Developer Presses for 278 Condo Units Plus Unlimited Number of Commercial Tenants
CLICK "Say NO to the proposal" to see the petition, then "CONTACT US" TO SIGN OUR ONLINE PETITION. KEEP UP TO DATE.
Update March 11, 2008: The scoping document (a list of concerns and questions about the devleoper's proposal) has been adopted by the Town Board in a 4-1 vote. Now it's up to the developer to respond to the list of questions about the potential impact of his proposal for redevelopment of the RD site. That document will come back to the Town Board as a "Draft Environmental Impact Statement." It's the Board's job to decide whether that document satisfactorily answers its questions and concerns about the project. This could take several months. We'll update you when we hear. In the meantime, here are some links to the scoping document and articles about the matter:
Pre-February 2008 History:
The developer is sending out glossy brochures full of rosy claims about the benefits to our town if we'll grant him the enormous gift of rezoning. He'd like help from each of us to make his plans for a third hamlet -- complete with apartment buildings, townhouses and an unlimited number of commercial tenants (plus the traffic and increase in town services that come with it) -- a reality. He has people working full time to press his interests; we have our Town Board, Planning Board, Zoning Board and the New York State Environmental Review Act of 1975 to protect out town's interest. Whatever we allow at the Reader's Digest property has to benefit New Castle, not harm it.
The developer has no "right" to the zoning change he's pushing for.
Scoping Sessions = Comments from New Castle residents on the impacts of the plan proposed by Summit Greenfield -- including alternatives to the proposed plan.
In the scoping sessions, we're not saddled with just the developer's idea of what should happen at Reader's Digest. An entire RANGE of alternatives is to be considered -- right down to "do nothing," or "no build."
Come to the sessions. It won't be boring.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008 from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
and that same night at 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
AND
Tuesday, January 22, 2008 from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
Whether you are for or against the developer's proposed redevelopment plan, write the Board at to let them know how you feel. The more they know about how people feel, the better the decision they will make.
At the Town Board meeting Nov 27, the TB made a "positive declaration," the equivalent of the TB saying "Yes, the potential impacts of this proposal are serious enough to warrant SEQRA process" -- See menu for SEQRA explanation. What does this mean? It means that the "scoping period" clock has started ticking. The period usually lasts 60 days, but the TB asked for a 30-day extension because of adverse impacts to our holidays.
The TB will set dates for "scoping sessions" (like hearings) during which residents are invited to add their comments to the list of community and environmental conditions which may be adversely affected by the proposed development scheme. Watch for these dates to be advertised here and elsewhere.
In the meantime, write to the TB -- they want to hear from us. Whether you are for the project or against it -- write.
is the special website dedicated to correspondance on this issue.
COME TO PLANNING BOARD MEETING TUES NOV 20 AT 7:00 P.M. The developer has been taking his infomercial all around town trying to persuade residents and organizations that his plan for high density commercial AND high density residential development of the RD property will benefit New Castle.
He’s sent another glossy spin-mailing on the subject of the enforceability of 55+ and no-kids housing, and promises other “updates” on “Chappaqua Crossing.” What he never mentions in the brochure is that besides the 278 condo units, he’s also pressing for an unlimited number of commercial tenants.He’s now permitted up to four – a change he asked for himself.
On Friday, in an email to residents, the developer asked supporters to show up at the Planning Board’s meeting of Tuesday, November 20, 2007, when the PB will discuss “Chappaqua Crossing” as its first agenda item, at 7:00 p.m.If the developer is going to be there, we should be, too.We don’t want to take over the Planning Board’s meeting.They need to discuss the RD matter and make recommendations to the Town Board by mid-December.But if the developer is turning out supporters, we must too.
The zoning is our protection.Once it goes, it’s gone – and anything can happen, anywhere.
READ ABOUT THE ISSUES.
Then, if you agree with us that the developer's current proposal is not the right one for our town, sign our online petition by sending us an email through "Contact Us" on the menu at left. Please peruse this home page for history and documents.
Update Oct 12, 2007: The Zoning Board "hearing" to which we invited residents to come voice their opinions was -- it turned out -- not really a "hearing," but rather an "informal hearing." The notice was sent to nearby neighbors by S/G, telling them that (as we reported below) "Persons interested will be heard for and against said application..."
But of course the Zoning Board knows that while the Town Board is "lead agency" on this application, the ZB has no power to decide now whether S/G should receive a zoning variance to permit an unlimited number of business tenants in the business space. Accordingly, the ZB adjourned the meeting after a brief presentation of its proposal by S/G.
Residents who attended were puzzled by the ZB's decision to allow S/G to speak "for" its own proposal while residents were prevented from speaking at all, even if it was an "informal" hearing. Thanks to all who came that night, rearranging work and home life -- and dinner -- to attend.
* * *
S/G is going ahead with this request for a zoning change regardless of what happens with the residential side of its plan – and without our knowing whether the commercial square footage would be 520,000, or 700,000, or 1 million square feet.
It's premature and dangerous for our Zoning Board to consider granting such a variance at this point, before the community knows of S/G's plan in its entirety. The residential AND the business pieces of the plan will go through a long and detailed process before our Town Board, and should be considered as one whole plan, at that time.
OUCH! S/G's "Two-Pronged" Plan for Overdevelopment of RD Property.
A Plan in Which "More Is More”
September 19, 2007: Last night's crowd heard Summit/Greenfield's "two-pronged" plan for redevelopment of the Digest property that has many more damaging points than two –
"Prong" # 1: 278 residential units, and
"Prong" # 2:No limit on the number of business tenants.Right now the zoning allows one tenant over 200,000 sq ft and 3 tenants aggregating not more than 171,000 sq ft. So if Reader’s Digest has 265,000 sq ft (and they have now added “Weekly Reader” as an additional tenant) and the Secret Service has 10,000 sq ft, then S/G has 161,000 sq ft that’s leaseable to 2 tenants.
The fleet of lawyers, engineers and publicists that accompanied S/G last night (they've hired more -- and different -- lawyers this time) did little more than regurgitate what was in the filed plans (see links to plans in this page, below). S/G's lawyers seemed to discern some basis in our town's 1989 Master Plan for this massive proposal, though it's hard to believe this is what the framers had in mind.
S/G's lawyers also took a pretty dim (and inaccurate) view of New Castle's affordable housing achievements -- but emphasized their eagerness to help our town improve in this area. The affordable component looks good -- much better, in fact, than the 222 market-rate units the developer wants to squeeze onto the property along with them.
Town Board and Planning Board members asked probing questions about sewers, density, age-restrictions, effect on schools, wetlands location and corrected S/G on New Castle's number of affordable dwellings. Critical questions -- like how many new employees -- S/G dodged entirely. We do know that they think they need to “encourage” use of jitneys and staggered arrival/departure hours for workers. It was clear that they don't have enough parking. If parking is 4 spaces per 1000 feet, assuming each employee occupies 250 feet, and further assuming 520,000 square feet of office space, S/G is woefully short of parking.
In addition, with the 278 residential units we would have an additional 400 cars passing in and out, assuming that every residential occupant owns 1.5 cars (if two cars each, then 550 cars) – plus visitors’ cars.
"Prong # 2" -- the zoning variance -- is scheduled for presentation before the Zoning Board of Appeals next Wednesday, Sept 26th.
Why a zoning variance? Remember when the Town Board rejected his first residential proposal on December 12, 2006, and Mr. Charney answered the Board that commercial rental was S/G’s specialty and that he could and would certainly go rent up the space?Well, it seems he has discovered since December 12, 2006 that the market has changed, and that large corporate tenants are hard to come by.
What S/G hasn’t emphasized yet is that they’ve said they mean to go forward with the variance with or without the residential component.
So think of it this way. Forget about “Prong # 1” for a moment. Just think about the “Prong # 2” variance. An unlimited number of tenants on the site means tremendous traffic, whether they are talking about residential and employee traffic for the 520,000 sq ft of office space (as in “Prong # 1” ), or employee traffic for the 700,000 existing sq ft of office space, or employee traffic for the 1 million sq ft “total developable.”
Whether the two "prongs" are taken together or separately -- ouch! -- the plan is an enormous overdevelopment, setting a dangerous density precedent for New Castle. At the close of the meeting, the Planning Board Chairman reminded residents again that all parts (or "prongs") of the plan will be brought into one viewable whole during our examination of it under the New York State’s Environmental Quality Review Act, which also requires the developer to detail multiple alternative plans to the current "two-pronged" one.
Journal News Report:
READER'S DIGEST DEVELOPERS PRESENT NEW PLANS
By ELIZABETH GANGA THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: September 19, 2007) NEW CASTLE - The new developers of the Reader's Digest property came back to the town last night to start another round in the search of approvals for a major residential development on the green corporate campus.
The developers, Summit Development and Greenfield Partners of Norwalk, Conn., presented new, smaller plans to replace a proposal that the town rejected in December. Despite the changes, the developers still have an uphill battle convincing nearby residents that they should be allowed to build condominiums and townhouses on the slopes surrounding the landmark office building on Bedford Road. There was an outpouring of opposition to the earlier plans.
Don Leitch, who lives on Cowdin Lane bordering the campus, said his neighbors' property values have already fallen and his main concern is the view of the new construction from his and his neighbors' homes.
"There's no house more impacted by this project than myself," he told town officials, pointing to his house on a rendering of the plans for the development, called Chappaqua Crossing.
But some residents came to lend their support.
"I think this is a project that could satisfy a very important housing need in the town of New Castle," Donald Weisstuch, a 35-year resident of the town and a former Planning Board member, said after the meeting. "The town is graying. It's getting older."
Weisstuch said he moved into the town when his children were in school and he would like to stay by moving into a community like the one proposed for Reader's Digest.
In the presentation to last night's joint meeting of the Town Board and the Planning Board, the developers' representatives argued that the new plans satisfy many concerns raised earlier and would provide benefits to the town, including more tax revenue and some affordable housing.
The earlier plans, rejected in December by the Town Board, included 348 condominiums in townhouses and low- and mid-rise buildings designed for active seniors.
In July, the developers presented plans to build 278 units in eight three-story buildings and 44 townhouses. Most would be market-rated housing for seniors with a ban on children. But 32 would be designated affordable for families and 24 affordable for senior citizens.
Instead of asking the town to adopt a newly written zone for the housing and commercial uses, the developers are asking the town to rezone 64 acres of the 120-acre campus to a multifamily district already on the books. They are already working with the town's Zoning Board on their application to allow an unlimited number of tenants in the office building. Reader's Digest still leases a chunk of the building, but the developers have had trouble finding another large company to take the rest of the space.
Only four tenants are allowed in the historic and well-appointed office building now, and the developers have applied for a zoning variance to allow more.
New Castle for Responsible Development, an organization formed to fight the earlier plans, has again been organizing residents to pressure the town to reject the plans. They say on their Web site, www.NewCastleRD.org, that the new plans are worse than the earlier ones, larger plans.
The Town Board organized last night's presentation as it considered referring the rezoning application to the Planning Board and starting the environmental review process.
Reach Elizabeth Ganga at or 914-666-6482.
Tuesday September 18 at 7:00 pm.
Come to this joint meeting at which Summit/Greenfield will present its two-part plan for redevelopment at RD: 278 residential units and UNLIMITED number of business/commerical tenants -- a worse plan than the last.
SHOW THE DEVELOPER WE'RE WATCHING.
WHATEVER HAPPENS AT THE RD PROPERTY MUST BE A BENEFIT TO NEW CASTLE.
On a separate track, independently of the residential piece, S/G is pursuing a variance to lift all restrictions on the number of business tenants allowed at Reader's Digest. The limit is now four large tenants (besides RD). They want "unlimited."
A few days ago, New Castle for Responsible Development learned that Summit/Greenfield had in fact applied to the Zoning Board for a variance to effectuate the other, commerical part of its plan to redevelop the RD property: they're asking the the 4-tenant restriction be lifted so that they may rent the office space to an unlimited number of business/commerical tenants.
If you look at their application (below), you'll see that the traffic study Summit/Greenfield offers is an old one, from 2005, and addresses only an additional 151,000 sq ft of office space. They are talking about much more than that in this application to the Zoning Board. They have already leased 265,000 sq ft and want to lease up the balance, whether 520,000 sq ft or 700,000 sq ft...
...SO MUCH TRAFFIC THAT THEY SAY THEY WILL NEED JITNEYS AND WILL HAVE TO "ENCOURAGE" EMPLOYEES TO ADOPT STAGGERED WORK HOURS.
S/G will meet with our Zoning Board on Wednesday, September 26. Details (including time) to follow.
August 15, 2007: Last night, the Town Board voted to designate itself as "lead agency" in any environmental review process of the application submitted by developer Summit Greenfield. The Board declined to refer the developer's latest application to the Planning Board for review until the TB is able to review the applicant's answers to a series of questions submitted to it by the Planning Board’s consultants, Joanne Meder.
After reading about the developer’s plans for New Castle (see below), if you agree with us that rezoning -- for 8 apartment buildings and unlimited commercial use of the business space at Reader’s Digest -- is not beneficial to our town, click “Say No to Proposal” (at left) and sign with us.
And write to our representatives: the Board now has a special e-mail address for the purpose of commenting on the developer's application to rezone.
All five Board members will get your e-mail when you use this address:
And copy us on your e-mail if you want:
A massive redevelopment plan for the Reader’s Digest property was presented to our Town Board last month.
The developer's back – with a worse plan.
This one calls not only for high-density residential development (8 apartment buildings plus dozens of townhouses) but also for unlimited, unrestricted business use of the property (the zoning now limits him to four). See below: "What the Developer Hasn't Told You."
This is a blueprint for overburdening our infrastructure – roads, parking, train parking, schools -- and irreparably changing our town.
This time the developer wants not only high-density residential development (namely, 8 apartment buildings plus dozens of townhouses). The developer is also looking for unlimited, unrestricted business use of the property (the zoning now limits him to four). See below: "What the Developer Hasn't Told You."
___________________________ You can read the application on the developer's website in PDF by clicking on the following link:
"New Castle for Responsible Development" procured copies of the application and its exhibits so that you can see them for yourself (beware: they're very big files):
Section 1 (38 kb) Letter to Town Board of New Castle from developer's lawyers dated July 10, 2007
Section 2 (686 kb) "Verified Petition" to Establishment a Multi-Family Planned Development District
Section 4 (5 mb) Some very BIG maps of the property showing proposed residential use of it.
What the developer hasn’t told you. The part you’ll hear about from the developer is that the number of residential units has decreased from 348 to 278, all of them age-restricted except for fifty-six which are “affordable.” Sure, affordable housing is appealing-- but it’s just a piece of a larger plan that in its entirety is bad for our town.
This plan calls not only for high-density residential development (8 apartment buildings of three stories, plus dozens of townhouses). The developer is also looking for unlimited, unrestricted business use of the property, making this plan worse than the last: 520,000 square feet of commercial space, rezoned for unlimited multiple users, the use of the entrance off Bedford Road as the principal entrance for thousands of office and residential tenants. Where else in New Castle do we have apartment buildings? Where else will a developer want to build apartment buildings? We New Castle residents like our overdevelopment one house at a time, thank you.
“Double the current tax revenue generated from the property”?
The developer tells us that this plan means more dollars in New Castle’s tax coffers. How much more? If the developer “doubled the current tax revenue” their tax contribution would amount to about 1% of our town’s total tax revenues. What the developer hasn’t said is how much this small increase in tax revenue will cost us.
The 278 condominium units will pay about one-half the property taxes of a comparably-priced single-family house – but they will fully utilize town services and fully contribute to increased traffic, parking and school crowding.
The unlimited number of business tenants will also utilize town services and contribute to increased traffic and parking problems. But more than that, they’ll do it at one of our Town’s most crowded and difficult intersections, and right across the street from our high school – which raises all kinds of safety issues for our pedestrian children.
In the end, we’ll keep far less than the 1% extra he claims he'll contribute in taxes – it might even cost us money. It will definitely cost us in quality-of-life -- we’ll be left to live with the traffic, parking and school crowding problems. If the developer succeeds in getting these two zoning changes, our town will be forever changed for the worse. The “increased revenues” developer’s so eager to tell us about will end up decreasing our quality of life -- and anything that decreases our quality of life will eventually lead to a decrease in our property values.
No, thanks. Smarter for us to stick with the zoning we have in place, the zoning the developer knew came with the property: Business, with up to four tenants – not the “unlimited” number their plan assumes.
Zoning change = multi-million dollar gift to the developer.
If the zoning of the RD property had allowed for high-density residential and unlimited commercial, the developer would have paid millions more for it than he did. He bought the property knowing the zoning didn’t allow what he intended to do. In effect, he’s now saying, “I want you people of New Castle to change my zoning so that my asset becomes far more valuable for me.” Why? So he can make lots of money. We don’t have a problem with the developer making money -- but not at our expense.
He can work within the present zoning and turn a profit. We have no duty to help him make a killing, leaving our town less valuable.
Don’t feel bad for the developer.
The developer is a large, sophisticated company that is part of a conglomerate managing more than $4 billion in real estate, and has been in the business for a long time. They knew they were going to have to get a zoning change to make a big profit on this project. They knew that when they purchased the property. (And remember: they’ve already got one zoning change.) They won’t be in financial hardship if they don’t get another zoning change. The Reader’s Digest Corporation signed a long-term lease and will generate revenue for the developer for years to come.
Last time, before we knew what was going on…
…the developer had built momentum and it took us a full year of sustained effort before our Board finally rejected the plan. The developer has come out with the literature again this time -- a little less fancy (this time a post card) but even more premature -- advertising “Chappaqua Crossing” as something all about “community” and “age restriction” (still with no guarantee that it’s enforceable), “open space” and “traffic improvements” -- nothing in the post card about its being situated in a business park with unlimited business and commercial tenants.
This current proposal – only half the story, the “residential” part -- no more comports with our town’s Master Plan than the last proposal by Summit Greenfield. The property is not zoned for the residential and unlimited business uses he wants.
The reasons our Town Board gave for rejecting the last plan are the very reasons Board members should reject this new, worse, plan: We are unwilling to turn the value of our town and its character into money in his pocket.
We have the ability to stop this project sooner this time. Please sign our online petition and write to the Town Board.
Their special e-mail address for this project is .
Write them -- and copy us at .
Newspaper Coverage of RD Controversy
Plan for Reader's Digest property shrinks By ELIZABETH GANGA THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: July 12, 2007) NEW CASTLE - The Connecticut developers that bought the Reader's Digest property at the end of 2004 have submitted a scaled-down plan for condos and townhouses on the property.
An earlier plan for 348 condos for wealthy seniors filling in some of the green hills and parking lots around the landmark office building was rejected by the town late last year after a blizzard of opposition from neighbors. Summit Development and Greenfield Partners of Norwalk, Conn., submitted the revised plans for the 114 acres to the Town Board on Tuesday after months of speculation about when the developers would come back.
The new plans include a smaller number of units - 278 instead of 348 - and other changes to sweeten the deal for the town. The new housing would include 32 affordable condos for families and 24 affordable units for senior citizens, and the developers are also offering to donate 2 acres along Roaring Brook Road to the town.
Children would be banned from living in the senior units, an effort to address worries that children would overwhelm local schools.
"We have listened carefully to the many ideas and comments that have come from town officials, the general public and neighbors," said Felix Charney, president of Summit Development, in a statement. The developers argue the new housing would meet demand for senior units, help the town meet its affordable housing goals and increase tax revenue.
At the same time, the new plans call for the demolition of the Bedford Valley House and an auditorium that has been used for community events, including performances by the Chappaqua Orchestra. That would make way for more townhouses east of the office building, which allows for the elimination of buildings along Roaring Brook Road and for the tallest buildings to shrink from five stories to three. The auditorium was earlier touted as an amenity for new office tenants.
Part of the office building would also be razed. Reader's Digest, which has downsized considerably since it filled the buildings a few decades ago, still rents part of the building and the owners want to rent the rest of the space to other businesses.
New Castle Supervisor Janet Wells said yesterday that she hadn't had a chance to look at the new proposal and couldn't give an opinion. But neighbors who opposed the earlier plans said these were not different enough to resolve their concerns about traffic, water runoff, schoolchildren and the loss of open space.
"All the things that we were concerned about still stand," said Laurie Hamburg, who lives nearby and helped organize opposition to the earlier plans through an organization and Web site called NewCastleRD.org.
Hamburg said the developers seemed to have started large and shaved down the plans a bit to test what the town will accept. She was also upset that the town didn't notify neighbors that the new plans would be submitted at Tuesday's meeting. The town only had several hours' notice.
Wells said they didn't miss out on anything because there was no presentation.
But John Ehrlich, another neighbor, said the room would have been full if people had known anything would be happening with the Reader's Digest property. Even without that, the news was spreading quickly, he said.
"The board simply has to say we're not going to rezone this," he said.
Summit and Greenfield are asking for a zoning change for 64 acres to a multifamily district already on the books, and for a variance to allow more businesses in the office building alongside Reader's Digest. The current limit is four.
The Town Board's first step is to decide if the application is complete before referring it to the town Planning Board.
Reach Elizabeth Ganga at e This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it or 914-666-6482.
From Journal News Oct. 13, 2006:
Deadline extended for Reader's Digest 'scoping' documentBy Elizabeth Ganga The Journal News (Original Publication: October 12, 2006)
NEW CASTLE - The developers of the Reader's Digest property have agreed to give the town of New Castle more time to incorporate the comments from three hearings into a document that will guide the environmental study of the proposed condo project. The town now has until mid-December to adopt the "scoping" document. The deadline for written comments from the public was already extended to Oct. 13 from Oct. 6. For information on the proposal to build 348 condominiums for people 55 and older on the Digest corporate campus, go to www.town.new-castle.ny.us/ReadersDigestProperty.html.
From NY Times Westchester Section of Sunday Oct. 1, 2006:
Reader's Digest Neighbors Resist Change Westchester Weekly Desk By DAVID SCHARFENBERG
CHAPPAQUA, N.Y. -- PERCHED high above the Saw Mill River Parkway in this well-to-do hamlet, the Reader's Digest global headquarters look more like a college campus than a corporate nerve center.
Meadows, trees and pink flowers ring the property. And the company's original brick Georgian-style office building still stands on the western edge of the 120-acre campus, topped with a 32-foot-high white cupola visible from the parkway.
But almost two years after the Reader's Digest Association sold most of the property as part of a corporate restructuring and leased about a third of the office space back for its shrunken work force, neighbors are concerned that the serenity of the campus, and the town along with it, might soon be disturbed.
The owners of the property, Summit Development and Greenfield Partners of South Norwalk, Conn., asked the New Castle Town Board in March to approve a zoning change to build 348 luxury two- and three-bedroom condominiums for people 55 and older on the property. And resistance is mounting.
''This is really Chappaqua at the crossroads,'' said David Yeres, 58, a lawyer who lives down the street from the property. ''We are, at this point, deciding whether or not we are going to be a much higher-density community.''
Chappaqua has a population of about 9,500 [WRONG FIGURE: population is about 5600 households, between 17 and 18 thousand people, but 7% increase in next sentence is about right.]. The development could conceivably increase the number of residents by about 7 percent, assuming two people per unit.
Janet L. Wells, supervisor for the town of New Castle, which includes Chappaqua, said change seems inevitable at the Reader's Digest headquarters, which was built in 1939 and started a wave of corporate migration to Westchester. She said another developer who had an interest in the property said he wanted to build an assisted living center. Also, Reader's Digest looked into creating an office park on the site.
Ms. Wells said she was keenly aware of Chappaqua's devotion to its small-town feel. It was only last year that public opposition killed plans to erect a series of stoplights in the hamlet's quaint downtown.
''It's clear that the residents really don't like change,'' Ms. Wells said.
That was obvious on Tuesday night at the first major public meeting on the $200 million project. More than 200 residents packed the assembly room at Town Hall, raising concerns that included tax revenues and traffic. ''This is our town, and we will protect it,'' said Brian Rattner, 42, a lawyer.
Geoffrey Thompson, a spokesman for Summit and Greenfield, said they were going to great lengths to respect the character of the hamlet. If the condominiums are built, he said, the original office building will remain in place, cupola and all, and about 40 acres of open space will ring the property. And with the development open only to those 55 and older -- and with many residents expected to be in their 70's -- there should be no major surge in traffic during rush periods, Mr. Thompson said.
''We don't see this as a radical change that's going to turn a quiet community into some kind of bustling Midtown Manhattan,'' he said in a telephone interview.
Because the site is zoned for office space, Mr. Thompson said that if the housing plan was not approved, the developers would probably add about 300,000 square feet of office space to the existing 700,000 square feet. He said that if commercial tenants fully occupied the site, traffic would be worse than under the housing plan, especially during rush periods.
The condominium proposal has its supporters. Reader's Digest, though it has no financial stake in the project, has said it approves. And the developers said that several empty nesters from Chappaqua had already contacted them about buying condos, viewing the development, called Chappaqua Crossing, as a way to remain in the hamlet.
Photo: LANDMARK -- A plan to develop the building once owned by Reader's Digest would leave the original in place.
From NY Times Westchester Section Letters-to-the-Editor on Sunday Oct. 8, 2006:
Contentious Plan At Reader's Digest Sunday Oct. 8, 2006
To the Editor:
Having attended the meeting at New Castle Town Hall on Sept. 26, I was troubled by your Oct. 1 article ''Reader's Digest Neighbors Resist Change,'' about the proposed development at Reader's Digest headquarters in Chappaqua. Our community opposes this development for economic and practical reasons.
Summit Development and Greenfield Partners' proposed age limitation of 55 and over hardly ensures that there would be no school-age children living in Chappaqua Crossing. The potential influx of a large number of new students whose condominium-owning parents are paying considerably lower taxes could cripple our already stretched school budget.
In addition, Summit and Greenfield say that this development would not increase traffic in our congested town center because the residents will be old (55 is old?), and they will, in any case, be so wealthy that they will spend most of their time in their other homes (really?). We do not have enough seats on the train or parking spaces at the station for the residents who currently live here. Nor do we have the infrastructure to support this huge development.
Summit and Greenfield can attempt to portray this as a benefit to our community, but the facts prove them wrong.
Susan Wiseman
Mount Kisco
To the Editor:
The New Castle Town Board seems to be acting as agent for Summit Development rather than protecting the interests of residents and taxpayers. Scheduling a public meeting on a massive development scheme at the 11th hour is, itself, a form of facilitation.
You report that Reader's Digest ''has no financial stake in the project.'' Yet, it is contractually bound by the terms of the purchase agreement to ''cooperate with and support Purchaser's efforts to obtain Governmental Approvals for Purchaser's rezoning and redevelopment.'' Thus, it is vulnerable to liabilities if it does not. Moreover, if the rezoning is accomplished by a certain date, Reader's Digest stands to receive $1 million from Summit.
