Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.24.2020 R Schlank 900 King Comments BOT LtrROSEMARY A. SCHLANK 9 Bayberry Lane Rye Brook, NY 10573 (914) 939-9273 RSchlank@ix.netcom.com November 24, 2020 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: Additional Comments on p-FEIS for Redevelopment of 900 King Street The application for the redevelopment of 900 King Street is still woefully incomplete. In effect, the applicant is requesting special privileges so it can construct an outdated model of senior housing, including assisted living and memory care facilities. The pFEIS does not clearly state the nature of the special privileges, nor does it adequately address the realities of the senior living industry in the COVID and post-COVID era. Special privileges  Zoning changes and payment in lieu of taxes. The special privileges requested by the applicant include zoning changes and an agreement under which it would make payments in lieu of taxes (a PILOT agreement). At the last public meeting on this proposal, the applicant’s attorney mentioned the possibility of an 8-year PILOT agreement. Will the amounts paid in lieu of taxes be less than the taxes on the final assessed value cited in the preliminary FEIS? If so, by how much? And for how long?  Disregard for original PUD resolution. The applicant is also maintaining that it does not need to meet the requirement for the approval of the other property owners in the planned unit development (PUD) that includes the Arbors HOA and 250 private lot owners. This position is based on legal precedents that may or may not be valid. The other property owners have not yet researched the citations. However, the unfairness of this position should be readily apparent to all. The requirement was established in the original PUD resolution. The other property owners have relied on that document for decades, and the comment letters show that many of the other property owners oppose the project as currently designed including the zoning changes requested by the applicant. Rosemary Schlank 900 King Street, page 2 Realities. The realities of the senior living industry in the COVID and post-COVID era provide good reasons to oppose the project, and more evidence of these realities is emerging every day. The realities include the following 1. Deaths due to unsafe conditions. Occupancy rates have declined significantly in traditional “big-box” structures for assisted living and memory care facilities of the type proposed by the applicant. The main reasons are: (a) because so many senior citizens have died in those types of facilities over the past year as a result of infectious diseases, and (b) because other seniors are either moving out or deciding not to move in to avoid similar fatalities. 2. Construction delays to explore safer alternatives. The results of a survey by Senior Housing News released this week show that 70% of developers and operators of senior housing facilities are postponing construction of new facilities until they can design alternatives that are safer and more appealing to senior citizens and their families. Unlike the applicant, these other developers and operators are not trying to push through outdated plans. They are going back to the drawing board with architects and designers and creating new or modified plans, most of which would not likely require the kinds of special zoning privileges requested by the applicant. Most of these changes are not required by law. Instead, the changes are being made voluntarily to show the owners care about safety and human lives. Five years from now, the demand for these newer facilities will likely put some of the older “big-box” facilities out of business. 3. Effects on the entire community. The harmful consequences of unsafe senior housing facilities are quickly passed on to the entire community in ways that range from school and business lockdowns to preventive measures that affect the quality of life in the village, including the restrictions on travel and social gatherings during and after the upcoming holidays. Additionally, these kinds of disruptions set off a chain reaction in which lockdowns lead to business losses and bankruptcies, and this in turn translates into lost tax revenues for the Village. The after-effects of all the turmoil caused by COVID-19 will likely be felt in our school, village and town taxes for years to come. 4. No fast relief is likely. The introduction of vaccines for COVID-19 is not likely to bring a swift end to the turmoil and stress. This year marks the start of a new era in which technology can be used to spread infectious diseases. As Bill Gates warned, “The next epidemic has a good chance of originating on a computer screen.” This is one of the new realities with which we must cope. Rosemary Schlank 900 King Street, page 3 5. Coping with the new realities. The people of Rye Brook are relying on the Mayor and the Board of Trustees to find ways to protect the safety of our seniors, stabilize the tax base, and enforce the local laws including the zoning laws that preserve the quality of life for everyone in the village. It is admittedly a difficult challenge, and there are no easy answers. But the approval of an outdated facility with a PILOT agreement that allows the owner to pay less in taxes during a long development period seems to be going in the wrong direction when it comes to meeting both the short- and long-term goals. If the Village Board decides to buck the industry trend and approve this preliminary FEIS as complete despite the need for more information, then the 900 King Street site will likely need to be redesigned or repurposed due to competitive pressures within a short time, perhaps even before the initial PILOT agreement expires. In the meantime, the opposition to the project will likely continue. And, if the facility results in more school closings, more hardships for business owners, a lower quality of life, or (worst of all) more unnecessary deaths due to unsafe conditions, then the board will be blamed rightfully or wrongfully. There are no known legal requirements in this state at this time that dictate the architectural design of safe senior living facilities. But I suspect most reasonable people would agree that it no longer makes sense to insist on an architectural plan that was developed several years ago in the pre-COVID era or to blindly rely on a statement that was included for future consideration as part of a comprehensive plan and base studies that were developed almost ten years ago. Please take the time to do the job right. Please ensure that the requested privileges and the realties are addressed in a more prudent, systematic, open, and rational manner. Yours truly, Rosemary Schlank Chris Bradbury, Administrator, Village of Rye Brook, NY Dan Barnett, President, Board of Directors, Arbors Homeowners Association