Open Ltr-Community group responds to Greenstein interview on development at Armonk Road property

With 49 comments since publication
April 11, 2014

To the New Castle Town Board,

We, members of the neighborhood group called the “Society of Neighbors, Inc.,” are writing to comment on the article in titled “Supervisor’s first 100 Days: Chappaqua Crossing and Spa—now “Homes”—@ New Castle.” More specifically, we want to address Mr. Greenstein’s reliance on a meeting with residents to validate his positioning.

The relevant portion of the article is as follows:

“Greenstein: Now Steve Oder is proposing a residential development. Sixty condos, a clubhouse, indoor-outdoor pool, health club, tennis, a theatre. No restaurant, no spa. No commercial use at all.

And this was not “negotiating” with the developer, either. What I did was I went to the residents and attended a meeting of opponents of the spa project. I heard their concerns, relayed them to Oder and he changed his application after hearing the concerns of residents.

That’s not to say every resident is going to be in favor of 60 condos. Some may prefer nothing and some may prefer to see housing on two acre lots, which is what it’s zoned for.”

We feel it is imperative that the board and all concerned parties understand that this is a severe misrepresentation of events.  Mr. Oder’s new proposal was NOT agreed to in any way by the residents with whom Mr. Greenstein met. While Mr. Greenstein does not explicitly say the neighbors signed off on this new plan, when he states that “Oder…changed his application after hearing the concerns of residents,” he implies that the new application reflects the residents’ views. This is patently false.

Mr. Greenstein continues, subtly and grossly, to misstate reality by saying, “That’s not to say every residents is going to be in favor of 60 condos. Some may prefer…to see housing on two acre lots…” This implies that the majority of residents are in favor of 60 condos with only an insignificant number of outliers insisting on development within the current 2-acre zoning.  What was actually expressed by the neighbors is that NOBODY wanted a 60 condo development and the overwhelming majority wanted residential development in keeping with the current R2-A zoning.

This neighborhood is zoned R2-A for sound, well thought out reasons.  The master plan has specified this area for low density development because of the lack of infrastructure in the area, and because of environmental constraints of the land itself.

Greenstein informed the neighbors at this meeting that to date, he has neither seen the property in question, nor visited the abutting streets (Tripp St. and Roseholm Place). We have on numerous occasions in the past several months encouraged the board to walk the property, as well as view it from neighboring properties and streets. We again extend this offer and suggest this be done before the leaves are back on the trees.

We hope that our elected representatives will uphold the laws and comprehensive plan of our town.  We hope they will act in a responsible way to ensure the protection of the quality of life of the residents who have entered into a ‘social contract’ with the town.  Residents are required to behave in ways specified by the zoning laws applicable to the property they own.  They must abide by these laws or be penalized.  There is the reasonable expectation that, in turn, they will be protected by these same laws. The laws and comprehensive plan are also in place to protect the environment.  We sincerely hope that steps will be taken to prevent long term negative environmental impacts to our beautiful town, and that these principles will not be compromised.  These are views that were actually expressed by neighbors to Mr. Greenstein.

Society of Neighbors, Inc.

The opinions expressed here are representative of close to 40 New Castle residents in the extended neighborhood surrounding the Legionaries property at 773 Armonk Road that Mr. Oder is proposing to develop.

We encourage civil, civic discourse. All comments are reviewed before publication to assure that this standard is met.

The name of the organization is incorrect.

If they don’t like it, pony up the money and buy it then sell a green easement (negative covenant)  to New York City watershed at between $50,0000 and $100,000 per acre. That is what the both whippoorwill club did and Chiselhurst did. Each parcel is over 100 acres. Then donate the property to the town and get a tax deduction.

THAT is the non-hypocritical way of handling it.

By sigh on 04/12/2014 at 9:31 am

These NIMBY folk gloss right over the fact that the commercial application is gone, which is what they claimed they originally wanted.  Now that the commercial application is gone they move the goal posts.  How about thanking the supervisor for meeting with you or for ending the commercial proposal?

By NIMBY never happy on 04/12/2014 at 9:46 am

These NIMBY folks wanted residential.  They got it.  Now they are trying to keep out housing that would be great for our empty nesters.  Shame on them.

By NIMBY, NIMBY, NIMBY on 04/12/2014 at 3:28 pm

Bring back the Spa proposal and make it bigger and more commercial. Give the NIMBYs what they deserve, our town could use the tax revenue and these people could use a lesson.

By The Society of No to NIMBY on 04/12/2014 at 3:58 pm

The goal was and always will be to keep the property zoned and developed as 2 acre residential lots.  Is it really that hard for you to understand what a 60 condo unit might look like in your back yard, look out you back window and really be honest with yourself.  You can call us nimby or anything else you like but it is zoned for and should be built as 2 acre lots.  If we don’t care what is in our backyards who will?  You….nah you can’t see my yard for your house.  Thanks for your comments Mr Oder

By Liam Donnelly on 04/12/2014 at 5:35 pm

This is an issue on preserving the current zoning and the town collecting the appropriate taxes now. Currently this property has a special use religious exemption but isn’t using the property. This means the town should be collecting the taxes now. A question the town needs to address is why isn’t this property on the tax rolls now? Also, other large parcels of land in this part of New Castle have been developed in the last 15 years. The developments such as Iron Gates Estates were developed in the current zoning, which is residential 2 acre zoning.  Why won’t the developer move forward with a plan within the current zoning?

By Neighbor on 04/12/2014 at 7:00 pm

It is zoned as R-2A. Pure and simple. Why is this so confusing?

The town has no right, or need, to change it. If zoning is unpredictable and can be changed on a whim, then whats the point of zoning in the first place?

It is clear the town board’s intent is to support developers interests rather than representing residents.


By Resident on 04/12/2014 at 7:51 pm

There is NO tax advantage to the condo plan. Actually. there are no advantages to condos for the town at all – but neighbors in the area will be negatively impacted.  Greenstein would not know this, because he admittedly has never visited or seen the area. Greenstein wants to win this one for the sake of winning. There is no other reason. Homes on 2 acre lots, consistent with the area, would provide greater tax benefits to the town than condos… but nobody wants to hear that.

Amidst all this mess, it has now also been discovered that the town should have been charging taxes on this property for years – BUT FORGOT! Oops! They could be collecting taxes right now. Why aren’t they? Opps again!

The ONLY rationale Greenstein has provided for condos vs.keeping it R-2A that is so the developer can make a profit – at the direct expense of neighbors. Sorry, but that is not an adequate reason for rezoning property. Greenstein and the rest of the board should know this.

Isn’t the town board supposed to represent the interests of residents and the town? Why is their only goal to ensure profits for the developer? Is this proper behavior for our public officials? Why not let the developer maximize their profits with the property’s zoning? How much profit is enough profit? Why is this our town board’s concern at all?

Sorry, but i am with the NIMBYs on this one.

By Embarrassed to be a Chappaqua Resident on 04/12/2014 at 10:06 pm

Only someone with an interest in condos would have made those obnoxious, angry NIMBY comments above. There are only two people who want condos, so let’s narrow it down:

Robert Greenstein: if it’s him writing this, then that’s disturbing. I fear for our town with a supervisor who is so deep in the back pocket of developers – at the expense of residents.

Oder / Developer: well, that would be expected.

That’s it. Those are the only two with an interest in the condos. I wonder which of them it is?

By Curiously Disturbing on 04/12/2014 at 10:30 pm

To Mr. Donnelly and Neighbor, 
What both your posts conceal is that this NIMBY group/you doesn’t only want development within the current zoning BUT THEY ONLY WANT TO BUILD 10 HOUSES ON 100 ACRES.  That is why you/they are NIMBY.  Go on, tell us another fat one: How many homes would you like on this 100 acre parcel? 

Editor’s Note:  Figuring out how many single family homes can be built on a property in a two-acre zoned area is not a matter of dividing the acreage by two.  Not all acres are “buildable.”  It’s not a matter of how many anyone would “like” to build.

By Be honest, you’re NIMBY on 04/12/2014 at 10:33 pm

I don’t know why anybody is wasting their time on this one. The environmental issue is so terrible on that property that there is no way anything of nearly this size or density would ever get approved by the planning board. Never has, and never will. I have been here 25 years and that land has been studied to death. If you want to put an end to this, then let them do the SEQRA which will show the same results as it always has. Regardless of zoning, that land can not be responsibly developed as Mr. Greenstein would like. Nope. There is just no way. That will end this all. Quick.

By On the sidelines eating popcorn on 04/12/2014 at 10:44 pm

The angry and repetitive use of an “N-word” is a disrespectful tactic used to marginalize and dismiss the voices of concerned neighbors and citizens.  I would suggest readers not even think twice about comments containing such a pejorative, schoolyard type attack.  Whoever this is polluting these pages with terms like ‘NIMBY’ should be ashamed of themselves.  This person either has no neighbors in New Castle, or does not know them.

By Have some respect for your neighbors? on 04/12/2014 at 11:07 pm

I am so tired of the sense of entitlement in this town.  People if you move next to a large parcel of private property you are taking a risk.  The risk is that the owner has a right to sell.  Times change.  Things change.  It was good while it lasted.  Get over it.  To those who live near Chappaqua Crossing & Legionarie’s Property stop will all the selfish NIMBYism.  You are hurting our town and giving us all a bad reputation.

By Say No to NIMBYism on 04/13/2014 at 8:19 am

If you are going to toss out the “N” word, then you should be willing to donate 25% of your own property value to the town – because that is what the town is asking of adjacent homeowners in this situation.

So go ahead, “Say No to NIMBYism”. Prove your anti-NIMBY character is genuine by going down to town hall in the morning to donate 25% of your land value to the town. Or better yet—provide your real name here – are you even a resident? Tell us who you are, anti-NIMBY hotshot, so we can send an adjuster to your home Monday afternoon to accept the gracious donation you are suggesting, and that you are so quick to make for others.

By the way, the comprehensive plan is specific in its protection of zoning for when owners of large parcels sell them in this area (it even mentions that situation, specifically) to maintain the long-term character of the area. Interestingly, it also mentions the shared purpose of maintaining home values. Have you read it? Seems you have not.

If these protections would not be in place, then purchasing that land would have been “taking a risk.” But that is not the case here.


By John Sutherland on 04/13/2014 at 3:30 pm

To the be honest poster…..well if the property could only be developed with a smaller number of single family homes why is the town responsible to change the zoning?  To assure the builder makes the most possible money?  That should not be our concern.  It’s a large parcel that’s zoned under zoning laws to be single family homes….why is it such a problem to build single family homes?  Unless you are the developer or work for him why would you care how he can maximize his money?

By Be honest with yourself on 04/13/2014 at 3:45 pm

So these people are NIMBY’s for wanting the property to stay as its currently zoned- and as many provisions of the Master Plan say it should be zoned,  but not the Summit Greenfield neighbors who object to a change in the KIND of commercial development allowed at the old Readers Digest property?  What gives? 
The Legionnaires property is close to 100 acres- most of which are wetlands, rocky ridges and streams and seeps, and can’t be built on without a sewer.  There IS no sewer on Rt. 128, maybe the town would like to build a sewer line- but first convince the County to take more of New Castle’s sewage.  Without that its not the neighbors who are going to limit the development on the site- its the topography, environmental constraints and lack of infrastructure.  And if any of you ever go in to NYC and drink the water there, you have an interest in keeping the sewage from this property out of the NYC watershed.  And if you don’t care about the drinking water for about 10 million people, NYC does and 60 condos on the small part of the property that could conceivable be built on is not apt to get their approval.  Chappaqua folks, who have access to a sewer line, need to wake up.

By Really?? on 04/14/2014 at 10:16 am

Why do all the posts accusing the neighbors of the Legionaries property of being “Nimbys,” sound exactly the same?!!!

By Interesting. . . on 04/14/2014 at 5:01 pm

The society of say no to NIMBYs…i am with you lets TEACH these people a lesson.  How dare they care about their neighborhood, homes values, environment or anything else…some nerve these folks have.  After all like another poster said they took the risk of buying this property..probably with every last cent they had.  Buying a house in New Castle is like buying some penny stock apparently..its loaded with risk and could be worth nothing if the direction of the wind changes with zoning laws. Lets use this as our town real estate promotion….welcome to New Castle…good luck on your home investment.

By Sarcasm on 04/14/2014 at 8:49 pm

The current owner of this property accepted special concessions granted to religious organizations, and invested their money in a beautiful natural property, then proceeded to build a rather unattractive red brick religious facility on it, essentially damaging the property and complicating its resale.  They pay no property taxes and continue to pay no taxes to the town on their financial investment.  The governing bodies of New Castle allowed this.

The current owner then struggled through fallout of its extensive sexual abuse scandal which appeared to threaten their financial investment…around the world and in New Castle. The current owner is now selling off this property and other properties around the world to recoup their financial investment, apparently in the most profitable way possible.

Although the current owner is linked to one of the wealthiest financial institutions in the world, this <<officially residential>> property has never been priced to sell at face value, as the beautiful residential-2-acre estate property that it is.  Perhaps they are not aware that when properties are priced to sell, they sell.

Rather than selling a residential property as such, the current owners decided to sell by private bid…and the winner is….a real estate developer who is willing to dig deeper into his pockets if allowed to maximize his profit by overbuilding condos.  In turn, the developer promises the Town Board (unproven) tax income and several shared town facilities (unneeded) for New Castle, if the Board will assist in altering the Master Plan of the Town to suit his purposes.

On this Gravy Train, one can only assume the Town Board is busy altering the Master Plan.  Afterall, business is business.

By A troubling history on 04/14/2014 at 11:21 pm

Your sense of entitlement is infuriating! Greenstein went to bat for you people and effectively elimated a Spa, restaurant, conference center and other negatives to your community. Condos are a huge improvement.
Your position that the area is zoned for R2-A and therefore it must remain that way in perpetuity is not supported by our town precedent or any municipality precedents. Zoning is changed all of the time. It is not etched in stone.
I bet many of you have had work done to your homes. Often in building an addition, guest cottage, or in major home renovations zoning changes are needed. Set back requirements, height restrictions, driveways, and coverage issues defined by zoning are changed.
I bought my property from my neighbor and then had my house built. We live in 2 acre zoning but my property and house is about 1 acre. Zoning was changed. 
Zoning are as much guidelines as they are hard and fast laws. They change all of the time.
You should be thanking Greenstein for meeting with you and for getting the developer to make changes.
This is my first comment and no – I am not RG.

By Resident on 04/15/2014 at 10:15 am

What’s that you say, Resident?  Our sense of entitlement is “infuriating” to you?  “Greenstein went to bat for you people and effectively elimated a Spa, restaurant, conference center and other negatives to your community. Condos are a huge improvement”????  It so happens that Oder wanted condos to begin with – and lots of them!  When that didn’t look so possible (we have these septic and water issues, remember?) he tried to tell the town that a spa hotel thing would fit under the zoning the town already has for country clubs and swim clubs, so no-big-deal.  But that turned out to be a bigger deal septic and waterwise.  Back now to 60 condos and we should be grateful?!!?!?!?!?  Ha.  60 condos won’t fit either, by the way. Same reasons – water, septic.  You and some other guy in these comments (the one who thinks that because its 95 acres it should take plenty of condos) should do some homework.  All you care about is helping Greenstein to look like a big hero.

By Grateful to Greenstein? NOT on 04/15/2014 at 11:03 am

So lets all applaud Greenstein for the shopping center at Chappaqua Crossing because its not a COSTCO.  On the other hand, why not a Costco?  I would shop there, and it would bring in revenue and after all- zoning changes however a developer wants it to change? And Costco is cheaper than Whole Foods.
The point you are missing is that zoning needs to change according to a well ordered plan for the development of the town.  That’s called a Master Plan.  Our Master Plan says there should be no commercial development in the low density zoned areas of town.  For New Castle, those are 2 acre zoning districts.  Many neighboring towns have 3 and 4 acre zoning. The Master Plan also provides for multifamily housing where there is appropriate infrastructure or the property has sufficient area to be able to handle the stormwater and septic requirements. There are zoning provisions for this in place- they don’t need the town board to change the zoning to create more multifamily zoning, at least not until after the master plan review is completed. And if that doesn’t give them the density they WANT they get the density the zoning allows.
If you look at the mess the town has been in for decades because it approved Random Farms and Riverwoods and has the heavy density at the Yeshiva, all of which are serviced by inadequate sewer plants, and all of which are costing many millions to divert to the Yonkers sewer plant (with a lot of opposition from Yonkers- which doesn’t want New Castle’s sewage) you might think twice about making the same mistake all over again.

By to Resident on 04/15/2014 at 11:28 am

To Resident,
Have news for you!  Don’t try to sell your house when the news gets out that buying in this town is like practicing Russian roulette.


By Think it doesn’t affect you?! on 04/15/2014 at 12:04 pm

To – Think it doesn’t affect you? – it’s not Russian roulette when you buy in an established community. When you buy near or next to a large undeveloped tract of property you take your chances. Ask those near Hardscrabble Lake, near Chapp Crossing, and near 7 Bridges Middle School.  I live near a 60 acre lot with one house on it. The owner has had it on the market for 8 years. He can’t sell it. Now it’s been to town hall for all kinds of variances , zoning changes, environmental studies so it can be subdivided and sold off. All of us in close proximity knew this might someday happen. We still don’t know if it will be houses or condos. 
The point is that this is what happens with open spaces owned by private people or private companies. Town governments generally do not deny property owners their rights. 2 acre zoning is not enough to reject and deny usage. I know. I am living it.

By Another resident on 04/15/2014 at 1:22 pm

To Another resident,

You proved my point.  This town does not protect its residents.  All of us are at risk.  Them now, you next, maybe me later.



By Think it does’t affect you?! on 04/15/2014 at 6:34 pm

The 2 acre zoning for a 100 yields about 50 homes, as a matter of density. The unuseable land is “used” for density purposes.  Like random farms ,homes can be clustered or built on 1 acre lots , or less, so long as there is open space as part of the development which , taken together, keeps the overall density at 1 home per 2 acres for the entire tract…. Or at least so I am told.

By Dear mr donelly and editor on 04/16/2014 at 4:09 am

All of us are not at risk. Only those that bought in proximity to large tracts of land that can potentially be developed have some risk that landowners might develop. Even then, is it really risky? The town officials have an obligation to all residents to bring in tax dollars. They have a legal imperative to allow a property owner to usage of property. Zoning changes are everyday occurrences in every town, municipality and state. You can’t fight progress-

By Resident on 04/16/2014 at 8:07 am

To resident….sense of entitlement?  We pay some of the highest taxes in the nation….is that not reason alone for us to have a say as to what’s built next door.  This is all part of the process….maybe you would accept whatever but no reason for everyone else to sit on their hands.  I am sure this development does not affect you in the slightest way…can you even point it out on a map?  I think your little house extension zoning comparison is a little off….or did you put on a 250,000 sq ft extension?

By Real resident on 04/16/2014 at 11:19 am

To Real Resident- paying high taxes does not ” entitle” you to deny property owners right of usage. In fact, the level of taxes you pay nor the income you earn, entitle you to more flexibility or latitude in regards to any law.
It is precisely because we all pay exorbitant taxes that town officials have a fiduciary obligation to allow development that brings in additional tax revenue to subsidize residential tax revenue.

By Long time resident on 04/17/2014 at 6:41 am

Okay any town can use extra money on tax rolls.  If the end benefit was similar or better with single family homes as opposed to condos (remember some of the taxes go to bedford) then why would anyone in the town really care if condos or single family homes were built.  Condos sound like they would negatively affect the closest neighbors….so build single family homes.  Unless you have some financial interest in this property (you are the builder or in his pocket) why would you care if the neighbors wanted single family homes?  Also as a side note….if a floating zone were enacted it could ultimately affect you even if you are not by one large single parcel of land….a builder could buy multiple lots to get to that size.  Think it can’t happen?

By Tax relief?? on 04/17/2014 at 9:01 am

Accusing someone who doesn’t agree with your group as being “not a resident” is the same as them calling you NIMBY.  All residents must agree with you or else they must not be residents?  Sound like the typical NIMBY platform?

By Hypocrisy anyone? on 04/17/2014 at 9:18 am

To Resident,

Zoning changes are NOT everyday occurrences in EVERY town or in most towns.  Why don’t you inform yourself before you speak?!  Such careless chatter is annoying. 

if a municipality had “a legal imperative” to allow a property owner their choice of usage, then there would be no zoning.

By What Balderdash” on 04/17/2014 at 9:29 am

How about all of the Lawrence farms folks, the Country Club could be a nice big condo, apartment, maybe even retail development.  how about a new hotel complex and some fast food?  That would require rezoning- but should we consider that that be inevitable progress? 

The people who bought next to Readers digest bought next to a commercial/office property.  Nobody is suggesting changing the zoning of residentially zoned property there, but just a shift from commerial/office to commercial retail IS a big deal, and one the town is spending a lot of time considering.  It may of may not be a good idea, but its not just business as usual.

By the way, all other condo developments in town are required to have substantial set backs, not the same set backs as for just another single family home.  We allow condos in single family zoning- with some significant provisions to protect existing single family homes.  Let them consult those, and if they can build within those restrictions, fine- go to the Planning Board. 

Otherwise- send Oder back to New Jersey and tell the Legionnaires that they are not going to pay off their bills on the backs of New Castle residents.  they paid very little for the property and put nothing into it. There is no way they deserve big profits.  Sold at a fair price, the land could be developed as single family homes- they way it is zoned.  that’s the only property right the current owners or the prospective developer have.

By To Resident on 04/17/2014 at 12:32 pm

Tax relief?? Your comment is selfish. What about the emptynesters?  They want more condos and they are not the developer and I doubt they are in his pocket.  And what if the end result was worse with single family homes?  Do you still blindly want them?

By Think before you speak on 04/18/2014 at 9:03 am

To What Baldrdash and To Resident- zoning changes are MOST certainly regular occurrences. Residents ask for and get them all of the time. Think setback measurements when expanding a house or doing an addition. Think about a resident living in 2 acre zoning with 6 acres of property and then sells off 3 acres and 2 houses are built. Think Chapp Crossing zoned for commercial and zoning has already been changed to allow residential – 110 condos. Think about a driveway or guest cottage built close to a neighbor and a variance is needed- that is a zoning change.

By Think again on 04/18/2014 at 5:53 pm

@To Resident- you have no idea what yo are talking about. Pay attention. Chapp Crossing, formally Readers Digest, was commercially zoned. Zoning has already changed to allow condos(residential). They haven been built yet but the zoning has been changed for commercial to residential and retail zoning is being debated.

By Chapp on 04/18/2014 at 6:39 pm

‘NIMBY’is commonly used HUD lingo.

By HUD on 04/18/2014 at 11:24 pm

I may be a NIMBY regarding condos, but I am not a BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything).  This property can be be developed with single family houses.  Bring it on.  That will be a beautiful addition to our community, and a financial gain for the community..  No need for condos here, unless what is important is to 1) make a developer richer, 2) make the Legionairies money or 3) score points for a politician.

By Build houses on 04/18/2014 at 11:32 pm

It seems the way the town supervisor won the election was because people supported his views.  He gets elected and changes his whole platform.  It’s time for him to step down or for residents to request he does.  New Castle needs an honest town supervisor who cares about the integrity of the town.

By NOT a NIMBY on 04/19/2014 at 7:49 am

It has been said, although I haven’t seen hard statistics, that nearly half the homeowners(taxpayers) in New Castle are empty nesters. Our children our out of the school system and have moved out. Many would love to stay here but we no longer need big homes and certainly don’t want and can’t afford the high taxes. There are no options in this community for downsizing. I would love to stay here and find a smaller house of which there are few choices. The most practical solution, and one available in most communities is some sort of town house/ condo community. Even an ” age restricted type development. That would keep people in our community with life long friends and near our community activities and houses of worship,without having to move away.
There are only a handful of properties suitable for this type of development and our town governement has an obligation to persue and encourage such development. It brings additional tax revenue to town and it does not stress the school system. It makes a better community for everyone.

By Empty nester on 04/19/2014 at 8:53 am

@Build houses
You forgot 4) diversify housing stock to provide for a NEED for housing for emptynesters. 
Ohh wait, there must not be any emptynesters in town because according to the posts in support of this group anyone that wants condos must not be a resident, must be the developer, must be in the developers pocket, or must just want to score points for RG.  Sounds bananas to me!!

By Are you guys serious? on 04/19/2014 at 12:20 pm

While it may sound like a good argument that this will provide housing for empty nesters if you did your homework you would know that these condos are not proposing an age restricted development in ANY way.  No these condos are indeed 2500 sq ft condos (so much for downsizing) and will be multiple bedroom units.  The developers are NOT planning an over 55 community in ANY way.  Also as far as suitable properties for this development…if you again did your homework you would know that this property is not suitable for a 60 condo unit in any way….no sewers, septic issues, environmental issues.  That is why the developer is proposing a clustered condo unit because the majority of this property is unsuitable to build (sorry blame Mother Nature).  He is not offering a single home development because he can’t maximize his money and will be limited in how many houses he can build.

By Empty nesters? on 04/20/2014 at 11:16 am

To Think again-and suggest you do,

How about some specifics and/or statistics. 

if your example is actual, building two houses on 3 instead of 4 acres or modifying a setback hardly compares to the massive developments at CC, the Legionaries property, and the Islamic headquarters, all in residentially zoned areas. 

By What Balderdash! on 04/20/2014 at 11:44 am

@empty nesters? – where did you do your homework? The condo proposal hasn’t even been submitted. Have you seen a scoping document? Of course not, your entire post is based on NIMBY assumptions.

If the environmental issues are as bad as you say then it sounds like the land is better suited for a cluster development within the existing footprint, not single family homes.

Why do you want to foreclose the possibility before it is explored? Is it because you don’t think there is a need for emptynester housing? or, because you don’t want any part of the need satisfied in your backyard?

By 105-1-4-all on 04/20/2014 at 7:59 pm

Housing stock to satisfy empty nesters is an important component to keeping our community vibrant and competitive. “Age restrictied” housing is not the only option. In fact that concept is controversial and has been challenged in the courts.

Building town houses that allow options for empty nesters is important. And yes a 2500 sq ft townhouse can be a considerable downsize considering some of the big houses in our town. At the very least, a 2500 sq ft townhouse has significant less upkeep (landscaping, plowing, fuel costs, utilities and taxes) than a home.
We must build these – like CC, we must not be held hostage to a few people who own homes near/ next to a large property that is perfect for development. Town officials have a responsibility to the entire community- the greater good theory!

By Ronnie on 04/21/2014 at 7:47 am

To What Balderdash! – here are some specifics regarding change in zoning on larger scale projects comparable to this. These are precedents.

Chappaqua Crossing was zoned commercial.  110 condos – residential – has been approved. Therefore commercial has been rezoned for residential. Retail is under consideration.

Seven Bridges Middle school was built in a residentially zoned area – zoning was changed for building the school.

The new Millwood Fire house required zoning changes.

These are all large scale zoning changes on a very local level. The courts look at county and state precedent as well. To be sure, there have been many large scale zoning change in surrounding communities in Westchester County as well as state wide.

By Resident on 04/21/2014 at 8:53 am

Uh no not really NIMBY assumptions….Greenstein said this himself thru his conversations with Oder….go ahead and ask.  Also we have these town meeting things where the developer shows up and we ask questions.  You should come some time maybe you will learn something.

By 105 1 all wrong on 04/21/2014 at 3:49 pm

@105 1 all wrong,
When was the condo proposal made?  When did the condo proposal come before the town board?  Where is the scoping document for the condo proposal?  The SPA proposal is NOT the condo proposal. 
Again you are pushing half truths and ignoring the FACT that this property may be good for emptynester housing. 

By The nerve! on 04/21/2014 at 6:01 pm

So by your logic the town should do whatever it pleases because it only affects so few?  No these folks are not holding the town hostage as you say….the town has an obligation to protect the interests of all residents even these people….that’s what elected government does in the United States of America.  That is the reason there is a SEQR process and environmental studies before something as major as this is built.  Your comments only prove why people should fight and be concerned about their rights being protected.

By Ronnie on 04/21/2014 at 6:33 pm

Most of the residents WANT CC, whole foods etc. So your argument fails on that point. What about their rights?

By Dear Ronnie on 04/22/2014 at 4:43 pm

Most residents want CC, whole foods,etc?  Are you talking about New Castle? There are many people opposed to that project but that’s not what this article is about.  How can you even make that statement? Did you do a poll, do you have any facts so you can speak for MOST residents.  Talk about an argument failing.

By Dear dear ronnie on 05/02/2014 at 8:20 am

Why not leave CC and Rosehill for the Master Plan.  If the town actually does a good job of obtaining public input, they will have an idea of what the Town of New castle wants.  Maybe CC retail with a smaller footprint? Maybe a change in the multifamily zoning- all over town, not just something dumped on the east side, and maybe the Town doesn’t want any of that.  If the Town Board would spend some time and resources on the Master Plan process, we might find out.  Oh- by the way Sabrina Charney-Hull has had two years to get this started and so far it’s no where- how long will it take the Town Board to wake up and realize they were sold a bill of goods when they hired her to do the Master Plan?

By Master Plan? on 07/09/2014 at 10:43 am

Post a comment:

Display Name*:

Your Display Name will be associated with this comment on We encourage commentators to use their real name or initials.

We encourage civil, civic discourse. In other words, be pithy and polite. All comments will be reviewed before publication to assure that this standard is met.