What’s next for Chappaqua Crossing? The ball is in the developer’s court

April 15, 2011
by Christine Yeres

On Monday, April 11, the New Castle Town Board voted to approve the 111 housing units proposed by Summit Greenfield in its “East Village” at Chappaqua Crossing as well as a “preliminary concept plan for the East Village” and the removal of the current limit on the number of office tenants permitted in the commercial space. See “Town board approves 111 units of housing in East Village, lifts cap on number of office tenants,” NewCastleNOW.org, Tuesday, April 12, 2011, with 70 reader comments since publication.

With the delivery if its Findings the same night, it would appear that the work of the town board is done under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) process.

“The town board’s part in this part of the process is finished now,” stated Clinton Smith, legal counsel to the town board.  “But what the board approved Monday night,” he stressed, “was just a conceptual site plan:  East Village, 111 units in total, 60 fee simple townhouses, 31 market rate condos, 20 fair-and-affordable units.  If the developer chooses to make application to the [New Castle] Planning Board for site plan approval, the next step would be for [Summit Greenfield] to create a far more detailed plan.” 

That’s assuming, of course, that they intend to move forward on that front. But they’re not talking.

Summit Greenfield’s spokesperson, Geoff Thompson of Thompson & Bender, responded, “No comment,” to all questions about Summit Greenfield’s next moves.

Summit Greenfield’s lawsuits against the town, filed in February of this year, are still pending in state and federal courts. The town has recently re-engaged the law firm Bryan Cave, who were their SEQR counsel, to represent New Castle in a counterclaim against Summit Greenfield for almost $1 million in consultant fees for which the town is entitled to reimbursement under SEQR rules.

Activists against approval of MFPD will be watching what develops

“It’s unfortunate,” Victor Siber, a resident of Cowdin Lane, which abuts Chappaqua Crossing, said after the hearing, “that the town board decided to steamroller its citizens.  I think it’s shameful.  I believe they did this to build a defense to the primary litigation. Now they can say they are objective, that they have not listened to us.  The board may have gone beyond their authority in invoking a doctrine, The Rule of Necessity, that has no application to legislative matters.”

Rob Greenstein, a vocal opponent of any residential development at Chappaqua Crossing, commented after the hearing: “I understand from the board’s Resolution and from its Findings that they have worked very diligently to preserve the commercial potential of the Chappaqua Crossing property by limiting residential development.  But the ball is in the developer’s court right now, in court, in the lawsuit against the town.  We need to see what will happen there before we know how well the board succeeded in its efforts. Residents will be watching very closely.”

___________________________
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.