to construct a pedestrian path from the East Village MFPD District parcel to Roaring Brook Road in a location generally across from the entrance to Horace Greeley High School, and subject to Planning Board wetlands review, including an easement across property in common ownership (B- RO-20 and R1-A) which would also be accessible to the general public, (f) providing an easement in favor of the future owners of the MFPD Parcel (or any portion thereof) over the Property with respect to ingress and egress, storm water drainage and other supporting infrastructure as shown on the plans comprising the Consolidated Preliminary Development Concept Plan for the MFPD Parcel and (g) requiring that all costs and fees incurred by the Town in connection with the SEQR and/or application review processes, as provided for in SEQRA, the SEQRA regulations and/or Town Code §60- 560, be paid in full prior to the earlier of the Petitioner’s submission of an application for site development plan approval for the MFPD Parcel or the issuance of any building permit for a residential unit within the Property.
Let’s remember that after five years we are down to almost half of the residential units that were originally requested by SG. I think that is a real achievement, and I too commend the board for their diligence and hard work. Like others above, I too wonder if the builder will view the project as profitable as approved.
Keep in mind that if the board had NOT approved any residential housing, we would have certainly faced a lawsuit that would have been very expensive for the town and that in the end would have probably forced us to compromise in the end anyway. I for one would not want my tax dollars to pay for that just to satisfy the people in town who are afraid that the schools will be overrun. We have room in the schools, so if it means using that room and avoiding an expensive lawsuit that we would almost certainly lose, that may be the best compromise.
Since any middle school students in Chappaqua Crossing will be attending Bell, the districts can be refigured so that more of the children on the other side of the highway can attend Seven Bridges. If this happens, maybe the building of Seven Bridges will not turn out to be a “horrible decision” (as the writer above calls it) after all.
Further, I noticed that almost all of those who spoke against the project were from the neighborhood around the property, and I can understand why they would not want the project. However, this is a significant change from the early meetings. Maybe some of us think that we are not getting such a bad deal after all.
Editor, that paragraph with the restrictions, was that publicly available before last night? Or if the resolution itself was not available, were the restrictions contained in something else?
Editor’s Note: I believe its release last night (and appearance on the town’s website this morning) was the first time the public had seen it.
I’m not surprised but I am disgusted. I’ll support in everyway possible anyone who runs against any current board member.
SG, your serve! Will they take this one village plan (with the affordable housing) or not ? Will they pursue the lawsuits (over the town supposedly being anti-affordable housing) or will they reconsider their prior statements in that regard and drop the matters? I think they want it “all” and will double down one way or another, but time will tell. I am against residential primarily because I think commercial will eventually be squeezed out and the time to fight it out with SG is now, but with this decision by the TB, the ball is in SG’s court and it does call their bluff in that they have gotten approval for the very element at the heart of their lawsuits. Let’s see what happens.
I was disappointed in the approval but I urge people to consider Rob Greenstein’s summary above. His points are solid and his approach reasonable. I highly doubt this is almost over anyway, there are a lot of other shoes to drop. I don’t know how the lawsuits are likely to succeed on the merits given the board’s decision. They were pretty shaky from the outset, but I put nothing past a well funded and determined litigant such as SG.
As a merchant, I assure a poster above the bridge work was and is a real problem for businesses. Many months of no work could have been avoided had the town made 100% sure the funds for completing the project were dedicated. When work ground to a halt last spring because the money was not there, the town was surprised the funds were not dedicated. That was reported in the press, it not just me saying so. Maybe the other doom and gloom events never panned out, I can’t say, but the bridge is long over due, businesses have been hurt and it should have been handled far better. Lots of people avoid those roads, the potholes are awful, there are a lot of parking issues because spaces are taken up by equipment and workers, these things add up. It was and is all a hassle for people. So don’t tell me the prophets of doom and gloom were proven wrong as to the bridge.
Allow me to be the first to extend a warm Chappaqua welcome to all of our new neighbors at Chappaqua Crossing!
So I have disagreed with Rob Greenstein on much of his writing, but when I look at his post above I’m reminded that I also never disrespected his position or approach. He is a person who had a strong opinion and backed it up with logic and articulate arguments, and who now looks at the situation with a sincere effort to understand both sides of the argument and not simply just slam the Board without any depth of thought as many on this web site are.
I know our Board members, and while I’m not close friends with any of them I know for sure they are not bumbling idiots. I also know they aren’t a bunch of power-hungry politicians. They are citizens with families and children and a huge personal investment in this town, and they are unpaid volunteers who give us so much of themselves while they are in service.
Let’s drop the invective and move on. This town will be just fine.
Let’s not vilify them. If you want to disagree with them that’s fine, but don’t short change them or accuse them of being incompetent. This was and is a very difficult situation and they have been put in an unenviable position.
Lawrence Farms East, Longtime Resident is talking about a 43 year period. You’re talking about a period of less than a decade. I believe Longtime Resident’s main point is that the town will find a way to work through the issues, and we don’t need all the animosity in the discussions about the town board and other town leaders.
I can imagine SG accepting this result. To me, they really want the whole shebang but maybe I am mistaken. I would love to know why the TB believes it will hold up to challenge. I know they think their lawyers did a wonderful job. Does any one know if the town answered the two lawsuits that were filed?
Once again OUR government has not listen to the reasonable concerns of its citizens. They know best and will treat us that way. They all have their own personnel interests in the development. WE will have to vote in November and retire them of their burden. I know I will.
There was an initial conference this morning (what a coincidinky!) in the federal lawsuit. Maybe nothing substantive was discussed but under the federal appropriate topics include:
(1) expediting disposition of the action;
(2) establishing early and continuing control so that the case will not be protracted because of lack of management;
(3) discouraging wasteful pretrial activities;
(4) improving the quality of the trial through more thorough preparation, and;
(5) facilitating settlement.
Perhaps it was pointed out that the purportedly denied housing was not denied after all which might warrant a reassessment of the plaintiff’s case. It may not matter since a lawyer can turn any situation on its head and reality/logic is not always the guiding force.
Clittle, you have an interesting take on things, and suddenly a very magnanimous one at that. Before now, you vilified all posters opposed to residential as an irrational, vindictive lot and at times, Rob’s posting would be just above yours. I agree he has always been reasonable, as have many others, in setting forth his opposition, but you repeatedly—and unfairly—lumped opponents together as thoughtless naysayers or worse and ignored the many respectful, well reasoned posts. The archives are full of your comments. When you disagreed, you were not shy about the very thing you are scolding people for now, vilification.
Folks, remember, we are already being sued by Summit. I know people say anything that works for them when it comes to lawsuits but they sued on completely made up facts about the town being anti-affordable housing but that housing has now been approved. They also took many steps to delay the process and then complained about the delay in their lawsuit. Even as late as January, they had not responded to many requests by the TB for amendments to the FEIS even though the town could not vote on the amendments until the FEIS was adopted. So the town took over completing. Still, Summit filed suit in February. Their complaint is based almost completely on being anti-affordable housing which you might think kind of, sort of boxes them in about claiming something else down the road. But they will do it, now their claims will change and it will be some amendment to the complaint or a new suit, just watch. Even though they got a chunk of what they wanted.
maybe now this justifies having a 3rd pizza place in town
I wonder if Lee Seham will release a new song titled “There will be more houses to see at Exit 33”?
I agree with several posts here that support the town board’s courageous decision in the face of a signed petition of nearby residents. Clearly, the board was ready to counter the petition and immediately brought the two board members in for the vote following the executive session. John Buckley, always the gentleman once again showed he is willing to make the tough decisions. He has done nothing but give his absolute best to this town and I loudly applaud his courage and sense of duty.
Like many poster here, I also agree the board has a responsibility to the entire town, not just to the nearby residents who have brought an avalanche of nasty/unprofessional threats and intimidation on this board from day one. The Supervisor was right on the mark with her comments regarding the school board who inserted themselves into a process they had no business being in. The simple fact is that any positive tax revenue from Reader’s Digest is very much needed in this town and the board knows it.
Clearly, regardless of their statements, the board’s decision was a maneuver to bolster their standing regarding the lawsuits. We’ll see if it works, my experience suggests that since SG has not participated in any of the recent meetings they have little interest in this approval and will continue the litigation….
To Agree With Longtime Resident- Things change. The last decade is more relevant and more telling than going back over a 43 year period. The economy has changed and the demographics of our town has changed. More importantly town leadership is to be judged on current events not a 43 years historical. You and Longtime Resident believe “the town will find a way to work through the issues”. Thats not good enough for most of us. Did we find a way to work through the horrible decision to build a second unnecessary middle school? If you think runaway taxes, bloated school budget , and redundancies in our school system are examples of finding a way to work through the issues than you are out of touch with reality. Ask the merchant who posted above if the town worked through the issues of the Bridge on 120 that is killing his business. We need more than hope and faith.
I agree with comments made about the sermon we had to endure given by Robin Stout. Regardless of how this SG chess game plays out and regardless of the legal maneuvering I was deeply offended that I had to sit there and listen to an elected town official tell us what is best for our children and our society. His upbringing and his personal story may be touching but it has no place in a Town Board hearing to decide the fate of this SG-Chapp Crossing saga. The board has a responsibility to evaluate legal, practical, logistical, and material factors when ruling on Chapp Crossing and other matters that come before them. They were not elected and are not serving our interests to change the world as they see it. A previous poster used the phrase “social engineering”. Mr Stout has no business preaching to the towns people of his vision of a diverse community and society. We do not need or want him to extol the virtues of diversity and how we should raise our children. I can go to church for that. Stick to your job Mr Stout and let parents be parents and clergy be clergy!
Dear Townee,
Please don’t distort what I have written out here. You say I “vilified all posters opposed to residential as irrational”. I did no such thing. I have advocated the thoughtful, vigilant negotiation between the town and the developer to come up with a win-win. I did criticize SOME for their invective and hateful rhetoric, and I had issues with what seemed at times to be a mob mentality that often removed reason from the discussion.
I have respected Rob all along, and I even agreed with several things he said (and disagreed with others). My main issues were that we should talk and negotiate, and that assertions from anyone about the end of our town as we know it were unreasonable. And as for my postings sometimes appearing just below his, this is a random occurrence. As you know we write posts and they often appear many hours later and out of the order we thought we submitted them in.
If you look back at my many posts you will see that I was on multiple occasions attacked by others.
And thanks for pointing out I was magnanimous. I think we should all calm down and chill on the rhetoric and look forward rather than backward.
a comment on the article in today’s journal news suggested an article 78 proceeding against the town board… can this be done? i am not a lawyer, so not quite sure other than info gleaned from google. i would also imagine this would be especially of interest to those residents whose homes border the readers digest site.
To Re Guy…You are off base with your support and agreement with Supervisor Gerrard’s position that the CCSD School Board had no business getting involved in this matter. That is an absurd position. We are all one town. The housing stock and the tax structure involved materially effects our schools. The position widely supported that residential housing if approved at Chapp Crossing MUST be taxed “fee simple” is evidence of educational considerations. Without fee simple , the rest of the tax payers would be subsidizing students living in Chapp Crossing (which still may happen if current plan goes forward because not all are fee simple). The school board must weigh in on population issues and transportation needs as a result of this project. Least of all lets not forget that Chapp Crossing sits directly across the street from H Greeley High School. Traffic, construction, use of property so close to the high school are a deep concern The school board would be remiss and not represent the needs of students if it didnt weigh in on this decision.
Our kids go to the schools we pay taxes to support. If there is a proposal pending that materially impacts the school budget, quality of education, safety of our students, and other factors I want my CCSD School Board to stand up and offer a strong point of view.
Riiiight.
“Mario”, is that you? No? Well, any way, I love that food! Mario’s is always trying to put a great product out there. Shop downtown Chappaqua!!!!!!!
Resident, why am I out of touch with reality? Despite all the “problems” we are facing, our town is still in great shape. Guess which high school has the highest average SAT scores in Westchester? How could it possibly be Horace Greeley with all the “problems” we are facing? Well, believe it or not, it is Horace Greeley. Average SAT score is just one narrow metric, but I do not believe the sky is falling. We are facing different circumstances than the past, but do you really believe the fundamentals have changed that much? I do not. It is one reason I am staying put in Chappaqua and not moving to China.
To Resident Taxpayer -
As I’ve stated before, School Boards establish education policy, negotiate teachers contracts and curriculum standards, PERIOD!! If we followed your logic, why not have the sanitation department develop the 2012 Greeley curriculum schedule….If every board or department in town offered opinions and signed petitions against it’s own elected leaders we would have anarchy.
As for you argument on taxes, the town houses are being taxed “fee simple” you cant have anymore than that. The town board cannot change NYS property law and tax the condos “fee simple”, the board did everything possible to ensure that the maximum amount of tax revenue was realized which included keeping the BRO-20 commercial space intact.
RE Guy: Not so fast! We have to see what the court case ends up permitting or not permitting. You’re basing your statements on having a Chappaqua Crossing residential development materialize as described by the town board in its resolution - 60 fee simple townhouses, 31 market rate condos, 20 fair and affordables. But the developer may ask in its suit for something quite different. It remains to be seen whether the town board’s offer will be interpreted by the courts as something it must stick to. Yes, the 60 fee simple is an attempt to make the tax revenues positive for the town, but will it stick? I don’t know and neither can you.
And neither of us can know how market rate housing located in the middle of a business park and its parking lots will sell. There’s not much precedent. The Trump Capelli luxury condo development in Yorktown is sitting pretty much empty, and that’s not planted in a business park.
That’s what opponents have been saying: Once SG has permission to do any type of residential development, never mind the courts—the MARKET will decide what kind of residential development it becomes. If the fee simple townhouses do NOT sell (would YOU buy a townhouse that doesn’t have condo taxes???) then SG tells the town “Well, we have 60 black holes (the town board’s favorite expression)not selling, sitting at CC. What now?” And what will the town say then? “Oh, OK, make them condos so they can sell”? And there goes your town board doing “everything possible to ensure that the maximum amount of tax revenue was realized.”
Once we permit a residential development at CC, we’re stuck with whatever MARKET forces - not the New Castle town board—decides it will be.
I’d like to hear Clittle ring in on this one.
To HOw can you know:
“Once we permit a residential development at CC, we’re stuck with” -
whatever the COURTS, MARKET FORCES, and SEWER DISTRICT decide it will be. THREE big variables. It’s a very tough problem. And no one knows what the results will be.
Dear RE Guy,
So I’ll ring in but I’m not sure you’ll like it or give me credit for the point of view. I believe this will work out, especially if we and the developer figure out a way to work together. Right now we are enemies and have no reasonable channel for communications or collaboration. While both may be to blame, we carry the bulk of the responsibility for this situation.
I’ve encountered too many doomsayers in my life (not saying you are one, but there are many out here) who have all been wrong. So I’m going to be optimistic this will work out just fine in the long run.
@How can you know?
The Town Board can very easily guarantee that all of the residential housing at Chappaqua Crossing be taxed as “fee simple” regardless of MARKET forces. All they have to do is approve a revaluation (which is long overdue, and the fear of “going first” is no longer a viable objection since both Mamaroneck and Scarsdale have decided to go forward with their revaluations) and make a homestead election to assess ALL residential property in town at the same, market value rate. This will also eliminate the tax subsidy that single family homeowners are providing to the existing condominiums in town. Most importantly, it will level the playing field, make sure that all property owners are paying their fair share of the tax burden and eliminate the need for hundreds of homeowners each year to file grievances and SCAR petitions challenging their assessments.
@resident taxpayer
While we may be “one town”, we are anything but one school district. Residents of New Castle are not only in the CCSD, but also in the Bedford, Byram Hills, Pleasantville and Ossining school districts. I don’t have exact numbers in front of me, but I would guess that at least 10% of the properties in New Castle are not located in the CCSD as there are at least 500 parcels in just the Ossining schools. Declining tax revenue from Chappaqua Crossing (and the cost of defending lawsuits from either Summit Greenfield or residents) comes out of all of our “one town” pockets. School taxes in the CCSD do not.
RE Guy is right. The Town Board has a responsibility to consider the best interests of the entire town. The fact that the vast majority of town lies within the CCSD does not give them the right to base their decisions primarily on the impact to the Chappaqua schools.
To Re Guy… My logic recognizes that there exists a balance and a cause and effect equation. If a town board ruling impacts housing, which impacts student population, which impacts education, which impacts school budget then I would expect and we should want our school board to weigh in! What’s wrong with that? There is a direct impact here.
Now compare that to your silly analogy about the sanitation department developing Greeley curriculum. If however the town board were to hypothetically be considering a large scale project with multiple dwellings and new roads I would expect the sanitation department to weigh in if it materially affected their ability to do their job. Perhaps they would need more trucks or more workers, perhaps they would need to charge us more. That is reasonable. We don’t live in a vacuum. The decisions and rulings of one branch of government effect others.
Town Board meetings and school board meetings are the time to air these issues out. You would prefer that we not communicate and share ideas, objections, and suggestions. Must be lonely living in a cave?
To Agree with Longtime resident…you are out of touch with reality because you stated that all the doom and gloom naysayers where incorrect. You stated that all the concerns and predictions were wrong. You also referenced 43 years which proves that your reality is out of touch with current events. Who cares about what happened in the 70’s and 80’s ? that is irrelevant to today’s New Castle. I would prefer to focus on more relevant place in time. The reality I pointed out is that several predictions of negative impact and adverse affects did in fact come to pass. And they reverberate today. I pointed out 7Bridges Middle School as an example of a failed and misguided project that has cost us a fortune and continues to drain our budget. There was a better way to accommodate our temporary student population bubble instead of building a $33million white elephant which now continues to see declining student enrollment (as predicted). I also pointed out that those that said the bridge would have negative impact to some were also correct. Even a local merchant chimed in and pointed out how business has suffered with this project. That is the reality! it’s not always OK to have the attitude that “everything will be OK” and “things have a way of working out”..WRONG!
West Ender - maybe you haven’t noticed that we live in a democracy. And in a democracy the majority rules. You are correct that we are one town but many school districts but the vast majority of this town goes to CCSD. When rules and laws are passed and modifications and changes are considered the Town Board and the school board as well as other branches of government must govern with the majority in mind. In a democracy and a free society you can buy a house anywhere you want- you chose the West End of New Castle.
Clearly, unquestionably, the School Board overstepped their mission. Look at any accepted definition of what a School Board’s mission is and you won’t find “weigh in with and opinion on specific real estate development projects and their impact on school population”
See this link from the National School Board Association describing the mission of Boards. Ours acted completely improperly and was out of scope.
http://www.nsba.org/Board-Leadership/Governance/KeyWork/default.aspx
@taxpayer parent
If we lived in a true democracy, we would have had a referendum on the proposed zoning changes. If we lived in a democracy, where “majority rules” then a tiny percentage of the residents of town would not have been able to file a petition requiring a supermajority vote of the Town Board regarding zoning at Chappaqua Crossing.
In our representative democracy, the majority does not always rule and there are explicit protections in place to prevent the “tyranny of the majority.” Regardless of what you think, the Town Board has a duty to the entire town, not just the majority of its residents who live within the borders of the CCSD. Ask any of the attorneys who have offered to volunteer their litigation expertise to challenge Summit Greenfield whether or not they think that “We denied the zoning change because it would increase school taxes in the CCSD” would stand up in court.
Congratulations to Supervisor Gerard and the Board for their courageous decision-making and for their hard work during what has been an incredibly difficult process. The amount of work they accomplished is astounding. They are dedicated to this Town, and we all should show them the respect they deserve.
Are you serious? The Town is engaged in two litigations with another on the way. The Town Board is expected to resolve issues, not create them.
What part of this decision represents anything that anyone who lives in New Castle has expressed at the endless town meetings?
Dem Voter, as I’ve said over the past week, I think this Town Board should be judged based on what happens with the pending litigation. I also think this Town Board should be judged based on whether they successfully prevented further impingement on our last large commercial zoned property. But, in fairness to them, I do believe that the Town Board has recognized and addressed many of the same negative environmental and economic impacts raised by residents.
For example, many residents have raised the issue of the woefully inadequate parking plan & criticized the 55-foot high apartment buildings. By denying the MFPD in the North Village, the Town Board recognized that the two 55-foot apartment buildings of the North Village were not consistent with the character of the neighboring residential community and would hobble the commercial potential of the property. With that in mind, the board preserved the 257 parking spaces in the North Village for the future tenants of the existing commercial office buildings and left open the possibility for commercial development to expand in that area. [CONTINUED]
[CONT] Many have called into question the appropriateness of an MFPD at Chappaqua Crossing, even on part of the property, due to its distance from services, shopping and public transportation and its lack of sewers, which only cover a portion of the East Village.
This was not a concern ignored by the Town Board. As Barbara Gerrard said in her public statement “some people have argued against utilizing the MFPD floating zone at this location because it does not fit squarely within the parameters discussed in the Town Development Plan. And that is true, but we are keenly aware that Ledgewood Commons, a charming community in Millwood, and one of two areas in Town that was mapped as MFPD when the statute was adopted, also falls outside some of the stated parameters for establishing an MFPD zone. Since this was done decades ago when the zone was first mapped, we can only presume that these parameters are to be taken as guidelines, and that all of them should be weighed when considering where such zone should be developed it the future.”
This is perhaps a part of the town development plan that needs to be looked at again. But, right now, the question is how far from services and shopping can an MFPD zone be created? At Chappaqua Crossing, most community facilities and services would be located approximately 1.5 to 2 miles away in the Chappaqua Hamlet business center and 1.3 miles from the Village of Mount Kisco. While these distances are longer than those associated with the Town’s two exiting MFPD districts (0.6 miles from Old Farm Lake to the Chappaqua Hamlet business center and 0.8 miles from Ledgewood Commons to the Millwood hamlet business center) Summit Greenfield’s lawyers will undoubtedly argue that it falls within the acceptable parameters. The Town Board has attempted to greatly limit the MFPD’s ability to hamper the commercial operation. [CONT]
[CONT]
And while I have advocated the position of no residential, as a litigator, I certainly understand the risk of taking this position. By giving Summit Greenfield 111 residential units - 60 fee simple townhouses, 31 market rate condos and 20 affordable housing units - the Town Board may have blunted Summit Greenfield’s Berenson legal offense in its lawsuit against the town and proved wrong the specious accusation that our community is opposed to affordable housing.
Keep in mind, while Summit Greenfield may have agreed to 199 in their Modified Project application, they clearly signaled their preference for a dense residential development from the beginning when they asked for 348 units, then 278. And they claimed that density bonuses would permit them to double that number.
The 111 units should not impede commercial use. The same can not be said with 348 or 278 units, or double that with the density bonuses
It would be very risky to leave that decision in the hands of a Judge.
[CONT]
Another big concern raised was that if the board allows the developer to build residential condos, the developer would return for more, further compromising the commercial tax revenues that our town desperately needs. A developer would prefer the far greater return-on-investment of residential than the office rental side of the project provides, and will constantly petition for more.
This appears to have been a concern of Supervisor Gerrard as well. As Supervisor Barbara Gerrard stated at Monday night’s hearing, “While the Board encourages the East Village for residential use, our talented lawyers and other advisors have crafted requirements and restrictions to assure that the 111 units are the maximum that can be built on the MFPD zone. The restrictive declarations are detailed and appear as part of the Resolution to approve a Preliminary Development Concept Plan that we will be voting on later this evening. In addition, the Applicant will need Planning Board approval before any further steps are taken on the residential development.”
As well, Councilman Wolfensohn stated: “To those of you who are concerned that by approving any part of this project would open up the flood gates of residential housing I suggest you look at the restrictive declaration found in paragraph 3 of the resolution adopting the concept plan and the other conditions in that resolution.”
And many safeguards were in fact built into the approvals - safeguards such a limit of 111 multifamily residential units with a maximum number of 244 bedrooms and a condition that the affordable units be completed before or at the same time as the market-rate units. The board’s Resolution may effectively limit further residential development down the road. And the board’s work may effectively reduce the threat of compromising the commercial viability of the property.
[CONTINUED]
While I been critical of this TB in the past, right now I believe we should suspend judgment until we see how the lawsuit goes.
Summit Greenfield may have named the Town Board and members in their lawsuits, make no mistake about it, Summit Greenfield is putting our community on trial. The lawsuit includes charges that the town is promoting racial, age and socioeconomic discrimination.
I believe the board did everything possible to maximize the tax revenue while protecting the commercial viability of the property. I believe they acted in good faith to balance the conflicting interests of the community.
And most importantly, I believe our Town Board and their legal team have positioned us well.
THE END of my multi-part comment.
To West Ender…Democracy also means you can live wherever you want. Your comments over time on this website indicate a bitter put open “west ender”. Perhaps you should test the real estate market and see if you can sell your house. Then you can move wherever you want. But I warn you, with our high taxes (going higher with no end in sight) and glut of homes for sale (and with many more to be built thanks to Chapp Crossing) it wont be easy.
It’s a dirty little secret around town that all the real estate agents are trying to downplay - but buyers are figuring out that there are other suburban communities in the metro area that also have great public schools with much lower taxes. These communities also have Town Boards and School Boards that effectively are addressing their budgets and demographics. The mere fact that people actually object to our school board voicing an opinion regarding residential building on a commercial site should cause concern. More dwellings, more students, some dwellings that are NOT fee simple, all impact our schools, our taxes, and our home values. There are a record number of homes for sale in New Castle- supply has easily outstripped demand. AND we will likely have over 100 new dwellings being built if SG gets its way.
Developers have ways to get around the number of permitted bedrooms restriction.
They create rooms without doors, and these rooms are then NOT marketed as bedrooms so that the units fall within the legal restrictions. This was done at the River Woods development.
