Exhibit 1

Exhibit 1

by Tom Auchterlonie News

State Board Approves Variances For ChappaquaStation

The state's Hudson Valley Regional Board, pictured, approved fourvariances sought for the Chappaqua Station affordable housingproposal. Photo Credit: Tom Auchterlonie

CHAPPAQUA, N.Y. -- Conifer Realty prevailed in its second go aroundwith the state's Hudson Valley Regional Board of Review on Thursday.The board approved four building and fire code variances needed for itsChappaqua Station affordable housing proposal.One of the variances pertains to the number of permitted openings forthe structure, which includes 28 apartments and would be built at 54Hunts Place. The other three, which were approved in a single vote ofthe board, pertain to space for the staging of firefighting vehicles.The four board members, who met at Cortlandt Town Hall, approved theopenings variance unanimously. The approval of the other threevariances was by a 3-1 margin.

In July, 2014, the board rejected seven of eight variances that Conifer previously sought. Conifer, which only sought four variance the secondtime, subsequently modified its project to include safety measures such as exterior sprinkler systems on the building's eastern side and achange of material.The openings variance has conditions including inclusion of the exterior sprinklers and getting a "no-build" zone from the MetropolitanTransportation Authority (MTA) along the building's eastern side.The project, whose site is next to train tracks and the Saw Mill River Parkway's northbound exit ramp, has been criticized by various residentswho have worried about safety and believe there would be a stigmatizing effect, Daily Voice and other media outlets have reported over theyears.The variances pertaining to vehicle staging include conditions that involve improving the parkway's exit ramp, adding four fire-hose stations inthe structure's first-floor parking garage and including several alternative measures for the project recently proposed by a consulting firm onConifer's behalf.Conifer attorney Randolph McLaughlin reacted positively to the news.Well, were pleased that this process has come to a conclusion.Going forward, McLaughlin said, we certainly plan now to proceed with this project as expeditiously as we can.Bill Spade, a Chappaqua architect and project opponent, said he was "disappointed" and expressed concern about the safety for residents whowould live in the building.Approval of the variances is the latest victory for Conifer. Late last year, Westchester County approved funding for Chappaqua Station, whichwas contingent upon getting the variances. In September 2013, the New Castle Town Board approved a special permit for the proposal by a 3-2vote.The special permit, under the town's code, is good for 18 months, according to Town Counsel Edward Philips, who was present at the reviewboard's meeting. This means that the permit is set to expire in March. The Town Board would need to approve an extension of the permit.Spade, who is part of a local group of residents opposed to the project, says they will argue against a renewal of the permit. The group has alawsuit pending in state Supreme Court to overturn the Town Board's previous approval.Later in the day, New Castle Supervisor Rob Greenstein emailed a statement in response to the news."I remain concerned about the issues that I raised in 2013, namely, the safety of putting an apartment building at that location, and what thatlocation says about our community," Greenstein wrote. "We should have done better. I've offered to work with Conifer to find a larger and moreattractive location, but they've insisted on sticking with the Hunts Place site. Looking ahead, Conifer has additional conditions in the specialpermit, as well as in the variances themselves, that they must satisfy."The units from Chappaqua Station would count towards Westchester County's 2009 federal affordable housing settlement, which calls for theconstruction of 750 units in predominantly white communities within a seven-year period.Get Breaking News In Your InboxPopular1 Two New Castle Residents Among Six Fatal Victims ID'd In Train Collision2 Driver Of SUV Worked At Chappaqua Jewelry Store For 15 Years3 Chappaqua Train Victim Robert Dirks Had Distinguished Career, Achievements4 New Castle's Joseph Nadol, Train Crash Victim, Was Top Analyst At JP Morgan5 All Six Fatal Victims In Metro-North SUV/Train Collision Now ID'd

01/22/15

Page 1 of 2State Board Approves Variances For Chappaqua Station | The Chappaqua Daily Voice

2/8/2015http://chappaqua.dailyvoice.com/news/state-board-approves-variances-chappaqua-station

Page 2 of 2State Board Approves Variances For Chappaqua Station | The Chappaqua Daily Voice

2/8/2015http://chappaqua.dailyvoice.com/news/state-board-approves-variances-chappaqua-station

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

Exhibit 4

Robert P. AstorinoCounty Executive

Department of Planning

Edward Buroughs, AICPCommissioner

Michaelian Office Building148 Martine AvenueWhite Plains, New York 10601 Telephone: (914) 995-4400 Fax: (914) 995-9093 Website: westchestergov.com

February 27, 2015

VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION ONLY

James E. Johnson, Esq.Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP919 Third AvenueNew York, N.Y. 10022

Re: United States ex rel Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York, Inc. v.Westchester County, New York (No. 06 Civ. 2860 (DLC))

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This is in response to the Interrogatories and Document Requests set forth in your letter datedFebruary 11, 2015. The responses set forth below are based upon information currently knownto the County. The County expressly reserves the right to supplement, clarify, revise or correctany or all of the responses herein at any time.

Interrogatory No. 1:

What incentives has the County considered offering to New Castle to influence NewCastle's decision to grant final building code approvals for Chappaqua Station?

Response to Interrogatory No. 1:

The County has not considered any such incentives.

Interrogatory No. 2:

To what extent will the County use its discretionary funding policy to encourage NewCastle to approve necessary building permits for Chappaqua Station?

Response to Interrogatory No. 2:

The County cannot use its Discretionary Policy in such a manner.

James Johnson, Esq.February 27, 2015Page 2

Interrogatory No. 3:

For the period after November 26, 2014, identify any and all communications between anyCounty officer, employee, agent, or consultant and any Town of New Castle officer,employee, agent, or consultant concerning the development of Chappaqua Station. To theextent that there are records of those communications, whether paper, electronic, orotherwise, please produce copies of those records.

Response to Interrogatory No. 3:

See Exhibit A, attached hereto.

While I do not have personal knowledge of all of the information recited in the foregoingresponses, the information contained therein has been collected and provided to me by others,and these responses are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

______________________Norma V. DrummondDeputy CommissionerWestchester County Department of Planning

EXHIBIT A

From: Sabrina Charney HullTo: Zaino, AnthonyCc: Drummond, NormaSubject: RE: Hunts Place Affordable Housing projectDate: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 12:39:07 PM

Hi Tony and Norma!

Yes it has been a while. Since last we met the the Town has changed legal counsel. Let mecoordinate on my end and I will get back to you,

Thanks,

Sabrina

From: Zaino, Anthony [mailto:abz1@westchestergov.com]Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 10:45 AMTo: Sabrina Charney HullCc: Drummond, NormaSubject: Hunts Place Affordable Housing project

Hi Sabrina, hope all is well. It has been some time since our last meeting. I would like to begin the process tofinalize the public bidding component. At one point we had discuss the Town issuing the bid for theimprovements. Is that still an option? Please give me a call to discuss. AZ