A State Supreme Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Summit/Greenfield against the town of New Castle over the town”™s review of the proposed Chappaqua Crossing development on the former Reader”™s Digest site.
In late September, Judge Gerald Loehr dismissed Summit/Greenfield”™s claims that the town of New Castle”™s conduct has deprived them of making the property economically viable, calling the Southport, Conn.-based partnership”™s lawsuit premature.
“It is clear that Plaintiff (Summit/ Greenfield) has not been denied all uses of the property,” Loehr wrote in his ruling. “From the date Plaintiff acquired the property to the date it commenced this action, it was free to lease the commercial portion of the property and to develop the residential portion of the property.”
Summit/Greenfield, which filed the suit in February, has been at odds with the town since it purchased the 114-acre property for $59 million in December 2004, in an attempt to build 348 units of age-restricted condominium and townhouse units.
In 2010, Summit/Greenfield scaled down its plan to a 199-unit multifamily complex, though in April 2011 the town approved only 111 units, 20 of which are affordable housing.
Summit/Greenfield asked the town for a second six-month extension in the approval last week as it has not obtained site plan approval from the planning board. In approving Summit/Greenfield”™s plan, the town put a one-year cap with two six-month extensions permitted. The first extension expires Oct. 11.
In its lawsuit, Summit/Greenfield argued that the town”™s actions caused the property to be taken, that the town”™s zoning restrictions were irrational and nonsensical and it was pressured by New Castle residents who wanted to preserve the property as an “unusable icon” to protect the values of their multimillion-dollar homes.
Loehr argued that the case did not meet merits of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which governs issues like eminent domain. Loehr said that Summit/Greenfield knew that the property was already zoned and that they would have to get town approval for whatever they wanted to build.
“While the Defendant”™s conduct in refusing to approve what the Plaintiff has requested presumably reduced its value, it did not destroy its value as a whole,” Loehr wrote.
Geoff Thompson of Thompson & Bender, the public relations firm representing Summit/Greenfield, released a two-sentence statement about the ruling.
“We have reviewed the ruling and respectfully disagree with the judge”™s decision,” Thompson said. “We are reviewing our options.”
A federal lawsuit against the town is still pending and in the discovery phase.
Reader”™s Digest vacated the property in December 2010 and is now based in midtown Manhattan and downtown White Plains.
When New Castle and Summit/Greenfield weren”™t squabbling in court, they were also discussing a proposed local law to create an Office Park Retail Overlay District.
The law would permit a 50,000 to 60,000- square-foot supermarket with five retailers at 5,000 square feet each at Chappaqua Crossing.
Chappaqua has been without a supermarket since D”™Agostino closed in August 2011 when the company shut down its Westchester stores, forcing residents to travel to Millwood, Pleasantville or Mount Kisco to grocery shop.
No supermarkets have expressed interest in coming to Chappaqua since D”™Agostino closed, and the Chappaqua Crossing property would be one of the few spaces in Chappaqua large enough for a supermarket. D”™Agostino was 13,000 square feet.
While Summit/Greenfield has no official proposal on the horizon, it said it”™s were working on a conceptual plan.
“We hope to have that as soon as possible,” Thompson said. “We think it is a viable use for the property.”
Supporters say that a supermarket would provide a service that residents are lacking, while increasing the town”™s tax base.
“Summit/Greenfield has supported in the past, and continues to support, efforts to increase the town”™s commercial tax base, as well as the financial viability of the property,” Thompson said. “We welcome the town board”™s stated desire to expand the potential uses at the site.”
Many residents oppose the rezoning, while the planning board expressed its reservations at an Oct. 2 meeting. Robert Greenstein, president of the Millwood/Chappaqua Chamber of Commerce and a vocal opponent of the project, called the town”™s plans shortsighted and that it would create a third business hamlet.
“There”™s no doubt people would like a new supermarket,” Greenstein said. “But no supermarket has said it wants 50,000 square feet of space, no supermarket asked for a zoning change.”
Residents like Greenstein fear the zoning change would turn the property into a strip mall.
“This would destroy downtown Chappaqua,” Greenstein said. “We need to build up critical mass. We need more retail in downtown. This would be the final nail in the coffin.”
Thompson declined to comment on the criticism.
