HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.12.2020 J. Glucksman Comments1
Alex Marshall
From:Jim Glucksman <jbglucksman@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, October 12, 2020 6:51 PM
To:Alex Marshall
Subject:To the Village Board of Trustees regarding 900 King Street
To the Village Board of Trustees regarding 900 King Street:
My name is James B. Glucksman, and I have been a resident of Rye Brook since July 1992. I reside in the
Arbors, a neighborhood I expect to bear the primary impact of the 900 King Street development. I am writing to
familiarize you with some history of redevelopment efforts relating to 900 King Street.
The Arbors was built between 1973 and 1978, as part of a three-element Planned Unit Development, or PUD.
The concept of a PUD was to balance traffic patterns, development and open space. As to traffic, for example,
the “business parcel” would attract traffic into Arbor Drive in the morning, into the IBM building contemplated
for 900 King Street, while Arbors residents would generally be traveling the other way to train stations or work.
In the evening the flow would reverse. This would minimize congestion. Harkness Park was the "open space"
component.
During 1998, the Village Board affirmed that this PUD conforms to the original zoning of the Town of Rye.
The PUD was confirmed as in compliance with the Town of Rye PUD rules and those rules should govern the
site. This certification/ruling was sought by the then-current owners of 900 King Street. Since those rules
require the other PUD member's consent, the Arbors’ reasonable and legitimate concerns over the density still
being too great should be listened to.
During the winter of 1993-4 Avalon Development, formerly known as Trammel Crowe tried to build a similarly
dense residential parcel on 900 King Street. The Arbors mounted a special assessment and retained the law firm
of Hall Dickler P.C. Hall Dickler discovered that any zoning variance application needed to be joined by all
three parts of the PUD, to wit, whatever entity owned 900 King Street, the owners of Harkness Park and the
Arbors Homeowners Association. Avalon promptly withdrew their proposal.
I do not oppose all development. I want some development to enhance the tax base and prevent an eyesore and
safety hazard similar to United Hospital. There are accommodations we may desire, for example off-site
parking. Limits to the size and density of development are needed, particularly if traffic flow takes on a
residential pattern similar to ours.
The developers to be flexible in order to accommodate our needs as adjoining property owners and ultimately
obtain AHOA consent and hopefully support.
Jim Glucksman
(914) 482-4033
(LinkedIn Profile)