No. Greeley Developer Calls on New Castle Planning Member to Resign

A principal for the development team hoping to build a proposed carbon-neutral building in downtown Chappaqua called on a New Castle Planning Board member to resign for writing an op-ed last month criticizing the project.

Jeffrey Davis, one of the representatives for 50 N. Greeley Ave., said during last week’s resumption of the public hearing on the proposed zoning legislation that longtime Planning Board member Tom Curley should step down after writing the piece in the July 25-31 issue of The Examiner. It also appears on this newspaper’s website.

Titled “Zoning Discussion of Chappaqua’s 50 North Greeley Ave. in Need of a Reset,” the column characterized the plan as “overly aggressive” for proposing 50 units for an acre and without enough benefit for the public interest. He appealed to the Town Board to weigh more than just this one property when considering the special permit legislation.

“The Town Board, on track to approve this (zoning) proposal, is supporting a false perception: either we accept this invasive plan, or nothing gets built,” Curley wrote in one passage.

Davis sat through another session where most residents who spoke criticized the project for being too large and out of character with the hamlet, including one speaker who referred to the column. He said it was inappropriate for Curley, who he did not mention by name, to publicly come out against the proposal.

“When somebody goes and writes something in a public paper against the project, they shouldn’t be on a Planning Board or on any board voting or opining about work in town,” Davis said.

Councilwoman Victoria Tipp quickly interceded and told Davis to stay on point.

“You’re asking us for a special permit, I don’t think you should be opining on our volunteers,” Tipp said. “I think that’s inappropriate.”

Davis then questioned how the application could be fairly evaluated by the Planning Board if the matter gets to site plan review.

“You can write in a paper against it and sit in a position (on the board)?” he asked.

Councilman Jeremy Saland responded that Curley had the right to weigh in, but that the matter before the Town Board was the rezoning request and special permit legislation.

Curley said afterward that he wrestled with whether to write the op-ed but believed it was fine for him to weigh in as a resident because there is no application for the mixed-use project before the Planning Board. What is currently being considered is a zoning change by the Town Board.

Had the matter been before the Planning Board, Curley said he never would have submitted his piece, because members are then required to withhold judgment until all information has been received.

“The difference is that this is not an application before the Planning Board; it’s not even an application before the Town Board for a building permit,” said Curley, who has served on the Planning Board for more than 20 years over two separate stints. “It’s a petition for a zoning change and that, I believe, puts it in a whole different category with respect to people, officials able to comment on the motion before the Town Board, or the matter before the Town Board as a zoning change.”

Regardless of whether anyone agrees with Curley’s take, Councilwoman Ally Chemtob defended him “as a valuable member of our community,” and characterized the discussion as off-topic.

“He has served on the Planning Board for a long time,” Chemtob said. “Not everyone here is going to agree with his opinions; he’s certainly entitled to have them, and I don’t think we’re in a position right now to litigate whether he’s allowed to say what he wants to say. I’m glad that he shared his opinions.”

The Town Board is expected to discuss the proposal again in a Sept. 5 work session, then could close the hearing on the rezone the following week.

Before the end of the session, Director of Planning Sabrina Charney Hull said that her office has received all of the information necessary to write the environmental analysis, the bulk of which was expected to be provided to Town Attorney Edward Phillips by the end of last week.

Hull said she would still have some more work to do, but would likely get that analysis to the Town Board to review this month. The board must decide whether to issue a negative or positive declaration, or a negative declaration with conditions, under the state Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) regarding impacts, she said. A negative declaration would mean the project would have no significant adverse environmental impacts.

As last proposed, the project would feature 50 apartments, including 21 one- and two-bedroom units each and eight studios. There would be more than 6,000 square feet of retail space on the ground floor.

The mass timber construction of the building would provide for a building that would have no emissions.