Chap Crossing Retail Plan Slammed by Residents

Residents blasted a proposed retail and grocery store plan for Chappaqua Crossing at Tuesday night’s packed New Castle Town Board meeting, when several concurrent public hearings for it were held.

The proposal, which includes 120,000 square feet of retail space anchored by a grocery store of 36,000 to 66,000, was met with the same concerns from residents that were given in meetings last year. They included fear of more traffic, creating a new business district and adversely impacting the town’s character. Out of those who spoke, nobody gave support for the plan.

“This is not what the town wants,” said Brian Rattner. He added, “If this is what the town wanted it wouldn't be 100-plus people sitting here, fearful of what's going to happen to Chappaqua, wondering 'Do I sell my house now or do I wait a few years?’”

The meeting included four concurrent public hearings for the proposal: rezoning legislation to enable the project, Summit/Greenfield’s petition for its specific plan, a review study called a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (DSEIS), and amendments to the town’s master plan that would remove language discouraging certain business development beyond the Chappaqua and Millwood hamlets.

Before public comment, the meeting included remarks from John Marwell, Summit/Greenfield's attorney, and Andrew Tung, the developer's project planner. Both noted that Summit/Greenfield has heard from prospective tenants for the project, and gave summaries of the proposal, which includes taking the historic cupola building and adapting is first two floors for the grocery store. The project also involves replacing and adjacent building and connecting it to the cupola structure, and in building ancillary retail along the southern section of the site.

The grocery idea, which came last fall from site owner Summit/Greenfield and was in response to a similar version proposed by the town board months earlier, is a reaction to the 2011 closure of D’Agostino, which left Chappaqua without a major supermarket. However, several residents questions whether there is even a need for one, noting that there are places available through short drives to nearby communities.

“If it takes 12 minutes [to get to a grocery store], i'm okay with it,” said Stanley Wong.

“We're a small hamlet,” said Amy Pappas. “We already have 8 supermarkets. The thought of putting in another supermarket is ridiculous and it's not what the residents of New Castle want.”

“We don't need another grocery store,” said Roger Lieblich, adding that there are places to go to in Mount Kisco and Pleasantville.

Lisa Katz, among the most adamant opponents, noted that a 2011 petition in connection with the D’Agostino departure had to do with filling its retail space, which is now being occupied by Walgreens, and not something along the lines of Chappaqua Crossing.

“I have a residential home,” she said. “If I decided that I wanted to put an A&P on my front lawn, you wouldn't let me do that because I'm not zoned for that.”

Traffic, whether fear of an increase or safety, was a major concern from several speakers.

Scott Rose said that the area near the site is “packed with cars,” highlighting arrival and dismissal times at Horace Greeley High School, which is across a street from the campus, and during rush hour. He asked what sort of analysis has been done for traffic impact and what is proposed to be done about it.

“Major, major traffic determinations need to be made.”

Jeff Dorst worried about the traffic impact on Route 117, noting that it will be the only roadway a truck can use. Dorst, who is also a Greeley graduate, worried that students crossing from the high school to the site - a T-shaped intersection is proposed between the two campuses through realigning an existing access drive to the school’s entrance way - and whether they would obey the traffic controls, calling the ages of 15 to 25 the “stupid years.”

The existing volume of traffic was described in the context of the proposal.

Robert Bowen, who lives on Roaring Brook Road and between Greeley and Chappaqua Crossing, quipped that the only time he could not get to a grocery store in 10 minutes “would be during those peak traffic periods.”

Concern about the plan resulting in a third hamlet, in addition to Chappaqua and Millwood, has been a major point from local opposition and the meeting was no different.

Rob Greenstein, a co-founder of the Chappaqua-Millwood Chamber of Commerce, read a statement on the group’s behalf. He spoke against the proposed master plan amendments, arguing that they bypass a process that’s in the works now for a broader master plan update.

“This is not about competition,” he said. This is about creating a third business district, a third business district that is in direct contradiction to the existing master plan.”

Greenstein also suggested putting the idea of a third district on the ballot for a public referendum.

Speaking for himself later in the meeting, Greenstein, who has long been a vocal critic of Summit/Greenfield, suggested that the developer was trying to get a zoning change to recoup its initial investment in the property, referencing its 2004 purchase of the campus from Reader’s Digest.

“What you're doing, which is incredibly obvious to everybody, is you're holding the property hostage,” Greenstein said, arguing that the developer is denying the town more commercial property tax revenue unless it gets the zoning that it wants.

During his overview talk, Tung cited a that was done for Summit/Greenfield. The study, which was submitted with a revised DSEIS version in February, argues that the proposal would not directly compete with the downtowns of Chappaqua and Millwood, citing square footage size differences.

Before the comments, town councilmen Jason Chapin and John Buckley spoke up, stating their openness to the process. Chapin, while acknowledging the nature of the site, also suggested in general a need to do something with it.

“As I consider this proposal, I understand that it is controversial. I also know that Chappaqua Crossing is our largest remaining single commercial property and the tax revenue from the site is way down because 522,000 of the 662,000 square feet of office space, or 79 percent, is unused and some would say obsolete.”

Chapin also addressed scenarios asked about locally, such as moving town hall and the police station to the site or whether another large company like Reader’s Digest would move in. For transferring town services to the site, he kept an open mind, provided that the costs are not “prohibitive,” that a “fair transaction” can be done and that it made for better opportunities in the Chappaqua hamlet. In a similar scenario, where the town hall site would be developed into a grocery store, Chapin argued that it is too small and that downtown Chappaqua could not handle the extra traffic and parking requirements. With regards to another company moving to Chappaqua Crossing, he stated that there isn’t good demand for older office space that can’t easily be retrofitted.

Buckley emphatically denied that the proposal was a done deal.

“I look forward to tonight's process and I have not made up my mind.”

Some residents, however, remained cynical.

Rattner, for example, felt like a decision has already been made, while resident Victor Siber noted the fact that a legal settlement between the town and Summit/Greenfield contained a specific timeline for review and approval of a retail proposal.

The settlement, announced in December, involved the developer suspending federal and state lawsuits that it filed in 2011 over the town’s review of its earlier rezoning request to build condos and townhouses. The town board, in April 2011, only approved 111 out of 199 units that were requested. In the settlement, Summit/Greenfield agreed to suspend the lawsuits and drop them if it gets requisite town approvals for the retail plan, with a specific timeline, or “milestones” being followed in the process.

Cindy Lupica, a resident and owner of downtown shop Marmalade, felt that the town, in general is not responsive.

“It does feel like you're not working for us.”

The atmosphere seemed tense at multiple times. The most notable example came when Robin Murphy asked Town Attorney Clinton Smith what the process for having a public referendum would be. Smith did not speak after the question was asked, and Supervisor Susan Carpenter moved on to the next speaker, prompting shouts from the audience demanding an answer. After the meeting, Smith told Patch that he wants to be sure what the answer for the process is, which is why he did not provide one immediately.

Some opponents focused on finding something else for the site.

Judy Siber stated a list of her ideas, ranging from an ice skating rink to a rock climbing place. Rob Fleisher, who raised the possibility of tax assessment challenges coming in reaction to the plan, suggested that there is still time to work on an alternative.

“There's still time for meaningful conversation.”

Reached for comment on Wednesday, Summit/Greenfield spokesman Geoff Thompson gave the following statement:

"The public hearings offer an opportunity for all town residents to have input in the environmental review process. We’ve presented a carefully thought and eminently workable plan that will generate much-needed new tax revenues for the town and school district, enable town residents to shop locally and that will strengthen the economic viability of Chappaqua Crossing.  Public comment is an important part of the review."     

After the hearings ran for more than two hours, they were adjourned to April 29, when they will resume at 1:30 p.m. at New Castle Town Hall in Chappaqua. The town board has also reserved time on April 30 for a possible third meeting for the hearings.

To read more about the project, click here for a copy of the DSEIS, which is on the town's website.