By Eileen Gallagher
During the joint planning and town board meeting this Tuesday, May 20, it was revealed that board member Elise Mottel will be an active participant in all matters regarding Chappaqua Crossing.
Having recused herself from all discussions back in March of 2010, Mottel explained that the law firm she works for no longer represents an affiliate of Greenfield Partners. According to Mottel, she “has been and will continue to take the time to familiarize [herself] with the entire record.”
Mottel went on to say, “I will be completely impartial and will exercise judgment without any self interest but on the basis of the best interest of the town.”
From there on, the meeting (about 75 attendees strong) was all about traffic…
Michael Galante, the traffic consultant contracted by the town, interpreted the results of the report that, it was learned, was produced by Summit Greenfield’s traffic expert in 2008.
The report involved a confusing and lengthy number of traffic totals taken during five different timed sessions at 17 intersections as well as the three access points at Bedford Road, Roaring Brook Road, and the entrance near the Saw Mill Parkway.
To the dismay of the New Castle town and planning board members, the individual responsible for the report was not present at the meeting. Board member Adam Brodsky remarked to Galante, “You are here to represent the town’s interest, how can you help us gear the conversation toward the applicant? They don’t have their traffic consultant here tonight. I’m a little displeased.”
As Galante explained, “There are a lot of numbers; they should be here to do that. I can do it, but it’s not my traffic report. It’s a little hard to interpret someone else’s report.”
Several questions from board members were applauded by concerned residents. Councilwoman Lisa Katz pointed out, “I’m not a traffic consultant, but I am observant. The difference between the analysis of an A&P versus Wholefoods is significant. People would travel from all over Westchester to go to Wholefoods as opposed to an A&P.”
Councilman Jason Chapin asked, “Can you talk about truck traffic and non-car traffic?” Brodsky concurred. “I’m on Lisa’s team on this project. This is a regional center with bigger box stores, drawing from a larger geographical area.”
Katz continued. “Is there an inherent conflict of interest in relying on their traffic studies? Without our doing an independent traffic analysis, how can we rely on those numbers?”
In an attempt to break through the myriad of estimates, reports, and conclusions, Brodsky asked, “ What is the net [traffic] effect of the property at full occupation compared to today?”
Galante responded that, during the afternoon peak traffic time, the busiest time noted in the study, there were 1,091 vehicles reported, and an additional 1,100 trips would be generated after all the spaces were leased and occupied. “
Mottel commented, “To sum up, I don’t really understand the traffic. There have been questions about the truck traffic and the school… we are asking for information that would be helpful for us to understand.”
Though the public was invited to comment, Supervisor Rob Greenstein remarked, “We are going to welcome your comments, but this is not a public hearing. We are advocating for the best possible outcome for the town.”
Several members of the audience, largely residents of the neighboring area of Chappaqua Crossing, pointed out potential negative effects of the project, such as pedestrian safety, environmental impacts, and rezoning before the master plan completion.
The town board plans for a public hearing on June 10.
