Dear Hon. Mayor Rosenberg and Honorable Members of the Board of Trustees
Dear Hon. Mayor Rosenberg and Honorable Members of the Board of Trustees,
I believe that the proposed development at 900 King Street needs a full environmental review and the Draft DEIS Scoping Outline presented by the applicant needs to be revised because as currently outlined, 14.5 acres out of 17.34 acres are proposed to be physically disturbed. While some of my comments/concerns may be duplicative of what has already been stated, I believe they are important enough to deserve repeating.
There will be substantial traffic concerns on King Street and the arteries that feed into it, potentially also affecting traffic exiting the Hutch. Arbor Drive, a private road; which does not have any traffic signals within will now be faced with at least two left hand turning lanes from the new development. There will also be an increase in traffic from emergency responders with associated vehicles, based on the age population proposed for the development. The traffic concerns affect both vehicular and pedestrian traffic; the latter is a big safety issue for Arbors residents walking along Arbor Drive and for students walking and biking to and from the BB Middle /High school. There is now another grade at the middle school, in addition to new developments, since 900 King was fully occupied. Even at that time, its occupants staggered arrival times and departure times for employees with two or three shifts for the work day to minimize congestion issues. I believe I read a comment returned from NYS that a project of this size may require changes to the inbound lane of Arbor Drive coming in from King Street.
There will also be a substantial increase in solid waste production – no answer yet from the applicant as to whether that will be addressed via private carting or an additional cost to the village, nor as to; how and when the waste will be removed.
There will additionally be a substantial increase in potential for erosion, flooding, and drainage problems. Further, at this time no additional information or analysis has been provided with regard to pressure and water capacity available to the site and the impact on "The Arbors". In fact, according to Village consultants, water /sewer demand calculations provided are incorrect. I am especially curious to know if there has been any evaluation of the capacity of the detention basin in the Arbors considering the proposed addition of a senior housing development.
Also proposed is the removal or destruction of large quantities of vegetation. “The layout and grading plan will require removal of at least 209 6-inch to 34-inch DBH trees from the site. 160 of the trees removed would be trees regulated by the Village Code”. Any new vegetation will not be mature in stature in relation to what is currently planned for removal and will have associated consequences. I believe it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide images of sight lines when the surrounding trees are bare.
Have there been any details and evaluation provided on the proposed lighting for the development and effects on the neighboring areas?
I worry the decision to lower the age from 62 to 55 for the senior housing project will have unintended consequences related to the entire Village. Of particular note are concerns about increased traffic and associated safety issues, along with a larger bump in school age children than anticipated. When my husband was 55 we had one child in kindergarten and one just starting middle school. While we may not be in the majority, we are certainly not the exception.
Regarding emergency services, while the applicant recognized the need for additional personnel, I don’t believe they addressed the need for costly additional equipment required in support of this auxiliary staff.
The applicant should also provide the number of employees expected, which - along with health aides and other attendants provided privately by residents of the independent living - will create a large number of transient visitors to an area close to a large population of children attending the adjacent BB Middle/High School. That is a permanent change in addition to the temporary workers that will be visiting the site for up to three years during construction. Along the same lines, the number of parking spaces planned by the applicant appears insufficient for both the number of residents planned and their guests and employees, especially since there is no public transportation nearby.
Regarding the actual construction, any number of issues may arise during the proposed three-year timeframe. Among these are noise and the fact that the Arbors residents share one two lane private road that will now have to accommodate all of the construction traffic, Arbors residents traffic and student pedestrian traffic. A complete construction plan is needed that includes a temporary road for construction vehicles that does not access Arbor Drive. The plan should also include details on the exposure and removal of hazardous materials. Please keep in mind that all utility lines feed in from King Street. A break around 900 King Street and or any other disruption due to construction including an emergency could have major impacts for Arbors residents and potentially spill over to the BB Middle/High School campus. Is the applicant aware that there are two electrical vaults on the premises of 900 King that serves not only the building itself, but also BB Middle/High school? Moreover, after reading that blasting would take place, I worry for both the safety of the Arbors and the surrounding school personnel and students that could be in the vicinity. Will there be extra precautions necessary knowing that the TGP pipeline exists in the area?
In order to fully assess the impacts, the applicant should specifically provide the number of units with associated floor plans and the name of the Operator. The number of bedrooms in the proposed styles of units don’t seem to equate with the age restrictions. While the applicant stated that there is not a need for smaller units such as studios and one bedrooms, after looking for just such a unit for my relative, I can attest that they are in short supply currently in this area; many even have waiting lists.
The applicant also constantly states the tax benefits to the Village from this proposed development, but has any thought been given to the potential for current Arbors homes to decrease in value and the associated tax implications?
Previous construction projects have caused changes for wildlife. Will this new construction bring deer, coyotes etc. out in the open from their camouflaged habitats potentially causing safety issues for residents, students and staff in the surrounding vicinity?
Finally, has any thought been given to contingencies if the proposed development does not fit the needs envisioned or if those needs have already been filled by other similar developments in the near vicinity which did not exist or were not under consideration when the Village’s Comprehensive Plan was adopted? Will the Village again be asked to consider changes in order to fill an under- performing facility?
Thank you in advance for taking the time to consider my comments.
Respectfully,
Toby S. Marrow
223 Treetop Crescent
\