Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout900 King Street Rosemary A. Schlank Letter 2026-4-9ROSEMARY A. SCHLANK 9 Bayberry Lane Rye Brook, NY 10573 (914) 939-9273 RSchlank@ix.netcom.com April 9, 2026 Chairman Goodman and Members of the Village Planning Board Village of Rye Brook Offices 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 Dear Chairman Goodman and Board Members, Re: Amended Site Plan Application for 900 King Street As a property owner in the residential community adjacent to 900 King Street, I am very concerned about the financial and legal implications of the proposed plans for the senior living complex because of the potential for increased public access to private roads that are owned by the Arbors homeowners through our HOA. As currently worded, the conditions for site plan approval include requirements that appear to protect the Village from liability for any damage or injuries resulting from construction or public use. But the Arbors homeowners own the roadway, and there is nothing to clarify that my neighbors and I cannot be held liable – individually or through the HOA - for any damages or injuries incurred (a) during the demolition and construction, and (b) on an ongoing basis after the development is complete. To address these concerns, I request that a condition be added to the site plan approval resolution to require execution of a “road-use agreement” prior to the start of the demolition. Additional background The concerns about the added risks and potential liabilities for Arbors homeowners are based on the combined effects of the increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic in recent years plus (a) the plans for the extension of the sidewalk to and from King Street and (b) the plans for installation of a pedestrian crosswalk across Arbor Drive. The remainder of this letter provides additional background on these two areas, as well as a few highlights of how a road-use agreement might help to address the concerns. Rosemary Schlank Amended Site Plan Application for 900 King Street, page 2  The extended sidewalk. The plans for the extended sidewalk to and from King Street were not available when the public hearing was opened on the 2025 amendment to the site plan. Based on the current plans, it appears the architects and engineers were not able to fit the sidewalk entirely on land owned by the applicant. The 2021 resolution contains the following condition: Prior to the issuance of a Demolition Permit, the following conditions shall be satisfied: 11. Plans shall be revised to extend the sidewalk to cover the eastern end of Arbor Drive to connect to King Street, consistent with Comment 2 from the Westchester County Planning Board dated August 2, 2021, with such sidewalk extension located on the Applicant’s property to the maximum extent feasible and if there are areas where the sidewalk cannot be located on the Applicant’s property the construction of such sidewalk shall be subject to the consent of the owner of Arbor Drive (AHOA). Any retaining walls required as part of the sidewalk installation shall be subject to review by the Village ARB. Such consent by the owner of Arbor Drive and reviews by the Village ARB must occur prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. To the best of my knowledge, the HOA has not yet consented to this land use. And there are open questions about who is responsible for maintaining the sidewalk and who can be held liable for any possible accidents. A key concern is that school-age children who walk or ride bicycles to the middle-high school along King Street will use the sidewalk as a short-cut to the school building, and those who drive to school may use the private road to get to and from the parking lot that is accessible only through Arbor Drive and is currently available only to Arbors homeowners after school hours and on weekends and holidays. They may also be tempted to use the recreational facilities or the EV chargers that are available at the Arbors in close proximity to the school grounds and athletic field. This increased usage of the roadway by school-age children will add to the usage by the occupants of the senior living complex. And it will add to the risks of accidents and personal injuries, including the risk that a vulnerable senior may wander onto the Arbors roadways and private lots. Rosemary Schlank Amended Site Plan Application for 900 King Street, page 3 The increased road usage will also likely result in increased risks of traffic and parking violations that are difficult to enforce in a private community like ours. Police enforcement is limited, and the Arbors homeowners and HOA have no authority to issue traffic or parking tickets to outsiders.  The crosswalk. The proposed crosswalk leads to the Blind Brook middle-high school. The plans do not specify who will be responsible for operating and maintaining the crosswalk. The 2021 resolution contains the following condition: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following conditions shall be satisfied: 35. The Applicant shall install a crosswalk leading from Harkness Park to the existing Site pedestrian path and easement area in manner consistent with the Applicant’s existing easement over Arbor Drive and subject [to] coordination with the owner of Arbor Drive. The Applicant’s crosswalk shall have lighting or other safety measures for pedestrian safety as approved by the Building Inspector or Village Engineer Superintendent of Public Works, including appropriate reflective yellow crosswalk signage indicating a pedestrian crosswalk. The condition refers to the need for coordination with the owner of Arbor Drive. It also refers to the “Applicant’s existing easement.” But the deeds and easements executed in the 1970s are not clear in this regard. They indicate an easement was granted to the Blind Brook school district in 1978 to build a 5-foot wide pedestrian walkway and bicycle path. When the 900 King Street site was sold to the Atrium Corporation in 1979, the deed was subject to the easement rights already given to the school. The Atrium’s deed gave it the right to relocate and rebuild the path, but the school retained an easement for the purpose of “…constructing, reconstructing, installing, operating, maintaining, repairing, and using” the path. The applicant or the Village may be able to provide additional information about this easement. But, without any additional information or clarification, there is considerable confusion about the costs, risks, and responsibilities related to this crosswalk, both during demolition and construction and on an ongoing basis after completion of the project. Rosemary Schlank Amended Site Plan Application for 900 King Street, page 4 How a road-use agreement can help The HOA owns the roadway on which the crossing would be built and some of the land on which the sidewalk would be built. This means the presumption is that Arbors homeowners are responsible for the costs of maintaining the road and at least part of the sidewalk, and we can potentially be held liable for injuries from public use - either individually or through the HOA. This would be an unfair burden for a small community with self-funded road maintenance services. Our road maintenance services may not always reach the same high standard as the municipal services provided by the County and Village because of the differences in scale. Smaller private communities typically need to use smaller contractors and less efficient equipment. Additionally, the increased traffic in recent years and the loss of overflow parking at 900 King Street have already led to a parking space shortage that results in frequent parking violations. Our private community sets its own parking rules. The local police cannot enforce rules of this nature in this type of community. The objective of the road use agreement would be to help mitigate the additional costs and risks in the following ways:  Provide an agreement on who will pay what share of the costs of road maintenance and who is responsible for certain services, such as street cleaning, leaf removal, snowplowing, resurfacing, and managing repairs.  Provide an agreement on the approval needed for future repairs or upgrades.  Provide an agreement on the rules for usage of the private roadways and the parking areas, (e.g., speed limits, parking rules for visitors and oversized vehicles, and permissible hours of use) and how they will be enforced.  Provide an agreement regarding the responsibility of each party for carrying adequate insurance against damages or injuries sustained by the public.  Provide indemnification clauses to protect the Arbors homeowners from liability for damages or injuries during the demolition and construction, as well as from injuries resulting from public use after completion of the project.  Provide an agreement regarding how and when future traffic studies might be conducted, including participation in any safe streets or complete streets studies for which funding is available in the form of federal or county grants Rosemary Schlank Amended Site Plan Application for 900 King Street, page 5 Hopefully, the road-use agreement can be worded in way that permits filing with the County as a law that runs with the land and binds future parties, thereby providing protection for both current and future property owners in the Arbors. Thank you for considering my comments. Yours truly, Rosemary Schlank c: Chris Bradbury, Village Administrator Steven Fews, Village Building Inspector Dan Barnett as representative of the Arbors HOA