Letter to the Editor: Setting the record straight on some statements in Susan Carpenter’s letter

Monday, November 7, 2011
by Bob Kirkwood, Republican and Independence Party Candidate for Supervisor

It is important to set the record straight on some of the statements contained in Ms. Carpenter’s letter. [See Letter to the Editor: Time to clarify some misrepresentations by GOP, 11/4/11, by Susan Carpenter.]

We believe the current Chappaqua hamlet regulation regarding future development is an example of unnecessary, intrusive over-reach by government. We heartily embrace the requirement that any new commercial structure within designated hamlet zones should have a second floor. We think this makes great sense for the hamlet.

However, the regulation does not stop at a second floor requirement, and Ms. Carpenter knows or should know this. Commercial office space may be constructed only if certain guidelines are met; otherwise the second floor must be residential. Even worse, especially in these difficult economic times, the default residential requirement may be imposed if a commercial lease falls through subsequent to initial approvals. We believe the owner, the investor, the risk taker is better able to understand the proper mix of commercial office space or residential space that is appropriate for a new second floor.

We have called for repeal of the residential requirement in the regulation. We think it is potentially restrictive and unnecessarily adds to the significant economic, financial and (proper!) regulatory hurdles that owners and investors must overcome. And, if the law truly is neutral, as Ms. Carpenter seems to suggest, why is there is push back to our recommendation to repeal it? Voters should be given more credit.

Secondly, Ms. Carpenter’s statement on the sewers is either uninformed or disingenuous. TeamNewCastle supports connecting identified environmental hotspots to the sewer line, but we argue that the petition should be expanded to include all neighborhoods in the Croton watershed with compromised septic systems and it should be expanded to include the Millwood business hamlet. 

The sewage issue in these areas has been an important matter for decades. Our petition to the county has been held up for years for political reasons.  Our position is that we should press for the interests of all affected residents – not just some – now that we have finally been able to gain the political support of the county.

Based on a 1997 Memorandum of Understanding, $38 million was set aside to improve Croton water quality for towns in Westchester. That money has not been used and has grown to $60 million. The County has determined that New Castle is eligible for $10 million of the $60 million. The current administration is proposing an amended petition using that money to connect FOUR properties, not the THREE properties mentioned in Susan Carpenter’s letter. These four properties include the “environmental hot spots” of Yeshiva, Riverwoods and Random Farms and the recently approved Chappaqua Crossing East residential proposal which contains twenty fair and affordable housing units.

We believe we have a once in our lifetime opportunity to deal with these acute sewage issues on a global basis. We believe it is incumbent upon local government to resolve this problem to the greatest extent possible and for the greatest number of affected residents as possible. It took years to get county support, and there are still many political obstacles to overcome. But, it is unlikely there will be a “second stage” for these neighborhoods, and the opportunity to achieve economies of scale with a one-time solution demands further consideration.

Economies of scale are just one of the important considerations in expanding the petition to provide a connection to the Millwood hamlet. Septic disposal in this hamlet has operated as a significant hurdle for the potential development of the hamlet for appropriate mixed uses. Rental of commercial properties is limited to “dry” occupancies, and this suppresses value and development potential. Soils in the hamlet do not support septic systems effectively, and the costs of maintaining engineered septic solutions are considerable. The full potential of the Millwood hamlet cannot be achieved without connecting to sewers. Frustration of this potential serves as an undesirable limitation on our commercial base.

Ms. Carpenter’s letter implies that most of the Millwood Business District is ineligible for the $10 million dollars because most of it lies outside the Croton Watershed. She could not be more wrong. All of Millwood Road North from the Station #1 including the County Deli, Millwood Lumber, and the residences that line Millwood Road up to and including part of the West Orchard School are in the watershed. All the residences on Millwood Road South as well as the Garden Center and Millwood Lumber are in the watershed. All of the business and residences located on Schulman Road are in the watershed. The property that is not a hotspot in the watershed is Chappaqua Crossing, yet the Town Administration proposes to use these limited DEP funds for a private development.

Team New Castle supports connecting identified environmental hotspots to the sewer. But the current petition has progressed with little or no public dialogue and without supporting documentation. The current Town administration has not had any meaningful contact with business owners in Millwood regarding the revised petition, and has not published information to support its claim that Millwood will benefit in the future. For example, how big is the proposed pipe? Is it sized to handle future sewage volume from the Millwood Business District? Also, what are the projections for future financial burdens including a breakout of the total costs (will the project cost more than $10 million?), necessity of a bond and if so in what amount, and which agency will be responsible for post-project construction costs such as the rehabilitation of Roaring Brook Road.

As a businessman, a taxpayer and a believer that Millwood represents an opportunity to significantly expand our commercial tax base, I have expressed concern over this petition’s process and transparency. Important questions and global issues should be considered before this limited petition is rushed through. 

Third, we specifically invoked Mr. DeMeo’s five-year application for development of his service station-mart when our opponents cited his property, along with Mr. DiNardis’s development, as signature accomplishments of their guidance for the development of the Millwood hamlet and examples of their business friendly work with local business people. The claim was so far removed from reality as to invite questions of lunacy. “Accommodation by the town” might be the single last expression you are likely to hear from either of these business-owners. Each persevered and ended up investing millions of dollars toward significant and welcomed improvements to the hamlet, despite lengthy approval applications, remarkable opportunity costs, and each remains bitterly upset with the town.

We do not express an opinion regarding the intricacies and necessities of their respective applications and reviews. Each posed substantial challenges. (See sewers above.) However, to laud these two developments as examples of business-friendly accomplishment is to stretch the wildest of imaginations.

Don’t ask us or trust our words about these two applications. Feel free to ask the owners themselves. Let them provide the answers to a “New Castle satisfaction with business friendly initiatives” survey. Voters know what that survey will say.

Finally, we have NEVER promised a grocery store in Chappaqua hamlet. Richard Diefenbach and I have repeatedly stated that we are not interested in seeking box store development in either hamlet. We have repeatedly stated that our community’s interests and needs are different from others, including Yorktown.

However, we prefer to not simply give up on the notion of a grocery store in the hamlet. For example, must we restrict ourselves to current models? Could we explore the concept of a 2-story grocery store within constrained hamlet space, similar to the B, B &B in Greenburg? Could expansion of the former D’Agostino’s footprint have been achieved by reducing the parking lot zoning requirements?

What we have promised is a new attitude toward business to increase market visibility for our town, which desperately needs to broaden its commercial tax base in order to shift unsustainable tax pressures off of residential taxpayers. These pressures require much more than an effort, which we applaud and support, to fill empty storefronts during these difficult times.

What we have promised is to try is to move New Castle’s market perception away from the bottom end of the “last place on earth” scale and more toward the “interesting, desirable” side of the scale. What we have promised is to avoid being mired down with a “what exists” mentality and look toward exploring potential opportunities by inviting discussion of “what ifs.”

We think New Castle can do even better, and that is why we are running.

Bob Kirkwood

Related:  Letter to the Editor: Response to Kirkwood’s accusations that the town was “business-unfriendly,” 11/7/11, by Susan Carpenter