Town board awaits recommendation of planning board on Chappaqua Crossing
With 14 comments since Friday
November 12, 2010
by Christine Yeres
Currently, the application by developer Summit Greenfield to change portions of business zoned and single-family zoned acreage of Chappaqua Crossing to multi-family planned development (MFPD) zoning and to lift the four-tenant restriction for the commercial-zoned portion of the property is proceeding along two tracks, one required by local law and one by state law.
According to the town code, the New Castle town board must ask New Castle’s planning board for input on the change in land use Summit Greenfield is proposing for the site. The town code also requires the town board to hold a public hearing before creating an MFPD. Town Supervisor Barbara Gerrard confirmed that the town board would hold such a public hearing before they make their final decision about the MFPD.
To comply with the New York State Quality Review Act (SEQRA) the board must finish the process of assembling information on the environmental impacts of Summit Greenfield’s proposal; announce that it considers the information to be complete; then issue its final version of the environmental impact statement of the proposed project and render a decision on the proposed zoning request.
Right now, the town board is still receiving information from several sources, including the developer, its own consultants and the school board. They are also engaging in back-and-forth dialogue with the developer. As part of their finalization of the FEIS, the town board must chose between, for example, the developer’s position on what level of impact a particular action will have and their own consultant’s possibly different opinion on the impact. To declare the FEIS complete, the board must decide that the document clearly reflects all of the environmental impacts of the proposal by Summit Greenfield. “We won’t adopt the FEIS until we’re completely satisfied,” said Gerrard.
Town board still receiving evaluations and opinions from staff and expert consultants
Recently, for example, the town board’s fiscal consultants, HR&A Associates, submitted an updated report to the board cautioning that the “data storage recovery” operation the developer proposes for 142,000 square feet of office space may present some risk to the town mostly because it is an substantially undocumented proposal. The developer has not really fleshed out that idea so that the town board’s consultant can analyze its likelihood of success of creating and marketing that use. The report also concluded that, over time, “this development will transition from one that provides surplus cash flow to the Town to one that generates negative cash flow, assuming other variables such as service standards, tax rates, etc. remain relatively constant over time.” To review this report, click HERE.
Two days after the HR&A report was issued, Summit Greenfield agreed to change the 60 townhouses of the Modified Project from condominiums to fee simple dwellings, which would cause them to be taxed as single-family homes. Gerrard stated that the board will not ask HR&A for an update that incorporates this change because the board is “perfectly capable of figuring the fiscal impact numbers” relating to that change. Asked whether the board would accept Summit Greenfield’s estimate of the increase in tax revenue for FEIS purposes, from $7,000 to $20,000 for each of the 60 units, she responded that the board would find “a range” and make use of “a working number.”
Additional information from the Board of Education is on its way
This fall the Board of Education of the Chappaqua Central School District engaged a local real estate law firm, Keane & Beane, to help it assess the fiscal impact of the developer’s proposal for Chappaqua Crossing on the school district. On behalf of the district, Keane & Beane hired real estate consultants who provided the district with their initial assessment of how many additional students would be generated by the proposed residential development of Chappaqua Crossing and a preliminary analysis of the fiscal implications of that increase. The school district is still waiting for the second report from its real estate consultants, which will provide a longer-term analysis of the fiscal impact on the school district of Chappaqua Crossing as currently proposed.
Supervisor Gerrard stated: “We’re very content with the numbers [from the town board’s experts as well as the school board’s BOCES experts] we have already, but of course we’re aware of the school board’s [new] experts and wouldn’t close the door until we saw that.”
Gerrard confirmed that, at the moment, everyone on the town side is working with the latest version of the developer’s proposal in mind. This Modified Project calls for 199 units of housing, 60 of which are fee simple townhouses, 20 affordable housing condominiums and 119 market-rate condominiums. “Board members still have a problem with the density,” said Gerrard, “and we’ve told this to the developer.” On the commercial side of the plan, the proposal makes use of 662,000 square feet of office space, down from the existing 700,000 square feet. The proposed data recovery operation would take up 142,000 square feet.
December 9 deadline for report from planning board to town board
The town board has given the planning board a deadline of December 9 for its report on, among other things, whether to allow building heights at Chappaqua Crossing of four stories, even though the current town code only allows three stories; how the parking and traffic management plans proposed by the developer will be administered; and whether the criteria have been met for creation of an MFPD zone.
On this last subject, according to the town code, a public hearing on creation of the MFPD zone must take place before the board issues its findings. No date has been set for this hearing yet.
The next steps: Findings by the board, then a determination
Once all the environmental impact information has been gathered and incorporated into the Final Environment Impact Statement, the board declares the FEIS complete. To accomplish this, the board files a completion notice with the state and other interested parties and must wait ten days before issuing its findings. Gerrard gave the following as an example of a finding: “The board might say, ‘the traffic surrounding the site is now X amount; the effect of the proposed project will be X plus Y amount of traffic.’”
At the same time the board issues its findings, it may also make its determination. For example, continuing with the traffic example, the board might make a determination, said Gerrard, that “X plus Y amount of traffic is too impactful,” or “This impact on traffic is remediable by the means proposed,” or “This impact on traffic is not remediable, but the benefits to the town outweigh the impact.”
Or, to take the example of housing density, if the board chooses to permit MFPD housing, said Gerrard, “the board might say ‘X amount of housing is too impactful, but X minus Y amount remediates the impact sufficiently.’”
The board can approve or reject the proposal in whole or in part
Based on all the information the board collected in the FEIS, the board could decide in its findings statement to reject the application entirely or to approve it and specify exactly what board members would find acceptable. It would resemble a sort of contract, explained Gerrard, except that it’s one-sided, since the board can say, “Here is what we will accept,” yet it cannot force the developer to carry out the plan that the town board finds acceptable. Whatever the board’s findings, whether in approving or rejecting the proposal, the board must use the facts contained in the FEIS to support its findings.
Supervisor Gerrard explained that the town board still anticipates preparing a “plain English” version of its findings. The narrative will not specify exactly what the board will or will not allow the developer to do, Gerrard explained, “It won’t be spelled out, but it will be a road map from which you can tell what’s not possible. It would be tightly written, though, so if there were housing units approved, we would specify a maximum number of units for this application.”
Gerrard pointed out that the board could say in the end, “Here’s what would be doable under these restrictions based on the findings statements. If we were looking to give [the developer] wiggle room, we would build it in; if not, we would not.” However, a decision on the present application to rezone would not preclude the developer from returning with another application, Gerrard admitted.
This article reports that the Town Board is engaging in “back and forth dialogue” with the Developer re their proposals. While I recognize that the Board may not be able to report every detail of that dialogue every step of the way, clearly they should be regularly informing the citizens of New Castle in sufficient detail for it to be meaningful what they are discussing and what positions each participant in the dialogue is taking on each point. We should not have to guess or read tea leaves. This is a representative democracy and the Board should be keeping us informed step by step, so that we can share our views, point by point, with our elected representatives. Those views should shape their actions.
I think to the board “representative democracy” means you voted for them to represent you and, therefore, you voted for THEM to do the thinking. Otherwise they would get nothing done.
But it does make for a dilemma: On one hand, they can’t listen to everyone, and on the other hand they can never be sure that those they ARE hearing from are “representative"of how the rest feel. So they steer a middle course and just use their own judgment.
“Resident of 22 years,” you must have been born here. Only a 22-year-old could believe that our representatives should consult us!
Seriously, though: of course they should. This process has been very disturbing. I notice the article says there is no other hearing required by SEQRA. That last hearing, on August 28, was an opportunity for us to vent, for the developer to sell his product, and for the town board to tell us nothing about their thinking. It looks as though they intend to reveal their thinking at the same instant as their decision. Wow… for a matter of this importance to the town, this is wrong.
How is this process affected by the residents who may file a petition under that law # 265 to require a supermajority (FOUR members, not the THREE remaining) to vote on any change to the zoning law? And ARE they filing one?
The only solution to this dilemma of theirs, then, is to hold a referendum. This matter is too important for them to consult only themselves.
The planning board has not seen the whole proposal. They are being fed sections on disk from the town planner and given information from F.P. Clarke and the town planning board attorney. A WHAT IF? Since the North Village and at least part of the East Village is not in the Sewer District, why are we going through this exercise until we know what the residents of Yonkers will do with the proposal? IT WOULD NOT BE RIGHT to let a development proceed when we have other areas that badly need sewer access and have been refused for years.
The sewer issue is a signifcant one.
We have lived here for two generations and still do not have sewers, although there are many neighborhoods in our vicinity with an aggregate of a few hundred houses. (We might even be willing to contribute for the expense. We have never been given the option.)Yet, a developer who has just arrived upon the scene merits town sewers. How about us?
This issue might well be worthy of a court case if the Town of New Castle gives the green light for residential rezoning for Chappaqua Crossing with the requisite sewers.
“What if”, to answer your question, the Town Law 265 Petition has not been filed yet.
Remember, the Town Law 265 Petition will require the Town Board to have a “super-majority” (at least 4 votes) in order to approve SG’s rezoning application. Two town board members have already recused themselves, citing financial conflicts of interests. Accordingly, any vote on the rezoning application would have to await the availability of a fourth board member who did not have a conflict of interest.
We understand that if we file the Petition, the Town Board may attempt to invoke something called “the Rule of Necessity” in order to allow both members who previously recused themselves to vote on the developer’s proposal, notwithstanding the reasons for their recusals. It is our position that the Rule of Necessity cannot be used to override the Petition because New York courts have held that a town board is not legally obligated to vote on every request for a zoning change. Accordingly, there is no necessity or deadlock that could justify allowing board members with admitted conflicts of interest to vote on the developer’s rezoning request. We are confident that any attempt to rely upon the Rule of Necessity would be overturned by a court.
As residents, we also believe that we deserve better from our Town Board. We certainly hope that our Town Board will respect the rights of its constituents, especially those who signed the petition, to have the developer’s proposal evaluated by board members who do not have conflicts of interest. Legally speaking, there is no obligation upon the Town Board to take such an unprecedented and untenable measure. This is an issue that lies within their legislative prerogative and discretion. We trust that the Town Board’s sense of integrity will prevail.
Did anyone notice this:
“Board members still have a problem with the density,” said Gerrard, “and we’ve told this to the developer.”
Hooray for Mrs. Gerrard!
This is very encouraging. Why can’t we hear more about what they parties are saying to one another? Clearly they’re negotiating by this point in the FEIS process. WHAT ELSE are they saying?????
I just read Rob Greenstein’s musings on whether a zoning change gives SG a foot in the door that they will never, ever let us close. Now after reading this article I’m putting two and two together. No residential for the developer! Here’s why:
Summit waves the threat of a “black hole” on the commercial side of the project at us—or was it Mr. Stout who first mentioned it? This is the same “black hole” threat that the developer (and Mr. Stout?) will wave at us IF THE RESIDENTIAL DOESN’T MAKE THE DEVELOPER ENOUGH MONEY TO FINANCE THE COMMERCIAL RE-DO!!!!
“OOPs,” the developer will say, “That 199 units didn’t bring in enough money to enable us to renovate the old RD space. We hoped they would sell for more. We counted on it. Sorry! Want to give us more residential? THEN maybe we’ll have enough money to do it!”
And then MORE and MORE and MORE. We can’t let Summit get the residential foot in the door. The town is sunk if he does. Not to mention the schools!
Rob G., why would the Town Board go out of their way to allow members who previously recused themselves to vote on the developer’s proposal??? Although I agree with my friends & neighbors that the Town Board doesn’t seem responsive to our concerns, I do believe in the end they will act in the best interests of our community & do the right thing. After all, it would be political suicide for the Board to approve this residential re-zoning. It seems to me that this is the perfect “out” for them.
Who knows, maybe I’m just naïve.
But, let me say this, if the Town Board attempts to get around this petition, and then votes in favor of the residential rezoning, then no more Mr. Nice Guy for me. And although I’ve never been a fan of suing our town board - after all they are members of our community - they are our neighbors - at that point it would be clear to me that they never had our best interests in mind. And, at that point, I would have no regrets or hesitation to do whatever is necessary to right the wrong.
I truly hope it doesn’t come down to that.
Mr. Nice Guy, I’m not sure if your question was rhetorical or not but I’ll respond anyway. I too believe in the end our Town Board will act in our best interests & do the right thing. For the sake of our community, I hope we’re right.
the supervisor admits that the developer can return with other applications, whether the board approves or disapproves the current one. if the board disapproves, then the developer will have to think up another plan (or sell the property to someone else). the town board is kidding itself if it thinks it will have any control whatsoever over this site once it forks over the residential zoning.
if the board approves residential units, the developer can return to ask for more—and surely will. remember: the developer says he’s entitled to DOUBLE the 199 he’s asking for AND HE WAS SAYING THIS EVEN WHEN HE WAS ASKING FOR 278.
So 2 x 278 = 556.
the site might not physically hold that many, and they would have to ask for approval again from the town or planning boards, but what’s to prevent the developer from saying “the commercial is not working for us. we need to knock down commercial to fit more residential”? commercial is what i want to help lower the taxes we pay.
The previous poster is correct. At every session where SG has described its residential plans, it has made the assertion that it is ENTITLED AS OF RIGHT (assuming the rezoning is approved) to a number of density and other “bonuses” that would give it THE RIGHT to build many more units than proposed. Once it is rezoned, either SG or a future owner could change its mind and exercise those rights and add many more units.
I don’t know which sentence is more disturbing, the fact that the town board’s very own fiscal consultants said that this development will transition “from one that provides surplus cash flow to the Town to one that generates negative cash flow” OR the fact that 2 days after this report was issued, Summit Greenfield agreed to change the 60 townhouses from condos to fee simple.
The first is just another negative our Town Board seems to want to justify. The second is just another example that this developer can’t be trusted—when he HAS to, he comes up with a concession.
I’m gonna call it a tie.
Summit Green is holding the RD office space hostage to extract residential zoning from the town.
The only trouble is that once the town pays the ransom, THE DEVELOPER KEEPS THE HOSTAGE and can return to us again and again to extract MORE from us.
The developer seems to claim that he needs the profits from the residential to finance renovation of the commercial space to make it lease-able and thereby become a robust tax payer.
This may be so. We will never know the developer’s financial condition and business plan. What we do know is that he claims not to have the money to fix the commercial without procuring the profit from the residential FIRST. That leaves the town to share with the developer the risk that those profits will NOT materialize because of market conditions or developer mismanagement of the project.
So if the units cannot be finished, or sell for less than he is projecting, or sell not at all, we’ll be stuck with more problems than we started with. We’re ankle-deep in the RD black hole. The town board has the power to make a hole that will put us neck-deep.
Re: Hooray for Mrs. Gerrard, posted 11/13, are you joking? Its her lack of leadership and judgement re: the prior Board member’s apparent comflict of interest that’s put the Town in a position to even have to consider the Rule of Necessity. And as for the judgement of the other Board members, one need only look to the judgment displayed with regard to the current controversy regarding the cupcake sale.
