New Castle Approves Updated Comprehensive Plan

After nearly five years of studies, outreach and debate, the New Castle Town Board unanimously approved its new Comprehensive Plan last Wednesday night, the first time in 28 years the town has updated the policy document.

The approval followed an hour of animated and sometimes contentious discussion among the board and some in the group of about 15 residents who attended the June 21 meeting.

Compromise language worked on by councilwomen Hala Makowska and Lisa Katz and Town Attorney Edward Phillips during the previous week sought to strengthen the goal of preserving the character of low-density residential areas by acknowledging the challenges of developing larger-scale projects in areas with little or no infrastructure. It hoped to balance that objective with one of the plan’s most critical goals of reinvigorating the downtown hamlets with the potential of offering more varied housing stock throughout the town.

Since before the five-session public hearing began in April and extended through last month, Makowska repeatedly battled Supervisor Robert Greenstein to ensure greater protections were included for the less densely populated areas, including the eastern and western ends of New Castle.

Makowska said it was important the entire board was behind the plan that the town worked so hard to craft.

“I can live with it,” Makowska said on Thursday of the new language. “I’m glad that the sessions are on record and I’m grateful to (Councilman) Jeremy (Saland) and Lisa for really trying to be constructive and productive. I’m really glad that we could have something with a unanimous vote.”

While Katz agreed with Makowska regarding stepped up protections for low-density residential areas, she said it was impossible for the town to foresee what could be proposed years into the future. Overly restrictive language could prohibit a future project that might benefit the town, she said.

“We don’t want to completely shut the door because while there may be a threshold to do that, there may be something good,” Katz said. “I don’t know what it is, there may be something that makes a lot of sense.”

Officials included the revision to Goal 4, which addresses bringing more housing types to New Castle to serve a diverse population.

The new passage reads, “Large-scale residential development of any kind in more remote, undeveloped areas of the Town faces a myriad of challenges, including but not limited to the following: (i) significant environmental constraints (such as sensitive wetlands and wetland buffers, steep slopes, public drinking water watersheds and aquifers); (ii) the lack of existing infrastructure (such as public water and sewer utilities, substandard roads in terms of surface, width, drainage and sight lines); (iii) little or no access to public transportation; and (iv) limited fire protection when public water is unavailable.”

“At the end, I think it was good because the language reflected policy without getting too specific and we don’t want it to become too rigid,” Greenstein said the day after the vote. “I was definitely okay with the language that was done.”

During last week’s board discussions, Director of Planning Sabrina Charney Hull reminded the board that the document guides broader policy and shouldn’t provide instructions for specific areas. Furthermore, the board’s best tool to prevent unwanted types of development in the low-density neighborhoods is through R-2A, something that isn’t changing unless this board or future officials agree to do that, she said.

“The Comprehensive Plan is intended to put forth the ideologies and policies and the vision (of the town),” Hull said. “It doesn’t get into the details of demanding that the thresholds should be to allow development in a certain place.”

Residents in the audience, some from the low-density areas of town, objected that there still weren’t enough protections and called for a delay in the vote. Victoria Alzapiedi said these residents potentially have much to lose with the plan.

“We have to realize that the way this reads now does have an impact and puts these folks in here in jeopardy,” Alzapiedi said.

While Saland unsuccessfully urged Greenstein, Katz and Councilman Adam Brodsky to hold off voting for a week to allow the community to digest the revisions, he said he supported the compromise and the Comprehensive Plan.

“I feel comfortable with the way it is now,” Saland said. “These are issues I wanted to address.”

There had also been debate between Greenstein and Makowska about when and how to implement the board’s top priorities for the upcoming year or two. Makowska had advocated prioritizing the goals before approval, but Greenstein said that should be done afterwards. Greenstein said he wants to hold those discussions starting at the next regularly scheduled meeting in July. He said it should be done within the context of developing the 2018 budget since undertaking those tasks could require studies and money.

For the supervisor, the top goal is making downtown Chappaqua more vibrant by increasing foot traffic and helping merchants.

“What we need to do is look at the zoning and figure out how to encourage more residential uses in our downtown, maybe incentives also,” Greenstein said.

The board also agreed not to recognize Chappaqua Crossing as a third hamlet.

The process to update the Comprehensive Plan began almost five years ago. Officials set out to develop a plan that would not only provide an outline for New Castle’s land use direction for the next 15 to 20 years, but create a document that a typical resident could read and understand.

A steering committee was created and met with all of the town’s advisory boards and committees. The town relied heavily on community input to prioritize issues facing the town during seven public outreach sessions. It also retained the Pace Land Use Law Center to help guide officials, engage the public and organize what would be the outline of the plan. Public hearings on the draft plan were held in April and May.