December 24, 2010
by Charles I. Poret
My family and I are 36 year residents of New Castle and have a vested interest in the welfare of this community and its school system—from which our two sons were more than well educated.
As a commercial litigator with 40 years experience in reading lawyer’s letters and veiled threats, it is sheer gall for the developer’s attorneys to charge in footnote 1 of their December 14 letter that the memo they received from the Town’s counsel reads “more like a litigation document demand than a genuine request for any missing information ...” Indeed, the December 14 letter is, to anyone who knows anything about these letters, nothing short of a self serving reconstructionist history piece that thinly masks a clear threat of litigation if the Town does not bow to the developer’s outrageous proposal to destroy New Castle as we know it.
As to the developer’s bona fides, I would be willing to bet that if there was litigation and the developer has preserved its records relating to the original strategy of purchasing the Reader’s Digest property, it would be clearly shown that the developer’s intent from the outset was to turn this commercial-use zoned property into what is, in my opinion, an unneeded and intrusive residential development. Had the developer truly been interested in expanding the commercial use of the site, it would not have coupled a request for a commercial use variance with a massive residential development.
The Town Board has worked hard over the years with respect to the pending application and, keeping with its fiduciary responsibilities, has the right to exercise its best judgment and deny the application. I recommend that it do so.
To catch up on Chappaqua Crossing/Reader’s Digest matters, see all NCNOW’s archived material, in chronological order, by clicking HERE.
Copyright 2019 NewCastleNOW.org