HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.09.2021 R. Schlank - Westmore News
Letter: R.B. Village Board should vote no
on 900 King St. development plan
Thursday, September 9, 2021 6:48 AM
The Village of Rye Brook’s Board of Trustees is expected to consider a site plan application
next week for a proposed assisted living and memory care facility at 900 King St.
Has anyone besides me tried to review the plans? It can be a very time-consuming task
because there are reams of paper, and some of the most critical information is buried in the
drawings. The architectural drawings can be very helpful to anyone who is trying to plan
ahead and decide if this facility might be appropriate someday for their parents or
themselves.
The details in the drawings
For starters, the drawings show the facility will be located in the corner of the site that is
closest to the Village’s firehouse and police headquarters, where the sound of sirens can be
audible. This might not be appropriate for certain individuals, especially those with memory
impairment or Alzheimer’s, who are easily distracted by crowds and noises.
The floor plans reflect what most would consider a high level of density as the developer
managed to fit 94 beds into a 3- to 4-story building with limited square footage. As we all
learned the hard way during the pandemic, crowded conditions of this type are not
conducive to preventing the spread of infectious diseases.
The floor plans also feature dead-end hallways and double-loaded corridors that can make it
difficult for mobility-impaired residents to get around on their own.
There are few residential details. Instead, residents must find their way up and down as
many as four stories to go outside or get to the centralized kitchen and dining room in a
separate building. Conditions like these can lead to increased wandering, anxiety, agitation,
and depression.
These are some of the trade-offs that are buried in the drawings. The plans use the
institutional model, which is designed for operational efficiency rather than quality of life. In
the delicate balance between profits and people, the scale in the institutional model is
inherently tilted toward profits. This is the very essence of the model that legislators are
seeking to reform today. But adult care facilities do not need to follow this model anymore.
There is a better alternative.
A better alternative
Leading-edge architectural firms like Perkins-Eastman have developed modern architectural
design standards that use a residential model instead of the outdated institutional model.
The residential model uses a smaller-scale, small-house model that divides the buildings
into separate households of 10 to 14 occupants. Each household has its own kitchen, dining
room, and secure outdoor space. There are few hallways. Residents walk from room to
room, just like in a normal residence.
The health and safety benefits of the residential model are enormous. During the recent
pandemic, the spread of disease was found to be significantly lower in smaller group
settings.
There are also everyday health and quality-of-life benefits that range from better mobility
and higher cognition scores to reductions in stress, anxiety, depression, blood pressure
and muscle tension, as well as a lower incidence of declines in daily living activities (DLAs).
The benefits are also reflected in better orientation success and improved social awareness
and communications skills. All these factors can decrease the use of physical restraints
and/or psychotropic drugs.
Other benefits for a suburban village like Rye Brook include better fits with the character of
the community, the village’s comprehensive plan, and the legislative initiatives that are
underway now at both the state and federal levels to address the shortcomings of
institutional facilities.
A call for compassion
The architect for the 900 King St. facility is Perkins-Eastman. The employees of this firm
have the knowledge and the power to transform the lives of vulnerable senior citizens.
Perkins-Eastman literally wrote the book on the modern residential model of adult care
facilities.
Apparently, the obstacles to progress for this particular project came down to the size of the
project and the restrictions set by local zoning laws. The developer wants the project to be
big enough to be economically viable. The Village wants the project to be small enough to fit
within the zoning limits on the number of dwelling units per acre. As a compromise, the site
plan excludes the residential features that would qualify the care facility as a dwelling unit.
In effect, the design came down to a choice between profits and people, and the developer
chose profits. But there is still time for compassion. The village board and the owner of the
property should take the initiative and insist that the plans be revised to accommodate a
more residential model. The existing plans can be used in a more urban setting where the
size and density of the project will be more compatible with the character of the community
and the need for supportive housing. But Rye Brook residents deserve a first-rate state-of-
the-art facility.
Please join me in urging the village board to do the right thing for Rye Brook and vote “no”
on the site plan application.
Rosemary Schlank
Rye Brook