Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019.07.10 R. Schlank CommentsROSEMARY A. SCHLANK 9 Bayberry Lane Rye Brook, NY 10573 (914) 939-9273 RSchlank@ix.netcom.com July 10, 2019 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: Proposed Demolition Plan for 900 King Street My main concern is with the financial and economic consequences that go along with the environmental impacts of the demolition plan. Within the adjacent residential section of the PUD, the consequences will affect both the HOA and the individual property owners.  For the HOA, which is the entity that holds title to the roads, clubhouse and swimming pool, the harmful effects could include unexpected damage to Arbors Drive and lost income from pool passes or clubhouse rentals while the demolition is taking place.  For the other property owners, the harmful effects could be far greater. As stated in the comment letters, the Arbors is a community of private homes, not a condominium or co-op complex. The majority of the land is owned by individual homeowners. Examples of harmful effects on individual property owners. Let me give you some examples of how the individual homeowners might suffer financial harm as a result of the proposed demolition plans. 1. First, there are risks of more hazards and higher costs related to our outdoor work this year. Like other homeowners, we hire contractors during the summer months to do exterior painting and make repairs to the siding and trim on the exteriors of our homes. This work usually involves the use of ladders and equipment that is used and stored outdoors. If the demolition occurs at the same time as this work, there is an increased risk of injuries, damage, or down time due to sudden ground vibrations or loud noises. If there is an accident, we will likely be liable even if the contractor has insurance because it happened on our property. Or, if the contractor arrives at the job site at the scheduled time, then decides the conditions are too dangerous, dusty, or uncomfortable for his team to work that day, then we will likely be charged a higher fee for the job. Rosemary Schlank 900 King Street, page 2 Ordinarily, we could try to avoid the risks by scheduling the jobs for a time when they do not conflict with the timing of the demolition. But, unfortunately, we do not have a lot of flexibility in timing at this point because the painting needs to get done in the warmer months too. 2. Second, there are risks of lost income and lost livelihoods for self-employed homeowners. The homeowners who have traditional lifestyles as salaried employees who commute to work every day would not be affected by this. But there are a significant number who are self-employed and work from home offices every day. Any loud or unexpected noises can be especially disruptive and costly for the home- based business owners who are involved in activities such as research, writing, and business calls or events that need to occur at pre-scheduled dates and times. If the loud noises last for one hour, then that is one hour of lost income. If the noisy conditions persist during business hours for days or weeks on end, then that would add up to more significant unbillable time and lost income. Worse, it might also result in missed deadlines and lost clients because self-employed business owners often need to juggle short- and long-term business commitments within the same time period. If we find that we cannot meet our commitments due to demolition plans that are forced on us on short notice, then it is no exaggeration to say that those conditions would put the businesses we worked so hard to build and our very livelihoods at risk. 3. Third, there are increased risks of lost income for landlords and lower sales prices for sellers. A significant minority of Arbors homeowners are non-resident owners who reside somewhere else and rent out their properties as a source of income. If these property owners need to find new tenants during a period of demolition, it may be more difficult to do so when prospective tenants need to drive by unsightly or noisy conditions at the adjacent 900 King Street property. These conditions will make other developments or alternative housing sites appear to be more attractive in comparison. Arbors homeowners who are trying to sell their properties may encounter similar reactions, resulting in lost sales, lower selling prices, or longer- than-expected times that their homes are on the market. All these examples involve risks that can adversely affect the homeowners, even if the owner of 900 King Street has complied with the technical conditions established by the Village Code and its consultants. If we have enough notice, we can try to schedule our projects around the noisy times or make some suitable accommodations in the terms of the sale or lease arrangements. But, unfortunately, the current demolition plans do not provide sufficient notice for that. Rosemary Schlank 900 King Street, page 3 Actions sought. So what can be done to avoid or mitigate these risks? I have four requests. First, the applicant needs to provide the homeowners with a contact person who represents the owners of the 900 King Street site. Different homeowners will have different questions depending on their particular circumstances. So it is very important that the owners of 900 King Street provide a dedicated contact person, meaning someone who is responsible for communications and coordination with all the individual homeowners and who can provide fast-turnaround responses to the questions that may arise as homeowners attempt to manage the risks on a day-to-day basis. The same contact could also answer questions from the Arbors HOA. But it would not be reasonable to expect the HOA to anticipate or respond to all the questions that could arise as a result of our individual business plans or the details of our lease decisions. The HOA has no involvement in these matters and it would not be effective for the HOA to try to serve as the middleman. If the applicant could include the names of the owners of the 900 King Street site and the telephone number or email address of a contact person on the management and logistics plan, I believe this would work better and would be consistent with the intent of the Planning Board’s recommendation regarding the need for coordination with interested parties. Second, in view of the potential consequences to lives and livelihoods, time must be taken now to seriously probe the “What if” questions. Some questions were not submitted in response to the DEIS because the adjacent homeowners had no reason to expect the demolition step would be separated from the overall project or that this activity might be conducted on short notice. We understand the applicant feels the existing building is not consistent with its business plans and that it has a right to demolish the building. But, at the same time, the trustees feel that the scope of the applicant’s proposed plans for the future use of the site would need to be adjusted significantly before they can be approved. Under these circumstances, the pivotal what-if question is: What if the Village does not approve any of the plans submitted by the applicant in the final EIS? Would the owner decide to sell the property? And, if so, why would the owner not want to sell the property with the building intact? The main benefit of asking this question is that, if there is any chance the owner might choose to sell the land with the building intact, then a wait-and-see delayed demolition approach will avoid the risk of putting the adjacent school and adjacent residences through a costly and disruptive demolition process that was not necessary. Likewise, this approach will avoid the risk that everyone in the Village will end up paying more taxes to make up for the lower assessed value that would result from an empty lot caused by an unnecessary demolition. Alternatively, if the owner’s plans are not approved, the owner may theoretically decide to exercise its right to tear down the building anyway. In this case, the demolition can still be done at a time that is convenient for the school, and the wait-and-see approach Rosemary Schlank 900 King Street, page 4 will provide more notice to neighbors who could be adversely affected and more time to coordinate agreements to compensate property owners for damages. The individual property owners do not know what the HOA has discussed with the applicant or whether the HOA has requested or received any agreement to pay for damage done to the roads or other property to which it holds title. If there is no agreement, this will add to the risks for the individual property owners who will pay for the damages through monthly maintenance fees. Third, the trustees should not approve the segmentation resolution on July 10th. The process of thinking through the what-if options is actually quite similar to the analysis of the “no action” alternative that is required by New York's State Environmental Quality Review Act (or SEQRA for short). And a key benefit of this process is that the Village is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of all the information that forms the basis for the analysis. This would not be the case if the segmentation resolution is approved and the information is removed from the final EIS. In consideration of all the potential economic and financial consequences that could accompany the environmental impacts of the demolition stage of the project, I urge the Mayor and the trustees to withhold approval of the segmentation resolution and follow the guidance in the SEQRA handbook instead. The handbook specifically addresses demolition in several places, and it requires completion of the SEQRA process even if the applicant has a right to demolish a building outside of the process. Here are some of the key questions and answers in the handbook. Q. Can agency decisions be made or acted on before completion of the SEQR process? It may be possible to implement some non-physical aspects of an action which are not subject to SEQR, but it should be noted that Subdivision 617.3(a) provides that a project sponsor may not commence any physical alteration related to an action until all provisions of SEQR have been complied with (i.e., the lead agency has issued a Negative Declaration or Findings). The fact that some early activities on an overall action are not subject to review under SEQR does not remove the consequences of these decisions from consideration with respect to the whole action. For example, a site should not be cleared or graded, nor should any structural demolition occur until all aspects of the overall proposed project subject to SEQR have been examined and SEQR completed. Q. What is the “no action” alternative? The "no action" alternative must always be discussed to provide a baseline for evaluation of impacts and comparisons of other impacts. The substance of the no Rosemary Schlank 900 King Street, page 5 action discussion should be a description of the likely circumstances at the project site if the project does not proceed. That is what the handbook states. Apparently, the applicant has requested that an exception be made to the standard SEQRA process that, in effect, would avoid the consideration of the “no-action” alternative. Importantly, the exception requires approval by the Village Board, and the Board does not need to approve the request. A lack of approval will not preclude the Village from taking whatever steps are necessary to get a head start on the issuance of a demolition permit. These points are clarified in the following excerpts from the SEQRA handbook. Q. Is an agency required to segment a review if the project sponsor shows that segmentation would be possible? No. Segmentation is contrary to the intent of SEQR. The decision to segment a review is at the discretion of the lead agency. The decision to segment a review must be supported by documentation that justifies the decision and must demonstrate that such a review will be no less protective of the environment . . . However, the “separate” actions that a project sponsor may cite as being independent, unrelated activities . . . more often than not are linked either through application or proximity and therefore may be subject to legal challenge if a segmented review were to proceed. Q. Can a ministerial permit be issued while SEQR review of an action is being conducted? A ministerial permit can be issued while the SEQR review is ongoing if the permit can otherwise be issued. However, the activity allowed in the permit may not be undertaken because the SEQR regulations [6 NYCRRR §617.3(a)] state that no physical alteration related to an action shall be commenced by a project sponsor until the provisions of SEQR have been complied with. The issuing official should notify the project sponsor of this prohibition. This would be particularly applicable to the issuance of demolition permits associated with a subsequent development action subject to review under SEQR. That is what the handbook states. The guidance seems clear, and the examples provided by the applicant as precedent for the exception do not involve demolition. So my fourth request is that the applicant should consider other ways to accommodate the school’s schedule. If the applicant’s plans are approved, perhaps the process could be adapted to accommodate the school’s schedule while also providing more notice to adjacent property owners in the manner suggested by the applicant in its draft “Response to comments” dated May 14, 2019. The response to comment 149 contains the following suggestion: As stated in Section 2.16, ‘Construction,’ the Applicant would prepare a detailed Construction Management Plan (CMP), which would provide for implementation of Rosemary Schlank 900 King Street, page 6 the proposed construction plan and the measures proposed to mitigate potential adverse impacts… It is important to note that demolition of the existing office building may occur after the conclusion of the SEQRA process, but before final site plan approval so as to minimize the impact on the Blind Brook Middle School and High School. Lastly, when evaluating the proposed demolition and construction plans, the full range of economic consequences must be considered and weighed, including the consequences for the self-employed and non-resident owners of property in the Arbors. In considering whether the owner of 900 King Street should be permitted to demolish the building in the remaining summer months of this year on short notice despite the likelihood of adverse financial and economic consequences for others, the Board must weigh the reality that the owner would not be taking that step solely at its own peril. The Arbors property owners would be taking the risk too. The students, faculty and parents would also be taking the risk. Every citizen and taxpayer of the Village of Rye Brook would be taking the risk. And these risks may not be necessary if the applicant’s proposed plans are not approved following a thorough economic analysis of the type required by SEQRA. Please vote “No” to the segmentation resolution until all the risks and consequences can be considered. Yours truly, Rosemary Schlank c: Chris Bradbury, Administrator, Village of Rye Brook, NY