Chappaqua Crossing Suspends Lawsuit Against New Castle

  • Comments (6)
A lawsuit against the town has been suspended, pending a proposed petition for retail at Chappaqua Crossing.
A lawsuit against the town has been suspended, pending a proposed petition for retail at Chappaqua Crossing. Photo Credit: Provided

CHAPPAQUA, N.Y. ‒ Chappaqua Crossing's owners have agreed to suspend their lawsuit against the Town of New Castle pending the outcome of a proposed rezoning that would allow retail development on their 480 Bedford Road property.

Summit/Greenfield brought the suit against the town in April of 2011 and accused the Town Board of preventing development on its 114-acre property. The company petitioned to build 199 condos and townhouses, but was approved for only 111 units.

In March, however, the board initiated a proposal that would allow Summit/Greenfield to develop 120,000 square-feet of retail space on its site. Summit/Greenfield has agreed to dismiss its lawsuit if the zoning change is approved.

Under its agreement with the town, Summit/Greenfield reserves the right to resume litigation if the zoning petition is not approved.

In a written statement, the town board wanted to be clear that the agreement will not sway its decision on the proposal, and that it is not committing the board to approve Summit/Greenfield's petition.

"The Town Board and Planning Board will make decisions in the future about the petition and applications before them based on their assessment of what is best for the Town from a planning perspective ...," the statement said.

Also settled in the agreement was a counter-suit the town brought against Summit/Greenfield seeking approximately $1.5 million in unpaid review fees from the housing proposal. Summit/Greenfield agreed to pay the town $905,000 on or before Dec. 21, according to the settlement, and that agreement is not revocable.

The agreement does not settle tax certiorari claims made by Summit/Greenfield that its property is overvalued. That lawsuit will be litigated, or settled, separately.

"With the Town's review fees claim resolved, and with the prior litigations suspended and subject to dismissal, all parties, including the Town, Summit/Greenfield and the citizens of New Castle, will be able to focus on the current retail proposal for the site," the board's statement concluded.

  • 6

Comments (6)

Right on PK! Finally a voice of reason. Could not agree more. We should listen to any developer wanting to invest in our town, provide complimentary goods and services, and raise our tax base so that we don't fall off our own fiscal cliff. This does not mean we have to agree to what the developer proposes, but we should listen, understand, and try to work together to produce the best possible outcome in an informed and managed way.

thanks KNSHRIBER - perhaps you can submit other voice of reason comments on the other town blogs like NEwCastleNOw because as you can see they are dominated by a handful of loud and unreasonable folks that have monopolized the conversation. These are the same people that scared many by spreading lies about sewage treatment plants and big box stores coming to town. How can we have an open and intelligent dialogue if these people are hell bent on sabotaging any development at CC as they continue to undermine what could be a big positive for our community!

Bassett- it may be that our taxes will not be reduced but increased commercial and retail tax revenue will greatly contribute and certainly assist in holding the line on ever increasing taxes. We can not continue to fund our enormous school budget and fund the vital services our town provides us without an increasing tax base. Without additional tax revenues our taxes will certainly continue to spiral higher and out of control. We either will have to cut the school budget thereby compromising our students and school system or continue to cut library, police, dpw and other services our community relies on. Did you hear our CCSD School board at the most recent joint meeting with the Town Board. The made it very clear that they need more commercial/retail taxes coming in. To quote a school board member "we need it yesterday".
We can not continue to block every proposal from Summut Greenfield. They have a right to use their property and we as a community need the taxes (and it would be nice to have a supermarket and some other retail in our town). The Town Board understands this and they are merely trying to open up dialogue. Suspending litigation creates an atmosphere where we can all work together to find a solution. As we know for some (perhaps you) there will be no plan or solution that satisfies because NIMBY sentiment will prevail. The Town Board, Developer, and the rest of the community can not be held hostage to this sentiment.
If you have evidence and the statistics to support your claim that this development will not have any impact on our taxes I wish you would supply it. In the meantime I choose to support our Town Board , School Board, legal experts, on this matter.

The School Board, this one and previous ones are complicit in the tax situation that the town is in. They have done a poor job managing going back at least 15 years. If these boards had better managed their purview we would not be where we are. I speak as one who supports a strong school system.
The numbers are in the materials from the Town Board and were discussed in the last Planning Board meeting, no mystery.
This is solely about settling the suit and since it supports your , in my view very selfish interests that do not serve the town as a whole of course you are for it. What is clear from your contributions is that you with the exception of your personal wants regarding this discussion, do not know what you are talking about.

Tying the lawsuits to the rezoning outcome stinks.

Tina, you are so right. The secretive way that the Town Board has been conducting business is disgraceful.
Now what I see is that the town is being run by lawyers, not as representatives who were elected to serve their constituents , not by planners who do the work to understand what would be best for the town as a whole now and in the years to come, but by lawyers.
Anyone who thinks that this development will reduce their taxes is in error.