NEW: Letters between lawyers for Summit Greenfield and town board end in standoff
January 14, 2011
by Susie Pender
A recent exchange of letters during December 2010 that spilled over into January 2011 between the Stephen Kass of New York’s Carter, Ledyard & Milburn LLP and John Marwell of Mt. Kisco’s Shamberg Marwell Davis & Hollis P.C., the lawyers for Summit Greenfield, the developer of Chappaqua Crossing, and Robert Davis of New York’s Bryan Cave, the lawyer for the Town of New Castle, leave one scratching one’s head wondering if the two parties are speaking about the same transaction.
The letters are only available in pdf form, and appear in their entirety in that form at the end of this article. Below are general summaries of each letter that suggest the flavor of the exchange.
December 14, 2010: Seven-page letter from Summit Greenfield’s lawyers, Kass and Marwell, to Town Supervisor Barbara Gerrard and the other members of the town board
After criticizing, for six pages, the Town Board’s actions as lead agency for the SEQRA environmental review process, Summit Greenfield’s lawyers demanded that the town board:
(1) act promptly, no later than its regularly scheduled meeting on January 14, 2011, to approve the Final Environmental Review Statement (FEIS) for Chappaqua Crossing substantially as submitted in its third revision in October 2010;
(2) notice and hold any new or continued public hearing required for the zoning amendments necessary to carry out the Proposed Action and the Modified Project, as described in the FEIS; and
(3) No later than March 31, 2011, take all remaining actions to approve the zoning amendments and concept plan approval required to approve either the Proposed Action or the Modified Project.
December 21, 2010: Robert Davis of Bryan Cave, the town’s lawyer for the Chappaqua Crossing project, responds to the December 14 demand.
Robert Davis states that it is “highly inappropriate and unproductive for the town to engage in a debate” on the merits of Summit Greenfield’s project, as Summit Greenfield appears to want to do based on its lawyers’ December 14 letter, in advance of the conclusion of the SEQRA process.
He stressed that no decision has yet been made by the town board, and assured Summit Greenfield’s lawyers that the town board is working to finalize the FEIS, “to ensure that the document reflects the Town Board’s view, as required by law.”
December 29, 2010: John Marwell, Summit Greenfield’s local lawyer, to Town Supervisor Barbara Gerrard and the other town board members
Noting that Reader’s Digest finally vacated Chappaqua Crossing on December 10, 2010, Marwell states, “the property now violates the minimum square footage required in the B-RO-20 zoning district.”
Marwell gives notice that his client will seek court intervention to lift the restrictions on the number of tenants and the square footage requirements and seek damages for the town’s failure to lift the restrictions sooner. And, he adds, Summit Greenfield will seek substantial reductions in its assessed valuation for the Chappaqua Crossing property through tax certiorari proceedings.
January 6, 2011: Robert Davis, the town board’s lawyer, responds to John Marwell
Davis admits to being confused by the thrust of Marwell’s December 29 letter. In your December 14 letter, he notes, you demand certain actions by the town board by March 2011. Yet, initiating litigation, as you propose in your December 29 letter, “before completion of the {SEQRA] processes will only delay or completely derail their completion.”
He notes that the current restrictions on the commercial tenants at Chappaqua Crossing were what Summit Greenfield requested and was granted by the town board in 2005, when they first purchased the property. And, he reminds Marwell, as they both know, the SEQRA law discourages municipalities from separating commercial and residential aspects of the project.
“It is a gross misstatement to say the town has ‘failed and refused to take action’ on the petition.” The town board continues to work diligently to complete its review, he states.
Davis then notes that he has yet to receive any response to his December 10 letter, in which he identified for Summit Greenfield and its lawyers the Incomplete Information necessary for the completion of the FEIS. He asks, will you be submitting the additional information requested, and if not, would you communicate that to us?
Full text of four letters in pdf form
December 14, 2010: Seven-page letter from Summit Greenfield’s lawyers, Kass and Marwell, to Town Supervisor Barbara Gerrard and the other members of the town board
December 21, 2010: Robert Davis of Bryan Cave, the town’s lawyer for the Chappaqua Crossing project, responds to the December 14 demand.
December 29, 2010: John Marwell, Summit Greenfield’s local lawyer, to Town Supervisor Barbara Gerrard and the other town board members
January 6, 2011: Robert Davis, the town board’s lawyer, responds to John Marwell
Most lawyers I’ve spoken to were taken aback by Mr. Kass’s letter. The author is a respected lawyer, yet his accusations are not legally supportable.
Maybe Mr. Marwell’s letter was meant to appease an angry client. A client angry due to the fact that they have an extremely high cost basis in their investment, their only chance to mitigate their loss is to build a dense residential development and their strategy has met resistance from our Town Board, Planning Board & the residents of our community.
Maybe Mr. Marwell’s letter was meant to intimidate our community with the threat of a lawsuit. Our community, however, is well educated and well informed. We have the facts and law on our side, and we will not be intimated by the threat of a lawsuit.
It’s time for the legal team to stop posturing, and start showing our community the respect we deserve.
Mr. Kass and SG will sue and has a good case to win. Our town will now spend thousands of tax payer dollars to fight only to have the state make the decision for them so they wont look bad. There should be a way to build a responsible amount of residential and make the property a viable addition to the community. There is also plenty of room for a gazebo for all to enjoy. We need more residents to help pay for all our services this town provides.
Why should anyone be surprised by the obvious posturing by SG’s counsel. After all, they are paid to advocate their client’s interest. They are highly paid and thus extremely motivated to advance their client’s interest. Truth, like complaining about restrictions that they had previously petitioned for, is a mere casualty in their effort to achieve their client’s goal.
Instead of surprise, I view Marwell’s December 29th letter as just his skillful device to spin the truth. When juxtaposed against the January 6 letter from Davis seeking to both correct the record and pin Marwell down as to whether the Town should expect requested information, even the most simple can observe how the Town is dispassionately performing its duties while the Developer is only interested in distorting the record.
The exchange of letters should be required reading for our Greeley kids. Apart from their literary style, they also highlight the degradation in ethics as the Developer eschews truth in its pursuit of the almighty dollar. The reputation of SG’s lawyers be damned. They are paid mercenaries so why should anyone expect more from them?
I too am an attorney and I am not Rob Greenstein. Although the law is far from math and there are very few certainties, SG is in a bad place right now. It is far from likely that they will win any suit against the Town. It may cost us money in the short term, but the long term answer is to push back. Not only do I believe we would win on the merits, but a failure to do so would be more damaging to this Town then any potential lawsuit or bowing to their absurd plans. I for one, am willing to put my money where my mouth is and donate to “the cause” should the Town make the wrong decision.
