2018_01_11 S_ and J_ Sims CommentsFrom: smsedit <smsedit@aol.com>
To: mayor <mayor@ryebrook.org>; trusteesusanepstein <trusteesusanepstein@outlook.com>;
d345788 <d345788@aol.com>; klein.jason4 <klein.jason4@gmail.com>; j.rednick
<j.rednick@verizon.net>; cbradbury <cbradbury@ryebrook.org>
Sent: Thu, Jan 11, 2018 1:36 pm
Subject: Comments to the Draft DEIS Scoping Outline for the 900 King Street Redevelopment
Dear Honorable Mayor Rosenberg, Honorable Members of the Board of
Trustees and Village Administrator Christopher Bradbury,
We are writing as concerned residents of Rye Brook and the Arbors to ask you to
be certain to consider some very important issues that should be addressed
regarding any redevelopment of the 900 King Street parcel. We have watched
the videos of presentations in front of the Planning Board and feel that there are
many unanswered questions. Two key considerations are traffic and density.
TRAFFIC coming out of the new development will involve all cars turning left
across Arbor Drive without any traffic signaling. The representatives of the
developer repeatedly maintained that "assisted living developments equal less
traffic." However, only ONE of the three building types being proposed is for
assisted living. In point of fact, there are three different types of development
being proposed for this parcel, including assisted living; independent living of
well over 100 units; and townhouse units proposed to be available to anyone
over age 55, the majority (if not all) of whom would be leaving for work at
precisely the same hours as Arbors residents driving out onto Arbor Drive.
Aside from the traffic leaving home in the AM hours, many employees will be
arriving at the various independent and assisted living buildings at those same
hours, adding to the already clogged traffic that exists on King Street, including
not just the intersection of Arbor Drive but the exits and entrances off the
Hutchinson River/Merrit Parkways as well as the Ridge Street/King Street
intersection.
It is imperative that realistic traffic assessments be made of all of these
intersections, as well as the Blind Brook Middle/High School entrances, during
various hours of the day including peak-hour periods, as there is no doubt that
traffic will be impacted.
DENSITY of this development is another key concern, as has been brought up at
the Planning Board. While the developer announced a design change that will
give the appearance of less visual density, there has been no
corresponding decrease in actual density. It is our opinion that allowing so
many units per acre to be built on such a small parcel of land is not only out of
line with village zoning, but sets an unfavorable precedent for the village as a
whole.
As a point of comparison, SUNY Purchase has received approval to build a
Senior Living Community on their campus, which has a potential total of 385
units on 40 acres, paired with a promise to keep 80 acres of the campus "forever
wild." As a rough comparison, even leaving out the 80-acre buffer, the 900 King
Street proposal equates to 16.47 units per acre vs. 9.62 units per acre at SUNY
Purchase. In other words, a 70+percent higher density than the SUNY
Purchase Plan. The 900 King Street proposal also has virtually no buffer zone--
two wetlands-ameliorating "pools" at the frontage and fewer trees than currently
exist along Arbor Drive.
Thank you for your kind attention and consideration.
Sincerely,
Shari & Jonathan Sims
231 Treetop Crescent
Rye Brook, NY 10573