Chappaqua Crossing: Retail Opponents Hold Firm

At hearings for proposed grocery store and retail, residents and merchants blast concept. Worries abound over traffic, competition with curent merchants. Developer, meanwhile, gives more details.

Tuesday's public hearings for proposals to rezone Chappaqua Crossing for a grocery store and ancillary retail appeared to do nothing to assauge critics, who warned about a litany of issues that they argue would undermine the quality of town life.

With turnout in the dozens, almost every speaker blasted the proposals, which includes versions from the Town Board and site developer Summit/Greenfield.

They worried, as in past meetings, that the concept would pose a threat to merchants in the Chappaqua and Millwood hamlets, create a traffic nightmare along surrounding roads and hurt property values.

Cindy Lupica, owner of Marmalade, argued that the proposal, could take out businesses ranging from Chappaqua Village Market to Family Britches and Squires, leaving downtown Chappaqua as a "ghost town" and lower property values as a result.

"No more Petticoat Lane," said Phyllis Jacobson, who is the clothing store's owner.

The two plan's the were the subjects of the hearings have broad similarities and also tangible diferences. The board's proposal is a change to the town's zoning code, and would create a retail overlay zone that could be applied for and go anywhere on the site's existing commercial zone, which is about 72 acres. It would allow for a grocery store of 50,000 to 60,000 square feet, and retailers of up to 5,000 square feet each. Summit/Greenfield's plan, which it unveiled in October and crafted in response to the town's, calls for rezoning almost 24 acres for the same overlay but in the southern part of the property, a grocery store that could be 36,000 to 66,000 square feet and four, 5,000-square-foot tenants. It would involve a total of 120,000 square feet of retail space, replacing an equal amount of office space, and leading to a total of 662,000 for both commercial uses.

Opponents also worried that the Chappaqua they moved to, a place with a small-town feel, would become one where the retail character changes. 

“I think that this is going to destroy every single person in this hamlet," said Lisa Katz, who lives near the property and has organized a petition against the concept. Katz disputed that notion that there is local support for the idea, which the Town Board first started pushing for earlier this year in response to residents who were upset over the 2011 departure of D'Agostino that left Chappaqua without a major grocery store.

Rob Greenstein, a founding member of the Chappaqua-Millwood Chamber of Commerce and critic of the proposal, argued that people who were against the D'Agostino site losing a supermarket use were not one in the same as those who would want a store at Chappaqua Crossing. Greenstein, who appeared frustrated at times due to the Town Board's limited allotment for speakers, argued that Summit/Greenfield has not listened to residents' interests.

“The fact is they don't ever ask what the residents want.”

Several speakers argued that there is no need for another grocery store in the hamlet, noting that several already exist near by, such as the A&P locations in Mount Kisco and Millwood and the Thornwood Shop Rite.

“Why do we need another supermarket?” asked Laraine Ginsberg.

Poonam Arora admitted that she signed both a petition calling for the D'Agostino site to have a grocery store and one opposing the concept for Chappaqua Crossing. She argued that the D'Agostino site was different because it would accomodate a store that could be used for purchases that are more supplemental in nature, as opposed to major trips.

Several worried about more traffic, where on main arteries such as Route 117 and the Saw Mill River Parkway, or corridors that are narrower.

Lou Ciabattoni, who lives near Roaring Brook Road, worried what will happen to it under the proposal, which includes opening Chappaqua Crossing's south entrance to it and aligning that road with Horace Greeley High School's campus entrance.

“I live on that road, you don't need to go faster, you need to go slower," he said.

Ginsberg worried about how first responders would fare with clogged traffic.

“What about someone who's had a heart attack and is trying to get to Northern Westchester [Hospital] and they're stuck behind trucks?”

Still more argued that the public hearing format was inadequate for listening to residents.

“This is not a forum for dialogue," said Chappaqua resident and local architect Chuck Napoli, who has his own ambitious development proposal for downtown Chappaqua that would involve retail, a theater and a turf field approximately where the currently South Greeley parking lot and school field are now.

Summit/Greenfield: Plan Does Not Compete with Hamlets

Prior to the public comment period that was dominated by opponents, Summit/Greenfield got a chance to get into the nitty gritty of its proposal version.

Officials speaking on behalf of the site owner, which bought the property from Reader's Digest in 2004, sought common ground with reasons for why the Town Board first raised its idea last spring, including the loss of a grocery store and a desire to shore up the commercial tax base locally.

John Marwell, a Mount Kisco land use attorney who represents the developer, praised the Town Board for its interest in the idea. He also argued that Summit/Greenfield's proposed retail structure, at four tenants of 5,000 each, would not be designed to compete with existing merchants.

“Trying to be sensitive to the needs of the hamlet merchants and expecting to attract more national types of retailers rather than local types of retailers, who would be more comfortable and more accomodating in the hamlet area.”

While the ancillary retail tenant mix would depend upon who the grocery anchor is, Marwell said that a typical retail mix involves a drive-through pharamacy, a drive-through bank, a mid-size retail store and another retailer such as a restaurant.

In an interview, Geoff Thompson, a spokesman for Summit/Greenfield, echoed the adaptive reuse nature of the proposal, and believes that the project is complimentary, rather than harming merchants. He also explained he was not surprised by the feedback from opponents.

Andrew Tung, whose engineering firm is working on Summit/Greenfield's proposal, gave a detailed presentation for the site plan and zoning proposal. He explained that the grocery store would be situationed partially in the historic cupola building (it's called Building 200) along with a connected building to the south, which would replace the current Building 100, an adjacent, 1-story structure that would be torn down. In the process, the second story's floor in Building 200 would be removed, allowing for the first two floor to acting as space for selling, along with those in the new connected structure, which would mimic the Georgian architecture of the older edifice.

The rest of the retail space would be concentrated in 1-story structures, in Georgian architecture, that will overlap where the current southern parking lot is, and be adjacent to new southern site parking, according to Tung. 

Other major site plan changes include keeping a traffic loop through the middle of the site that was originally slated to be removed in an older plan from the developer, which Tung explained would help with going through property. Keeping the loop, however, would require tweaking the residential zone for 111 townhouse and condo units, which the Town Board approved in April 2011. The change to the residential zone would be slight, according to Tung, shrinking its area from 30.6 acres to 29.5.

Additionally, traffic improvements are proposed for the Route 117/Roaring Brook Road intersection, along with the proposed altered southern entrance onto Roaring Brook.

Meanwhile, the residential zone and the vote to create lurk in the background of the site's fate in general. Summit/Greenfield wanted 199 units but was denied in the 2011 vote. The action taken followed an environmental review process that lasted years and spawned state and federal lawsuits from the developer that are still pending versus the town. Summit/Greenfield was also given a deadline, after extensions, to get a site plan for the residential portion approved by the Planning Board by April 11, 2013, two years after the rezoning vote, or else the change will lapse.

Going Forward?

The Town Board voted to adjourn the hearing process to an un-scheduled date. What happens to the review processes going forward is murky, however, as it was explained, in response to an audience question, that the town is in the process of reviewing a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) submitted by Summit/Greenfield for its plan. The impact statement is meant, procedurally speaking, to be an offshoot from a more comprehensive one that the developer did in the late 2000s for its housing rezoning application.

Lester Steinman, a land use attorney for the town, said there will be a public hearing on the SEIS and that the town must review it for completeness.

The most vocal Town Board member of the night was Councilman Jason Chapin, who spoke at length at the start of the hearings. He recapped the town's interest in improving its commercial tax base, and said that language in an opposition petition characterizing the site as becoming a strip mall is “misleading people when you state opinions as facts.”

Robin Murphy asked the board member whether anything they heard at the hearing changed their minds. Chapin replied without directly responding to specifics, but acknowledged each of the concerns raised.

“We've heard that and we're going to respond to that. We can't do that all tonight but we'll continue to respond as quickly as we can.”

Town Supervisor Susan Carpenter's response to the question suggested that the concept is not a fait accompli. She explained that the board is “continuing to think carefully about the project.”

Chapin also urged residents to follow local media outlets for updates, while Carpenter noted that the SEIS can be accessed through the town's website.

Patty K November 28, 2012 at 02:13 PM
After watching the Town Board meeting last night one thing is very clear to me- there are many people who live near Chapp Crossing that will never be happy no matter what is proposed. Also very apparent are the lengths these people will go to distort, lie, and spread misinformation about this current proposal as well as past proposals for Chapp Crossing. Having now seen with my own eyes the developers proposal and heard our Town Board assure us that this will be targeted retail with no nighttime deliveries how is it that petitions and rumors circulate describing this proposal as a "strip mall", with a Wall Mart, with McDonalds, etc etc? NOTHING about this proposal looks like a strip mall! “Target Retail” means no Wall Mart, no McDonalds, no sewage treatment facility or any other lies being spread. I applaud our Town Board for having the courage to explore all opportunities to get this 80% empty parcel of land back and generating tax revenue for us while also providing much needed supermarket and retail. The Town Board is in this situation because all prior proposals were shot down (with petition, and spread of misinformation) by the very same people currently opposed to retail at Chapp Crossing. They opposed residential, they opposed condos, they opposed senior living, they opposed affordable housing. I understand they don’t want their neighborhood disturbed but it least object with truth and facts not lies and distortions.
Chapp Dad November 28, 2012 at 02:36 PM
I agree with Patty - The people objecting, spreading misinformation, and lies do themselves and their cause great harm. I have read their petitions ( Greenstein and Katz) and heard their distortions and they insult all of us. If you choose to object then please do so with honest and factual discussions. The petitions should automatically be dismissed by the Town Board because people are signing them believing that the information contained is accurate. It is NOT accurate. There are no plans for a McDonald with neon signs as stated in one petition. There are no plans and never will be for a sewage treatment facility as stated in a petition. There will be no WalMart and this is not and looks nothing like a strip mall which all who object continue to propagate.. All these lies should disqualify all the petitions on the grounds that they were signed by people who believed this crap. My wife signed thinking there actually might be a McDonalds or a big box store. Now she understands that the plan is to construct a controlled and tightly monitored retail space that hopefully will be in harmony with our town and generate some taxes because our taxes are TOO HIGH!
Bassett November 28, 2012 at 03:12 PM
This plan is for strip mall at Chappaqua Crossing. The above commenters may say otherwise, but that is the proposal, no matter how it is prettied up. This is sprawl, sprawl is what kills downtowns. That is a documented fact. Why would anyone wish to destroy the two hamlets that we have. Learning that there will not be a MacDonalds is hardly a reason to support this project. I live nowhere near Chappaqua Crossing, but I do care about the neighbors who do live there. I find it reprehensible that those in support of this do not. As has been said previously, the town needs a complete Master Plan before they go ahead with any projects and that includes Hunts Lane. Sensible, proper planning comes with well thought out process based on a Master Plan and the support of the community. Creating a third hamlet is a huge change and should never be done in the fashion that the Town Board is proposing here. Making a ghost town of our existing hamlets is not an answer to our tax burden.
Chapp Dad November 28, 2012 at 03:41 PM
Bassett -did you see the plans? It is NOT a strip mall! Calling a mouse a bear does not make it so- its still a mouse! If you are so concerned with our hamlets where were you when a 4th and 5th nail salon was opened? Where were you when Wallgreens signed the lease - we already have a Rite Aid and 2 small drugstores (chapp and Millwood)? Where were you when another real estate firm opened (making 5 or 6)? we have 4 "sweet shops" selling cakes, pastries, ice cream, yogurt etc with Sherry B just opened and now another ice cream/yogurt parlor is coming. Perhaps you should propose banning internet sales because that too hurts downtown. It is dishonest to pretend to be concerned for downtown now when you have let the above evolve. The point is that the objections and petitions circulating are inaccurate, misleading , and out right lies. People in town are signing them believing that McDonalds "with neon signs" is coming. People are being told a sewerage treatment facility is included. People sign believing that they are objecting to a big box store because that is what they are being told. They are all lies. We should evaluate this based on facts not lies and distortions. I am not convinced that this is what is in our best interests either but I am willing to listen and hear the factual proposal as put forth by the developer and by our Town Board. So long as people like you continue to call this a strip mall and spread lies and distortions we will never have an honest dialogue.
creator November 28, 2012 at 03:54 PM
I would like to see Trader Joe or Whole food there. Period.
Bassett November 28, 2012 at 04:00 PM
Chapp Dad Yes, I saw the plans and have listened to and attended al of the Planning Boards consideration of this proposal. As I said, they can pretty it up, but it still is a strip mall. I have been living here for forty years. I am not one who moved here for the schools and then left when my children moved on. I care very much about the entire community. That involves careful proper planning. Why are you against that ? The examples above where you question my thoughts and involvements are erroneous and insulting. Rage on, I am not interested.
Patty K November 28, 2012 at 04:23 PM
Whenever something new is proposed the nay sayers-obstructionists come out in force. Last night was dominated by those objecting to the retail proposal for Chapp Crossing. They stir up the community by spreading lies about this proposal. It was made clear that there will be no big box stores, no McDonalds, no sewage treatment plant. The Town Board made it clear that this will be "controlled" retailwith no Walmart, no nighttime deliveries, and full consideration for traffic and flow. The meeting was dominated by those who object and this prevents real dialogue. As is always the case, those objecting show up in full force while the very many who are open minded and supportive stay home. I agree with the above comments that the lies and deception by the Not In MY Backyard -NIMBY crowd greatly hurts their own cause. As soon as I found out that there will be no fast food, no big box, no nighttime deliveries, no strip mall I became willing to listen. I will not be drowned out and I will not be signing petitions that are full of lies. Perhaps this plan can work – perhaps it won’t. I am willing to listen. The dumbest argument is that this will hurt our downtown. That’s the downtown that has 6 nail salons, 5 real estate firms, 5 banks/brokers, Rite Aid (now Walgreens coming soon). Starbucks AND Dunkin Doughnuts not to mention many other establishments one can procure a cup of Joe and a cupcake. You cant and shouldn’t fight progress. Did Target destroy downtown Mt Kisco?
Lisa Katz November 28, 2012 at 04:33 PM
Tom only included some of my quote in the above article. The full import was that the Town Board needs to work for the best interests of this Town and its merchants and residents. They need to fully analyze and disclose the impact of the proposal on our taxes, current merchants, traffic, infrastructure and the safety of our children at the high school. There should be a conversation and collaboration as to best uses of the property before something like this is approved. Some wonderful ideas were floated last night for arguably better uses for the property (such as a conference center similar to Tarrytown House) that would enhance our current merchants, bring additional taxable revenue to the town, protect the "feel" and charm of our hamlet and maintain the quiet enjoyment of adjacent residential neighborhoods. All of this should be explored before the Board makes an arbitrary and capricious decision that may not be in the best interests of our town.
Chapp Dad November 28, 2012 at 04:38 PM
Bassett - I didn’t leave after my kids graduated either. Because of my desire to stay and the need to try to control our taxes it is very important that we replace the lost Readers Digest tax revenue. Lets be honest- there is no proposal or plan that will be accepted by those living near Chapp Crossing. Even if a master plan for our community was developed (as you and others suggest and I agree its a good idea) these NIMBY folks will find reason to object and circulate petitions. Readers Digest was a perfect tenant but they are gone forever and they aren’t coming back. For years now the site has been practically empty. Forgotten are the 7000 employees that went in and out of the site day and night. Forgotten are the delivery trucks and mainatence people that drove in and out. Forgotten are the workers, customers, vendors etc that entered and exited. The NIMBY folks have already objected to affordable housing, Condos, large scale residential, senior living and now retail. So what master plan do you suppose will satisfy them that will allow the space to be utilized? They will object to everything. As to your concern for our community, you didn’t answer. Where were you when our downtown became dominated by nail salons, brokers, and chain stores- now another drug store?
Bassett November 28, 2012 at 04:42 PM
Yes, yes, yes.
Patty K November 28, 2012 at 05:04 PM
Lisa- To suggest that we have not discussed and debated this is not accurate. The discussions and debate has been raging for 4+ years - ever since Readers Digest announced it was vacating. Each and every proposal and plan put forth by the developer/owner has been objected to. I have been no fan of Summit Greenfield and some of their tactics but we have now denied EVERY plan. In the meantime precious tax revenue has been lost. We are in this situation because we have forced their backs against the wall. We told them no to residential/condos, no to senior living, and no to everything else. So now they say "OK how about retail" and we say no again. When the town owns the property then they (we) can do as we choose. Then we can build a conference center or we can build a hotel / spa. But WE do NOT own this property. In the meantime the owner must decide if a conference center like Tarrytown House can and will generate enough revenue. Even if a conf center you suggest be viable wont those close to Chapp Crossing object to the traffic, object to the nighttime parties and corporate events such a facility will attract? There will be delivery trucks and workers, guests and sponsors etc etc. And wont it take business away from CrabTree Kittle House? Slippery slope aye? What feel and charm of our hamlet do you refer to? – 6 nail salons, Starbucks Dunkin Doughnuts, Rite Aid and Walgreen, multiple banks, real-estate brokers etc.
Bassett November 28, 2012 at 05:13 PM
More attacks and misinformation. Blah, blah, blah.
Billy T November 28, 2012 at 05:25 PM
To Bassett , Katz , Greenstein and others- who will be adult enough and honest enough to admit that the information in the petitions and the information being spread around town was incorrect? Who will fess up to having stated lies and deceptions in order to garner support for their personal views? Who took it upon themselves to state that McDonalds with neon signs was proposed? Who will take responsibility for stating that a sewerage treatment facility and a WalMart are part of this Chapp Crossing plan? Bassett you have been asked some direct and pertinent questions yet you do not respond. Instead you say it's "misinformation" blah blah blah. Why doesn't the lies and misinformation being spread in these petitions disturb you? Obviously you are not interested in the truth or accurate information. Only that lies continue. Shame on all. So- who will fess up? Who wrote the trash?Next time a petition is circulated I suggest the writer(s) attach his/her names. Without people willing to bck up what they say and write the Town Board should not consider such petition. Not when the contents are untruthful.
Bassett November 28, 2012 at 05:52 PM
Pertinent questions ? I have not seen any pertinent questions. I gladly signed Rob's group's petition . I have seen no others and have no idea what they say. If you are genuinely interested in the good of the community then you would be in favor of a complete update of our Master Plan which was last done in the 1980's and is woefully out of date before any major changes are made to the town and certainly before a third hamlet is created. I repeat, I find it morally reprehensible that you and others have so little regard for the neighbors who surround this proposal.
steve swirsky November 28, 2012 at 06:15 PM
Does anyone else remember that at the time Summit Greenfield wanted to build 300+ condos and keep the office space without a limit on tenants, that Felix Charney stood in town hall and said that if they did not get what they wanted they would eventually be back with a plan for building big box retail at Reader's Digest? It should be there on the videos from NCCTV.
Billy T November 28, 2012 at 06:30 PM
Bassett- pertinent question #1 Why don’t the lies and misinformation being spread in these petitions disturb you? question #2 - What master plan do you suppose will satisfy those that live near Chapp Crossing that will allow the space to be utilized? #3 Will anything satisfy them/you them or will any-all development continue the NIMBY attitude? #4 what is the point of a master plan if EVERY proposal will be shot down? #5 Who spread the lies in the anonymous petitions that state "neon signs" McDonalds. sewage treatment facility, WalMart etc? If YOU are genuinely interested in our community then you should support open and honest debate/discussion without the lies and misinformation being spread by opponents. How can we ever move forward if obstructionists use lies and scare tactics and suppress open discussion and productive dialogue. We may not be fond of the owner of Chapp Crossing but they have legal rights to develop and use their property. Waiting for a master plan will not legally hold up. They have made multiple proposals over many years all which have been objected to by local residents. In summary ,residents don’t want residential (mcMansions) and we have limited the number of condos. We don’t want affordable housing which would satisfy a state/federal mandate that we must do so. We didn’t want homes/condos for seniors. We don’t want retail. Those original residential proposals which NIMBY folks objected to are starting to look pretty good now. Right.
Billy T November 28, 2012 at 06:38 PM
Steve-that’s exactly the point. EVERYTHING they have proposed has been objected to by residents. 300 condos with some office space is starting to look pretty good right now. We would have taxes coming in and our schools are underutilized so we certainly have room. BUT those near Chapp Crossing objected to Condos. As they have and will object to EVERYTHING else. Summit Greenfield regardless of our personal feelings towards them have a legal right to develop and utilize their property. AND we NEED the tax revenue. Readers Digest was our biggest tax payer. We all benefited from those taxes . Now they are gone and we continue to obstruct every proposal they make. its crazy! All made worse by the fact that many people are opposed to retail because they have been told McDonals and WalMart are coming.
Billy T November 28, 2012 at 07:00 PM
Lisa- 300 condos with office space would have been great for our merchants. All those people would have needed a place to shop and eat. It would have been great for our residents because of all the taxes generated. That was one of the early plans by the developer but that got shot down by the very same people who NOW dont want retail. Senior housing and affordable housing would have also been great for our merchants and residents. Those people would patronize our merchants , generate taxes and affordable housing would have satisfied a mandate- but that got shot down too. Face it - NO proposal other than an empty or almost empty Chapp Crossing will satisfy. We/you pushed back on everything and now we will have to pay the price and likely have to accept something that is worse then some of the original proposals. I give the Town Board credit for recognizing this - we can not continue to object to everything. Eventually the law will dictate and the Town Board can not be in the position of illegal obstruction and not allowing a rightful owner the ability to conduct business.
JG November 29, 2012 at 03:18 PM
The fact of the matter is this -- the people who purchased homes next to this facility did so knowing it is 'commercial' space. I believe that those objecting would further object if another corporate tenant moved in. "Too many cars!" They don't want homes built there. "Too many students in our schools!" They don't want middle income housing. "You're killing my property value." They don't want retail space. "Noise, pollution, deliveries!" What, per se, should the developers do with the commercial space that they purchased? Leave it vacant? Are you making up the tax revenue? Perhaps those objecting would be more pleased if the town purchased the land from the developers and turned the space into a park. Wait -- who would pay for that?
Billy T November 29, 2012 at 03:43 PM
That's what i thought! NOBODY has come forward and admitted to being the author(s) of the anonymous petitions that mislead and spread lies. NOBODY has the courage or honesty to admit that they had members of their own community, friends and neighbors, signing these petitions on false and misleading representations. And they did so knowingly. There will be no big box store, there will be no fast food with neon lights, there will be no sewage treatment facility, there will be no Shop Rite....and there will be no strip mall. The plan calls for a controlled retail space with a Whole Foods like” supermarket and 4 or 5 retail spaces with max 5000 sq feet. A supermarket and 4 stores will not destroy our downtown! Come out come out wherever you are...We know you are reading these.
Ann Styles November 29, 2012 at 08:37 PM
What disturbs me most about the proposed plans for Chappaqua Crossing is that it seems there isn't any cohesive plan for either Chappaqua or Millwood. What happened to the town plan from a few years ago where the traffic in Chappaqua would be redirected to reduce bottlenecks, where parking would be addressed and the town be made more pedestrian friendly thereby benefitting merchants? If Chappaqua Crossing was part of a grand plan for the town and met the needs of the town then I think there would be less objection to it, but by itself it doesn't seem to be something we need or want. The hamlet of Chappaqua needs a master plan!
Ann Styles November 29, 2012 at 08:39 PM
Agree 100%!!!
Dawn Greenberg November 29, 2012 at 10:30 PM
It's no secret who authored the petitions -- Lisa Katz and Rob Greenstein. In fact, it won't be a Whole Foods. Shoprite is reportedly #1 on the list. Side stores of 5,000 each carefully stated to be "national chains." A bank, drug store, and restaurant like a Houlihans. Read Summit's proposal carefully. Is this really what we want for our town? I'm a merchant, but I'm not objecting because it will kill downtown (although it will), I'm objecting because this is totally unnecessary when there are five supermarkets within two miles up and down the sawmill.
Billy T November 30, 2012 at 01:22 PM
Dawn - so its OK that Greenburgh and Katz lied about neon signs, fast food like McDonalds, sewage treatment facility, strip mall? I am not sure this Chapp Crossing plan is a good idea either but I know lying and misleading fellow residets, neighbors, and friends hurts the cause. I understand as a merchant that you are concerned about the impact this plan will have on your business but where were you and others when the owner/developer propossed earlier plans that called for condos, residential, senior living, expanded modern offices etc. All of them would have been great for our local merchants as each plan would have brought more people to town. But ALL of those plans were objected to by local residnets in the Chapp Crossing area. They would have been great for yuour business - did you come out and support any of those ideas? NO - Of course NOT . We only hear the negative from obstructionists and objectors.
Dawn Greenberg December 01, 2012 at 02:33 AM
Billy, I was a fledgling merchant when that plan came out and certainly saw nothing wrong with it. i'm never of the belief that adding senior and affordable housing is a bad idea. In fact, i'm asking if we can revisit it. I really don't think it's fair of you to make any assumptions about me or another individual. My concern about this is for my kids who will one day attend the high school and it's for the shame of turning that beautiful property into a shopping center. I come from FL, land of the strip mall/shopping center, and it's not pretty. Probably Lisa and Rob should have "dialed it down" on the petition and dealt strictly with known fact, but if you watched the meeting or looked at the visuals, it really is a HUGE chunk of retail that they are trying to rush through.
Donald Fagen January 02, 2013 at 07:59 PM
1. Does anyone really believe that our taxes will go down even if/when Chapp Crossing develops the RD property? Sure revenues will go up but when is the last time taxes were lowered by any town in Westchester? Please educate me. It sounds too good to be true. 2. Senior Housing /Condos is sure sounding good to me now. Do we really need another pharmacy Applebee's, or a Shoprite on the RD site? Surely reisidential traffic would be less of an albatross to those who live on or near Rte. 117 and Roaring Brook Road.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »