Development of Townhouses on Orange Lawn Tennis Club

On tonight's BOT Meeting agenda is an Ordinance to change the zoning for "Planned Residential Cluster B", which is commonly known as Orange Lawn Tennis Club.

This was hinted at back in December in this Village Green article:

Orange Lawn
Although this was not discussed at the meeting, Lewis said in an interview that the Board of Trustees will vote to introduce an ordinance in January that would potentially change the zoning of this historic club on Ridgewood Road.

Orange Lawn’s owners are seeking to build roughly 30 town homes on a section of the property, said Lewis, in order to keep the club itself financially solvent. The parcel would have to be dual zoned for recreational use and “planned residential cluster.”

I don't know enough to say if this is good or bad for the town and neighbors, but just thought people should know about it so it can be discussed.

How could this be anything other than an assault on the historical nature of the property and an inappropriate place to put 30 townhomes.

Seems like 30 townhouses would disrupt a beautiful and peaceful neighborhood in many ways. Moreover, as a former member of OLTC, this seems to be yet another effort by the club to stay afloat--I remember the reception hall addition a few years back that was also meant to put the club on a sustainable financial footing. Guess that didn't work very well.

Sounds like the neighbors have a decision...work with this plan now, and get some of the less-used land replaced by townhouses, or wait for Orange Lawn to fail, and see what is done with the entire property. It seems like the reception hall and more-or-less giving away dining memberships isn't solving the problem.

I'm assuming there will be development of some sort there someday, unless someone has very deep pockets...so if I were a neighbor (I'm not), I'd be trying to get the most possible concessions, while helping put Orange Lawn on a more sustainable footing, so that I wasn't facing a larger project later.

They'll keep on doing this, until the club folds, and is torn down. I'd rather have a larger eventual space to work with, since it's mostly clear that as an institution, it's a complete failure.

Wow. That's a nice comment. And you'd rather have a larger space to work with - what do you intend to do? You have some big plans in mind?

Orange Lawn is a wonderful historic institution that continues to suffer the effects of the great recession which began in 2008. Furthermore, they overextended themselves by renovating and expanding the main house just prior to that recession hitting. One of the reasons they did so was because of complaints by neighbors with respect to noise from the 2 or 3 summer parties that they would hold during the season. Now they need to sell a portion of the premises in order to keep the club as a viable entity. The neighbors had the right to complain about the noise then and they have the right to contest the new plan now. But to what end, ultimately?

They could raise the membership fees/dues.

RippleK said:

How could this be anything other than an assault on the historical nature of the property and an inappropriate place to put 30 townhomes.

csk25 said:

Seems like 30 townhouses would disrupt a beautiful and peaceful neighborhood in many ways. Moreover, as a former member of OLTC, this seems to be yet another effort by the club to stay afloat--I remember the reception hall addition a few years back that was also meant to put the club on a sustainable financial footing. Guess that didn't work very well.

How is this an inappropriate place to put townhouses? Do you think that having townhomes by large homes is inherently wrong? I know that the area consists of single-family detached houses, but it's less than one mile from the SO Train Station. A resident could walk down Orange Lawn's driveway and then across Cameron Park to the station.

What are the "many ways" that townhouses would make the neighborhood less "peaceful"? I live in a townhouse and I think my family is extremely peaceful. What unpeaceful activities do you assume I engage in?

That's a high density development, meaning there needs to be a lot parking as well, increased traffic, etc.
I'm looking at a satellite photo on Google Maps and there is limited empty space to build the units. The only place that makes sense is the open area between the main house and N. Ridgewood Rd.

Look, what I meant was, if you're developing a site to fit contextually within the area, it's better to just do the whole thing at once, rather than have 30 town homes and in 5 years, have to tear down and develop the clubhouse. Agree that they could raise dues.

J, nothing against townhomes, but putting 30 in close proximity on a smaller street is going to create density issues. There are a bunch of additional improvements you'd have to make to accommodate the influx of volume of traffic (people, vehicular, etc.).

How does the BOT process work? Will a decision be made tonight to change the zoning or is this just the beginning of the discussion?

Ideally, townhomes and other dense residential development should take place on lots along the train tracks, on SOA and in places like the closed Buffet, building the core of SO and making the downtown more viable.

There are townhouses on Wyoming Avenue directly up the hill from the club. Granted Wyoming is a main thoroughfare but I doubt those townhouses have been a negative in the immediate area. They are farther from the train station than the proposed ones would be but certainly close enough so that the train station is a useful amenity. If I were in the market for a townhouse, incidentally, I would much prefer not to be right by a train station, with the attendant noise and traffic, just close enough to one to be convenient.

can understand that people living right nearby the tennis club might be concerned about changes, but I do not see townhouses, probably expensive ones that could be well designed and attractive, as a detrimental addition to a neighborhood. Possibly thirty may be too many, but that is a matter of quantity, not substance.

Keep in mind that nice townhouses can attract very upscale buyers, including people who live In town but no longer want to maintain a single family home. Townhouses add an option for people such as empty nesters who might otherwise leave.

eelvb said:

How does the BOT process work? Will a decision be made tonight to change the zoning or is this just the beginning of the discussion?

An Ordinance needs to be heard on two "readings". If it passes tonight, it would likely be sent to the Planning Board for approval (probably in February). If the Planning Board approves, it comes back to the BOT for a second "reading" (probably in February), which includes a public hearing.

Living by the train with triple pane windows and quality materials makes living by tracks irrelevant. Esp. if they design the building correctly. Valley is a road designed for dense residential, not Ridgefield.

Where is Ridgefield? Triple pane windows are fine if you never ever want to open one for fresh air.

RippleK said:

Living by the train with triple pane windows and quality materials makes living by tracks irrelevant. Esp. if they design the building correctly. Valley is a road designed for dense residential, not Ridgefield.

I think they meant Ridgewood.

Thanks Michael. Are public comments allowed at tonight's "reading"?

This is a quiet neighborhood and the addition of 30 townhouses is too many. Especially if the Lawn Tennis club ultimately fails and sells the remainder of their property. In the future there will be another 60 townhouses probably built at a later date. Once the president is set for the property more townhouses will come in the future.

If the zoning in the immediate area is for single family houses, there is no reason to add this many townhouses.

As one who lives relatively near Orange Lawn, I think that this proposal merits serious consideration. Thirty town homes at about $500k each would contribute significantly to the property tax rolls.

resident48 said:

As one who lives relatively near Orange Lawn, I think that this proposal merits serious consideration. Thirty town homes at about $500k each would contribute significantly to the property tax rolls.

And many empty nesters who want to stay in the community, downsize, etc would be interested.

Unless S.O. gives away another PILOT to the developer.

Are they proposing to fill the entire part of the property downhill from the clubhouse? I think that would be too dense for the area and the town. The number of townhomes (16?) on Wyoming would seem to be about half the number proposed for the Orange Lawn property. That seems to me about the maximum that should be allowed at all.

Thanks Yahoo, typing fast at work....

eelvb said:

Thanks Michael. Are public comments allowed at tonight's "reading"?

Every BOT Meeting contains a public comment period where ANY topic can be discussed. For a "First Reading", there is no specific public comment period, so you would want to use the general public comment period time which is listed on the agenda. Just be aware that Torpey enforces a 3 minute time limit on public comments.

The "Second Reading" has a formal "Public Hearing", associated with it, but, frankly, once something gets to that stage, it's usually too late to make a difference.

Look at a google map. Chopin is right. The 16 townhomes on Wyoming would easily fill 1/2 the Orange Lawn property. The only way to fit 30 in a small area is to make them each small or too tall for the neighborhood.

chopin said:

Are they proposing to fill the entire part of the property downhill from the clubhouse? I think that would be too dense for the area and the town. The number of townhomes (16?) on Wyoming would seem to be about half the number proposed for the Orange Lawn property. That seems to me about the maximum that should be allowed at all.

Certainly looking at the satellite photos of the townhouses on Wyoming and those on S.O Avenue above Ridgewood (the nearest comparables) suggests that an outcome of 16-20 townhouses seems more likely than the 30 being discussed, unless the "clustering" being proposed handles space and cars differently than the older comparables.

Note that both of these complexes are in neighborhoods where they are surrounded by single family homes, so our Village has allowed townhomes away from a central high density core before (including the even higher density of The Newstead).

I do think it is important that we NOT give PILOTS for these sorts of developments, however. They do not serve an urban planning need that should be supported by tax breaks.

My recollection is that Orange Lawn committed half its lower lawn to event parking when it obtained Planning Board approval for its expanded clubhouse ballroom.

So, it's likely seeking to hive off and develop only the southeast corner of its lot, in which 30 units would be a dense development by any nearby measure.

This is only the enabling re-zoning ordinance. OLTC still would have to sub-divide it's property and its developer still would need PB approval.

yahooyahoo said:

Unless S.O. gives away another PILOT to the developer.

PILOTs can only used in a redevelopment area. Orange Lawn is not in a redevelopment area.

Thoughtful zoning fundamentally considers surrounding/nearby zoning. If not, we'd have industrial uses inter-mixed with residential uses.

It wasn't too long ago that Montrose residents fought to stop sub-divisiona of larger properties, because they argued it would destroy their neighborhood's character. And, The Manors scaled back development was the result of a protracted NIMBY battle that lasted a decade.

Watching OLTC try to chop up and develop its property, because its members don't want to pay what it cost to run their club, should turn into an interesting spectator sport.

cramer said:

PILOTs can only used in a redevelopment area. Orange Lawn is not in a redevelopment area.

At least, not yet.