Letter to the Editor: Deny the Chappaqua Crossing application
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.
Very well put.
Bravo!
Perfectly expressed! My gratitude to Mr. Poret!
The town cannot hold up a land owners rights they will sue, they unfortunately are within their rights and they will eventually win.
Just a reality check folks but all this delay does is slow the process down. Say what you will my firm does this all day long they will win a suit but it will cost them for awhile. Then the town or our tax dollars)will start to pay. We can slow it up but stop it never there will be development but we don’t need the state court deciding what they can build. SG has deep pockets and the town is fiscally irresponsible so do you really think we can win SG or the gazebo crew. Sorry but reality is hard to swallow.
To “By Delayed but unstoppable”
If you had read comments over the past year by other attorneys who have researched the development of housing zoning law since the Berenson case, including a subsequent case in New Castle, you would have known that the Town Board would be well within its legal rights if it denies Chappaqua Crossing’s massive residential zoning variance application. I note that although you write as if you are an attorney
whose firm “does this all day long,” you do not identify yourself by name and, to my recollection, have never written on this issue in all of the years that it has been subject to comment and controversy. Why?
I agree with Charles Poret who, as an attorney, clearly states his professional legal opinion and signs his name to it.
Rob Greenstein signs his name to his legal opinions. And other attorneys have done the same.
To “Delayed and Unstoppable,” we do not know who you are or what your profession is, so your opinion is obviously meaningless.
You are the one that needs “a reality check.” Being a blowhard does not help SG or the town.
