Tuesday’s hearing on Chappaqua Crossing town code revisions are low-key

Rob Greenstein addressing the town board. The audio of the live broadcast was on the blinks the night of the hearing.  In “Read more,” find a link to the 75-minute video—with audio.
March 25, 2011
by Christine Yeres

The first of two scheduled public hearings on changes to town law requested by Summit Greenfield to facilitate the construction of 199 units of housing on the former Reader’s Digest property was downright mellow, by Chappaqua Crossing standards. It lasted a mere 75 minutes.

The three board members who will decide the fate of the Chappaqua Crossing development, Town Supervisor Barbara Gerrard, board member Robin Stout and board member Michael Wolfensohn, and about 40 residents heard comments from familiar voices opposed to residential development there. They argued that residential development would compromise the ability of the site to generate commercial revenues, and that if the town board were to allow some residential, Summit Greenfield would continually apply – or sue – for more residential. Speakers supported removal of the four-tenant cap for the office space, however.

Failure to meet criteria for multifamily development zone and laughable parking plan

Rob Greenstein, a New Castle resident who has been a vocal opponent of the project, objected to the proposed changes to town law on the basis of the project’s failure to meet the criteria of a multifamily development zone, which include proximity to transportation, shopping and community facilities and sewers. 

Greenstein told board members that he was unable “to talk about the developer’s parking plan without smiling.”  The proposed parking plan, designed by Summit Greenfield to mitigate the effects of increased traffic and limited parking, includes measures such as “discounted transit passes, shuttles to and from transit stations, provision of on-site food services, car sharing programs and other measures.” The developer has included bicycling in “other measures.” 

Addressing the board members directly, Greenstein stressed: “Now that we’re in litigation, [referring to the lawsuits filed by Summit Greenfield last month against the town and the board members], you’re going to look at the strengths and weaknesses of your position.  Maybe you feel allowing some residential gives the town the strongest chance of being upheld by the courts.  But my greatest fear is if you give them some residential, this battle that’s been going on for five years is going to go on another ten years because they’re not going to stop with this amount of residential and everyone knows that.  The developer is going to want to maximize its investment and that’s how they’re going to do it.”

“[The developer’s] parking plan proves that they have no interest in the commercial, they’re already squeezing out the commercial,” Greenstein pointed out.  He urged the board to deny the proposed changes, saying, “We’d be giving away the last piece of commercial property.  Right now we’re in the strongest position to say ‘No’ to residential.”

Marketability of residential units in a mixed-use development questioned

Betty Weitz suggested that the marketability of the residential units would be compromised by their proximity to a commercial development.  She asked board members whether the spirit and intent of Berenson, a landmark case that allowed a developer to construct the first condos in New Castle, would be met by the creation of million dollar townhouses and $700,000 condos.

Erik Nicolaysen told board members that the tenant restriction should be removed from the commercial property. From his vantage point as a member of the New Castle Board of Assessment Review, he believes that to maximize the use of the property the town ought to expand the number of businesses allowed there. 

FEIS to be released today, Friday, March 25

Tuesday’s hearing was continued over until Monday, April 4, so that residents have the opportunity to examine the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) before commenting further on the requested changes to the town code on multifamily residential zoning, 55-foot-height for buildings and the easing of parking requirements at the site. Once the hearings are closed, the town board will conclude its environmental review of the project by issuing findings containing a description of which parts of the application the board will allow the developer to proceed to develop. 

Summit Greenfield has two lawsuits pending against the town of New Castle and the three board members. The case in state court, a reverse condemnation action, alleges that the town has effectively taken the former Reader’s Digest property from the developer without paying just compensation. The case in the federal court alleges that the town is violating fair housing laws by balking at multifamily zoning that would include affordable housing.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement is due for release today and will be available on the town board’s website, according to Supervisor Gerrard.  See “Town board will release FEIS today in which “direction will be clear” for Chappaqua Crossing,” in today’s edition of NCNOW.
___________________________
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.

To view the 75-minute meeting, see below: