Chappaqua Crossing: Petition Requiring Supermajority Vote Submitted

A petition that would require the rezoning for the Chappaqua Crossing retail plan to pass by a supermajority of the New Castle Town Board was submitted to the town on Tuesday before the board convened to hold public hearings for the proposal.

The petition was circulated and signed by several residents who live near the site, according to Victor Siber, who lives on nearby Cowdin Lane and is among those involved. The reason for doing so, he explained, is because they are opposed to the plan and feel it should be subject to a supermajority vote, or four out of five board members instead of the usual three.

Siber explained that the threshold for the petition to be valid is if at least 20 percent of the nearby property owners sign it.

The petition was first disclosed at the board's meeting by Rob Greenstein, a adamant opponent of the plan, which calls for 120,000 square feet of retail space, including a grocery store of 36,000 to 66,000 square feet. Greenstein, also a candidate for supervisor in this November's election, called for the town board to abide by the petition and not to work around it.

This is not the first time that a supermajority petition has been used to try to thwart rezoning at Chappaqua Crossing. In April 2011 one was submitted before the town board when it was set to vote on a residential rezoning proposal from developer Summit/Greenfield to allow for 199 housing units. At the time, Deputy Supervisor Elise Kessler Mottel and Councilman John Buckley recused themselves. For Mottel it was because her law firm had a connection to Greenfield Partners, which is one behalf of the developer, itself a joint venture with Greenfield and Summit Development. Buckley, a real estate agent who works with housing, recused himself because it was a residential matter. Because there were just three board members left, or fewer able to act on the proposal than the 4-member minimum now required, a term called the rule of necessity was triggered, which brought Buckley and Mottel back into the proceeding. The board only approved 111 of the proposed units, with Mottel voting in favor on major items and with Buckley abstaining.

This time, however, Buckley is not recusing himself because the matter involves commercial real estate, while Mottel is doing so again, leaving four members able to take action. Because there are four board members available, Town Attorney Clinton Smith explained, there is no rule of necessity.

Unlike the petition for the residential rezoning, the Chappaqua school board is not among the supporters, Siber confirmed, as the board was not asked to do so. In 2010, the school board voted to have the district become a signatory. Some board members expressed concern with the 199-unit plan because they felt that it could lead to economically burdensome new student enrollment.

Hearings Turnout Lower But Same Concerns Raised

Turnout at Tuesday's meeting for the public hearings, which included the proposed rezoning legislation and master plan changes to enable the project, was considerably less than it had been at previous meeting on the proposal. Despite this, the issues and concerns discussed were similar.

Most of the speakers were skeptics or opponents of the proposal, citing fears about more traffic, dangerous traffic, impact on quality of life, and adverse competition with existing local merchants. Other concerns included making changes to the master plan before a comprehensive update, which is pending and being handled by a steering committee, is done.

“Before you approve the change in zoning that will bring more traffic to this area of Chappaqua, consider the enormous changes you're bringing to the character of this part of town and to the lives of all the residents and of anyone who has or will have a child in high school," said Maryhelen Hendricks, who lives near the site.

“My focus is to preserve and protect the single-family residential enclave on Roaring Brook Road," said Robert Lewis, who made a series of suggestions for traffic mitigation, including extending the existing landscaped median along the road or to create a designated separate road for residential traffic from other passing vehicles.

Greenstein blasted the town board for how local business is handled now.

“And hanging our banners that say 'shop local' – that was nice of you, but then going and building 15 chain stores doesn't help our downtown merchants, which are going to get destroyed by this development.”

Greenstein also criticized the board for the proposed master plan amendments being considered before a comprehensive update is done.

Councilman Jason Chapin took issue with Greenstein's remarks, responding that the plan does not include 15 chain stores for the site.

“I don't know where that number comes from," he said.

Chapin also noted, as an example of relations with the local business community, that the town board was responsive to merchants by postponing a major infrastructure upgrade to downtown Chappaqua, now slated for 2014, after hearing concerns.

Ken Rothenberg questioned whether another grocery store is needed, citing the proximity of A&P locations in Mount Kisco and Millwood and DeCicco's in Armonk.

“It think it's a mistake and if it fails, then what?"

There were two supporters who spoke, however.

One resident, a man who did not want to give his name but said he lives on Frog Rock Road, is in favor of the proposal and called felt that the term NIMBY (according to various websites, it means Not in My Backyard) applies to opponents. He also felt that downtown Chappaqua is already in decline, alluding to the construction of Seven Bridges Middle School years ago as a possible factor because he felt that it pulled away kids and adults from the hamlet.

Ken Shriber felt that there is a “golden opportunity” to do something like the plan. He felt that a new retail center could draw in people and be helpful to nearby merchants. He also felt that traffic can be addressed, such as with limiting truck activity.

Stormwater Slows Down Timeline

A timeline once considered to be close to a conclusion now appears much less so.

The board voted to adjourn the hearings to Sept. 3 and is still waiting for review of how Summit/Greenfield will handle stormwater pollution.

Earlier this month, Smith outlined a tentative timeline for the town board in which action could be taken at the Tuesday meeting on the project's final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS), and with a possible Aug. 13 vote on the rezoning and master plan legislation. However, when asked about his comments by Patch on Monday, Smith felt that it was unlikely at vote would be taken then because of the stormwater issue.

Three entities, Riverkeeper, New York City's Department of Environmental Proection and an inspector general, each wrote back with concerns about how the issued will be handled and Summit/Greenfield's responses had not been in the town's possession as of Monday, Smith said.

At the Tuesday meeting, developer attorney John Marwell said that a response had been submitted to the town. He also noted that his client is in touch with planning firm AKRF, which will be doing review work for the issue.

Going forward, AKRF will review Summit/Greenfield's latest work and discuss what changes may be made, if any, Smith explained. Summit/Greenfield would then submit something to the town again, which AKRF would comment on, he added. Eventually, the intent would be for the town board to accept something for inclusion in the FSEIS, which must be adopted and followed up after several days with a findings statement to end the environmental review before action can be taken on the rezoning and master plan changes.

AKRF recently conducted a market study for the town board to examine potential competition between Chappaqua Crossing retail and other hamlets. It found that the proposal, including limits on small storefronts, could be complimentary.

Chapin addressed AKRF's report in comments near the beginning of the meeting.

“Overall the report addresses many of my concerns about the hamlets. It also reinforces the need for certain restrictions or conditions related to retail at Chappaqua Crossing," he said. "Aside from the report, I still need to be convinced that traffic, neighborhood and environmental issues will be mitigated before I can support the proposal.”

For Greenstein, the findings did not change his mind about the project, and he was skeptical of its conclusion regarding competition.