Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.10.2021 R. Schlank CommentsROSEMARY A. SCHLANK 9 Bayberry Lane Rye Brook, NY 10573 (914) 939-9273 RSchlank@ix.netcom.com August 10, 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 site plan application for the Arbors/900 King Street PUD I agree with others who have expressed concerns about the density or mass of the structures in the site plan. But I see the issues and solutions a little differently because I believe the health-and-safety impacts are just as important as the architectural issues. And I feel it is critically important to be prepared for adverse consequences that can directly affect the lives, livelihoods, and property values of the PUD’s other 251 stakeholders. In my letter of July 27th, I asked if you would be receptive to comments on certain topics at the August 10th hearing. The topics include health and safety, financial consequences for the Village, adverse impacts on other land-owners in the PUD, and constructive suggestions on ways to mitigate the potential damages. In the absence of any reply, the most logical way to proceed is probably for me to suggest some ways the concerns about these topics can be addressed by a few additions or edits to the draft resolution. General comments about the draft resolution 1. Any site plan action at this time should be deemed “tentative” or “preliminary.” Reasons: This is a large-scale, complicated project in a regulated industry that is currently experiencing calls for reforms. The plans for the adult care portion of the project may need to be approved by the NY State Dept. of Health (DOH). And the DOH can be expected to conduct a very thorough and time-consuming review. Under the circumstances, we can certainly understand why a developer would want some sort of commitment from the local Village before applying for approval from the DOH. But the realities are that these are interactive review processes, and there are simply too many open questions to grant final site plan approval at this time. 2. Another review by the Village at a later date will provide a more effective way to incorporate additional suggestions and approvals from state or county officials. Reasons: Some of the key open questions appear to involve required approvals by state or county officials. In addition to the approval from the DOH for the assisted living and memory care facilities, approvals are needed from the DOT for traffic- Rosemary Schlank 900 King Street, page 2 related issues and the County IDA for a PILOT request. Since the reviews by other agencies may result in changes or modifications to the proposed site plan, it would be more efficient and effective to consider the August 10th hearing as one step in a multi-phase review process in which the Village will review the plans again before granting final approval for any demolition or construction. It is my understanding that preliminary and final site approvals are often used by municipalities for complicated site plans, such as PUDs, because this approach provides more interaction with the community and results in better safeguards for our rights. This approach would be especially helpful in this case because the other agencies typically accept public comments, and their involvement may provide the other land-owners in the PUD an additional opportunity to comment on aspects of the plan that were discussed at a time when the Village’s site plan review process was closed to public comment. Other suggested additions or edits to conditions and covenants Consistent with the above approach, here are some examples of additions or edits to the draft resolution that will help to answer the open questions in an effective and efficient way. 1. Health and safety of future occupants. The Applicant shall not commence any work on any part of the project until the necessary licenses and approvals are obtained from the appropriate division of the NY state Department of Health. Until these approvals are obtained, the Village will not issue any demolition or construction permits, and the Applicant shall not file an application for early construction. If a determination is made that DOH approval is not required, the Applicant will provide a written statement from the DOH that so states. If applicable legislative or regulatory reforms are enacted during the construction period that affect the site plan, the Applicant will submit a new site plans that complies with the new requirements. 2. Safeguards for the community. The Applicant will at its own expense hire an independent consultant and recognized industry expert to prepare a statement on the extent to which the design of its proposed adult care facility is consistent with current strategies for controlling the spread of infectious diseases. This statement will address the use of a densely populated institutional setting that houses many occupants in close quarters (i.e., the big-box model) rather than the small-house model that has evolved from the pandemic and is more consistent with the character of the community. The Applicant will also at its own expense hire an independent consultant and recognized industry expert to prepare a document that details the steps that can and will be taken in the event of a future pandemic to protect the community from the spread of the disease and shutdowns of schools and businesses. These documents will be submitted to the Village Board of Trustees for approval, and they will be made available for public comment. 3. Improved security within the PUD. The land use proposed by the Applicant involves inherent delays while waiting for approvals. The resulting vacant offices and deserted stretch of land may have contributed to an increase in crime for other land-owners in Rosemary Schlank 900 King Street, page 3 the same PUD by creating a safety hazard that did not previously exist. To improve security at this time, the Applicant will install and maintain security cameras over the portion of Arbor Drive that abuts its property, and the Applicant will turn over the surveillance video to the VRB police upon request. Additionally, if and when a building permit is issued, the Applicant will take further steps to provide increased security over the use of Arbor Drive, (e.g., by installing an electronic access device at the point of the roadway that is closest to the Arbors residences). To ensure selection of the best device, the Applicant will prepare a briefing paper on the security options for the review and approval of the other land-owners in the PUD. 4. Financial consequences for the Village. A public hearing will be held on any requested PILOT agreement or other financial inducement, and information about the requested inducement(s) will be provided to the public in advance of the hearing. The information provided to the public will include a cost/benefit analysis and other details similar to the document available at https://www.newrochelleny.com/DocumentCenter/View/13228/December-22-2020- Draft-IDA-Packet?bidId ). 5. Restrictions on future development. Consistent with the wording of the original PUD resolution, this site plan application and all future changes in land use for 900 King Street must be approved by the other land-owners in the same PUD. If unanimous consent is considered too high a standard for inclusion in the covenants, then the attorneys for the Applicant, Village, and Arbors HOA will agree on the wording of a resolution to be approved by the Arbors homeowners of record prior to the date of the final approval of the site plan application. The covenant will be included in the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants that will be submitted in recordable form acceptable to the Village Attorney. The Applicant shall record the Declaration in the Land Records Division of the Office of the Clerk of the County of Westchester, and proof of recording shall be submitted to the Village prior to final site plan approval. 6. Noise management. The Village will manage the aggregate level of noise during and after the demolition and construction. The Arbors has had a portable noise monitor installed and is currently working with the airport’s noise and environmental experts to develop data on baseline noise conditions. The data is expected to quantify the aggregate noise level caused by both community and aircraft noise and to identify times of peak noise. Since it is unlikely that anyone other than the FAA will be able to curb the aircraft noise, other options will need to be considered when the aggregate level of noise exceeds the level that is normally considered acceptable. The other options will include reductions in construction noise or after-school athletic field noise. The peak noise times will be reported to the Building Inspector or other designated official who in turn will notify the Applicant of the actions that need to be taken by the Applicant to keep the aggregate level of noise to an acceptable level. In addition, bullet point 47 of the draft resolution should be revised to read: The Applicant shall provide a 2-week look-ahead construction schedule to all the other 251 land-owners in the PUD, including the Arbors HOA. [Changes are underlined.] Rosemary Schlank 900 King Street, page 4 7. Traffic impacts. Bullet point 63 should be revised to read: The Applicant shall, at their own expense, pursue approval of, and implementation of, certain signal re- timings along King Street with NYSDOT. The signal re-timings would occur on King Street at Arbor Drive and the Blind Brook Middle School and High School to improve existing and future operating conditions, including queuing along King Street as well as at the Middle and High School Driveway. [The Applicant shall also, at its own expense, provide whatever additional information is requested by the DOT and provide a written statement from the DOT stating that the steps taken are satisfactory and nothing further needs to be done to address the DOT’s concerns. ] [Changes are underlined.] 8. Air Quality. Bullet point 3.3 of the Applicant’s Construction Management Plan should be revised as follows: 3.3. ABATEMENT ACTIVITIES. . . As required by the Environmental Findings Statement (EFS) adopted by the Board of Trustees, the Village shall be provided with a copy of the ACM surveys as well as copies of agency correspondence related to abatement filings describing abatement work within 45 days of completion. Demolition shall occur in accordance with applicable regulations (e.g., OSHA and NYSDOL), as well as in accordance with Village approvals. [The other land-holders in the PUD will be provided with copies of the surveys and agency correspondence related to abatement filings and work at the same time as the Village.] [Changes are underlined.] Additionally, bullet point 7 of the Applicant’s Construction Management Plan should be revised as follows: As required by the EFS, in the event that airborne dust from the Project Site creates an adverse impact to the MS/HS [or any of the Arbors land-owners], the School District [or the Arbors land-owner] shall notify the CM and the Village immediately. The CM shall take appropriate measures to ameliorate the temporary impact. . . [Changes are underlined.] 9. Zoning and sustainability of project. If the facilities are subsequently closed down due to a business failure or a regulatory action, then the zoning for the site will revert back to the zoning that was in effect prior to the redevelopment. In addition, the Applicant or its successor will appoint an individual or firm to oversee the safe transfers of the occupants of the assisted living and memory care facilities to other facilities and to ensure the grounds are properly maintained until the property is transferred to a new owner and/or redeveloped for a different land use. To me, this project constitutes a potential long-term liability with formidable risks that are difficult to mitigate. If the developer does not use state-of-the-art strategies for controlling infectious diseases, then the investment will likely be unsustainable. Market demand will drop as seniors and their families will select other facilities that are more state-of-the-art. The business will fail. And it will be difficult to repurpose the site as anything other than a public housing project, with the result that all the properties in our PUD will lose value and the Village will suffer additional revenue shortfalls, leaving a hole in the budget that will need to be filled by adding to the tax burdens on others in the community. Rosemary Schlank 900 King Street, page 5 If these risks are not enough to make you want to take a step back and think about ways to cut your losses, (e.g., by either considering alternative land uses or going back to the drawing board and rethinking this project), then I hope that some of these hastily written conditions and covenants will at least serve as a starting point for constructive interaction with the Applicant and this in turn will lead to the types of safeguards that will benefit all the stakeholders in our PUD and our Village. Thank you for considering my comments. Yours truly, Rosemary Schlank c: Chris Bradbury, Administrator, Village of Rye Brook, NY Dan Barnett, President, Board of Directors, Arbors Homeowners Association Attachment: Letter of July 27, 2021 ROSEMARY A. SCHLANK 9 Bayberry Lane Rye Brook, NY 10573 (914) 939-9273 RSchlank@ix.netcom.com July 27, 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 site plan application for the Arbors/900 King Street PUD I am writing as a senior citizen and long-time land-owner in the same PUD as the applicant. As you may know from my prior comments, my main concerns are with:  The health and safety of the future occupants of the proposed assisted living and memory care facility,  The financial consequences for the Village as a whole, and  The impact on my neighbors and fellow land-owners whose lives, livelihoods, and legal rights would be most directly affected by the changes reflected in the site plan application. Prior to submitting my comments in writing (or in person if the hearing is continued). I would like to ask a few questions and would appreciate any answers the Village or the applicant can provide. I apologize in advance if the answers are posted on the Village’s website but I had limited time to prepare for the hearing, and the site was down on the day prior to the hearing. Here are my questions. Questions about Health and Safety Concerns 1. Would Title 18, SubChapter D, Adult-Care Facilities apply to the entire project or just the assisted living and memory care portion of it? What other industry-specific laws or regulations, existing or proposed, would protect the health and safety of the future occupants of the proposed site plan? 2. Do the laws require reviews and approvals by the NY state Department of Health (DOH) prior to the start of any demolition or construction at 900 King St.? If so, does the site plan review process include referral to the applicable agency within the DOH? Rosemary Schlank 900 King Street, page 2 3. Is the DOH’s Division of Adult Care Facility and Assisted Living Surveillance the proper agency to review the proposed project? If so, at what point do you expect the Division will complete its review of the architectural design and other project details, (e.g., before or after a building permit is issued?) 4. Is the design of the facility consistent with current strategies for controlling the spread of infectious diseases? If not, is there a document that details the steps that will be taken to protect the community from the spread of the disease and shutdowns of schools and businesses in a future pandemic? 5. Is the VRB Board of Trustees interested in comments about health and safety at this time? Or should we hold them for submission to the DOH? Questions about the Financial Consequences for the Village 1. Has the Village completed the negotiation of an agreed-upon payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreement for the 900 King Street project? If so, how many years does it cover and what are the expected revenues to the school district, village, and county for each of the next ten years? 2. How would the terms of the PILOT agreement change in the event the 900 King Street portion of the PUD is closed down (in whole or in part) due to a business failure or regulatory action? 3. Does the site plan incorporate any restrictions on future development or land use that would prevent or restrict frequent site plan amendments in response to changes in regulations or market demand? Does the site plan incorporate any restrictions on repurposing the site in ways that may lower the tax base? 4. Is the VRB Board of Trustees willing to discuss the expected tax effects as part of the site plan review? If not, when will more information be available to the public so we can better evaluate the potential financial consequences of this project compared with other types of land uses? Questions about the Adverse Impacts on Other Land-Owners in the Same PUD 1. If it fails, a development of the type proposed in the site plan application would be extremely difficult to repurpose, except perhaps as public housing. This would likely lower the property values of the other properties in the PUD. To protect us from this risk, the original PUD resolution assured all the land-owners in the Arbors/900 King Street PUD that our consent would be required for any future changes in land use. Does the site plan include a covenant that runs with the land that will provide similar legal rights for protection against the adverse impacts of future changes in land use? Rosemary Schlank 900 King Street, page 3 2. The incremental noise associated with prolonged construction would have adverse consequences for the lives and livelihoods of the other land-owners, especially in a village whose residents have already complained about aircraft noise, leaf-blower noise, and the din of school and village athletic fields. Are there any plans to monitor and manage the aggregate noise level? 3. Many residents of the PUD purchased property here because the location facilitated our commute to the office or our business travel plans. The proposed project at 900 King Street, combined with ambitious plans for redevelopment in nearby municipalities, will impact our commutes and travel plans in ways that are still evolving. Does the site plan review process include referral to officials in Port Chester and other nearby municipalities? Or does it rely on the Westchester County Planning Board and the Town of Greenwich to monitor and coordinate the combined traffic impact? 4. Some of the land-owners in the Arbors/900 King Street PUD have noticed an uptick in crime in the past few years. Typically, the crimes appear to be perpetrated by outsiders who are using our private roads and parking spaces. If approved, the construction and redevelopment could bring a more diverse and potentially even more troublesome set of outsiders to our community. Does the site plan include any steps to improve the security over the use of the roads or parking spaces during and after construction? 5. Is the Village Board of Trustees interested in receiving comments about these and other adverse consequences for land-owners in the PUD along with constructive suggestions on ways to mitigate the potential damages? Again, I apologize for having so many questions. In my experience, other developers have hosted meetings and offered to answer questions in advance, so the Village could run its meetings and hearings efficiently and minimize the expense to the taxpayers. I wish that had been the case with this project. But, other than the attorney for the board of the Arbors HOA, most of us have had little, if any, opportunity to have our questions answered. This really isn’t fair because the HOA, while certainly an important land-holder, is only one of 251 land-owners in the Arbors. If the Board could please take the time to answer the above questions now, that would be very much appreciated. Yours truly, Rosemary Schlank c: Chris Bradbury, Administrator, Village of Rye Brook, NY Dan Barnett, President, Board of Directors, Arbors Homeowners Association