New Rochelle council introduces home rule request for state armory amid preservation concerns

The New Rochelle Common Council on June 10 introduced a resolution authorizing city officers to sign a home rule request asking the New York State Legislature to enact S.7989-A and A.5599-A, bills that would amend state law governing the New York State Armory property in the city.

City Manager read a staff summary saying the statutory amendment was proposed "to narrow the scope of the Reverter as its original scope created uncertainty that could hinder financing or investment." He added, "The statute still requires a deed restriction to preserve the armory building, the annex and the dedicated space for the veterans. If this condition is breached before certificate of occupancy is issued, the property including the armory, annex and the land will revert to the state. Once the CLO is filed, the state reverter is then released, but the city maintains several legal and administrative safeguards to ensure these spaces are preserved." The City Manager also noted that any relocation of veteran space would require planning-board approval in concurrence with the Veterans Advisory Committee.

A council member who spoke at length said the council's review of the draft language and an outside land-use attorney's advice raised concerns about how the reverter would operate after a certificate of occupancy. She said that before 2021 a covenant had explicitly preserved the armory "for public use," language that was removed in 2021 so that the armory's remaining preservation terms apply only to veteran use. She summarized the revised language: "The revised language states that once a certificate of occupancy is issued, the state no longer has a right of reverter with respect to the armory property. And as such, the structures are not required to be preserved." The council member said the only remaining state reverter in the draft applies to a "dedicated space for veterans," which the draft does not require to be located inside the armory structure itself.

That council member also recalled the city's December 2024 purchase price for the property was negotiated with an understanding that an encumbering covenant would require the armory and annex to be preserved. "Now we're considering a new covenant that eliminates that Reverter, allowing Twining to do whatever they basically want," she said, asking whether the developer Twining "is interested in giving us a consideration for that additional value that they would get with the property?"

Another council member and the speaker exchanged sharply worded comments about the legal interpretation of the draft legislation. One council member said a land-use attorney had found the draft "very vague" and that its compensation clause "has nothing to do with saving the armory from being demolished." The mayor intervened to keep the meeting on the special-meeting purpose.

Councilors voted to move the introduced home rule request to the 3:45 p.m. agenda for formal consideration later the same day. The motion to move the item carried with one recorded nay identified in the minutes as "Miss Mary Lou." Shortly afterward the special meeting was adjourned and the council reconvened in five minutes for the regularly scheduled session, where the item was scheduled for a formal vote.

The introduced legislation referenced the state bills S.7989-A and A.5599-A and includes language retaining enforcement rights for the state "in law or equity," including injunctive relief or specific performance, if conditions protecting veteran space are violated. The council's discussion focused on whether that enforcement language and the draft deed restrictions as presented would preserve the armory building, the annex and the veteran space in practice or whether additional clarifying language or consideration should be sought before final action.