2018.10.08 R. Schlank CommentsROSEMARY A. SCHLANK
9 Bayberry Lane
Rye Brook, NY 10573
(914) 939-9273
RSchlank@ix.netcom.com
October 8, 2018
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 Members of the Planning Board,
Re: SEQRA Review of 900 King Street – Proposed Zoning Amendments
The purpose of this letter is to request that you recommend revisions to the VRB Zoning
Code in connection with the SEQRA review of 900 King Street. The reason for the requested
revisions is to resolve the zoning issues identified in the Comprehensive Plan and also clarify
whether the Village will honor the rights and conditions specified in the original resolution
for the Arbors/900 King Street PUD. This request is being made as part of the SEQRA review
process because that is the preference of the Village Board. Your response would be very
much appreciated as a way to help ease some of the stress caused by misunderstandings
and a lack of communications between the applicant and the Arbors property owners.
Background
On Sept. 9th, I wrote a letter to the Mayor requesting clarification of the process for
resolving any open zoning issues related to the Arbors/900 King Street PUD, including the
zoning issues identified in the Village’s Comprehensive Plan dated June 2014.
Although the explanation of the SEQRA process during the Sept. 12th board of trustees
meeting was helpful, the process for the zoning amendments was still unclear to me. So I
did some more research, including a comparison of the original Town of Rye PUD resolution
with the current VRB Code, a review of the prior litigation involving 900 King Street and
SEQRA, and a more in-depth review of the Comprehensive Plan.
Summary of Requests
My research indicates that the current VRB Code was probably meant to apply to future
development (new PUDs) and it was not the Village’s intent to invalidate any pre-existing
PUDs. Consistent with the findings of my research, I urge the Planning Board to please
recommend two broad types of revisions to the VRB Zoning Code.
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 2
Type 1 revisions, elimination of inconsistencies resulting from changes in laws.
Type 1 revisions would include statements, where appropriate, that clarify the Village
will honor the terms of the original 1973 Town of Rye resolution for the Arbors/900 King
Street PUD. This means the PUD would not be seen as non-conforming despite apparent
inconsistencies with the current VRB code. Specifically, please clarify the following:
1. Permissible locations of PUDs. The Arbors/900 King Street PUD is located south of
the Hutchinson River Parkway in accordance with the terms of the 1973 Town of
Rye resolution which permitted PUDs to be located adjacent to or north of the
Hutch. Please clarify that it does not need to be relocated to meet the VRB
requirement that all PUDs must be located north of the Hutch
2. Permissible residential density for PUDs. When the Arbors residential section was
approved under the original Town of Rye resolution dated June 19, 1973, the
maximum residential density for a PUD was seven (7) units per gross acre.
Please clarify that the PUD does not need to be rebuilt to meet the VRB Code’s
maximum residential density of six (6) dwelling units per gross acre.
3. Permissible floor area ratio for office buildings. The office building located at the
900 King Street section of the PUD was approved under the original Town of Rye
resolution dated June 19, 1973, and it successfully withstood a legal challenge
regarding compliance with that resolution in 1981. Please clarify that it does not
need to be rebuilt to meet the current VRB requirements regarding the maximum
height and floor area ratio for an office building located in a PUD.
Type 2 revisions, enforcement of other terms established by original resolution.
Type 2 revisions would include assurances that the Village will also honor other rights
and conditions specified in the original resolution for the Arbors/900 King Street PUD.
Specifically, the revisions should clarify that the Village will enforce the following:
1. Conditions for petition for review of previously-approved PUD plans. Please clarify
that the Village will not approve any changes in land use from those originally
approved by the Town of Rye without the consent of all the property owners in
the PUD. For the Arbors/900 King Street PUD, this means the application must be
filed jointly by the individual owners of the 250 private properties as well as the
owner of the streets and common areas (the Arbors HOA).
2. Restrictions on maximum number of residences within a PUD. Please clarify that
the Village will not approve any changes in land use from those originally
approved by the Town of Rye if the proposed changes would violate the 1973
restrictions with regard to the maximum number of residences within a PUD. For
the Arbors/900 King Street PUD, the maximum has already been met (250
dwelling units and/or 450 bedrooms or sleeping quarters as defined therein).
3. Restrictions on the use of open space. Please clarify that the Village will not
approve any changes in land use that infringe on areas that are designated as
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 3
“permanent” open space in the Town of Rye resolution. For 900 King Street, this
means no expansion beyond the original footprint of the office building.
Sources, Documents and Related Citations
Prior public discussions about the 900 King Street application indicated some confusion
about the documentation for the original zoning ordinance and the approved specifications,
terms and conditions for the Arbors/900 King Street PUD. So this section of the letter
provides a little more background on the sources of my information.
The Arbors residential section is similar in some respects to a condominium complex.
But the residences do not meet the commonly accepted definition of condominiums.
Instead, consistent with the approved subdivision plan, the Arbors residential area
consists of 250 private lots, each of which is deeded to an individual property owner.
My files and records date back to the 1970s and even before that because I am one
of the original Arbors property owners. I purchased property in the Arbors under the
initial offering plan in the late 1970s. In purchasing and keeping my Arbors residence
over the years, I relied heavily on the Town of Rye resolutions and minutes. I fully
expected the terms and conditions enacted in that manner would continue to be
honored after the Village became an incorporated part of the Town of Rye.
The prior litigation involving 900 King Street and SEQRA dates back to 1981. As you
may know, some members of our residential community were members of the
association that initiated that litigation so many years ago. The litigation involved the
Rye Town/King Civic Association et al. Appellants, vs the Town of Rye. It was tried
by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department,
Aug 24, 1981 [Town Assn v. Town of Rye, 82 A.D.2d 474 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)].
Although I am not an attorney and I am clearly not an expert on SEQRA, I trust
others will agree that the records of the litigation are a credible source. The court
ruling is a matter of public record and it is often quoted in other SEQRA cases. The
legal documentation for this case helps to confirm that the information contained in
this letter and its attachments is consistent with the facts as told to the court.
Detailed Analysis and Supporting Documentation
The first attachment to this letter analyzes each of the requests summarized on page 2 and
provides supporting documentation for each issue. The documentation is drawn from the
Comprehensive Plan, Town of Rye resolution, and current Village of Rye Brook Code.
Insights from the prior 900 King Street litigation are included, where applicable. The
attachment also provides suggested revisions to the VRB Code to implement the requests.
The second attachment to this letter is the original 1973 Town of Rye resolution.
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 4
In accordance with the SEQRA process, I will try to prepare a separate letter with questions
for the applicant. However, as you can see from the contents of this letter, some of these
matters go beyond the scope of the applicant’s submission and involve policy issues that are
perhaps better addressed by the Village Planning Board and the Village Board of Trustees.
Summary
There are many open zoning issues, and the process for resolving them is still unclear.
However, it is clear that, if adopted, the revisions requested in this letter would have
significant benefits in terms of our quality of life and our faith in local government officials.
Not only would the suggested revisions eliminate any negative consequences associated
with the inconsistencies identified in the Comprehensive Plan but they would also assure the
property owners in the pre-existing Arbors/900 King Street PUD that the Village will do the
honorable thing and preserve the rights and conditions that keep our community strong and
make our PUD such a pleasant and attractive place to live and work.
Thank you for considering my comments and suggestions. If you have any questions or
need any more information about any of these points, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours truly,
Rosemary Schlank
Attachments:
A. Detailed Analysis of Zoning Issues
B. Original Town of Rye Resolution
Rosemary Schlank
Attachment A, page 1
Attachment A
Detailed Analysis of Zoning Issues
This analysis reflects the results of research into the litigation, zoning ordinances, and
Comprehensive Plan. It breaks down the zoning issues into areas that are best solved by
Type 1 revisions, (i.e., revisions needed to eliminate potential inconsistencies due to
changes in zoning laws,) and areas that are best solved by Type 2 revisions, (i.e., other
revisions that are needed to preserve the letter and spirit of the original resolution).
The analysis also offers some suggested revisions to the VRB zoning law on PUDs for
consideration by the Planning Board. The suggested revisions are marked by underlined text
in brackets and are preceded by the words “Suggested revision.”
Type 1 Revisions:
Elimination of Potential Inconsistencies with the Original PUD Resolution
The Village’s Comprehensive Plan identifies three areas in which the Arbors/900 King Street
PUD may be considered out of compliance with the current VRB zoning laws due to changes
in zoning laws. These issues can most easily be addressed by clarifications that these
sections of the VRB Code do not apply to pre-existing PUDs that were approved subject to
the terms and conditions of the Town of Rye resolutions. The Arbors/900 King Street may
be the only PUD that falls into this category.
Revisions of this type are consistent with VRB Chapter 250 E(4)(f)[3] [amended 6-8-1993
by L.L No. 3-1993] which states: “This section shall not invalidate any PUDs existing prior to
the date this section shall become effective.”
(1) The permissible locations for PUDs
The first issue identified in the Comprehensive Plan regards the permissible locations for
PUDs. Key excerpts from the existing sources of documentation regarding permissible
locations, along with a suggested revision to the current Code, are as follows:
- The Comprehensive Plan states: “The standards for PUDs were revised several times
in the 1990s, and the 900 King Street/Arbors PUD appears to no longer conform. For
example, the PUD is located south of the Hutchinson River Parkway, where the code
requires that PUDs must be located north of that roadway.”
- The Original Town of Rye PUD resolution, Section 66-7(2)(c), states: “The PUD
District may be applicable to any qualifying area of the town adjacent to or north of
the Hutchinson River Parkway. In addition, all such districts shall have at least
seventy-five (75) feet of frontage on a state, county or major town road.”
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 2
- The VRB Code, Chapter 250 E(2)(c) [Amended 6-8-1993 by L.L. No. 3-1993] states:
“A PUD may be applied to any qualifying area north of the Hutchinson River Parkway.
All such districts shall have at least 150 feet of frontage on a state, county or major
Village road.” [Suggested revision. This requirement is effective prospectively from
the date of enactment; it does not invalidate any pre-existing PUDs located south of
the Hutchinson River Parkway, such as the Arbors/900 King Street PUD.]
(2) The permissible residential density within the Arbors section of the PUD
The second issue identified in the Comprehensive Plan regards the residential density of a
PUD. Key excerpts from the existing documentation regarding permissible residential
density, along with a suggested revision to the current Code, are as follows:
- The Comprehensive Plan states: “In addition, the residential density of the Arbors
likely exceeds the maximum of 6 units per gross acre requirement, as the
development contains 250 units on 37 acres (about 6.76 per acre).”
- The Original Town of Rye PUD resolution, Section 66-7(2)(d)[1] states: Multifamily
residential uses. The development of up to two hundred fifty (250) garden
apartments, containing a total of four hundred fifty (450) bedrooms, with an average
of one and eight-tenths (1.8) bedrooms per dwelling, constructed at a density of
approximately seven (7) units per gross acre may be permitted.”
- The VRB Code, Chapter 250 E(2)(d)[1] states: Residential. The development of up to
9,000 square feet of floor area per gross acre of the residential part of the total PUD
site shall be permitted, but in no case shall the total number of dwelling units exceed
six per gross acre of the residential part of the total PUD site. No dwelling unit shall
exceed 30 feet in height.” [Suggested revision: These residential density
requirements are effective prospectively from the date of enactment; they do not
invalidate any pre-existing PUD that was approved under a prior zoning ordinance,
such as the residential section of the Arbors/900 King Street PUD that was approved
by the Town of Rye.]
(3) The permissible floor area ratio of the office building
The third issue identified in the Comprehensive Plan regards the permissible floor area ratio
(FAR) of an office buildings in a PUD. Excerpts from the existing documentation regarding
the permissible FAR of an office building, along with a suggested revision to the current
Code, are as follows:
- The Comprehensive Plan states: “Finally, the office building’s floor area ratio (FAR) is
about 0.26 (201,000 total square footage divided by the approximately 773,626
square feet of lot area), which is well in excess of the maximum allowable FAR of
0.12. While it is likely that the PUD regulations were revised to provide for tight
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 3
control of future development, the effect of this nonconformity may be limiting the
potential of 900 King Street, possibly contributing to its vacancy issues.”
- The Original Town of Rye PUD resolution, Section 66-7(2)(d)[2] states: “Professional
or business office and research laboratory type uses as permitted in the OB-1
District, not to exceed two (2) stories or thirty-five (35) feet in height, whichever is
less, or not to have a floor area ratio which exceeds one hundred forty-five
thousandths (.145). Should the entire office and research laboratory area be placed
under long-term lease to, or the ownership of, a single corporate tenant, the floor
area ratio may be increased one hundred ninety thousandths (.190), provided that
there is reasonable evidence that the traffic in the vicinity of the site can be
adequately controlled.”
- The VRB Code, Chapter 250 E(2)(d)[2] states: “Professional/business
office/research laboratory: all uses listed in the OB-1 District (See § 250-27). The
floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.12 of the gross acreage of the land allocated to
this use. No structure shall exceed 35 feet in height. For planned unit developments
that include conference centers, the maximum building height of such conference
center may be increased to no more than 40 feet as defined in § 250-2 of this
chapter and the maximum floor area ratio for any nonresidential portion of a PUD
may be increased to no more than 0.164 where the Board of Trustees finds that such
increases in building height and/or floor area will not have an adverse impact on
adjacent residential properties and will be compatible with surrounding land uses.
[Amended 11-17-1998 by L.L. No. 6-1998]” [Suggested revision: These
requirements are effective prospectively from the date of enactment; they do not
invalidate any pre-existing PUD that was approved under a prior zoning ordinance,
such as the office building section of the Arbors/900 King Street PUD.]
Insights from prior litigation re the permissible floor area ratio
The points made by about FAR in the Comprehensive Plan are well-taken, but they may be
a non-issue to the extent they are addressed by the ruling in the court case cited on page 3
of the accompanying letter.
According to the court records, members of the Rye Town/King Civic Association sought to
set aside the construction permit granted to the then-owner of the 900 King Street property
(the Atrium) on two grounds: (a) the Town did not comply with the letter of the SEQRA law,
and (b) the Town did not properly apply its zoning ordinance. The Court considered both
grounds and ultimately agreed with the first charge but not the second one. In effect, the
Court held that the building complies with the original zoning ordinance because it satisfies
the first of the two clauses that are separated by the italicized word “or.” As a result, the
court said, the calculation of the office building’s floor area ratio was not relevant.
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 4
The court’s ruling is potentially very significant for the applicant (and/or any future owner of
the 900 King Street property) because the ruling, combined with the suggested revisions to
the VRB Code, would mean that the office building at 900 King Street can be subdivided
without violating the applicable zoning laws. This could greatly increase the economic
viability of the office building because it would cure one of the leading causes of the
building’s long-standing vacancy problems. The Comprehensive Plan explains:
Much of this situation reflects the office market, the constantly shifting needs of
corporate users and the particulars of the building itself (notably the fact that much
of the building is not subdivided, requiring a large tenant.
The Comprehensive Plan goes to explain the inconsistency with the floor area ratio
requirements of the current Code might be more problematic for redevelopment purposes.
But the options for redevelopment are already effectively constrained by the terms and
conditions of the original resolution as explained in the next section on Type 2 revisions.
Type 2 Revisions:
Other Changes Needed to Honor the Spirit and the Letter of the Original Resolution
The DEIS submitted by the applicant would introduce additional inconsistencies. The
applicant has provided proposed zoning amendments that would eliminate these
inconstancies. However, the applicant’s proposed amendments should not be approved as
submitted. The reasons for not approving the proposed amendments are because they are
inconsistent with the terms and conditions established by the original PUD resolution and
they would result in unfair adverse consequences for the residential property owners in the
pre-existing PUD. A fairer and more logical approach would be for the Planning Board to
suggest alternative revisions to the current Code to ensure the existing property owners are
treated in a manner consistent with the terms of the original resolution.
Highlights of the potential issues raised by the applicant’s submission, along with suggested
revisions to current Code, are provided below.
(1) The Village should not consider an application for significant changes to a pre-
existing PUD unless it is signed by all owners of property within the PUD.
The terms and conditions of the original resolution for the Arbors/900 King Street PUD
require joint signatures if the property is owned by multiple owners. In effect, this gives the
other property owners the right to reject or veto any unreasonable or unwelcome future
changes in land use within the PUD. Key excerpts from the existing documentation along
with suggested revisions to the current Code are as follows:
- The original Town of Rye resolution specifies that the same terms and conditions that
apply to an original submittal of an application must also apply to a petition for a
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 5
review of a previously approved plan. Sections 66-7E(2)(a) and (b), 66-7E(3)(h),
and 66-8 state:
“The minimum area required to qualify for a PUD shall be thirty (30) contiguous
acres... The parcel of land for a PUD project may be owned, leased or controlled
either by a single person, a corporation, or by a group of individuals or corporations.
An application must be filed by the owner, contract vendee or jointly by owners of all
property included in a PUD project. In the case of multiple ownership, the approved
plan shall be binding on all owners.”
“At any time following approval of the final site plan, including the issuance of
permits for any part thereof, the applicant may petition for review of the previously
approved plan. The Town Board, upon finding that such petition and reasons are
reasonable and valid, may reconsider the design of the PUD District and the detailed
site plan thereof, and shall follow, in full, the procedure and conditions herein
required for original submittal.”
“No Board, agency, officer or employee of the town shall issue, grant or approve any
permit, license, certificate or other authorization, including special permits by the
Planning Board and adjustments by the Board of Appeals, for any construction,
reconstruction, alteration, enlargement or moving of any building, or for any use of
land or building that would not be in full compliance with the provisions of this
ordinance. Any such permit, license, certificate or other authorization, issued,
granted or approved in violation of the provisions of this ordinance shall be null and
void and of no effect, without the necessity of any proceedings or revocation or
nullification thereof...”
- The VRB Code specifies the same minimum land holding of 30 contiguous acres, but
it refers to a form rather than spelling out the ownership requirements that apply
when filling out the form.
Chapter 250 E(2)(a) and (b) state: “Standards and requirements. All planned unit
developments (PUD's) shall conform to the following: Application. An application
form as provided by the Village Building Department must be completed. [Amended
11-17-1998 by L.L. No. 6-1998] Minimum area. The minimum area required to
qualify for a PUD shall be 30 contiguous acres within the Village of Rye Brook, not
separated by any public street or other public property at the time of the
application.” [Suggested revision: An application to significantly change a pre-
existing PUD that was approved under the Town of Rye zoning ordinance must
comply with the terms and conditions of the original resolution, such as the
requirement that a petition for significant redevelopment of the Arbors/900 King
Street PUD must be signed jointly by all the property owners of all the properties
within that PUD.]
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 6
(2) The Village should not consider any override of the maximum number of
residences permitted by the terms and conditions for a pre-existing PUD.
Excerpts from the existing documentation along with suggested revisions to the current
Code are as follows:
- The original Town of Rye resolution restricts the maximum number of residences and
the number of bedrooms that may be constructed anywhere within the Arbors/900
King Street PUD.
Section 66-7E(2)(d)(1) states: “Permitted uses. All uses within a PUD District shall
be determined by the provisions of this section and the approved plan of the PUD
project concerned. . . Permitted uses may include, and shall be regulated by, the
following: Multifamily residential uses. The development of up to two hundred fifty
(250) garden apartments, containing a total of four hundred fifty (450) bedrooms,
with an average of one and eight-tenths (1.8) bedrooms per dwelling, constructed at
a density of approximately seven (7) units per gross acre may be permitted. . .
"Bedrooms" shall be defined as any space designed or used in whole or in part as
sleeping quarters and shall lie designated as such on the approved site plan and
drawings, which shall thus describe the permitted use of all rooms in each dwelling.”
- The VRB Code does not appear to establish a similar PUD-wide constraint for the
total number of residences.
Chapter 250 E(2)(d) states: “Permitted use. All uses within a PUD District shall be
determined by the provisions of this subsection. Any land used for the calculation of
density for one use shall not be used for the calculation of density for another use.
The proportion and density of each use shall be approved by the Village Board, after
recommendation of the Planning Board, and shall depend upon the location,
environmental factors and economic considerations of each proposed project and its
surroundings.”
“Uses may include and shall be regulated by the following: Residential. The
development of up to 9,000 square feet of floor area per gross acre of the residential
part of the total PUD site shall be permitted, but in no case shall the total number of
dwelling units exceed six per gross acre of the residential part of the total PUD site.
No dwelling unit shall exceed 30 feet in height.” [Suggested Revision: An application
to change a pre-existing PUD that was approved under the Town of Rye zoning
ordinance must comply with the PUD-wide constraints established by the terms and
conditions of the original resolution, such as the constraints on the total number of
dwelling units and bedrooms in the Arbors/900 King Street PUD.]
Rosemary Schlank
900 King Street, page 7
(3) The Village should not consider any application for changes to a pre-existing
PUD unless it retains all open space designated as permanent by the original
PUD resolution and site plan approval.
Excerpts from the existing documentation along with suggested revisions to the current
Code are as follows:
- The original Town of Rye resolution establishes a condition that steps must be taken
to ensure that all open spaces are permanent. Section 66-7E(3)(j) states:
“Residential maintenance. The applicant shall comply with Article 9B of the Real
Property Law of the State of New York in regard to condominium ownership and
before the issuance of any building permits. The applicant shall execute a covenant
running with the land as to the use and maintenance of open spaces, ponds, roads
and buildings to be approved by the Town Attorney and the Town Board, which shall
include but not be limited to the following: . . . [3] The open space restrictions shall
be permanent.”
- The VRB Code contains a similar condition. Chapter 250 E(4)(e) states:
“Maintenance. The applicant shall execute a covenant running with the land as to the
use, preservation and maintenance of common open space, bodies of water, trees,
roads and buildings. Before the issuance of any certificates of occupancy, the
covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the Village Attorney and shall include,
but not be limited to, the following: . . . The open space restrictions shall be
permanent.” [Suggested revision: An application to change a pre-existing PUD that
was approved under the Town of Rye zoning ordinance must comply with any open-
space conditions, such as the restrictions set on the use of areas designated as open
space in the Arbors/900 King Street PUD prior to issuance of any construction
permits.]
§ 66-7 RYE CODE § 66-7
munications between the control station of the
Westchester County (Rye) Airport and planes
approaching or departing from such airport or
traveling in the turning zones hereinbefore
established.
(b) Within the airport zones hereinbefore defined, no
machinery or apparatus of any kind shall be so
operated as to interfere with the transmission and
receipt of radio or other communications between
the control station of the Westchester County
(Rye) Airport, and planes approaching and
departing from such airport or traveling in the
turning zones hereinbefore established.
E. Planned Unit Development District. [Added 6-19-73J
(1) Purposes. In addition to the purposes set forth in
Article I of the Town of Rye Zoning Ordinance, the
PUD-Planned Unit Development District shall have
among its purposes the following:
(a)To provide for an increase in the amount and
variety of housing in the town in an era of in-
creasing urbanization, development costs and
awareness of the importance of natural resource
preservation thereto; to encourage distinguished
architectural expression and innovative design so
that these needs may be met by greater variety,
type, design and layout of buildings and by a
conservation of, and more efficient use of, open
space in support of said buildings.
(b)To protect, conserve and enhance natural
resources, outstanding natural topography and
geological features such as trees, vistas, soil
stability, man-made landscaping and other
features and to encourage the efficient use of land
in relation to public and private facilities and
utilities.
(c)To conserve the economic value of land and to
strengthen and sustain its taxable potential.
§ 66-7 ZONING § 66-7
(d)To provide a review procedure which can relate
the type, design and layout of residential and
nonresidential development to a particularly large
site or parcel and to a particular demand for
housing, office, commercial, recreational and
other supportive uses in a manner consistent with
the preservation of property values within and
adjacent to established residential and other
developed areas, and which will ensure that the
increased flexibility over land development
authorized herein is subject to administrative
standards designed to encourage good
development while assuring that such
development shall further the purposes of the
Town of Rye Zoning Ordinance and of the
Comprehensive General Plan for Development of
the Town of Rye.
(2) Standards and requirements. In accordance with the
standards, requirements and procedures hereinafter
specified, all planned unit developments (PUD's ),
shall conform to and meet the following:
(a)Minimum area. The minimum area required to
qualify for a PUD shall be thirty (30) contiguous
acres.
(b)Ownership. The parcel of land for a PUD project
may be owned, leased or controlled either by a
single person, a corporation, or by a group of
individuals or corporations. An application must
be filed by the owner, contract vendee or jointly
by owners of all property included in a PUD
project. In the case of multiple ownership, the
approved plan shall be binding on all owners.
(c)Location. The PUD District may be applicable to
any qualifying area of the town adjacent to or
north of the Hutchinson River Parkway. In
addition, all such districts shall have at least
seventy-five (75) feet of frontage on a state,
county or major town road.
R
S
c
h
l
a
n
k
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
§ 66-7 RYE CODE § 66-7 § 66-7 ZONING § 66-7
(d ) Permitted uses. All uses within a PUD District
shall be determined by the provisions of this
section and the approved plan of the PUD project
concerned. The proportion, rate of construction
and intensity of each use shall be approved by the
Town Board and shall depend upon the unique
location, physical factors and economic con-
siderations of each proposed project within and
adjacent thereto. Permitted uses may include,
and shall be regulated by, the following:
(11 Multifamily residential uses. The
development of up to two hundred fifty (250)
garden apartments, containing a total of four
hundred fifty (450) bedrooms, with an
average of one and eight-tenths (1.8)
bedrooms per dwelling, constructed at a
density of approximately seven (7) units per
gross acre may be permitted. Dwelling units
designed and used for rental purposes shall
not exceed an average size of one thousand
four hundred fifty (1,450) square feet per
apartment. Their maximum size may be
increased to one thousand six hundred
(1,600) square feet and their minimum size
shall not be less than one thousand one
hundred (1,100) square feet. "Bedrooms"
shall be defined as any space designed or
used in whole or in part as sleeping quarters
and shall lie designated as such on the ap-
proved site plan and drawings, which shall
thus describe the permitted use of all rooms
in each dwelling.
NI Professional or business office and research
laboratory type uses as permitted in the OB-
1 District, not to exceed two (2) stories or
thirty-five (35) feet in height, whichever is
less, or not to have a floor area ratio which
exceeds one hundred forty-five thousandths
(.145). Should the entire office and research
laboratory area be placed under long-term
lease to, or the ownership of, a single cor-
porate tenant, the floor area ratio may be
increased one hundred ninety thousandths
(.190), provided that there is reasonable
evidence that the traffic in the vicinity of the
site can be adequately controlled.
(31 Open spaces, either landscaped or left in their
natural state, including Subsection (f) below.
[41 Customary accessory or associated uses such
as garages, indoor storage spaces,
recreational and community activities,
utilities and facilities as may be appropriate
in relation to the principal uses listed above.
Parking shall be as required in other sections
of this ordinance, except that multifamily
residential uses shall provide at least one and
one-half (11/4 ) parking spaces for each dwell-
ing plus one-fourth VA ) for each bedroom.
(e) Buffer areas. Where the PUD abuts residential
districts, the required setback of all structures
and parking along the abutting property line shall
be at least equal to the minimum lot depth of the
abutting residential district or one hundred fifty
(150) feet, whichever is greater. Such minimum
setback may be increased or decreased by a
maximum of one-third WO by the Town Board
upon recommendation by the Planning Board on
the basis of field inspection of existing conditions
and recommended required buffer planting. Such
setback or buffer areas created shall not be
disturbed except that their use for passive
recreation, landscaping, circulation drives and
their temporary disruption for the provision of
utilities and facilities may be recommended for
approval by the Planning Board in the course of
site plan approval. Additional buffer zones may
be required for the preservation of community
character, health, welfare and to minimize
disturbance.
6654.2 7 - 25 - 73
R
S
c
h
l
a
n
k
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
1...un LIN Li g
the erection of any building or use in such
development shall be granted and before any
subdivision plat for any part thereof may be filed
in the office of the Westchester County Clerk, the
developer or his agent shall apply for and secure
approval of such planned unit development in
accordance with the following procedures:
(b) Application. The developer shall submit a written
application request, including maps where ap-
propriate and an illustrated project plan, to the
Town Board containing or malting provision for
the furnishing of the following: the name and
address of the applicant; the location of the land
proposed to be developed; a map of existing
natural and man-made conditions on and adjacent
to the site; the nature of the applicant's interest
in the land; the density of land use to be allocated
to various parts of the site; the location and size
of any common open space; the form or
organization proposed to own and maintain
common open space, if any; the use, height, bulk,
location and general design of buildings and other
structures; the proposed provision of water
supply and disposition of stormwater and
sanitary sewage; the substance of any covenants,
grants, easements or any other restrictions
proposed to be imposed upon the land or
buildings, including easements for public
utilities; provisions for parking; locations and
widths of streets and pedestrian easements and
ways; modifications from the existing town or-
dinances governing streets or land use being
requested, if any; the projected schedule for
development; and the approximate times when
final approval would be requested. The above
information may be supported by a report stating
why the public interest would be served by the
proposed development and setting forth the
manner in which the proposed planned unit
development would meet the objectives of this
ordinance and the town Development Plan.
9 Do- I
(f) Land for general town use.
Il l Private common property. In a PUD
District, an area or areas may be reserved,
together with improvements thereon, for the
use and enjoyment of the residents or oc-
cupants of the PUD District. Where such
private common property exists, satisfactory
arrangements shall be made for the im-
provement, operation and maintenance of
such areas and facilities, which shall be
approved by the Town Board.
[2! Public area. In a PUD District, at least ten
percent (10%) of the total site area shall be
offered and dedicated to the town for general
town use. Such lands may be included in the
allocation of land for determining the
maximum density and intensity of land use.
Such land shall be exclusive of, and in ad-
dition to, areas devoted to public streets,
park reservations, private common property
and/or utilities.
131 Easements and on-site improvements. On-
site improvements and easements shall be
provided as required by the town for
adequate circulation, convenience and safety
in, through and adjacent to the proposed
development. The developer may offer to
provide, subject to governmental approval,
pedestrian overpasses or underpasses and
pedestrian and bicycle easements wherever
deemed necessary by the town in the interest
of safety and convenience and to show
community benefit.
(3) Procedure.
(a) Authority. The Town Board shall be the
municipal authority designated to grant approval
under the PUD District. Whenever any PUD
District is proposed, before any special permit for
6654.4 7 - 25 - 7 3 6654.5 7 • 25 • 7?,
R
S
c
h
l
a
n
k
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
9 66-7 ZONING 9 00-I
(c)Review fee. An application for rezoning to a PUD
District shall be accompanied by a fee of ten
dollars ($10.) per gross acre or part thereof.
(d)Planning Board referral. Within thirty (30) days
of the receipt, the application shall be referred by
the Town Board to the Planning Board for review
and report as required in Article IV, § 66-
6H(1)(b) of the Town of Rye Zoning Ordinance,
except as modified below.
(e)Planning Board recommendations. Within ninety
(90) days of the application, the Planning Board
shall either recommend the granting of tentative
approval of the PUD District and project plan as
submitted; or recommend the granting of ten-
tative approval, subject to specific conditions
and/or requirements; or recommend denial of
tentative approval. In recommending the
granting or denial of tentative approval, the
Planning Board shall set forth in writing its
findings as to why the plan would or would not be
in the public interest; in what respects the plan is
or is not consistent with the objectives of a
Planned Unit Development District.
(f)Public hearing. Within thirty (30) days after the
filing of the Planning Board report, a public
hearing on said application shall be held by the
Town Board in the manner prescribed for
hearings on zoning amendments.
(g)Final review and approval. If the Town Board
grants tentative approval of the project plan,
with or without conditions, there shall be set forth
in the written resolution as a condition to the time
within which an application for final approval of
the detailed site plan shall be filed, or, in the case
of a site plan which provides for development over
a period of years, the periods of time within which
applications for final approval of each part thereof
shall be filed. The tentative approval shall
authorize the submittal by the applicant of a
written report for detailed site plan approval. The
tentative approval shall be valid for a period not
to exceed twelve (12) months unless an ap-
plication for site plan approval shall have been
filed within that period.
111 The application for detailed site plan ap-
proval shall be made to the Town Board,
shall contain the information normally
required for site plan approval as well as
additional information which may be
required by the Town Board and, upon
receipt, shall be referred to the Planning
Board for a report and recommendations.
Such application shall include all necessary
drawings, specifications, and such
covenants, easements, conditions and
performance bonds as were set forth at the
time of special permit approval. A public
hearing on an application for approval of the
site plan shall not be required, unless deemed
appropriate and conducted by the Planning
Board, provided that the plan submitted for
such approval is in substantial compliance
with the plan previously given special permit
approval.
[21 Within sixty (601 days of referral of the
detailed site plan application to the Planning
Board for site plan approval, the Planning
Board shall either recommend the granting
of site plan approval of the plan as sub-
mitted; or recommend the granting of site
plan approval subject to specific conditions
and/or requirements; or recommend denial of
site plan approval, provided that such ap-
proval may be denied only in instances in
which the final site plan is not in substantial
compliance with the plan previously given
tentative approval. Said recommendations
6654.6 7 25-73 7 - 25 - 73 6654.7
R
S
c
h
l
a
n
k
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
§ 66-7 RYE CODE § R6-7 ZONING § 66-7
shall be in writing and shall clearly set forth
the findings upon which the Planning Board
decision was based.
131 The Town Board shall take final action on
the detailed site plan within forty-five (45)
(lays of receipt of the Planning Board's
report.
141 The final detailed site plan, as approved,
shall be incorporated into the Town of Rye
Zoning Ordinance, and the Comprehensive
Development Plan of the Town of Rye by the
Planning Board, and the Building Inspector
shall issue all necessary permits in ac-
cordance herewith. The site plan shall also be
recorded as a deed restriction applying to the
area of the Planned Unit Development
District in its entirety.
151 In the event that the applicant fails, in the
opinion of the Town Board, to begin a
substantial portion of the planned unit
development within twelve (12) months from
the date of final detailed site plan approval,
then said approval shall be deemed null and
void unless said time period is extended by
the Town Board. Any performance bond
guaranty shall be forfeited or returned to the
applicant, at the discretion of the Town
Board.
(h) Petition for review. At any time following ap-
proval of the final site plan, including the
issuance of permits for any part thereof, the
applicant may petition for review of the
previously approved plan. The Town Board, upon
finding that such petition and reasons are
reasonable and valid, may reconsider the design
of the PUD District and the detailed site plan
thereof, and shall follow, in full, the procedure and
conditions herein required for original submittal.
Each application for modification shall require a
separate filing fee.
(i)Improvements or performance guaranties. As a
condition of final approval, the applicant shall
install all site improvements or the town shall
requite the posting of adequate guaranties to
insure the installation of said improvements in
the manner required by the Planning Board for
the guarantee of improvements in subdivisions.
(j)Residential maintenance. The applicant shall
comply with Article 9B of the Real Property Law
of the State of New York in regard to con-dominium ownership and before the issuance of
any building permits. The applicant shall execute
a covenant running with the land as to the use
and maintenance of open spaces, ponds, roads
and buildings to be approved by the Town At-
torney and the Town Board, which shall include
but not be limited to the following:
111 The Homeowners Association shall be
established before the houses are sold.
NI Membership shall be mandatory for each
immediate and successive lot or homeowner.
131 The open space restrictions shall be per-
manent.
141 The Association shall be responsible for
liability insurance, local taxes or common
elements, and the maintenance of all common
element areas and facilities, open space and
recreational areas, roads and related
facilities.
151 Homeowners shall pay their proportionate
share of the Association's costs, and the
assessment levied by the Association shall
become a lien on the property if not paid.
161 The town, if necessary, shall be permitted to step in and perform any maintenance work
R
S
c
h
l
a
n
k
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
- 72 6654.11
§ 66-7 RYE CODE § 66-7
which may not have been done or properly
accomplished by the Association, and to
assess the cost for such work, as well as any
taxes which may not have been paid, equally
against all property owners within the
subdivision.
It) Miscellaneous. In order to ensure that any plan
submitted hereunder progresses in accordance
with the intent of this ordinance and with other
applicable ordinances, rules and regulations of the
Town of Rye, County of Westchester and State of
New York, the Town Board may retain such
independent architectural and/or engineering
services as are necessary to properly and com-
petently supervise and evaluate the ap-
propriateness, quality and progress of a plan, the
cost of which independent services shall be borne
by the town and/or the applicant upon such terms
and in such proportion as are acceptable to both
the town and the applicant. All referrals to
federal, state, county, municipal and special
districts normally required for amendments to the
Town of Rye Zoning Ordinance shall be followed
as a condition for PUD and site plan approval.
14 Every structure or group of structures and uses,
including those of institutional or public nature, and
every group of structures having services, facilities or
utilities in common ownership or control by its oc-
cupants, or which functions as an independent cor-
porate property owner or agent or management, shall
be located upon and within a lot or plot of land which
shall be fully dimensioned and designated as
representing the area of responsibility. The extent of
each individual or group ownership, or management as
may be established by ownership, in full or partial fee,
or leased under deed covenant, contract, or such
other conditions of usage or occupancy, shall be
legally established and recorded. A description or plan
of such lots shall be filed as part of the planned unit
§ 66-7 ZONING § 66-8
development with the Town Tax Assessor. The ap-
plicant shall provide for and establish an organization for the ownership and maintenance of any common
open space, and such organization shall not dissolve,
nor shall it dispose of any common open space by sale
or otherwise, except to an organization conceived and
established to own and maintain the common open
spaces.
ARTICLE V
Administration and Enforcement
§ 66-8. Enforcement.
A. No Board, agency, officer or employee of the town shall
issue, grant or approve any permit, license, certificate or
other authorization, including special permits by the
Planning Board and adjustments by the Board of Ap-
peals, for any construction, reconstruction, alteration, en-
largement or moving of any building, or for any use of
land or building that would not be in full compliance
with the provisions of this ordinance. Any such permit,
license, certificate or other authorization, issued, granted
or approved in violation of the provisions of this ordi-
nance shall be null and void and of no effect, without
the necessity of any proceedings or revocation or nullifica-
tion thereof, and any work undertaken or use established
(Cont'd on page 6655)
6654.10 7- M • 73
R
S
c
h
l
a
n
k
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B