(January 2007) Unfortunately the latest news is that Mr. Fallone is going to try to continue his effort to rezone the Paul Road property to GB without NAP. Our goal is to prevent this.

(December 2006) Why haven't we heard anything from the developer, NAP, as of late?

One can only look at the facts and make an educated guess. The fact is, NAP has contacted each Town Board member in an attempt to gage what their view point is on the Master Plan. By now they should realize that everyone recognizes that the Master Plan does not support their project. Despite all their attempts to manipulate the facts (in cahoots with our Town Supervisor), the rest of our Town Board has demonstrated their integrity by refusing to accept their distortions and attempts to manipulate the truth. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about the wisdom of this project; but everyone is not entitled to their own facts! So, hopefully, NAP will save everyone the time and expense of continuing this charade and withdraw their request for rezoning and head home to Georgia!

(November 2006) Why does the developer insist that the Master Plan supports a Mall On Paul when it clearly does not?

Here is what Jeff Pape, representative of the out of town developers NAP from Georgia had to say to our Town Council at the October 4th, 2006 Town Board meeting in response to Councilwomen Ignatowski pointing out a number of passages that seem to clearly indicate this property is recommended for PNOD rather than GB:

Jeff Pape: "It’s probably the most important subject relative to our project. It is appropriate to address a few of the concerns. Ginny, one of the sections that you read -- keep in mind, we didn't have the benefit of – you guys sat in the meetings, a lot participated on the committee in 2002. You guys were very clear in your minds with what the intent was. We came in and read this document cold. When we read a document code, there is discrepancy. We went to the maps. Maps are typically used to clarify things. The first maps we saw were the colored maps. Nobody can dispute it is clearly General Business on the color maps. I know it is an issue, and that is why I'm not using it in our presentation. However, when you look at the maps, I can interpret that same exact paragraph to mean that the PNOD was simply the area between the General Business shown on the future land use map and Archer Road very clearly, so again, we came in cold. We interpreted and didn't have the benefit of all of the experience that you guys had in it. That was our interpretation."

Mr. Pape  admits that he does not have all the facts that our Town Board has and that he "came in cold" when interpreting the Town's Master Plan. He actually states that he "interpreted and didn't have the benefit of all of the experience that you guys had in it."

He seems to be explaining (perhaps admitting) to the Board how he came up with his erroneous interpretations!

The puzzling question is why does he continue to dispute what four out of five Town Board members have told him: That these properties were recommended for PNOD. The maps he is using for evidence were either not a part of the approved plan (as they were created at a later date - in error - i.e. the color maps and website map) or they are inconsistent and do not reflect what the committee recommended and what was approved by the Town (the black and white map).

At the October 4, 2006 Town Board meeting, the developer from Georgia demonstrates his lack of familiarity with our Master Plan by referring to a black and white map (which he shows in a power point presentation) that clearly does not represent the final recommendations made by the Update Committee in 2002. This map shows that same black shading on Coldwater Road between Chestnut Ridge and 490 that the developer tries to claim indicates GB for the land in question. That map is obviously not accurate and does not correspond to the Master Plan's text or any of the update committee's discussions as indicated in meeting minutes.

The paragraph above also contains this statement: " However, when you look at the maps, I can interpret that same exact paragraph to mean that the PNOD was simply the area between the General Business shown on the future land use map and Archer Road very clearly,"  Mr. Pape again shows his lack of familiarity with our Town and our zoning codes as the strip of land he is referring to extends out from Archer Road only 300 feet, which would make it too small and too narrow to meet the various setback and other code requirements for PNOD!

Yes the out of town developer has the disadvantage of not knowing the history of the Master Plan and the unfortunate experience of relying on maps that were created long after the Master Plan Update was approved in 2002 and that are not accurate. He seems to be admitting as much in his statement above.

Even the current owner of most of the property in question, with whom this developer has an option, already acknowledged on more than one occasion, that this land was targeted for PNOD. I would assume the two of them must speak with each other!

Perhaps the current owner thought that he could pull a fast one on the out of town developer and our Town Board! But now it appears that even the developer realizes the truth of what was intended for the properties in question.

But one still has to wonder:

Why does the developer keep insisting that the Master Plan supports his proposed development when it clearly does not?

Why did the developer from Georgia bring an attorney to Oct 4th Town Board Meeting?

The answer to this question may also be the answer to the first question (above) as well.

Here is another excerpt from the October 4th Town Board Meeting:

JEFF PAPE: "Along with me is Betsy Brugg, with Fix, Spindelman, Brovitz & Goldman, and they are part of our team,because we certainly don't rely on just coming to Town and making a determination of the Master Plan without engaging local counsel..."

MS. BRUGG: ... "I guess the only point I would want to make is to let the Board know my office, our team of experienced land use and development attorneys and litigators have looked at this. My client is putting a lot of time and money into this project ... and we feel confident that the proposal and the necessary rezoning are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and equally important, that the rezoning and the development would stand up in a court of law and survive any technical legal challenge based on the Comprehensive Plan."

(As if the folks who live in this predominantly residential area have not also put "a lot of time and money" into their homes and neighborhoods!)

It seems that it is not very important to the developer and their attorney what the members of the 2002 and 2006 Update Committees intended for this area. The attorney from "Fix", etc and Jeff Pape state that if the town wanted to rezone to GB (despite what we know was the true intention of the update committees), Betsy Brugg, and her appropriately named firm "Fix, Spindelman, Brovitz & Goldman could help defeat any legal challenge! One might say that the "Fix" is in!

But the issue is not who would win a legal battle! Everyone hopes to avoid such a scenario!

Did the developer bring their attorney from "Fix" to offer assistance for the Town for an anticipated legal battle or to imply that they could win a law suit against the Town if their rezoning request was not approved? I have heard people who were at the meeting give both interpretations, but either way, the intentions of the 2002 and 2006 update committees and the 2002 Town Board members, as it relates to  updating the Master Plan, are being set aside by the developer and his attorney as secondary issues. That isn't right.

To claim the ability to win a legal action is not the same as saying that the truth was served or that the right thing was achieved. I would hope that our Town is interested in the truth and in doing the right thing.

What was Councilwoman Ignatowski's response to Jeff Pape's claim at the October 4, 2006 Town Board meeting that the Master Plan supports rezoning of these properties to GB?

COUNCILWOMAN IGNATOWSKI: "I was going to say also page 112, very specifically, and – I think might also clarify where the General Business was concerned. If you read through there, it -- it recommends rezoning to commercial of the parcels between Chili Avenue, Paul Road and Grenell Drive, a small piece in there. Whereas it says the area located near Archer and Paul Road, bordered on the east by Archer, Paul Road on the north, the West Shore Branch on the south and continuing west to the General Business zone at Chili Avenue/Paul Road/Coldwater Road. This area is recommended to be developed as a Planned Neighborhood Overlay District so as to be a buffer between the adjacent single-family neighborhoods and to complement the more intense commercial uses of Wegmans plaza. So that to me quite frankly – that was also the interpretation of the current landowner. He came forward and asked us for the PNOD to be rezoned, that parcel. So -- and quite frankly, we just had a Comprehensive Chili Center Update Committee come forward, recommending also that that land be retained as PNOD. We asked for clarification of that at the last Town Board meeting and that was their interpretation and that is what they are still recommending. So regardless what is in here, we just spent $12,000 for an opinion, and that was their opinion, as well."

Well said Ginny!

If the Town Board approves the developer's request to rezone these properties to General Business, does that guarantee that a shopping center with a Target will be built there?

No it doesn't. If the Town Board voted to rezone these properties to General Business (they are currently zoned  Residential (16 acres) and Restricted Business with PNOD ( 37 acres) anything that is allowed in a GB zoned area could be built there. According to Town codes, this could include such things as; video arcade centers; bowling alleys and places of public assemblage; video rental/sales; liquor stores, variety store and gift, notion, toy, pet, hobby, and bicycle shops, and a clothes-cleaning pickup agency, including self-service cleaning establishments.

Would the developer of the proposed Mall continue as the owner and landlord of this property?

Unfortunately the company that wants to develop and operate the mall on Paul is not a local company. They operate out of Atlanta and Cincinnati. And they are hoping to sell four of their shopping malls in Atlanta, according to the Atlanta Business Chronicle;

"All four metro Atlanta shopping centers North American Properties has put up for sale still are under construction, and some centers have vacant space."  

Two of these shopping centers have a Target. This is their first project in New York State. We do not know how long they will continue to own or operate the mall on Paul if it is built or even if they will try to sell it before it is even completed.

Is the proposed mall an extension of an existing commercial area (i.e. Wegmans Plaza)?

The out of town developer from Georgia tried to make this claim, but it is inaccurate. Wegmans Plaza is on Chili Ave. where many other commercial establishments are located. It is also directly across the street from K Mart and other commercial businesses. The proposed location for the Mall on Paul is on Paul Road. And it is in the midst of hundreds and hundreds of single family homes and down the road from an elementary school. There isn't a single commercial establishment on Paul Road! The out of town developer from Georgia is trying to twist the facts about this proposal. Nice try NAP. But no cigar!

Is a Regional Shopping Center compatible with Chili's Master Plan?

Our Town's Master Plan only supports Neighborhood or Community Shopping centers and speaks against the development of Regional Shopping Malls. The proposed Mall on Paul will have 1,755 parking spaces! The population of Chili is around 28,000 people and 10,000 households. This means that there will be enough parking spaces at the proposed Mall on Paul for nearly 17.5% of all the households in Chili!  ...Obviously the developer is creating a Regional Shopping Mall for folks from the city and neighboring Towns. And our Master Plan does not support the development of Regional Shopping Malls! (by the way, even Wegmans has less than 700 parking spots!)

Would the Mall On Paul contribute to the long-term growth and sustainability of Chili’s commercial core?

Chili’s commercial core is located on Chili Avenue and is centered around Chili Paul Plaza. That is why the Town’s Master Plan Update Committee has recommended that the Town invest in the commercial development of that area to expand Chili’s commercial core.

 The Mall on Paul proposal would fragment Chili’s commercial core by redirecting traffic to a side street (Paul Road) and away from our commercial core. Chili Paul Plaza and other local businesses would be certain to be severely hurt by such a development.

Locating new commercial development on Chili Avenue in the area of Chili Paul Plaza would be a win–win for the Town, the citizens of Chili and current local businesses (including Chili Paul Plaza) by increasing traffic to Chili's commercial core. This would help assure the sustainability of the Town's current businesses as well as bring in new commercial options for our Town.

The answer to the questions is, unfortunately,  “No”.might end up owning and operating the proposed mall on Paul over the long run and who knows