Rye’s City Council voted Monday to adopt a six-month moratorium on certain developments in the city, including the central business district; the construction and teardown of one- and two-family houses in B-1 and B-2 districts adjoining downtown; and multi-family homes with six or more units.
A potential pause on construction at Rye Country Day was removed from the moratorium at the beginning of Monday’s meeting at City Hall.
City attorney Kristen Wilson said the six-month window will take effect as soon as the paperwork is filed with the Secretary of State’s office, likely Monday or Tuesday of next week.
Jamie Jensen and Marion Anderson cast the only “no” votes against the moratorium, which underwent two major alterations before passing 5-2 on Monday. At the May 27 meeting, the construction and teardowns of one- and two-family homes was removed from the moratorium, excluding those in the B-1 and B-2 districts. On Monday, Mayor Josh Nathan said that after the council’s discussions with Rye Country Day officials, “We’ve come to an alternative approach that satisfies the school and the community’s needs.”
Rather than put an outright pause on the private school’s plans, Nathan said RCDS will be permitted to continue working through the details of its proposed construction project and seek approval from the Planning Commission as early as October. A six-month pause would have limited any progress on the campus’ new proposed athletic complex until December.
“In some regards, if we passed the moratorium, it would cause added stress to the school over roughly the same timeframe, slightly more,” Nathan said. “We want a collaborative dialogue instead of a more polarized dialogue. That’s what we’ve worked very hard to achieve over the past month.”
Stacey Sotirhos, who will serve as interim Head of School starting July 1, stood at the front of the City Council chambers with Nathan to discuss the agreed-upon framework for RCDS, saying the school will host a series of informational sessions over the summer to keep the public and the council informed as plans continue to take shape.
During a public hearing that lasted roughly 30 minutes, members of the community spoke for and against the moratorium on housing. Two developers asked for a 30- or 60-day window before the moratorium takes effect to give residents and members of their profession time to adapt.
Rye resident Louise Murray spoke in favor of the moratorium because of the rapid change she’s seen in her neighborhood near downtown.
“We’ve lived in our current block for 13 years, and the character of our neighborhood has been affected very radically,” she said. “The house that we bought, we wouldn’t buy it now with all the developments near us. When we bought it, it was just a residential block. What’s happened the last couple of years is enough to make your head spin. We used to see trees at the end of our road, now there’s a huge structure on Theodore Fremd (Avenue) that looms over my house. Friends say, ‘They built a commercial building right next to you?’ It’s not a commercial building, it’s just huge townhomes. It’s affected the neighborhood and quality of life.
“It’s not just about us, it’s a good example of why Rye needs to hit pause and ask, ‘What is the character of our town?’ Things happen so rapidly because we don’t have a master plan. People need to say, ‘Wait, is this what we want to happen?’”
Nathan said that’s the idea of the moratorium, which aligns with the city’s continued work on its first updated comprehensive plan in 40 years. Meanwhile, several environmental initiatives City Manager Brian Shea presented at the last City Council meeting are aimed at addressing persistent flooding, zoning, and stormwater drainage issues that impact many areas of the city.
“There are neighborhoods in Rye where things are well-settled, then there are areas where we’re under pressure from the state and ourselves to think about whether what we’re doing is really the best path forward,” Nathan said. “Do we want to make 100-year decisions before we’ve thought about the implications of those decisions? Let’s think about it, then make decisions with clarity.
“That’s the basis for this, we saw these things developing in the area around the central business district and heard things from people in the community who saw what’s going on in other communities and said, ‘We don’t want that here.’ We want to accomplish those goals in a very different way. We need to have that discussion amongst our volunteer professionals, our staff professionals, and members of the community who are stakeholders in those areas.”
Jensen expressed her hesitation regarding the moratorium before casting one of the council’s two “no” votes.
“We have many priorities facing the city right now,” she said. “On my list, there’s cell service, upgrading Gagliardo Park, safety for children on e-bikes. I won’t go on. But I want the council to be really thoughtful about how we use this moratorium. … We need to have some conversations about zoning, I understand that completely. I’m all for that. But we need to be clear about what we ask the council to do.”
Councilmember Amy Kesavan, who voted in the majority Monday, said the goal is to emerge from the six-month timeframe with decisions that best serve the public, not the City Council’s wishes.
“Just to be clear, we’re using comprehensive planning tools to make these decisions,” she said. “I don’t want people to think seven people up here are doing all the deciding.”
