Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout900 King Street Snyder & Snyder Letter to the Planning Board 2021-6-24NEW YORK OFFICE 445 PARK AVENUE, 9TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022 (212) 749-1448 FAX (212) 932-2693 LESLIE J. SNYDER ROBERT D. GAUDIOSO DAVID L. SNYDER (1956-2012) LAW OFFICES OF SNYDER & SNYDER, LLP 94 WHITE PLAINS ROAD TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK 10591 (914) 333-0700 FAX (914) 333-0743 WRITER'S E-MAIL ADDRESS lsnyder@snyderlaw.net June 24, 2021 Honorable Chairman Robert Goodman and Members of the Planning Board Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, New York 10573 RE: 900 King Street, Rye Brook, NY Site Plan Application Dear Honorable Chairman Goodman and Members of the Planning Board: NEW JERSEY OFFICE ONE GATEWAY CENTER, SUITE 2600 NEWARK, NEW JERSEY 07102 (973) 824-9772 FAX(973)824-9774 REPLY TO: Tarrytown office We are the attorneys for The Arbors Homeowners Association Inc. ("The Arbors"), the homeowners association for the townhouse complex directly abutting the 900 King Street proposed redevelopment project ("Project"). Due to the magnitude of the Project, The Arbors is greatly concerned for not only the impact it will have on The Arbors but on the community at large. We greatly appreciate the Planning Board taking the time to consider the site plan. We are in receipt of the Applicant's additional site plan application materials, dated May 27, 2021 (collectively, the "May Materials"), submitted to the Planning Board. We are also in receipt of the Applicant's additional materials submitted to the Architectural Review Board entitled "Height Discussion Diagrams" and "Roof Summary," each dated June 9, 2021 (collectively, the "Roof Height Materials"). As detailed herein, the Applicant's May Materials and the Roof Height Materials are still incomplete in material respects and additional information is needed for a proper analysis. In light of the foregoing, we urge the Planning Board to not proceed to issue any report and recommendation to the Village Board at this time. At a minimum, we respectfully request that the draft Report and Recommendation ("Draft Recommendation"), presented on the Village website as the June 21, 2021 version, be modified to reflect the points noted herein. Roofscape Design: The Other Alternatives Should Not be Ign ored Although we understand the Planning Board's position that the roof height would be best reviewed by the Architectural Review Board since the Planning Board does not have architectural training, the height of the Independent Living (IL) building and its visual impacts on the surrounding area must be considered as part of the overall site plan. As noted in the Draft Recommendation, the Applicant submitted two alternative roof schemes in addition to the original roofscape design for the Planning Board to consider at its April 8, 2021 meeting. See Exhibit 1 with the three designs. We truly appreciate that the Village insisted on the Applicant presenting alternative designs, and that the Applicant presented these alternatives at the April meeting. However, it appears that the Applicant is no longer considering the two alternative designs shown on Exhibit 1 since the Applicant's Roof Height Materials do not include same. Despite the Village Board's comments and those of this Board, that the height and peak of the IL building needs to be carefully reviewed and considered in light of the community's low scale character, it seems that the Applicant has made a unilateral decision to no longer present these other two alternatives. This is completely unacceptable and not consistent with the Findings Statement. Moreover, the statement in the Draft Recommendation that the plans in the Roof Height Materials "do not reduce the height as much as the alternatives reviewed at the Planning Board's April 8, 2021 meeting, but appear to be more visually pleasing than the alternatives previously presented that allowed for a greater reduction in height" is not supported by the materials presented. In fact, the plans submitted by the Applicant in the Roof Height Materials actually reflect a height increase in the IL building of 1.75 inches measured to the top of the plate for the original roofs cape design. Moreover, there is no measurement of the IL building from ground level to the peak, so it is impossible to tell what the overall height of the IL building will be at its peak -the part of the building likely to be seen by neighboring properties. Most importantly, the Board of Trustees at its January 12, 2021 meeting indicated that the maximum height of the IL Building should not exceed 45 feet. The Village Board further stated that the peak of the IL Building should be reduced. The Draft Recommendation acknowledges that the proposed alternative designs would reduce the peak but alleges that the peak would only be reduced by 5-6 feet to approximately 54-55 feet. It is unclear how the Draft Recommendation determined the height reduction since the pictorial renderings from the April 8, 2021 meeting do not reflect any height dimensions whatsoever. Moreover, the Roof Height Materials, which present only one the original roofscape, do not have any measurements to the peak of the IL Building. In order to provide an appropriate recommendation to the Village Board, the Planning Board should demand that the Applicant submit materials which show the peak of the IL Building and the heights for the original roofscape and the other alternative designs so that a proper analysis can be made. Construction Noise: Noise Levels Are of Grave Concern and Barriers Should be Both Visually Appealing and Effective The Applicant's Construction Barrier Noise Efficacy Assessment Report, dated May 24, 2021 ("Noise Report") still provides for a 6-foot tall construction noise barrier to be erected along the perimeter of the Project site closest to the Arbors' homes and contends that using a 12-foot tall noise barrier provides "minimal, or no, additional noise reduction" compared to a condition in which no barrier is used. It should be noted that the Findings Statement cites to NYSDEC guidance to state that only ambient noise levels of greater than 65 dBA at residences would be considered a significant adverse noise impact. The Applicant's Noise Report indicates that the estimate of 2 maximum construction noise is 70.1 dBA, so the impacts cannot be ignored and must be taken seriously. Moreover, HDR states in its memorandum, dated June 18, 2021 ("June 18th Memo"), that "it can be inferred that if 12-foot noise walls do not significantly reduce construction noise levels, 6-foot noise walls would not further reduce them and would not mitigate the FEIS predicted construction noise impacts." The point of performing an analysis such as this is to rely on scientific modeling. There should be no need to infer any type of conclusion. The Applicant's noise analysis fails to provide modeling to compare using a 12-foot tall barrier versus a 6-foot tall barrier, which it should have done if the Applicant insists on using a barrier only 6 feet in height. The Noise Report only compares conditions using a 12-foot tall barrier on all three sides of the property as compared to using none at all on the eastern and western sides of the property. The Noise Report provides no information to support its conclusion that the 6-foot tall barrier will be any more or less effective than a 12-foot tall barrier. Most importantly, the Applicant should have considered a barrier made of different materials in its Noise Report, such as fencing with acoustical material. The Applicant's Noise Report should have taken into consideration noise mitigation techniques (using acoustical materials) to reduce noise since no one should have to live with construction noise of 70.1 dBA. Please note that a 70.1 dBA noise level is similar to the noise level from a radio/vacuum cleaner and DEC finds noise levels above 65 dBA to have a significant adverse impact requiring mitigation. We are also greatly concerned about the fact that noise caused by rock crushing or blasting activities are not taken into consideration in the Applicant's Noise Report. In order to accurately assess the noise impacts of the Project, the Applicant's Noise Report should provide for a worst- case scenario, taking into account all activities that may occur during construction. The Applicant still contends that none of these methods are anticipated during construction at this time but has not definitively determined whether same will be required. We agree with HDR 's recommendation in its June 18th Memo that the Village Planning Board apply a specific condition to the resolution that clearly prohibits pile driving (impact and vibratory), blasting, jack hammering, and/or rock crushing activities due to potential noise impacts. This condition should be inserted into the Planning Board's report and the Planning Board should direct that the Construction Management Pan be modified accordingly. Moreover, we respectfully request that a 12-foot tall noise barrier along the Arbors' property be considered by the Planning Board in its report. Not only would this request make the barrier consistent with the one proposed along Arbor Drive, but it would also further reduce the visual impacts of the construction work. The Applicant's Noise Report still indicates that the plywood barrier to be installed facing the Arbors will be painted green upon installation and that the noise barrier along Arbor Drive will be "decorated" with artwork screen printed onto vinyl banners.1 We respectfully submit that the vinyl banners would not create a more visually pleasing barrier. The banners would further detract from the already unappealing appearance of the painted plywood barriers and also serve as a 1 It should be noted that construction projects at the Ridge Street School and the middle and high schools have not utilized student artwork to decorate construction barriers. We respectfully request that the Planning Board recommend removing the student artwork as a mitigation measure to the visual impacts of the construction barriers since it is only distracting and not appropriate in a residential neighborhood. 3 distraction to drivers passing by on Arbor Drive. The point of painting the barrier green, a solution which already does little to mitigate the visual impacts, is so that the barrier will blend in with the existing vegetation. The banner will only serve to make it stand out even more. As such, we again reiterate that the Planning Board consider other viable alternatives to the aesthetics of the construction noise barrier such as vinyl fencing with acoustic materials particularly in the area facing the Arbors. HDR 's prior memos also indicated that other ideas on the visual appearance of the noise barriers were discussed but the other alternatives have not been made available for public review and comment. Landscape Plan: Additional Buffer Needed With respect to the landscape plan, the Applicant has misrepresented the existing conditions and as such, the landscape plan should be revisited. The Applicant relies heavily on existing vegetation to mitigate the visual impacts of the Project and submitted certain photographic views towards the Project site from the Arbors at the Planning Board's April 8, 2021 meeting. The views do not appear to reflect existing conditions and there is no indication of when these photos were taken. As noted in the letter from Toby Marrow, dated June 8, 2021, the existing vegetation is not as robust as presented and there are many places where the existing office building is visible especially in the winter and leaf off conditions. The Draft Recommendation contends that the landscape plan proposes a further layer of trees between the existing vegetative buffer and the proposed townhomes that will shield the Project from view, but then continues to note that the proposed trees should be no taller than 3" in caliper. These trees, essentially saplings, will hardly mitigate the visual impacts of this massive Project as it will take years for them to fill in and mature. We respectfully request that the Planning Board consider adding to its landscape discussion in the Draft Recommendation that an additional berm or shrubbery be added to fill in the existing vegetative buffer and shield it from the Arbors. Construction Management Plan: Additional Materials and Conditions Needed As noted in my May 12, 2021 letter, the Applicant's Construction Management Plan is incomplete. First and foremost, the Materials Management Plan is still missing from the Construction Management Plan. We suggest that the Applicant prepare a draft so that the Planning Board can provide sufficient comment and recommendation on this matter to the Board of Trustees. The Planning Board should not issue a recommendation based on documents that are incomplete. We also stress again the importance of coordination with the Arbors with respect to construction work and road maintenance. The Arbors would like the Applicant's proposed "look- ahead" notifications to be emailed to manager@arbors-ryebrook.com and set forth the exact construction activities to be performed during that period and a schedule of such activities, particularly any noise intensive construction work and all utility work in the area. Any concerns regarding the condition of Arbor Drive shall be emailed to the above address with a copy to the Village Administrator so that the Village engineer can immediately review road conditions and coordinate necessary repairs with the Applicant. The Construction Management Plan needs to reflect activities not permitted. As detailed in HDR's June 18th Memo, there should be a clear prohibition that pile driving (impact and vibratory), blasting, jack hammering, and/or rock crushing activities are not permitted due to potential noise 4 impacts. This prohibition should be inserted into the Planning Board's report and the Planning Board should direct that the Construction Management Plan be modified accordingly. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Planning Board should not issue the Draft Recommendation in its current form and should take no further action at this time. Moreover, we would be grateful if the Planning Board would consider allowing us to discuss this letter with you at your June 24, 2021 meeting. We thank you for your time and consideration. cc: Village Board Jennifer Gray, Esq. The Arbors Respectfully submitted, ~ctw/cr Z:\SSDAT A\ WPDAT A \SS4\ WP\arbors\Site Plan Application\ljsPBJune.FIN.docx 5 en C «> Q) E ..-N 0 N o:i ·c 0.. <( 1/) ~ <ti 0 Ill Cl ....-C I-·2 -C Ill m 5: a: r;5 ro ~ c Q) 1/) ~ 0.. 1/) C Cl -~ 0 Q) 0.. ~ ~ a:::: GEORGE COMFORT & ,~•n-;ur Original Roof Scheme Alternate Scheme 1 Alternate Scheme 2 900 King Street j Roof Studies --PERKINS- EASTMAN IIAKHF