HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.15.2020 N. Raider Comments1
Alex Marshall
From:Nancy Raider <nancy.raider1@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 15, 2020 11:33 AM
To:Alex Marshall
Subject:Opposition to 900 King Street proposal
To the Rye Brook Village Board,
I share the concerns of many neighbors regarding the proposed re-development of the 900 King Street property.
Among them:
The developers have not given adequate consideration to the amount of added traffic on Arbor Drive, or the amount of
parking that will be needed. The very nature of this project - housing and care for an older population - means that there
will be many more vehicles going in and out throughout the day, evening and night. Allowance for more realistic parking
projections is needed. There will be many more deliveries, visitors, and care givers, in addition to residents own vehicles,
on the street and at the intersection of Arbor Drive and King Street at frequent intervals.This will add to congestion,
traffic snarls and more dangerous streets for us all, adults and children, including many kids going to and from school.
The applicant’s position (stated at the town meeting October 13, 2020) that all care for residents will be provided by
employees, and that therefore there will not be additional traffic from various types of care givers hired by individual
residents and their families, is simply unrealistic. The applicant’s proposal should be amended to reflect the typical
needs of such a population. I and many of my friends, acquaintances, neighbors and fellow Rye Brook residents are all
familiar with people, families, buildings and communities with senior populations - regardless of the “in-house care”
provided they do in fact bring in a large number of care givers and deliveries throughout the day, as well as evening and
night. Similarly idea that the applicant will be able to time shifts of the various types of workers going to the site to
coordinate with the school day also seems less than realistic. Care givers often work for agencies, and shift hours tend to
be set. And as we all know now during the pandemic better than ever, delivery and repair trucks and service vehicles
arrive and depart in a constant flow at all hours. Again, the proposal should be revised to reflect the true state of the
world, not some imagined reality that conforms to their plan.
I cannot stress enough that the current plan proposes a population that is too dense for this area and not in character
with Rye Brook or the Arbors. A project with a much smaller population would be appropriate and would maintain
property values for both existing and future residents of the area.
And again, similarly, the proposed structure is much too tall and massive for this area. It is not in character with Rye
Brook or the Arbors. A project with a much smaller profile, density, bulk and lower height would be appropriate and
would maintain property values for both existing and future residents of the area.
The proposed project will create too much noise for this area in all phases - demolition, construction and after
completion. This is a quiet, peaceful, suburban area. We do not want added noise and activity in our midst. We are
already fighting noise pollution from the nearby airport. This alone should demonstrate to the board and the developers
that residents of the Arbors and Rye Brook are not in favor of the additional noise pollution this project would bring to
our community.
The developers have not properly considered the demands the proposed project will put on public utilities including the
fire department, water supply and pressure, and electrical supply and consistency. This community is not able to stretch
its current resources any further.
For these reasons I am strongly opposed to the current proposal for redevelopment of 900 King Street. The proposal
should be revised to reflect smaller structures and foot print and fewer residents. It should also be revised to reflect
2
realistic projections of parking needs and added traffic as well as increases in demands placed on public services and
utilities. Only then can the town move ahead with review of a detailed site plan and contingencies for operation of the
facility.
Thank you for for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Nancy Raider
Nancy Raider
145 Brush Hollow Crescent
The Arbors
914.806.3111