Continuum: Irvington Planning Board Work Session

• Editor's note: This is a resident's blog post about the meeting, which means that it reflects the writer's opinions. If you'd like to submit a post on this project or any other village issue, click here. 

On Wednesday, the Irvington Planning Board held its first work session on the Continuum project. This was the first opportunity for the Planning Board to meet among themselves to discuss the Continuum proposal

We appreciate The Planning Board inviting the public to sit in to observe. Below are excerpted comments from the Planning Board members.

Prior to the Board discussion, Village Attorney Marianne Stecich filled the Board in on some calls that had been made to emergency services in neighboring communities which had independent and/or assisted living facilities. According to Stecich, in talking to Ardsley about their experience with Atria Woodlands, a facility that is roughly half independent living and half assisted living, there was little impact to the Fire Department, but that there was a “tremendous increase in calls to the Ambulance Corps – an additional 15-20 per month”.  She added that there was also a major increase in Police desk calls, as they are part of the response to every 911 call. While police and IVAC did not keep records as such, she indicated that they felt that most of the calls came from the assisted living and memory care units, not the independent living. It was then suggested that since the Continuum proposal is for assisted and memory care units only, it’s likely that they would experience a higher rate of calls than Atria Woodlands.

Planning Board Chairman Bill Hoffman opened the Board discussion by highlighting a few key issues, starting with size and scale. According to Hoffman:

“This is much too big for the gateway to Irvington. It’s just not something that I could consider approving.”

Hoffman added that he would like applicants to consider what they could build using the existing setbacks and limitations of the current zoning laws. The second key issue for Hoffman was that “the building stays”, that based upon all the feedback from the community, he would strongly favor a plan under which the existing building was retained.

Others on the board were less favorable to the idea of retaining the existing building. Hilary Chenel indicated her concern that “if you build around the existing building, it would be a tinder box” and unsafe.

Board member George Boyle noted that all of the exceptions that were being considered were predicated on the zoning petition for a new use. “If they built this to comply with the actual zoning in place, we wouldn’t be looking at this big book.” Boyle added that “there are already tenets for special permits – the are all there – but the applicant those to ignore those and treated it like a clean slate.” Part of Boyle’s argument was that the process was all mixed up:

“The Board of Trustees should have looked not at this specific site plan, but rather at assisted living as a permitted use. Then, [the Planning Board] would apply all of the existing rules about coverage, setbacks and more”.

Boyle added that “the visual images and model show how this is not in character with the village nor the site. Then, as you look at the Comprehensive Plan, it’s clear that this is far beyond what’s appropriate. Inner courts are prohibited; the building is greater than 180’ long and the height is not even close to what would be allowed under special permit for this area.”

Others weighed in that the Applicant had previously stated that in order to be economically attractive to them “it can’t be smaller than this size.”

After some discussion, it was largely agreed by all that “If the Applicant is listening [and since they are in the room, we assume they are], they should plan to come back to the Board with a plan that meets the existing zoning laws in terms of coverage, density, setbacks and more.

The next big issue discussed was traffic.

According to the Traffic Consultant, the estimated number of trips was miscalculated by Continuum. Trips are estimated based upon a standard trip rate multiplied by the number of beds. Continuum used the number of units, not the number of beds, undercounting by roughly 39%. Also, they noted that the Briarcliff facility experienced more trips than the standard trip rate, so Continuum might assume a higher rate as well.

There were some other questionable assumptions in the traffic data. One section shows 11 entering trips during am peak hours, but 49 daytime employees. That seemed to be a significant difference and the Traffic Consultant suggested that they would need to see an explanation of that.

In closing on traffic, Bill Hoffman suggested that traffic patterns would need to be looked at more closely, particularly due to the specifics of the property. Hoffman added that the parking plans did not seem adequate for the number of residents.

As the traffic discussion wrapped up, Bob Mackie asked what seemed to be a pertinent question:

“If we say that they can’t build it to this bulk, why go to all the trouble and expense to amend this plan? Instead, the applicants could simply say, “OK, thanks, goodbye”.

Other topics discussed included drainage, noise and lighting. Bill Hoffman raised the question about pervious surfaces and how the numbers in that section of the document just “didn’t tie out”. Continuum acknowledged that the numbers were incorrect and that they would correct them.

George Boyle raised the question of whether the Planning Board needed to hire a consultant with expertise in the area of assisted living, noting that the Board did not have the expertise and “this is Continuum’s first, so they’re new to this as well.”

Chairman Hoffman closed the meeting by noting that “if the applicants are listening, they have quite a bit to chew on”.

No doubt...

Continuum will be on the agenda for next Wednesday’s Planning Board hearing at the Irvington Library. The meeting starts at 7:00pm, but Continuum will likely come up around 8 or 8:30. Please attend to voice your opinion.