New Castle board approves modified development
The 113-acre Reader”™s Digest property in New Castle may have moved a big step closer to becoming a mixed-use development April 11.
With active lawsuits filed by the developer of the proposed Chappaqua Crossing against the town Feb. 25 ”“ and the developer tightlipped the morning after the town board approved a modified version of its plan ”“ nothing is a done deal.
When Summit Greenfield bought the Reader”™s Digest property in New Castle for $59 million five years ago, the original proposal was for 348 age-restricted townhouse and condo units. That plan morphed into a plat featuring 199 multifamily units. After the New Castle Town Board meeting of April 11 ”“ and the submission across the years of some 10,000 pages of environmental data ”“ that number had been reduced to 111 units. The board also took action to promote commercial enterprise on the parcel.
The units would break down as 60 townhouses and 51 condos of which 20 would be classified “affordable.”
If the board”™s move stanches the lawsuits brought by the developers against the town, it had not happened by the following morning. A spokesman for Summit Greenfield offered no comment, citing the legal action. The developers are arguing the town has, in effect, taken the property, citing “irrational and nonsensical” zoning requirements. The state and federal lawsuits are seeking compensation.
The town board, which is lead agency on the review, has divided the parcel into east and north plots, with the approved development clustered in the east and amended its stance on tenant restrictions.
“It was important for me to look at and weigh all of the studies in the FEIS (final environmental impact statement) as well as the financial impact this project would have both on the town and the school district,” said Supervisor Barbara Gerrard in a written statement issued after the meeting. “It is in that vein that I support the lifting of the tenant restrictions and related square footage requirements to help build up our fragile commercial base. And one of the reasons why I don”™t support the North Village as I feel it would hamper future commercial growth.
“To all of you who said ”˜no build,”™ I felt the analysis just did not support that position. To those of you who are concerned that by approving any part of this project would open up the flood gates of residential housing I suggest you look at the restrictive declaration found in paragraph three of the resolution adopting the concept plan ”¦ as well as the findings statement.
“For those of you who thought we were intimidated by a lawsuit, I assure you we were not. We knew it would be tough to please everyone.
“To those who felt our decision was politically motivated again I can say it was not. To those who felt affordable and diverse housing shouldn”™t be in Chappaqua I respectfully disagree. Our zoning must support a range of housing,” said Gerrard.
“For those of you who thought the developer was out to make as much money as possible, isn”™t that the capitalist way? Wouldn”™t you do the same if you owned the property?”
Regarding commercial space, Gerrard said, “If there were no commercial and it was all residential, there would be less traffic. But our investigation and review of the project”™s impacts must be tempered with all the considerations of what is best for the entire town and ”¦ our revenue from our small commercial base is too important for the town to put at risk. We need the revenue, and hope that the office space will be rented quickly.”
Gerrard also appealed to Summit Greenfield to reconsider its decision and allow the school district to park in its facilitie