40 units of affordable senior housing proposed for 495 King Street
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
by Christine Yeres
Immediately following the public hearing session on the Conifer proposal for a 36-unit affordable housing rental building on Hunts Place, representatives of MountCo Construction and Development Corp met with Town Board members in a work session to sound them out on a proposal for a 40-unit affordable housing rental building for seniors at 495 King Street, in the place occupied now by the Chappaqua Animal Hospital on the east side of the Chappaqua Fire Station. The animal hospital building would be removed.
MountCo representatives described their vision for a four-story building that would seem more like three, since the fourth floor is “articulated as a mansard roof.” The .94 acre property (two tax lots) has 164 feet of frontage on King Street and 136 feet of frontage behind, on Memorial Drive, from which cars would access the development.
Plans for the project include 39 one-bedroom apartments and one two-bedroom unit for an on-site building superintendent, with 40 on-site parking spaces in back. Units would rent for $600 to $1,000 per month, to seniors making 30% to 60% of Westchester’s average median income or AMI. [100% of AMI for a 1-person household is $75,550, 60% is $45,360 and 30% is $22,650.]
MountCo President Joel B. Mounty told Town Board members that he was unsure what changes to the existing “Business-Retail” zoning would be needed, but felt that multifamily senior housing was an appropriate transition between the fire house to the west and residences to the east. MountCo’s office is located in Scarsdale and Mounty is sole managing partner of the corporation. “I’m here, it’s mine,” Mounty told board members. “I own 100% of everything. I’m local, so there’s always someone to talk to. Everything we develop we also own and manage.”
By agreement with the State, which would help fund the project, Mounty told board members, the units would remain affordable and restricted to seniors 55 and older for a period of at least 30 years.
Under the settlement between HUD and the County, the number of senior “fair and affordable” housing units allowed among the 750 total is limited. MountCo representatives were certain that their project could satisfy the settlement requirements and fairly certain that the County was still looking to approve more senior units as part of the settlement.
“There’s high demand for senior housing, and it’s important for us to move ahead so we can qualify for whatever funding is available,” said Mounty. “We want to get a sense from you [Town Board members] of where we stand. We don’t want to work in communities that don’t want us. If this is not your cup of tea, tell us up front and we’ll move on.”
There are, according to MountCo, two chances to apply for State funding: the end of October and the end of November. “In the best possible world, the zoning would already be in place,” said Mounty. “But at least we would need some indication that you’re interested in having us pursue this. We understand that that’s no commitment that you’ll give us the zoning. We’d start with the State, and then consult your planner. We’d like to come back after you’ve thought about it.” MountCo estimated that construction “would not begin till fall 2013, at best.”
Several residents who had attended the public hearing on Conifer’s proposal asked questions of MountCo’s representatives.
One resident asked how many children might live in senior housing. “We’ve never had that experience,” Mounty responded. “In our 2,000 senior units we don’t have one child.”
Another resident asked whether MountCo could give preference to local seniors. “Under State funding we can’t give local preferences, but we market very aggressively locally, in places like your local senior center. We’ve found that by doing that, 85% or 90% of the tenants are people who live in the community or have a relative in that community. But you can’t exclude anybody. “
A resident who had been critical of Conifer’s proposal during the public hearing immediately before the work session told MountCo reps, “The way your organization has approached the board is a breath of fresh air, the way you stated clearly your funding sources and time frames is refreshing. You’re playing with an open hand.”
MountCo team’s architect wrapped up by telling town board members “We have to embark on a pretty aggressive due diligence phase now. We’ve already spent some money to do this presentation, but now we would engage specialists to do a Phase One report, a site study. So it’s important for us to have a sense of what the community would like—whether or not they’d like this project.”
The building at 495 King Street; Mountco is proposing to build senior affordable units on the site
The slideshow requires javascript and Flash
Location great for Seniors. They can walk to town. Would help local businesses. Would not add to student count in the schools.
Demand for these apartments would be huge.
The proposal sounds very promising. Of course, the location will be even better when Walgreens or a grocery store opens at the old Dagastinos. Does anyone know when that will occur? It has been almost a year since Dags closed
The current animal hospital building appears to be a large structure when viewed directly from the fron. But, it is deceiving - the two shallow “wings” on the sides really cover a very small footprint on the lot. In fact, this isn’t a very large building and there is a fair amount of undeveloped space (consistent with a residential development). The artist rendition is a 3 story box with, I presume, a very larger overall footprint. Very unattractive and out of character for the location. 40 parking spaces also fitting on that site… I would like to see all the elevations and site plan before agreeing that this is a suitable location. Let’s remember that this lot is adjacent to single family residential neighborhoods. The Chappaqua Animal Hospital has been, and is, a good neighbor - even if the building upkeep leaves something to be desired.
sign me up!
They would have to be very hearty seniors to walk back UP from town!
I don’t understand what is the draw in Chappaqua for these large monolithic box structures in mostly rural Chappaqua. Between this and the Conifer project on Hunt’s Lane, we seem to be a magnet for developers that see a bit of open land and want to build tall structures. Both projects are outsized for Chappaqua. Do we need more housing of this sort? Yes, but we don’t need the density these developers want to build. Rt 120 and 117 is a very busy intersection for normal traffic and school traffic. For older drivers to enter and exit at that location could be problematic for all. It will dwarf the area, and as a local resident, ie, living close by, if anything goes there it should have more architectural flair to cut down the boxy look. You want box, move to the big city!
Agree strongly with last post. The rendering is hideous, looks like a low income housing project. Oh wait… That is what it is. Either way if the town approves it I hope for all our sake it gets thrown back to the developer to blend in more with the character of our town. Between this and Walgreens it is clear the direction the planning board is headed in the future development.
It takes a lot of money to live in New Castle; just to make it living here you need to earn no less then $267,000.00. Reaching this minimum income level can be through one or two household earners. A combination of both density, special waivers and prgrams, and a structure of reduced property taxes, is what is needed to make this kind of project work. However, New Castle needs to identify where these projects can and should be built, and the Planner should come up with an overlay map that covers all of New Castle. This should not be left up to where developers think this kind of project can go. In addition, the Architectural design should reflect elegance, sharp New England features, and richness through design. The individuals that live in these units should be made to feel that they won a lottery ticket. It will make them feel good and the community! This site is also not a good place, put it behind Town Hall.
Are you really going to put seniors next to a firehouse? Have you heard that siren? Hopefully, they can build it a bit more attractively. Less of a box. Similar in color to the firehouse.
The concept of senior housing at the animal hospital site is just silly. Crossing the intersection at Rte. 117 and 120 is a nightmare. There are no sidewalks on Memorial and the only crosswalk in the area is located on the other side of 117. And where would they walk to? There is no longer a grocery store at the top of the hill and there are limited essential services for seniors anywhere within reasonable walking distance. Asking the elderly to walk down and back up the hill leading to our downtown area is crazy. It’s a difficult enough walk for young people, particularly in the heat of the summer or the cold and ice of winter. The plan provides no open space for the tenants and there is no accessible open space in the surrounding area.
The planned structure is oversized (50 ft. high), devoid of any pleasing architectural features and completely inconsistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. No one who lives in Chappaqua should be forced to live near or look at this kind of a building, which will be the largest, most densely populated residential structure in New Castle.
Everyone should make it clear to the Town Board that the response to the Mountco proposal should be a resounding NO
We should amend the town charter to require a Election Day proposition approved by a majority of the electorate for any change of commercial zoning.
Editor’s Note: The site is zoned BRO for business-research-office and for multi-family housing.
Why don’t they build it on Amsterdam Park?
This is a bad idea. I live very close to this site and sometimes it take me 3 or 4 minutes to get out of my driveway. Can you image what it will be like having this building . The school buses in the morning and in the afternoon hold up the traffic as it is.There are too many reasons in my mind to mention here. Just let me say it would be a good reason for me to move after 37 years.
Right next to Grafflin…. right on a busy intersection where people fly down the hill and cut the corner on the left going up the hill. It isn’t an if THEIR WOULD be TONS of accidents. Not to mention the parking lot is incredibly small and their isn’t room for more.
No, no, and no. Why don’t they put it up by the new proposed Mosque? That section of Millwood is fine.
This is the problem that affects many issues throughout town hall. Everyone has an opinion to fit their own nimby needs, but the town has yet to provide guidance as to where the future growth of new castle can occur. Town Hall is trying to find $2,000,000.00, they have 77 properties not paying taxes, and anyone can walk into town hall and make a proposal that would in a global sense mess up all connected future planning issues. Dump affordable housing on the Mosque owned property; not a very nice suggestion! Have any other smart ideas Mr. Nimby.
I spoke with Mountco today and now with a little tweeking I feel this would work for our seniors. They will look at a design more fitting with other buildings and the town will provide crosswalks and traffic breaks to avoid congestion. Lets give our seniors housing to keep them in the fabric of our commuity. I vote yes development works when we works together.
The last post on 8/29/2012 was NOT WRITTEN BY US. We remain adamantly opposed to this project, which is ill conceived and inappropriate for our neighborhood. Whoever created the previous post over our names should be ashamed of themselves! If anyone associated with this site is reviewing these comments, the previous fraudulent post should be removed.
One last comment on the fraudulent post submitted by a misguided proponent of this project (see the post of 8/29, which was submitted over our names): it is extremely disturbing that someone in our community would stoop to illegal tactics to influence a discussion on an issue as important as this one. Allowing a developer to determine the future character of our neighborhood would be a very costly mistake, one that my wife and I, together with our friends and neighbors, will do everything we can to prevent.
