HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.23.2021 900 King Response to Arbors Ltr
VENEZIANO & ASSOCIATES
84 Business Park Drive
Suite 200
Armonk, New York 10504
July 21, 2021
Leslie Snyder, Esq.
Snyder & Snyder LLP
94 White Plains Road
Tarrytown, NY 10591
Re: 900 King Street Redevelopment
Dear Leslie:
We are in receipt of your July 12, 2021 letter written to the Mayor of Rye Brook outlining
the concerns of The Arbors Homeowners Association Inc. Both our development team and our
client have reviewed your concerns and provide the following as our response.
Other than the rooftop design comments, we have been able to address almost all of your
concerns. We will be submitting architectural drawings on Friday for next Tuesday’s public
hearing that address the ARB’s comments on the plans and that do not change the maximum height
of the IL building previously submitted to the ARB and the Board of Trustees. We will forward
you a copy upon submission.
Please consider the following our client’s response to the issues culled from your July 12
letter:
Comment 1: Applicant should coordinate with The Arbors regarding the placement and
maintenance of crosswalk markings on Arbor Drive at the location of the existing,
signed, but not marked, crosswalk connecting the school property to the 900 King
path.
Leslie Snyder, Esq. July 21, 2021
Snyder & Snyder LLP Page 2
Response: As Arbor Drive is owned by The Arbors and the Applicant has easement rights over
Arbor Drive, the Applicant would have to coordinate with The Arbors on
installation and maintenance of these markings and plans to do so.
Comment 2: Applicant should review the egress from the Project Site and consider moving
egress onto Arbor Drive to the furthest point from King Street.
Response: The two entrances to the Proposed Project are roughly in the same location as the
existing entrances. The Village has reviewed those entrances for traffic operations
and safety and have found that the entrances are satisfactory in both respects.
Finally, the location of the entrances has been approved by the BoT in the PUD
Concept Plan. The Applicant’s Site Plan cannot change these locations without
amending the Concept Plan, which is not proposed.
Comment 3: The Applicant should have a “designated road traffic person at the Site responsible
for the save road conditions for Arbor Drive” during construction.
Response: The Applicant has previously agreed that it will monitor and repair Arbor Drive
during construction as needed, and the Village has required the same of the
Applicant in the EFS. The Applicant’s construction manager has agreed to
designate a single person as responsible for observing and addressing the condition
of Arbor Drive during construction. This contact will be identified in the final
Construction Management Plan and shared with the Village and The Arbors.
Comment 4: The Applicant should be responsible for the paving and restoration of Arbor Drive
following completion of the Project.
Response: The Applicant has previously agreed, and the Village has required as part of the
EFS, that the Applicant monitor and repair Arbor Drive as needed during
construction. In addition, the Applicant will agree to resurface Arbor Drive from
King Street, its southwest property line, at the conclusion of construction.
Comment 5: The Applicant should be required to work with NYSDOT to effectuate the changes
to the two traffic signals on King Street (Arbor Drive and MS/HS).
Response: The Applicant has already agreed to this and anticipates it will be made a condition
of Site Plan approval.
Leslie Snyder, Esq. July 21, 2021
Snyder & Snyder LLP Page 3
Comment 6: Replace or supplement approximately 20 deciduous trees behind the townhouses,
toward the Arbors, with evergreens.
Response: Pursuant to the Applicant’s landscape architect, this shall be incorporated into our
plans.
Comment 7: Submit a 5-year maintenance guarantee for the landscape plantings.
Response: The Applicant has already agreed to this and anticipates it being a condition of site
plan approval.
Comment 8: The Applicant should consider adding foliage or greenery to the wall.
Response: The images forwarded by The Arbors depict a faux ivy covering attached to a fence
(chain link, or an AcoustiFence® mat). The Applicant can attach a similar covering
to the plywood fence along Arbor Drive instead of the vinyl banner with a 2D image
of landscaping.
Comment 9: The noise barrier should be constructed prior to demolition.
Response: The Applicant has previously agreed to this and depicts the same on its construction
phasing plans.
Comment 10: Construction trucks should not be allowed to idle.
Response: The Applicant will agree to this and put it in the Construction Management Plan.
Comment 11: The Applicant should investigate alternative noise barrier materials.
Response: As agreed by the Village’s special engineering consultant, alternate materials
would not appreciably reduce construction noise experienced during construction
owing mainly to the distance between the source and the barrier.
Comment 12: Pile driving, blasting, rock crushing, jack hammering should not be permitted.
Response: The Applicant does not anticipate using these construction methods and has
previously agreed that these methods would not be undertaken without prior,
separate, approval by the Village. This is reflected in the CMP.
Leslie Snyder, Esq. July 21, 2021
Snyder & Snyder LLP Page 4
Comment 13: A health and safety management section should be included in the CMP.
Response: This is included in the CMP; it is a required component of the Materials
Management Plan, which will be completed after Site Plan approval and reviewed
by the Village prior to construction.
Comment 14: The Applicant should provide a two-week “look ahead” schedule to The Arbors.
Response: This is already included in the CMP.
Comment 15: The Applicant should include measures to mitigate noise at the source where
possible.
Response: The Applicant will include source mitigation when conditions warrant and when
feasible (i.e., for longer-duration stationary sources).
Comment 16: The Applicant should provide a draft of the Materials Management Plan during site
plan review for public review and comment.
Response: As agreed by the Village and the Village’s special engineering consultant, this
technical plan is most appropriately prepared after site plan approval as it is based
on final approved plans. The MMP will be reviewed by the Village’s technical
experts.
Please review and I am available Thursday and Friday to discuss. Many of these positions
can be enveloped in a site plan resolution and, if needed, a separate agreement between our clients.
Thank you for outlining your concerns. Talk soon.
Very truly yours,
s/Anthony F. Veneziano, Jr.
ANTHONY F. VENEZIANO, JR.
AFV/kj
Chris Bradbury, Village Manager
Jennifer Gray, Village Attorney
