Continuum’s New Math: When is 117 Smaller than 105?

• Editor's note: The following blog was posted by Barry Graubart, a 12-year resident of Irvington. Online marketer with deep experience in the media and technology space. This blog expresses his own opinions.

On Wednesday, March 5, Continuum Corp presented yet another updated plan to the Irvington Planning Board, for its proposed assisted living facility at 30 S. Broadway. The new plan, which has not yet been made available to Village residents, was described by the applicant, and by some Planning Board members, as a “smaller” plan.

Yet, at 117,000 square feet, this plan remains 11% larger than the 105,000 square foot plan which was rejected unanimously by the Board as “too large” and a “failed plan.” As had been previously reported, the applicants indicated last month that the previously revised plan, which they had insisted was also 105,000 square feet, was actually 132,000 square feet. In this latest update, they have eliminated some of the underground parking, reducing the size by 12,000 square feet, while also eliminating 6 units, saving another 3,000 square feet.

Just a month after indicating that the largest facility they could build “as of right” would be 60,000 square feet, Continuum are pitching a solution nearly double that size, at 117,000 square feet, while calling it “smaller”.

The changes were made by shifting the location of the proposed memory care building, enabling them to put the parking at surface level, rather than below ground. The main building was unchanged, except that it was actually raised 2 feet higher, so the new elevation is 166 feet, an even taller eyesore at the gateway to Irvington.

Planning Board chair Bill Hoffman took an informal straw poll of Board Members asking them whether they felt this “smaller plan” was still too big.

Chet Morton responded that he “doesn’t see this as a significant improvement; there’s slightly less coverage, but you’re still encroaching on the buffers, you’re still taking out 129 trees, which I find extreme.” Morton added that he’s “still not convinced that traffic is not a problem. I have sat on Broadway in the late afternoon and it’s backed up to Harriman.”

Hilary Chenel said that “something will go there. Townhomes would be about the same size. I just don’t know. Let the Village (Board of Trustees) deal with the rest of it. If this is as good as it’s going to get, then size-wise it’s OK with me.”

Arguing that “something will go there” seems to be missing the point in my opinion. To equal the 117,000 square feet (or 79,000 square feet above ground), you’d be talking about 37 townhomes, each of 2,100 square feet. Yet no one has suggested that the site could house that many units. In the applicant’s project alternatives addendum, it states “The plan calls for between 24 and 26  2,100 square feet attached townhouse units in three new buildings and conversion/adaptive reuse of the existing carriage house. The 24-26 units is based on a calculation of net site area, including deductions for steep slopes, roads and utilities.”

It appears 24-26 units might be on the high side, due to the steep slopes, but even with those numbers, the townhome design would bring between 50,400 – 54,600 square feet on the property. And the impact would be much, much smaller. 24-26 roofs, each 1,200 square feet in size, cannot be compared to the football field-sized roof required by the proposed assisted living structure.

Nor would two-dozen townhomes require the large blacktop parking lot proposed by the applicant.

Compare for yourself: take a look at the Bing bird’s eye view of the nearby Richmond Hill townhome complex, compared to the proposed Continuum project plan shown here.

Sheila Attai noted that her concerns were less with the size – “emergency services worries me. It has to work for me to be comfortable with the project.” Yet in the latest change to the process, the potential impact on IVAC has been removed from the Planning Board's focus. It will, instead, be looked at by the Board of Trustees, should the project get to that phase.

George Boyle indicated his frustration with the applicant noting that “we’ve asked you over and over to look at this from the outside in but we don’t get that. We need it to have less of an impact on Broadway. This is a special permit. You are asking for relief from our zoning laws. I am simply not convinced the relief that you want is in any way advantageous to the Village.” Boyle also noted that “other than the (emergency access) road, you didn’t push this back at all” while describing the project as “one large castle moat wall.” He concluded that “you are asking for a favor from this Board and we all better be really happy with what you’re getting.”

Chairman Hoffman added “George is right. I have concerns here. I need to see the visuals. I have strong concerns about constructability and about the visual impact from Broadway and Station Road.”

After more than 12 months, this proposal continues to distract our elected and appointed officials from more pressing duties. Please contact the Planning Board and Board of Trustees to let them know your concerns about this project.