Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer proposes two mixed-use buildings and three rear homes at 15 Sagamore Road; workforce housing threshold discussed
Summary
Developer Max Pruna presented a conceptual plan to build two mixed-use buildings (three apartments each) at the front of 15 Sagamore Road and three single-family residences at the rear; Board noted previous variances, parking easement with Seaport Fish and that workforce housing thresholds (over five units) are not triggered.
At a May 12 meeting the Rye Planning Board heard a conceptual consultation from developer Max Pruna for property at 15 Sagamore Road (Tax Map 24, Lot 22), roughly two acres split about 40% Single Residence/60% Commercial. The plan proposes two front mixed-use buildings with residential units on the second floor (three apartments per building) and three detached single-family residential condominiums at the rear.
Attorney Derek Durbin and engineer Paige Libby of Jones & Beach Engineering described the proposal as similar to a 2023 site plan previously approved to raze existing structures and redevelop the parcel. The current revision converts previously proposed second-floor commercial office space to residential apartments. Ms. Libby said building footprints and parking largely track the 2023 plan; pavement will be porous and the previously submitted 2023 drainage plan remains viable. The developer confirmed an easement allowing Seaport Fish to continue parking in an area of the site, and said rear-property owners are permitted access to mechanicals at the boundary for maintenance.
Planner/Zoning Administrator Kimberly Reed told the Board that state statute triggers workforce housing requirements for multi-family structures containing five or more dwelling units; because the project, as presented, does not create a single structure with five or more units the Board concluded that workforce housing obligations were not triggered at this concept stage. Member Steve Carter asked about applicability; Ms. Reed reiterated the statutory threshold guidance.
Why it matters: The change to add residential units in the front buildings increases the number of dwelling units proposed for the site and could change demand for local services and parking; the Board will later evaluate specific site-plan details, landscaping, and any necessary variances. The applicant said impervious surface would be reduced overall and that porous paving would be used.
Next steps: The applicant has filed for the variances required for the project and will submit detailed site plans and a landscaping plan for Planning Board review. The Board did not take an action to approve this conceptual plan at the May 12 meeting.
