2019.06.10 R. Schlank CommentsROSEMARY A. SCHLANK
9 Bayberry Lane
Rye Brook, NY 10573
(914) 939-9273
RSchlank@ix.netcom.com
June 10, 2019
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: Applicant’s Request to Proceed with Demolition of Office Building
The Village Board has a very full agenda for this evening. To be respectful of your time, I
am sending my comments on the demolition request in writing, and I am urging you to
reject the applicant’s request. My reasons are as follows:
First, this project has been under review since June 2017 when the applicant submitted its
initial rezoning petition. That was over two years ago. During that time, dozens of citizens
and taxpayers have submitted questions and concerns in accordance with the process
established by SEQRA and under the strict deadlines set by the Village Board. This was all
done in good faith and with the expectation that we would receive replies before any
decisions were made that would have significant adverse effects on our properties and our
lives. In my experience, even in cases where the effects were far less severe, other
applicants responded to each comment letter individually and in real time to help build
credibility and trust. In contrast, this applicant has refused for over two years to make an
effort to communicate with its would-be neighbors or to respond to a single letter.
Second, as noted in the comment letters, the applicant has repeatedly voiced opinions
instead of facts and the applicant has tried to bend the meaning of official documents to
support its own self-serving interests. This latest request seems to be consistent with that
pattern. Most recently, in a letter dated June 5, 2019, the applicant twisted the facts on two
very significant representations:
(a) The letter states that the office building will be removed regardless of the ultimate
plan approved by the Board of Trustees. I do not believe this is supported by the
facts because I am not aware of any law, rule or policy that obligates the Board of
Trustees to approve any rezoning petition or any revised site plan for this portion of
the PUD. If the applicant no longer wishes to be the owner of the property, then it
can sell the property – clear and simple. And it will be in both the village’s best
interest and the owner’s best interest to retain the building to facilitate the sale.
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 2
(b) The letter states that the “general consensus” is that it would be best if the
demolition could take place during the summer when school is not in session. I
believe this is twisted by a material omission of the fact that the general consensus
is that it would be best if the demolition does not take place at all. Despite the
significant amount of time and effort – and taxpayer’s money – that has been spent
on this proposal over the past two years, the applicant has not presented a
convincing case that any alternative would be better than the current zoning and
current land use. On the contrary, the costs and risk of all the alternatives proposed
to date appear to outweigh the benefits. Many relevant inquiries and challenges have
been submitted on this very point in the comment letters. But no response has been
received.
Since I am not an attorney, I will not comment on the merits of the applicant’s legal
argument. But I will say, as a citizen and taxpayer, that I think the applicant is making a
mockery of a legal process that was put in place to protect the community. And I am
strongly opposed to making any exception to the normal SEQRA process for an applicant
who does not appear to have the best interest of the community at heart and who has not
been willing to respond to any of the letters expressing the concerns of the community.
I realize this is a difficult balancing act for the Village Board. But please try to make an
objective evaluation of the risks and benefits. I believe the risks outweigh any potential
benefits because of the precedent that would be set by this action. The precedent would be
unfair to the citizens and taxpayers of Rye Brook, and it would be especially unfair to the
property owners in the Arbors who relied on the zoning laws and the stated requirement
that the consent of all the property owners in the PUD is required before the land can be
used for any purpose other than the one established in the original PUD resolution.
Thank you for considering my comments. If you have any questions or need any more
information, please feel free to contact me.
Yours truly,
Rosemary Schlank
c: Chris Bradbury, Administrator, Village of Rye Brook, NY