Warwick planners continue review of proposal to reopen former NYU site as 200‑student residential college after hours of testimony

The Warwick Planning Board on [date] continued its technical review of a proposal to reoccupy the former NYU Nelson Institute facility at 5761 Old Forge Road as a residential college for up to 200 adult students, hearing presentations from town consultants and more than two hours of public comment before taking no final vote and opening a 10‑day written comment period.

The applicant proposes to reuse an existing 87,000‑square‑foot building on roughly 7.01 acres (tax parcels 83‑1‑2 and 83‑1‑5.1) for an institution of higher learning permitted as use group 84 in the town code. Representatives for the applicant said the campus would support roughly 23 teachers, 12 administrative staff and eight support staff; plans show 78 parking spaces on site, compared with an estimated required 63 spaces.

Why it matters: the board classified the project as a Type I action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) last winter and identified multiple categories of possible moderate‑to‑large environmental impact in its EAF Part 2. That designation triggers broader agency circulation and, if the board issues a positive declaration, would require a full environmental impact statement (EIS).

What consultants told the board

Mike Muso, senior technical adviser with HDR, summarized historical environmental assessments and follow‑up work related to the property transfer from New York University. Muso said NYU and later contractors performed abatement and tank‑closure work and that HDR’s review of closure reports and testing "checks out on our books," while recommending that abatement and closure documentation be required as part of any approval.

Laura Barka, planning engineer for the town (HDR), told the board the project proposes five small parking‑area disturbances totaling about 0.37 acres, and that the net change in impervious surface would be a decrease of about 0.21 acres because an older lower parking area would be removed and allowed to naturalize. Traffic consultants modeled current road volumes at roughly 172 vehicles per day on Old Forge Road; applicant materials anticipate transporting students via four 50‑passenger buses for the monthly student arrivals, and engineers reviewed on‑site turning radii and circulation for those buses.

Legal and operational limits

The board’s counsel explained that the property sits in the LC (land conservation) zoning district and that institutions of higher learning are permitted under use group 84. Using the town’s formula (minimum five acres plus one additional acre per 100 students), the site acreage limits the institution to a maximum of 200 students under the code, the attorney said. The applicant has proposed that students be adult residents of the campus (no families) and that students generally arrive and depart roughly once per month, while staff would come daily.

What residents and stakeholders said

More than a dozen residents and conservation stakeholders urged the board to issue a positive declaration and require a full EIS, citing potential impacts to Sterling Forest State Park, rare and listed species, wetlands and local water resources.

"I respectfully urge this board to issue a positive declaration under SEQR," said Rebecca Quackenbush during the public comment period, requesting an EIS to examine what she described as moderate‑to‑large impacts to the park’s ecological integrity, including impacts to roosting and foraging habitat for listed bats and to timber rattlesnake denning corridors.

Other residents raised concerns about emergency‑service capacity, traffic safety on narrow Old Forge Road, the adequacy of monitoring and enforcement of proposed operational limits, and the current condition of the buildings (asbestos, mold and past laboratory uses). Several speakers asked the board to treat springs and seasonal streams on or near the site as potential connections to regional drinking‑water supplies and to evaluate whether sewer and water upgrades (which consultants said could be required) would impose costs on local utility districts or require substantial off‑site work.

Board action and next steps

The board took no formal vote on the application that evening. Chair and staff said consultants and board members will continue to review submitted materials; the board announced a 10‑day written comment period for additional public input and asked members of the public to submit new evidence in writing. The planning board then recessed and took up unrelated agenda business, including a separate six‑month extension for a Ball Farm subdivision application and scheduling motions, which the board approved.

What remains unresolved

Key unresolved items identified in the meeting include whether the board should issue a SEQR positive declaration requiring a full EIS; further peer review and documentation of threatened and endangered species habitat; final stormwater and SWPPP details; confirmation of utility (water/sewer) upgrade scope and cost responsibility; and required abatement documentation for building materials and closed storage tanks. The board’s counsel said all agency comments and submitted public letters would be reviewed before any final determination.

The planning board did not set a final decision date at the meeting. The record of public comments and technical submittals will remain open through the announced written comment period, after which staff and consultants will report back to the board with recommendations.

— Reporting by the Town of Warwick Planning Board meeting record; statements and numbers in this article are drawn from presenters and public comments reported at the meeting.