[1:59] Mhm.
[3:54] » Mhm.
[4:42] » All right.
Let us begin.
[4:47] She did. I gave her 3 minutes, so
Okay, I think we're right.
[4:54] All right, welcome.
Excuse me.
[4:58] We're ready to roll.
Thank you.
[5:03] Hey, y'all. Welcome to the Village of
Rye Brook Planning Board meeting.
[5:08] And I'd like to rise for the Pledge of
Allegiance.
[5:31] Thank you and welcome again. My name is
Robert Goodman. I'm chair of the
[5:34] Planning Board. Um my colleagues also in
attendance tonight are Kevin Branch,
[5:40] John Grizzan, Amy Shown, and Lenny
Baseman.
[5:45] Uh Scott Mendelson and Ed Teague are
excused for tonight. Also in attendance
[5:51] is our liaison from the Board of
Trustees, David Heiser.
[5:56] Give him a hand. I always miss it. There
There you go.
[6:00] There you go. Mhm?
>> Right or left?
[6:03] » Yeah.
Um
[6:06] Yeah. Yeah. Oh.
Oh, yes. And and Trustee Frome
[6:12] for the air.
Okay.
[6:15] You see You Okay. I wasn't going to
invite him. But anyway, our village
[6:18] attorney,
um, is Pamela Veña, our Superintendent
[6:22] of Public Works, Michael Noack, and our
village planning consultant from
[6:26] Hardesty and Hanover, Sarah Brown.
Our, uh, planning board secretary is
[6:31] Tara Orlando,
and, uh, who does all the minutes and
[6:35] does all the organization behind the
scenes. So, thank you, Tara.
[6:39] Uh, I'll remind everyone that, uh, we do
have streaming videos, so videos of past
[6:45] planning board meetings can be accessed
through the Rye Brook, uh, uh, website.
[6:51] Uh, also our board rules and, uh, and
past minutes.
[6:56] Uh,
we don't have any
[7:01] minutes to consider, so we can start our
agenda,
[7:06] uh, which is 15 Lock Lane.
>> Um, Mr. Chairman, can I just say
[7:11] something? I would just like to plead
with everybody to speak into your
[7:16] microphones because you don't realize
it, but you can't hear anything, even on
[7:21] broadcast.
There are only certain microphones that
[7:24] come through. And particularly at the
podium, it's very hard to hear with the
[7:29] air conditioning, and people tend to
forget and don't speak You have to talk
[7:33] right into it. You can't just go to the
side. Speak into it, please.
[7:39] Thank you.
>> Um, just a preliminary with this
[7:42] application. How many here for this
application out there in the public?
[7:49] Okay.
All right, uh, Jessica.
[7:52] » Yes.
>> Why don't you wrap this wrap this on up?
[7:55] » Of course. Um, good evening. Uh, for the
record, my name is Jessica Zelen with
[7:59] the law firm of Cuddy and Feder LLP
appearing on behalf of the applicants
[8:03] Jonathan and Victoria Steiner. I am
joined tonight by Matthew Oscar, the
[8:07] project architect, Nicholas Sherer of
Hudson Engineering, the project
[8:11] engineer,
Eliana Becerra of William Kenny
[8:14] Associates, the wetlands consultant and
landscape architect for the project, and
[8:19] we are all here tonight in connection
with the continued public hearing on
[8:23] this application, uh, for site plan and
wetland permit approval for the proposed
[8:26] addition to the existing residence, the
installation of the proposed new
[8:30] swimming pool and cabana within the rear
yard and associated
[8:34] site.
Getting some feedback. Site improvements
[8:38] to the property located at 15 Locust
Lane.
[8:42] Uh, it's been a few months since we were
last before the board. Um, there are no
[8:46] members of the public here. Um, so I'll
take a step back and let the board, uh,
[8:51] direct me how much you'd like to hear
from me and my team or whether you'd
[8:55] like to lead the conversation.
>> I think the major issue related to the
[9:00] flood rise.
And that has been a technical issue that
[9:05] has consumed the parties, both the
village and your team for quite some
[9:09] time. I gather the DEC flood plain
management agency has signed off
[9:17] on the, uh, engineering. So, that is
really the last issue
[9:21] that we were, uh, dealing with with this
particular
[9:25] application.
Um,
[9:28] we do have a, uh, does any member of the
planning board have any additional
[9:32] questions for the applicant?
>> No.
[9:35] » Okay.
Um,
[9:37] we have a if there's anyone that wants
to speak to this application in the
[9:42] public, we still have a public hearing.
If not, I'd like a motion and second to
[9:48] close the public hearing.
>> Moved.
[9:52] » Second.
[9:57] » Mr. Branch.
>> Yes.
[9:59] » Mr. Graziano.
>> Yes.
[10:00] » Mr. Shawn.
>> Yes.
[10:01] » Mr. Basement.
>> Yes.
[10:02] » Chairman Goodman.
>> Yes.
[10:04] » Thank you.
>> Okay, now Pam, we have a a resolution.
[10:08] Um, you can summarize it, but
for the most part, but I would focus on
[10:13] the conditions for the most
Thanks.
[10:21] » The resolution addresses the
application for site plan approval,
[10:26] wetland permit, and flood plain
development permit for 15 Lock Lane. As
[10:31] the applicant has discussed, it involves
construction of a two-story addition,
[10:35] removal of an existing deck,
construction of a pool, a new rear deck,
[10:41] patio, cabana,
and new exterior basement stairs, among
[10:45] other things. The Village of Rye Brook
is the appropriate authority for site
[10:49] plan approval, as well as wetland permit
approval. The applicant does propose
[10:55] development within an area of special
flood hazard. Therefore, a flood plain
[10:59] development permit is required, which,
if approved, will be issued by the
[11:03] Village Superintendent of Public Works.
The Planning Board and its staff and
[11:09] consultants reviewed a variety of
documents listed in the resolution.
[11:14] This proposed action is a type two
action under SEQRA, requiring no further
[11:18] environmental review.
The Planning Board, the Village Planning
[11:23] Consultant, and the Village Engineering
Consultant, as well as Village staff,
[11:26] have all reviewed all application
materials
[11:30] and made recommendations.
A public hearing was opened on April
[11:34] 9th. It was continued until today,
August 13th, and has now been closed.
[11:40] Since portions of the project's swimming
pool and cabana will be built in the
[11:43] FEMA floodway for the Hillside Avenue
Brook, the project will require
[11:48] mitigative regrading for flood
conveyance within the floodway to
[11:52] achieve no rise in floodway elevation.
[11:57] The uh proposed addition to the
residence and the new deck, swimming
[12:01] pool, patio, cabana, and area of
regrading are all proposed to be located
[12:06] within the 100 wet foot wetland buffer,
and will result in an area of
[12:10] disturbance of 6,135
square feet.
[12:14] As required under the village code, this
will mandate that mitigation for
[12:19] disturbance of the wetland buffer be
made at a ratio of 2:1, which will
[12:23] involve 12,270
square feet of mitigation that has been
[12:28] proposed.
The planning board has considered the
[12:32] wetland permit standards, as well as the
site plan approval standards, and
[12:37] subject to the applicant's compliance
with the conditions set forth herein,
[12:42] the applicant's proposed to provide
6,839
[12:45] square feet of that wetland mitigation
on site through
[12:50] a wetland buffer habitat enhancement
plan, which will include native
[12:53] vegetation, as well as 5,435
square feet of offsite wetland
[12:58] mitigation at the Edgewood Drive
at Edgewood Drive and Bluebird Hollow.
[13:04] The planning board resolves to
uh
[13:08] and determines that the site plan and
wetland permit applications meet all the
[13:12] applicable standards set forth in
village code, and will grant the site
[13:16] plan approval and wetland permit if they
affirmatively vote on it.
[13:21] I will recite the non-standard
conditions uh verbatim, so everyone can
[13:25] hear them.
Um
[13:28] First, and this isn't the first
condition, but the first I'm going to
[13:31] recite is that prior to issuance of a
building permit or wetland permit, the
[13:35] applicant shall grant access to the New
York State Department of Environmental
[13:38] Conservation for inspection, testing,
and if necessary, remediation of toxic
[13:44] chemicals and/or heavy metals. In the
alternative, prior to the issuance of a
[13:48] building permit or wetland permit,
should the New York State Department of
[13:52] Environmental Conservation determine
that inspection and testing on the
[13:55] property is not warranted upon
completing their
[14:00] um ins- planned inspection and testing
outlined in their site characterization
[14:04] work plan,
this condition would be satisfied.
[14:08] In addition, another condition is that
prior to issuance of the building
[14:12] permit,
a drainage easement to the Village of
[14:15] Rye Brook in the location shown on the
approved plans shall be submitted for an
[14:20] existing underground culvert in a form
acceptable to the Village Attorney and
[14:24] approved by the Village Board of
Trustees.
[14:27] The applicant will be required to record
the easement in the Westchester County,
[14:32] and proof of recording must be submitted
to the Building Department.
[14:37] An additional con- uh condition is that
prior to issuance of the building
[14:40] permit, the applicant shall submit a
declaration of restrictive covenants on
[14:44] the property applicable to the applicant
as well as all successors and assigns in
[14:49] a recordable form that's acceptable to
the Village Attorney. The declaration of
[14:53] restrictive covenants shall state that
after the certificate of occupancy has
[14:57] been issued for all components of the
proposed project, no further disturbance
[15:01] shall be permitted within the floodway
as shown on a map with exhibits
[15:07] without prior written approval of the
Village of Rye Brook Planning Board. The
[15:10] declaration of restrictive covenants
shall be recorded
[15:14] and um
prior to issuance of the certificate of
[15:19] occupancy.
In addition, the applicant must uh
[15:23] conform to all comments of the village
consulting engineer
[15:27] as uh referenced in the June 10th, 2026
memo. And in addition, prior to issuance
[15:36] of a building permit, the applicant
shall secure a flood plain development
[15:39] permit from the village superintendent
of public works.
[15:44] All plantings that will be required in
the wetland buffer habitat enhancement
[15:47] plan shall be maintained by the property
owner and replaced as necessary or as
[15:52] determined by the village superintendent
of public works.
[15:56] Prior to the issuance of the building
permit, additional wetland mitigation of
[16:00] 5,435
square feet shall be added to the
[16:04] approved plans to the satisfaction of
the village planning consultant.
[16:09] In a form either of offsite wetland
mitigation
[16:13] as described earlier, onsite mitigation
and restoration.
[16:19] The applicant shall submit a two-year
monitoring and maintenance bond for
[16:22] offsite mitigation if such mitigation is
authorized by the Board of Trustees.
[16:27] If offsite mitigation is pursued prior
to the issuance of building permit, the
[16:32] applicant shall obtain liability and
workers compensation insurance specific
[16:36] to the work to be completed at Edgewood
Drive and Bluebird Hollow stormwater
[16:41] detention basin.
[16:46] The The remaining conditions are all
standard conditions.
[16:49] And the resolution says no permits shall
be issued until applicants have paid the
[16:55] village all applicable fees and
professional review fees
[16:58] that were incurred in connection with
the application.
[17:04] And that is in sense sum and substance
the resolution.
[17:08] » Are there any comments by members of the
board concerning the resolution?
[17:13] » Once we approve the resolution, what is
the
[17:16] Once you approve we approve the
resolution, what is the duration of the
[17:19] approval?
Because all of these conditions on the
[17:22] building permit, I mean, take years.
>> Do you have an answer to that question?
[17:32] They may have to come back
for an extension, I would presume.
[17:40] » Um condition 12 of the resolution states
that the planning board's wetland permit
[17:46] approval shall be valid for a period of
1 year from the date of the resolution,
[17:50] and the any permit issued is also valid
for 1 year.
[17:55] » Okay, I have another question.
>> So, with regards to a building permit, a
[18:01] building permit is is valid for 6 months
if no work is performed um once issued.
[18:07] Once issued and work begins, that permit
is valid for 18 months. So,
[18:12] » with all those conditions, it may take
time before you are in a position to
[18:15] issue the building permit.
So, our approval may be void by then.
[18:21] » But that's that's within the code.
>> Yeah.
[18:23] » Okay, so yeah.
>> They may have to come back.
[18:25] » They have to come back with
>> They have to come back
[18:26] » I have a
>> Um after the 2-year uh monitoring and
[18:31] the maintenance bond, what happens?
[18:36] » So, which point the bond would be uh
sunsetted and returned back to the
[18:41] applicant, and the bond would be closed
out, and at that point then the
[18:44] landscaping becomes part of the
village's uh property and maintenance.
[18:48] » Okay, thank you.
>> You said they come back. Would they come
[18:52] back asking for an extension? They come
back with a new project.
[18:55] » No, extension.
>> It's an extension.
[18:58] » Any changes to the project would require
further planning board review and would
[19:02] be an amendment to any approved uh site
plan application.
[19:06] » I just I just hope it's just an
extension that they don't have to go
[19:09] through this process again.
I don't We hope the same.
[19:12] » think to.
>> Thank you.
[19:15] » Our applicant, are you satisfied with
the language of the uh
[19:18] » I I do have one uh comment. Um Ms. Vania
and I have been discussing the uh first
[19:24] red condition all
repeatedly throughout the day. Uh we
[19:28] just have a request that um
it
[19:31] the first
uh
[19:34] clause
we add to it um to note that prior to
[19:38] the issuance of the building permit or
wetland permit for any work that
[19:41] requires excavation of soils,
um these conditions would have to be
[19:45] fulfilled. So, in the event that the
applicant wants to do some interior work
[19:50] that requires a building permit or wants
to do work that does not require
[19:53] disturbance of the soils,
um we would not have to wait for the
[19:58] full term of the investigation to be
completed.
[20:01] » I think I think that's reasonable.
>> Great.
[20:04] Thank you. Would you like me to reread
that condition?
[20:08] » Yeah, why don't you reread it?
[20:13] » So, this is condition two after the now
therefore now therefore be it resolved
[20:18] clause. It will now read, prior to the
issuance of a building permit or wetland
[20:22] permit for work that requires excavation
of soils
[20:27] the application the applicants, excuse
me, shall grant access to the New York
[20:31] State DEC for inspection, testing, and
if necessary remediation of toxic
[20:35] chemicals and or heavy metals. In the
alternative
[20:38] prior to the issuance of a building
permit or wetland permit for work that
[20:42] requires excavation of soils
should the New York State DEC determine
[20:47] that inspection and testing on the
property is not warranted
[20:51] this condition shall be satisfied.
I left some things out, but
[20:55] substantially that's
>> Well, you can amend you can you know,
[20:58] we'll we'll adopt it as amended.
And you can circulate
[21:03] the revised
All right, uh
[21:06] unless there are further comments
regarding the the resolution.
[21:10] Can I
Do we have to have a motion to close the
[21:13] public hearing?
>> No, we already did. The public hearing
[21:16] is closed.
>> Do we want to make a motion second for
[21:20] the amended
to accept the amendment?
[21:23] » Yes.
I mean, if we need to do that. Do we
[21:26] need to do that? Moved. All right.
>> Second.
[21:30] » So, Amy
and Lenny.
[21:35] » Mr. Branch.
>> Yes.
[21:37] » Mr. Grizan.
>> Yes.
[21:39] » Michonne.
>> Yes.
[21:39] » Mr. Weisman.
>> Yes.
[21:41] » Chairman Goodman.
>> Yes.
[21:46] » Yes.
[21:51] » Okay, now
Right. Now, since we have an amended
[21:55] resolution, can I have a motion to
second to adopt that resolution as
[21:59] amended?
>> Moved.
[22:01] » Second.
[22:05] » So, we're approving the resolution as
amended. Mr. Branch.
[22:09] » Yes.
>> Mr. Grizan.
[22:11] » Yes.
>> Mr.
[22:13] Michonne.
>> Yes.
[22:16] » Mr. Weisman.
>> Yes.
[22:17] » Chairman Goodman.
>> Yes.
[22:20] » All approved. Thank you.
>> Thank you everyone for your time and
[22:24] working on this project with us.
[22:27] » Yeah, I know.
[22:31] Okay, our next matter is
Dorchester Drive and 20 19 Dorchester
[22:39] Drive and 23 Dorchester Drive. Just out
of curiosity, how many people in
[22:44] attendance
are here for that application?
[22:50] Okay.
>> We have to open the public hearing.
[22:53] » Yep.
Can I have a motion to second to open
[22:56] the public hearing?
>> Moved.
[22:58] » Second.
[23:02] » Mr. Branch.
>> Yes.
[23:05] » Mr. Grizan.
>> Yes.
[23:06] » Ms. Shawn.
>> Yes.
[23:09] » Mr. Teague. Uh I'm sorry. Mr. Weisman.
>> Yes.
[23:12] » Chairman Goodman.
>> Yes.
[23:14] » Thank you.
[23:16] Okay. Now, how we will like to proceed
with this is
[23:20] » the mic's off.
>> Yeah, sorry.
[23:22] How we would like to proceed with this
is that the public hearing is open.
[23:26] So, we will entertain some comments from
the public relating to the proposed
[23:32] project.
But, as we've probably been in contact
[23:37] with you, there are certain documents
that need to be
[23:41] sort of firmed up.
Um and I will
[23:45] ask our professionals just to detail
what additional what what additional
[23:51] things they need from you.
>> Right.
[23:54] » And then we'll we can have a more
substantive, you know, conversation, but
[23:59] I think the public knows the project in
general. And so, the comments may be
[24:04] helpful.
Um
[24:07] uh Sarah, why don't we start with the
planning consultant? What
[24:12] What do we have and what do we need?
>> So, we did receive some updated
[24:18] materials today um from the applicant um
and it looks like it was a complete
[24:23] submission from what I was able to
briefly look at uh before the meeting.
[24:28] We were waiting from our end uh an
updated site plan with uh the new
[24:32] plantings on them with all the species
information. We're also waiting for
[24:38] details on the fencing around and the
screening around the tennis court and
[24:43] some sound attenuation information,
which has also been submitted. So, our
[24:48] office will we like I said, we just
received that today, so we'll be
[24:52] reviewing that for your next meeting.
>> Okay. Uh Michael, any anything from your
[24:56] corner?
>> From stormwater management perspective,
[25:00] I believe we're wrapped up. Um I'm going
to re-review it pending whatever happens
[25:04] here in the um public hearing if there
any changes made, but I think overall on
[25:09] my end
>> Okay. All right. Um
[25:13] so
we we understand what needs to be done.
[25:17] We got submissions today, so I can't
expect the staff to review these
[25:21] submissions.
>> update on the
[25:23] actual
uh sound.
[25:26] » Right. That's That's actually a
obviously the sound issue is is a
[25:31] significant issue.
So the screening and any sound
[25:36] attenuation equipment or materials
um I would
[25:43] you know, I I would let our
professionals know what you're planning
[25:47] on doing so that they can review them
with you.
[25:50] Uh there may be some materials that work
and some that do not.
[25:54] Um
but on that score, we do have members of
[25:58] the public that have
made their you know
[26:02] Yeah, go ahead.
>> I read the draft resolution, which I
[26:06] know we're not going to get to it today.
>> Right.
[26:09] » But when you read that for the first
time
[26:11] » Talking to the
>> that's why I would like Chris to go
[26:14] over. It's really not sure what is it
that the we are approving. Is it a
[26:19] tennis court? Is it a tennis court plus
basketball?
[26:22] With lights, no lights, or something
like that. So I I think uh
[26:26] uh there's going to be some conditions
along the way on that resolution, but I
[26:30] think for the public benefit, it would
be good if Chris goes over the plan and
[26:36] describe what is it that really
they are proposing.
[26:40] » Okay, Jessica.
>> Remember we saw initially just a tennis
[26:43] court and then along the way came the
basketball.
[26:46] Is it one hoop, two hoops? I think it's
it would be nice to know that.
[26:49] » Okay.
>> I think I know it, but I think it would
[26:52] be nice for everybody to know.
>> let's get it on the record. So, why
[26:55] don't you why don't you at least
uh
[26:59] you know, provide some
recapitulate your the the the project.
[27:04] » yeah, we've had two prior meetings.
Um
[27:11] obviously the immediate neighbors uh
attending those. So, this is basically
[27:17] our first official
uh public hearing.
[27:20] » Right. Correct.
>> So, I assume we're kind of starting from
[27:25] scratch in case there are other people
that received the notice
[27:29] um within the 250-ft radius.
>> Yeah, I think since we're on the record
[27:35] for the public hearing, I think John is
right. I think we should probably be a
[27:38] good start.
>> through the whole
[27:40] thing as if we were starting from
scratch just so that it Yeah, I mean,
[27:44] most of us I think in the room are fully
aware of what's
[27:46] » abbreviated at at selected points you
choose, but I think I think it would be
[27:52] good for the public to have an idea of
of what the project is. And of course,
[27:56] what we were we were talking about 5
minutes ago was firming up the plan so
[28:01] that our professionals can do
uh some some technical evaluation of
[28:06] what the plan sort of mean from the
standpoint of
[28:10] » Right.
>> landscaping and
[28:12] etc. So.
>> Yeah, as far as the site plan goes, that
[28:15] was um
nothing has been modified in way of
[28:18] grading, contours we did um
uh designate the steep slope area
[28:24] uh also.
But, I'll
[28:26] get the show on the road, I guess and uh
I'm Chris Galfo,
[28:31] uh owner and project manager of Optimum
Building.
[28:34] And I'm here this evening on behalf of
Jason and Angela Ryan
[28:39] regarding the proposed lot merger
associated resident associated
[28:43] residential site improvements at 19 and
23 Dorchester Drive.
[28:48] Uh since our prior appearances before
the planning board, we have continued to
[28:52] work closely with the village staff
and the consultants, professionals, and
[28:57] uh our own design and engineering team
to respond to the comments and concerns
[29:01] raised during the review process.
>> Just
[29:03] I'm sorry. Uh something just occurred.
You keep saying 1923. What is the
[29:07] address going to be of this home?
>> 19.
[29:10] » Okay. Thank you.
>> So, right. The 23 is the uh
[29:13] » Once we merge the lots, I will Once we
merge them,
[29:17] right.
We'll work on the number.
[29:21] » Okay.
Um we have taken the comments received
[29:24] during the prior meeting seriously, and
and the plans have been revised in
[29:28] several important areas.
In particular, we have focused on the
[29:31] issues that appeared to generate the
greatest concern during the review
[29:35] process. Stormwater management, uh
drainage, landscaping,
[29:40] visual screening, steep slope
conditions, and sound mitigation
[29:43] associated with the proposed tennis
court.
[29:46] Uh the stormwater management plan has
been substantially reviewed and revised
[29:50] since our earlier meetings, and our
engineers have continued to respond to
[29:53] the technical comments provided through
the village's engineering review, and
[29:58] the drainage design has been revised
accordingly.
[30:02] The revised uh system is intended to
collect and manage stormwater associated
[30:06] with the proposed tennis court, pool
house,
[30:10] uh pool area, and existing residential
improvements on the property
[30:15] uh with the objective of managing that
runoff on site and minimizing the
[30:18] impacts to the surrounding properties.
[30:27] Uh
[30:30] There has also been discussions
regarding areas of the steep slopes on
[30:34] the property, and those areas have now
been identified on the plans, and we
[30:37] understand that a separate steep slopes
work permit
[30:41] application will be required as part of
the approval process.
[30:46] Um landscaping, the landscaping plan has
also been uh substantially revised in
[30:51] response to comments received during the
prior meetings.
[30:55] Our objective has been to provide
meaningful screening of the proposed
[30:58] tennis court while maintaining an
appropriate residential landscape for
[31:02] the property and the surrounding
neighborhood.
[31:05] Uh the revised plan incorporates
substantial evergreen screening around
[31:09] the court together with additional
deciduous shade trees throughout the
[31:13] property.
Since our last appearance, the the large
[31:18] 28-in maple uh
existing uh along the Dorchester
[31:23] frontage was unfortunately lost uh
during the storm.
[31:26] And as part of the revised landscape
plan, we are we are proposing three red
[31:30] maple trees
along the front of the property as
[31:33] replacement uh trees in the village
right-of-way.
[31:37] Uh the overall landscaping plan has been
designed not to
[31:41] uh not simply to meet planting
requirements, but to create a
[31:44] substantial visual buffer between the
proposed improvements, Dorchester Drive,
[31:49] and the adjoining properties as the
plantings mature.
[31:53] The proposed tennis court uh remains
located towards the rear portion
[31:58] of this approximately 1-acre residential
property.
[32:02] One point that I think is important when
uh viewing the site plan is the actual
[32:07] scale and relationship of these
improvements to the street and
[32:10] neighboring properties.
The proposed court is approximately 75
[32:14] ft.
>> Do you have
[32:17] I keep looking uh at the screen.
Hopefully, that some drawing is going to
[32:20] appear, but nothing is appearing.
>> I'm not a Mac guy, so I didn't I tried
[32:25] to figure out
[32:28] landscape
[32:36] That's right, right?
Right here.
[32:39] Yeah.
[33:19] » Okay, so you did
Uh the proposed tennis court remains
[33:22] located toward the rear portion of the
uh
[33:25] We said that. Uh the proposed court is
approximately 75 ft back from the from
[33:30] the curb.
Uh and the proposed pool house is
[33:33] approximately 150 ft from the street.
Uh
[33:37] the court will have no lighting.
As the board is aware, portions of the
[33:42] proposed tennis court uh fencing are 10
ft in height and the required zoning
[33:47] relief for that fencing has been
addressed through the separate zoning
[33:52] board process.
Uh the additional fence height is
[33:55] functional for the use of the court and
also provides an opportunity to
[33:58] incorporate additional visual screening
and sound mitigation measures into the
[34:03] overall design.
We also recognize that uh that sound
[34:08] associated with the use of this court
has been an important concern expressed
[34:12] during the prior review process.
We have not ignored that concern.
[34:17] We are continuing to evaluate the
appropriate sound mitigation system and
[34:21] the supporting technical information so
that what is ultimately submitted to the
[34:25] board is accurate,
appropriate for the specific
[34:28] installation, and can be properly
reviewed by the board and its
[34:32] consultants.
That work is being developed and we
[34:35] intend to provide the board with the
appropriate specifications and
[34:38] supporting documentation as part of the
continuing review process.
[34:43] This application has now been before the
planning board on more than one occasion
[34:47] and with each review we have attempted
to respond constructively to the
[34:51] comments
we have received.
[34:55] Uh the project before you tonight
reflects those efforts. The the drainage
[35:00] design has been revised.
The landscaping and screening plan has
[35:03] been revised.
Steep slope areas have been identified
[35:07] and will be addressed through the
required permitting process.
[35:11] And we continue to work on the
appropriate sound mitigation measures
[35:14] associated with the tennis court.
Uh we understand that some of the most
[35:19] recent revised materials may require
additional time for review by the board
[35:24] through which staff and consultants and
we certainly respect that process.
[35:27] » You want to go through your sound
John?
[35:31] » Yeah,
so we'll just go to
[35:35] So with the the landscaping plan here
um
[35:39] the changes that were made were
uh
[35:42] within the tennis court area
on the uh
[35:46] left side in the rear which original
landscape design had deciduous trees.
[35:53] They were changed to um
native evergreens to have a constant
[35:59] coverage of the fencing and the court as
opposed to deciduous.
[36:03] » Could you point out I'm sorry.
>> Could you point out your entry and
[36:06] egress points for the court?
>> Thank you.
[36:09] » So we have a 10-ft fencing on the rear
the left side and the and the front.
[36:16] We have 10-ft comes back at 18 ft from
the front and the rear 18 ft and then it
[36:23] drops down to 5 ft
in the center portion from from this
[36:27] area to here and our entry is
dead center at the net.
[36:31] » So, one.
>> One entry.
[36:34] » Do you have the rendering available in
your hands? If you show the rendering it
[36:38] would save you a lot of time explaining
it. I think it really shows how well you
[36:42] are doing this.
>> And also if you could just tell us what
[36:46] kind of
evergreens
[36:49] » Uh the evergreens are white spruce
along the rear and the left side.
[36:55] And then the front section
[37:03] Uh
across the front with emerald greens
[37:05] arborvitae.
[37:08] Uh
and then along the street line
[37:13] is a green giant arborvitae here and up
this side stop at that point and then we
[37:18] go to white spruce
from the front of the tennis court to
[37:21] the rear.
And white spruce continues across the
[37:26] back.
And then we go to sugar maple across the
[37:31] back
by the pool area.
[37:34] » Please, you keep Again, I I apologize
for interrupting you. You keep referring
[37:38] to tennis court but if you look at the
middle drawings, that's a basketball
[37:43] court there, correct?
>> Yes.
[37:44] » I think we need to make that known so
that everybody is aware that there will
[37:49] be one basketball hoop on it so there
will be no surprises later on once we go
[37:54] through the approval.
>> Yeah, there's plans for for one
[37:57] one hoop on the rear on the back side.
Um there's also
[38:03] the neighboring properties on the rear
here have a large uh
[38:08] green giant arborvitae across the back.
They're standing right now at about 12
[38:12] to 14 ft.
And then continue across the other
[38:15] property here at about 10
which I have a picture of.
[38:22] So, that's the neighboring property.
Those are the existing Arborvitae's that
[38:27] are here.
And again, some are standing as tall as
[38:30] 14 ft.
Uh this particular PVC fence that you
[38:35] see in the picture here is being uh
removed and relocated
[38:40] to be put along the the entire rear of
the property.
[38:44] So we have several layers of um somewhat
sound control, right? The neighboring
[38:49] property plus the new plantings that
we're we're going to uh install along
[38:54] with the 6-ft fencing.
>> Did you have a rendering?
[38:59] » Yeah.
Let me just go through them.
[39:03] » And the zoning board did approve the
give you a variance for a 10-ft fence.
[39:09] » Yes.
>> They did, yes.
[39:16] Uh these were just uh
snapshots of um
[39:22] other tennis courts in in Rye Brook on
down on Lincoln Avenue.
[39:31] Um as far as fencing goes, this fence is
a 10-ft, so this is the
[39:36] similar fencing that we're
we're proposing to install.
[39:40] And again, on the interior side of the
property, the fence is going to drop
[39:44] down to 5 ft.
[39:49] And that's of course to
control the errant balls that
[39:54] so they're not winding up in the
neighbor's uh backyard.
[39:59] » And the sound absorbing barrier material
would
[40:04] That's correct.
>> Correct. Yeah, so on the on the on the
[40:08] left side in the rear.
>> Okay.
[40:11] » Have you had the chance to investigate
sort of what materials
[40:15] you're you may be thinking about?
>> what's the question?
[40:18] » Yes, Sonic sound guard is one particular
material we're looking at.
[40:23] » Right.
>> Um right now which I
[40:25] which we're going to submit. That's part
of that um study that uh was presented
[40:31] to the village.
Um that's got a whole full report of the
[40:35] actual site.
>> Have you Have you provide you've
[40:38] provided that?
>> We did today.
[40:40] » Oh, today?
>> It's just Yeah.
[40:42] » All right.
>> Yeah, we just received it today and that
[40:44] was submitted.
>> All right.
[40:45] » This is a rendering of uh both
properties.
[40:49] The Ryans' existing home here.
Proposed pool house in the back. Again,
[40:54] 150 ft off the street.
Tennis court here with the arborvitaes.
[41:00] And the white spruce along the left side
and the rear.
[41:04] Um this is not showing cuz that was just
recent. The red maples are going to be
[41:09] planted along
the village right-of-way.
[41:14] Uh that's an existing birch tree.
Uh
[41:18] That's existing.
[41:21] Uh eventually that's the evergreen
arborvitaes that are quite quite mature
[41:27] in this picture. But that's ultimately
what what will wind up in front of the
[41:31] tennis court.
>> Mhm.
[41:32] » I mean, we're planting uh the exist the
new plantings will start at uh 7 ft. Um
[41:39] and they grow
1 to 2 ft a year.
[41:43] » Okay.
>> It was requested that any evergreens
[41:46] that we plant along the left side,
especially the white spruce, have some
[41:50] good spacing so that they're not growing
into each other in 2 years. So, within
[41:56] within a
10-year period, they'll just touch and
[42:00] and not be ripped out in in 10 years
because they're overgrowing and dying.
[42:04] » Right.
[42:09] » I recall at the last meeting, the open
issue was really the sound attenuation.
[42:14] » Right.
>> Yes. And that's And that's where all
[42:16] this is about. The
The landscaping, uh the the character of
[42:20] the landscaping.
>> was the lighting also.
[42:23] » That I think has been resolved. They're
not putting lights.
[42:25] » There is no lights. That was said at the
very first time we met.
[42:28] » Right. Right.
>> I hope that sound attenuation material
[42:32] is uh green color, not uh
>> So it blends well with the uh greenery.
[42:40] » really see it. Sorry, John.
You were saying the color of the
[42:43] screening?
>> Yes.
[42:45] » Yes, I believe we were going back and
forth between black and green, but
[42:49] obviously
>> Something that would blend well with the
[42:51] with the surrounding
>> No pink?
[42:53] » The black chain link fence from from 80,
you know, 80 ft away almost disappears.
[42:58] » Yeah.
>> Um so with the with the green of the
[43:01] emerald green, I'd say green.
>> green today.
[43:04] » It's green, yeah.
>> Yeah, makes sense. Yeah.
[43:06] » And you say you submitted a test data on
that material?
[43:10] » This is, yeah.
>> as far as the attenuation
[43:12] » So yeah, this is um
a sound study
[43:16] um showing the existing uh
property
[43:20] and uh and the surrounding homes.
Um
[43:24] Again, this is This is fresh.
Uh
[43:27] they have decibel levels um
from from the court. Um
[43:33] The closest neighboring property is at
31 decibels.
[43:37] Um
And then as you get further away, of
[43:39] course, the decibel levels uh
is decreased.
[43:43] » How does 31 decibels compare to say kids
frolicking in a pool?
[43:47] » I'm Elliot Seenar, the engineer. Um
conversation is around 60.
[43:52] » What?
>> Conversation is around 60
[43:55] » is lower than
>> F is much
[43:57] » Okay.
>> And every I think it's um every 3
[44:01] decibels sounds half as loud.
Don't quote me on that, but I think
[44:05] that's correct.
>> Well, well, give me something else to
[44:08] reference like uh you know
uh kids playing basketball and you know,
[44:12] what what would that be at?
>> That would be much higher.
[44:16] » Yeah,
it's it's not so much the conversation
[44:18] of the thing, it's the bouncing of the
ball.
[44:20] » right.
>> Is the loud part of it.
[44:23] And um
he actually uh I showed the video at
[44:26] this point.
>> It's a logarithmic.
[44:27] » So So he actually has a
>> Uh it's not linear.
[44:31] » a video of the
uh material on a fence uh with people
[44:35] playing
uh behind it.
[44:38] » So just for information, I mean a Google
search of tennis was 45 to 60 where
[44:46] basketball is 90 to 115.
Roughly. That's just a Google search, so
[44:51] it's not certified, but
>> Understood. So I imagine like music
[44:55] playing in a backyard when people are
entertaining is even louder than that
[44:58] for instance, right?
>> So this this is a very normal
[45:01] neighborhood activity.
[45:06] which shows
[45:09] pickleball being played and you hear the
noise reduction once they get behind the
[45:13] screening.
>> Normal conversation is a 60 to 70
[45:18] decibel.
>> Wow.
[45:20] » So if you notice in the video and it's
not the particular site, but it's them
[45:25] playing basketball. Once you go behind
the screen, you don't hear the you don't
[45:28] hear the ball anymore. You hear the
conversation still, but you don't hear
[45:31] the ball
uh in the
[45:33] in the back court.
[45:40] » And that's right behind the the screen.
>> Yes.
[45:44] » So the the
Right. So the the nearest property is
[45:48] how far away?
>> The nearest the the closest neighboring
[45:52] property to the structure from the
tennis court is probably
[45:57] 35 40 ft.
>> But the the property line is only 10 10
[46:01] ft off the fence.
>> No, it's closer than that.
[46:04] » That's our property.
>> Right.
[46:06] » I'm I'm talking about the neighbor from
the left left side.
[46:11] » Yeah,
well yeah, well yeah, well
[46:16] » It's only 10 or 15 ft. 15.
>> Yeah.
[46:19] » 15 ft.
>> Oh, his that's his
[46:21] » That's the property line.
>> Hey, Chris.
[46:24] On the left side of the property, where
the court is, from the property line to
[46:29] the left neighbor, approximately to the
structure.
[46:32] » 20 20
>> From the property line. So, from the
[46:35] tennis fence, about 30 35 ft roughly.
>> ft from the property line to the court.
[46:41] » So, you're looking at about 35 ft
roughly. So, roughly 35 ft. Okay.
[46:45] » yeah.
I mean, it looks like his short side is
[46:50] on the left garage. So, if he has 15, he
should have 25 on the other.
[46:55] » Currently, if you're on Dorchester, you
can see the house the house on the left,
[47:00] you can see the houses uh um
on Country Ridge.
[47:06] » From our prop- from the right angle
>> if you if you're on Dorchester
[47:10] » Can't see through it because
>> Yes, I was there today. You can.
[47:14] You don't you don't see the full house,
but you see glimpses the backs of their
[47:18] houses, yes.
>> Walking horse?
[47:20] » Uh um
No. The the
[47:23] Wherever the backs are of these houses,
you can see at least two houses.
[47:28] » Yeah, I'll go back to that.
>> Not totally, but you can see
[47:31] probably half the house.
[47:39] And I'm assuming if you're putting the
trees in, that is going to
[47:45] close that in.
>> That's the rear.
[47:48] » Well, it's doesn't look exactly like
that if you're on Dorchester now.
[47:52] » I know that cuz I've been there back
back there looking
[47:56] uh south.
I could probably see Mr. Feldman's
[48:00] » Looking Looking towards
uh if you're parallel they are parallel
[48:04] with Dorchester.
>> In that image, where are you standing on
[48:07] the property in that image?
>> Right there I am at the where where the
[48:11] back where the back of the house was.
>> So you're basically in the middle of the
[48:14] property in that image looking towards
that the back of the houses on Country
[48:19] Ridge.
>> Looking at the rear
[48:20] » So from there to the road is probably
what another 50 ft maybe 65 ft?
[48:25] » Uh probably yeah.
>> Roughly.
[48:27] » Okay.
>> Yeah. I think right now pretty where
[48:30] that picture is is where the tennis
court ends.
[48:34] Closest to the street.
[48:43] » Any other comments by the board?
>> No. Okay.
[48:46] » Okay. Members of
>> You know the neighboring property um
[48:51] with the arbor vitae's there.
That that is standing about 10 ft tall.
[48:56] » And you can see the bit of the house in
the back there.
[48:58] » Right.
[49:01] » I I actually do have another question. I
noticed there was a neighbor uh letter
[49:05] from a neighbor regarding pickleball as
a concern. Um
[49:10] » Right.
>> Are there any activities besides tennis
[49:13] and basketball that you expect to
generate volume on this?
[49:19] » From my understanding it's uh full full
use. Uh
[49:24] Tennis, basketball, pickleball, but the
primary use is tennis because
[49:31] we could save a lot of money by just
doing a pickleball court and that's not
[49:34] the objective. We're really looking for
tennis play and basketball.
[49:39] But there is there is uh
>> Well, pickleball is is louder.
[49:43] » Correct.
>> From what I gather, right? So
[49:45] » I mean any
any research I'm doing I'm researching
[49:49] as if I'm doing pickleball because
assuming that it gets played,
[49:54] that yeah, we want to be able to cover
all all the bases.
[49:57] » Right, so that should be your your
decimal levels that you're quoting
[50:00] should be for pickleball, for instance,
not necessarily for
[50:02] » Right. That that would be the loudest
use.
[50:06] » I believe the study is based on
pickleball, because again, I wanted the
[50:09] extreme
to cover
[50:14] uh the neighbors.
>> Okay.
[50:17] So, um
well, well, you've submitted everything
[50:21] that you need to submit. Um
for the moment, I think uh our
[50:27] professionals will take a look at it.
And they'll, you know, they'll hopefully
[50:31] be a dialogue between you and them if
they if they have uh questions or
[50:36] recommendations.
Uh because the issue is sound and sound
[50:40] attenuation. And so,
um you know, whatever,
[50:46] you know, can be done to mitigate that
potential issue
[50:51] would be uh welcome.
Now, as far as as the the public hearing
[50:56] today is concerned,
I'm I'm happy to entertain comments.
[51:01] Uh it it may be more fruitful to wait
until next month when the final
[51:09] plans are actually submitted and on our
website that you can take a look at.
[51:16] Um
but I I'll leave that, you know, up to
[51:20] you.
Uh does anyone want to speak to this
[51:23] application?
Uh yes, sir, with the hand up.
[51:27] » Yeah, I think uh it would be a good
idea. Yes, let let uh them
[51:32] have their due to speak. This way, if
there's any other concerns that we you
[51:35] know, we're not uh
>> Uh sir, um identify yourself and and uh
[51:42] your
your residential location.
[51:46] » My name is Philip Schiller and I reside
at 84 Country Ridge Drive.
[51:52] Uh
I'm against having a tennis court on 23
[51:55] Dorchester as well as the combining of
the properties because it is out of
[52:00] character with the rest of the
neighborhood
[52:04] and would set a dangerous precedent. And
I have three main points that I would
[52:08] like to go over with the board.
In my opinion, the property is too small
[52:14] to have a 4,200 square-foot house,
a pool,
[52:19] a pool house, and a tennis court on less
than 1 acre of land.
[52:26] The combined size of both lots.
I also learned last week's at last
[52:32] week's uh zoning board meeting
that 10 ft of the setback is to be used
[52:39] in order to accommodate everything. So,
instead of there being a distance of 5
[52:44] ft from the house behind 23 Dorchester,
there is now 15,
[52:50] resulting in 10 ft less of the setback
in front of the house.
[52:55] I don't know how this is even possible.
The other point I have is that some
[53:01] neighbor some neighbors at last week's
zoning board meeting expressed some
[53:07] concerns.
If you read between the lines, what
[53:11] they're really saying
is that they are concerned that the
[53:14] current plans will have a negative
effect on their property values.
[53:19] Something that might sour the
relationship with the neighbors.
[53:24] And last, if the project is completed,
my estimate of the value of the property
[53:30] is approximately between 5.5 and 6
million dollars.
[53:35] The current value of the house and pool
plus the cost of the land on 23
[53:39] Dorchester plus all of the demolition
and construction costs of the pool
[53:45] house, tennis court, landscaping, and
drainage.
[53:49] A very tough sell
in a neighborhood that barely hits 2
[53:54] million.
In conclusion, what I would like to see
[53:58] on 23 Dorchester is another house.
Thank you for your time.
[54:05] » Thank you, sir.
Any Would anyone else? Yes, sir.
[54:18] » Hello, my name is Richard Shapiro.
Together with my wife, Rhoda,
[54:22] we live and have lived for almost 48
years at 120 Country Ridge Drive, which
[54:28] indeed is the property immediately
behind the proposed
[54:33] tennis court, basketball court.
Um
[54:38] If this project
it um is indeed to be approved as has
[54:44] been
referenced in just a few moments ago,
[54:48] what about pickleball?
Our big concern in the world of
[54:53] noise mitigation
is the additional
[54:57] sound that pickleball represents. And
indeed, it has been concurred in the
[55:03] conversation this evening that of the
various
[55:07] levels of noise that may come from this
project, the one that is the greatest
[55:14] would be indeed pickleball.
And as I said,
[55:18] it has been stated in the conversation
that yes, the principal intention is for
[55:25] tennis
and for basketball, but yes,
[55:29] this project will be constructed to
accommodate pickleball. So, we should
[55:35] assume, even if it isn't the primary
usage, that it will be available
[55:41] for use for pickleball.
It is our view
[55:46] based on
our understanding of the noise level of
[55:50] pickleball and everyone who we have
talked to, who we have said, "Well, we
[55:54] may have a pickleball court behind us."
Uh they said, "Oh my gosh, the noise
[55:58] from that."
Um
[56:01] we believe that any resolution regarding
this property should have as a condition
[56:08] that there would not be pickleball
allowed on this property
[56:13] um as part of the approval process.
Um
[56:18] the the nature of the ball,
the racket,
[56:23] the hard court that we're talking about,
the rapidity of the back and forth that
[56:28] is
clearly part of pickleball,
[56:31] in our view, makes the sound level, even
with noise mitigation, and we look
[56:38] forward to seeing the material that is
put together and presented to this
[56:41] board, um will simply be an unreasonable
level of noise concern for a
[56:47] neighborhood that is as tight as this.
We're not talking about you We've been
[56:53] shown some pictures involving Lincoln
Avenue. Country Ridge is not Lincoln
[56:58] Avenue.
Country Ridge and the property in
[57:01] question is simply is is not Pine Ridge
Park. These These are tight residential
[57:08] lots.
This lot is proposed to be a little bit
[57:12] under an acre. That will be large for
Country Ridge, and we're talking about
[57:17] putting all of this stuff into a very,
very small area. And as I said before,
[57:23] the
back of the tennis court between the
[57:27] proposed fence, and we approved that at
the higher fence, clearly,
[57:32] uh to our property line is all of 15 ft.
Not a lot of space.
[57:39] That's um
what we'd like to impart to the board
[57:43] this evening. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[57:45] » Thank you, sir.
Anybody else?
[57:48] Yes, ma'am.
[57:56] » This I'm Nancy Schiller. I live at 84
Country View Drive.
[57:59] And I'll bring up whatever wasn't
brought up before. Um they mentioned
[58:04] last week about the fencing.
And they were originally going to have 5
[58:08] ft
along the side by the house. And then
[58:12] they're going to have 18 and 18, but
they're still going to have 5 ft.
[58:15] So, there's a big distance where there's
5 ft and not everybody plays tennis
[58:19] well. Ball can still go over, go out
into the street, hit me, hit dogs,
[58:24] hit cars.
So, I don't see why it can't be 10 ft
[58:27] entirely.
But, regardless, you can't Nobody's
[58:31] going to be happy because
you need at least 10 ft behind for the
[58:35] house behind you. And the people that
live right across the street said they
[58:38] don't want 10 ft because that's all
they're going to see from their house.
[58:42] So, it was an eyesore.
Um
[58:48] is also if you put if you don't put a
house, you can have less property taxes
[58:52] versus the tennis court.
And
[58:56] um
[58:59] I agree there should be no pickleball,
but even so, even if you agree to that,
[59:04] what about the next owner?
They could play pickleball.
[59:07] And who's to stop them?
And for Originally, it was just supposed
[59:10] to be a tennis court. Now, there's going
to be basketball, which is louder, and
[59:13] then possibly pickleball, which is even
louder. And people that are living in
[59:18] like um
you know, gated communities with
[59:21] pickleball, they're going crazy. And it
doesn't have to be It could be so far
[59:24] away, and they still hear it. It doesn't
belong here. The properties on Lincoln
[59:28] Avenue and the show and the ones that
have tennis courts are two and three
[59:31] acres, not less than an acre.
Um, and to me, when we were at the uh
[59:38] the zoning board meeting, we all had
concerns and we were told before the
[59:42] meeting we were talking to the um the
chairman
[59:45] that there's five five uh
circumstances that you have to meet,
[59:50] none of which it doesn't matter if the
neighbors disapprove. So, why is there a
[59:54] public meeting if they don't care what
the neighbors have to say?
[59:58] I'm hoping it's different here.
[1:00:03] » It should be.
>> Good.
[1:00:04] » And I think and I think the zoning board
also takes, you know, you know,
[1:00:09] » Well, they got letters, but they said
they would we would
[1:00:11] it doesn't matter. It's it do they do
they meet the five criteria? If so, it
[1:00:16] doesn't matter.
>> Well, I'll let the zoning board respond
[1:00:19] to you, but I can only speak for the
planning board, but uh I find and I
[1:00:24] think my colleagues would agree that
public hearings are very important to
[1:00:29] take the temperature of a project.
And um
[1:00:34] and it does impact upon our view of a
project.
[1:00:38] Uh I think all of these comments have
been very reasonable
[1:00:42] and and and uh and analytical and we'll
have to
[1:00:47] you know, we we we can't do anything but
take them into consideration. So, we
[1:00:51] really appreciate your comments
and uh and your input because it it will
[1:00:56] definitely inform our decision.
>> Okay.
[1:01:00] That's all I have to say.
>> Thank you for your participation.
[1:01:03] Anybody else?
Yes, ma'am.
[1:01:12] » Hi, my name is Ellen Harmon. I'm at 16
Hillandale Road. I'm not an adjacent
[1:01:17] neighbor. I really have a question more
than anything else, although my heart
[1:01:21] goes out to the adjacent neighbors whose
peace and tranquility of years and years
[1:01:25] is about to be destroyed.
Um and never to be turned back. Uh it's
[1:01:31] I think it's egregious. But, my question
is Chris referred to a tennis court or
[1:01:37] tennis courts, I'm not sure which, on
Lincoln Ave. And I'm wondering, because
[1:01:42] I'm sure that one of your guiding
criteria are character of the
[1:01:45] neighborhood, is it out of character?
I've lived here for 43 years. I don't
[1:01:50] know of any courts in Rye Brook. I
really don't. So, I was wondering if you
[1:01:54] had a take on how many tennis courts
there are in Rye Brook.
[1:01:59] And where they're located, because this
seems to me to be completely out of
[1:02:03] character with the neighborhood.
That's all I wanted to know.
[1:02:06] » Thank you.
[1:02:10] » Uh
well, I only know of
[1:02:13] three. One is, of course, the public
park on Pine Ridge. Uh but, both tennis
[1:02:18] courts that I know of are both on
Lincoln within 1,000 ft of each other.
[1:02:23] And, of course, the
it's hard to get a tennis court on a
[1:02:26] 15,000 sq ft lot. Um but, in a case like
this, where we have
[1:02:31] uh just again, just shy of an acre
we're able to accommodate one within the
[1:02:35] zoning laws. So,
to answer your question, yes. I only
[1:02:39] know of two. I There's some There's a
bunch of sports courts here and there,
[1:02:43] but full full-blown tennis court, I only
know of those two.
[1:02:48] » Okay.
Any other comments?
[1:02:51] Yes, sir.
[1:03:00] » Jim Beldesman, 37 Rocking Horse Trail.
Uh
[1:03:05] two houses away.
>> Speak up.
[1:03:08] » That's not usually my problem.
Uh
[1:03:13] it'll be what it'll be. My biggest
concern still is, even though I heard
[1:03:18] that the drainage has been uh satisfied
or will be satisfied.
[1:03:24] Um but I actually took the time this
afternoon to look at the site plan on
[1:03:29] the village website.
Not that I understood it
[1:03:33] cuz I'm far from being an
an architect uh
[1:03:38] or anything along that line. There was
one
[1:03:41] um point where it talks about Chris a um
[1:03:47] prop- aco drain
if you look at the foot of the driveway.
[1:03:53] Could you explain that? I I have no idea
what that means.
[1:03:57] » Okay.
So, my engineer could
[1:03:59] » Well, one of the two of you. I'll accept
any one of them.
[1:04:05] » Did you want me to answer?
>> Yeah. Yeah, come up to the microphone
[1:04:08] and if you have a res- if you have a
response
[1:04:11] » They can't answer it.
>> If you have a response, sure.
[1:04:14] » Um the An aco drain is a um
also known as a zipper drain or a trench
[1:04:19] drain at the bottom of the driveway. It
covers the full width. The aco is the
[1:04:23] name brand of the particular one that uh
we show on our detail sheet.
[1:04:28] » So, that is going to be inserted
as to what they formally had, which we
[1:04:34] spoke about before the meeting and they
actually told me how bad it was
[1:04:39] which I had no clue. Um so, you're going
to be adding a drain there. That's one.
[1:04:45] » Oh, yes.
>> concern everybody is the
[1:04:47] » up to the come up to the microphone so
you can
[1:04:50] » everything flows down.
>> Okay.
[1:04:52] Um so, where where um
our system is designed for all the
[1:04:56] improvements on the property, the
existing house, the driveway, the
[1:05:00] um the pool and the pool patios, etc.,
as well as the tennis court. So, yes,
[1:05:05] we're adding a um a zipper drain, a
trench drain across the front of the
[1:05:08] driveway that is being directed to um
culverts or dry well system Uh just
[1:05:15] behind the proposed sport court.
Um and that's going to take all the
[1:05:19] water, all the all the additional runoff
as required by the code.
[1:05:25] » Yeah.
>> Sports is going to be over here. The
[1:05:27] drain is over here.
How are they at the that
[1:05:32] Sorry.
What do you turn this on?
[1:05:39] » Pipes.
Pipes.
[1:05:42] » Pipes. No, I
But that's but he has it going the other
[1:05:46] way. So
it's supposed to come down.
[1:05:51] » Pumps.
>> Believe me, I know about pipes. I have
[1:05:54] one going across my property.
>> So what he's asking is are you going to
[1:05:58] have a a pump system
to push it up the elevation cuz there is
[1:06:03] a change of elevation
in that location.
[1:06:08] » No, there's no pump there's no pump
required.
[1:06:11] So um
I brought a hard copy because I can't
[1:06:14] see the screen.
Um so the the trench drain in the
[1:06:19] driveway is at an elevation of 223.8
and the invert the pipe the bottom of
[1:06:25] the pipe is at 222.8 about a foot deep.
And it's directing the water across the
[1:06:31] um
across the dri- across the property here
[1:06:34] this pipe going from the from the trench
drain that just here at the driveway
[1:06:38] across this way to the cultec.
Uh the cultec the bottom elevation is
[1:06:44] 219.5.
So 219.5 to 222.8
[1:06:50] or 223
is about um 4 ft lower.
[1:06:54] » Yep.
>> Right? 4 ft lower. So there's a 4 ft
[1:06:58] slope from the trench drain to the
bottom of the cultec. The cultec are
[1:07:03] about 3 ft high.
Uh the invert uh that we show at this
[1:07:07] point here where it enters
is 221.15.
[1:07:12] Uh so the pipe is at a 1 and 1/2%. So
that's a little less than a quarter per
[1:07:16] foot.
Um so it's sloping to that direction.
[1:07:20] » It it the project improvements will
definitely improve the water runoff.
[1:07:24] » Okay.
>> That's one way it will might be and I I
[1:07:28] always look at that.
>> I I
[1:07:30] and I appreciate
>> Cuz I have a problem on
[1:07:32] on my own property, yes.
>> And I really don't want to be calling uh
[1:07:37] snow way
to uh
[1:07:38] » No, I don't think I don't think Mike
wants any more calls on even
[1:07:42] It's not what he told me.
>> Uh there's nothing to do with much, but
[1:07:45] it's I
stone curbs uh replacement to newer
[1:07:49] replacements.
Is that Yeah, is that
[1:07:53] what
Again, that's going to affect the water?
[1:08:00] I it was on the site plan that talked
about the water.
[1:08:07] » I mean there is a stone curb there now.
I think in the area where there was a
[1:08:11] driveway curb cut, we're going to
replace that at a standard height curb.
[1:08:15] » Close up to the right thing.
>> Is that going to be asphalt or is that
[1:08:18] going to be uh Belgium block?
>> stone curb This part of the existing
[1:08:21] curbing
>> Makes sense.
[1:08:27] » And I promised you I would say it.
You really going to put a flag pole by
[1:08:31] the house?
[1:08:36] You can answer.
>> Yeah, I I mean I answer I I appreciate
[1:08:39] it. At least I appreciate it.
I know. No, thank you. It's uh
[1:08:43] appreciate everybody's comments. Jason
Ryan, 19 Dorchester.
[1:08:47] Uh it is in the plans for us to put a a
flag pole. We
[1:08:50] um we love this country, love America,
and the goal is to have a flag pole with
[1:08:53] American flag in our property.
[1:08:58] Yeah, yeah.
>> Okay. Um
[1:09:01] » Thank you.
>> Thank you so much.
[1:09:04] What we'll do is we're going to continue
the public hearing next month.
[1:09:09] By that time there should be additional
information plans up to be reviewed. And
[1:09:16] I think that there are certain reports
and other studies that will also be
[1:09:19] reviewed by our professionals so we'll
have some feedback on that.
[1:09:24] So
on that score
[1:09:28] we'll adjourn till next month.
And
[1:09:32] and hopefully we will
have additional input from the public
[1:09:37] and you'll give us additional input as
well.
[1:09:41] Okay. Thank you all.
[1:09:49] Okay. Our
Our final matter is
[1:10:22] We have We have another application
coming up. If you have If you have some
[1:10:25] comments, we'll take them next week.
You know what you can do, you can always
[1:10:33] send a letter.
If you have If you have additional
[1:10:36] comments
beyond what you've done,
[1:10:39] send send a letter to Michael.
[1:10:47] Okay.
You We're the only two
[1:10:51] left in our area in the wintertime.
And so enjoy
[1:10:59] something.
>> Yeah.
[1:11:01] Yeah. Yeah.
>> 10th 10th September
[1:11:04] I think it's the
>> 14th of September 14th of September
[1:11:09] » September 10th
>> 10th
[1:11:10] » All right.
>> It happens.
[1:11:12] » All right.
We have another We have another
[1:11:14] application.
>> Please.
[1:11:16] » So, thank you.
We'll see you next month.
[1:11:21] » All right.
[1:11:24] » Okay, the Anderson Hill Road project.
[1:11:28] » Spin Anthony
[1:11:33] How are you?
>> Ready?
[1:11:38] » Okay. Um
>> Any pickleball?
[1:11:41] » No.
>> Yes, we do have pickleball.
[1:11:42] » Do pickleball.
>> have pickleball.
[1:11:44] » Yeah. Uh
>> I know you have bocce, but uh yeah.
[1:11:47] » What?
Uh okay. What we'll do is is let's have
[1:11:51] a presentation
and then let's talk about the DEIS
[1:11:55] because I think that's our principal
task here is to go through
[1:12:00] your uh
sort of the
[1:12:03] the framework for that document and
discuss it, see if there any additional
[1:12:08] comments the board may have. I think you
are going to be before the Board of
[1:12:13] Trustees what next month on this?
>> 8th is.
[1:12:17] » So, this is basically just a discussion.
We have time to uh I think put our
[1:12:22] comments together if we have any.
Um but you know, now you're here.
[1:12:28] So,
give us your pitch.
[1:12:30] » Okay, my name's Tony Veneziano. I'm here
on behalf of Erickson.
[1:12:34] And we have our full team here tonight.
Now, may be for you a very simple matter
[1:12:39] to comment on the scope.
But for us, it's a big deal. It's really
[1:12:43] one of our our first full presentations.
>> Of course.
[1:12:47] » So,
we submitted our petition on June 11th
[1:12:50] to the Village Board. And on June 25th,
they adopted a resolution saying they
[1:12:56] intend to be lead agency. On June 25th,
we submitted a letter and on July 28th,
[1:13:02] they confirmed their lead agency,
adopted a positive declaration, and set
[1:13:06] the scope for the 8th. So, we thought it
would be a good idea to come here so
[1:13:10] that you had the information you need
cuz we I don't know what you all each
[1:13:15] one of you know. So, we want to make
sure you have enough information to
[1:13:18] actually comment at the village board
meeting on the 8th or you'll have 10
[1:13:23] days for written comments if they should
close that hearing. We submitted a
[1:13:26] 38-page a 38-page scoping outline. So,
we think we've hit most of the issues,
[1:13:31] but
>> I read it.
[1:13:33] » Was it good?
>> It's It's long.
[1:13:36] » It's telling us what you're going to do.
>> It's chock-full.
[1:13:39] What?
[1:13:42] » It's telling us what you're going to do.
So,
[1:13:45] it's spelled out very well.
>> You ready to vote? What do we
[1:13:49] » No, no. I mean, you gave us the
questions. Now, we're waiting for the
[1:13:52] answers.
>> Yeah, well, we're drafting the answers.
[1:13:55] If we can cajole AKRF to
move along here.
[1:14:01] Um
>> What I did learn from reading this
[1:14:04] 28-page document, you finally have the
number
[1:14:06] of the units.
[1:14:09] » Yeah.
>> 870 is what? Some
[1:14:11] » 834.
>> 834.
[1:14:13] » Do you want to go? You want to do this?
>> No, I I don't know what's going on here
[1:14:16] right now.
>> Yeah, no. So, that's I got to get
[1:14:18] everybody up to the baseline.
>> Okay.
[1:14:20] » So, Erickson Living Properties LLC
closed on the on the property last week.
[1:14:26] Okay. So, they went into contract in the
fall. It was an unconditional contract,
[1:14:31] and we did a lot of work,
planning work, site work, soils work,
[1:14:37] work with neighbors to get where where
we were where they were comfortable to
[1:14:41] close.
The petition requests
[1:14:45] basically a new PUD, 975 Anderson Hill
Road. It is just the density, the
[1:14:50] height, the FAR, etc.
There's a new use a continuum of care
[1:14:55] retirement community which is in the
zoning.
[1:14:59] The concept plan has 750 independent
units and 84 assisted living units, 834
[1:15:05] units.
This density is below what other PUDs in
[1:15:10] the village have have
on the books. For For example, 900 King
[1:15:14] Street.
Now, the abutters that we Oh, we have
[1:15:18] the right map up. Good job, Peter.
So, across So, north is at the top of
[1:15:24] the screen. To the south is the Blind
Brook Country Club. It's 650 ft away
[1:15:28] from our front buildings.
To the east is Doral Greens, which is
[1:15:33] 350 ft away.
And to the north is Kingsfield, which is
[1:15:37] 425 ft away at the closest point. And to
the left is a forest SUNY purchase where
[1:15:44] the kids go. Um
Now, when we first started planning
[1:15:48] this, I'm just going to take a few
minutes. It's a I'm at 50,000 ft. When
[1:15:51] we first started this, we we had a title
impediment. Right? We had as part of the
[1:15:57] prior approvals, we had an agreement
restricting what we could do on the golf
[1:16:01] range, which was the southwestern
quadrant of the site, where we could
[1:16:07] only do office.
Which is why the Cohen proposal when it
[1:16:11] came into the village had medical office
there because they didn't quite have
[1:16:15] that resolved. So, we went to the Doral
Greens in the fall and we worked with
[1:16:19] them for months.
Um and they we have an agreement with
[1:16:22] them. We met with them today. And they
fully support the project at this point.
[1:16:27] We originally had a an a landscape berm
along our common property line. They
[1:16:31] said you could take it down.
Interestingly, they never had a concern
[1:16:35] regarding conflicting traffic patterns.
And they never really had a concern as
[1:16:40] as as we stayed a little bit away with
what would be on that site and this use
[1:16:44] it's like where they're going to go. I
mean, within the first two or three
[1:16:48] meetings they
they sort of like the Erickson and they
[1:16:51] sort of see it as their next place and
it's right next door and their their
[1:16:57] people were trying to bring them right
along. So,
[1:17:03] we have that in place. They're going to
submit a letter and they'll come to
[1:17:06] hearings.
The as of right plan under PUD is 490
[1:17:11] senior living units. We're above that.
Our original plan was 1,034 units and we
[1:17:17] did that because when you look at the
prior use of the property, the Arrowwood
[1:17:21] Conference Center, the Arrowwood
Conference Center,
[1:17:24] that generated a number of impacts
that
[1:17:29] Let me just see where that
that piece is.
[1:17:35] Doral Doral generated 287 vehicle trips
in the AM peak and 355 in the PM peak.
[1:17:43] We generate 233 as opposed to 287 and
175 as opposed to 355.
[1:17:50] This The average entry age to this site
is 80.
[1:17:55] The average occupant age is 85.
So, the traffic numbers are really
[1:18:00] employee numbers.
The people that come to give the
[1:18:04] services and you're going to hear from
Maryann Navarro who's going to from
[1:18:07] Erickson tonight about all the services
they provide for their people.
[1:18:12] Um
900 King Street, which I mentioned
[1:18:14] before,
really set the highest bar for the PUD,
[1:18:19] which Peter and I both worked on. So,
the PUD has 900 9,000 square feet or six
[1:18:24] units you can have per acre.
King Street has 19,175
[1:18:30] square feet
and 12.3 units per acre. We're under
[1:18:34] both of those, but I just want you to
know that we looked at the impacts. This
[1:18:38] site, if you look at the surrounding
properties,
[1:18:41] and you assume that everyone supports
this, there's very little opposition in
[1:18:45] this area. There's There's very little
traffic that can't be handled by And
[1:18:48] this part of town. Um
And the visual impacts will You saw in
[1:18:53] the in the document we'll have a full
view visual impact study. And our taxes
[1:18:57] are projected to be right now 8.1
million to you at full build out.
[1:19:06] So, when we were working and there's two
members of the of the village board are
[1:19:10] here.
They're here to monitor me.
[1:19:14] It's specific.
So,
[1:19:18] we we were at the point where we were
looking at the code and there's there's
[1:19:21] sort of a conflict. There's this 10%
affordable housing.
[1:19:26] So, Erickson supports of the concept of
putting the affordable housing. And we
[1:19:30] placed it in the
southwestern, right off the entry drive.
[1:19:35] We had a separate building.
And we would We met a few times with the
[1:19:41] village board and they sort of didn't
like that.
[1:19:43] » Right.
>> It was segregated.
[1:19:46] » So, I don't think they liked it.
>> They didn't like it enough that they
[1:19:49] persuaded us to think very hard about
how we could accommodate this affordable
[1:19:56] component. Now, you're going to hear
tonight about the fact that to enter
[1:20:02] into an Erickson community,
and they're a national company, Mary Ann
[1:20:06] will tell you about that. You have an
entry fee, which is substantially
[1:20:10] refunded upon your last act on the
planet or if you leave, you get 80-90%
[1:20:16] of it back. And there's services There's
a service uh number.
[1:20:21] They have a lifetime commitment. Once
you're in an Erickson community, they
[1:20:25] can't kick you out.
So, they do it They're sort of do the
[1:20:29] economic due diligence at the beginning.
And then they let you in but if for some
[1:20:33] reason you have to go into this this is
they have to bear that and lose that.
[1:20:38] So, we ended up
committing to 5% affordable units, same
[1:20:43] size. We have two sizes but same size as
the other units. A lot of people put
[1:20:47] affordable housing at a discounted they
discount the size of the units.
[1:20:51] Um
and that was all sort of generally
[1:20:54] thought to be
a peaceful place to end up. Now, I will
[1:20:59] say cuz they're here but the village
board said that they still want to
[1:21:03] review the overall density and we said
fine. So, that's a fair butter fight.
[1:21:07] We'll bring our butter knives and we'll
we'll figure that out. Um
[1:21:12] we also
Peter Furrow and I sort of came up with
[1:21:15] this way to look at this analytical
model which was
[1:21:21] for every 50 units you deduct the cuz
there's no reason
[1:21:28] to limit the number just because a few
is like a high number.
[1:21:31] One of the village board members at one
at the first meeting
[1:21:35] when we had 1,034 units said that's 10%
of our community and we said okay,
[1:21:40] sorry.
So, and that that really resonated with
[1:21:45] with the client. So, we we addressed
that but for every 50 units you lose
[1:21:49] $490,000
a year in taxes and you lose 14 vehicle
[1:21:55] trips against 233 total.
So, you have to look at how much is the
[1:22:01] benefit to you versus
what we get out of it because
[1:22:07] this is there's a risk there with the
affordable component. I've sort of said
[1:22:11] way too much about it but it's at the
heart of why we need this density in
[1:22:16] this project.
[1:22:20] Um
[1:22:25] Part of our due diligence, just I have a
few wrap-up points. Part of our due
[1:22:28] diligence led us to
water.
[1:22:33] It was a whole water find water, water
where are we going to get water? So, we
[1:22:38] went to Veolia and we work with them.
And Diego basically New York City sells
[1:22:45] water to Veolia.
It all worked out. We have a will serve
[1:22:49] letter and they've asked for a tank, a
storage tank.
[1:22:53] Which we've contractually agreed to.
It's going to be at right now they're
[1:22:58] looking for place to aerate with pumps
to pressurize it, but that's something
[1:23:02] that'll help a lot of people in that
portion of the village.
[1:23:06] Um, we also in the right off our entry
drive to the left here, oops, there's a
[1:23:12] marketing building that they built for
the or the facilities.
[1:23:17] And
I think it's just after the first phase,
[1:23:20] right Steve? You have to convert it. So,
after the first phase, which is right
[1:23:23] now 300 units, they'll take that and
convert it to a recreational building
[1:23:27] for the village.
We've spoken to the village board about
[1:23:32] what the village would want.
Um, God's
[1:23:37] They can't come up with two things in a
row. So,
[1:23:40] we're going to work with them and start
to work with them right now to help
[1:23:45] design something because we're going to
actually give it to you.
[1:23:49] Uh, we'll fix it up and give it to you
and you'll have to maintain it. So, we
[1:23:52] feel that there's a
a barrier towards, you know, too much
[1:23:56] because you're going to have to put the
money into maintain it, but it's going
[1:23:58] to be it's not even going to be age
restricted. It's going to be for the
[1:24:01] everyone right now. It could be whatever
you want, but for everyone in the
[1:24:04] village. We met with Doral Greens today.
I could say this, right Steve?
[1:24:11] And
they
[1:24:15] They have like one bike for a gym. I
said, "You have a gym?"
[1:24:19] Oh, yeah, it's right around the corner.
There's like a bike in there and a place
[1:24:25] to do sit-ups.
So, we I told them, "Well, we're going
[1:24:28] to have a gym here for everyone in the
village."
[1:24:32] And they said that when Darrel uh
Arrowwood was originally put in, they
[1:24:36] had a gym, they had a pool, they had
tennis courts, they had a golf It was
[1:24:39] like their own private country club. So,
I told them that
[1:24:44] they could use this gym. And so, they're
going to they're going to start to
[1:24:47] participate in that design. They have a
meeting in early September.
[1:24:51] Um
[1:24:54] I think
[1:24:58] I think that's where we're going to
close this time.
[1:25:01] » I I I Can I just
>> to say something while
[1:25:03] » Only because I'm I'm going to forget if
I don't say it.
[1:25:07] In looking at the maps on on and the
material that was sent to us,
[1:25:12] you have Harrison, you have Purchase,
you have Port Chester, and you have Rye.
[1:25:17] Did you mean Rye or was that supposed to
be Rye Brook?
[1:25:21] » Well, I don't know what you're
You know?
[1:25:26] » You're talking about the figure with the
map?
[1:25:28] » Yeah, I am.
>> That was an earlier version that I
[1:25:32] didn't use exactly right.
>> So, you meant Rye Brook?
[1:25:35] And that's going to be changed. Okay.
>> Excuse me, sir. Can you identify
[1:25:40] yourself?
>> I'm Jason Metzer. I work as part of the
[1:25:43] project team. I'm with AKRF.
>> He's actually drafting.
[1:25:46] » Thank you.
>> Um
[1:25:48] And it's interesting because
Diego keeps trying to get me to meet
[1:25:53] with the city of Rye
because of the storm water issue.
[1:25:57] So,
I tell him we're going to have a zero
[1:25:59] increase in storm water runoff, and why
do I need with Rye? But they'll be
[1:26:02] writing a letter saying, "Please don't
affect us downstream."
[1:26:06] » Which makes sense.
>> Ready to go?
[1:26:09] Should I move my mic?
>> Sure.
[1:26:14] » Everyone,
uh
[1:26:16] Peter Ferro with AKRF. So, we're the
project planners, uh, environmental
[1:26:21] engineers. Um, I'm going to start and
just give you kind of the more,
[1:26:28] um,
boring overview of the site, the
[1:26:31] project, and the very specific zoning
asks and site plan asks that we have
[1:26:36] just to kind of level set. So,
just as Tony mentioned, right, we're at
[1:26:41] 975 Anderson Hill Road. It's about 83
acres in the Village of Rye Brook.
[1:26:46] Um,
portions of the property that Erickson
[1:26:48] owns are in the Town of Harrison and in
Greenwich, Connecticut. Those portions
[1:26:54] of the site are not included in that 83
acres and there are no plans to improve
[1:27:00] those pieces. So, all the development,
um, is on the formerly, um,
[1:27:06] improved site of the Arrowwood
Conference Center in Rye Brook.
[1:27:11] Um,
the site is currently zoned as a PUD.
[1:27:15] And obviously, you know, it was
developed with the Arrowwood Hotel
[1:27:19] Conference Center. So, 200, uh, 393 key
hotel, about 110,000 square foot
[1:27:26] conference center,
718
[1:27:29] parking spaces, a nine-hole golf course,
and as we all know, it closed in 2020.
[1:27:34] Since that time, the site has been
cleared, uh, down all the buildings have
[1:27:39] been removed down to the foundations.
The site still retains its access from
[1:27:44] Anderson Hill Road and we propose to
maintain that access. There is secondary
[1:27:49] access through Doral Greens from the
Arrowwood site to through Doral Greens
[1:27:55] and from Doral Greens actually through
the Arrowwood site to Anderson Hill
[1:27:58] Road. So, there's several emergency
means of access.
[1:28:02] One of the things that's important to
note is is the topography on the site.
[1:28:07] Um, I don't know why I I've never I
don't play golf, so I never walked the
[1:28:11] site, um, before, but it there's a lot
more topography than I would have
[1:28:16] thought, and it slopes down from east to
west. Um, more than 80 ft. So, a
[1:28:22] significant amount of topography that
we're we're dealing with, and I want to
[1:28:26] just have that in the back of our minds
when we start talking about
[1:28:30] the proposed site plan.
So,
[1:28:33] in laying out the buildings and the
plan, Tony alluded to the fact that
[1:28:38] we've been at this for a while.
Erickson's been at this for a long time.
[1:28:41] They are as Maryanne will tell you, they
have
[1:28:45] you know, over two dozen communities
throughout the country,
[1:28:48] over 30,000 residents
in their communities, and they they plan
[1:28:53] things out very well because they're not
a developer. They're an owner. They're a
[1:28:58] manager. These are their communities.
They don't sell them. They want them to
[1:29:02] work. They know how to make them work,
and so they've been very thoughtful
[1:29:05] about laying these out. So, the goal
here is to situate um, lower height
[1:29:10] buildings closer to Doral Greens at the
higher portion of the site, closer to
[1:29:15] Anderson Hill Road, but still set way
back.
[1:29:19] And take advantage of that sloping
topography to go vertical a little bit.
[1:29:24] Vertical works really well with these
uh, with this use because it's all about
[1:29:29] limiting walking distance. Elevators are
wonderful, so vertical works really well
[1:29:34] here.
Um,
[1:29:38] So, the project as Tony mentioned, 834
units of a continuum of care retirement
[1:29:44] community or CCRC. It'll be split up
between
[1:29:48] what we'll think of as more independent
living units,
[1:29:51] one and two bedroom units varying in
size. They'll probably be
[1:29:56] eight different sizes or more.
Um, and then 84 assisted living memory
[1:30:01] care units.
>> Peter.
[1:30:03] » Yes, sir.
>> The 834 units, they are spread over how
[1:30:07] many buildings? Of the Of the I can
count them but how many buildings off
[1:30:10] the top?
>> It's 12, I believe.
[1:30:14] I believe it's 12.
1 2 3
[1:30:18] Well, it's 12 total buildings, I'm
sorry. 10 residential
[1:30:22] 11 residential buildings. Apologies.
>> You're splitting up the 84 into assisted
[1:30:27] and memory care because they're two
different things.
[1:30:29] » Correct. Correct. So, the 84 would be
split and that'll be split based on the
[1:30:36] need. They're they're different
regulations as you know for
[1:30:40] assisted living and memory care. And
once you start building that need, the
[1:30:44] licenses often go by floors. So, you
know, you've got to be careful about how
[1:30:48] much you put in and when and when your
license triggers. And what Erickson does
[1:30:53] is they don't build all 834 units year
one.
[1:30:57] Right? You start with and let me just
tell you a little bit about how the um
[1:31:04] community lays out and I'll come back
here. Um so, the community, and this is
[1:31:09] going to answer your question, I
promise. The community's geared around a
[1:31:13] clubhouse, a
a community building. Um
[1:31:18] and all the residential buildings are
attached to that community building.
[1:31:22] And attached to each other through
enclosed conditioned hallways. And so,
[1:31:27] the the
those those community buildings serve as
[1:31:31] the hub. And so, this proposal would
have two community buildings. So, what
[1:31:36] would happen is you'd start with
community building one, you'd build the
[1:31:39] first few residential buildings, and
then you'd bring more residential
[1:31:44] buildings online, build the second
community building, build more
[1:31:47] residential. And usually the assisted
living memory care comes at the end of
[1:31:53] that because it's not it
it's for the residents that are there.
[1:31:58] And so, as those first residents to in
need that higher level of care,
[1:32:02] they're able to have a full facility
dedicated to them. If a resident needs
[1:32:07] that level of care before that facility
is built, Erickson can provide it in
[1:32:11] that independent living unit. They can
still provide it and they will provide
[1:32:15] it.
>> The assisted living
[1:32:20] facility, it's kind of filled from your
uh residents. You don't take uh somebody
[1:32:27] directly into the
>> Generally speaking, yes.
[1:32:30] » I can answer.
>> Oh, sorry.
[1:32:32] » I'm sorry.
>> Yeah.
[1:32:33] » I can come up, Mary Ann, and
>> Hello.
[1:32:36] » Speak into our microphone.
>> Yes, that's right. Um Mary Ann Navarro
[1:32:40] with Erickson Senior Living. Um
we actually can welcome um
[1:32:47] members of the public, people from the
outside. I mean, I you know, I I think
[1:32:51] ideally, yes, it's for the residents, so
that it's available to them. We offer
[1:32:54] that continuum of care, but um if there
is availability and space, then members
[1:33:00] uh from the larger community can can
join.
[1:33:05] » And so, when you look at this product,
and for those of you who had a chance to
[1:33:08] view um the the the Erickson community
in in Cedar Crest, New Jersey, you'll
[1:33:13] know, and for those who haven't had a
chance yet,
[1:33:16] open invitation. We're happy to arrange
that. Um I think it actually it it made
[1:33:21] a big difference to me to see it. Um it
might for you as well. Um
[1:33:26] this is really a service-oriented
product. This is not a it people live
[1:33:30] there and it's their residence, but this
is a service-oriented product. And if
[1:33:33] you break it down by fee, actually, um
almost three quarters of the fees go
[1:33:38] toward services. We're talking dining,
health care, wellness, social,
[1:33:43] security, all sorts of things, and
that's really what separates this type
[1:33:48] of CCRC product from a senior living
just generic senior living project, or
[1:33:53] even other independent living products
that you might have um
[1:33:58] in the region.
>> And I I I think that that very
[1:34:02] term service-oriented
facility
[1:34:05] I think it's important when we talk
about the density.
[1:34:09] That you really can you're almost
comparing apples to oranges if you
[1:34:12] compare it to two different projects.
>> You do and I think one of the things
[1:34:17] that's interesting to me when we started
looking at the numbers is that
[1:34:22] the employment that's generated by this
this use
[1:34:28] is not insignificant. Right? We talked
about the traffic, but we're talking
[1:34:32] between 3 and 400 people
who who could be working at this
[1:34:37] facility at everything from management
to maintenance to health workers to
[1:34:44] dining to facilities management
everything in between.
[1:34:49] » Hospitality.
>> Hospitality and so now you've got this
[1:34:53] built-in workforce and unlike the office
parks around here
[1:34:57] those jobs don't go somewhere else,
right? These jobs have to stay here
[1:35:02] and AI's not replacing them.
>> I think the only thing you don't have is
[1:35:05] the funeral director. You have just
about everything else.
[1:35:11] » I don't think you want to go there. I
wouldn't recommend that.
[1:35:15] » So moving right along. So the uh
>> But what I mean by that it's a positive.
[1:35:20] » It is.
>> You don't have to leave the site. This
[1:35:22] is the
>> It's modeled more after
[1:35:24] » after
>> Connecticut.
[1:35:25] » Yeah.
>> Connecticut has done that way before so
[1:35:29] many in the Northeast.
>> You don't have to leave the site, but
[1:35:31] what we find is what Erickson has found
is that their residents like to engage
[1:35:36] in the community, so they have
a lot of them have their own cars, but
[1:35:40] they also have transportation. They look
for opportunities to volunteer in the
[1:35:44] communities. Most of these people are
are
[1:35:48] above average in their affluence Um,
want to take that opportunity to give
[1:35:53] back. That's kind of what we see. So,
you get this opportunity also to
[1:35:56] integrate with the community, plus the 3
to 400 people who work here, anyone from
[1:36:01] a high school student who's bussing
tables,
[1:36:05] um, up. And it really provides a great a
great range, we think.
[1:36:10] Um,
to facilitate the project, right? We are
[1:36:13] asking for a PUD zoning amendment, just
like the other PUDs, a site-specific PUD
[1:36:20] to approve the zoning and the concept
plan.
[1:36:23] Uh, we're requesting buildings of four
stories and then in select locations on
[1:36:27] the site up to five stories. And that's
only for the buildings farthest away
[1:36:32] from Doral Greens, farthest from King
Field, farthest from Anderson Hill Road.
[1:36:36] Really at the bottom of the site next to
Sunny Purchase.
[1:36:39] » down
>> Uh, south of the pond, yeah. And
[1:36:42] adjacent to the the woods.
>> Um,
[1:36:46] and so, the density we're requesting is
9.1 dwelling units per acre. So, the
[1:36:51] independent living units are dwelling
units. They have full kitchens,
[1:36:54] bathrooms, and up to and 10.1 units
total units. So, that includes the
[1:36:59] assisted living.
Your current PUD
[1:37:03] at base is six dwelling units per acre.
So, that's six townhouses. We're
[1:37:08] requesting nine CCRC units.
Um, we want to limit the coverage to
[1:37:13] 25%.
We proposed a parking ratio and then
[1:37:17] specific setbacks, right? 150 ft from
Anderson Hill Road, 100 ft from the
[1:37:22] sides, and 200 ft from the rear. That's
the northern King Field,
[1:37:27] um,
boundary. And as Tony said,
[1:37:30] we have this new
um, this new this new consideration of
[1:37:35] of CCRC attainable unit, an affordable
unit. Um, because these units are not
[1:37:41] for sale and they're not for rent. So,
right now, almost everyone's affordable
[1:37:46] unit, um, code says for sale and for
rent, here are the rules. These are not
[1:37:51] for sale or for rent. You pay an
entrance fee when you come in. It's
[1:37:55] highly refundable. That secures your
spot in the facility. That secures your
[1:38:00] independent living unit. Generally,
people sell an asset, a house, what have
[1:38:05] you, and then you pay a monthly service
fee.
[1:38:08] There is no landlord-tenant relationship
and there's no title transfer. It's a
[1:38:14] contractual agreement that's entered
into, a residency and care agreement,
[1:38:19] that's secured by that entrance fee. So,
we had to come up with another model.
[1:38:24] Because this is mostly service-oriented,
we also knew that we couldn't just have
[1:38:28] the same
rent levels as the monthly service fee
[1:38:32] because the monthly service fee includes
food, includes health care, includes
[1:38:37] other things that you would be spending
your money on.
[1:38:40] And so, we came up with this model,
um to make these units affordable to
[1:38:46] people who are at 80% of AMI,
up to 80% of AMI.
[1:38:52] And they in return, they get a
guaranteed home for life, just like any
[1:38:57] other Erickson resident, guaranteed
entry to assisted living and memory
[1:39:01] care, and we're prorating the
um monthly service fee.
[1:39:06] Right? So, we're we're pegging it at the
affordable rent
[1:39:10] published by Westchester County, right,
for a one-bedroom unit, plus
[1:39:16] the additional monthly service fee.
Erickson units, a traditional Erickson
[1:39:21] unit, if it was a couple that moved in,
would pay a fee for that unit, a monthly
[1:39:27] service fee,
and then they would pay an additional
[1:39:30] person service fee. That's less because
the first service fee includes your
[1:39:34] housing as well. So, what we said is
let's decouple it, just like that. You
[1:39:39] pay for the rent at the affordable rate,
and then you pay that if there's a
[1:39:43] second person, you pay that
>> But the entry fee is
[1:39:48] fixed.
>> The entry fee is fixed. So, what we what
[1:39:51] the way the
>> Whether you are affordable,
[1:39:52] non-affordable, there is no break on
that.
[1:39:55] » Correct. And the way it works is they
have a range of entry fees, and that
[1:39:59] they secure different sizes of units,
basically, is what what they do. So, we
[1:40:04] would Erickson proposes to make the
lower
[1:40:07] the most affordable two tiers as
as eligible for these attainable units.
[1:40:13] It would not be
um
[1:40:16] it would not be prorated, but what we're
targeting is someone who has an asset
[1:40:21] who's, you know, over 62 years of age,
maybe they're 80.
[1:40:25] And maybe they're looking to sell their
house, but they don't have a large
[1:40:29] income. They don't have a large pension.
They don't have something, you know,
[1:40:33] investment income they're living off of.
But they do have some income. So, they
[1:40:37] have an asset to secure this.
Um and then they have their income, and
[1:40:43] that's a pretty sizable chunk of the
population who probably fall into that
[1:40:47] category. Um and that's what we're
targeting.
[1:40:51] In addition,
those units that Erickson would make as
[1:40:55] affordable units are not any different,
as Tony said, than any other unit. In
[1:41:01] fact,
the um
[1:41:04] the Broadview site in Sunny Purchase has
an affordable program.
[1:41:09] Their affordable are only in the
smallest of the smallest units. In fact,
[1:41:13] they made a whole 'nother size for them.
They're kind of very small.
[1:41:17] Erickson will make um they are going to
have these, you know, tiers of units. Um
[1:41:24] there will be affordable and
non-affordable in that same tier. There
[1:41:28] will be no distinction from the outside,
from the inside. You will not be able to
[1:41:32] tell walking in there
if you're in an affordable unit or not,
[1:41:36] because there will be some smaller units
that someone who's not an affordable
[1:41:42] um resident will pay and some that
aren't. And so it's really integrated
[1:41:46] into the community.
>> And you receive the same level of
[1:41:49] services.
>> Absolutely same level. No one would
[1:41:51] know.
Um
[1:41:54] So
Look, I'll give you the pitch. We
[1:41:57] believe this is a low-impact use
relatively um in a pretty good site. As
[1:42:03] Tony said we're projecting over $8
million in annual property taxes, more
[1:42:08] than 5 and 1/2 million a year to the
school.
[1:42:10] That's 9% of their budget from last
year.
[1:42:14] Um about a million seven to the village.
It's about 6% of their budget last year.
[1:42:20] And unlike the office buildings or
hospitality
[1:42:24] we're not going anywhere. These are
folks who live here and people who work
[1:42:28] here. We're stable. Um
We'll go into it in the EIS, but we have
[1:42:33] less traffic
than Arrowwood. Um similar land
[1:42:36] coverage, less parking. Um less traffic
than if you were to do an as-of-right
[1:42:41] town home development, significantly
less traffic. Um Erickson Communities
[1:42:46] typically have about 1.3
people per unit if you were to average
[1:42:50] it across all their residents.
Um average household size in Rye Brook
[1:42:54] is 2.87. Right? So we're less than half
of the population density.
[1:43:00] » You're going to be making available
ballroom space, uh banquet space for for
[1:43:06] the for for the outside or no?
>> No, so this is a very
[1:43:11] again community center.
>> unit.
[1:43:13] » Very much.
Um
[1:43:16] Tony talked about the setbacks. Um
And then obviously up to the top of that
[1:43:21] screen is 1100 King Street, right? The
former Reckson
[1:43:24] building. So you got about half a
million square feet of
[1:43:28] of office space.
Since I am a planner and you are the
[1:43:31] planning board. I'd be remiss if I
didn't talk about the comprehensive
[1:43:35] plan.
Um we believe this use and the zoning is
[1:43:38] consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Some of the goals that were laid out,
[1:43:42] right? Providing an enduring economic
base,
[1:43:44] preserving natural, cultural,
recreational, historic assets.
[1:43:49] Um
This land has already been developed.
[1:43:51] It's already been graded. It's already
been heavily disturbed.
[1:43:55] It provides a much-needed product.
Um provides a diversity, you know, adds
[1:44:00] to the diversity of housing choices.
And again,
[1:44:04] changing the density
um is consistent with what was
[1:44:08] recommended in the comprehensive plan.
Well, no one really wants to necessarily
[1:44:12] hear that that it it the comprehensive
plan says
[1:44:16] we should adjust the density
requirements for residential uses in the
[1:44:19] PUD to a less restrictive regulation.
>> Yeah. The comprehensive plan was also
[1:44:24] created well before, say, 900 King was
brought online.
[1:44:28] » It was. Yep. Yep.
>> Yeah.
[1:44:31] » No, absolutely. Absolutely. But I the
the point is I I think and and again,
[1:44:37] we'll go into it, but that six units an
acre
[1:44:40] um that's base in the PUD, there are
very few if any PUDs that meet that
[1:44:46] today.
Um and so when we start looking at what
[1:44:49] the densities are,
what the FAR is, will be about the same
[1:44:54] FAR as the Arbors, for example.
Um
[1:44:58] » I mean, I'm just speaking to the
diversity of housing choices. I'm not
[1:45:00] sure that that point is accurate at all.
>> I see. I see what you're saying. Well, a
[1:45:05] group
I disagree a little bit, but I hear what
[1:45:08] you're saying only because this is a
this is this is going to be a very
[1:45:11] different product than a Sunrise
product, than an Atria product. Um
[1:45:16] » shouldn't compare to those at all then
when looking at density, for instance.
[1:45:19] » Well, it it
>> I think it's always I think it's always
[1:45:22] worth it to compare, but I think there
are differences.
[1:45:25] » Yeah, I just just to interject, when
one of the interesting things about this
[1:45:30] community that we saw in New Jersey
is that the way it's laid out, there
[1:45:36] there seem to be a lot of units.
But essentially they have have sort of
[1:45:41] hubs with apartments spiraling out
separated by a lot of green space to
[1:45:48] other hubs. So it's not like like you
know other residences where you have
[1:45:55] single buildings
that are have to be you know
[1:46:00] fairly large in order to accommodate all
the residents.
[1:46:03] » It differs from Sunrise.
>> It Well, it's it's it's an interesting
[1:46:08] » compare that's the compare.
>> If you if you a couple of things if you
[1:46:12] maybe you can touch on because
as I understand the procedure and anyone
[1:46:17] can interrupt me if I'm wrong
at usually it
[1:46:21] we would get a a referral from the Board
of Trustees for a report and
[1:46:25] recommendation on the concept plan.
But it's only it's a report and
[1:46:29] recommendation. It's not insignificant
so report and recommendation but we're
[1:46:32] not the ones that are going to be voting
for it but our jurisdiction are is
[1:46:37] wetlands and steep slopes.
Um and to the I think the discussion
[1:46:42] about about density, can you comment on
your sort of concept of use of green
[1:46:47] space which I thought was sort of
interesting and maybe you can comment on
[1:46:52] whatever wetlands issues and steep
slopes issues. We You did discuss at the
[1:46:57] at the head of the conversation about
how the slope is actually going to be
[1:47:01] used to enhance the sort of the the sort
of the building plan.
[1:47:07] » Yeah,
I appreciate that. So the way that this
[1:47:10] works and I it I apologize if it's hard
to see on the screen. The yellow are the
[1:47:15] the the
roof prints. They're not really
[1:47:17] footprints. Roof prints of the of the
residential buildings.
[1:47:21] What what they've done is they've
designed those buildings
[1:47:25] into the hill so that the parking,
almost all of the parking, not all,
[1:47:30] almost all of the parking is below those
buildings. Every residential unit will
[1:47:34] have a covered parking space under a
building.
[1:47:38] And so we're able to do that because of
the slope. So interspersed in between
[1:47:43] those residential buildings are green
spaces. They might be programmed, they
[1:47:49] might not be. There could be courtyards.
There There are a number of other
[1:47:54] landscape features. And so what you'll
see is you'll see this um you see the
[1:48:00] the
residential building as kind of a C or
[1:48:03] an L.
If you square that off and make a
[1:48:06] rectangle, that's the footprint of the
garage. And so on top of that is space
[1:48:10] that we're able to utilize, Erickson's
able to utilize for amenity spaces.
[1:48:15] Diego's able to utilize them for
stormwater and other places. So in
[1:48:20] addition to having larger stormwater
areas that will need, obviously, we're
[1:48:24] able to intersperse um some stormwater
features throughout those buildings. And
[1:48:30] so by
by breaking them up, we're we're really
[1:48:34] able to kind of reduce kind of the
the the kind of scale and massing a
[1:48:39] little bit. Um
it Look, it's still
[1:48:43] it's still like a
good size development program. I'm not
[1:48:46] going to say it's not. Um but the way
that it's been laid out,
[1:48:52] really kind of takes advantage of that
opportunity. Um in terms of wetlands, um
[1:48:58] we shouldn't have much of any wetland
direct wetland impact.
[1:49:03] Most of that forest in SUNY Purchase,
right? There's wetland in there, right?
[1:49:07] You got the Blind Brook and you've got
wetlands. Um
[1:49:10] we might be grading a little in the
wetland buffer,
[1:49:14] but the wetland is really on the SUNY
Purchase side. Um the tree line is more
[1:49:18] or less the property line and it's
grass up to that tree line. So, it's
[1:49:23] already been disturbed. We might be
grading it a little bit, um but we're
[1:49:27] not planning on going into the wetlands.
There are a couple pockets of steep
[1:49:31] slopes that we would um be modifying as
well.
[1:49:35] » Peter, just out of curiosity, out of 83
acres when it's all said and done, what
[1:49:39] percentage of the site would be
remaining impervious?
[1:49:43] » Um impervious would be about 23 24%.
[1:49:52] » I can tell you how much green space you
>> Diego can make any comments.
[1:49:55] » I just I just want to add one thing. I
apologize. Diego Villarreal with JMC,
[1:49:59] um the engineers with the applicant. No,
it just I wanted to just emphasize a
[1:50:05] point. I think the area of development
that you're seeing right now, two things
[1:50:10] that Peter spoke about. A lot of the
area is already disturbed and we're all
[1:50:13] really focused in even though it's a
sprawling development area.
[1:50:17] Um the previous building that was there
when you look at an aerial photograph of
[1:50:21] the existing conditions, it really was a
sprawling building extended pretty far
[1:50:24] south, extended pretty far north. And
all of these areas is focused in what
[1:50:29] was already disturbed areas, whether or
not it was the golf course or the
[1:50:33] previous hotel with the parking areas
that were there. And the steep slopes
[1:50:37] that are being disturbed as a result of
this project, were really manufactured
[1:50:41] steep slopes as result of that. Uh the
golf course itself has all these
[1:50:45] fabricated hills and sand traps that was
created as part of the golf course. You
[1:50:50] don't really have any pristine areas
that were trying to be protected within
[1:50:54] the development area. The natural areas
that occur along the perimeter of the
[1:50:58] property, that wooded area on the south
and western side of the property, all of
[1:51:02] that is being maintained. And what you
actually see is those areas that were
[1:51:06] disturbed by the golf course, some of
it's going to be restored along the
[1:51:09] northern end, that buffer between uh
Kingsfield and the property, the area of
[1:51:15] parking between Doral Greens, all of
that is being restored back to a more
[1:51:20] natural condition. So, uh even though it
is somewhat of a sprawling development,
[1:51:24] again, what was there before was a
sprawling development as well, and we're
[1:51:28] really working within those boundaries
and in a lot of cases bringing it back
[1:51:32] in a little bit tighter. Um and and
re-emphasizing again the parking under
[1:51:37] the building. It was something that we
worked with with Erickson and
[1:51:40] significantly reduces the amount of
impervious area that would otherwise
[1:51:44] need to be created. The building is the
building, putting the parking underneath
[1:51:47] those areas, that added cost with the
construction, working within the
[1:51:51] hillside, again, significantly reduces
the amount of impervious area and gives
[1:51:56] us a lot of opportunities to do
stormwater management between the
[1:51:59] buildings. Uh Erickson has a landscape
architect that we've been working with
[1:52:03] hand-in-hand that has already
incorporated a lot of those features in
[1:52:07] between the building and those things.
These are just Again, all of which will
[1:52:11] be vetted through the DEIS process, but
just wanted to make the board aware that
[1:52:15] these things were all considered in the
development of this plan. It's not just
[1:52:19] a picture, it's something that's really
been vetted and designed and worked
[1:52:23] through with a number of design
professionals taking into consideration
[1:52:27] all of these things that we know uh this
board, the village board, and the town
[1:52:31] and the village is going to be
interested in as we go through this
[1:52:34] process.
>> that you would have any steep slopes in
[1:52:36] the Fulton and Fifth, yeah.
>> It's really not much that's out there.
[1:52:40] It's again, fabricated as a result of
the construction of the building
[1:52:44] previously, and then the golf course
itself. When you When I think of steep
[1:52:48] slopes, I think of wooded hillsides.
Those are the things that you're trying
[1:52:52] to preserve and protect as a result of
that ordinance, and that's just not what
[1:52:55] you have in this case.
>> You did You may have mentioned it at the
[1:52:59] beginning, but I was asleep, so I
apologize.
[1:53:01] How does the density here compare to the
900 King Street? I should know that. I
[1:53:05] worked on it for you.
>> Well, so
[1:53:09] the density is um
we're less. So, number one, we're lower.
[1:53:14] Um 900 King Street is 13.1 units per
acre.
[1:53:19] We're at 10.1.
Um they are at 0.45 FAR.
[1:53:26] We're at 0.39 FAR.
The Arbors is about 0.37 just as a
[1:53:33] comparison.
It's not I'm not making any value
[1:53:37] judgments.
>> Can you Can you Can you comment on on
[1:53:41] the pond
that's on the north I guess northwest?
[1:53:45] What is What I I'm that that that
feature I mean is that a man-made
[1:53:50] feature or is that
>> I don't know if it I it probably was
[1:53:54] man-made. I'm not positive. I think it
was for the golf course, but it is part
[1:53:57] of the
the Blind Brook at this point. I mean,
[1:54:00] it's connected.
>> Right.
[1:54:02] » It's directly connected. There's an
inlet and an outlet to it.
[1:54:07] Um and that's again one of the features
that we talked about early on. It's an
[1:54:11] area that's going to be preserved,
incorporated into the design,
[1:54:15] um
removing the golf course features that
[1:54:18] are around it, restoring some of the
>> expanding the pond?
[1:54:21] » They as part of this application, no. We
are not looking at expanding the pond.
[1:54:25] It's maintaining its current location.
We are proposing a relatively large
[1:54:30] stormwater basin on the southern portion
of the site. You see the area that's
[1:54:34] there.
Uh Tony alluded to it you know, early on
[1:54:37] with stormwater management. We have an
obligation no net increase, no runoff,
[1:54:41] no increase to downstream properties. I
know that's it's an engineering
[1:54:45] requirement not only by your village,
but the New York State DEC where we have
[1:54:48] to comply with all of those
requirements. Uh but we are looking at
[1:54:52] enhancements to that pond as well as a
significant stormwater management
[1:54:56] measure down on the southern portion of
the property in addition to everything
[1:55:00] else that's going to be done.
>> to
[1:55:01] » a passive pond or are you going to have
recreational boats or anything like
[1:55:05] that?
>> I hope no boats. I'll ask Steve and Mary
[1:55:09] Ann. I don't That I don't know. That I
don't know.
[1:55:12] Hold on. What do you want to say?
>> Mr. Cohen was going to have boats.
[1:55:16] » This is great. So, I just want to say
one thing. So, with less impact when you
[1:55:21] look at this from an impact point of
view,
[1:55:24] it's less impacts than the the Arwood.
And the Arwood gave the village a
[1:55:29] million seven plus $350,000
in hotel tax.
[1:55:34] We're at 8.1.
That's all That's all. So, less offsite
[1:55:38] impacts and we're quadrupling the tax to
the village.
[1:55:42] That's all I got to say.
>> So,
[1:55:45] we went through all the approvals and
everything. I think enough of us
[1:55:48] talking. I apologize. I would like to
ask Mary Ann Navarro with Erickson
[1:55:53] Senior Living to come up and just talk
about Erickson as a company. So, both
[1:55:58] Erickson both Mary Ann is here and Steve
Montgomery is here from Erickson.
[1:56:03] They plan to be here regularly. You will
get to know them so you don't have to
[1:56:07] just look at us.
But, I do want to take the chance cuz I
[1:56:11] it is a very interesting company.
>> Peter, before you before you go, could I
[1:56:15] just ask you one more other question?
Regarding emergency services. Can you
[1:56:19] talk about the impact of those?
>> Yeah. So, that is going to be right one
[1:56:23] of the areas we need to really focus on.
We've already started the conversations
[1:56:27] with Chris.
Mary Ann's going to go into it a little
[1:56:30] bit. Um
basically, as part of Erickson's model,
[1:56:35] their model is really caring for the
person, the resident.
[1:56:40] They will be providing the lift assist.
They have their own
[1:56:44] Erickson Health Group,
which is the largest provider of primary
[1:56:49] primary geriatric care in the country.
They have them in their facilities.
[1:56:53] There are emergency medical responder
EMR certified
[1:56:57] staff
everywhere.
[1:57:01] They respond basically to about 87% of
the calls for service within their
[1:57:06] community.
They're doing
[1:57:09] basically everything you can. They're
doing the lift assist. They're doing all
[1:57:12] of that. There will still be calls for
911 service.
[1:57:17] There will be.
We're working on figuring out that
[1:57:21] number.
We're working with We're going to be
[1:57:23] working with Chris. We've already
started setting things up to talk about
[1:57:27] what does that do to the EMS service
now? I don't have that answer for you.
[1:57:32] But we need that answer and we're going
to get it and figure it out and
[1:57:37] um
that's one of the biggest.
[1:57:40] » That goes for I would assume police,
fire.
[1:57:43] » Correct.
>> And and what about
[1:57:46] kind of service? Gas and electric?
>> Um we're beginning to reach out with
[1:57:50] them now. We haven't reached out yet.
We're just We're still there.
[1:57:56] Uh-huh.
>> Well, wait. I I don't Well, I'm sorry.
[1:57:59] Go ahead. I
So, they I just have to laugh. This
[1:58:03] this plan
is
[1:58:07] almost a preliminary site plan.
There has been so much thought and
[1:58:12] money. The people they have on staff in
house.
[1:58:16] » just asking.
>> There's a land No, I know. I'm just
[1:58:18] going to tell you. The landscape
architect is like in Minnesota. The
[1:58:21] other architects over here.
Things are generated within hours.
[1:58:25] » Tony, you're not telling us that we
don't have to review it, are you?
[1:58:28] » No, no, no. I just
>> what I I I apologize, but that's what
[1:58:30] I'm hearing from you.
>> But it's just you got
[1:58:33] oil and gas or gas and electric. I mean,
this is normally you get a cartoon.
[1:58:38] This is what we're thinking about doing.
>> is an issue in this area now.
[1:58:41] » Yes. So, we're we need to start looking
at that and the loads and everything
[1:58:46] else. Obviously, there's gas and
electric there. There was a big user.
[1:58:51] We're coming up with the loads now and
and that's our next reach out.
[1:58:54] » Well, I mean this is part of the DIS. I
mean this is this is this
[1:58:57] » I mean, what I will say is
the good news is we have a will serve
[1:59:00] from Veolia.
We have a will serve for sewer.
[1:59:05] So, we're we're pretty far ahead, but
gas and electric not yet.
[1:59:10] » Can you just speak a little bit to the
um the need for um a zoning and or use
[1:59:14] change here?
>> Yeah. So, the use is permitted. Um
[1:59:18] the the PUD
>> Sorry. Let Let me just
[1:59:21] use is specifically the the change in
use is being specifically
[1:59:25] refined and defined, right? Here. So,
yeah, that's that's one of my questions,
[1:59:29] and the other one is just why is there
um a zoning change required here also?
[1:59:33] » Yeah. So, the um
currently the PUDs permit senior living
[1:59:37] facilities, which are which are defined
as
[1:59:41] residential uses for those 62 years of
age and older. So, that's permitted.
[1:59:45] That's what we are.
We're proposing as part of our zoning
[1:59:49] text amendment to refine that use and
specifically define the CCRC use
[1:59:55] as a type of senior living facility. The
reason we're doing that is because we
[2:00:00] are attaching a separate um affordable
housing requirement to that use.
[2:00:08] Because without redefining that, we're
stuck because we don't have a for sale
[2:00:13] product or a for rent product. So, we're
defining the subset of a senior living
[2:00:18] facility for the sole purpose of
advancing a uh separate affordable
[2:00:24] housing requirement. That's the that's
the requirement. The rest of the zoning
[2:00:28] is bulk and density requirements and
dimensional requirements for the
[2:00:33] specific concept plan.
>> Thank you.
[2:00:37] » Sorry, Maria.
[2:00:40] » Hi again, everybody.
Our team did a really good job of of
[2:00:45] telling our story, so uh there's
not a whole lot for me to say, but they
[2:00:49] really have dug in and learned a lot
about Erickson and our product and
[2:00:54] our residents and our community, so
um they were able to share a lot of
[2:00:59] information, but I will I will just say
that
[2:01:03] we are a growing company.
Uh we Erickson, we were
[2:01:08] founded in Baltimore over 40 years ago.
Our offices, Stephen and I, like our
[2:01:14] offices are actually
right on the
[2:01:17] grounds of our very first community.
So we're part of the senior, you know,
[2:01:23] senior living environment every every
day um
[2:01:27] in Baltimore and I think that just is a
is an example that we are the long-term
[2:01:33] owners, operators, managers
of our communities and so
[2:01:39] we have really developed a product over
time and refined that product and
[2:01:44] continue to refine that product
constantly
[2:01:47] um in order to serve
our residents, our seniors, and that
[2:01:51] very unique population, you know
over over 80 years old
[2:01:57] and and to meet their needs, so I think
that's
[2:02:00] um
really part of our story and why we get
[2:02:03] so involved in in developing the
properties because we're going to own
[2:02:08] them, manage them, operate them
long-term. But again, um
[2:02:12] we were founded in Baltimore. Now we we
are we've grown over the years. We're
[2:02:17] one of the top five senior living
providers
[2:02:20] in the country and
we currently are in 11 states. If we
[2:02:26] have a community here in New York, it'll
be the 12th,
[2:02:29] our 12th state. We don't have any um
any properties here in New York, but
[2:02:33] we've we've been wanting to be here for
a very long time.
[2:02:37] Um
you know, our mission is to help people
[2:02:39] build um, help people live better lives,
and that's really for our residents,
[2:02:44] over
33,000
[2:02:47] residents, I think now, and our
employees.
[2:02:49] » Yeah. I have a question I have a
question for you. When we were visiting
[2:02:52] your facility in New Jersey, one of the
things that impressed me, because I have
[2:02:56] a mother who's 88 years old,
um, is the internal medical facilities
[2:03:02] that you have, and your concept behind
that, and how you differ from other
[2:03:08] other
you know, like, you know, uh, products
[2:03:12] with with that.
>> Sure.
[2:03:14] » on that, I would appreciate that.
>> Yes. Um, actually,
[2:03:19] if actually, there are a couple of
things that really set Erickson apart
[2:03:23] from other senior living providers, and
really that top one would be
[2:03:28] health care and access to health care.
So, um, all of our communities have an
[2:03:32] on-site medical center. Um, our
residents can see
[2:03:38] doctors, they're Erickson doctors,
Erickson Health Medical Group, exclusive
[2:03:41] to our residents, and also our
employees.
[2:03:44] Um, they can see them same day,
you know, manage their care. Um,
[2:03:50] probably in a community this size, we
would have probably
[2:03:53] three or four dedicated physicians
just for our our residents. In addition,
[2:03:59] we would have, um, all of the, like,
nurse practitioners,
[2:04:03] nurses, um, social workers,
medical aids, uh,
[2:04:08] all the tech staff. Uh, so we would we
really offer that um, that whole primary
[2:04:14] care provi- um, environment, and then
also,
[2:04:18] uh, we bring in specialists as well. Um,
and then we work very closely with the
[2:04:24] neighboring, uh, with neighboring health
systems. We develop very strong
[2:04:28] relationships with them, so that if our
resident is going to have surgery, or
[2:04:32] they're going to be, um, they have a
hospital stay, and then they're
[2:04:35] transitioning back, or they're
um coming from rehab, you know, our
[2:04:40] on-site care coordinators are working
regularly with the hospital staff to
[2:04:44] make sure that that those residents are
transitioning back successfully.
[2:04:48] » how how does the how does that work? Are
they Are they private physicians? Is it
[2:04:50] part of the service fees of Erickson? Or
are they required to carry medical
[2:04:51] insurance like everybody?
[2:05:02] » They are
The physicians group is Erickson Health
[2:05:05] is Erickson Health Medical Group. So,
they are a practice that's exclusive to
[2:05:11] our residents, but they are
um
[2:05:15] regular doctors.
>> do they contract with Medicare? Do they
[2:05:18] » We accept Medicare.
>> Right. Yes.
[2:05:20] » Mhm.
Yes. And we also have a product we have
[2:05:24] a Medicare Part D product um that some
of our Yes, we do. Erickson um Health
[2:05:29] Advantage and our residents can elect
into that if they they want. They're not
[2:05:33] required to do that, but many of them do
and we've seen some very good outcomes
[2:05:38] for the residents that that have that
that um
[2:05:43] extra service
as far as their you know, ability to
[2:05:46] stay out of the hospital and shorter
stays and you know, we have a lot of um
[2:05:50] data around that. So, yes, so definitely
that is a major component. We also
[2:05:56] talked a little bit about the um
We have 24/7 safety and security
[2:06:02] protocols and staff in place. They're um
all the staff is emergency management
[2:06:07] uh response certified, trained as well
as um a number of staff like have the
[2:06:13] basic um life safety CPR. So, we're able
to uh
[2:06:18] we have an in-house communication system
and protocols. We're able to respond to
[2:06:23] all of the um the needs of our
residents, you know, if it's a fall,
[2:06:27] they're feeling, you know, light-headed.
Uh we check daily on our our residents.
[2:06:33] We make sure that they're getting up out
of their unit. Um, you know, if they
[2:06:37] have not gotten out of their unit and no
one's, you know, seen them that day,
[2:06:40] we're going in, we're doing a welfare
check. We use electronic monitoring to
[2:06:44] do
>> Here's another question.
[2:06:45] » Mhm.
>> Are you, um,
[2:06:48] certified or
How How does How does it work with, uh,
[2:06:54] um,
as a wellness and health facility? How
[2:06:58] does it work with New York State
Department of Health? How does it work
[2:07:01] or does it with the Joint Commission
accreditation, things like that? Your
[2:07:07] Your specifically, your medical
services. Who Who serve Who surveys it?
[2:07:13] Who makes you accountable?
What requirements are are
[2:07:17] Are they
>> do not have a community in New York yet,
[2:07:21] we haven't been through that process,
but we have a full regulatory group, and
[2:07:25] they actually are part of Stephen I's
team.
[2:07:28] » I see. So, they've done some
>> They've done some initial, um,
[2:07:32] documentation with the Attorney
General's Office in New York,
[2:07:35] understanding, um, the CCRC senior
living requirement regulations in in the
[2:07:41] state of New York, um, and how the
different levels of care, the continuum
[2:07:47] of care will be regulated here. Yes, in
New York. And we know, and so we're
[2:07:51] » We're the most regulated regulatory
state in the country.
[2:07:54] » Yes. So, our team we have we we have a
team that's very experienced. You know,
[2:07:59] we also are um, getting a team put
together. We We actually have two
[2:08:03] properties in California, so we're
working, um,
[2:08:06] there as well, moving through those
regulatory, uh,
[2:08:11] hurdles. So, I So, as as we get closer
to, um, developing a community, you
[2:08:17] know, if we're successful, then, um, you
know, we would we have a whole on-site
[2:08:22] health, um, or we have a whole in-house
like health operations group, the
[2:08:26] regulatory group, and so they've already
started to do their
[2:08:30] their due diligence and
there.
[2:08:33] » Thanks.
>> You got it.
[2:08:35] » So, again, um so
we talked a little bit about some of the
[2:08:39] um
success we've had with managing those uh
[2:08:43] those calls for service or the internal
needs of residents in house. We achieved
[2:08:49] nearly 90% of the calls um our residents
make
[2:08:53] um we're able to address their needs
directly. Um
[2:08:58] and then about
but you know, 10% of them would would
[2:09:01] have to be transferred outside to 911,
the 911 system, or police and fire. And
[2:09:07] we have relationships, we develop
relationships with um the local
[2:09:11] » Mhm.
>> jurisdictions.
[2:09:14] And we look forward to to working with
Chris. We've had a preliminary meetings
[2:09:17] with him.
So, I think we look forward to working
[2:09:20] with him. And then I'll just say just
some again
[2:09:23] I think another differentiator for
Erickson is just the scale of our
[2:09:27] community and and how we're offering our
residents uh the level of service. And
[2:09:32] we're able to provide the lifestyle
lifestyle to many more residents to meet
[2:09:37] that need um for the growing senior
population and and how we've refined our
[2:09:41] program and architecture and
community over time
[2:09:46] to address those needs.
>> Thank you.
[2:09:47] » Um I've been reminded by our attorney
that we actually have a task to to
[2:09:52] perform, but um I want to ask in terms
of timing
[2:09:57] when do you need
>> Sorry.
[2:10:00] » When do you need the planning board's
comments with respect to the DEIS?
[2:10:04] » Scope.
>> The scope.
[2:10:06] » So, that
>> 10 days.
[2:10:10] » Hopefully
>> If they shut it down on the 8th, which
[2:10:12] they probably will.
>> So, you have
[2:10:14] » The 18th of September, or anytime after
that if
[2:10:17] » Right.
[2:10:19] » Because what I'm I'm thinking of I I I
assume every
[2:10:22] » to have a special meeting.
>> Um
[2:10:26] » You may have.
>> You have a meeting on the on the 10th.
[2:10:31] » Okay.
But then maybe we should schedule
[2:10:34] something.
>> I think we should have a meeting.
[2:10:38] » Have what?
>> I mean we're not going to be able to
[2:10:42] I mean I think we can
>> I mean we have a document now.
[2:10:45] We don't have to wait till the 8th to
comment on this.
[2:10:48] » Yeah.
>> We are commenting on the proposed scope
[2:10:50] of this document. Do we want them to
consider some other things?
[2:10:54] Oh
>> I mean
[2:10:56] » That's pretty much what I That's my
understanding.
[2:10:58] » I mean my I mean my thinking is this. I
unless I mean I I open the floor if
[2:11:03] there's any issue in and having reviewed
this document that any board member has
[2:11:09] with the DEIS, I mean I looked at it
myself. There's nothing that sprung out
[2:11:15] at me that was sort of unusual that we
needed to include. It's a pretty
[2:11:19] comprehensive document. It's pretty
standardized.
[2:11:22] Um I don't know.
>> may be some other you know, few things
[2:11:25] that we wanted to consider in addition
to what they are proposing, but I think
[2:11:28] the document is pretty much complete
scope.
[2:11:31] » I mean my my thinking is is that
is that we um
[2:11:37] we have some time in order to people can
provide comments to to
[2:11:42] » we don't have to wait till the 8th of
September.
[2:11:45] We can do the
>> Right.
[2:11:47] » I understand.
>> That's my
[2:11:48] » However, do take into account that you
have two board members who are not here,
[2:11:52] who may have other opinions and may have
other comments that we may not be
[2:11:58] including.
Um we do have the meeting on September
[2:12:01] 10th. That's within the time uh period.
>> Okay.
[2:12:04] » Um there other persons who are on
vacation, other staff members, other
[2:12:10] professionals who may not be here. So to
do a special meeting between now and
[2:12:13] September 10th may be a little
difficult.
[2:12:17] » Yeah.
>> So
[2:12:19] Well
>> Can we meet the 18th of September
[2:12:22] deadline?
>> Yeah, cuz we're meeting on September
[2:12:24] 10th.
>> Well, the
[2:12:25] » September 10th.
>> Yeah,
[2:12:27] we have a regular meeting on September
10th anyway, and the agenda only has one
[2:12:31] or two items on it.
>> what I think we should do is is that any
[2:12:34] board member that has has comments with
respect to this, you know, send them to
[2:12:39] Pam.
Uh and and and what we'll do is is that
[2:12:45] whatever comments are received by Pam,
she and I will review them and then
[2:12:49] we'll review whatever feedback we've
given by our next meeting.
[2:12:54] » I remember the 900 King our comments
were minimal.
[2:12:58] » Well, it's even well, there there were
there were some, you know, issues with
[2:13:03] with some wetlands there and some other
things which do not exist with this
[2:13:07] particular application. So, I I think
for us at least, you know, my opinion is
[2:13:13] that there's not a lot of legwork to be
done.
[2:13:16] » So, if if you can coordinate all that,
if you want us back on the 10th, let us
[2:13:21] know. And And is it this full
presentation or we're going to be here
[2:13:24] to answer a few questions? Either way,
we'll do whatever you'd like.
[2:13:27] » think that's necessary personally.
[2:13:31] » Yeah, no, just
>> Yeah, I I I I think I think you guys
[2:13:35] have been pretty comprehensive.
>> I I I think you know, personally I'm at
[2:13:38] a maybe at an advantage
because I have been in the we in the
[2:13:42] discussions with you three four times.
So, I think I've get a little better
[2:13:45] feel for the project.
>> Yeah, right. And if there are any
[2:13:48] questions, you know, similarly
give them to Pam and
[2:13:52] we can get them to us and we can try to
get responses. It doesn't have to wait.
[2:13:56] Like we'll
>> I I I I think
[2:13:59] I think the goal is by the by our next
meeting, we are going to be done with
[2:14:03] what
we are entrusted to do. So, that by the
[2:14:07] time the Board of Trustees meets
8 days later,
[2:14:11] they'll have whatever additional
comments if we have any additional
[2:14:14] comments with respect to that.
>> I I do have a question. I think you made
[2:14:17] an activity in the document that the
build out time frame you're looking 6 7
[2:14:22] years.
I hope that's not continuous
[2:14:25] construction for 6 7 years because that
would be very disruptive to the
[2:14:31] community and the area.
>> It's not.
[2:14:36] » It's phased in, right?
>> in. However, the the thought now is and
[2:14:41] Diego hasn't finished all the plans yet,
I don't think. But the thought is you
[2:14:44] would we would do most of the the
grading, the excavation, getting the
[2:14:48] pads ready, the roads, the storm water.
Get all that in.
[2:14:52] » Mhm.
>> So that the buildings are more or less
[2:14:54] pad ready. So you'd do the first couple
in the first phase and then you're
[2:14:58] talking about putting up one more
building when that's full, one more
[2:15:02] building when that's full. So yes, there
would be construction, but it wouldn't
[2:15:06] be this
>> going to have cement trucks driving down
[2:15:09] for 7 years in the road. Okay.
[2:15:13] » Well,
not conti- not continuously for 7 years.
[2:15:18] » It would be, but in a phased manner.
>> Not continually for 7 years, but yes,
[2:15:22] for 7 years.
>> But I don't mean 24 hours every single
[2:15:25] day of the week, yeah.
>> And I'll just add that by the time it
[2:15:27] gets to 7 years like we'll have a full
community of residents living there that
[2:15:32] would complain also. So
>> I was hoping you were going to say that.
[2:15:37] » residents and our neighbors.
>> How about this?
[2:15:40] » Just real quick before we
as part of the DEIS scope, there's a
[2:15:44] construction section within there. There
will be a detailed
[2:15:47] » schedule
>> construction um
[2:15:50] schedule, construction management
information. There'll be information
[2:15:53] that's going to be provided that I think
will answer each of those questions
[2:15:56] there about the sequence of
construction, the timing, the duration,
[2:15:59] and uh the sequencing of the plan as
well.
[2:16:03] » All right.
>> Okay.
[2:16:05] » Thank you.
>> All right.
[2:16:06] » it. Thank you all.
>> Thank you.
[2:16:11] » Are we done?
>> Yeah.
[2:16:13] » Can we uh
[2:16:16] » That's the goal.
>> A motion and a second to adjourn? Or we
[2:16:20] have something
All in favor?
[2:16:22] » I.
>> I.
[2:16:23] » Any opposed? Thank you.
>> I.
[2:16:26] » Only
Only those that sleep want
[2:18:30] » Mhm.