Rye Brook schedules April public hearing on Sunrise Senior Living amendments at 900 King Street

The Rye Brook Planning Board voted to hold a public hearing on April 10, 2025, and to refer revised site-plan materials for review by the Architectural Review Board after Sunrise Senior Living presented amendments to the previously approved planned unit development at 900 King Street.

The amendments, presented by Stuart Lacks, principal at Perkins Eastman Architects, and Clyde McGraw, representing Sunrise Senior Living, keep the project’s maximum building height unchanged while reducing building footprint and increasing on-site open space. Lacks said the revisions reduce the combined footprint of the independent- and assisted-living buildings by “over 10,000 square feet” and that the plan shows a roughly 13,713-square-foot increase in programmed open space. Lacks and project team members said total unit counts for independent living, assisted living and memory care remain the same.

Why it matters: the application modifies a previously approved plan and the board must confirm there are no new wetland, steep-slope, sewer, water or stormwater impacts before approvals proceed. Several trustees and board members pressed the applicant to produce written responses to a recent engineering memorandum from Dolph’s office that flagged outstanding sanitary, water and stormwater assumptions.

Major changes and staff concerns

Project consultants described three substantive changes in the amended submission. First, Sunrise requested changing the cottages’ garages to two-car garages after market analysis; that results in a small increase in parking supply but, the project team said, no net increase in total unit counts. Second, the applicant said 10 of the 20 cottages will have a bedroom plan relocated from a second-floor location to the first floor; Sunrise representatives said this does not add bedrooms overall and that the vacated second‑floor space will become den or storage space. Third, the design team said about 48,000 square feet of total building area across portions of the IL/AL buildings has been reduced and that balconies and some rooflines were reworked; the team said the “maximum height of the building, at its highest point has not changed.”

Board members and staff flagged technical memos. Don Crump, a planning-board member, described receiving the Dolph engineering memorandum as “shocking” and summarized its core concerns: sanitary-sewer capacity, the town’s water interconnection work and infiltration/percolation assumptions that underlie the stormwater design. Anthony Nestor of engineering firm JMC said the team has met with emergency services and provided turning‑radius analyses for ambulances; he also described minor plan shifts to create a therapeutic garden, relocate generators and slightly reconfigure loading and trash areas.

Sunrise and approvals process

Clyde McGraw, representing Sunrise Senior Living, said the company is in due diligence and does not yet own the property. McGraw said the developer’s target was to obtain local approvals and a building permit “potentially by the end of this year,” and that construction, once started, would require about 22–23 months. McGraw and the design team said they will appear before the Architectural Review Board for detailed elevations and that the project remains subject to state and local permitting, including review by the state Department of Health where applicable.

Formal actions and next steps

The board adopted a resolution setting a public hearing on April 10, 2025, at 6:30 p.m. at Village Hall and directed the applicant to comply with public‑notification requirements in the village code. The motion to set the hearing passed with all members present voting yes (recorded: John Grzan — yes; Don Crump — yes; Mendelson — yes; Richmond — yes; Amy Schon — yes; Chairman Goodman — yes).

The board also voted to refer the amended application to the Architectural Review Board for concurrent review. Board records show the referral motion was moved by Amy Schon and seconded by John Grzan; the referral passed unanimously (Grzan — yes; Crump — yes; Mendelson — yes; Richmond — yes; Schon — yes; Chairman Goodman — yes).

The applicant committed to provide written responses to the Dolph engineering memorandum and to meet with staff (Sarah and Michael were named by board members) to resolve outstanding sanitary, water and stormwater technical comments before the public hearing. The planning board also confirmed, on the record, that the current amendments contain no new wetland or steep-slope impacts beyond the prior approvals.

What’s next

The board’s referral to the ARB begins detailed architecture and landscape review; the April 10 public hearing will accept public comment and give the board more time to review outstanding technical memos. Consultants told the board they will submit a written memo itemizing exact unit and square‑footage changes and formal responses to engineering comments before the next meeting.