Comments from Neighbor at 40 Milton Road

November 18, 2025

Members of the City Council:

Before you is consideration of a zoning change to allow the use of Arts Center in a residential zone. The proposal was put forward by the Rye Arts Center and ostensibly applies to one property at 25 Milton Road which has been or will be gifted to the Arts Center by a private donor. I live across from the property in question at 40 Milton Road. I have owned the single family residence with my spouse since 2004 – over 20 years now. The house we live in was built in 1850. I have lived in Rye since 1999. I am a landscape architect practicing primarily in New York City. In Rye, I served as chair of the Landmarks Advisory Committee for several years in the 2000’s. I currently serve on the Board of Architecture Review.

I understand that currently you are considering the amendment to allow for the use change and not a specific site application for any new structure planned by the Rye Arts Center (RAC). You are charged with providing advice to the City Council at this point in time. The use change could apply to other properties in Rye, but practically speaking, it pertains to the property at 25 Milton Road. I presume that the RAC could have applied directly for a use change to the Zoning Board of Appeals with a specific site and architecture plan. Likely, the RAC wants to have some assurance that its proposal will be favorably received before it commits to full architecture and engineering plans.

As you are well aware a use change is the most significant type of change to zoning. Rather than changing setback or lot allowances it is of much greater consequence. In this case the use change would be significant - from activities by fewer than a dozen people with two or three cars to the use by hundreds of people and scores of cars. Thus you need to consider first whether this is appropriate. What benefit does it provide to allow this use in a residential zone? Is the subject property a good candidate or should it be excluded because it has significant wetland restrictions? Is the use change dependent on being adjacent to public property? In other words, if a site were surrounded by residences on all sides, would the use change be considered? As a reminder, the owner will be a non-profit corporation, not subject to property taxes.

If you do deem it appropriate, then what additional measures are required to maintain the residential character of the site, the quality of life and property value of the neighbors. If the property is simply allowed to follow the same setback and FAR restrictions as if it were a residence, it is more than likely to have a significant negative impact on the character of the neighborhood, quality of life of its neighbors and property values. I would posit that if a use change is to be allowed then the property should retain a residential character as it will be located in a residential zone. In fact this is the character of the existing Rye Arts Center. It is an adapted residence that citizens of Rye wanted to save and had the insight and determination to convert to an Arts Center. As such it maintains the character of a string of large, single family homes along the east side of Milton Road - one of Rye’s main routes of travel. Of significance, it has a landscaped front yard with parking along the sides and back of the property.

The preliminary plans available for public view of proposed development at 25 Milton Road are wholly institutional in character. The building is over 60 yards long with 16 parking spaces and a loading zone in the front of the property. It is two stories tall in the front with possibly a lower floor accessible at the back due to grade change. It levels a knoll in the front and removes an over 40” diameter tree for three parking spaces. The space between the existing residence at 25 Milton Road and the current Arts Center has several large trees and numerous trees regenerating as in a natural woodland. I have observed over the years living across the street that this area is a natural flyway for a variety of birds traveling to the swamp behind the tennis courts at Rye Recreaton. It also is a route of travel of deer, fox, skunk, squirrels and a variety of other mammals.

The improvements will directly impact the neighbor to the north at 15 Milton Road and my property. The neighbor at 15 Milton Road will have a large shed for deliveries 20’ away from his property. I will have an entrance drive directly across my driveway and lose a view of a natural corridor extending almost a quarter mile towards Midland Avenue. Queuing of vehicles along Milton Road to access parking spaces may make it difficult for me to enter or leave my driveway. Technically, 13 of the 16 parking spaces will be outside of the front yard setback, but in reality there will be no front yard as in a typical residence. Instead there will be 42’ by approximately 150’ of asphalt pavement. Light fixtures to illuminate the parking will be spaced approximately every 50 feet. The illumination shown in the rendering by the applicant is a fiction. Accent lighting on a building does not meet code or lighting standards for a parking area. The existing Arts Center Building has very bright flood lights around every side of the structure presumably for security purposes.

We purchased our home over twenty years ago knowing that we would be living on a busy road. Having an Arts Center and a recreation park across the street was a plus. Situated across from a large residence in a R! Zone and a neighbor on a property that could fit two houses, but only had one was also appealing. I am sure that I would be wary of the change if 25 Milton Road had sold to owners who would build two residences. The leadership at Rye Arts Center did invite us over to meet with them in the fall last year to discuss their plans. We expressed many of the same concerns indicated here. It is admirable that the RAC and its donors want to invest more in an important community resource. I am just wary of the impact given that the plans seem to indicate that 25 Milton will become the primary hub of the Arts Center rather than the existing building. As such it appears as a large institution almost as a corporate headquarters with a large building mass fronted by parking. If it were instead planned as an auxiliary building with the current building serving the main function, then the constraints of having no buildable area or area for parking in the back due to the wetland and wetland buffer might be overcome.

I ask you to carefully consider whether it is appropriate to allow this use in a residential district and whether it is right for this property in particular given the environmental constraints on it. If you do recommend to the City Council that it is appropriate, then consider what additional regulations beyond those typical for a residence should be applied. These measures include additional setbacks or reduction of the allowable FAR based on the percentage of the property that is within the wetland buffer. Key issues are the mass of the building and the extent of parking in the front. If it is allowed close to what is shown on preliminary plans then, in my opinion, the development will be out of character with its residential setting along a principal avenue of Rye. It also will likely have a negative impact personally on our quality of life and the property value of our home.

Thank you for consideration of my thoughts on this issue in respect to my position as a neighbor to the property in question, and also as a professional who has served and currently serves in a review role On the Board of Architecture Review for the City of Rye.

Respectfully,

T. Patrick (Sid) Burke