No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018_01_15 M_ Tazbin CommentsFrom: Marcia Tazbin <MHTazbin@msn.com> Date: January 15, 2018 at 11:22:20 AM EST To: "cbradbury@ryebrook.org" <cbradbury@ryebrook.org>, "mayor@ryebrook.org" <mayor@ryebrook.org>, "d345788@aol.com" <d345788@aol.com>, "trusteesusanepstein@outlook.com" <trusteesusanepstein@outlook.com>, "klein.jason4@gmail.com" <klein.jason4@gmail.com> Subject: 900 King Street Dear Trustees, I live in The Arbors and am firmly opposed to your current plans for the redevelopment of 900 King Street in Rye Brook. The property is right next to the Arbors Community and I believe that the plan to add property that is twice the size of the current Arbors community must be examined more thoroughly. In addition to the issues mentioned below, I would like to bring other matters to your attention. My comments are about infrastructure. · We have lost lights and electricity in The Arbors many times, despite putting ugly electrical boxes in front of houses in the Arbors to prevent losing lights and power. I doubt Con Edison could support the doubling of size of the new structure. How does Con Edison plan to support the new units if they cannot support The Arbors? · Can the Police officers and wonderful but thinly-staffed fire department handle the additional homes that they need to protect? · How long will construction take? While we don't live in a gated community, I am concerned about the additional people working on the property and new people liven on the property. How do you plan to secure the Arbors community? · Have you considered the impact of additional cars on the roads and the traffic? The Blind Brook Middle School and High School are right next door and many kids walk to school. How can you insure the safety of these students? Not to mention the increased traffic? · We don't need more apartments or townhouses. We need a sense of community that stores and restaurants would bring. At least, consider a mixed use development. Another question that I have is about insuring that all residents are "able-bodied". How exactly is that determined? What happens if they are no longer "able-bodied?" And last, I am concerned about your memory care units. Why are they specifically not counted in your your estimate of new people in your community? From the Arbors Board. The full array of potential effects and mitigation measures must be accurately identified, measured and evaluated, and the Draft DEIS Scoping Outline fails to provide same. We urge you to adopt revisions to the Outline requiring greater analysis of mitigation measures, as well as alternatives to this project as currently proposed. In particular, we urge you to require increased analysis of alternatives to the Project that will incorporate the following: 1. Less bulk, density, and scale: the existing structure at 900 King Street is composed of 215,000 square feet, while the numerous proposed structures will have a combined total gross floor area of 445,000 square feet, more than double the scale of the existing structure. Moreover, the applicant seeks to build 16 units per acre, which is more than double the density of the Arbors. Also, the existing maximum gross floor area for the site is 9,000 square feet per acre. The applicant seeks to nearly triple this with a project of 25,000 square feet per acre. Alternatives that do not increase the existing square footage should be considered, as well as alternatives that do not change the existing setbacks affecting the Arbors. 2. Less impact on ground disturbance and wetlands: the applicant admits that 13.17 acres of the 17.77 acre site, or 74% of the site, will be disturbed. Moreover, the Village Planner acknowledges that the “significant grade alterations” may affect the functionality (and hydrology) of two of the four wetlands on the site. Alternatives need to be considered wherein none of the existing wetlands are affected, with significantly less ground disturbance. 3. Less Impact on Vegetation: the applicant seeks to remove at least 209 trees from the property, as well as to conduct grading wherein at least 9,000 cubic yards of fill would have to be brought to the site, resulting in deleterious erosion impacts. Alternatives need to be considered where extensive tree removal and extensive grading is not required. 4. Alternatives to setting the age restriction at 55 years: the applicant has never explained the economic rationale or other basis for reducing the existing age restriction on senior living facilities from age 62 to age 55. Obviously, a younger population will lead to increased traffic and increased use of the schools. In present times age 55 is clearly not considered Senior, and there are many families now with a 55 year-old parent and school-aged children. 5. Alternatives that will have less impact on local traffic: as residents of the Arbors, we are very concerned about the existing levels of traffic on King Street and along Arbor Drive, a private road. A development of 269 units, along with the various workers to be employed in functions such as food service, recreation, and care of residents with memory related conditions, will obviously lead to greater traffic congestion along King Street, along Arbor Drive, and near the Blind Brook MS/HS, Fire Station, and Village Hall. Alternatives need to be considered that will generate less traffic and which will not negatively impact the existing traffic flow that the Arbors experiences. 6. Alternatives that do not require demolition and a massiveconstruction project: clearly, demolition and construction in such close proximity to the BBMS/HS campus will have a negative impact on not only the Arbors, but on the students, the staff and the educational process. Consideration should be given to the alternative of repurposing the current building for the residential uses planned by the applicant. We note that in New York City and other locations, numerous venerable office buildings have been converted into residential uses. Other important areas of concern for us include: a. The need for opening the Arbors’ emergency access road to outgoing cars during the entire construction period to adequately ensure the safety and well being of Arbors residents at all times b. The need for a construction road other than Arbor Drive c. The need for more parking both at the Arbors and at the new facility d. Information regarding how solid waste disposal will be handled, either privately or at a cost to the Village e. Keeping the overall height of the structure in keeping with other buildings in Rye Brook f. The rise in transient workers near the school could be dangerous for the children g. Will either or both of the two presently installed electrical boxes on Arbor Drive have to be moved, and, if so, what would the new location be h. During the construction period, what will be done to ensure the safety of middle and high school children as they walk around and on Arbor Drive to get to and from school i. What will be the cost to the Village of emergency vehicles necessary for the additional police and fire officers that will be required j. What safety precautions will be necessary during blasting, and will they be sufficient, due to the proximity of the Tennessee Gas lines k. What is the plan to ensure that there is no interruption of utility services to the Arbors residents during construction, as all utility lines come in through King Street l. If this lowers the home values in the Arbors, is that factored in to the revenue calculations presented by the developer in their proposal m. Blasting and asbestos removal are needed and construction is expected to last three years; what is the plan to protect Arbors residents and school children and faculty n. Where will the overflow parking for the school go at such times as meet-the-teacher night, soccer/sports tournaments, as town residents use 900 King Street as an overflow parking lot and there are hundreds of cars parked there for these events o. Does the traffic study take into account that in the years when 900 King Street was fully occupied the Arbors had fewer cars The Arbors represents a significant portion of the population in Rye Brook, and we thank the Village in advance for taking our concerns seriously and for acting in the best interest of so many Rye Brook citizens. Thank you for your consideration. Marcia Haupt Tazbin 159 Brush Hollow Crescent (The Arbors) Rye Brook, N 10573