HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018.09.09 R. Schlank LetterROSEMARY A. SCHLANK
9 Bayberry Lane
Rye Brook, NY 10573
(914) 939-9273
RSchlank@ix.netcom.com
September 9, 2018
Mayor Rosenberg and Honorable Members of the Village Board of Trustees
Village of Rye Brook Offices
938 King Street
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Dear Mayor Rosenberg and Trustees,
Re: Determination of Completeness of DEIS Submitted by Rye King Associates LLC
for Property at 900 King Street
The agenda for the September 12th meeting of the Board of Trustees includes a resolution
on the completeness of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for property at
900 King Street. The Village’s consultants have provided reports on the completeness of the
submission. I respect their judgment. But I am not familiar with the process, so I am writing
to inquire about the need for completeness with respect to the proposed zoning
amendments that appear to be included along with the discussion of environmental impacts.
It would be helpful if you could take a few minutes during the September 12th meeting to
explain how and when any issues or omissions related to the proposed zoning amendments
will be deliberated as part of the Village’s process.
Zoning issues identified in comprehensive plan
The reasons for this inquiry are due to the controversial nature of the proposed project
combined with the nature of the zoning issues that were identified in the Village’s
Comprehensive Plan dated June 2014. These zoning issues appear to affect the entire PUD,
including the land owned by individual property owners (like me), as well as the land owned
by the applicant and the roads and other areas that are owned by the Arbors HOA.
Specifically, the plan contains observations and recommendations about addressing the
non-compliance of the existing facilities with the current zoning requirements for PUDs with
regard to: (1) the required location, (PUDs must be located north of the Hutchinson River
Parkway), and (2) the current density and floor area ratios that apply to the residences and
office building respectively. (See Attachment 1 for details.) The key questions are:
- Are these zoning issues still valid today?
- If so, how and when should they be addressed, (i.e., now as part of the DEIS
process or at a later stage in this process, or through some other process).
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 2
(1) Proposed amendments regarding the locational non-conformity
The comprehensive plan is written from a big-picture perspective, and it suggests some
possible revisions for future consideration. I am wondering if a more expedient approach for
addressing the locational requirement for purposes of this proposal might be to simply
revert to the wording of the PUD resolution originally adopted by the Town of Rye in June
1973. The current zoning law states, “A PUD may be applied to any qualifying area north of
the Hutchinson River Parkway.” In contrast, the original PUD resolution stated, “The PUD
District may be applicable to any qualifying area of the town adjacent to or north of the
Hutchinson River Parkway” (underlines added). Intuitively, this proposed change appears to
have a mutual benefit in that it would benefit the property owners in the current residential
section of the PUD as well as the applicant. The key questions are:
- How does the applicant’s submission address the locational non-conformity?
- Would the BOT consider the above suggestion? If so, would it need to be in the DEIS
– or could it be introduced separately later in the process?
(2) Proposed amendments regarding other non-conformities
There are similar concerns about the non-conformities related to the current zoning
requirements for density and floor area ratios. The successful resolution of these matters
affects all the property owners in the PUD, not just the applicant. The key questions:
a) Are the non-conformities related to density and FAR addressed in the applicant’s
submission? If not, should they be? Based on the outline, it does not seem likely that
any issue related to density in the residential section of the Arbors will be addressed
as part of the proposal. But the full implications are not clear at this time.
b) Can (or will) the Village consider the applicant’s proposed zoning amendments
separate and apart from the proposed change in land use of 900 King Street? In
other words, could the Village board approve the zoning amendments (or portions of
them), if the project itself is not approved?
The answer to this question is important because the proposed change in land use
for 900 King Street is controversial and inconsistent with both the PUD resolution
and the comprehensive plan. The plan offers broad suggestions for consideration,
including one that relates to a proposal by the Hilton Westchester to develop two
buildings, (i.e., a 100-unit assisted-living building and a memory-care facility with 25
units). But the plan does not suggest the kind of radical PUD redevelopment that is
discussed in the DEIS. On the contrary, the plan recognizes that “the Village clearly
desires to carefully control the type of largescale development that is contemplated
by the PUD zone.” So I think we need to ask the “what if?” question.
What if the proposal submitted by the applicant is not approved by the Village board
of trustees? In that case, the approval for the current office building will survive, and
it is not inconceivable that the office building might be sold to another owner/
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 3
operator. Certainly, the community would hate to lose the oversight of a well-
respected commercial real estate company like George Comfort and Sons. But it
could happen, and it seems prudent and efficient for both the applicant and the
Village to be prepared for that contingency.
c) What are the other options for resolving zoning non-conformities – either now or at
the conclusion of the environmental review process? In the event that the non-
conformities cited in the comprehensive plan are not addressed or resolved as part of
the 900 King Street land use proposal, then could (or should) the PUD’s residential
property owners initiate a separate action to address the non-conformities that affect
us? If so, what is the appropriate process or procedure for this course of action?
The original Town of Rye ordinance was clearer on these matters in some respects. It
stated: “An application must be filed by the owner, contract vendee or jointly by
owners of all property included in a PUD project. In the case of multiple ownership,
the approved plan shall be binding on all owners.” It is less clear what procedures
apply if a PUD can be split up in effect, and the joint signatures of all the owners of
PUD property are no longer required.
Could you please take a few minutes during the meeting on Sept. 12th to address these
concerns and/or to clarify at what point the affected property owners may ask questions,
express concerns, and present alternative options (if applicable)?
I apologize for raising these concerns and questions on short notice. Please be assured that
none of this is meant as criticism of the Village’s processes. I believe it was the applicant’s
initial intent to have a supplemental collaborative process. For example, the applicant
offered to host a meeting with the interested local property owners so we could obtain
answers to our questions. But the meeting was apparently postponed. Later, during public
discussions about the scope of the DEIS, my memory is that the applicant agreed to
collaborate with the owners of nearby properties to obtain our input with regard to the
changes that are needed. But perhaps that was postponed too and/or the specified distance
requirement did not extend to my property. In any event, the history may not matter at this
point, provided there is sufficient time to express our concerns and obtain answers later in
the process. Any clarification of the process in this regard would be very much appreciated.
Yours truly,
Rosemary Schlank
c: Chris Bradbury
Attachments
Attachment 1, Excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan dated June 24, 2014
Attachment 2, Original Town of Rye PUD zoning resolution added June 19, 1973
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 4
Attachment 1
Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan
Observation excerpted from Village Comprehensive Plan, pages 135-136
One office development in Rye Brook is not located in an office zone, but rather a Planned
United Development (PUD) zone (see Section 250-7). The 900 King Street facility was
developed through a PUD in the late 1970s/early 1980s in conjunction with the adjacent
Arbors residential development. Subsequent to its development, the standards for PUDs
were revised several times in the 1990s, and the 900 King Street/Arbors PUD appears to no
longer conform. For example, the PUD is located south of the Hutchinson River Parkway,
where the code requires that PUDs must be located north of that roadway. In addition, the
residential density of the Arbors likely exceeds the maximum of 6 units per gross acre
requirement, as the development contains 250 units on 37 acres (about 6.76 per acre).
Finally, the office building’s floor area ratio (FAR) is about 0.26 (201,000 total square
footage divided by the approximately 773,626 square feet of lot area), which is well in
excess of the maximum allowable FAR of 0.12. While it is likely that the PUD regulations
were revised to provide for tight control of future development, the effect of this
nonconformity may be limiting the potential of 900 King Street, possibly contributing to its
vacancy issues.
Observation excerpted from Village Comprehensive Plan, page 115
In winter 2014, Toll Brothers will begin construction on the Enclave at Rye Brook, a
development of 30 three-bedroom townhomes on Anderson Hill Road. An 18-unit affordable
housing development, Bowridge Commons on Bowman Avenue off South Ridge Street, was
approved in November 2012. This development is currently proposed at 10 units.
Additionally, the Hilton Westchester has proposed developing two residential buildings, a
100-unit assisted-living building and a memory-care facility with 25 units.
Recommendations for re-assessing the provisions of the planned unit development
(PUD) zone, excerpted from Village Comprehensive Plan, pages 144 -145
Some development in Rye Brook facilitated by the Village’s PUD zone pre-dates the zone’s
current regulations and is thus nonconforming. This is particularly the case with the 900
King Street building, which has faced long-standing problems of vacancy throughout its
lifetime. Much of this situation reflects the office market, the constantly shifting needs of
corporate users and the particulars of the building itself (notably the fact that much of the
building is not subdivided, requiring a large tenant). However, some of the facility’s
problems may be due to the fact that it is the only major office building in Rye Brook that is
not located in an office zone, and that it does not meet the requirements of the PUD zone
within which it is sited. Although the facility is a legal nonconforming use, this results in a
lack of predictability and potentially diminished options for significant changes to the
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 5
property, including expansion or infill development that could allow for a repurposing of the
site. While the Village clearly desires to carefully control the type of largescale development
that is contemplated by the PUD zone, the following items should be considered for further
study:
- Remove the locational requirement that PUD zones must be north of the Hutchinson
River Parkway. While this would open up two significant properties for potential
redevelopment (760/800 Westchester Avenue and Westchester Hilton), these sites
are not likely to be redeveloped in the near future given their current use and
occupancy, and any redevelopment can be controlled through other provisions of the
PUD district. This change would help to make the Arbors and 900 King Street
conform to zoning.
- Adjust the density requirement for residential uses to a less restrictive regulation
that still maintains Rye Brook’s low-density character.
- Adjust the FAR requirement for office uses to more closely match modern facilities.
The current maximum FAR of 0.12 is highly restrictive; a range of 0.25 to 0.5 may
be more appropriate.
- Remove the square footage restriction on retail uses (currently capped at 3,500
square feet), and instead require any retail to be accessory to a principal use.
Continue to make such uses subject to a special permit.
- Allow assisted-living or senior congregate-care facilities to be a maximum of four
stories or 45 feet in height, as consistent with typical facilities of this type.
- Adjust the parking requirement for assisted-living facilities to 0.5 spaces per unit
(current requirement is 0.75 spaces per unit). This more closely matches the actual
parking utilization of these facilities, which are extremely low traffic generators.
Recommendations for commercial development, excerpted from Village
Comprehensive Plan, pages 145 -146
Consider measures to address issues of nonconformity in PUD zones, including:
- Removing the locational requirement that PUD zones must be north of the
- Hutchinson River Parkway.
- Adjusting the density requirement for residential uses to a less restrictive regulation
that still maintains Rye Brook’s low-density character.
- Adjusting the FAR requirement for office uses to more closely match modern
facilities. The current maximum FAR of 0.12 is highly restrictive; a range of 0.25 to
0.5 may be more appropriate.
- Removing the square footage restriction on retail uses, and instead require any retail
to be accessory to a principal use. Continue to make such uses subject to a special
permit.
- Allowing assisted-living or senior congregate-care facilities to be a maximum of four
stories or 45 feet in height, as consistent with typical facilities of this type.
- Adjusting the parking requirement for assisted living facilities to 0.5 spaces per unit
(current requirement is 0.75 spaces per unit) to more closely match the actual
parking utilization of these facilities.
§ 66-7 RYE CODE § 66-7
munications between the control station of the
Westchester County (Rye) Airport and planes
approaching or departing from such airport or
traveling in the turning zones hereinbefore
established.
(b) Within the airport zones hereinbefore defined, no
machinery or apparatus of any kind shall be so
operated as to interfere with the transmission and
receipt of radio or other communications between
the control station of the Westchester County
(Rye) Airport, and planes approaching and
departing from such airport or traveling in the
turning zones hereinbefore established.
E. Planned Unit Development District. [Added 6-19-73J
(1) Purposes. In addition to the purposes set forth in
Article I of the Town of Rye Zoning Ordinance, the
PUD-Planned Unit Development District shall have
among its purposes the following:
(a)To provide for an increase in the amount and
variety of housing in the town in an era of in-
creasing urbanization, development costs and
awareness of the importance of natural resource
preservation thereto; to encourage distinguished
architectural expression and innovative design so
that these needs may be met by greater variety,
type, design and layout of buildings and by a
conservation of, and more efficient use of, open
space in support of said buildings.
(b)To protect, conserve and enhance natural
resources, outstanding natural topography and
geological features such as trees, vistas, soil
stability, man-made landscaping and other
features and to encourage the efficient use of land
in relation to public and private facilities and
utilities.
(c)To conserve the economic value of land and to
strengthen and sustain its taxable potential.
§ 66-7 ZONING § 66-7
(d)To provide a review procedure which can relate
the type, design and layout of residential and
nonresidential development to a particularly large
site or parcel and to a particular demand for
housing, office, commercial, recreational and
other supportive uses in a manner consistent with
the preservation of property values within and
adjacent to established residential and other
developed areas, and which will ensure that the
increased flexibility over land development
authorized herein is subject to administrative
standards designed to encourage good
development while assuring that such
development shall further the purposes of the
Town of Rye Zoning Ordinance and of the
Comprehensive General Plan for Development of
the Town of Rye.
(2) Standards and requirements. In accordance with the
standards, requirements and procedures hereinafter
specified, all planned unit developments (PUD's ),
shall conform to and meet the following:
(a)Minimum area. The minimum area required to
qualify for a PUD shall be thirty (30) contiguous
acres.
(b)Ownership. The parcel of land for a PUD project
may be owned, leased or controlled either by a
single person, a corporation, or by a group of
individuals or corporations. An application must
be filed by the owner, contract vendee or jointly
by owners of all property included in a PUD
project. In the case of multiple ownership, the
approved plan shall be binding on all owners.
(c)Location. The PUD District may be applicable to
any qualifying area of the town adjacent to or
north of the Hutchinson River Parkway. In
addition, all such districts shall have at least
seventy-five (75) feet of frontage on a state,
county or major town road.
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2