Message from the Board: Change in Zoning Definitions

Fellow Residents;

The Board of Trustees is tackling a zoning language issue that has generated some concern. We’ve addressed it before (here). We will seek to address some of the questions that residents have raised through emails or in person here. Contrary to what has been stated, this is not a rezoning but an update to the Code. No properties are being rezoned, such as changing a property from residential to commercial.

Why is the Village doing this?
The Zoning Code is the primary way a village controls development – and reflects the accumulation of decades of tweaks and changes as it evolves.  The Board of Trustees is entrusted by law with the responsibility for changes to and upkeep of the Zoning Code.  Two years ago, we changed the code to include language that protected some of the scenic gateways to the Village with a “floating gateway  cluster overlay zone” which meant that development of subdivisions on larger plots would be clustered toward the center of a plot and away from the road to preserve the greenways of the Village. This year, we are tackling updating dated language on how to define a nursing home by updating it to include nursing homes as defined by NYS regulation and other uses such as assisted and independent living.  The current Code language permits sanitariums and convalescent homes, homes for the aged and nursing homes with and without medical care. None of these are terms utilized for senior housing uses today. Next year, we will be tackling the truly big job of rezoning the waterfront.  Each of these changes involve a review of the impact on the Village and follow a process of public input, board discussion, possible edits to the proposed change, and finally, a Board vote.

What need is this addressing? Could you explain the timing?
The Village’s Comprehensive Plan, passed six years ago after years of work that engaged village residents in its planning process. It included a recommendation to update the Zoning Code to allow for further options for senior living in the Village, including zoning for small-scale nursing homes and elder-centric cluster assisted housing projects. When we enacted the changes to include cluster zoning (also included in the Comp Plan), we spoke at that time of modifying the nursing home languages to update it and include a broader range of options Subsequently, a developer (“Artis”) proposed a memory care facility (a form of assisted living) for the southern end of Warburton Avenue at the property currently used for The Riverview catering facility and its parking area, and then a little later the Andrus nursing home indicated interest in adding independent living to their campus. Each one of these proposals would have separately initiated reviews to modify the zoning code to allow for these developments and this did not seem sensible, especially since we had discussed earlier that we wanted to carry out this modification.  For starters, the process would have been driven (and paid for) by the developers. The Board decided, instead, to step back and carry through the process we always intended to do ourselves – a single change to the code, for the entire village, with the process run (and paid for) by the Village. We engaged a planning firm, Chazen Company, to recommend the new language for the zoning code as well as carry out the analysis required under the State Environmental Quality Review Act for changes such as this.  Chazen produced that language and analysis several months ago, and we are now in the third month of public comment.

Will this change open us up to rampant development?
The proposed changes, as we requested, update and expand the language that previously included two types of nursing homes to further include assisted and independent living and eliminate the terms no longer in use.  It allows for these uses as a “special permit use” in what are typically residential districts. It is important to understand that special permit uses of varying sorts are currently allowed now for residential districts, including nursing homes, museums, schools and nursery schools.  Each special permit use has different requirements in terms of lot-size and most are permitted in all residential zones. Under the proposed zoning nursing homes will only be allowed in the R-20, and assisted living and independent living in the R-20 and R-10 and the multi-family zones. Such uses will not be permitted in the R-7.5 as some are today.  However, all special permits have to comply with standards that the “use shall be of such a nature, intensity, size and location that in general it will be in harmony with the character of the district in which the property lies and with the orderly development of that district and will not be detrimental to the orderly development, use or value of adjacent land and buildings”, as well as a number of other criteria (See Code §295-87).  The changes we are seeking don’t automatically give license to potential developers or operators to place assisted/independent living facilities all over the Village – they simply don’t. Characterizations that this modification will radically change Hastings are at odds with how projects are approved in Hastings and aren’t at all in accord with what has happened to date. The Planning and Zoning Boards, staffed by volunteer residents, each have their own responsibilities in the development approval process. Furthermore, the State has a licensing requirement that requires assisted living facilities to demonstrate local need before being granted a license to operate: this hurdle will severely limit the number of licenses approved.

What about concerns about radically increased density?
Chazen completed an Environmental Assessment Form and report that require the consultant to carry out a worst-case analysis deeply at odds with how special permits are granted in Hastings or how development is likely to proceed. The consultant acknowledged as much by stating that they paid no attention in their analysis to existing restrictions, such as setback requirements, parking or lot coverage requirements, site constraints including steep slopes, and view preservation. As a result, their analysis yields scary numbers that the Consultant acknowledges are grossly conservative – and these estimates have helped to fuel concerns that are not in line with what will actually happen should we pass the zoning language change. Our expectation as a Board, based on substantial history, is that the changes to the zoning would allow for these new types of facilities, but that the existing special permit process together with the SEQRA process and state licensing, as well as market demand, would avoid any of these worst-case scenarios. Each individual project will have to go through an application process that revisits SEQRA for the specific project and would have to address all potential environmental impacts including traffic, density, community resources and visual impacts. There will be no sudden spate of overdevelopment.

How will this affect the Village financially?
We can’t predict if these particular uses will be tax-positive or negative for the village and, regardless, that perspective is only a part of the analysis:  churches and schools clearly aren’t profitable and yet are permitted (and if we were to deny an application on account of whether the use will be taxable, we would be roundly and successfully sued). In this case, those firms who build assisted and independent living facilities can be both for-profit and non-profit in nature. Either way, the negative impacts on the Village and School budgets are minimal: among the lowest-impact uses out there. If the development would be initiated by a for-profit firm, it would absolutely be a net financial benefit for the village, but that would be a nice bonus and not the goal. In some cases, even a facility owned or operated by a not-for-profit may still be taxable or provide some payment to the Village. The purpose of this exercise was not driven by a desire for tax revenue – it was driven simply by a desire to open up the range of aging-in-place options in Hastings to benefit residents directly and indirectly.

But won’t these units be too expensive for many residents to afford?
The County Planning Department issued a comment letter on the proposed language and suggested that we modify our affordable housing law so that it would apply to any potential future independent or assisted living units.  This is a good idea we will examine and it would help ensure that we not only have diversity across the aging spectrum, but also across the socio-economic spectrum.

Is the height set too high?
Some residents raised concern because the zoning language includes a recommended maximum height of 40 feet, which is higher than the more typical 35 feet found in most residential areas.  (though there are plenty of properties zoned for 40). Height is one of the items we will consider in our deliberations, but it is worth mentioning that forty feet is effectively up to three stories and that does not measure up to claims that this will generate “high-rise” development in Hastings.  There are plenty of homes that are three stories high, but more importantly, any proposed special permit use must pass requirements for density and fit into a district.

What about the density?
Finally, there is the question of the number of units per acre and the lot size. Assisted living is proposed with a density of 40 units per acre, while independent living is 12 units per acre. These proposed densities are driven by what Chazen believes are industry norms that reflect what is required to support a particular use type, based on services provided. These are comparable to what we have seen in developments elsewhere in the region. The assisted living proposal is also set to lot sizes of two acres or more. One of the drivers for this was that there are relatively few lots in Hastings of 5 or more acres, and to broaden the range of places such housing could go, Chazen lowered the lot size.  These factors, too, face review by the Board in our deliberations.  Some people were concerned that someone could buy up eight quarter acre lots and create a two-acre plot. This would be a very risky, difficult and expensive proposition for a developer to pull off, and given that no special permit is guaranteed, a potentially foolish one. There’s really no record of this ever having been done in Hastings – though there is a recent case of properties being combined to form a larger residential property (the primary zone use, and so allowed by default). Because it required no approval, this posed no risk to the property owner. That would not be the case for independent or assisted living.

In summary, how will this zoning change affect our village?
Zoning provides for a mix of uses within a community that makes it livable.  An individual zone cannot stand on its own: where we to judge the standard quarter-acre residential zone strictly on its merits, (what most homes in Hastings are built on), we would likely reject it because of impacts on the school system, taxes and traffic.  But that’s clearly absurd: the community is a mix of zones that aggregate together into what is hopefully a place you want to live, and people living in typical homes are obviously part of that picture. That picture includes schools, churches, commercial areas, parks, and, in this case, should also include nursing and assisted living facilities.  The issue is balance and mix, and this new zoning language doesn’t disrupt that mix – it is intended to enhance and update it so that there is the potential for broader options and an age-diversified population.

The Board has only one priority and that is to make decisions that work best for the Village as a whole. We do not serve developers or their interests, nor do we favor one neighborhood over another, or one resident over another. We have been elected on platforms that commit us to preserving what is best about the Village, providing more affordable housing, and sound environmental and financial stewardship. This re-zoning effort will be done in a way that is thoroughly consistent with those values. We understand the prevailing sentiment of Village residents to be in favor of having an array of living options available  including ones for our seniors, and we will act in a way that helps insure that outcome. 

We will continue to take written comments for at least a couple of more weeks. If you have further questions, please send them to us and we will endeavor to answer them. The Board will not make a decision until the comments have been thoroughly reviewed and all points considered.