Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.26.2021 R. Schlank CommentsROSEMARY A. SCHLANK 9 Bayberry Lane Rye Brook, NY 10573 (914) 939-9273 RSchlank@ix.netcom.com January 26, 2021 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: Comments on draft SEQRA Findings Statement and Proposed Zoning Amendment for the Arbors/900 King Street PUD The draft findings statement indicates that the VRB Board has complied with the SEQRA requirements in most respects. This comment letter highlights open questions and concerns about three of the required steps. The first step is to consider relevant environmental impacts, facts and conclusions. The second step is to weigh and balance these impacts with social, economic and other considerations. The third step is to identify the conditions of site plan approval that are needed to avoid or minimize the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed action. Before finalizing the drafts, I urge the Board to address a few of the key concerns about this highly controversial project. Key concerns The proposed project will affect all Rye Brook residents, but it affects some more than others. This letter is written primarily from the perspective of a senior citizen and a property owner in a PUD. My key concerns include the following: 1. Concerns about statements related to public need and benefits The SEQRA Handbook states: “An EIS must include a concise description of the action’s purpose, public need and benefits, including social and economic considerations. This is necessary to issue findings where agencies must balance social and economic considerations against environmental impacts that cannot be avoided or mitigated.” When discussing how to document public need, the Handbook stresses the value of public surveys. It explains, “Public surveys can be useful tools for identifying whether a need presently exists for a project, or to gauge public acceptance of induced need.” Rosemary Schlank 900 King Street, page 2 Unfortunately, the current draft of the findings statement relies on outdated sources of information, including the JLL marketing study, the suggestions made in the Village’s 2014 Comprehensive Plan, and subjective anecdotal observations that have been provided as evidence that the senior citizens of Rye Brook want and need a 3- or 4-story senior-housing facility in Rye Brook. The issues with these sources include the following:  JLL Study. The marketing study by JLL covers a primary market area that extends beyond Rye Brook seniors to include residents of Greenwich, as well as Port Chester, Harrison, Purchase, Armonk, Scarsdale, Rye, Valhalla, Elmsford, Eastchester, Mamaroneck, and White Plains. The data does not reflect the recent drops in demand and occupancy rates that have occurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic. To justify its conclusions of market demand, JLL states that it is unaware of any pending changes in the NY regulatory environment that would negatively impact the subject. However, there is ample evidence that owners and operators of senior living facilities are voluntarily adapting their design plans to help stop the spread of infectious diseases and to better address the changing needs of the marketplace. If the plans for the 900 King Street facility are not similarly updated, there is a high level of risk of what industry experts refer to as a “flight to quality” in which the market demand projected by JLL will not materialize.  VRB Comprehensive Plan. Another source of information cited in the draft findings statement is the suggestion in the VRB’s 2014 Comprehensive Plan to consider use of the 900 king Street site for senior housing. To put this suggestion in context, the Board needs to review the survey responses on which the Plan was based. The survey included these two questions. (1) How important is it that Rye Brook provide a diversity of housing types to accommodate different age groups (e.g. young pro- fessionals, singles, families with children, empty nesters, seniors)? The responses to this question indicate that diversity in housing options is important or very important to 46.3% of the Village residents. This is less than half the village, and the responses do not provide any indication that senior housing is any more important than housing for any other segment of the Village’s population. Rosemary Schlank 900 King Street, page 3 (2) Would you support taller and more dense buildings (3-4 stories) in specific core areas of Rye Brook to allow more housing type choices? The responses to this question indicate that that most Rye Brook residents do not want 3- or 4- story housing structures in residential areas. A significant 19.4% were unsure, while 20.2% replied “I don’t think so,” and 23.3% said “Absolutely not.” The reply with the highest response was “Absolutely not.” These responses provide evidence that the proposed project and zoning amendments conflict with the character of the community, which is a significant adverse environmental impact. An adverse environmental impact of this type is neither necessary nor appropriate today because some of the design options that are used to make senior housing safer in the post-COVID era provide for more spacious floor plans and they do not require 3- to 4-story buildings. But these alternatives are not considered in the FEIS or the draft findings statement. Instead, the proposed project calls for a 94-bed assisted living facility with the residents crammed into four floors. The proposal would preserve approximately 11 of the 17.77 acres as open space, but this space would be accessible by elevators that are less safe than the simple two-story small house structures that seniors and their families seem to prefer today.  Anecdotal evidence. There is also a third source of information that has been mentioned in public hearings. It consists of observations based on informal conversations with seniors who want to stay in Rye Brook but feel they must move to another nearby town when they reach a certain age or medical condition. A key underlying issue that has become more apparent during the COVID pandemic seems to involve the lack of transportation-related services for medical reasons. Rides to hospitals or doctors’ offices are available for Rye Brook seniors who don’t drive any more - and for those whose healthcare providers are located within Rye Brook. But rides are far more difficult to obtain for seniors with healthcare providers in nearby Greenwich - which is often closest and best option for those of us who live on or near the Greenwich/Rye Brook border. Neither Rye Brook nor the Westchester County Senior Services programs will cross state lines to help seniors with medical conditions. Senior service providers say this is a common source of frustration for seniors who reside near the NY/CT state line and who want to stay in their homes and age in place. These seniors are faced with tough Rosemary Schlank 900 King Street, page 4 decisions of whether to change their healthcare providers so they can obtain transportation services – or to sell their homes and move to the kind of big-box senior housing facilities where so many seniors have died from COVID and/or had their visitors shut-out. As a result of the COVID-related change in circumstances, there is considerable uncertainty about whether the project as currently proposed is really providing a significant public benefit. This determination should be based on a timely survey by an independent consultant. It will be well worth the time to find out what Rye Brook seniors really want and need.  Suggested revision of the draft findings statement. The findings statement should be revised to indicate that the proposed lack of consistency with the character of the community is a significant environmental impact; to remove or attach less weight to the subjective wording about the benefits of complying with a suggestion contained in the Village’s 2014 Comprehensive Plan; and to state that any approvals of the proposed project and the proposed zoning amendments will depend on the results of an independent study. 2. Concerns about undisclosed impacts and consequences The current draft of the findings statement indicates that the Board has considered the relevant environmental impacts, facts and conclusions that were disclosed in the DEIS and FEIS. And it has weighed and balanced these impacts with social, economic and other considerations. But the findings presented in the current draft do not appear to adequately consider some very significant economic considerations that should be taken into account when weighing and balancing the adverse environmental impacts. As discussed above, the proposed use of 3- and 4-story buildings is not consistent with the character of the community and it constitutes a significant adverse environmental impact. The proposal can also have serious long-term economic consequences, if the project is approved and the investment proves to be unsafe and unsustainable. The draft findings statement does not appear to assign sufficient weight to the economic consequences. This is probably because the DEIS and FEIS do not disclose sufficient information about: (a) the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, and (b) the risks associated with the placement of senior housing within a PUD. The issues caused by the lack of disclosure include the following. Rosemary Schlank 900 King Street, page 5  Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. The idea of replacing the commercial office building that anchors the Arbors/900 King Street PUD with a new senior housing project has been in the concept stage since 2017. That is a long time. We sympathize with the applicant’s feelings of impatience with the slow rate of progress. But we can also see that the world has changed dramatically since 2017. The lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic need to be considered. The hardships of the past year provide objective and reliable precedent that must be taken into account when evaluating the pros and cons of the project. Well publicized reports have shown that a large portion of COVID deaths have occurred in congregate care facilities. This in turn adversely affects the entire region in which the facility is located. The potential negative economic impacts of failing to consider a safer alternative can include the following adverse economic consequences for Rye Brook: - School and business lockdowns - Restrictions on travel and social gatherings - Business losses and bankruptcies - Lost tax revenues for the Village - Unusual hardships on EMS services as described in the Nov. 24, 2020 annual fund appeal letter from Port Chester-Rye- Rye Brook Emergency Medical Services. Their impacts included higher expenses for overtime, PPE and decontamination supplies, as well as lost revenue from insurance billings for non-COVID emergencies.  Suggested revision of the draft findings statement. The findings statement should be revised to describe the potential negative economic impacts of failing to consider a safer design alternative. When the full range of potential economic consequences is considered, it seems unlikely that any economic benefits from property tax revenue will be sufficient to justify the adverse environmental impacts of the project as currently proposed. If this is the case, the findings statement should be revised to include that conclusion. To facilitate the analysis, the Board should obtain the data necessary to compare the potential consequences of the proposed project with Rosemary Schlank 900 King Street, page 6 the safer alternatives that are now being considered by other owners and operators of senior housing facilities. This would include a discussion of the small-house model that does not require a 3 to 4 story building and is believed to be more effective in controlling the spread of infectious diseases associated with COVID mutations and/or the start of another pandemic. It would also be helpful to know the identities and track records of the applicant’s owners and operators during the past year. But the key point is that the findings statement should place more weight on the potential adverse social and economic consequences that could result from the safety risks that may be inherent in housing facilities of the type proposed by the applicant.  Placement of proposed project within a PUD. The draft findings statement states that it has identified and considered the necessary conditions for site plan approval. But it does not adequately address the conditions that are needed for placement of the project within a PUD, especially a PUD like the Arbors that has an already built residential development and a single access road. In this type of PUD, the property values of the residences are tied to the state of the PUD’s anchor or commercial property. If the anchor fails within a short timeframe, (e.g., due to the “flight to quality” that was described in connection with the evaluation of the public benefit), then the property values of the residences will fall as well, and this in return will reduce the municipal tax base and result in increased tax burdens for other property owners within the Village who will need to make up the lost property tax revenues. The potential adverse economic consequences are further magnified during times when another PUD in the same Village is experiencing the stress and challenge of trying to recover from the business failure of its anchoring property. The cumulative economic impact is key to the weighing and balancing of the public need and other economic benefits of the project vs. the adverse environmental impacts. It is also key when determining whether the conditions attached to any approval of the project will effectively avoid or minimize the adverse impacts.  Suggested revision of the draft findings statement. The draft findings statement should be revised to incorporate a condition that provides a measure of protection against future financial harm, such as giving the Rosemary Schlank 900 King Street, page 7 other PUD property owners veto power over any proposed zoning amendments for the 900 King Street portion of the PUD. When the Town of Rye enacted the original PUD resolution, the Town recognized that the potential economic consequences would place the other PUD property owners in an untenable position, and it established a condition that no changes in land use would be made without the consent of all the property owners in the PUD. This condition appears to be appropriate and well-intended. But the applicant has not communicated with the other 251 PUD property owners in the three plus years that this project has been under consideration - with the notable exception of the HOA that holds title to the road and common areas. The establishment of a condition that provides veto power would help to ensure appropriate communications and coordination regarding any additional adverse environmental impacts that may result from proposed changes to the 900 Street site in the future. 3. Concerns about noise and lack of coordination with other property owners in the same PUD The Arbors residential area is unique in some respects, especially with regard to the adverse effects of noise. Our community is located directly under the flight path of incoming flights into Westchester County airport. Our property owners may not be able to obtain enforcement of the Village noise ordinance for vehicular noises because this is a private community with private roads. And we are surrounded by noise-makers that are scoped out of the Village noise ordinance. The Arbors PUD is located between Village-owned and school-owned properties on both sides of 900 King Street. These properties include the firehouse at 940 King Street, the Village Hall and police station at 938 King Street, the Village-owned athletic fields at 830 King Street, and the school- owned properties including a track and field at 840 King Street. Excerpts from the noise ordinance are provided in Appendix A. Some of the wording is subject to interpretation, but I am told that noises on Village- or school-owned athletic fields are scoped out. The noise from these fields is not constant, but it can be absolutely horrific at certain times, such as late afternoons and Saturdays. Any additional noise on top of this would be unconscionable. This underscores the need for appropriate site plan conditions and/or other types of changes related to noise. Rosemary Schlank 900 King Street, page 8 Suggested revision of the draft findings statement. The draft findings statement establishes requirements for the applicant to coordinate with the school district about construction noise. But there are no similar requirements for the applicant to coordinate with the 251 existing property owners within the PUD. And no provision is made to monitor and control the aggregate noise level. The draft findings should be revised to incorporate conditions that: - Require coordination and advance notice of expected noise and/or roadway work to the HOA and the 250 existing individual residential property owners. - Provide for enforcement of the noise ordinance when the aggregate noise level exceeds a certain decibel level at any place in the Arbors, including locations near the athletic fields. For example, construction may need to be paused during times of excess noise from Village or school athletic fields. - Postpone noisy construction work until the Village’s airport advisory council can complete its work on preparing an alternative flight path and getting approval from the FAA. Thank you for considering my comments. I hope you agree that Rye Brook’s seniors deserve a safer senior housing facility, that the Arbors property owners deserve to be treated more fairly, and that we all deserve a more sustainable tax base. Yours truly, Rosemary Schlank c: Chris Bradbury, Administrator, Village of Rye Brook, NY Dan Barnett, President, Board of Directors, Arbors Homeowners Association Rosemary Schlank 900 King Street, page 9 Appendix A Excerpts from Village Noise Ordinance, Chapter 158 pf the Village Code § 158-2. Prohibited acts. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to willfully do or cause or allow to be done any of the following: A. Make, or cause to be made, any unnecessary or unusual noise which annoys, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, safety or welfare of others. B. Operate any unreasonably noisy machinery, vehicle, power tools or gardening equipment; pump, exhaust fan, attic fan, air-conditioning apparatus or other mechanical device; television, radio, tape player, phonograph or musical instrument; load and unload vehicles; or use any instrument not specifically enumerated herein which annoys, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, safety or welfare of others. C. Harbor any animal that barks, whines, howls or makes any other noise for a period of 10 minutes or more at a volume which can be heard anywhere beyond the owner's premises. D. Operate outdoors on privately owned property between the hours of 9:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends a pavement sweeper, leaf blower, chain saw, motorized lawn mower or other motorized garden equipment, whether powered by electricity or combustion engine. E. Engage outdoors on privately owned property in the commercial pickup of trash, garbage or other waste material between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. § 158-5. Exceptions. A. In cases of emergency, and upon written permission from the Building Inspector or Police Department, a special exception for the use of noisy equipment may be permitted. B. Sirens and other warning devices used by the police, fire, ambulance, civil defense and other vehicles engaged in emergency and/or official functions are excepted. C. This chapter shall not apply to operations conducted or caused to be conducted by the Village of Rye Brook as part of its municipal functions.