2019.01.23 R. Schlank CommentsROSEMARY A. SCHLANK
9 Bayberry Lane
Rye Brook, NY 10573
(914) 939-9273
RSchlank@ix.netcom.com
January 23, 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: Final Comments on DEIS for Redevelopment of 900 King Street
After considering the comments made in connection with the public hearings on the
DEIS for 900 King Street, I am writing to: (1) express opposition to the construction of
any residential housing project at 900 King Street (including a scaled-down version of
the proposed senior housing project), (2) request the inclusion in the FEIS of at least
one realistic and viable “no-build” alternative, (3) request additional information to
better understand the risks of adverse financial impacts for each alternative discussed
in the FEIS, and (4) request additional information to better understand the
sustainability of each alternative discussed in the FEIS.
(1) Reasons for Opposition to Residential Usage
There are two main reasons for opposing the construction of a residential project at 900
King Street. First, it will result in adverse financial impacts for the other property
owners in the PUD, and second, it will not meet the goals of the community. The goals
will not be met because an investment in additional residential housing is not
compatible with the specific zoning resolution and site plan approval for this PUD and
there are risks that this type of investment would not be sustainable in the long term.
(a) Adverse financial impacts. In my view, the most troublesome and most difficult-
to-mitigate issues are reflected in the inconsistencies in the concept plan and
zoning petition. The Type 1 positive declaration made under SEQRA characterizes
these issues as inconsistencies with “community plans” and “community character.”
During the hearings, the issues were often described as “too much mass and
density.” These are all good terms and descriptions, and they are appropriate for a
SEQRA proceeding. But more plain-English terms are needed to tell the full story.
The harsh reality is that there are issues related to residential usage that will cause
significant adverse financial impacts for the other property owners in the PUD.
These financial impacts were not fully addressed in either the DEIS or the hearings.
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 2
To its credit, the applicant responded in a timely manner to issues involving the
minimum ages of residents (e.g., 55 vs. 62). But the applicant also needs to
address the financial impacts that would be caused by the inherent differences in
activities and mindsets between the individuals who would use the 900 King Street
site as office space and those who would reside there.
Individuals who would use the site as office space are generally like-minded
people who work together under common leadership in a large corporate
office building, mostly on weekdays and during business hours.
Individuals who would reside there would be a more diverse group of
individuals whose pets, family members, visitors, and leisure time/ non-work-
related activities could pose problems 24 x 7 for the adjacent townhouse
community known as the Arbors. This community is densely populated by
local standards, self-policing, and doing its best to deal with the challenges of
private roads, limited parking, minimal municipal services, and a school in
close proximity.
If a residential option is approved, the challenges for the Arbors will be more
difficult to meet in a cost effective manner because the Arbors was not designed to
be a fully-secured gated community. Significant adverse financial impacts could be
felt on property values, as well as costs of self-policing services, road maintenance,
and safety/security. These issues are discussed in more detail under section 3,
request for additional information to better understand adverse financial impacts.
(b) Incompatible and unsustainable. There are concerns that an investment in
incremental residences at 900 King Street might not meet the long-term goals of
the community for several reasons. First, it would not be a compatible investment
because it is not permitted by the PUD resolution and site plan approvals for this
specific parcel of land. Second, it would not likely be a sustainable investment
because there is evidence that the supply of senior living housing in this area may
exceed the demand.
King Street and other nearby areas in Rye Brook and bordering municipalities
already have significant senior housing capacity. To date, there has been no
known attempt to measure the extent to which the current citizens of Rye
Brook want and need additional age-restricted housing. In the absence of a
grass-roots study of this nature, there are open questions about whether a
senior housing facility will truly serve the citizens of Rye Brook well and
whether it can survive and prosper in future years.
If the issues are viewed from a longer-term and more macro-economic
perspective, it seems clear that any proposed change from office space to
residential use would raise risks of unhealthy competition and/or excess
senior housing capacity. The trends increasingly favor an alternative to senior
housing that is known as “aging in place,” as seniors are staying fit longer
and using technology to monitor the safety of elderly relatives who prefer to
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 3
remain in their homes as long as possible. These issues and their impacts on
the achievement of the Rye Brook’s longer-term goals were not adequately
addressed in the DEIS or the public hearings.
Specifically, the overall longer-term goals of the community include the following:
- The Village should have a stable tax base.
- The property owners in PUDs should be treated fairly so they can protect and
preserve their property values.
- The owners of 900 King Street should have a profitable, well-respected
business as the anchor of a successful mixed-used PUD.
The issues that could interfere with the achievement of these goals relate mainly to
taxes, traffic, and socio-economic impacts. These issues are discussed in more
detail under section 4, request for additional information to better understand
sustainability of investments in various alternative uses of 900 King Street.
(2) Request for inclusion of a viable “no-build” alternative to senior housing.
One of the most confusing open issues involves the nature of the alternatives that are
included in the DEIS and that serve as a basis for comparison with the proposed
actions. Comments made by the Mayor of Rye Brook indicate the applicant’s proposal is
unlikely to be approved as submitted and more effort is needed to fine-tune the
alternatives discussed in the DEIS. Unfortunately, all but one of the alternatives
presented in the DEIS involves construction of new housing facilities, and this is not
permitted by the site-specific regulations that apply to 900 King Street.
The DEIS helps to explain the reasons for the lack of information by reference to the
changing nature of the applicant’s ownership and/or business motivation. A few
observations and suggestions may be helpful in dealing with this matter:
The applicant dismisses the permitted alternatives (i.e., the no-action
alternative) by saying, “It is the applicant’s opinion that re-use of the existing
office building is not viable. It is important to note that this alternative does not
meet the applicant’s purpose and need and it is not an alternative that the
applicant would pursue.”
Under the circumstances, it would be helpful for the applicant to get an
independent opinion from an outside realtor about how other businesses might
use the existing building.
At the time, the DEIS was submitted, the applicant did not have the zoning
resolution and site plan approval for its PUD. Now that this information is
available to the applicant, the discussion of alternatives should be updated to
take into account the provisions of those documents and to include additional
realistic and practical alternatives that will not require zoning waivers or
amendments. This will provide readers with a baseline for comparison of the
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 4
viable alternatives that are available with and without zoning amendments. This
would be far more helpful than looking solely at the extremes of an office
building that is either nearly empty or fully occupied by personnel who commute
to work every day at rush hour, when in reality neither of those alternatives
appears to be realistic and/or viable.
While there may be other options, one suggestion would be to include an alternative
that would convert the existing office space into “flex space” (a mix of office space and
storage or warehouse space that is in high demand today). [For more information, see
Attachment 1, LoHud, “What's red-hot in Westchester real estate,” Akiko Matsuda,
Rockland/Westchester Journal News, Dec. 4, 2018). This article reports that flex space
is in high demand in Westchester County by companies that are making greater use of
e-commerce in today’s business world. ]
(3) Request for additional information to better understand the risks of
adverse financial impacts for each alternative discussed in the FEIS
The areas in which additional information is needed include the following.
(a) Adverse financial impacts on property values
Alternatives that involve changes to the zoning resolution or site plan approved by
the Town of Rye can have adverse financial impacts on property values. In
contrast, alternatives that comply with the original regulations would not likely have
the same adverse impacts because the Town of Rye had the foresight and vision to
set guidelines that limit the number of residences, that require compatible land
uses with open spaces in nearby areas, and that give the townhouse owners a voice
in future changes. The decisions that were made by the Town to protect and
preserve the Arbors property values include the following:
The zoning resolution does not permit additional residences at 900 King
Street. The Town required a mixed-use PUD with no more than 250 dwellings
on the 60-acre property, and it limited the permitted uses of the non-
residential portion of the PUD (about 40% of the site) to office and research
laboratory use.
Modifications to the PUD’s site plan require consent of Arbors property
owners. The Town Code also established a process by which any
modifications to the approved site plan for the 60-acre PUD must be signed
by all the owners of property within this PUD zone. In effect, this resolution
provides assurances to the property owners that no major changes will be
made without our consent.
The spirit of these regulations was reinforced in 1998 by a VRB resolution that
relates specifically to 900 King Street. This resolution states, “… any modifications
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 5
should continue to be governed by the PUD regulations in effect under the Town
Code as of the date of the original Site Plan Approval, rather than the provisions
currently governing a PUD under the Rye Brook Code.”
Questions for the applicant:
1. Could the applicant get an outside opinion about whether the use of flex space
would be a viable option for 900 King Street and whether there are other viable
alternatives that would comply with the Town’s zoning resolution and approved
site plan? If so, could the applicant please include these alternatives in the FEIS?
2. For any alternative that does not comply with the original zoning resolution and
site plan and therefore requires the consent of the Arbors property owners, could
the applicant please estimate the resulting adverse financial impact on the
property values in the Arbors. Please include both short-term construction
impacts and longer-term impacts, and please indicate how the applicant plans to
proceed to negotiate a settlement or agreement with the Arbors property owners
to mitigate the adverse financial impacts on our property values.
(b) Adverse financial impacts on self-policing services
As detailed and documented in a separate letter from me dated November 11,
2018, the Town of Rye decided to require a firm commitment to the use of 900
King Street as office space as a “condition precedent” for building the 250
townhouses in the Arbors.
The builder of the Arbors section of the PUD relied on this condition precedent when
finalizing the details of items such as private roads with narrow widths, minimal
set-backs with no sidewalks along roadways, and limited availability of parking
spaces within the Arbors. All these decisions helped to determine the need for
certain self-policing services in the Arbors (meaning services that are provided by
the property owners rather than the municipality). In effect, the decisions made by
the builder in reliance on the Town’s “condition-precedent” terms resulted in the
Arbors being a self-policing community that lacks the benefit of municipal services
for many types of violations by visitors, even though these same types of violations
would be routinely handled by the police in communities without private roads.
Examples of self-policing services include the following:
Trespassing is a common area of self-policing, and incidents of trespassing
would likely increase if additional individuals start taking walks along the
Arbors roadways. They may not even realize they are trespassing (until they
are told that they are) because of the lack of sidewalks, minimal setbacks,
and use of shrubbery as privacy plantings. This can pose a significant
problem because the builder did not provide sidewalks along the narrow
roadways in the Arbors. And there is no room to build them now due to the
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 6
minimal setback decisions. But the problem has been contained to date by
the fact that users of commercial office buildings do not typically take walks
into adjacent townhouse developments and they do not typically have visitors
who would do that. If the nature of the land usage changes, it will likely
compound the trespassing problems.
Parking violations are another common areas of self-policing in the Arbors.
The use of private roads limits the level of municipal services that can be
provided by the local police for parking tickets. If a visitor parks in an
exclusive parking spot that is granted to a property owner by deed, the police
cannot issue a parking ticket. Instead, the property owner’s only recourse is
to have the vehicle towed or to fine the owner/driver of the vehicle, if that
person can be identified. The risks of parking violations are compounded by
the limited availability of spaces for 3-car families. Since the inception of the
PUD, the 900 King Street site has had ample parking spaces, and the
owners/managers of the site have been willing to provide overflow parking
for 3-car families in the Arbors and others who require it. Continuation of this
arrangement would likely not be feasible under alternatives that would
provide additional residential housing at 900 King Street.
Pet violations are another common area of self-policing. These violations
often involve trespassing as well. Since visitors have no sidewalks to walk
along, it is more difficult to curb their dogs. Instead, the dogs may roam on
long leashes that extend onto private property. The local police won’t help
the individual property owners with complaints about trespassing or pets,
even though we each own our lots, in part because there is no way for them
to know the locations of the lot lines or to ID the violators. One careless pet
owner can cause thousands of dollars of damage and the property owner may
never be able to prove who the dog owner is, even with the benefit of
surveillance cameras, because there is no way to ID the occasional visitors
who may be just passing through while on a walk or a visit.
To provide the necessary self-policing services, the Arbors property owners must
establish and pay for our own systems of surveillance, ticketing, towing, fining,
etc., together with a system of collecting fines if the person causing the damage is
not an Arbors resident. And the damages can be significant. Imagine coming home
at 1 or 2 am after your flight was delayed and finding an unauthorized vehicle in
your parking space and no place within reasonable walking distance to park your
own car. And imagine the hardship if you need to meet with a business client at 8
or 9 am that same work day. As anyone who has been caught in this predicament
(and who needed to spend time calling a towing service and waiting for them to
arrive in the wee hours of the morning) knows first-hand, it is not inconceivable
that the damages could include the loss of a job or an important client.
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 7
Questions for the applicant:
1. For each alternative discussed in the FEIS, please describe the potential parking
impacts. To what extent might it raise the risk that the 900 King Street site
would need to find (rather than provide) overflow parking? To what extent
would it compound the parking problems within the Arbors section of the PUD,
add to the costs of self-policing, and increase the risks of losses there?
2. The DEIS notes that a change to senior housing could result in additional tax
revenue to the Village of $281 thousand per year, and that would be sufficient
to fund any additional police personnel and associated equipment that might be
required as a result of the change. Who will compensate the Arbors property
owners for any increase in the cost of our self-policing services as a result of
changes at 900 King Street?
3. Is the applicant willing to work out an intra-PUD agreement that would cover
the need for occasional emergency availability of overflow parking and possibly
other shared services as well? Examples of other shared services include a
designated area for truck parking (i.e., one of the biggest problems in the
Arbors since big trucks do not fit into our regular visitor’s parking places) and a
shared maintenance/ dumpster facility for use by all sections of the PUD.
4. No matter what the scale, if the existing office space were to be replaced with
housing, it seems intuitive that more visitors will go for walks and make more
use of the Arbors grounds after business hours, and this in will likely result in
more trespassing and pet violations that will add to the cost of self-policing in
the Arbors, as well as the cost of damages caused by pets that are not properly
supervised. Is the applicant willing to work out an intra-PUD agreement with the
Arbors property owners regarding the adverse financial impacts caused by
incidents involving these types of actions by residents or visitors to 900 King
Street?
(c) Adverse financial impacts on road maintenance and safety/security costs
Adverse financial impacts may also be felt in the areas of road maintenance and
security. Road maintenance services are normally provided routinely by
municipalities, but certain services must be provided by the PUD’s property owners
instead because of the decision to build private roads. These services include:
Road maintenance. Examples include paving or resurfacing roads, applying
brine to roads in the winter time, plowing snow from roads, and removing of
fallen trees due to storm damage. Some of these services are limited as a
matter of practicality because the Village’s equipment does not work as
efficiently on narrow private roads.
Traffic control procedures. The police may not be permitted to issue tickets
on private roads for certain kinds of traffic or vehicular offenses (similar to
the way they cannot issue parking tickets on private roads). Due to the
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 8
nature of the roadways and the use of speed bumps and center islands,
speeding has not been a serious issue on Arbors roads in the past. But this is
changing now due in part to the misguided removal of a center island from an
Arbors road. And it is not inconceivable that some changes at 900 King Street
could worsen the situation further, especially if the changes involve the
addition of residents and/or the use of taxis or other vehicles to take seniors
to and from doctor’s appointments or special outings organized by the facility
at the 900 King Street.
Safety/security costs. The proximity to the school grounds raises two
distinctly different types of problems. One concern regards the safety of the
students who are walking, jogging, or bicycling along the roads in the PUD or
taking school buses to and from the school grounds. The PUD’s roads have
no bicycle lane or pedestrian crossways and no signs to prohibit hazardous
activities such as skateboarding. To the best of my knowledge, the PUD’s
roads have never undergone a “Complete Streets” review. The other concern
regards having strict enough security to prevent mischief, vandalism, or
substance abuse by minors who use the Arbors roads and property before or
after visiting the school or attending school athletic events. Sometimes the
mischief involves activities that are specifically banned by state laws and/or
school policies. The situation improved recently when the school added a sign
along Arbor Drive that states: “You are on school property. No alcohol within
1000 feet. No drugs. No smoking with 100 feet.” But most of the property is
unsigned, and the boundaries of school property are not clearly marked.
Questions for the applicant:
1. For each alternative discussed in the FEIS, describe the potential impacts on the
costs borne by the PUD property owners for road maintenance, traffic control
procedures, and safety and security.
2. Will any alternatives include a “Complete Streets” review and consideration of
the features and best practices suggested by that program? [For additional
information, see https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/completestreets/nysdot.]
3. For each alternative, would the applicant take responsibility for monitoring
compliance with the laws and policies that govern smoking, alcohol consumption
and substance abuse? Would all boundaries of school property be clearly
marked and appropriate signage installed?
4. Property damages and excessive dog barking have been observed in recent
months and years, reportedly in connection with alcohol consumption or
substance abuse. Unfortunately, when laws and policies establish bright-line
tests for minimal buffers, the natural reaction of some individuals is to cross
over the line by a small margin to avoid detection. The local police will not
respond to complaints from anyone other than the property owner or his or her
representative, (e.g., the office manager for the Arbors HOA if the offense takes
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 9
place on the roads and other common areas because the HOA is the owner of
those areas). This is often not practical since the office manager is available
during office hours and the mischief, vandalism, and incessant dog barking
typically occur after normal office hours. Will any alternatives discussed in the
DEIS expose the PUD to an increased risk of damage due to this kind of
conduct? If so, what will be done to mitigate the adverse effects on the other
property owners in the PUD?
5. Is the applicant willing to work out an intra-PUD agreement that would cover
the costs of road maintenance, traffic control and safety and security, as well as
any related systems, processes, and controls?
(4) Request for additional information to better understand the sustainability
of each alternative discussed in the FEIS
The areas in which additional information is needed include the following.
(a) Impacts of expected approaches to taxation
A key concern about the sustainability of each alternative regards the effects on the
tax revenues received by the various municipal governments and school district, as
well as the effects on individual taxpayers, both homesteaders and non-homestead
or commercial taxpayers. The discussion in chapter 9 of the DEIS is interesting. I
can understand that a meaningful comparison of the tax effects of each alternative
is not possible since the tax effects of residential housing are subject to negotiation
and are still to be determined. But more information about comparable properties
and past experiences would be helpful.
If I understand the discussion correctly, highlights of the tax treatment for the 900
King Street site are as follows:
Any land used for residential housing would continue to be categorized as a
commercial land use, and the non-homestead tax rate would continue to
apply.
If the land is used for residential housing, the owner(s) of 900 King Street
plan to explore the use of an agreement with the Westchester County
Industrial Development Agency (IDA). Under this agreement, the owners
would be exempt from sales tax, and the property would be exempt from ad
valorem real property taxes (school taxes, county taxes, and town taxes)
during the construction period and for a period of time after that.
If an agreement is reached with the IDA, then the IDA will require the
negotiation and execution of a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreement,
which will require the consent of the municipality. Approval of the agreement
would result in removal of the property from the assessment roll for the
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 10
period of the IDA agreement. Conversely, if there is no agreement with IDA,
then property taxes will continue to be based on assessed values.
The discussion of the potential long- and short- term effects of the PILOT
agreement notes that non-homestead properties would experience a
temporary increase in tax rates until such time as a PILOT payment is equal
to the taxes that would be paid on 51 percent of the estimated assessed
value of the improved property site.
Questions for the applicant:
1. Does the Village of Rye Brook have sufficient authority to approve a PILOT
agreement? Or do other governments, including the Town of Rye and/or the
school district, need to approve the agreement as well?
2. How many of these PILOT agreements do the Village of Rye Brook, Town of Rye,
and Blind Brook School District have at this point in time? How many does the
applicant have on other properties?
3. How long do these PILOT agreements typically take to negotiate? Are PILOT
agreements relatively easy to negotiate? Or are they complicated enough for
municipalities the size of Rye Brook and Town of Rye to require the use of
outside help?
4. Has the applicant or anyone in the Village of Rye Brook or Town of Rye ever
done an analysis to determine if existing or past PILOT agreements have been
beneficial to the local municipalities and their taxpayers? This would likely
involve comparisons with assessed values for the duration of the agreement.
5. From the applicant’s perspective, what are the pros and cons of these kinds of
IDA/PILOT agreements?
6. How does the sales tax exemption work? Would the owners be exempt from
collecting taxes from others or from paying taxes on their own purchases? On
what types of items would the applicant collect or pay sales taxes for each
alternative, if it were not exempt? Do the Village, Town, or School District get a
share of any sales taxes? Could the applicant estimate how much the sales taxes
would be for each alternative discussed in the FEIS?
(b) Impacts on socio-economic factors
A key concern about the sustainability of each alternative regards the comparative
impacts on socio-economic factors. For example, the demand for flex space seems
insatiable, and it is likely to continue to increase in future years. In comparison, the
demand for senior housing seems to be lagging behind prior expectations, and
there is a risk that the local supply of senior housing may far exceed the demand,
especially if more dwelling units are constructed on King Street.
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 11
Below is a tentative list of senior housing facilities already located along King Street
or in close proximity to King Street.
No.
of Sr
Liv
units
Facility
168 Existing senior housing at BelleFair. The Atria at 1200 King Street has at
least 168-independent-living residences.
180 Other existing senior housing facilities in Rye Brook
- The King Street Nursing Home, 787 King St., has 120 units.
- The Gladhaven Club, located just off King Street at 10 Bishop Drive
South, has 14 units.
- Grant Street Senior Housing has 32 affordable rental units for seniors and
510 Westchester Avenue has 14 units.
[Source; VRB 2014 Comprehensive Plan]
228 Other existing facilities on nearby King Street locations
- Greenwich Woods Health Care, 1165 King St, Greenwich, CT, 06831,
Assisted Living, Nursing Care, Alzheimer's Care, (217)
- The Greens at Greenwich, 1155 King Street, Greenwich, CT, 06831, (31).
576 Subtotal = Current capacity
385 Approved for Purchase College. Broadview, which is located on the
college campus at 735 Anderson Hill Road in Purchase, is building up to 385
senior housing units. Phase 1 is set to open in 2019. It includes 220
independent living homes.
269 Proposed 900 King Street, The owner of 900 King Street has proposed
building 269 dwelling units (or a total of 443 bedrooms), consisting of 24
townhouses, 85 assisted living, and 160 independent living residences.
Some of the AL units would be reserved for memory care.
1230 Total = Future capacity
Questions for the applicant:
1. Does the applicant believe there is sufficient demand to fill all the existing and
approved senior housing facilities in the area? Or will some be forced out of
business? What is the basis for your conclusions?
2. If a senior housing facility is approved and constructed at 900 King Street and it
subsequently goes out of business, how will this affect tax payments under the
PILOT agreement? (assuming one is negotiated and agreed-upon)
3. If a senior living unit is available for purchase, there might be an incentive for an
existing Rye Brook senior to sell his or her residential property and buy a home
in an independent living facility because he or she would not need to reapply for
a STAR exemption. But this would not apply if the senior is moving to a rental
unit. Are there any financial incentives that would encourage existing Rye Brook
residents to sell their homes and move to a senior living facility at 900 King
Street rather than one located in another municipality? Or does the applicant
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 12
expect that the facility would be filled mostly or even entirely by individuals who
are newcomers to Rye Brook.
4. Does the applicant agree that the effect of constructing additional senior housing
in Rye Brook would be to raise the average age of a Rye Brook resident and
lower the average income of a Rye Brook resident? These statistics will be
readily available in the future, and they would likely make Rye Brook look (on
paper at least) as a less desirable place to live for millennials and recent
graduates, and this in turn will lower the level of entrepreneurial spirit and
economic growth in the area. Is there any way to mitigate this kind of adverse
impact?
(c) Studies of cumulative effects, including traffic-on nearby roads
The approved DEIS scoping outline, which is dated January 2018, required
consideration of certain planned or potential projects when addressing the
cumulative impacts for certain environmental impact categories. The list of planned
or potential development projects specifically includes the approved senior housing
project at Purchase College, as well the nearby Enclave and Sun Homes PUDs, the
PepsiCo Project Renew Master Plan, and the Trinity Presbyterian Church.
As a result of events that occurred subsequent to January 2018, there are other
planned or potential projects that may need to be considered when evaluating and
discussing the environmental impacts in the FEIS, particularly with regard to traffic
on King Street. A list of tentative suggestions includes the following:
Proposed tolls on Merritt and I-95. The CTDOT is proposing to add tolls to
nearby Connecticut highways, including I-95 and the Merritt Parkway. The
Connecticut Tolling Options Evaluation Study was released in November
2018. Page 32 shows the tentative locations of the tolls on each highway.
[https://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dcommunications/press_release/
ctdot_tolling_report_11142018.pdf .] The report may help to address
concerns that tolls placed near NY borders could send traffic through
suburban neighborhoods, causing traffic snarls, interfering with local
business, and delaying emergency response times.
Long-term construction projects on a nearby section of the NYS Thruway,
In August 2018, the NYS Thruway Authority announced that construction had
begun on the long-awaited $135 million “Last Mile” project on the NYS
Thruway portion of I-95. The project is expected to be completed in 2021.
Long-term construction projects on Route 1 in Port Chester. In July 2018, the
US Army Corps of Engineers announced plans to replace two bridges over the
Byram River in Port Chester. The project is expected to be completed in
2021. [See http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Byram/ ]
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 13
Planned or potential projects in nearby Greenwich. In December 2018, the
Town of Greenwich announced it has approved the replacement of office
space with 69 residential apartments at the Mill in Glenville. [See
https://www.greenwichtime.com/local/article/Plan-approved-to-convert-
offices-to-apartments-in-13448064.php and
https://greenwichfreepress.com/news/business/still-no-answer-on-69-
residential-units-in-the-mill-115389/ ]
Other developments. In November 2018, Amazon announced it had chosen
nearby New York City (Long Island City) as one of two locations for its second
headquarters. The Westchester Business Council is expecting a ripple effect in
Westchester County. [See
https://www.lohud.com/story/opinion/contributors/2018/11/15/business-
council-westchester-amazon/2009955002/ ]
Questions for the applicant:
1. Does the applicant believe any of these subsequent events will affect the results
of its traffic study? If so, how?
2. Does the applicant believe any of these events will affect the timetable set for
construction activities in alternatives that involve construction? If so, how?
3. Does the applicant believe any of these events will affect the sustainability of any
of the alternatives discussed in the FEIS? If so, how?
Thank you for considering my comments.
Yours truly,
Rosemary Schlank
c: Chris Bradbury
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 14
What's red-hot in Westchester real estate? It's not luxury apartments
Akiko Matsuda, Rockland/Westchester Journal News
Published 11:01 a.m. ET Dec. 4, 2018 | Updated 5:51 p.m. ET Dec. 4, 2018
The hottest real estate in Westchester doesn't come with a glassy facade.
Instead, industrial properties, such as warehouses or so-called flex spaces that can be used
for either office, showroom or warehouse purposes, are what's in demand.
"The demand is tremendous," said Michael Rao, president of New York Commercial Realty
Group (http://www.nycrgroup.com/), who specializes in industrial real estate. "We don’t
have enough inventory."
Frank Rao, Michael Rao's brother and the company's executive vice president, said that
when warehouse or flex properties come on the market, they often find buyers without
being publicized.
"Hundreds of people are looking for a space from 5,000 square feet to a few hundred
thousand square feet. They're both tenants and buyers," Frank Rao said.
A variety of businesses have been flocking to industrial properties in Westchester, including
Tesla (/story/news/local/westchester/greenburgh/2017/07/21/tesla-greenburgh-car-
dealership/499994001/), an electric car manufacturer. The California-based company has
leased the 35,000-square-foot former Jeraci Foods warehouse in the Fairview Corporate
Park in Greenburgh to open its dealership and service center.
Growing e-commerce has created the need for more warehouse space. Construction-related
firms are also looking for space, reflecting the luxury apartment construction boom in
Westchester, Michael Rao said.
The demand for industrial real estate has gotten even stronger lately as many small
businesses based in New York City have migrated to Westchester as a result of
gentrification in the city.
About 25 percent of Michael Rao's recent deals involve clients from Queens and Brooklyn,
he said. The trend is likely to continue as more small businesses may be forced out of those
areas due to Amazon's impending arrival in Long Island City.
Shrinking vacancy
Westchester's industrial real estate market ended the third quarter of 2018 with a vacancy
rate of 4.2 percent, down from 4.9 percent a year ago, according to CoStar Group
(http://www.costar.com/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAxZPgBRCmARIsAOrTHSbPTqOj106bn2vjUxJmn6tdI
JEnYJ82wFsN1bPYWdysGVcjgTyd8twaAt-QEALw_wcB), a commercial real estate data
provider.
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 15
The rate is much smaller compared to Westchester's office real estate vacancy rate of 22.8
percent in the same time period, according to JLL (https://www.us.jll.com/en), a
commercial real estate company.
Eno Lelaj, chief financial officer of Jonard Tools (https://www.jonard.com/), a Tuckahoe-
based hand-tool manufacturer for the telecommunications industry and beyond, said he can
attest to the challenges of finding an industrial property in Westchester.
Eno Lelaj, CFO of Jonard Tools, talks about his company's need to find bigger space for the
business while at their current location in Tuckahoe Nov. 27, 2018. (Photo: Frank Becerra
Jr./The Journal News)
"We've been trying to purchase a building, but it has been tremendously difficult," Lelaj
said.
Jonard Tools (https://www.jonard.com/) has been based in a small industrial building at
134 Marbledale Road in Tuckahoe since the 1970s, manufacturing hand tools for
telecommunications.
The firm expanded its reach over the years and currently offers about 500 products for
cable television systems and security alarms along with telecommunications.
To accommodate the growing space needs, Jonard Tools has leased two warehouse
buildings across the street, but more space is needed.
In 2014, the company launched its journey to buy a property that's big enough to
accommodate its headquarters and warehouse needs. The search continued with no success
for more than four years, and the company has recently decided to lease — instead of
buying — a 17,000 square-foot flex space in the Cross Westchester Executive Park in
Greenburgh owned by Mack-Cali.
"We wanted to be in lower Westchester, but that was very difficult," Lelaj said.
Jonard Tools plans to move its operation to the new Greenburgh location next year.
The exterior of Jonard Tools on Marbledale Road in Tuckahoe Nov. 27, 2018. (Photo: Frank
Becerra Jr./The Journal News)
Gentrification
Historically, warehouses and factories were built along waterways for delivery convenience,
said Joseph Simone, president of Simone Development of the Bronx and one of the area's
major industrial real estate owners.
But as waterfront property has become an increasingly desirable place to live, industrial
properties in New York City's coastal communities such as Long Island City, Williamsburg
and Green Point were turned into high-rise residential buildings.
"When they changed the zoning to higher and better use, it created a shortage in industrial
property," he said. "Things are no different in the city of Yonkers, where they are building
residential buildings on the Hudson River. Well, those were all warehouses."
As waterfront industrial properties are turned into residential, alternative locations for
warehouses are hard to come by because they have to be close to major highways, said
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 16
Simone, whose company recently purchased a 118,500-square-foot industrial property in
Stamford, less than a mile away from an I-95 exit.
The conversion of industrial use to non-industrial use is not limited to just the waterfront in
Westchester. It's evident in the Jonard Tools neighborhood in Tuckahoe, where a 153-room
Marriott SpringHill Suites is currently under construction on a site that was formerly used as
a landfill. Just north of the hotel site on Marbledale Road is Broken Bow Brewery, a craft-
beer destination that opened out of a former tile-manufacturing warehouse.
As industrial real estate becomes something else, demand outweighs supply, said Howard
Greenberg, president of Howard Properties (https://howprop.com/) and a commercial real
estate expert.
"You've got a combination of reduction of inventory and increase in demand because they
(businesses) are coming from other areas," Greenberg said, adding that from a property-tax
perspective, municipalities welcome high-rise apartment buildings over one-story
warehouse buildings because they pay more in taxes. "The supply and the demand equation
is out of whack, and therefore the price goes up."
Twitter: @LohudAkiko (https://twitter.com/LohudAkiko)
Read or Share this story: https://www.lohud.com/story/marketplace/real-
estate/2018/12/04/industrial-real-estate/2083195002