Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-12-15 - Board of Trustees Meeting Documents VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETINGS VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2015 7:00 P.M. —EXECUTIVE SESSION: • Appointments to various boards and committees. • Sanitary Sewer Inter-municipal Agreement (IMA) with Westchester County • Litigation, 109 No. Ridge Street • Community Choice Aggregation(CCA) Agreements 7:30 P.M. —REGULAR MEETING: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: REPORT/PRESENTATIONS: AFFORDABLE HOUSING: PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1) Considering a request for a five year extension of the Wetlands Permit approval for Phase 3 of the Reckson Executive Park RESOLUTIONS: 1) Considering a request for a five year extension of the Wetlands Permit approval for Phase 3 of the Reckson Executive Park 2) Considering setting a public hearing regarding an application for a Tier III Home Occupation Permit at 54 Rock Ridge Drive. 3) Considering the implementation of a temporary traffic calming design and an associated budget transfer for Hawthorne Avenue. 4) Considering appointments to various boards, commissions and committees. 5) Considering the modification of the License and Permit Fee Schedule to include two new recreation programs. 6) Considering authorizing the adoption of the 2015 Westchester County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 7) Considering the authorization of a Settlement Agreement with Verizon New York, Inc. 8) Considering the approval of minutes from the meetings of October 13, October 27,November 10 and November 24, 2015. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION ITEM 1) Village Code re: trees with respect to solar panel installations ACTION ON NON-AGENDA MATTERS SUBJECT TO THE CONSENT OF THE TRUSTEES PRESENT AT THE MEETING THE NEXT SPECIAL AND REGULAR TRUSTEES MEETINGS January 12 and January 26, 2016 December 15, 2015 R-1 RESOLUTION CONSIDERING A REQUEST FOR A FIVE YEAR EXTENSION OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT APPROVAL FOR PHASE 3 OF THE RECKSON EXECUTIVE PARK VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES WHEREAS, Sun Homes (the "Applicant"), as authorized by property owner Reckson Operating Partnership L.P., submitted a request to the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees for a five (5) year extension of the Wetland Permit Approval for Phase 3 of the Reckson Executive Park on property located at 1100 hing Street, Rye Brook, New York, which also is known and designated on the Tax Assessment Map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section 1, Block 3, Lots 2, 3 and 4 (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees was the approval authority at the time the original Wetland Permit was issued on August 8, 2000 and therefore continues to have authority to grant or deny an extension of the Wetland Permit Approval; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees was the approval authority at the time the original Wetland Permit was issued on August 8, 2000 and therefore continues to have authority to grant or deny an extension of the Wetland Permit Approval; and WHEREAS, as per the Board of Trustees' resolution dated December 14, 2010 granting the previous five (5) year extension of the Wetland Permit Approval, such Approval is set to expire at 11:59 p.m. on December 14, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Applicant now requests a further extension of the Wetland Permit Approval to December 15, 2020; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees considers the Applicant's request to have been timely made and any extension granted after the expiration of the Wetland Permit Approval at 11:59 p.m. on December 14, 2015 will be granted nuncpro tune, and WHEREAS, Village Code §245-5.A(8) requires a request for a Wetland Permit renewal to follow the same procedure as the for the issuance of the permit; WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees referred the request for an extension to the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board on November 24, 2015 and at its December 10, 2015 meeting the Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the Wetland Permit extension on the condition that the non-native, invasive species shown on the mitigation plan is replaced with a native species; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees held a public hearing on December 15, 2015 at 7:30p.m. at Village Hall, 938 King Street, Rye Brook, New York to consider the requested five (5) year extension of the Wetland Permit Approval for Phase 3 of the Reckson Executive Park, at which time all persons interested were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has reviewed and considered the Applicant's request, considered the Planning Board's recommendation and comments from Village consultants, staff and the public, and is fully familiar with the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook hereby approves a five (5) year extension of the Wetland Permit Approval for Phase 3 of the Reckson Executive Park on the condition that the mitigation plan is updated to replace any non-native, invasive species with native species. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the extension is granted nunc pro tunc and therefore shall be effective as of December 14, 2015 at 11:59p.m. and shall expire on December 15, 2020. FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE, NEW YORK FAIRFIELD, CONNECTICUT DAVID H. STOLMAN MEMORANDUM AICP,PP PRESIDENT EXICHAEL A.ECUTIVE GALANTE To: Gary Zuckerman, Chairman, and the VICE PRESIDENT Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook 35o THEO.FREMD AVE. RYE, NEW YORK 1058o Date: December 4, 2015 914 967-6540 FAX: 914 967-6615 CONNECTICUT Subject: Reckson Executive Park, Phase 3 — 203 255-3100 Sun Homes Application for PUD Site Plan Approval HUDSON VALLEY and a Petition to Extend the Existin6 Wetland Permit 845 297-6056 LONG ISLAND 5i6 364-4544 As requested, we reviewed additional material and revised plans submitted www.fpciark.com by Buckingham Partners and Sun Homes on behalf of Reckson Operating email@fpclark.com Partnership LP, property owner, for approval of a PUD Site plan to construct 110 attached and detached single-family homes that include 10 AFFH units, a community building and swimming pool for the use of development residents, parking, roadways and other related infrastructure within the newly approved PUD District on the Phase 3 lot according to the approved PUD Concept Plan on property known as Reckson Executive Park, 1100 International Drive, Section 129.25, Block 1, Lot 1(Phase 3) on the Town of Rye Tax Map. Property Description The 31.5-acre Phase 3 property, located at 1100 King Street in the Reckson Executive Park, is within the OB-1 Zoning District and the Z-1 Instrument Approach Zone of Westchester County Airport. The Phase 3 building lot is located west of the current terminus of International Drive and extends generally west to the Blind Brook. The western property line of the subject lot follows the course of the Blind Brook for the most part; however, a 0.5- acre portion of the lot is within the Town/Village of Harrison. The Phase 3 lot is in the PUD District and has an existing approved PUD Concept Plan. It is partially developed with storm water management and water quality facilities that are under construction and were originally designed for an office building that was never built. Generally, the rest of the Phase 3 lot is naturally vegetated. FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE, NEW YORK FAIRFIELD, CONNECTICUT The Phase 1 and Phase 2 lots are developed with office buildings, parking areas and the access road known as International Drive that runs through the office park. International Drive currently extends west from King Street into the office park and terminates two thirds of the way across the Phase 1 lot. The current wetlands permit, granted for the office building that was never built was extended in December, 2010 by the Board of Trustees and is valid until December 14, 2015. Project Description The Applicant proposes a site plan to construct 100 market-rate, attached and detached, single-family homes and 10 attached, single-family, affordable homes that would qualify under the Rye Brook FAH regulations as AFFH homes, a community building, a swimming pool, and associated roads, parking areas, and other infrastructure on the Reckson Phase 3 lot. Construction would include extension of the western end of International Drive through the Reckson Phase 1 and Phase 2 lots to provide access to the PUD development. Construction will also include new streets within the development, an updated stormwater management plan, site grading and removal of existing vegetation, extension of utilities, street lighting, driveways, pedestrian walkways, parking areas for visitors, landscape plantings, and signage. The proposed PUD Site Plan was referred to the Planning Board by the Board of Trustees on October 2, 2015 for a report and recommendations, and the petition to extend the existing wetlands permit was referred to the Planning Board on November 24, 2015, also for a report and recommendations. Review We reviewed additional information, revised plans, applications, an EAF, other documents and plans submitted by the Applicant that include the following items: 1. Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 and EAF Mapper Summary 2. Application for Site Plan Approval 3. Letter to the Planning Board prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe , LLP, White Plains, N.Y., dated November 25, 2015 4. Letter to the Building and Fire Inspector prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe , LLP, White Plains, N.Y., dated November 24, 2015 5. Letter to the Planning Board prepared by Cuddy and Feder, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. dated November 25, 2015 6. Letter to the Mayor and Board of Trustees prepared by Cuddy and Feder, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. dated September 17, 2015 2 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE, NEW YORK FAIRFIELD, CONNECTICUT 7. PUD Site Plan Project Description and Rendered Illustrative Home Plans and Elevations prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe , LLP, White Plains, N.Y., no date 8. Stormwater Management Report prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe , LLP, White Plains, N.Y., dated September 2015 9. Land Title Survey prepared by Joseph R. Link, Land Surveyor, Mahopac, N.Y. dated March 23, 2002, updated January 21, 2015 10.Letter to Divney, Tung, Schwalbe from NYSDEC Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources, New York State Natural Heritage Program, Albany, N. Y., dated February 25, 2015 11.Willingness to Serve Letter from United Water New York, dated October 9, 2015 12.Memorandum to the Village Engineer and the Planning Board prepared by Dolph Rotfeld Engineering , P.C., Tarrytown, N.Y. dated November 3, 2015 13.Engineer's Plans, prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe, LLP, White Plains, N.Y.: Sheet Number Sheet Title Date No number Cover Sheet 9/17/15 rev. 11/23/15 SP-1.0 Overall Site Plan 9/17/15 rev. 11/23/15 SP-1.1 Site Layout Plan 9/17/15 rev. 11/23/15 SP-2.0 Grading and Utility Plan 9/17/15 rev. 11/23/15 SP-3.0 Site Utility Plan— Overall 9/17/15 rev. 11/23/15 SP-3.1 Typical Unit Plan 9/17/15 rev. 11/23/15 SP-4.0 Landscape Plan— Overall 9/17/15 rev. 11/23/15 SP-4.1 Landscape Plan— Typical Unit/Clubhouse 9/17/15 rev. 11/23/15 SP-5.0 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 9/17/15 rev. 11/23/15 SP-5.1 Erosion and Sediment Control Details 9/17/15 rev. 11/23/15 SP-5.2 Site Phasing Plan 9/17/15 rev. 11/23/15 SP-6.0 Site Sections 9/17/15 rev. 11/23/15 SP-6.1 Road Profiles 9/17/15 rev. 11/23/15 SP-6.2 Water Profiles 9/17/15 rev. 11/23/15 SP-6.3 Sanitary Sewer Profiles 9/17/15 rev. 11/23/15 SP-6.4 Storm Sewer Profiles 9/17/15 rev. 11/23/15 SP-7.1 to SP-7.3 Site Details 9/17/15 rev. 11/23/15 SP-8.0 Site Lighting Plan 9/17/15 rev. 11/23/15 L-02 Planting, Lighting and 3 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE, NEW YORK FAIRFIELD, CONNECTICUT Wetland Mitigation Plan 9/17/15 rev. 11/23/15 F-1 Fire Protection Plan 11/18/15 Please note that our review is limited to planning, zoning and environmental issues. Comments We have the following comments regarding the revised site plan application: 1. Zoning. The revised chart included with correspondence from the Applicant notes that the gross floor area per acre waiver requested is less than the 3,169 square feet originally calculated. The proposed site plan requests a waiver from the Board of Trustees of 3,109 square feet per acre from the 9,000 square-foot maximum gross floor area per acre of the PUD district regulations. The waiver is based on a proposed gross floor area per acre in the Sun Homes PUD of 12,109 square feet. 2. PUD Site Plan. The Applicant proposes noise mitigation measures to be built into the residential units to reduce the impact of the location of the development within the Westchester County Airport 60 Ldn Noise Contour Critical Environmental Area, that includes high quality doors and windows and spray foam insulation. We continue to note that the overall site plan indicates that the extension of International Drive through the Reckson Phase 1 and Phase 2 lots would include only one traffic lane in each direction. However, the approved site plans for the Phase 1 and 2 lots indicate a road that has two travel lanes in each direction. Therefore, pending review by the Building Inspector, amendments to the Phase 1 and Phase 2 site plans would be necessary to build the road extension shown on the proposed site plan. 3. Lighting Plan. A photometric analysis of the exterior site lighting plan was provided. For reasons of safety we do not recommend the use of bollards to light vehicular roadways that also would be used by pedestrians at night as walkways. The lighting standards proposed for intersections should be used throughout the development for street lighting. The Applicant should provide photometric analysis of the uplighting proposed for the trees along the median of the extension of International Drive. All lighting should be shielded to eliminate lateral glare and sky lighting. 4 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE, NEW YORK FAIRFIELD, CONNECTICUT 4. Wildlife. The Applicant provided information regarding the New York State threatened Sedge Wren that has, in the past, been documented within one-half mile of the site. However, the information provided indicates that there is very little potential for the Sedge Wren to be breeding or foraging on the site as Rye Brook is outside the breeding and wintering range of the species. 5. Construction Phasing Plan. A phasing plan for the 4 to 5 year construction period indicated in the EAF was submitted. The Applicant should coordinate the Phasing Plan with a draft construction management and logistics plan. 6. Wetlands. The Applicant submitted a petition to the Board of Trustees to extend the approval of the current wetlands permit that will expire later in December. If it is necessary that the existing basins be modified or updated to become part of the new stormwater management plan, the new work within the existing wetland basins or the wetland buffers of the Blind Brook may require approval of a new or amended wetland permit. 7. Grading Plan. We continue to recommend that the creation of new steep slopes on the site should be minimized by utilization of retaining walls where appropriate. Existing steep slopes and natural vegetation should be preserved on the site to the greatest extent possible. The disturbance of existing steep slopes and the creation of new steep slopes on the property will require compliance with the Village Code regulations regarding steep slopes, and the approval of a Steep Slopes Work Permit. Cut and fill calculations for the site and analyses of the proposed regulated slopes on the property should be provided to the Planning Board when they review site and grading plans for compliance with the requirements of a Steep Slopes Work Permit. S. Visual Impacts. The removal of existing vegetation, grading of the lot and construction of the new homes may create visual impacts to views of the property from the surrounding residential neighborhoods of Bellefair and Doral Green. Every effort should be made to protect and preserve existing vegetation on the site and provide new screen plantings where necessary. 9. Guidelines for Future Renovations, Home Expansions or Additions. The Applicant indicates that future renovations, expansions or additions to buildings in the development would not be allowed. The Applicant should clarify if sheds, enlarged patios, decks, installation of back-up generators, driveway expansions, and enlargement of the community recreation facility also would not be allowed in future. 5 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE, NEW YORK FAIRFIELD, CONNECTICUT We look forward to discussion with the Planning Board regarding the application. Marilyn Timpone Mohamed, ASLA, AICP Senior Associate/Planning/Environment cc: Honorable Mayor and the Village Board of Trustees Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Michal Nowak, Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer Philip A. Butler, Esq., Village Attorney William S. Null, Esq., for the Applicant Gerhard M. Schwalbe, P.E. for the Applicant J.-U)OCS215001Rve Brook1538.668.Sim Homes.Reckson Phace 3 Amendments.Site Plan.PB memo2.mtm.docx 6 BR O WCV VV�J� 19t}2 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MAYOR 938 King Street, Rye Brook, N.Y. 10573 ADMINISTRATOR Paul S. Rosenberg (914) 939-1121 Fax(914) 939-0242 Christopher J. Bradbury www.ryebrook.org TRUSTEES Susan R. Epstein David M. Heiser Jason A. Klein Jeffrey B. Rednick PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook shall hold a public hearing on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 7:30pm, at Village Hall, 938 King Street, Rye Brook, New York to consider a five year extension of the Wetlands Permit Approval for Phase 3 of the Reckson Executive Park. Christopher J. Bradbury Village of Rye Brook, New York CUDDY& 445 Hamilton Avenue,14th Floor White Plains,New York 10601 F E D E RLL Tel 914.761.1300 Fax 914.761.5372 www.cuddyfeder.com December 4. 2015 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Paul S. Rosenberg, Mayor, and Members of the Board of Trustees Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook,NY 10573 Re: Proof of Service - Sun Homes (Phase 3 Reckson Executive Park) Premises: 1100 King Street, Rye Brook,New York Tax ID• Section 129.25, Block 1, Lot 1 Dear Mayor Rosenberg and Members of the Board of Trustees: On behalf of Sun Homes, enclosed please find an Affidavit of Service evidencing the mailing on December 1, 2015 of the annexed Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners within 250 feet of the captioned Premises as set forth on the enclosed property owner list and corresponding maps, together with a copy of the prepaid, first class mail envelopes. Also enclosed please find, an Affidavit of Posting and photograph evidencing the fact that a sign was posted on the property at the intersection of International Drive and King Street located at 1100 King Street in Rye Brook noticing the Board of Trustees public hearing scheduled for December 15, 2015. Please incorporate the enclosed as part of the official record of the proceedings. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Very twill 1a cc: Emily A Frank-1 Enclosures D ' (� '�- DEC - 7 2015 VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE C&F 2958018 1 ATTORNEYS AT LAW White Plains Fishkill New York City Stamford AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF SUN HOMES CONCERNING AN EXTENSION OF WETLAND PERMIT APPROVALS CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION OF 110 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON AN APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND THAT IS PART OF THE RECKSON EXECUTIVE PARK LOCATED AT 1100 KING STREET (DESIGNATED ON THE OFFICIAL TAX MAP AS SECTION 129.25, BLOCK 1, LOT 1) IN THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK,NEW YORK STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.. COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) EMILY A. FRANKL, being duly sworn says: I am over 18 years of age and reside in Thornwood,New York. On December 1, 2015, I served a copy of the attached Public Notice by mailing same in a sealed envelope,via first class mail postage prepaid thereon, in a post office or official depository of the U.S. Postal Service within the State of New York, addressed to the property owners on the 250' mailing list and map annexed hereto. 41 Emily A. F Sworn to before me this 3r`i day of December,2015 NOTARY PUB RENA REGGINA Notary Public, State of New York No.01 RE6165642 Qualified in Westchester County Commission Expires May 14,20 PUBLIC NOTICE A PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW AN APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF WETLAND PERMIT APPROVALS SUBMITTED BY SUN HOMES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING 110 HOMES, ON AN APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND THAT IS PART OF THE RECKSON EXECUTIVE PARK(DESIGNATED ON THE OFFICIAL TAX MAP AS SECTION 129.25, BLOCK 1, LOT 1) WILL BE HELD BY THE RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON DECEMBER 15, 2015 AT 7:30 P.M. AT THE RYE BROOK VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE AT THE RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT (914-939-0668) C&F:2951414 1 TAX ID OWNERNAME OWNERNAME SECOND LINE OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP 124.72-1-1 Kaplan,Harvey 27 West 55th Street#1 New York NY 10019 124.72-1-2 Cohen,Dina Cohen,Jason 5 Belle Fair Rd Rye Brook NY 10573 124.72-1-24 Village of Rye Brook Belle Fair Rd Rye Brook NY 10573 129.68-1-14 Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook NY 10573 124.72-1-3 Simkin,Lauren D 7 Belle Fair Rd Rye Brook NY 10573 124.72-1-4 Carbone,Frank Carbone,Anna 9 Belle Fair Rd Rye Brook NY 10573 124.73-1-1 County Of Westchester IDA c/o Atria-Gwen Lange 401 S.4th St.,Suite 1900 Louisville KY 40202 124.73-1-38 Burchard,Marshall Gaines King,Frances Reed 37 High Point Cir. Rye Brook NY 10573 124.73-1-39 Kooverjee,Deepak Raghubir,Nirvana 39 High Point Cir Rye Brook NY 10573 124.73-1-40 DiGiacomo,Robert DiGiacomo,Luciana 1 Belle Fair Rd Rye Brook NY 10573 124.73-1-41 Mehta,Sejal Mehta,Sagar 41 High Point Cir. Rye Brook NY 10573 124.73-1-42 Namin,Samad 43 High Point Cir Rye Brook NY 10573 124.73-1-43 Campagna,Santo T Campagna,Josephine 45 High Point Cir Rye Brook NY 10573 124.73-1-44 Penn,Jeffrey Penn,Catherine 47 High Point Cir Rye Brook NY 10573 124.73-1-45 Goldfarb,Lloyd Goldfarb,Amy 49 High Point Cir Rye Brook NY 10573 124.73-1-46 Christofides,Jack Shiotsu,Kaori 51 High Point Cir Rye Brook NY 10573 124.73-1-47 Leder,Randi L 2 Belle Fair Rd Rye Brook NY 10573 124.73-1-48 Kitchin,Peter Kitchin,Jennifer 4 Belle Fair Rd Rye Brook NY 10573 124.73-1-49 Klebanoff,Joy 6 Belle Fair Rd Rye Brook NY 10573 124.73-1-50 Asen,Karen 8 Belle Fair Rd Rye Brook NY 10573 124.73-1-51 Wells,George Wells,Jill 10 Belle Fair Rd Rye Brook NY 10573 124.73-2-53 Julian,Wilson Jose Alves Julian,Sandra Hong 12 Meeting House Ln Rye Brook NY 10573 124.73-2-54 Vumbacco,Jospeh V. Vumbacco 2012 Irrv.Trust 314 Pirates Bright Naples FL 34103 124.73-2-55 Lieblich,Suretta 8 Meeting House Ln Rye Brook NY 10573 124.73-2-56 Pelliccione,Lina 6 Meeting House Ln Rye Brook NY 10573 124.73-2-57 Sinchak,Thomas M Dalio,Devon 1 Glendinning PI Westport CT 06880 124.72-2-57 Dalio,Devon 30 Deacons Ln Wilton CT 06897 124.73-2-57 Schanne,Francis J 30 Deacons Ln Wilton CT 06897 124.73-2-57 Dalio 2012 Insurance Trust 30 Deacons Ln Wilton CT 06897 124.73-2-58 Levine,Elaine C. 2 Meeting House Ln Rye Brook NY 10573 124.74-1-1 St Pauls Church 84 Sherwood Ave Greenwich CT 06830 124.74-1-3 Stratton,John &Jean 1099 King St Greenwich CT 06830 124.74-1-4 Genevieve,Salvatore P 146 South Broad St Milford CT 06460 124.80-1-1 Village of Rye Brook King St Rye Brook NY 10573 124.81-1-1 Reckson Operating Partn.LP Division of SL Green 360 Hamilton Ave 4thF1 White Plains NY 10601 124.82-1-1 Reckson Operating Partn.LP Division of SL Green 360 Hamilton Ave 4thF1 White Plains NY 10601 129.25-1-1 Reckson Operating Partn.LP Division of SL Green 360 Hamilton Ave 4thFl White Plains NY 10601 129.26-1-32.1 Myers,Norma F 6825 Grenadier Blvd 901 Naples FL 34108 129.26-1-32.2 Springer,Ann Louise 3 Arrowwood Cir Rye Brook NY 10573 129.26-1-46 Arrowwood Anderson Hill Rd Rye Brook NY 10573 129.41-1-2 State of New York 4 Burnett Blvd Poughkeepsie NY 12603 06-6002006 Town of Greenwich Attn:Town Clerk Town Hall 101 Field Point Rd Greenwich CT 06830 0181.-20 Town/Village of Harrison Attn:Town/Village Clerk 1 Heineman PI Harrison NY 10528 125.75-6-2 Westchester County Department of Planning Municipal Referrals 148 Martine Avenue,Suite#432 White Plains NY 10601 10-1843 Square Leg Properties LLC 3 Nicholas Avenue Greenwich CT 06831 010-4034 St.Paul's Church Corp. King St Greenwich CT 06830 010-4034 St Paul Roman Catholic Church 84 Sherwood Ave Greenwich CT 06830 10-1272 Reckson Operating Partnership LP c/o Reckson a Division of SL Green 360 Hamilton Ave 4thF1 White Plains NY 10601 10-1550 Krenzel Victoria F Est 1073 King Street Greenwich CT 06831 10-1851 Coleman King Street LLC c/o Leslie Feldman 23 Harbor Court North Kingstown RI 02852 10-1846 1065 King Street Realty LLC 1065 King Street Greenwich CT 06831 10-1854 Frost Leroy A 4 Willow Run Road Greenwich CT 06831 010-1941 Stratton,John E&Jean W W/S 1099 King St Greenwich CT 06830 10-1351 KSB Arrowwood Realty Corp. Anderson Hill Road Rye Brook NY 10573 DIVNEY • TUNG SCHWALBE Divney Tung Schwalbe, LLAndrew V.Tung,ASLA, Esq., LEEDAP One North BroadwayGerhard M. Schwalbe, P.E. Intelligent Land Use White Plains, NY 10601 P: 914.428.0010 William J. Carey,Jr. F: 914.428.0017 Mark S. Gratz, P.E. Maria CoplitAlfaro, P.E. www.divneytungschwalbe.com Donna M. Maiello,ASLA, RLA Jason E. Bajor,ASLA, RLA Cosimo Reale, CPESC Mark J. Shogren, P.E. MEMORANDUM Matthew N. Steinberg,AICP TO: Anthony Oliveri, P.E. DATE: December 8, 2015 FRoM: Mark J. Shogren, P.E. RE: Stormwater Report Sun Homes —Reckson Executive Park The Stormwater Management Report has been revised to provide additional calculations, details and soil test results. 10 test pits and 20 percolations tests were performed to evaluate the existing soil characteristics at the location of 10 considered stormwater management practices. Based on the results of tests; in one location runoff reduction credit will not be taken for the porous pavement, although die porous pavers will still be used and will provide water quality treatment. In five locations, based on percolation rates, proposed bioretention filters have been changed to infiltration basins or infiltration bioretention measures. Overall runoff reduction volume is 68% of the water quality volume, greater than the required 30% minimum. There is an additional 19,100 square feet of porous pavers in fill sections that provide 2,268 cubic feet (4.4% of the WQV) of numff reduction. However since they are in fill sections, no runoff reduction credit is taken. The stormwater modeling has been updated to include the current, larger storm events. The peak discharge rates remain less than 76% of the predevelopment rates for the same size storms. While the runoff reduction measures will decrease the runoff volumes and rates, to be conservative, credit was not taken for die measures in the modeling. cc: M. Nowak, C. Bradbury, B. Null,J. Schwalbe File 788.9 Dolph Rodeld Engineering, P.C. CONSULTANTS & DESIGNERS 200 White Plains Road, Tarrytown, NY 10591 • (914) 631-8600 M E M 0 TO: MICHAL NOWAK, Village Engineer GARY ZUCKERMAN, Chairman, Planning Board FROM: DOLPH ROTFELD, P.E., BCEE SUBJECT: Sun Homes Reckson Executive Park Village of Rye Brook DATE: December 8, 2015 As per your request, we have reviewed the following submission materials with regard to the Sun Homes, Reckson Executive Park Site Plan proposal, received Wednesday December 2, 2095: • Plan entitled "Sun Homes, Reckson Executive Park, Rye Brook, NY" prepared by Divney-Tung-Schwalbe revised 11/23115; • Report entitled "Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan" prepared by Divney-Tung-Schwalbe dated November 2015; The following are our comments: Stormwater: 1. It is our understanding that a more detailed, completed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is being prepared in conformance with NYSDEC General Permit GP-0-15-002; the applicant has preliminarily indicated discharge rates to remain less than 76% of the predevelopment rates and 68% Runoff Reduction Volume (RRv) to be achieved (30% min. required). However this office cannot fully verify this as the SWPPP is not yet complete. 2. Stormwater comments 2 through 7 from our 11-3-15 memo still apply, see attached copy. Water: 1. United Water proposed improvements in support of this application must be detailed. A hydraulic analysis must be submitted demonstrating that surrounding properties will not experience pressure or flow issues as a result of the added demand on the system. We will Dolph Rodeld Engineering, P.C. Mr. Michal Nowak/ Mr. Gary Zuckerman Page 2— December 8, 2015 gladly meet with the water company to discuss aur thoughts on how to evaluate existing vs. proposed conditions. Sewer: 1. Sewer main profiles should include the existing sewer extending to the County trunk line. Sediment & Erosion Control: 1. The proposed Sediment & erosion Control Plan must be integrated with the proposed Phasing Plan so as to show the sequencing of BMP's such as the temprary sediment traps along with the construction phases. As shown the Phases do not include necessary disturbances for stormwater BMP's that will be necessary for each builing phase. 4. Design volumes have not been provided for the temporary sediment basins as previously noted. 6. It is noted that cut and fill calculations will be provided at a later date. Site Details: 1. As discussed in our meeting of December 2nd, permeable pavement details should specify a "permeable paver system" and not just rely on common pavers spaced to allow permeability. 2. The plan should clearly indicate and differentiate where the "vehicular" pavers are to be used and where the permeable paver design will be utilized. 3. Site Details Items 4 through 6 from our 11-3-15 memo still apply. We will be happy to continue our review once additional information is provided. DR C: G. Schwalbe 445 CUDDY-& White P ailns,nNew Yoek1 0601loor �v � �. LLP Tel 914.761,1300 Fax 914.761.5372 11 www.cuddyfedercom November 18, 2015 BY HAND Hon. Paul Rosenberg, Mayor, and Members of the Board of Trustees Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook,New York 10573 Re: Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P. (Phase 3 Reckson Executive Park) A lication for an Extension of Site Plan and Wetland Permit Approvals of Phase 3 Dear Mayor Rosenberg and Members of the Board of Trustees: On behalf of Sun Homes, as authorized by Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P. ("Reckson") (collectively the"Applicant"), we respectfully submit this request to extend the Wetland Permit Approvals for Phase 3 of the Reckson Executive Park,which approvals would otherwise expire on December 15, 2015.No changes are proposed in connection with such Wetland Permit(other than minor changes to the landscaping plan to omit invasive species). As you know,the Phase 3 is a 31.56 acre portion of the Premises that is the subject of Sun Homes' Application to develop 110 homes and is designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section 1, Block 3, Lots 2, 3 and 4. The Phase 3 portion forms part of the 79.5 acre Reckson Executive Park' at 1100 King Street. The entire Premises are bounded on the west by Purchase College of the State University of New York, on the north by Bellfair at Rye Brook, and on the south by Doral Greens at Arrowwood and Arrowwood Conference Center. As you know, the Sum Homes' proposal currently is being reviewed by the Board of Trustees and Planning Board following the recent adoption by the Board of Trustees of a Resolution granting Conceptual Site Plan Approval for the development of the 110 homes under a Planned Unit Development zoning classification adopted by the Board of Trustees. The Reckson Executive Park has an extensive history in the Village and the development has involved substantial improvements and contributions both to the overall Premises and the Rye Brook community, including but not limited to: 1. Funding the cost of the design and construction of the traffic improvements at the intersection of King Street and Anderson Hill Road; 2. Payment of$500,000 to fiend installation of a scoreboard or other construction costs for the Village soccer field; `Approximately 75.5 acres of the Reckson Executive Park is located in the Village of Rye Brook,with approximately 3.5 acres thereof situated in the Town of Greenwich,Connecticut,and approximately 0.5 acres within the Town/Village of Harrison,New York, C&F.2946759.1 ATTORNEYS AT LAW White Plains Fishkill New York City Stamford C UU D DYE. November 18,2015 Page 2 3. Acceptance of a$360,000 credit against future Building Permit fees in lieu of requiring a refund of monies due to Reckson from the Village the Blind Brook School District as a result of tax certiorari proceedings; and 4. Installation of the signalization and roadway improvements at the intersection of International Drive and Icing Street in connection with the Phase 3 office development. The development of the entire Reckson Executive Park is dependent upon, among other things, the completion of the improvements authorized by the Wetlands Permit, which was last extended on December 14, 2010. On behalf of the Applicant, to enable the completion of that work,we respectfully request the extension of such Wetland Permit for another five (5)year term with the expectation that the improvements will be completed simultaneous with the construction of the residential development proposed by Sun Homes, assuming it is approved by the Board of Trustees. For the reasons set forth herein,we respectfully request that the Wetland Permit Approvals be extended and that this matter be placed on your next Agenda for action. We look forward to appearing before this Board and thank you for your consideration herein. Respectf fpr 4 W11ni ull. WSN:yp cc: Edward Beane,Esq. and Jennifer Gray,Esq.; Mr. Christopher Bradbury, Village Manager; Messrs. Robert Dale and Bill McGuinness; Mr. John Barnes; and Messrs. Gerhard M. Schwalbe and Matthew Steinberg C&P:2946754. RECKSON EXECUTIVE PARK, RYE BROOK, NY APPLICATION FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 REV: NOVEMBER 23, 2015 LOCATION MAP ZONING COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS LIST OF DRAWINGS SCALE COVER SHEET SECTIONIiI ZONING REQUIREMENTS PUO PROPOSED ALTA/AGSM LAND TITLE SURVEY 111-60' SP-1.0 OVERALL SITE PLAN 1"=80' 2°g-I2) SIP 1.1 SITE LAYOUT PLAN 1"=40' 15on (117 Minimum Area 3o acres 31.5 acres (cl L°`atiw' SP-2.0 GRADING&DRAINAGE PLAN 1"-40' mm�e 15art . (al sealaenbal cse SP-3.0 SI TE UTILITY PLAN-OVERALL 1"=40' [t]Maximum—,ty goo aft acre 6 unimlacre �3�6 nna1 cre SP3.1 TYPICAL UNIT PLAN 1"=10' Maximum Height 30n flon (el sorter Area% SP-4.0 SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN-OVERALL 1"=40' maa SP-4.1 SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN-TYPICAL UNIT/CLURHOUSE 1"=10' [bl Along poperry line awning airy iWR toon(Peameleq of wngmemal aampua)te SP-5.0 EROSION&SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN1"=40' _ (7 ow sp.. [a]P.—Common space - Pmrtaetl I [1]Padmspace 1o�or raa in list I.Lieu SP-5.1 EROSION&SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS------------ASSHOWN 2wao13] om.t P.Mmg SP-5.2 PHASING PLAN--------------------------------------I"-120' c 2 G­` .m e 9 Unit '^"- spaces Per Gx 11m.lMB(W) 2 9 paces per ° zspac�kArtom.de UI SP SITE SECTIONS______________ P-101 Pma one P.Amg space per wt 5e spapeamcommon Pma SP 6.1 ROAD PROFILES------------------------------------AS SHOWN ". ".� zag spapaa in aire.vya SP-6.2 WATER PROFILES__ -_AS SHOWN enapter25g(2.nmg7 Dime village of lrye%rook(ocmber zgol,a am?. MRye amok M iM1e Village SP-6.3 SANITARY SEWER PROFILES PROFILES-----------------AS SHOWN Nq`1°' This requirement arasetl vhen the ocrell oa'ce pak was aubtliNtletl tan June 1,1985 9aam N h at 9,� Pt ma vilmge soam%rash%%%me zoning omirance to panne wl�e seam to ate ma g,aoo square rom requirement gena SP 6.4 STORM SEWER PROFILES AS SHOWN wfien Albin.ble Housing is pmiaea i......unt a Ivalent t,w gre.ler than im(10%)Dime m.MM-rete anile. 24, v2 SP-7.1-SP-7.3 SITE DETAILS----------------------------------------AS SHOWN `� `�'11,> tat me veleae so.m.menam me ranine omirence alloMng me bNneran ronhmswgonzwzE(zge)rone rea.cea �k°1v�' ymare ma Puo aerelopmam%brae co.an.mial orae%lmpmremenre.In io reaamion..mgaa on Aug�t tee zoi5(comiao.yl. SP-8.0 SITE LIGHTING PLAN-------------------------------AS SHOWN Pi- m L-02 PLANTING,LIG HTINC WETLANDMITIGATION PLAN__1"=50' ® THE I REP E OF BY NIPFI LLC CLU]E,2007iNU\S A IS SITE IJ BY _ THE VILLAGE OF RYE RROOk INCLUDEDAS PnRT OF THIS SITE PLAN APPLIGTIOM � O �o�oo�Oo PROPLRTY OWNLR APPLI GNT PIANNFR,CIVII ENGINEER,IA NDSCAPF SURVLYOR LLGAL COUNSLL ?,RCHITECT Ii"L l and Sunreyors,P.C. C1,16 R 1-,LLP A Uivlsion nrSL careen k ealty Cnrp. mlrl Al-1,51,11,701 DIVNEV•TILING•$CHWALHE 21 Clark PI... 45 Hamillon Avm1,,,14N Floor 1111 Aven11e Pawling,NY 125Y4 walk�mMw Mahoyac NY 10541 W hlo Flame,NY 10601 Whlle Plalns,NV IU6pl " ° I - � SITE - °,- aemSious �I NCL s 1 ep ------------ o _ 00 , e O �S a � m, '(CC� o �o i t ALTA ° w 685°00 9 z, /ACS LAND TITLE SURVEY OF PROPERTY SITUATE IN THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK O O N—T TOWN OF RYE O O AND THE - - p ...E,.��,E .Pref„sESFreErc�a:,HFs .-ST—ET TOWN OF HARRISON ® IREI 11— WESTCHESTER COUNTY ^. ' roe cE OF avE eaoorc NEW YORK i SUN HOMES RYE BROOK — zrcKsoN r-xFcuryF�� iv en I O I tee-o,Nv o , ... o Divnev Trvc „aaE T—L' u4Re _ _ ❑ a� i I lop pit I—E 11 c— � T OVERALL SITE PLAN SP-1.0 SUN HOMES I RYE BROOK ercKsYE r- K,Nengin rcrE a—reooK,NY vl - �. DIVNEY TUJC owSgmaw EEe dl i x o � o \ � iii i I � � �� • � r.�. i � A — --- � ---------- ----------- SITE LAYOUT PLAN �- — -- -- : �° SP-1.1 E-�--'�°;°°o / �° <-1 �/�\ � � � — _ en / JK/1 SUN HOMES _ / r I / / I � /-- RYE BROOK EF o - a I / I / 11 // / � . ��'rll II�// er ere oK.Nr — I �NJGIa0�1FA —11-11R 111111111 l 5 — ���� .-r -- �B /A —� v I u�� III vvvvv �� r- ' „ � �, ��✓ / �n.u�v �— �v v v vv i � \V14 .. I � I 1 i VAO / �_>T y� /�� GRADING&DRAINAGE / PLAN (7,,� SP-2.0 „i(�` _ - r��;li!iu; / / i l i i �� ����` ;".�e ��� L� RYE BROOK SUN HOMES / n / � / � \ � ��/ Rec o C RYE H o[.NY �NJa 0 rr DIVNEY TUJC S C-E — _ rr i f/"� Ell 1 N i /� SITE UTILITY PLAN- OVERALL 'ten r SP-3.0 SUN HOMES RYE BROOK EIIESGNF-UT�,EP,R, RYE H—K,NY ..`a tiE ❑ 1­vl2- WWI--1111IR 1111111 ❑ ' ❑ DIVNEY TUJG o SC—EE TYPICAL UTILITY LAYOUT u TYPICAL UNIT PLAN 0—9��Ewa.µ"bp �ieez oe cu SP-3.1 SUN HOMES ----� — RYE BROOK EFC RYE eK-oa aK K.NY - o 0 0 - o O p _ - 7— „.v. DIVNEY Tuan SCC—EE o o � o 0 1, / o - g---- --- iii iI j \ i ,tionsi F sEEsEE. ,oHPav EaF�,tiFR � — Q Iavzs. EsEOF , I `b =— ------ LANDSCAPE PLAN- OVERALL SP-4.0 SUN HOMES RYE BROOK EFCKSON r-xECurivrsnan RYE H—K,NY N CLUBHOUSE s n � SPA El El❑ 0 aFQ. POOL o PAVEas OO OO - _.._ r F`'us O � ,EK ousi uop-Foa sa ucH,i.v�d � o i E�nF, . . o I-E ,a El LANDSCAPE m. .. LANDSCAPE PLAN- TYPICAL UNIT/ CLUBHOUSE NV— a+ M SPAT sEoIMENTc TRIBuriou kliu.vowmie rano aen wai I'll / �1 i.o eeoo 1 1 l/ , l SUN HOMES s RYE BROOK 47 aseo � � / / / a a�1 23 sem 1 / / / I, i IT 1 / _ '�.y. '9�"�'1 /� 'I zrc o -cUnNF vnen RYE -oK,Nr s.a �a �3 zao I �� i i % �i��/1� � 1 / r /11111 _.. - i �� i /___- - �NJGIa0�1[��� � / / �--t' .•.����/"/ _ I_ / 1 _� - ����"� � � l J -- --- —_------ -- -- _ 1 it T p u r T ,- // / � � ✓—� cru^ T —, I DivnEv Il,rvc Scrnwuee a A J a / / J z/111 l EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN 7'01 �� I// _ter, / /�� �� —_1 ✓�/lll llll/ / / / / 1 _� ma — ] — — SUN HOMES RYE BROOK arc ll—, N zi w MMA- r.. urr ❑ r.,Eur. ❑ ❑ ""« .. ❑ WWI LI-1111IR L111111 I � - " - DIVNEY TUJC•$C-ECHWALBE c., r,<c..r<c� "^.:c�".,,c o,v,F..:ao..,_ ,... acc.rc:" .cv"^,,,_ ..� � i.. ... �"'•❑w..wK rwn~— sc"i..uis. ❑ re.i .c"i..u..,. vacE ❑ sci,i...,...s ❑ srr,e cz ,c"i..0 c,. ra.rcE ❑ �LL,w.E 'r�oEc, Par 21`TaEC"T, CONSTRICTION SPECIFICATIONS r rUo i�a �A^ ❑ ". .c.cc ur... ❑ ..r.ccur.. hwv ❑ rrEour .c cc.rr. rc.raus ❑ s� .c..ccur... �u ❑ IIID_ , EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS -9*'Ewa.µ"bp �ieez oe cu SUN HOMES RYE ROOK i DIVNEY Tuan SCE­BE /5 ���1 um _ _ am UU EL HIM—` l _ 1 ' 1! u SITE PHASING PLAN ,�'��\ani-, —_i—___,__ _� `�'.✓ ��f � �\\�\`�i-l _i—_—_—__-\\ �\ � _9 ��Wb� p �C+�Oa os ,..JP-J.2 Pa°PEa..�uE� SUN HOMES Sao RYE BROOK EFCESONrF—UT enan BE ® ® RYE 0K,NY 330 �NJa a0�1 366 E.v.rwo ca,.°e ne.rw�,.uv i.coi SECTION A-A' .1­uv Bse., DIVNEY•TUJC•SCI CI­BE o+dugmarae Bee 290 —————— ----------------- ---------------- — ,., SECTION B-B' 320 PaoaEa�,r,E� — 300 —— 280 276 SECTION C-C' o- ^ -- �I \NK /, �F, — I SITE SECTIONS SPAID d SUN HOMES RYE BROOK PPCKSON r-xEcuTll r Pnan RYE H—K,NY DIVNEY•TUJC•SCNWAEBE ovNigvawtlue ROAD PROFILES w 9pEov uswE SP-6.1 SUN HOMES RYE BROOK 6--- tam xx,Ex.w, x x x PPCKSON rF—UT11 r Pnan RYE H—K,NY WI IT DIVNEY•TUJC•SCNWAEBE oxNigvawtlue iii.,, w o�w.,w'nnu�x e exee�n6agw'�r�Reox °Pnr%— �os �u vu aE ME Q "za p,..,. WATER PROFILES SP-6.2 Profile View of Alignment-International Drive Sanitary Sewer Profile View of Alignment-Sewer Connection to Existing SUN HOMES RYE BROOK arco - nen -a eexoox,Nr �Na a0 [ Lu Lu �u r, v Station Station Prof(le View of Alignment-Road A Sanitary Sewer DIVNEY•Tuan SSo—BE Profile View of Alignment-Road E Sanitary Sewer o ° 5 m a> u Lu Station Station Profile View of Alignment-Road B Sanitary Sewer » , o - - 7777 Station Profile View of Alignment-Road C Sanitary Sewer m w Station" Profile View of Alignment-Road D Sanitary Sewer 21 ..ge . :.--- .�R. �. .,., l _ .o. �. ,�b. ..">. yam c I�Z= -- __ — — W Station SANITARY SEWER PROFILES SP-6.3 Profile View of Alignment-(Network-STRM(1))-(1) SUN HOMES RYE BROOK rE ercKsY1 r-xE11—,Nr NIengin rcare DIVNEY•TUG SSo-BE Station -^ Profile View of Alignment-Storm Bypass 0 Station Profile View of Alignment-Road D Storm F. M lo w Station STORM SEWER PROFILES SP-6.4 SUN HOMES RYE BROOK EFCES0 F—UT11 IFPARk RYE-01K,NY t III I I iiii I III H H H -77' _.....1.111 1-1 12- ........... El F E ­�l 11--1111IR I ........... DIVINEY•TEMG•SCE—BE Oil IF f ............. LA IIEIIEI 'o _111-111 77 II =El LAI ❑ ................. ......... SITE DETAILS ,tea, ;R SP p SUN HOMES .,.m x, ,.,,.., O ❑<<❑.- .. ,max,LL. x,w.,�m, n�x.,rx nix,.,. . RYE BROOK RFCEBE FXFCLJTI'rPARk .............. n RYE HHOOV NY ............... ................... ............. .......... 12- F❑I ❑ ........... WWI HI-1111IR I DIVINEY-Tuna SCH—BE I F Ll❑J IF,❑I "N i4l' -I —J ___Z:=IE 1111EISHE NOTE: PEA.—N LIMIT CHANGES IN BASE ELEVATION PIPE F M ESIo BE 1 0 6 PER STEP TO AVOID EETRI IE5 TO OMLY 5TANGFE P——El— DILLE ENTIAL SETTLEMENT IMPEOMEAPLE L I NO NE11-E-NEEI FI—El NE IE AT"NT, ,E LII (P�CIIIIETE 0' STEP OFTEN ENOUGH 70 MAINTAIN E AIPLAT PPT IIA ALL —1E MINIMUM REQUIRED EMBEDMENT T A ENHE DRAIN (WALLS \ER4'HEIGHT) OPEN 10EN 2 N(O A FT IEINEII� FT Tc)scA HE EANILAR III III .. LEIELI�MI THAI : . —NE PAPP_=ET—1. DREIN DRIIN DITCH AD (I—II III III (WALLS UNDER 4'HEIGHT) (OPTIONAL SLOPE AT TOP OF WALL) III III III III ­UP T VOLENEY FILL N" ')ISLALE 10T TO IIAI L FILL­T T� ADNPIONAL TI TIP N T ,N T 2 DEEP —E15A L AT C...ETE VOLEYEA T 1ENAHLIBEI IOIL Y INSTALLATION NOTES SIEPPINC BASE DETAIL Oft.A -ft ­N C.­Cl A�1—— 1. Of 1 1.PI VE11A NOI 10S(ALE HE —1.1ED EN111 "ANAGE Al-ftvela ulna m Awnplam t. pI——I be d.Ig-W a N.Ywk 3mm Ncerlaetl Frplevlwvl ftim., A.lEAAHE El th.Sne Contrecmr w El- ME HIN, — ae&gI Na.16 dull be­—M ft-khIw&alpnetl eM realetl&w de&nP a&lalacmry fw—1—w Na— —1- T p IROVIDE GEOSINTHEIIC di—W—1.�IN—I, d ftl,—�and d Ed f.—� M� —`NNINVEEOHEED 11 THE d=- Al' — DESIGN E E S FU—�— lt� It_la =,�I D,— ZNd EI t=� :� = n E�I=,ft Eft�-11--M t,=­II NANION PIPE o�—n. m.mxaoc,xu m room or Inns,..x,s,us.ins x„ewixo OOT ,,L[E ll�AEDIE01FTE I E. �­Eb t,ft po——t—y­— wil w M—bb _I,.1 —.1. ­i.W­I­I­H ft­iN,Dl,­�hl—I ftild ft E. SITE DETAILS drew . . u.- Na- p—.p—m F`P`PNLAP —.N I.E. d bI,. At EAP A N MICA TlIlH TYPICAL SECTION UNRE NFORCED RETAINING WALL ­R(E TOO HEIANINE-VILL MYSIEMS OH AITMOVED EQU,L N,FT To scA HE SP-7.2 D791 ES SUN HOPI YE BROOK ... .�. „� R OK arc o - en ,.o,.,. ❑�❑ ❑ —�� eek oaK Nr ,�,�• ,• DIVNEY TEMG Scr+w,aeE ,...., r�„�..:.�.r. ❑ ,,..Ear .���..v.�... oe.u� ❑ °d-9p�° ..,...„ `. o......., ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ _ ,,, ... ..o. SITE DETAILS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ : v SP-7.3 I — _ SUN HOMES RYE BROOK EFCESON r-xEcurivE engin rcre e oox,NY ---------------- 1 DIVNEY TUJC owigmam EEe II i C, \ LP"IT�L 1 � ---- ....... ------ — � SITE LIGHTING PLAN o..SP-8.0 SEED MIX PLANT LIST °� r SL GREEN vac nu „z xcouixcm 36011,.f,I I L I ON.ISL sc .o�c ox c� +�.xc u�recc.�ox or.rec IM �., [HVIreoNN[H:PL now.ore 10 \PHITE PLAINS ecn °L°LC'B0L°crec 2z FLOL FL° " I sere oc,. ..NYNY (101 NOTES r : taus r,re mr. :io recomrec :.recd° reaoi, Poxu °H I �c" r uc�n xc�x co vraiu<xm�.cnm�ueenw cNc rvea evw�kary nra waucnw.nc my ssa�no / rear-renP swnss ExIsn NG VEGETATION ...... Al�luuum S F � a s�� , �ETsaxleF>3ASINTwaTER QUALITY eAslwwoLANo PLANT us �� o N.00N'�Wx �ro�°:on�ss err�ar °,° nn:nn 4, a agar a mnn ,.. aann�,xnn EXECUTIVE PARK ww nmu rxr rti-nwo uwomwomx u �,a.0 iYL,BROOBR00K.KI' ,re NE.ENaE. as.EN Nre L EXISTING VEGETATION: ww,maun ,n A' LIGHTING ° 1 11 TIE"°or,�re�FE `J /y LIGHTING LEGEND �as�x°.nitTI L1111T SEE DRAWING 4.0,SITE xare,x�°s,°P�°xa LANDSCAPE PLAN-OVERALL, °rem xcreE n, FOR PLANTING IN THIS AREA • ® IF Eis'°J"(SLdoy„°„„na.° J EXISTING BROOK Y ® NIPFP LLC .,.T PLANTING WITHIN °” re STORMWATER BASINS ON RETENTION Po1vB xn,r<wEurc°mere n�u EXISTING VEGETFIT]oN °utrc ISLAND ceAss.roee n,u 1. re�w°°ire° re�srere.ren %�� Yl PLANT LIST TREE PLANT LIST KATE NOTES —E ITE z LL rerem ren��Enn�E reE n�>a°rex xx°,rxareE°Entex rere rex n nEre�,«re��xnn�Ere �, m,�. r.mn snare rim a,.°am mm,rmx sLLRO'-L° snnE,cncE,w,xEx°��. TIT. ynam,�mm nu„,. ae ��e. °-ov rr xa,anrn.r.nm,.,, 7-,ar.-:�7ar°:r.,.ten, PLd\TINQ LfCITTING& 3°°reg°P I°I°rnoH°,rean,x�.°P x°«°,'o re°menu.°«x°,I I IE ND\II IC ION re�ree snreeE re�re�xrev<e ErexeE��E,Ererex reremrereeE reeeEnreee re�re�xrev<°ererex naxm am. .nneanuy n�°m nne .�,a� .. .. ,xE,re°x",r�ns w EPLA - ,n PL-\S nucw!xolp uce e�rcn°nwa.°Ere°n°Fxc,reux�°r,recce. °ec xanExuncx,. PLANT LIST m �:e L-02 December 15, 2015 R-2 RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A TIER IIII HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT FOR A SADHANNA GARDEN YOGA STUDIO AT 54 ROCK RIDGE DRIVE WHEREAS, Ms. Paula Bellini, owner of 54 Rock Ridge Drive desires to receive a Tier III Home Occupation Permit for the use of residence as a Sadhanna Garden Yoga Studio;and WHEREAS, Ms. Bellini has submitted a Tier ITT Home Occupation Permit Application to the Building Department;and WHEREAS, Ms. Bellini has outlined the hours of operations and number of employees for the proposed Home Occupation in accordance with the Village of Rye Brook Code. NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that a Public Hearing is hereby set for January 12,2016 to consider a Tier III Home Occupation Permit under the terms and conditions set forth in the Village Code. BUILD MENT WED VIL OOK 938 KING 1 0 5 73 NY NOV 19 2015 (914) 9-5801 LWM20 VILLAGE OF RYE BR OK BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Approval Date: —Permit# t Permit Fee: .� -Date: Approval Signature: Renewal Fee: Date of renewal fling: Disapproved ale Date: Renewal Fee: Date of renewal fling: Renewal Fee: Date of renewal filing: Renewal Fee: Date of renewal filing: (Application fees are non-refundable) How OCCUPATION PERMIT APPLICATION Application dated:. ....ttj 1� I t-,<- is hereby made to the Board ofTrustees of the Village of Rye Brook,NY,for the issuance of a Permit to conduct a Tier H or Tier 1111 Home Occupation in accordance with Section 250-38 of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook,as described below.Please note that any construction proposed in conjunction with allorne Occupation Permit must be filed for separatelywith the Building Department on the appropriate building permit application 1. Address: 5 4-1 k0C.L-_ KA60 e_ Dy- %Ve- 2. Parcel ID L — L -2— Zone: 3. Property Owner: A NA PAULA ISIELLINI Address: 5 Q Ck &I ! V C- Ph,,,# 2EI_3QS-39A._ ... Cell# 904- 13)4.3-9 G 4 4. Fax# Applicant: LA IM E Address: Phone# —cen# 4. PROPOSED ROME OCCUPATION:d=kaw;Tier H() Tier M 04 (Full disclosure detailing the exact nature ofthe proposed hom occupation,hours of operation,number of visits per week number of employees,etc...is required by law.)[use additional sheets if necessary) P 11EA-S E FEPEA TO Al-r^c 4 eD !)OGUM EOJT, A NJ-'r) L 5. OCCUPSUCY(1-family,2-hmilyetc...)Prior to Improvement: I- 'FA(411-1 After improvement-. r-AMII, twl PLEASE NOTE THATCTIAPTER 29n38 OF THE CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK CONTAINS INFORMATION VITAL TO THE PROPER COMPLETION OF THIS APPLICATION. PLEASE CONSULT THIS SECTION OF CODE AT www.aebrogkgrg WHEN COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION. LAST REVISED*6.22.15 Please note that this application must include the notarized signature(s) of the legal owner(s) of the above-mentioned property, in the space provided below. Any application not bearing the legal property owner's notarized signature(s) shall be deemed null and void, and will be returned to the applicant ST TE OF N W Y RIJC,COUNTY OF WESTC STER ) as; N tt1r4 ULA 0H beim duly sworn,deposes and states that hetshe is the applicant above named, (point name of i"vidual sighing as the applicant) and further states that {s}he is the legal owner of the property to which this application pertains, or that (s)he is the for the legal owner and is duly authorized to make and file this application. (indicate architect.cantractor,agent,attorney,etc.) That all statements contained herein are true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief,and that any work performed,or use conducted at the above captioned property will be in conformance with the details as set forth and contained in this application and in any accompanying approved plans and specifications,as well as in accordance with the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention &Building Code,the Code of the Village of Rye Brook and all other applicable laws,ordinances and regulations. Sworn to before me this Swom to before me this dayof L tQ—IP'✓eA- . 20 day of .20 Notatly c x No Public ANA Signa a of Property Owner Signature ofApplicant PAVLA Print Name ofProperty Owner Print Name of Applicant fig{}# r}t 1'tlblEe,StsE3 c NO.01 N06094 Qualified in%Iestchest� r c, Commission LAST REVISED.,6.22.15 Wednesday, November 18'h,2015 To whom it may concern- 1,Ana Paula Bellini, owner of property located at 54 Rock Ridge Drive, Rye Brook, NY, 10573, am writing today to provide a full disclosure with details to support a "Home Occupation Permit Application" I am submitting along with this letter." I am an Experienced Registered Yoga Teacher(E-RYT)that has been actively teaching for the past 6 years and practicing for the past 28 years. I have a solid clientele in Westchester and Southern Connecticut that I see weekly either during my group classes at Equinox Fitness or at their homes for private or small group sessions. The nature of my practice is similar to that of a therapist(psychological and physical)as I guide clients through a series of poses, connecting movement with breath awareness, building strength and releasing tension in the body, which consequently allows the mind to quiet down. I have been very pleased to see how this practice has allowed them to transform the way they live their lives. Very gratifying world When I was searching for a home to buy in the community,the biggest selling point of my house was that it had a separate "office" I could turn into my own sacred space: my quiet yoga studio for personal daily practicel As soon as my clients found out I have my own space,they are now willing to visit me for their regular sessions. But before I proceed with the open invitation, I would like to get permission from the Village to run a small business out of my Home Office. The office has separate entrance from the main house, off of the end of driveway. Previous owner, a Licensed Social Worker, grandfathered the space into a similar business,seeing regular clients daily. Property is located near Bobbie Lane,which gives direct access to North Ridge Street. Driveway is spacious enough to accommodate up to 5 cars,which,In case of a group session,would be arriving and leaving at the same time without creating additional traffic. I have freshened up the room and am confident that I can accommodate private sessions and comfortably fit 4 to 6 clients for a small group session from time to time. Session would start at 8:30 am and run for 75 minutes. Schedule will be scattered because I will still visit clients at their home and teach my group lessons at Equinox Fitness. My ideal daily schedule will be a session in the morning,one in the afternoon and perhaps a quiet meditative session In the early evening once or twice a week, ending no later than Spm. No weekend sessions. Neither individual or small group session generate excessive traffic, noise,trash and certainly no hazard waste. No machinery is used during session and no fume is generated other than an occasional incense to clear up the air PRIOR to the beginning of session. There is no production of any materials and no additional deliveries of goods, other than the regular household consumption. I do not plan on hiring any employee to help me run the business. I can maintain a neat space and good accounting without the extra expense. I kept the EXIT sign by the entrance door that was left by the previous owner and plan on leaving clean and safe access to the powder roam located through the garage in the back of the studio. I have attached a series of pictures of the space for your reference.Also included is the survey and layout of property. I am available to discuss any further details and provide additional information if needed. I appreciate your consideration to this request. This is a meaningful practice and I would be delighted to share it with the community. Kin regar P is Bellini,E-RYT www.paulabelliniyoga.com i OEM i v 1 n � •i 11�� f CL Master Family Bedroom 16*5"x 13#6" a Room ar x 157" Breakfast Area 101XV Bedroom Bath Dining 127 x 13' �7) R Room Kitchen 1 0'8 x 13'311 10,x W C Bedroom CL Living 12*9"x 13W Study Foyer Room 12'x WT' 9'x'13' 157 x 17' CL c Second Level Main Main Level SD M V- office zx ITx 13'6" to Den PR 10'4"x10' Bedroom x IT 'S"x 8, Garage I D w 20'6*x 26'10" Utility/ Laundry IT x IM, Ground Level 311� Lower Level PREPARED BY 0860 THIS INFORMATION IS FOR ADVERTISEMENT PURPOSE ONLY 3EL888267 5757,WWW.OSEO.COM THE INFORMATION IS CONSIDERED RELIABLE.BUT NOT GUARANTEED AS ACCURATE OR COMPLEM. P.O.8. gat t�a.L R=2025.00' 04 vNE L=1 WOO' m C� SLATE a Ab. DfilliF— C— FILED MAP m LOT V {TYr- SP07 LEVEL hAy FRAME DWELUNG (6'9) **cc 0 1:C lee AC4 Elo------- SgG.-t2S.36 za -J ( ) LOT-12 (TAX MAP) cn C 106.16, � S. 03*-54*-46" W. d SANDS N/F OF RICH SURVEY OF PROPERTY #54 ROCK RIDGE DRIVE LOT 12 , BLOCK 1 , SECTION 135 -36 RYE BROOK , WESTCHESTER CO . , NY SCALE: 1"=301 DATE: WAY 26. 2015 STEPHEN F. HOPPE, L.S. LICENSED FR FIEMONAL LAND SURVEYOR .%I.V Rek-ft-we-Beirs;lincrKm as Last 79 on a itup artiticit): III ROUTE 303 , NEW ,sqm4ni Iowa map 0,Rich Man4w,ploperty of ICJ TAPPAN Itich, NY uc. YORK NO. 505310993 9 Aittuded in the'flownof Stye,Wettalu-4er Cotoly.N.Y."filetl in the Westchic3scrCoctroy Clerk's Office on October 6,1961 as, Map Nm 1 R44, TITLE MO. — SKY-8128—W I OFAWN BY—ING REVISED] lFiLl NO,— 33=5 December 15,2015 R—3 RESOLUTION CONSIDERING THE I1NIPLEMENTATION OF A TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CALMING DESIGN AND AN ASSOCIAYED BUDGET TRANSFER FOR HAWTHORNE AVENUE WHEREAS, TRC Engineers, Inc., as the request of the Village of Rye Brook, prepared a"Hawthorne Avenue Traffic Calming Study' dated October 28,2015 that provided several traffic calming project alternatives on Hawthorne Avenue;and WHEREAS,Brian Dempsey of TRC Engineering,Inc.presented the findings of this technical memorandum and study at the Village Board meeting held on November 10,2015;and WHEREAS, the Village Board decided to consider the implementation of a temporary striping and speed hump project in the Spring of 2016 to determine the effects of this traffic calming alternative, and requested that TRC Engineering Inc. provide a final design and budget estimate for their consideration;and WHEREAS, TRC Engineering, Inc. prepared this final design and budget estimate in a memorandum to the Village of Rye Brook dated December 8,2016. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,that the Village Board hereby approves the traffic calming design for striping and two temporary speed humps on Hawthone Avenue as indicated in the December 8, 2016 memorandum provided by TRC Engineers, Inc. which includes the following features: two single white lines for parking lanes,a double yellow line in the center,speed hump signage,two temporary speed humps,and pavement symbols;and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following proposed budget transfers are hereby approved for the implementation of this project: FROM: Contingency Account $14,500 TO: Hawthorne Avenue Traffic Calming Project(Capital) $14,500 AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook will continue to monitor and review the traffic calming effects of this temporary project so that a decision can be made after several months of experience whether the temporary humps should be made permanent. L TRC Results you can rely on TRC Engineers,Inc. 7 Skyline Drive Hawthorne,NY 10532 Main 914.592.4040 Fax 914.592.5046 Memorandum To: Chris Bradbury Date: Dec 8, 2015 Village Administrator From: Danny Cuya, Project 239243 Brian Dempsey,P.E.,PTOE No.: Subject: Hawthorne Avenue CC: Traffic Calming Study Temporary Speed Hump Cost TRC Engineers,Inc. (TRC)has prepared this Memorandum to outline preliminary findings with respect to Speed Hump and Striping costs for Hawthorne Avenue. TRC looked at five different Temporary Speed Humps from the following companies(further information contained in Attachment C): TAPCO—25.5' Speed Hump(3 Speed Humps) • Dimensions—(24'Length x 4"Height x 14' Width) • Weight—N/A • Unit Price-$6,795.00;Total Price-$20,385.00 Traffic Lol!ix Inc.—27' Speed Hump(3 Speed Humps) • Dimensions—(27.5'Length x 3"Height x 10.5"Width) • Weight—N/A • Yellow Reflective Markings Unit Price-$5,060.90;Total Price-$15,182.70 • Arrow Reflective Markings Unit Price-$4,124.97;Total Price-$12,374.90 Barco Products—25' Premium Speed Hump (3 Speed Humps) [Narrow] • Dimensions—(298"Length x 2.75"Height x 39.25"Width) • Weight—908.0 lbs • Unit Price-$2,617.60;Total Price-$7,852.80 TreeTop Products—25' Speed Hump(3 Speed Humps) [Narrow] • Dimensions—(298"Length x 2.75"Height x 39.25"Width) • Weight—908.0lbs • Unit Price-$1,987.85;Total Price-$5,963.55 ENVIRONMENTAL Traffic Safety Store—29' Speed Hump (3 Speed Humps) [Narrow] • Dimensions—Entire Length(29'Length x2.1"Height x 19.5"Width) ;Each Section(35.5"Length x 2.1"Height x 19.5"Width) • Weight—N/A • Total Price-$4365.30 • Sold in sections :Middle Section-$82.45 ;End Section-$67.95 Of the five that were researched,three of them would not provide the adequate desired affects because of the narrow width of the speed humps.The three speed humps referred to are the ones from Barco Products,TreeTop Products and Traffic Safety Store,whose widths range from 19.5"to 39.25".Therefore,the two recommended options are the 25.5' Speed Hump from TAPCO and the 27' Speed Hump from Traffic Logix. The figures in Attachment A show two possible configurations for the Speed Humps,which are either having three in series or two in series.The costs shown above are under the assumptions that three Speed Humps are being used.The following prices would be the cost of using two Humps instead of three: • TAPCO(2 Speed Humps)-$13,590.00 • Traffic Logix Inc. (2 Speed Humps)-$10,121.80(Yellow Reflective Marking) ; $8,249.94(Arrow Reflective Markings) Additional Costs In addition to the cost of the Speed Humps,other items that were also researched in order to determine the costs were Roadway Striping, Speed Hump Signage,and Pavement Symbols.Roadway Striping would only consist of two Single White Lines,which provide the boundaries for the parking lanes(See Attachment A for sample section and Striping). The provision of a double yellow center line would be optional.The following table summarizes the total costs using the configuration of two Speed Humps(further information contained in Attachment B): Hawthorne Avenue Traffic Calming Study Cost Estimate Item Unit Quantity Price Total Cost Roadway Striping(1) (3) LF 2400 $ 0.50 $ 1,200.00 Speed Hump Signage(1) LS 1 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 Pavement Symbols(1) (4) UNIT 4 $ 120.00 $ 480.00 Speed Humps(2) UNIT 2 $ 5,060.90 $ 10,121.80 Total $ 14,201.80 (1)Prices taken from NYSDOT Pay Item Catalog (2)Price taken from Traffic Logix Estimate (3)Roadway Striping does not include Double Yellow Centerline (4)Includes painting"SLOW"in front of each Speed Hump To conclude,the expected costs of the installation of Speed Humps and Striping on Hawthorne Avenue would approximately be$14,420 if two Speed Humps are used. Q:\PROJECTS200\239243-9 Rye Brook\Memo\239243-Memo on Speed Hump Costs.doex Attachment A World•United Shotes•NY•Wesichester Co.•Rye Brook n. �.�_.. , _ { f' =■+ ,y IRENHYL Avg - --- I 400 FT 1 Awl. bly wed nps .. f, A 90 r 0� 20 into r = 500 FT �� •`� + ' • h _ wi� SPEED HUMP SIGNS e p`l•i r r_1r A- SPEED HUMPS AHEAD B - SPEED HUMP (WITH ARROW r _ •�'� POINTING TOWARDS SPEED HUMP- _ t. 475 FT.. �- THE WORD "SLOW"WILL BE WRITTEN IN i FRONT OF EVERY SPEED HUMP IN BOTH w9 a. m DIRECTIONS �� lyFs = � z� 100 fet ]S m el s i IRENHYL AV9'+ OK` World•United Shotes•NY•Wesichester Co.•Rye Brook R - � w - war•--• [ ta WON M40 moms v 4 300 FT# �: g- d1a Speed - ■ /- Humps 450 FT a lob,. t tip• v 940 ■ r •� las r, ■ 1i • ^ fi ,Z 450 FT 'y` - ' SPEED HUMP SIGNS •`. ' _ '= A- SPEED HUMPS AHEAD B - SPEED HUMP (WITH ARROW r k POINTING TOWARDS SPEED HUMP Y' B f"'„��s 'o� '` ' c Z THE WORD "SLOW”WILL BE WRITTEN IN B ' m FRONT OF EVERY SPEED HUMP IN BOTHPr DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONS ly'- 300 FT 5 100 feet A m l � ' STRIPING CONCEPT PLAN PARKING LANES CURB CURB TRAVEL LANES 6 f t 9ft 9ft 6 f t CURB SINGLE SINGLE CURB WHITE WHITE LINE LINE DOUBLE YELLOW LINE (OPTIONAL) 29ft to 30ft Attachment B streets with more than two travel lanes.In addition,the pavement could be applied after consultation with representatives of the should have good surface and drainage qualities. transit agency or emergency services, as discussed in Chapter 3. The location of individual speed humps tables will depend on Some jurisdictions are currently pilot testing alternative designs the presence of on-street parking, driveways, intersections, and for speed humps to better accommodate buses and emergency other roadway features,as discussed in Chapter 4.The following vehicles.These modified designs are discussed in more detail in sections describe the use of speed humps and speed tables in urban Section 2.3.3. The use of alternative traffic calming measures and rural areas and on private facilities.Recommended designs for may also be considered on bus or emergency vehicle routes. For urban and rural cross-sections are provided in Chapter 4. guidance on alternative traffic calming measures, refer to ITE's Traffic Calming.State of the Practice.' 2.21.1 Urban Areas . Many agencies install speed humps/tables on roads with an 2.2.1.2 Rural Areas urban crass-section(such as curb and gutter).Streets where speed Some agencies,such as the city of Beaverton,Oregon,USA,install humps/tables are applied may or may not have sidewalks or speed humps on roads with a rural cross-section.To address the bicycle facilities(such as on-or off-road trails).Figure 2.1 shows a issue of speed hump avoidance,the speed hump is extended across speed hump installed on a street with parking and bicycle lanes in the entire paved surface of the roadway.In some cases,an existing the city of Portland,Oregon.The surrounding land use for streets unpaved shoulder is paved at the speed hump location so that the where speed humps are applied is generally residential in nature hump can be extended across the shoulder to the roadside, and may include schools,parks,or community centers. Drivers may try to avoid the speed hump by driving on the shoulder Because most local and residential collector streets have curbside or even onto the roadside.Some agencies install obstructions such garbage pick-up,speed humps/tables are generally implemented on as posts or bollards on the roadside at the speed hump location to sanitation(garbage collection)routes.`Speed humps are generally deter drivers from wing the shoulder to avoid the speed hump." not recommended for use on bus routes or emergency vehicle Gwinnett County, Georgia has found that the installation of routes or on streets that provide access to hospitals and emergency delineators on U-channel posts on the shoulder prevents vehicles medical services.13 Speed tables may be more appropriate and from avoiding speed tables. T { j` J f _ _■ !fy K� f V.. k7 s : RDS. R -� +�:L $.N' "37• �, 1 __' ',p-.." ",� �Sia; Figure 2.1.Speed hump on a residential street with parking and bicycle lanes in Portland, Oregon: Source:Photograph by Scott Batson,City of Portland,Oregon. 6 Guidelines for the Design and Applica#[on of Speed Humps and Speed Tables will not approach the humps at excessive speeds.Speed humps 4.4.1 Signs should not be placed at locations unless the minimum saFe stop- The 2009 edition of MUTCD recommends that the speed hump ping sight distance is provided,as defined by AASHTD.14 (W 17-1)sign supplemented by an advisory speed plaque(W13- Horizontal alignment:Speed humpsltables are not recommend- 1 P) "should be used to give warning of a vertical deflection in • the roadway that is designed to limit the speed of traffic" (such ed on horizontal curves with less than a 300-ft. (91-m)centerline as speed humps or speed tables). For a series of speed humps radius or with less than the minimum safe stopping sight distance. in close proximity, the advisory speed plaque may be needed • Intersections:Speed humps/tables should not be installed within only with the first speed hump sign of the series.As outlined in 250 ft. (76 m) of a traffic signal or within 20 fr. (6.1 m) of the Section 2C.29 of MUTCD, the words "SPEED BUMP" may closest perpendicular intersection of residential local streets, be used instead of"SPEED HUMP' on the W17-1 sign. The ft. (30.5 m} advisory speeds shown in Figure 4.11 are examples only. Some Speed humps/tables should be placed at [east 104 from the closest perpendicular intersection of residential collector jurisdictions in Australia and Canada use a speed hump symbol streets.135 Speed humps/tables should be placed at a distance from in place of the text on the WI 7-1 sign.'41,142 intersecting roadways so that turning vehicles encounter the Some agencies install a special supplemental plaque indicating speed hump or speed table without any skew."' the length of a series of speed humps.These signs are installed • Driveways: Speed humpsitables should not affect the acces- under the first speed hump sign preceding the series of humps sibility of driveways. A minimum clearance of 5 ft. 0.5 m) (see Figure 4.12). Side road approaches that intersect a street within a series of humps should be evaluated with regard to the from driveways is recommended.137 need for advanced notification signing. Some agencies install • Street lighting,:Nighttime visibility can be improved by coor- dinating hump/table locations with existing or planned street lighting.' • on-street parking:Parking of vehicles on speed humps/tables may be permitted because the visibility of pavement markings SEED35S (R and signing isnot significantly affected."' HU MP MPH kniih • Pedestrian crossings:Speed tables with crosswalks can be coor- dinated with existing or planned midblock pedestrian crossings. W17-1 W13_1 p • Installation angle:Speed humps/tables should be installed at Figure 4.11.Speed hump sign(VV17-1)and advisory speed a right angle to the centerline tangent of the roadway. plaques(W13-1 P). • Drainage and utilities: Provisions should be made for roadway Source:Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for streets and Highways, 2009 Edition-Washington,DC:Federal Highway Administration,2009. drainage and utility access in proximity to speed hump location. Generally, speed humps should not be located over or contain maintenance access holes or be located adjacent to fire hydrants. NLAI :Mr For example, Portland uses a standard 20-ft. (6.1-m) clearance OR from utility maintenance holes. It is recommended that speed humps be installed downstream of an existing drain inlet.If this is -_ not possible,the construction of a bypass drain or other treatment W 7-W to route water around the speed hump should be considered. 4.4 Traffic Control Devices , 0 15 Traffic control consisting of signs and pavement markings is r,� '� x`500 essential to warn roadway users of the presence of speed humps and to guide subsequent driver action. It is recommended that W16-2P W16-2aP the established principles of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for signage and pavement markings be followed by any agency installing speed humps."0 Consistency Figure 4.12.Distance plaques(W7-3aP,W16-2P,and W16-2aP). of traffic control devices used at speed hump installations within a Source:Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, jurisdiction is recommended to increase mad user comprehension. 2009 Edition.Washington,DC.Federal Highway Administration,2089. 30 Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps and Speed Tables OPTION A OPTION B of Roadway �-12 It typical �12 ft typical 1�6 ft� �6 ft- V Center of V travel lane T T 12 ft typical typical Centeraf t speed hump 1 12 inches12-inch 112 inches" 12-inch white twhite markings t markings OPTION C of Roadway Legend —►Direction of travel 12 ft typical Center of I"-9.5 ft—. travel lane Center of 12 ft speed humpy typical 12-inch white markings 10.4 inches 32 inches Figure 4.13.Speed hump pavement markings(Figure 313-29). Source:Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways,2009 Edition.Washington,DC: Federal High way Adminis tra tion,2009. warning signs with supplemental arrow plates indicating the used where unusual combinations of roadway or vehicle operating location of speed humps on an intersecting street. conditions exist. Appropriate signs as recommended in MUTCD should be used at speed table locations that also are designated as crosswalks to warn 4.4.2 Pavement Markings drivers of pedestrian activity and advise pedestrians to cross the Pavement markings also are recommended to warn drivers of the roadway using the crosswalk. location of speed humps(see Figures 4.13 and 4.14).Some agencies include advance word messages (typically "BUMP") and special Speed hump warning signs should be placed so that they are clearly visible to approaching motorists and follow MUTCD guidelines. markings directlyin advance of or on the hump.Several speed hump marking designs are in use today.The design selected should not .Although undesirable in residential areas, additional warning create confusion with standard crosswalk markings unless the hump devices such as special attention flags or Hashing lights have been location is intended for pedestrian crossings.It is recommended that W Design Guidelines 31 OPTION A OPTION B Legend -+Direction of travel QL of Roadway 1----12 ft typical �---12 ft typical �6ft Center of �6ft�{ 1 travel lane II V 6 6 ft typical typical 1 lot 10 It typical typical I Eft 6 I typical I � typical 12 inches 12-inch 12 inches 12-inch white white tmarkings markings Note:Optional crosswalk lines are not shown in this figure Option: Advance speed hump markings(see Figure 313-31)may be used in advance of speed humps or other engineered vertical roadway deflections such as dips where added visibility is desired or where such deflection is not expected.Advance pavement wording such as SUMP or HUMP (see Section 313.20) may be used on the approach to a speed hump either alone or in conjunction with advance speed hump markings.Appropriate advance warning signs may be used in compliance with Section 2C.29. i Standard: If advance speed hump markings are used,they shall be a series of eight white 12-inch(in.)[305-millimeter lmm]j transverse lines that become longer and are spaced closer together as the vehicle approaches the speed hump or other deflection. if advance markings are used,they shall comply with the detailed design shown in Figure 35-31. Guidance: If used,advance speed hump markings should be installed in each approach lane. Figure 4.14.Pavement Markings for Speed Tables or Speed Humps with Crosswalks(Figure 313-30). Source:Manua[on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways,2009 Edition. Washington,DC:Federal Highway Administration,2009. pavement word and symbol markings be installed in conformance Special materials such as brick pavers or specially treated concrete with MUTCD guidelines. Double-yellow centerline markings to also can be used to enhance the appearance of speed humps. draw additional attention to speed hump locations also could be Plateaus on speed tables can be constructed with inlaid brick used. Some agencies also use reflective markers in advance of or at patterns, which enhance their appearance while warning drivers the speed hump to improve nighttime visibility. of the devices'presence. However, consideration should be given to street maintenance 4.5 Aesthetic Considerations requirements in the area and whether special materials can be property maintained by the responsible agenry,It is also recommended that A common complaint from residents is that speed humpsltabies residents be consulted before using brick or stamped concrete have an unsightly appearance. Landscaped street edges, moderate to enhance speed humps due to the noise generated by traffic marking and signage,and the use of colored and stamped surfaces traveling on these materials.For speed tables that are designated as are different considerations for improving the appearance of speed crosswalks,it is important to provide a surface that is"firm,stable, humpsttables."'Figure 4-15 shows planter enhancements used in and slip-resistant and meets other ADA requirements,as outlined the city of Beaverton. in Section 2.6. 32 Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps and Speed Tables Attachment C 10.5FT Speed Table ARROW Traffic Logix Inc. QUOTATION 3 Harriet Lane, Spring Valley, NY 10977 NUMBER Tel: 1-866-915-6449 G-151113 Fax: 1-866-995-6449 TODAY'S DATE I X www.trafficlogix.com 11/13/2015 S S WE PROVIDE MULTIPLE O H Please provide TRAFFIC CALMING SOLUTIONS L First Name:Danny I D Last Name:Cuya P COMMENTS Phone:914-592-4040 Email:dcuya@tresolmions.com T Hawthorne,NY T O O CUSTOMER NUMBER CUSTOMER PO ACCOUNT MANAGER Mark Gregory Thankyou for allowing us to DATE ORDERED SHIP VIA MGREGORY0,TRAFFICLOGIX.COM quote on your requirements G RN D Cell:518.744.8568 NOTE m� - LINE PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE EXTENSION Ordered 3 Speed Table-27'W x 10.5'L x 3"H $ 3,733.00 $ 11,199.00 ARROW Reflective Markings INCLUDED RUBBER SECTIONS 16 each MSH03-A Ramp Taper w/ARROW Markings 16 each MSH03-B Ramp Taper w/NO Markings 2 each LSH03-B Left Tapered End Cap-w/NO Markings 2 each RSH03-B Right Tapered End Cap-w/NO Markings 16 each MSH33-B Top-Flat w/NO Markings 1 each LSH33-B Left Flat-Side Tapered End Cap-w/NO Markings 1 each RSH33-B Right Flat-Side Tapered End Cap-w/NO Markings INCLUDED MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 350 each 7"Rust Resistent Bolts 350 each 7"Rust Plastic Anchor 350 each washers 2 each Anchor Tools 0 each PU 140 Polyurethane Adhesive $ 15.00 n/a 0 each PU140DISP Reusable Adhesive Dispenser $ 65.00 n/a vvvlvlvvv Shipping cost assumes that there is access for 53'Truck,loading dock and Pallet Jack on site. Sub Total $ 11,199.00 Freight chagres to SHIP TO ADDRESS $ 1,175.90 Terms:1%-10 Days-Net 30 a We also accept:MC-VISA-AMEX-DISCOVER $ 12,374.90 Please Provide Tax Exempt Certificate with Order QUOTATION TOTALS SIGNATURE: DATE: To place order,please return to: Thank You fol"your order. E-mail: MGREGORY@TRAFFICLOGIX.CONM 10.51FT Speed Table YELLOW Traffic Logix Inc. QUOTATION 3 Harriet Lane, Spring Valley, NY 10977 NUMBER Tel: 1-866-915-6449 G-151113 Fax: 1-866-995-6449 TODAY'S DATE I X www.trafficlogix.com 11/13/2015 S S WE PROVIDE MULTIPLE O H Please provide TRAFFIC CALMING SOLUTIONS L First Name:Danny I D Last Name:Cuya P COMMENTS Phone:914-592-4040 Email:dcuya@tresolmions.com T Hawthorne,NY T O O CUSTOMER NUMBER CUSTOMER PO ACCOUNT MANAGER Mark Gregory Thankyou for allowing us to DATE ORDERED SHIP VIA MGREGORY0,TRAFFICLOGIX.COM quote on your requirements G RN D Cell:518.744.8568 NOTE m� - LINE PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE EXTENSION Ordered 3 Speed Table-27'W x 10.5'L x 3"H $ 4,580.00 $ 13,740.00 YELLOW Reflective Markings INCLUDED RUBBER SECTIONS 32 each MSH03-Y Ramp Taper w/YELLOW Markings 2 each LSH03-Y Left Tapered End Cap-w/YELLOW Markings 2 each RSH03-Y Right Tapered End Cap-w/YELLOW Markings 16 each MSH33-Y Top-Flat w/YELLOW Markings 1 each LSH33-Y Left Flat-Side Tapered End Cap-w/YELLOW Markings 1 each RSH33-Y Right Flat-Side Tapered End Cap-w/YELLOW Markings INCLUDED MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 350 each 7"Rust Resistent Bolts 350 each 7"Rust Plastic Anchor 350 each washers 2 each Anchor Tools 0 each PU 140 Polyurethane Adhesive $ 15.00 n/a 0 each PU140DISP Reusable Adhesive Dispenser $ 65.00 n/a Shipping cost assumes that there is access for 53'Truck,loading dock and Pallet Jack on site. Sub Total $ 13,740.00 Freight chagres to SHIP TO ADDRESS $ 1,442.70 Terms:1%-10 Days-Net 30 • We also accept:MC-VISA-AMEX-DISCOVER $ 15,182.70 Please Provide Tax Exempt Certificate with Order QUOTATION TOTALS SIGNATURE: DATE: To place order,please return to: Thank You for your order. E-mail: MGREGORY@TRAFFICLOGIX.CONM www.tapconet.com/cart/ a24TAPCO The business of safety since 1956 1 ProductCI. HOME ONLINESTORE, SOLUTIONS DIVISIONS :1WT, CONMaS CO00-2316-0112 Shopping Cart During checkout this order Items in your cart for checkout will qualify for a FREE gift)) Subtotal(3 items) SubtotW: $20,385.00 �®_ Speed Hump SRU:1485,02422 Price Quantity Lina Total Speed Hump,14WIde x 24'Long x 4•Tall,Black Rubber,for Shop 15.18 MPH zones,hardware Included 56,795.00 3 $20,385.00 - Online St Save for late I Remove Item Subtotal:$20,385.00 Shoponiinestore Dimiafmor Please review your order.if you arc ordering ADA Signs,please make sure that they meet your state requirements.A Federal ADA sign may not be compliant in your state.If everything looks good,proceed to checkout. Due to the large size of some of our products and high quantity orders,shipping cannot be automatically calculated on our website.If you need a freight quote prior to shipping.please email gi and we'll be happy to provide you with one.while Traffic&Parking Control Co.,Inc.strives to keep shipping costs at a minimum by shopping around.actual charges are beyond our control. Please be aware that certain items,particularly those over 8 feet in length,cannot be shipped via UPS Ground and will go out Common Carrier.This can be an expensive method,so please watch for those items that are specifically noted as being over sized.Also,signs 48"x48"and larger are considered"oversized"and subject to a UPS surcharge. All shipments being delivered within the states of CA,FL IL MI,MN,TK,VA,VA.KY or AZ will be charged sales tax.If you are Tax Exempt,we must have a copy of your certificate w file prior to crediting any taxed amount.Traffic&Parking Control Co.Inc.reserves the right to add or change the status of states being charged tax according to all Federal or State regulations. Are you registered? 11 TAPCO1 1 1, Help Registered TAPCD site visitors gain OnlineStore jr Traffic signs IT StreetScape H6toryofTAPCO contact Us access to persoulued content,saved RequestCatalog ❑ Dqrtal Sign Malong Career opportunities Service Request account info for easier ordering& Requiest QuoteParbng&Seojitty 0 Sigrods&ITS News&Regulations Feedback much more! Contactsi'iAnchoring Solubm E TAK0 Federal Newsletter Signtip t!:,IU IIIS I' or login Events You fir. InternationalReturn PON' `,olit 111 :1I aII Deer, 1 U TRCNET New Home Page 4,Rubber Speed Humps I Tr It (- C Traffic safety Store(W.L.Snook&Associates,INQIM I https://www.trafficsafetystore.com/speed-bumps-humps/rubber-speed-hump?roadWidth=29&sideSpace=l&numberOfHumps=3 {; 5 29 3 Traffic Cones Speed Bumps 1 12"Steel Spikes-Asphalt or Gravel Parking Blocks Safety Vests wed,our Safety Glasses -up asphalt) Construction 5 ather Traffic Barrlca AC flow Water Filled B, Barricade Ligh le Traffic Wands Flags&Paddle Road Markers Triangle Rell MAS MIDDLE FEMALE MALE MIDDLE FEMALE Workwear ;�E 1 16 1 3 48 3 - - Reflective Tape Heavy Du tv Heavy Dutv Rubber Speed RubberSpeed Traffic Safety Store Hump Middle Hump End Kit Is rated***** Section (two pieces] M•tenau were dt"md o�t—and.good 35.5"Long X 19.5" Two End Caps(One d da 1—id Wide X 2.1"Tall Male&One Female) O n—d 1d e.. O n2065Y_ Customer Reviews As low as$82.45 As low as 5116.80 RNG[!r�(� 17rIr�g15 ^�Read our reaf, * ***5/5 stars based on 2 reviews. `3rd-Party veri fi-ed cvstok,Yr rtv12Ws OWEACCEPT Four mounting kits to choose from with Rubber Speed Humps: GOVERNMENT PURCHASE ORDERS TRCN ,Neyt.HamrD 'J Cart x 9 Traffic Safety store(w.L-snook&Associates,INC.)[us]I https://www.trafficsafetystore.com/your-cart B Shop All Departments Q Enter Part#or Produc[NameGo LoginorRegisterItems Traffic Cones Your Cart O 1-Page Checkout ® Receipt Speed Bumps&Humps Parking Blocks Items in Your Shopping Cart Safety Vests Item Quantity Each Price Safety Glasses Heavy Duty Rubber Speed Hump End Cap 1 3 $67.95 $203.$5 (Female) Construction Signs > Options Selected Update Remove Included Hardware:12"Steel Spikes-Asphalt or Gravel Traffic Barricades Finish:Non-Reflective Water Filled Barriers Barricade Lights Traffic Wands Heavy Duty Rubber Speed Hump End Cap 3 $67.95 $203-$5 (Male) Flags&Paddles Options Selected Update Remove g Included Hardware:l2"Steel Spikes-Asphalt or Gravel Road Markers > Finish:Non-Reflective Triangle Reflector Kits > Workwear > Reflective Tape Heavy Duty Rubber Speed Hump Middle qg $$2.45 $3957.60 Section Options Selected Update Remove Included Hardware:12"Steel Spikes-Asphalt Traffic Safety Store or Gravel is rated***** Finish:Reflective MnI,were delivered o°ti-o°d m gooa m°daa°.i wove 0 e—d 1°t.. 0 2065 Customer Reviews k/PoAftk4WO'l 1 21412 0 1 5 /1 Calculate Shipping Order Summary R44 our neaf, `3rd-party vtrified zip Code Ex.19106 Subtotal:$4365.30 custow,tr nevitws Residential Shipping:Not calculated yet ®WE ACCEPT Location u Commercial GOVERNMENT PURCHASE ORDERS \\ ffAWUj=ft&a 00 Shopping Cart I Barco Pro x Vq width of passenger car•i x www.barcoproducts.com/checkout/cart/ Home>Shopping Cart Shopping Cart ZI 25'Premium Speed Hump(Yellow/Black)was added to your shopping cart Premium Speed Hump Price: Quantity: 3 SKU:06JBPSHME Sale:$2,617.60 Update I Remove 190, Item Total:57.852.80 Subtotal:57,852.80 Have a Tax Exempt ID• Sales Tax:$0.00 Get Shipping Costs and Tax u Continue Shopping :I Promotion Code Apply Need Approval? Save this order. Sign-Up Now! Catalog Request Receive great Deals and Otters We will send you a copy of our current catalog Email Our Company Offers!Requests Customer Sen-ice Connect Midi Cs Site Homepage Email Offers Contact Us My Account YOU About Us Request Catalog FAOs Product Warranty © Privacy Polity Sample Request Return Policy Shipping Policy Sitemap Sign Up for an Account Clearance Items n Use of included speed hump end caps is recommended to achieve the greatest product longevity. (Read More...] •Required F.W. �+ SELECT LENGTH A SELECT COLOR Select Color l-Make a Selection-) v Ouantily:', 1 • is Usw#y Shios n 1-2 weeks Recycled Rubber Speed Hump.Complete evith End Caps In Stock iiiry^''' for r� O Quick Delivery DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATIONS CUSTOMER REVIEWS SKU O6JBPSHMB O6JBPSHMC O6JBPSHMD O6JBPSHME O6JBPSHMA Model Name 10'Premium Speed 15'Premium Speed 20'Premium Speed 25'Premium Speed 6.5'Premium Speed Hump Hump Hump Hump Hump Select End Cap With End Caps With End Caps With End Caps With End Caps With End Caps Mount Type Surface Mount Surface Mount Surface Mount Surface Mount Surface Mount Material Recycled Rubber Recycled Rubber Recycled Rubber Recycled Rubber Recycled Rubber Length 11925" 178.75" 238.5" 298" 79.5" Height 2.75" 2.75" 2.75" 2.75" 2.75" Width 3925" 39.25" 3925" 39.25" 39.25" Weight 350.0 536.0 722.0 908.0 226.0 n Related CUSTI�ER SERVICE I . 1 LOWEST PRICES GUARANTEED! Prices Won't Be BeatenSPEED SPEED WHEEL PARKING LOT TRAFFIC CONTROL& SIGNS BUMPS HUMPS STOPS MAINTENANCE SAFETY Shopping Cart (Treetop Family of Sites) Checkout> 25'Superlor Speed Hump(Yellowl8lackywas added to your Shopping cart. Continue .•. • Superior Speed Hump Prlc*:it,489 Ys Ouantity: a 3ZS Edit Product Sale: $,987.85 Update I Remove Edit Proeuct optwee Item Total:$5.963.55 Speed Bump Length 25' • Speed Bump Color Yelow Black Subtotal: $5,963.55 Have a Tax Exempt to a Tax: 50.00 Get Shipping Costs ane Tax <<Continue Shopping Grand Total $5,963.55 Need Approval? Promotion Code I Apply Save this cart Checkout> Our Company Offers/Requests Customer Service Connect vvith Us Site Homepage ErnallOffers ConAbout Us Create an Account tact • /U TRCNET New Home Page x_���Speed Hump]_1485-0005 x -*.width of passenger car-t xf idllilt Premium Speed Hump IS x F = C D www.barcoproducts.com/parking-and-traffic-safety/traffic-safety/speed-bumps-and-humps-1/sb-14-premium-speeri Use of Included speed hump end caps Is recommended to achieve the greatest product longevity. (Read More •Rpund FiaWa SELECT LENGTH SELECTCOLOR Select Color(-Make a Selection-) v - ouanaty: 1 U5ua4 Shps in I-2 Weeks Recycled Rubber Speed Hump,Complete with End Caps In Slock for Ouck Uelwcry DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATIONS CUSTOMER REVIEWS SKU 06J8PSHM8 06JBPSHMC 06JBPSHMD 06JBPSHME 06JBPSHMA Model Name 10'Premium Speed 15'Premium Speed 20'Premium Speed 25'Premlum Speed 6.5'Premium Speed Hump Hump Hump Hump Hump Select End Cap With End Caps With End Caps With End Caps With End Caps Wlth End Caps Mount Type Surface Mount Surface Mount Surface Mount Surface Mount Surface Mount Material Recycled Rubber Recycled Rubber Recycled Rubber Recycled Rubber Recycled Rubber Length 119.25" 178.75" 238.5" 298" 79.5" Height 2.75" 2.75" 2.75" 2.75" 2.75" Width 39.25" 39.25" 39.25" 39.25" 39.25" Weight 350.0 536.0 722.0 908.0 226.0 n Related CCNIL�2,T R C Resultsou can rely Y on TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM HAWTHORNE AVENUE TRAFFIC CALMING STUDY Hawthorne Avenue between Westchester Avenue and North Ridge Street Village of Rye Brook, NY Prepared for VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Prepared by TRC ENGINEERS, INC. Hawthorne,New York October 28, 2015 Job No. 239243 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION DESCRIPTION SECTION 1.0-PROJECT BACKGROUND SECTION 2.0-EXISTING CONDITIONS SECTION 3.0-TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES SECTION 4.0-EMERGENCY VEHICLE IMPACTS SECTION 5.0 - TESTING SECTION 6.0 - RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION 7.0 - CONCLUSIONS 1 SECTION 1.0—PROJECT BACKGROUND TRC Engineers, Inc. has conducted a review of the existing traffic conditions along Hawthorne Avenue in the Village of Rye Brook,New York. The purpose of this review is to identify whether traffic calming measures or other modifications could help improve the traffic operating conditions along the roadway. Residents living along Hawthorne Avenue have a concern about vehicles utilizing the roadway as a cut-through as well as the speeds at which the vehicles are travelling. Hawthorne Avenue is a completely straight 1,500 foot roadway connecting Westchester Avenue and Ridge Street. Drivers utilize Hawthorne Avenue as a cut through to save time and avoid the traffic signal at the intersection of Westchester Avenue and Ridge Street. In addition, the Port Chester Fire Department utilizes the street to respond to calls in that section of the Village. There is limited modifications that could be performed at the intersection of Westchester Avenue and Ridge Street to significantly improve its operation to the point where drivers will not divert from the intersection. The Village's Traffic Commission held a meeting on June 1St, 2015, where residents who reside on Hawthorne Avenue expressed their concerns regarding traffic safety issues along Hawthorne Avenue in conjunction with a letter dated April 24th, 2015. In response to the letter, the Police Department deployed a radar sign to Hawthorne Avenue to capture traffic counts and vehicle speeds on the road. Subsequent to the deployment of the radar sign, the Village has asked TRC Job No. 239243 October 28, 2015 to review the speeds and other conditionsto explore couldbe used along Hawthorne Aerial View of • _ Avenue _ � 7• xi #11Md-ulrW a�re•nr•rwwlrwrsro.-rL+onak , YtEHM-L AV��� _ ~ i +.#� .` `� � +� ', •# ��• r � ■ � s� y Cit .. f _, L � `'r• Job No. 239243 October 6.1 - tel• - -. _ N r IREt4HYL AVE .. . � a fi Yr u� w�- •1 .� AN s e ., ^ 40aWk4ryt �,. 4,j 216 s� ! y� too y •' •1 y, C�oagle cur ill HawthorneStreet View of Avenue � ... ^�_.. � .•�.��. -. .f ,- / ��.4 :.ice. .. No. October 28, 2015 5 To prepare this Study, representatives of TRC performed site investigations and observations at different times of the day and week. Meetings and discussions were held with various representatives including from the Village Administrator's office, the Department of Public Works, the Village of Rye Brook Fire Department, the Village of Port Chester Fire Department and the Village of Rye Brook Police Department. TRC reviewed the letter from the residents as well as the Memorandum dated June 23rd, 2015 which discussed the June 1 st Traffic Commission meeting. TRC has also reviewed the speed and traffic volume measurements from the Police Department. A presentation was then made by TRC to the Village's Traffic Commission as well as to the residents of Hawthorne Avenue, discussing the positive and negative aspects of the various traffic calming measures. TRC has performed this review to determine whether speed humps, additional signing and striping, or other measures are viable traffic calming measures to help reduce the cut-through's and travelling speed of vehicles along Hawthorne Avenue. Job No. 239243 October 28, 2015 6 SECTION 2.0—EXISTING CONDITIONS Hawthorne Avenue is a two-lane, southeast/northwest roadway extending from Westchester Avenue in the southeast to North Ridge Street in the northwest and is approximately 1,500 ft. long. Hawthorne Avenue provides parking along both travel lanes with some minor parking restrictions. The roadway currently has a posted speed limit of 30 mph. The Police Department conducted a traffic and speed data collection from May 12th to May 20`x', 2015 where existing traffic conditions were recorded. in total, 8,889 vehicles were counter along Hawthorne Avenue travelling from Westchester Avenue toward irenhyle Avenue. The average speed of those vehicles was 26.48 mph with the 85'percentile speed at 30.82 mph. The pace speed was at 27-36 mph. During this period, an average of two vehicles per day were observed to travel at speeds above 45 mph with the top speed being 59 mph (one vehicle). Thus seventeen vehicles of the 8,889 total vehicles were travelling above 45 mph. From July 31 to August 7, 2015 (there are conflicting dates on the summary sheets), the Police Department collected traffic volume and speeds along Hawthorne Avenue, this time in the opposite direction from Ridge Street toward Westchester Avenue. 4,785 vehicles were counted and the average speed was 23.27 mph with the 85"'percentile speed at 27.83 mph. The pace speed was at 23-32. There was one vehicle recorded at 70 mph but this may have been a mis- read. There were others recorded in the 50's. Job No. 239243 October 28, 2015 Based upon these speeds, as well as the field observations and discussions with the Police Department, it is TRC's opinion that there is not a pure speeding problem on the roadway and the 30 mph speed limit is appropriate based upon standard engineering practice. This is not to say that there is not a speeding issue at times on the road as it has been indicated that some drivers are travelling over the speed limit. There is the perception that cars are travelling faster than they are. This is partially a result of the nature of Hawthorne Avenue, a wide, completely straight road with no side streets to create interference, very little actual on street parking (as opposed to some of the surrounding roads), and with the houses set back, giving it an even more open feeling. In addition, it is a resident street and there are no sidewalks. A pedestrian had been hit on Thanksgiving night in 2014 and was seriously injured. Job No. 239243 October 28, 2015 8 SECTION 3.0—TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES All Traffic Calming Measures have some impacts, and all have their advantages and disadvantages. The following is a list of various potential Traffic Calming Measures,as well as their advantages and disadvantages(both general and specific to this project). These are the majority of measures that have been considered for Hawthorne Avenue but it is important to note that some are listed for informational purposes and are not necessarily being recommended for Hawthorne Avenue. One point to consider is that if traffic is diverted from one street,it will then end up on a different street which could then result in other traffic impacts. Job No. 239243 October 28, 2015 9 Measure No. 1 — Speed Humps Speed humps are a vertical deflection traffic calming measure which usually have a maximum height of 3 to 4 inches and are typically 12 feet to 14 feet in length, with some extending to 22 feet. Speed humps are different than speed bumps, which are abrupt, 1-2 feet wide, which are sometimes seen in parking lots for shopping centers. There are speed humps in the Arbors, those if installed on public road will require more striping and signage. Speed humps are designed to force vehicles to slow down in order to avoid damage to their vehicle, such as bottoming out. In order for speed humps to be effective in long segments between intersections, they should be place in series typically spaced 260 feet to 500 feet apart. There are variations to the speed hump including speed tables and speed cushions which have openings for certain emergency vehicles (as illustrated below). Figure IA - Speed Hump Example Job No. 239243 October 28, 2015 10 M6 M Figure 2B - Speed Cushion Example Advantages 1. Speed humps have been proven to being a very effective means of speed reduction through various in-field surveys. 2. Compared to other alternatives they are relatively low in cost and maintenance (approximately $3,000 each). Disadvantages 1. Speed humps result in increased noise and vibration impacts at speed hump locations. 2. Slight increase in emergency response times. Have more prevalent with ambulances which need to slow more so that patient is not shaken. 3. Due to the offset of the residential driveways it can be difficult to appropriately place along roadways. 4. Some loss of on-street parking 5. Can create problems for snow removal. Job No. 239243 October 28, 2015 . r 1 r • ° Spud Humps: TWx30'Lx3"H 9 '� i •L lu 7. p . : 41 Iz Vo r. 12 Measure No. 2—Neighborhood Traffic Circle Neighborhood traffic circles are raised islands,usually placed at intersections, around which traffic circulates. Similar to roundabouts motorists have to yield to motorists already in the intersection.For this particular case it would be placed approximately in the middle of the road segment(or a series of two or more would be added)to force vehicles to slow down in order to enter the traffic circle and maneuver around the circle. Figure 3A - Traffic Circle Example Advantages 1. Traffic circles have been proven to reduce speeds and reduce collisions. 2. Have no effect on access and only divert a minimal amount of traffic. Disadvantages 1. Depending on parking near the traffic circle, maneuverability could become difficult for larger vehicles (ex. Fire Trucks) during peak hours. 2. There is a possibility that the surrounding property lines would need to be modified. Job No. 239243 October 28, 2015 13 3. Slightly increased emergency response time. 4. Some loss of on-street parking 5. Can lead to bicycle/auto conflicts because of narrowed travel lanes. Figure 2B —Traffic Circle Layout Job No. 239243 October 28, 2015 14 Measure No. 3 — Chicanes Chicanes are curb extensions that alternate sides of the roadway to create S-shaped curves. Alternating on-street parking can also be used to create S-shaped curves which would require restriping the roadway, however there is not sufficient parking on Hawthorne Avenue to be efficient. This traffic calming measure horizontal deflection, forcing the driver to appropriately maneuver the obstructions. Figure 4A Chicane Example Advantages 1. Proven to reduce high speeds without limiting access to the road. 2. Chicanes are also easily negotiable by larger vehicles except during heavy traffic. 3. Allows for aesthetics to be incorporated via planters and/or vegetation. Disadvantages 1. Significant loss of on-street parking 2. Can be expensive due to curb realignment and landscaping. 3. Can be difficult to appropriately locate along roadways with numerous residential driveways. Job No. 239243 October 28, 2015 15 4. Can create problems for snow removal. 5. Drainage must be considered. i Figure 3B —Chicane Layout Job No. 239243 October 28, 2015 16 Measure No. 4—Closures Closures are typically applied after other measures have failed or been determined to be inappropriate. One type of closure is a half closure where barriers would be used to block any access to enter the road during the day (Ex. lam-spm) and then be removed at the end of the work day, but this would need Village involvement on a daily basis and thus is not desirable. Vehicles would still be allowed to exit the road. Another possible closure as recommended by a resident would be to close the roadway at the midway point. However, right-of-way would likely be needed to provide the necessary turn-arounds or the closure median could be mountable and be only used for emergency vehicles,buses, and village vehicles. This can be difficult to enforce. Different versions of closures are discussed later. Advantages 1. Reduces safety issues experienced on the road segment. 2. Does not reduce emergency response time since they can access the road through the exiting lane in case of emergency (depending upon type of closures) Disadvantages 1. Limits access onto the road during the day for residents. 2. May divert significant traffic volumes to surrounding roads. 3. There may be legal issues associated with closing a public street. 4. Proper signage would be needed and barriers would have to be moved. Job No. 239243 October 28, 2015 17 Figure 4A— Sample • Closure J Figure 4B—Mid-block Closure New PavedCure to `� � � .� ;.,,• ' �I- � Aly - . -_ create Dead�nd •b No. October2015 18 Measure No. 5—Pavement Striping (Centerline/Edgeline) Pavement striping has proven to be an effective traffic calming measure by providing the driver a perception of a reduced roadway width through striping a centerline/edgeline. The residents were not in favor of a double yellow line (not shown in picture below). Figure 5A - Pavement Striping Example Advantages 1. Does not involve construction of any vertical or horizontal deflection. 2. Can be installed and maintained at a low cost. 3. Does not restrict access to the road. Disadvantages 1. Does not physically calm traffic and may not prove to be effective for every driver, especially as drivers get used to them. 2. Striping on-street parking may be limited by roadway width. Job No. 239243 October 28, 2015 • r � Two � fnot parkir�e�r 4 19 foot tra►►el lanes r- � Figure 5B — Striping Layout Job No. 239243 October2015 20 Measure No. 6—Median (Paved or industrial Planters) Medians are islands located along the centerline of a street and are typically used to block movements at a cross street. They can also be considered on local streets where connections with main streets causes traffic problems along the local street. In this particular case, medians are being proposed to narrow the road to limit drivers speeding along Hawthorne Avenue. The median may be able to be mountable in some locations. Breaks in the median will be needed to access driveways. Figure 6A - Median Example Advantages 1. Reduces traffic volumes on a cut-through route that crosses a major street. 2. Does not reduce emergency response time. 3. Allows for aesthetics to be incorporated via planters and vegetation. Disadvantages 1. Will limit mobility for residents who need to make certain movements. Drivers may need to perform u-turns or numerous breaks in the median will be required. Job No. 239243 October 28, 2015 1 JE HZENWY IL COO j t ;.e-. AA 'r � 22 Measure No. 7— Sidewalks The proposed sidewalks would be constructed along the entire length of the road and will be utilized to narrow the road. By adding a 5 foot sidewalk on each side, the road will be narrowed by a total of 10 feet which will typically cause drivers to slow down. - LIMIT f s Awe Figure 7A - Sidewalk Example Advantages 1. Reduces traffic speeds. 2. Does not reduce emergency response time except during heavy traffic. 3. increases pedestrian safety. 4. Allows for aesthetics to be incorporated via planters and vegetation. Disadvantages 1. Expensive to construct and maintain. 2. Eliminates on-street parking. Job No. 239243 October 28, 2015 s The sidewalks would ,. resuft.� two 'l o' lanes. Sidewalk.: 5 foot widq 23 Figure 7B — Sidewalk Layout .b No. 239243 October 24 Measure No. 8— Cul-de-Sac/Dead-End A cul-de-sac or dead-end can also be referred to as a full closure since it essentially places barriers across the street to completely close the street to through traffic. This traffic calming measure tends to be good for locations with extreme traffic volumes or where several other measures have been considered unsuccessful. An opening or mountable curb could be provided for emergency vehicles and possibly for other vehicles such as DPW vehicles and school buses. However, other drivers might attempt to use it. In addition, there is a multi-family building at the intersection of Westchester Avenue and Hawthorne Avenue with driveways on both roadways. Some drivers may try to use this connection to bypass the cul-de-sac access. Some residents asked about cul-de-sac'ing in the middle of the road, thus creating two cul-de- sacs. This is discussed earlier in this report. �Y Figure 8A - Cul-de-Sac Example Job No. 239243 October 28, 2015 25 Advantages 1. Reduces traffic volumes and speeds on the road. 2. Maintains pedestrian and bicycle access and increases safety. 3. Allows for aesthetics to be incorporated via new landscaped area and vegetation. Disadvantages 1. Eliminates access to residents and emergency vehicles causing response delays as vehicles would have to be re-routed. 2. Can be expensive due to curb realignment, landscaping and maintenance. 3. Traffic is often transferred to neighboring streets, generating new problems and complaints. 4. Needs to be wide enough for school bus, DPW vehicle, and fire engine to turn around. Job No. 239243 October 28, 2015 *r 1 � .� w LMAL ie* tip - ,� rf = • moi• lop, r r 1 _ FF + r ' � 1 1 tLe r w1w _7 � ii � 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 ©Mrrit•u[ax+lldrs•Mr•wrspr-rr CA•Px raw* y yy +r I - 1 a oom Ing Tums out �rlClplol4rinorrH �s• . ir I be le 76 y EAofnlb.O Tums 00; }� _ � � �.lti � _-� �- �- •• MC♦ftl0 Hlrifl DffN Y ;�..; r• '� ',- �- ` _ - � ,fit• � 1 1 saldw »,� I 28 Advantages 1. Reduces traffic volumes. 2. Can be installed and maintained at a low cost. Disadvantages 1. Eliminates some mobility to emergency vehicles causing response delays. 2. Can be viewed as an inconvenience to local residents. 3. May force problem to adjacent street. 4. Can be difficult to enforce. Job No. 239243 October 28, 2015 29 Measure No. 10—Closure at North Ridge Street This alternative was mentioned by a couple of residents of Hawthorne Avenue, where they proposed that the sidewalk and curb on North Ridge Street be extended to close off Hawthorne Avenue and Ircnhyl Avenue to any vehicles turning to or from North Ridge Street. Advantages 1. Reduces traffic volumes. 2. Simplifies the intersection which residents say can be confusing to navigate. Disadvantaaes 1. Eliminates some mobility to emergency vehicles causing response delays. 2. The grade at that location can make it difficult to construct this closure. 3. Would re-direct residents adding to their inconvenience. 4. May force problem to adjacent street. 5. Can be relatively expensive due to the curb construction and drainage modifications. Job No. 239243 October 28, 2015 30 Measure No. 11 —One-Way Conversion Converting the roadway to one-way would eliminate the traffic in the opposite direction. However, unless additional measures are also taken, it is likely that speeds would be increased as having a wide roadway with no opposing traffic will make it more conducive to speeding. Residents will be inconvenienced as they would not be able to enter/exit from both directions. From the Port Chester Fire Department standpoint, it would be better for the road to be one-way from Westchester Avenue to Ridge Street as this is the direction they travel responding to calls. Advantages 1. Reduces traffic volumes. Disadvantages 1. Could eliminate some mobility to emergency vehicles causing response delays. 2. Speeds could increase. 3. May force problem to adjacent street as traffic is diverted to another roadway. 4. Residents inconvenienced as cannot enter/exit in both directions. Job No. 239243 October 28, 2015 -^xU-U.ft+f 67L�-NY-'h4s#�—"Co-RK Sm* IRgy14M1'LAY "' f. t ''A OV -. r - 46 . 1 , 4t' :. .j ig- N®r 41 7 lt3, IL l'Ap 4 CL 1 _ :tAIL .,,,+ M _ w► twl 32 SECTION 4.0—EMERGENCY VEHICLE IMPACTS Most of the measures discussed above will have some impact on emergency vehicle response times. The delays from speed humps vary and correlate with the length and height of the speed hump as well as with the number of speed humps installed and their spacing. Studies across the country have shown that delays per speed humps generally range from 0 to 9.8 seconds. The institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in its publication, "Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps"provides measures to mitigate this issue. in the publication it discusses modified designs that include speed lumps which are speed humps with gaps positioned to allow emergency vehicles to pass through without passing over the hump. it also discusses split or offset speed tables which are designed with long enough offsets to allow emergency vehicles to weave around all or a portion of the split speed table. However, other drivers may do the same thing. Any closures such as the creation of a cul-de-sac would require different routes being utilized and thus extending response times. Job No. 239243 October 28, 2015 33 SECTION 5.0—TESTING There are a couple alternatives that can be tested temporarily before being installed permanently. Testing can be done over a few months. Many of the residents were receptive and in favor of this option in order to experience the affects that the traffic calming measures will have on their everyday travels. Three possible specific measures that were discussed for testing were cul-de-sac, one-way roadway, and speed humps. To test a cul-de-sac, barriers would be placed at the intersection of Westchester Avenue and Hawthorne Avenue, blocking any in and out movements between these two streets. A gap could be provided for emergency vehicles, DPW vehicles, and school buses. Otherwise it would be difficult for these vehicles to turn around. Further accommodations for these vehicles would be discussed with the Village and the appropriate agencies, no matter what traffic calming measure is to be tested or implemented. The one-way roadway could be done with signage and some barrels. With regards to speed humps, there are removable speed humps that can be placed temporarily. These removable humps could be used during the testing period to determine the effects it has on speeding and traffic. Because of issues with snow, it is generally not recommended to perform the testing during the winter. The following are some of the advantages and disadvantages of testing. Job No. 239243 October 28, 2015 34 Advantages 1. Testing allows for flexibility in the future in case any modifications need to be made. 2. Provides data on how well a specific traffic calming measure will impact the safety issues on Hawthorne Avenue. 3. May immediately improve the safety issues experienced on the street. Disadvantages 1. Eliminates some mobility to emergency vehicles causing response delays. 2. Accommodations for U-turn movements would have to be made for fire trucks, school buses, and sanitation trucks. 3. Results in issues with plowing if tested during the winter season. 4. Could negatively impact residents (which is one of the points be analyzed with the test). Job No. 239243 October 28, 2015 35 SECTION 6.0—RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the discussion from the October 5t", 2015 Hearing, many of the residents present were in favor of installing a cul-de-sac at the intersection of Hawthorne Avenue and Westchester Avenue. However, after further discussion with some other residents, it was determined that not all the residents were on board with the cul-de-sac alternative. There are some limitations with installing a cul-de-sac which are the following: • The available area for the cul-de-sac might not be enough to give sanitation trucks and school buses enough of a turning radius, thus, school buses might not be allowed to enter the road. • Issues arise with the property on 2 Hawthorne Avenue, since its lot has access to both Hawthorne Avenue and Westchester Avenue and it can be used as a cut through route. • All these details that have to be addressed will increase the cost of this project. • Traffic that is being diverted will now be placed on other roads, including neighborhood streets, as well as at the signalized intersection of Westchester Avenue and Ridge Street. • Residents will not be able to enter/exit along Westchester Avenue and thus would have to circle around. Based on these limitations and the professional opinion of TRC, the most beneficial alternative would be speed humps if they are designed in coordination with the Emergency Services. Speed humps allow for the capability to be tested. Job No. 239243 October 28, 2015 36 The residents present at the Traffic Commission Meeting were strongly in favor of the cul-de- sac. However, the cul-de-sac may have some adverse impacts on the residents. Thus this could be tested to see if these impacts bear out and are acceptable to them. A one-way option can also be easily tested. It is recommended to test the desired alternative in order to gauge the response that the residents have on that measure. Any test must be made in coordination with the emergency services and school bus company. Speed and volume measurements would be taken during the test to see what changes, if any, occur. Resident also requested speed cameras. Speed cameras where tickets can be issued are not permitted in Rye Brook at this time based upon State Law. Some residents also suggested lowering the speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph. Since Rye Brook is a Village, under current New York State Law, the speed limit for a village is to be 30 mph. Depending upon the interpretation of the law, there is the possibility of lowering the speed limit in a certain area to 25 mph. However, lowering the speed limit without doing other changes would not have any significant effect as drivers will drive at the speed that they feel comfortable at. Job No. 239243 October 28, 2015 37 SECTION 6.0-CONCLUSIONS It is the professional opinion of TRC Engineers, Inc. that testing the cul-de-sac and speed humps prior to the permanent installation of any alternative should be done first. Of the two alternatives discussed TRC believes that speed humps with the appropriate striping and signing would be the most beneficial option in terms of safety and cost. Furthermore, the reduction in traveling speeds due to the additional traffic calming, as well as the additional warning provided via the signing and striping at the existing speed hump,will help reduce speeds approaching the hump, thus helping to minimize the noise and vibration impacts. Based upon past experience and further discussions with some residents, it is our opinion that not all of the residents will be supportive of the impacts cul-de-sac. Respectfully submitted, TRC Engineers,Inc. Brian E. Dempsey,P.E.,P.T.O.E. Senior Project Manager Danny Cuya Engineer Q:TROJECTS2001239243-9 Rye BrookWeportsWraffic1239243-Traffic Calming Study.doc Job No. 239243 October 28,2015 BRC�V� Q 'CCu s Z G CLC4°ta J�V (.�v4 vuJvo VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MAYOR 938 King Street, Rye Brook, N.Y. 10573 ADMINISTRATOR Paul S. Rosenberg (914) 939-1121 Fax(914) 939-0242 Christopher J. Bradbury www.ryebrook.org TRUSTEES Susan R. Epstein David M. Heiser Jason A. Klein Jeffrey B. Rednick November 2, 2015 Dear Resident; As you are aware, TRC Engineering has been contracted to conduct a traffic calming study for Hawthorne Avenue. The consultants have been asked to study the current conditions and provide the Village with recommendations that would improve the safety, of this street. To this point, TRC Engineering has gathered data related to speed, traffic counts and other information. They have met key public safety and village staff and on October 5, 2015, there was a public meeting with the Traffic Commission and residents of Hawthorne Avenue. The feedback from the residents of Hawthorne Avenue, the Traffic Commission and public safety personnel was taken into consideration and TRC Engineers has prepared their final report and recommendation. The report will be presented to the Village Board at their next meeting. Though this is not a formal public hearing, we are encouraging the residents of Hawthorne Avenue to come to the meeting and participate in the discussion with the Village Board. This will be a preliminary presentation and discussion and the Village Board will determine the next steps at this time. The next Village Board meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 7:30 PM at Village Hall. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call or email me. I can be reached directly by phone at 914-939-0077 or by email at sbledsockryebrook.org. Sincerely, Sarah E. Bledsoe Assistant to the Administrator December 15, 2015 R-5 RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE LICENSE AND PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE TO INCLUDE TWO NEW RECREATION PROGRAMS The Village License and Permit Fee Schedule is hereby modified as follows: PROGRAM OR SERVICE FEE Sew Happy Weaving Class (6 classes) $120.00 Woodworking Class (6 classes) $120.00 December 15, 2015 R—6 RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK AUTHORIZING THE ADOPTION OF THE 2015 WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE WHEREAS, all jurisdictions within Westchester County have exposure to natural hazards that increase the risk to life, property, environment, and the County and local economy; and WHEREAS; pro-active mitigation of known hazards before a disaster event can reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property; and WHEREAS, The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) established new requirements for pre and post disaster hazard mitigation programs; and WHEREAS; a coalition of Westchester County municipalities with like planning objectives has been formed to pool resources and create consistent mitigation strategies within Westchester County; and WHEREAS, the coalition has completed a planning process that engages the public, assesses the risk and vulnerability to the impacts of natural hazards, develops a mitigation strategy consistent with a set of uniform goals and objectives, and creates a plan for implementing, evaluating and revising this strategy; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Village of Rye Brook: 1) Adopts in its entirety, the 2015 Westchester County Hazard Mitigation Plan (the "Plan") as the jurisdiction's Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, and resolves to execute the actions identified in the Plan that pertain to this jurisdiction. 2) Will use the adopted and approved portions of the Plan to guide pre- and post-disaster mitigation of the hazards identified. 3) Will coordinate the strategies identified in the Plan with other planning programs and mechanisms under its jurisdictional authority. 4) Will continue its support of the Mitigation Planning Committee as described within the Plan. 5) Will help to promote and support the mitigation successes of all participants in this Plan. 6) Will incorporate mitigation planning as an integral component of government and partner operations. 7) Will provide an update of the Plan in conjunction with the County no less than every five years. PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 15th day of December, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Paul S. Rosenberg Mayor, Village of Rye Brook ATTEST: Clerk, Village of Rye Brook Table of Contents Table of Contents Volume I SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 BACKGROUND......................................................................................................1-1 1.1.1 DMA 2000 Origins -The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency AssistanceAct.............................................................................................1-1 1.1.2 Benefits of Mitigation Planning..................................................................1-2 1.1.3 Organizations Involved in the Mitigation Planning Effort..........................1-2 1.1.4 Implementation of Prior and Existing Local Hazard Mitigation Plans.......1-7 1.1.5 Implementation of the Planning Process.....................................................1-7 1.1.6 Organization of This Mitigation Plan..........................................................1-7 SECTION 2. PLAN ADOPTION...............................................................................................................2-1 2.1 OVERVIEW.............................................................................................................2-1 2.1.1 Plan Adoption by Local Governing Bodies.................................................2-1 SECTION 3. PLANNING PROCESS.......................................................................................................3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................3-1 3.2 ORGANIZATION OF PLANNING PROCESS ......................................................3-2 3.2.1 Organization of Planning Partnership.........................................................3-2 3.2.2 Planning Activities......................................................................................3-6 3.3 STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH AND INVOLVEMENT.....................................3-12 3.3.1 Public Outreach.........................................................................................3-18 3.4 INCORPORATION OF EXISTING PLANS, STUDIES,REPORTS AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION.............................................................................3-22 3.5 INTEGRATION WITH EXISTING PLANNING MECHANISMS AND PROGRAMS ..........................................................................................................3-27 3.6 CONTINUED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT............................................................3-27 SECTION 4 COUNTY PROFILE...............................................................................................................1 4.1 GENERAL INFORMATION......................................................................................1 4.1.1 Physical Setting..............................................................................................1 4.2 POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS ................................................................13 4.3 General Building Stock..............................................................................................18 4.4 Land Use and Population Trends...............................................................................25 4.4.1 Land Use Trends..........................................................................................25 4.4.2 Population Trends........................................................................................27 4.4.3 Future Growth and Development.................................................................28 4.5 CRITICAL FACILITIES...........................................................................................31 4.5.1 Essential Facilities........................................................................................31 4.5.2 Transportation Systems................................................................................34 4.5.3 Lifeline Utility Systems ...............................................................................37 4.5.4 High-Potential Loss Facilities......................................................................40 4.5.5 Other Facilities.............................................................................................40 SECTION 5 RISK ASSESSMENT 5.1 Methodology and Tools.........................................................................................5.1-1 5.1.1 Methodology............................................................................................5.1-1 5.1.2 Tools.........................................................................................................5.1-1 5.2 Identification of Hazards of Concern.....................................................................5.2-1 5.3 Hazard Ranking.....................................................................................................5.3-1 DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York i July 2015 Table of Contents 5.3.1 Hazard Ranking Methodology.................................................................5.3-1 5.3.2 Hazard Ranking Results...........................................................................5.3-2 5.3.3 Hazards Profiles and Vulnerability Assessment.......................................5.3-7 5.4 Hazard Profiles ......................................................................................................5.4-1 5.4.1 Earthquake.............................................................................................5.4.1-1 5.4.2 Extreme Temperature............................................................................5.4.2-1 5.4.3 Flood.....................................................................................................5.4.3-1 5.4.4 Severe Storm.........................................................................................5.4.4-1 5.4.5 Severe Winter Storm.............................................................................5.4.5-1 5.4.6 Wildfire.................................................................................................5.4.6-1 5.4.7 CBRN....................................................................................................5.4.7-1 5.4.8 Cyber Attack.........................................................................................5.4.8-1 5.4.9 Critical Infrastructure Failure................................................................5.4.9-1 5.4.10 Disease Outbreak.................................................................................5.4.10-1 SECTION 6. MITIGATION STRATEGIES...............................................................................................1 6.1 Background and Past Mitigation Accomplishments....................................................1 6.2 General Mitigation Planning Approach.......................................................................3 6.3 Review and Update of Mitigation Goals and Objectives.............................................3 6.3.1 Goals and Objectives......................................................................................3 6.4 Capability Assessment.................................................................................................5 6.4.1 Planning and Regulatory Capabilities -County and Local............................6 6.4.2 Planning and Regulatory Capabilities—State and Federal.............................9 6.4.3 Administrative and Technical Capabilities-County and Local...................10 6.4.4 Administrative and Technical Capabilities- State and Federal....................11 6.4.5 Fiscal Capabilities—County and Local........................................................12 6.4.6 Fiscal Capabilities—State and Federal.........................................................13 6.5 Mitigation Strategy Development and Update...........................................................19 6.5.1 Update of Municipal Mitigation Strategies..................................................19 6.5.2 Update of County Mitigation Strategy.........................................................22 6.5.3 Mitigation Strategy Evaluation and Prioritization........................................23 6.5.4 Benefit/Cost Review....................................................................................25 SECTION 7. PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES.........................................................................7-1 7.1 MONITORING,EVALUATING AND UPDATING THE PLAN..........................7-1 7.1.1 Monitoring...................................................................................................7-3 7.1.2 Evaluating...................................................................................................7-4 7.1.3 Updating......................................................................................................7-6 7.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION PLAN THROUGH EXISTING PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................7-6 7.3 CONTINUED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT..............................................................7-7 Acronyms.......................................................................................................................................................AC-1 Glossary............................................................................................................................................................G-1 References.........................................................................................................................................................R-1 Appendices Appendix A Sample Resolution of Plan Adoption Appendix B Meeting Documentation Appendix C Public and Stakeholder Outreach Appendix D Participation Matrix Appendix E Action Worksheet Template and Instructions (� DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York ii U July 2015 Table of Contents Appendix F FEMA Guidance Worksheets Appendix G Critical Facility Inventory Volume II SECTION S PLANNING PARTNERSHIP.............................................................................................5-1 8.1 Background...............................................................................................................8-1 8.1.1 Jurisdictional Annexes..............................................................................................8-1 SECTION 9 JURISDICTIONAL ANNEXES 9.1 Westchester County...............................................................................................9.1-1 9.2 City of Mount Vernon............................................................................................9.2-1 9.3 City of New Rochelle.............................................................................................9.3-1 9.4 City of Peekskill.....................................................................................................9.4-1 9.5 City of Rye.............................................................................................................9.5-1 9.6 City of Yonkers......................................................................................................9.6-1 9.7 Town of Bedford....................................................................................................9.7.1 9.8 Town of Cortlandt..................................................................................................9.8.1 9.9 Town of Eastchester...............................................................................................9.9.1 9.10 Town of Greenburgh............................................................................................9.10.1 9.11 Town of Lewisboro..............................................................................................9.11.1 9.12 Town of Mamaroneck..........................................................................................9.12.1 9.13 Town of New Castle............................................................................................9.13.1 9.14 Town of North Castle...........................................................................................9.14.1 9.15 Town of North Salem...........................................................................................9.15.1 9.16 Town of Ossining.................................................................................................9.16.1 9.17 Town of Pelham...................................................................................................9.17.1 9.18 Town of Pound Ridge..........................................................................................9.18.1 9.19 Town of Rye........................................................................................................9.19.1 9.20 Town of Somers...................................................................................................9.20.1 9.21 Town of Yorktown...............................................................................................9.21.1 9.22 Village of Ardsley................................................................................................9.22.1 9.23 Village of Briarcliff Manor..................................................................................9.23.1 9.24 Vilage of Bronxville............................................................................................9.24.1 9.25 Village of Buchanan............................................................................................9.25.1 9.26 Village of Croton-on-Hudson..............................................................................9.26.1 9.27 Village of Dobbs Ferry........................................................................................9.27.1 9.28 Village of Elmsford..............................................................................................9.28.1 9.29 Village of Harrison..............................................................................................9.29.1 9.30 Village of Hastings-on-Hudson...........................................................................9.30.1 9.31 Village of Irvington..............................................................................................9.31.1 9.32 Village of Larchmont...........................................................................................9.32.1 9.33 Village of Mamaroneck.......................................................................................9.33.1 9.34 Village of Mount Kisco .......................................................................................9.34.1 9.35 Village of Ossining..............................................................................................9.35.1 9.36 Village of Pelham................................................................................................9.36.1 9.37 Village of Pelham Manor.....................................................................................9.37.1 9.38 Village of Pleasantville........................................................................................9.38.1 9.39 Village of Port Chester.........................................................................................9.39.1 9.40 Village of Rye Brook...........................................................................................9.40.1 9.41 Village of Scarsdale.............................................................................................9.41.1 9.42 Village of Tarrytown............................................................................................9.42.1 9.43 Village of Tuckahoe.............................................................................................9.43.1 DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York iii July 2015 Section 2:Plan Adoption SECTION 2. PLAN ADOPTION 2.1 Overview This section contains information regarding adoption of the 2015 In addition to being required by Westchester County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan by DMA 2000, adoption of the plan is Westchester County and each participating jurisdiction. necessary because: • It lends authority to the plan 2.1.1 Plan Adoption by Local Governing Bodies to serve as a guiding document for all local and Adoption by the local governing bodies demonstrates the commitment of state government officials; Westchester County and each participating jurisdiction to fulfill the It gives legal status to the mitigation goals [and objectives] and mitigation strategies outlined in the plan in the event it is Plan. Adoption legitimizes the Plan and authorizes responsible agencies to challenged in court; execute their responsibilities. It certifies the program and grant administrators that the The County and all participating jurisdictions will proceed with formal plan's recommendations have adoption proceedings when FEMA provides conditional approval of this been properly considered and plan. Following adoption or formal action on the plan, the jurisdiction approved by the governing must submit a copy of the resolution or other legal instrument showing authority and jurisdictions' formal adoption(acceptance) of the plan to NYS DHSES. This will then citizens;and be submitted to FEMA with the resolution in Appendix A of this Plan. It helps to ensure the The jurisdictions understand that FEMA will transmit acknowledgement continuity of mitigation of verification of formal plan adoption and the official approval of the programs and policies overtime because elected officials, plan to the mitigation plan coordinator. staff,and other community decision-makers can refer to The resolution issued to support adoption of the plan is included as the official document when Appendix A,Resolution of Plan Adoption. making decisions about the community's future. Source: FEMA. 2003. "How to Series"-Bringing the Plan to Life (FEMA 386-4). DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 2-1 July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook 9.40 Village of Rye Brook This section presents the jurisdictional annex for the Village of Rye Brook. 9.40.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact The following individuals have been identified as the hazard mitigation plan's primary and alternate points of contact. Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact Christopher Bradbury,Village Administrator Michal Nowak,Supt.of Public Works/Engineering Village of Rye Brook Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street 938 King Street Rye Brook,NY 10573 Rye Brook,NY 10573 914-939-0634 914-939-2965 cbradburlLa)ryebrook.org mnowakLdryebrook.org 9.40.2 Municipal Profile This section provides a summary of the community. Population According to the U.S. Census, the 2010 population of the Village of Rye Brook was 9,347, with a population density of 2,723 persons per square mile. The population significantly increased from the 2000 census (8,602). Location The Village of Rye Brook is situated in southeastern Westchester County. Rye Brook is bordered by the town of Greenwich, Connecticut to the northeast; Port Chester to the southeast; the City of Rye to the south, the Town/Village of Harrison to the west, and the Town of North Castle to the north. The Village of Rye Brook is located within the Town of Rye,providing Rye Brook residents with access to the Town's two parks, Crawford Park (located within Rye Brook) and Rye Town Park (in Rye City along Long Island Sound). The Town of Rye also assesses and collects taxes on behalf of Rye Brook and the Blind Brook school district that serves Rye Brook. Brief History According to the Village of Rye Brook web site, the "story of the Village of Rye Brook is the most recent chapter in the continuing development of the Town of Rye." Town history began in 1640 when land was purchased from Native American inhabitants. The first colonists to move into the area were settlers from Greenwich, Connecticut. In 1660 they negotiated a treaty with a Mohican chief for all the land along Long Island Sound between the Mamaroneck and Byram Rivers. It is supposed that the town was named after Rye, in Sussex,England,the former home of some of the settlers. Communities within the Town eventually established themselves as four-separate municipalities including Port Chester, part of Mamaroneck, and the City of Rye. In 1940, the unincorporated area(now the Village of Rye Brook) had a population of less than 2,000 residents. It had large estates, farmland, and open space. The number of residents grew to 2,661 by the 1950 census. In 1960 the count exceeded 6,000 and by 1980 it had grown to 8,000. This are remained the last unincorporated part of the Town of Rye until it became a Rye Brook Village on July 7, 1982. DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-1 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Today, Rye Brook is largely residential but enjoys a few small commercial areas in the southern part of the village. Governing Body Format The Village is governed by a Mayor who is the chief executive officer of the village and a Board of Trustees who appoint the Village Administrator. There are four Trustees. As Chief Administrative Officer for the Village Board, the Administrator supervises all Village operations through the department heads and, in other cases, as prescribed by law. Growth/Development Trends The village does not include a traditional downtown area like those found in many other Westchester County villages. Rye Brook is largely built out, with only a handful of vacant properties remaining, and much of that land is constrained by environmental factors. A small amount of new mixed uses may be developed per the village's existing land use patterns. A buildout analysis was completed by the Westchester County Department of Planning in 2012 for the Village Comp Plan. At full build-out, Rye Brook could see an additional 271 dwelling units leading to an additional population of 732 people, as well as an added 238,304 square feet of commercial space. This would represent growth of nearly 8%from the village's 2012 population of 9,450 people,and commercial growth in square feet of approximately 12%. However it must be noted that this analysis assumed the complete transition of Blind Brook Country Club to residential land. Therefore the estimate is conservatively high. In reality,very little of the village's new development would be located in zones of flood risk, given the specific locations of flood risk and the scattered nature of available parcels. The following table summarizes recent residential/commercial development since 2005 and any known or anticipated major development that has been identified in the next five years within the municipality. Table 9.40-1. Growth and Development Property Development Comm.) Structures Recent Development None Known or Anticipated Development Renovate or redevelop vacant commercial Desired but none spaces in existing Commercial NA No specific locations None pending plazas Corner of King Street 16 attached Enclave at Rye Brook Residential 32 and Anderson Hill None residential Rd buildings Bowman Avenue Residential 10 Bowman Avenue None 10 Condo units west of S.Ridge St International Drive, Approved Reckson Phase III Commercial 1 Reckson Office Park None 280,000 SF office building Only location-specific hazard zones or vulnerabilities identified. DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-2 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook 9.40.3 Natural Hazard Event History Specific to the Municipality Westchester County has a history of natural and non-natural hazard events as detailed in Volume I, Section 5.0 of this plan. A summary of historical events is provided in each of the hazard profiles and includes a chronology of events that have affected the County and its municipalities. The table below presents a summary of natural events that have occurred to indicate the range and impact of natural hazard events in the community. Information regarding specific damages is included if available based on reference material or local sources. For details of events prior to 2008,refer to Volume I, Section 5.0 of this plan. Table 9.40-2. Hazard Event History FEMA Dates of Declaration# County Event Event Type (If Applicable) Designated? Summary of D. Hurricane Sandy caused a power outage of approximately eight days,although some areas October 27- were without power for three weeks. Several November 8, Hurricane Sandy DR-4085 Yes roads were closed from downed trees and wires. 2012 The shelter was opened. Of the events listed here,Hurricane Sandy generated the most debris from wind damage. Winter Storm Alfred caused a power outage of several days. Although this snow event was October 29- Winter Storm minor for southern Westchester County,Rye 30,201 1 "Alfred" DR-4046 No Brook was in the region that experienced heavy snow and damage from falling trees and tree limbs,similar to most of Connecticut. August 26- Hurricane Irene caused three to four days of September 5, Hurricane Irene DR-4020 Yes power loss. The shelter was opened. The 2011 Anderson Hill water pumping station failed. The March 13,2010 Nor'easter caused tree March 13-31, Severe Storms and damage and a power outage,with the quantity of 2010 Flooding DR-1899 Yes tree and tree limb debris second only to the debris caused by Hurricane Sandy in 2012 Notes: EM Emergency Declaration(FEMA) FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency DR Major•Disaster Declaration(FEMA) IA Individual Assistance N/A Not applicable PA Public Assistance 9.40.4 Hazard Vulnerabilities and Ranking The hazard profiles in Section 5.0 of this plan have detailed information regarding each plan participant's vulnerability to the identified hazards. The following summarizes the hazard vulnerabilities and their ranking in the Village of Rye Brook. For additional vulnerability information relevant to this jurisdiction, refer to Section 5.0. Natural Hazard Risk/Vulnerability Risk Ranking The table below summarizes the natural hazard risk/vulnerability rankings of potential hazards for the Village of Rye Brook. DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-3 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Table 9.40-3. Natural Hazard Risk/Vulnerability Risk Ranking Risk Ranking Score Estimate of Potential Dollar Losses to Probability of (Probability x Hazard Hazard type Structures Vulnerable to the Hazard a, Occurrence Impact) Ranking b 100-Year GBS: $0 Earthquake 500-Yeas GBS: $1,663,601 Occasional 24 Medium 2,500-Year GBS: $39,198,792 Extreme Damage estimate not available Frequent 21 Medium Temperature Flood I%Annual Chance: $131,596,084 Frequent 36 High 100-Year MRP: $17,683,813 Severe Storm 500-year MRP: $82,769,572 Frequent 48 High Annualized: $981,779 1%GBS: $45,001,739 Winter Storm Frequent 5 High 5%GBS: $225,008,695 Wildfire Estimated Value in the $49,675,404 Frequent 18 Medium WUI: a. Building damage ratio estimates based on FEMA 386-2(August 2001) h. The valuation of general building stock and loss estimates was based on the custom inventory developedfor Westchester County and prohahilistic modeling results and exposure analysis as discussed in Section 5. C. The earthquake and hurricane wind hazards were evaluated by Census tract. The Census tracts do not exactly align with municipal boundaries;therefore,a total is reported for each ToNna inclusive of the Villages. d. Frequent—Hazard event that is likely to occur within 25 years; Occasional—Hazard event that is likelv to occur within 100 years;and Rare—Hazard event that is not likely to occur within 100 years C. The estimated potential losses for Severe Storm are from the HAZUS-MHprohahilistic hurricane wind model results. See footnote c. GBS—General building stock MRP—Mean return period RCV—Replacement cost value National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Summary The following table summarizes the NFIP statistics for the municipality. Table 9.40-4. NFIP Summary Policies PoopFlood Boundary Municipality (1) (Losses) (1) Payments(2) Prop. Rye Book(V) 184 2 4 2084226.35 13 Source: FEMA Region 2, 2014 (1): Policies, claims, repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss statistics provided by FEMA Region 2, and are current as of March 31,2014. Please note the total number of repetitive loss properties excludes the severe repetitive loss properties. The number of claims represents the number of claims closed by March 31, 2014. (2): Information regarding total huilding and content losses was gathered from the claims.file provided by FEMA Region 2. (3): The policies inside and outside of the flood zones is based on the latitude and longitude provided by FEMA Region 2 in the policy file. FEMA noted that where there is more than one entry.for a property,there may he more than one poliev in force or more than one GIS possihility. Critical Facilities The table below presents HAZUS-MH estimates of the damage and loss of use to critical facilities in the community as a result of a 1-and 0.2-percent annual chance flood events. Table 9.40-5. Potential Flood Losses to Critical Facilities Potential Loss from Name Municipality Type Exposure Flood Event DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-4 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Percent Percent �. i 00 Event Event Damage Damage Percent(') Rye Brook Estates Dam Rye Brook(V) Dam X X - - - Source:HAZUS-MH2.1 Note: x —Facility located within the 0.2-percent annual chance flood houndary_ Please note it is assumed that wells have electrical equipment and openings are three feet above grade. (1) HAZUS-MH 2.1 provides a general indication of the maximum restoration time for 100%operations. Clearly,a great deal of effort is needed to quickly restore essential facilities to full functionality, therefore this will he an indication of the maximum downtime(HAZUS-MH 2.1 User Manual). (2) In some cases,a facility may he located in the DFIRMflood hazard boundary;however HAZUS did not calculate potential loss. This may he because the depth offlooding dory not amount to any damages to the structure according to the depth damage function used in HAZUS for that facility type. Other Vulnerabilities Identified by Municipality The Village of Rye Brook is vulnerable to a variety of hazards. Village staff believe that the effects of extreme cold, flooding, hailstorms, hazardous materials incidents, hurricanes/tropical storms/nor'easters, lightning, severe storms, severe winter storms, and transportation/airport accidents present the highest relative risk to the community (each ranked as "medium" risk and none ranked as "high" risk). Other hazards such as wildfire, earthquake, and dam failure reportedly present low or negligible risks to the community. The following specific information about vulnerabilities was identified by the municipality,including some with medium risk and some with low risk: All Hazards • The Village would like to obtain generators for all critical facilities. Facility generators are present at the Village Hall/Police Station, the Fire House, the Community Center, and the sewer pumping station at 1200 King Street. The highway department has portable generators. The water pumping station owned and maintained by United Water is located at Anderson Hill Road and has a generator. The water pumping station lost power and the generator failed during Hurricane Irene. This is a major problem because the pressure zone does not have a storage tank; it is served only by the pumping station. If the highway garage were to be upgraded, a new generator would likely be included. However,the village would like to upgrade this generator even if the garage were not upgraded. • Assisted and elderly facilities are considered critical facilities. These include the 1200 King Street independent living facility, the nursing home at 787 King Street, and the UCP/CPW campus at 1187 King Street. The UCP/Cerebral Palsy of Westchester (CPW) campus is mainly a number of medical services, but people also live there. Recent storms have exposed the vulnerability of the campus, because it will shut down but people are still living in the campus when shut down. • Infrastructure in the village is quite old in many locations, and failures could occur. For example, a fire in a ConEd vault recently caused an explosion. Flooding Blind Brook and its tributaries present the greatest flood risks in Rye Brook. The main branch of Blind Brook forms the municipal boundary between the Town/Village of Harrison and the Village of Rye Brook before flowing through the City of Rye. The three communities therefore share flooding concerns associated with the brook. The eastern branch of Blind Brook flows from the King Street athle5tic fields to the lower pond of Blind Brook near Bowman Avenue. Flood prone streets and/or properties in Rye Brook are located on Wyman Street,Wyman Street North,Brookridge Court,Brook Lane,Avon Circle,Candy Lane,Rock Ridge Drive, and Acker Drive, all located near Blind Brook. Driveways on small bridges travelling over the Blind Brook off Lincoln Avenue also flood. Homes on Rock Ridge Drive have repeatedly flooded from water rising from the Eastern Branch of the Blind Brook. Some of the Wyman Street and Rock Ridge Drive homes have DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-5 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook experiences repeated flooding during extended rainstorms. The village notes the possibility of acquiring or raising up flood prone homes on Wyman Street and Rock Ridge Drive if funding became available. Reports and plans that evaluate various flood mitigation methods have included: • Stormwater Analysis- Eastern Branch Blind Brook (Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, 2002) - Evaluated various locations and proposed projects to reduce flooding on the Eastern Branch of Blind Brook. • Project Report, Flood Mitigation Study, Bowman Avenue Dam Site (Chas H. Sells, Inc., 2008) — evaluated different options to detain water at the upper and lower ponds at Bowman Avenue and properties near Brook Lane and Avon Circle. Project Report, Flood Mitigation Study, Lower Pond Supplemental (Chas H. Sells, Inc., 2008) — evaluated different options to detain water at the lower pond at Bowman Avenue. • Blind Brook Watershed Management Plan (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2009) — evaluated different options to detain water and the upper and lower ponds at Bowman Avenue, detention at Anderson Hill Road near SUNY Purchase,and non-structural mitigation such as home elevations. • Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis, Study for Resizing the Upper Pond Reservoir (Paul C. Rizzo Engineering, 2012) — evaluated different options to detain water at the upper pond at Bowman Avenue. The sluice gate at the Bowman Avenue dam is complete, and this is believed to provide some flood mitigation along Blind Brook. The detention basin at SUNY Purchase is still being studied and considered as a strong contender for watershed flood mitigation, but this option will be costly. To help advance these previous studies to the present time, the City of Rye retained Parsons Brinkerhoff in 2013. The report `Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Report, Blind Brook Watershed Study" (August 2014) updates the cost estimates for the SUNY Purchase detention pond and Upper Bowman Pond and recommends limited additional work to advance the alternatives. The cost for resizing Upper Pond ranges from$6.1 million to $6.6 million. The cost for two detention ponds on SUNY-Purchase is approximately$0.51 million. In particular, the large detention basin designed to be installed in Purchase for flood mitigation along Blind Brook would mainly help the City of Rye but could benefit homes in Rye Brook on Brook Lane and Wyman Street. Numerous flood mitigation projects have been completed as a result of a flood mitigation study prepared for the village (Stormwater Analysis of'Blind Brook East Branch, by Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, for Village of Rye Brook,November 2002). Capital projects completed as a result of this study include: • An underground stormwater detention system beneath the King Street Athletic Field project. • Improvements to the stormwater system from King Street through Loch Lane, and in Phillips Pond near Beachwood Circle. • Construction of a new detention pond between Edgewood Drive and Bluebird Hollow. The condominiums on Avon Circle have flood risk with the East Branch Blind Brook flowing beneath the property and underneath Westchester Avenue in a culvert. Residents had to be evacuated during the flood of April 2007. This area was studied in the 2002 Dolph Rotfeld Engineering Report as well as the 2008 Chas Sells report. Remaining projects to be completed for the East Branch of Blind Brook include the Avon Circle/Westchester Avenue culvert replacement, the dredging of a private pond at Hidden Falls described in Dolph's report, and a review of culverts from Hidden Falls and extending to Argyle Road. DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-6 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Approximately 95% of the village roads have drainage systems. Roads that experience flooding from poor drainage include Anderson Hill Road, Bowman Road at low spots,Westchester Avenue at low spots, and King Street near#1100 where a pond approaches the road and the roads diverges from the NY-CT state line. Detailed descriptions of areas with flood risk were provided to the County by the Village. These are listed below: East Branch of Blind Brook The Village reports that flooding associated with the East Branch of Blind Brook affects Rock Ridge Drive, Concord Place, Acker Drive, Woodland Drive, Loch Lane, and Beechwood Boulevard. According to the village, a tributary brook feeding the East Branch of Blind Brook bordering the rear yards of properties located at Loch Lane elevates approximately three to five feet and overtakes the surrounding topography causing uncontrolled flow over the roadway and floods an area encompassing the circle where Loch Lane, Beechwood Boulevard, Woodland Drive, Edgewood Drive and Hillandale Road intersect. A sewer pipe surcharges during a two-inch or greater storm. Flooding is partially centered around a small pond at 17 Loch Lane. The respondent further states that nearby Rich Manor Park acts as a retention area and floods, and water spills into properties at Rock Ridge Drive and impacts the garages, driveways,basements and lower floors. Two 6-inch- diameter culverts carrying the East Branch of Blind Brook at Acker Drive, immediately south of Rich Manor Park, can get overwhelmed and water overtakes the roadway. Approximately two feet of water floods the road and can cut off approximately 18 single-family residences from emergency services. Woodland Drive backyards also flood and one property basement reportedly flooded three times in 2011 due to"overwhelming" street runoff, overtaken storm drains and rear yard flooding. This area also is within a 100-year flood zone. The village believes that approximately eleven residential units have been damaged by flooding with six to eight of these flooded more than once. The approximate depth of flooding is eight to ten inches at Beechwood Circle and two to three feet at Rich Manor Park. Inundation usually lasts four to 12 hours. The Village reports that flooding associated with the East Branch of Blind Brook can also affect the Avon Circle (Rye Ridge) Condominiums in larger storms. According to the Village, Avon Circle is at a bottleneck of the East Branch of Blind Brook, which borders the rear yards of the condominiums. The brook crossing under Westchester Avenue restricts flow and moderate to severe storms generate inundation in this area to depths of a "few feet" to 10 feet. Inundation floods basements and, in some case, to the first floors of residential units. Debris is commonly contained in the flood waters. The brook reportedly elevates approximately three to 10 feet and overtakes the surrounding properties. The first floors of some units are only a few feet above grade, and the area is in a designated 100-year flood zone. Approximately 85 residential units have been damaged multiple times by flooding. In addition, building utilities such as heating, electrical and telephone systems are at low elevations and can be damaged. Main Branch of Blind Brook The Village reports that flooding associated with Blind Brook affects Brook Lane and certain driveways on small bridges that go over Lincoln Avenue. Four to six single-family residences along Brook Lane have experienced repetitive flooding from Blind Brook. The Village reports that during extraordinarily severe storms the brook's water level rises eight to 10 feet. The brook is lined with a rock retaining wall. It surcharges through people's rear yards and the entire area is generally flat in the floodplain. Many of these residences are on concrete slabs with no basements. The roadway gets flooded and has been impassable during several storms. Street storm drains are directed to the brook but are ineffective once head pressure in the brook prohibits drainage, so the road starts to flood. Floodwater depths on the road and elsewhere reach up to three feet during severe storms and lasts six to 12 hours. The area is in a designated 100-year flood zone. DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-7 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook The Village reports that flooding associated with both branches of the Blind Brook affects Wyman Street and Brookridge Court. The Blind Brook overtakes the rock wall-lined banks of the river and jumps the channel walls as well as seeps through drain openings at the end of Wyman Street. The brook elevation rises three to five feet during severe storms and then spills onto the road. When head pressure in the brook prohibits drainage from the road infrastructure, the drains become ineffective and the roads impassable. Once the road starts to flood, some properties and homes along it also experience flooding. Wyman Street suffers repeated flooding from Blind Brook (seven or eight times over the past decade and following storms with greater than 2.5 inches of rainfall, according to the Village). The yards of approximately four to six single-family residences, which have basements, experience flooding during severe storms. Besides the road becoming impassable, asphalt in the road and driveways is sometimes damaged and debris is deposited in the yards and water damage occurs in garages. During the most severe storms, the first floors of some homes might be compromised according to the respondent. The area is in a designated 100-year flood zone. Unnamed Tributary of Blind Brook The Village reports that flooding associated with a tributary of Blind Brook affects the intersection of Rockinghorse Trail and Country Ridge Drive. According to the Village, the tributary brook feeding Blind Brook bordering the rear yards of properties located at Country Ridge Drive has elevated to approximately five to six feet and flooded the surrounding topography causing flow over the adjacent property owners' rear and front yards and flooding the intersection of Rockinghorse Trail and Country Club Drive. Numerous basements have been flooded,rear yards have been damaged,patio furniture washed away, and debris deposited on these properties. The roadway is submerged under approximately 12 inches of water and is impassable during such events. Because roadway is flooded, storm drains cannot handle any rainfall, therefore water flows down driveways. This brook flows as an open channel but then is piped under Rockinghorse Trail, where it daylights again on the other side of the road in the rear of a residential property. The approximate depth of flooding is 8 to 10 inches lasting approximately four to six hours after a storm event. The respondent stated three residential units experience repeated damage from flooding. The impacted area is not within a designated flood zone. Dams There are three regulated dams in Rye Brook: the Bowman Avenue dam, the Blind Brook Country Club dam and the Hidden Falls at Rye Brook dam: • The Bowman Avenue dam's outlet control structure is owned by the City of Rye and has been retrofitted with a sluicegate as part of a flood mitigation project being undertaken jointly by the City and the Village. The retrofit project is designed to increase water storage capacity during storms in the impoundment immediately upstream from the dam on City property in Rye Brook, to the benefit of properties within both municipalities, south of the dam, that experience chronic flooding from the Blind Brook. • Both the Bowman Avenue and Hidden Falls dams have a State hazard classification of B, or "intermediate hazard." Per Part 673 of the Environmental Conservation Law, the failure of an intermediate hazard dam may result in damage to isolated homes, main highways and minor railroads; the interruption of important utilities; or is otherwise likely to pose the threat of personal injury and/or substantial economic loss or substantial environmental damage. However, loss of human life is not expected with failure of an intermediate hazard dam. The City of Rye may have an EAP for Blind Brook Dam. A draft was reviewed about a year ago. The status of this EAP is not known. If the Hidden Falls dam failed, downstream properties like the Avon Circle condos would flood. • The Blind Brook Country Club dam has a State hazard classification of C or "high hazard." State ---- regulations note that failure of a high hazard dam may result in widespread or serious damage to DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-8 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook homes; damage to main highways, industrial or commercial buildings, railroads or important utilities; or substantial environmental damage, including the potential loss of human life or widespread economic loss. An EAP was prepared but may not be on file with the village. Wildfires The village is completely served by a public water system and few (if any) homes are served by wells. The water supply is derived from interconnections with the systems located to the north and west (serving Harrison) and east(serving Greenwich). Drought declarations in two states could impact the village. The last drought warnings were issued about ten years ago. One commercial building has fire ponds, but this is the exception in the village. The compost facility has an elevated fire risk due to the composting occurring there. Non-Natural Hazards The village is concerned that its evaluation of "manmade" hazards be continued from its initial Hazard Mitigation Plan. For the most part, most of these hazards have not changed significantly in terms of risk and capabilities, but some may have. For example, Jet Blue entered the market at the airport subsequent to the adoption of the initial Hazard Mitigation Plan, and the sizes and types of aircraft using the airport have changed as a result. However, the number of commercial flights per hour has not changed, as it is capped. Private non-commercial flights are not capped. In general, this annex supports the continued concept of mitigation as applicable to non-natural hazards. DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-9 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook 9.40.5 Capability Assessment This section identifies the following capabilities of the local jurisdiction: • Planning and regulatory capability • Administrative and technical capability • Fiscal capability • Community classification • National Flood Insurance Program • Integration of Mitigation Planning into Existing and Future Planning Mechanisms The Village of Rye Brook has indicated that the community's political leadership is "very willing" to enact policies and programs related to hazard mitigation that reduce hazard vulnerabilities. Village staff believe that the Village's capabilities to effectively implement hazard mitigation strategies to reduce hazard vulnerabilities is "high" for planning and regulatory capability, fiscal capability, and community political capability. Town staff believe that the local capability with regards to administrative and technical capability and community resiliency capability is also"high." In November 2012, the Town of Rye together with the Villages of Rye Brook, Mamaroneck and Port Chester completed a report("Review of Governance and Service Alternatives")analyzing options for a potential Town dissolution, assessing the financial implications of such dissolution, and outlining shared service alternatives for the three municipalities within the Town. No action has been taken on dissolution. If the Town of Rye were to be dissolved, certain services may expand (often managed jointly with Port Chester) in Rye Brook to take on the services that are currently performed by the Town of Rye. Planning and Regulatory Capability The table below summarizes the regulatory tools that are available to the municipality. Table 9.40-6. Planning and Regulatory Tools Code Citation and Comments D.you Authority (Code Chapter,date of . Tool/Program have this? (local,county,state, Dept./Agency name of plan,explanation of (code,ordinance,plan) (Y/N) federal) Responsible authority,etc.) Building Code Y Local,State Building Chapter 91 Department Zoning Ordinance Y Local Building Chapter 250 Department Subdivision Ordinance Y Local Building Chapter 204 Department Engineering NFIP Flood Damage Y Federal,State,Local Department, Chapter 130 Protection Ordinance Building Department Engineering Chapter 130;State mandated BFE+2 Department, for single and two-family residential NFIP-Freeboard Y Federal,State,Local Building construction,BFE+2 for all other Department construction types Engineering NFIP-Cumulative Department, Chapter 130;Cumulative substantial Substantial Damages Y Local Building damage and improvements defined Department Special Purpose Engineering Chapter 118 Erosion&Sediment Ordinances(c.g.wetlands, 1 Local Department Control,Chapter 213 Steep Slope F* DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-10 July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Table 9.40-6. Planning and Regulatory Tools Code Citation and Comments Doyou Authority (Code Chapter,date of adoption, .. .g . .. Responsible critical or sensitive areas) Protection,Chapter 216 Storm Sewers,Chapter 217 Stormwater Management,Chapter 235 Trees, Chapter 235 Wetlands and Watercourses Growth Management N N/A N/A N/A Village Board, Floodplain Management/ Building Basin Plan Y Local Department, Chapter 130 Engineering Department Stormwater Management Y Local Public Works Chapter 217 Plan/Ordinance Comprehensive Plan/ Planning Board Master Plan Y Local and Village Comp Plan adopted 2014 Board Capital Improvements Plan 1 Local Administration Six-year plan Site Plan Review Engineering Requirements 1 Local Department Chapter 209 Habitat Conservation Plan N N/A N/A N/A Economic Development N N/A N/A N/A Plan Emergency Response Plan N N/A N/A N/A Post Disaster Recovery N N/A N/A N/A Plan Post Disaster Recovery N N/A N/A N/A Ordinance Real Estate Disclosure Y Local,Federal Engineering NYS mandate req. Department Other(e.g.steep slope ordinance,local Planning Board, waterfront revitalization Y Local(steep slope) Engineering Chapter 213 Department plan) Coastal Erosion Control N N/A N/A N/A Districts Shoreline Management N N/A N/A N/A Plan Planning Board, Sediment Control '?? Local Engineering Chapter 118 Department Mutual Aid Plan in place for entire Mutual Aid Plan Y County Administration County (1) NYS Subdivision laws provide a general framework,Gut allow roam for local ordinances and interpretation. Administrative and Technical Capability The table below summarizes potential staff and personnel resources available to the Village. DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-11 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Table 9.40-7. Administrative and Technical Capabilities Available Staff/Personnel Resources (Y or N) Department/ Po Planner(s)or Engineer(s)with knowledge of land development and land management practices 1 Engineering Engineer(s)or Professional(s)trained in construction practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure 1 Engineering,Building Department Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural 1 Engineering,Planning Consultant hazards NFIP Floodplain Administrator Y Engineering Surveyor(s) N Personnel skilled or trained in"GIS"applications Y Engineering Scientist familiar with natural hazards in the County. N Emergency Manager Y Police Chief,Administrator Grant Writer(s) Y Administration Staff with expertise or training in benefit/cost analysis N Professionals trained in conducting damage assessments N Fiscal Capability The table below summarizes financial resources available to the Village of Rye Brook. Table 9.40-8. Fiscal Capabilities Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No/Don't Know) Community Development Block Grants(CDBG) No. HUD is preventing funding to County administrators. Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes Authority to Levy Taxes for specific purposes Yes User fees for water,sewer,gas or electric service No Impact Fees for homebuyers or developers of new development/homes Yes Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes Incur debt through special tax bonds No Incur debt through private activity bonds No Withhold public expenditures in hazard-prone areas No Mitigation grant programs Yes Other AL N/A Community Classifications The table below summarizes classifications for community program available to the Village. Table 9.40-9. Community Classifications Program Community Rating System(CRS) NP N/A Building Code Effectiveness Grading TBD Schedule(BCEGS) Public Protection NP DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-12 IN July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Program Classification Date Classified Storm Ready NP' N/A Firewise NP" N/A N/A=Not applicable. NP=Not participating. -=Unavailable. TBD=To be determined The classifications listed above relate to the community's ability to provide effective services to lessen its vulnerability to the hazards identified. These classifications can be viewed as a gauge of the community's capabilities in all phases of emergency management(preparedness,response, recovery and mitigation) and are used as an underwriting parameter for determining the costs of various forms of insurance. The CRS class applies to flood insurance while the BCEGS and Public Protection classifications apply to standard property insurance. CRS classifications range on a scale of 1 to 10 with class 1 being the best possible classification, and class 10 representing no classification benefit. Firewise classifications include a higher classification when the subject property is located beyond 1000 feet of a creditable fire hydrant and is within 5 road miles of a recognized Fire Station. Criteria for classification credits are outlined in the following documents: • The Community Rating System Coordinators Manual • The Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule • The ISO Mitigation online ISO's Public Protection website at http://www.isomitigation.com/ppc/0000/PpcOOOI.html • The National Weather Service Storm Ready website at http://www.weather.gov/stormready/howto.htm • The National Firewise Communities website at http://firewise.org/ National Flood Insurance Program The following section provides details on the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) as implemented within the municipality: NFIP Floodplain Administrator: The Village Engineer or his designee is the appointed local administrator. Flood Vulnerability Summary Rye Brook staff maintain informal lists/inventories of properties that have been damaged by floods, and they are aware of the areas of highest risk along Blind Brook and the East Branch of Blind Brook. Substantial damage estimates were not made by the Floodplain Administrator after Hurricane Irene or other events. Currently, there are no residents interested in mitigation (elevation or acquisition) in the village, although the Village is interested in mitigation of homes along Blind Brook and the East Branch of Blind Brook. Resources The Floodplain Administrator is the sole person assuming responsibilities of floodplain administration and they feel that they are adequately supported and trained to fulfill their responsibilities. The Floodplain Administrator is supported by the staff of the Public Works Department. Most administration services include permit review, inspections, recordkeeping with GTS, education, and outreach. The Floodplain Administrator- is attends continuing education and/or certification training on floodplain management. The Engineering Department provides education and outreach to the community regarding flood hazards/risk, and flood risk reduction through NFTP insurance, mitigation, etc. through quarterly newsletters, information on the Village website, social media, and mailings to residents. DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-13 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Compliance History The Village is believed to be in good standing with the NFIP. Residents have occasionally called the village about flood insurance or to ask about elevation certificates. Regulatory The Village's floodplain management regulations/ordinances exceed the FEMA minimum requirements and are consistent with the State minimum requirements. There are local ordinances, plans and programs that support floodplain management and meet the NFIP requirements. The Village is not interested in the CRS program at this time. Integration of Hazard Mitigation into Existing and Future Planning Mechanisms For a community to succeed in reducing long-term risk, hazard mitigation must be integrated into the day-to- day local government operations. As part of this planning effort, each community was surveyed to obtain a better understanding of their community's progress in plan integration. A summary is provided below. In addition, the community identified specific integration activities that will be incorporated into municipal procedures. In general, capabilities have changed slightly since the initial Hazard Mitigation Plan. For example, the police force has been reduced by two (to 26) and the public works/recreation crew has been reduced by three. However,municipal departments have the same functions as those outlined in 2007. Planning In the fall of 2012,the Village of Rye Brook began the process of preparing its first-ever Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan builds on prior planning efforts (i.e. Vision Plan) and establishes a policy guide for land use within the village. The primary goal of the Rye Brook Comprehensive Plan is to maintain and improve the overall quality of life for village residents by promoting sustainable development; encouraging a stable and enduring economic base;providing for safety, health and education; preserving the natural, cultural, recreational and historic assets of Rye Brook; enhancing the design of the already-built and natural environment; and advocating for smart-growth design principles in the planning process. The Rye Brook Comprehensive Plan is complete and was accepted by the Village Board on June 24,2014. Section 5.5 of the Comprehensive Plan is entitled "Hazard Mitigation" and describes the previous Rye Brook Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Comprehensive Plan also includes considerable discussion about the flooding along Blind Brook and the potential options for flood mitigation. Comprehensive Plan Goal#2 under"Natural Environment"is"Maintain and improve the quality of the Blind Brook and the Long Island Sound watershed." The policy statement attached to this goal is "Address stormwater management from a regional and village-wide perspective to reduce flooding impacts." Given the above discussion, elements of' hazard mitigation are considered fully integrated in the Comprehensive Plan. Upon adoption, this hazard mitigation plan will be made available to applicable Village departments as a planning tool to be used in conjunction with existing documents. The Village Administrator's office will be responsible for ensuring that the actions identified in this hazard mitigation plan are incorporated into ongoing Village planning activities, and that the information and requirements of this hazard mitigation plan are incorporated into existing planning documents within five years from the date of adoption or when other plans are updated,whichever is sooner. Regulatory and Enforcement Ordinances updated since the initial Hazard Mitigation Plan include the following: aDMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-14 July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook • Local Law#1-2011 -Stormwater regulations • Local Law#5-2010 Sprinkler code update • Local Law#12-2009-Stormwater property maintenance • Local Law#10-2009 Sprinkler code update • Local Law#14-2007-Stormwater management code updates • Local Law#12-2007-Flood damage prevention update Upon adoption, this hazard mitigation plan will be made available to applicable Village departments as a planning tool to be used in conjunction with existing regulations. It is expected that revisions to other Village plans and regulations such as department annual budgets and the Village code may reference this plan and its updates. The Village Administrator's office will be responsible for assigning appropriate Village officials to update portions of the Emergency Response Plan and the Village Code to include the provisions from this Plan if it is determined that such updates are appropriate. However, should a general revision be too cumbersome or cost prohibitive, simple addendums to these documents may be added that include the provisions of this hazard mitigation plan. Operational and Administration Emergency Communications The village uses the GovDelivery system for emergency notifications, along with email blasts. Flood risk zones are specific in the database. Wind Events,Tree Management,and Power Outages Tree management capabilities include an on-staff Certified Arborist who also works with outside contractors for maintenance and trimming, and also ConEd's ongoing trimming program. ConEd most recently trimmed trees in the village in May 2014. The village has a compost yard where tree debris is managed. All of the village's tree debris after Hurricanes Irene and Sandy was brought to this compost facility. ConEd will typically send its liaison to help coordinate these efforts. Utilities are also required to be placed underground in new developments. The Public Works Department manages 55 miles of village roads. After storms, the village opens main roads for ConEd to reach areas that need attention. Then the village opens smaller roads and ConEd continues to restore power as the highway crew works. An emergency plan is followed to ensure that trees are evaluated prior to cutting branches. All parties (Certified Arborist, Public Works, and ConED) reportedly work well together. Nevertheless,the Villages notes that ConEd could harden its utilities in some locations, and microgrids may be helpful in some locations in the village. Winter Storms Snow removal is handled by a crew of 12 personnel driving 12 trucks. The village also has several dump trucks for snow management. The village has not found it necessary to shovel roofs. Salt is used on roads either directly or through brine applications. Over the winter of 2013-2014, the village ran low just like many other nearby communities. The Village believes that regional salt sharing may be beneficial for communities in Westchester County. DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-15 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Flooding The Village of Rye Brook has actively studied and responded to flooding issues. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prepared a Blind Brook Watershed Management Plan in 2009 to identify specific flood mitigation alternatives based on an assessment of existing flood impacts. Recommended improvements included a large stormwater detention basin upstream of Anderson Hill Road next to SUNY Purchase, and improvements/modifications to the dam across Blind Brook at Bowman Avenue. In 2010, the Village, together with the City of Rye, studied the Bowman Avenue upper and lower ponds and the areas immediately north (including around Brook Lane and Avon Circle). The study's outcome was a flood mitigation project to retrofit the outlet control structure of the Bowman Avenue dam with a sluice gate, following up on the Army Corps plan and an earlier feasibility study. The dam is on City property within the village, and the project is believed to benefit properties in both municipalities south of the dam. Construction of the sluice gate was completed in 2012,partially funded by the County and State. Drainage considerations are addressed prior to construction as part of the site plan review process. The Public Works Department conducts maintenance of drainage systems and clears bridges and culverts of debris to ensure proper conveyance of stormwater as needed. Drainage and flooding complaints are typically routed to the Engineering Department. The Village Engineering staff intermittently review the need to install new drainage systems or upsize existing drainage systems. Culverts and bridges are replaced on a case-by-case basis. Recently-completed projects include the following: • Edgewood Drive detention basin(2009;valve added in 2013) • Rye Hills drainage improvements • Jacqueline Lane drainage improvements • Loch Lane drainage improvements • Phillips Pond channel improvements • Eagles Bluff drainage improvements • Harkness Park drainage improvements • Loch Lane/King Street drainage improvements • Winding Wood Road drainage improvements • King Street ball field retention Wildfires The village is completely served by a public water system and few (if any) homes are served by wells. Wildfire fighting capabilities are believed adequate. DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-16 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook 9.40.6 Mitigation Strategy and Prioritization This section discusses past mitigations actions and status, describes proposed hazard mitigation initiatives, and prioritization. Past Mitigation Initiative Status The following table indicates progress on the community's mitigation strategy identified in the expired Rye Brook Hazard Mitigation Plan. A total of 93 initiatives were listed in the plan. Actions that are carried forward as part of this plan update are included in the following subsection in its own table with prioritization. Previous actions that are now on-going programs and capabilities are indicated as such in the following table and may also be found under`Capability Assessment' presented previously in this annex. Table 9.40-10. Past Mitigation Initiative Status Description Status Review Comments Ensure compliance with all life safety codes Not all inspections need to be annual. Village through diligent inspections. Seek to inspect all Capability follows a one-year cycle for properties with commercial uses annually. assembly uses and three-year cycle for other commercial properties. Consider incentives to encourage the retrofitting Although this is relatively straightforward when of existing buildings within the Village Fire Discontinued new permits are requested,the Village cannot Limits to meet current NYS Building Code enforce this for existing buildings that are not requirements seeking permits. Consider providing incentives for the installation The Village sprinkler code is stricter than the of sprinklers where not required by code. Discontinued state code. It is not realistic to provide incentives for additional installations. Village follows a one-year cycle for properties Conduct inventory of buildings not meeting Capability with assembly uses and three-year cycle for current NYS Building Code requirements. other commercial properties. Buildings that do not meet code must take corrective action. Conduct inventory of sites or facilities that may Only a few sites have this risk. The regular be prone or vulnerable to explosions. Capability inspections allow the Village to monitor this risk. Enhance fire safety awareness information and Fire safety is posted to the Village web site and make such information more available to local Capability aired on cable TV periodically. Afire safety homeowners and businesses via village website week is held each year. and Cable TV. Enhance building and fire inspections to ensure Inspections are believed as robust as possible. compliance with applicable building code and fire However,the Village needs a compelling reason safety laws.Promote voluntary inspections of Capability/Discontinued to inspect buildings that are not required by law buildings,where not required by law,with amnesty provision. to be inspected. Utilize the village's Safe Housing Task Force to identify unsafe residential practices and improve In Progress/Capability This is ongoing. through public education. Create improved map of village roads and access Completed Completed. routes to/from adjoining communities. Encourage and enhance training of Fire This is ongoing. The Fire Department Department Personnel through joint drills and Capability participates in joint County-run exercises,as response planning. well. Continue to evaluate roads for emergency vehicle Capability This is ongoing. access. Identify locations requiring alternative emergency An example is the"Arbors PUD"access road evacuation routes and seek additional access in Capability that was developed during an update to the site conjunction with future development. plan amendment. Seek participation in Westchester County Airport This is ongoing. The Fire and Police safety and emergency response planning. Capability Departments participate in joint County-run ��----�� exercises that include the airport. +may' DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-17 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Table 9.40-10. Past Mitigation Initiative Status Description Status Review Comments Participate in emergency response training This is ongoing. The Fire and Police exercise in conjunction with the airport. Capability Departments participate in joint County-run exercises that include the airport. Work with Westchester County to enhance timely communication with village emergency The Village is part of the County 60 Control responders.Seek to be altered whenever an Capability network for emergency response. incident may be developing(i.e.airplane-in- trouble)prior to a call for assistance. Acquire and place in service a Reverse 911 calling system at the Rye Brook Police A call/email/text notification system is in place. Headquarters that allows targeted notification of Capability The village uses the GovDelivery system for residents of developing incidents that might affect emergency notifications. them. Encourage the development of a regional monitoring system which storage and movement No Progress/ This is believed unnecessary given the level of of hazardous materials is recorded.Keep Discontinued activity that is likely occurring in the Village. monitoring system up to date by supplementing inspector reports with self-reporting, Share all known hazardous material storage with Building,Police,Fire,EMS and Highway Complete Complete and updated as needed. Departments. Identify sensitive facilities within the hazardous No Progress/ This is believed unnecessary given the level of materials corridors and near known hazardous Discontinued activity that is likely occurring in the Village. material sites. Participate in annual training and safety awareness programs associated with the El Paso Capability Village personal are periodically trained in Corporation's Tennessee Gas Pipeline. relation to this pipeline. Coordinate Tennessee Gas Pipeline response drills with the Town of Greenwich,Ct.Seek Deferred Deferred better location maps and ensure adjacent property owner awareness. Conduct inspections of sites with or vulnerable to Only a few sites have this risk. The regular hazardous materials. Capability inspections allow the Village to monitor this risk. Increase traffic enforcement in higher risk Capability Ongoing regions. Consider retrofitting of existing critical facilities The current critical facility capabilities(relative to withstand impacts associated with hazardous Discontinued to spills)are believed sufficient. materials spills. Identify storm drain outfalls near or along major The Village has worked with surrounding transportation routes or known hazardous jurisdictions to identify inflows and outflows materials sites and provide mitigation measures to Complete affecting the village;and has a list of service prevent the conveyance of spilled hazardous providers to respond to spills. materials into adjacent waterways. Ensure that hazardous material sites have in place Capability Ongoing through inspections. proper spill mitigation and containment measures. Provide information to residents and businesses regarding hazardous material risks and how to This is accomplished somewhat with the fire safety information posted to the Village web site respond in the event a disaster occurs. Include Capability and aired on cable TV periodically. The seasonal safety awareness information in all GovDelivery emergency notification system also newsletters and reference more detailed information on village web pages. assists with this. Link from village's web pages to county,state Capability Several links are provided. and federal emergency response sites. Arrange for use of school district buses in case Deferred Deferred with modification that the Village will evacuations are required. determine if this is feasible. Arrange for use of village hotels should other Deferred with modification that the Village will ---- shelter sites become unavailable. Deferred determine if this is feasible. DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-18 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Table 9.40-10. Past Mitigation Initiative Status Description Status Review Comments Enhance training of emergency service providers Emergency service providers receive sufficient and pursue funding for appropriate protective gear Capability training and equipment. and equipment. Identify or be provided advanced warning of the The Village's approach is to be ready for types of hazardous materials traveling on major Discontinued incidents if they should occur. transportation routes. Provide emergency service teams and others Capability/ This is ongoing for emergency response teams unable to relocate during hazardous materials Discontinued but not feasible for residents. events with necessary protective equipment. Through hazardous material education,encourage This is accomplished somewhat with the fire residents of single and two-family homes to store Capability safety information posted to the Village web site and use hazardous materials safely. and aired on cable TV periodically. Create improved street maps that identify Discontinued Current maps are adequate. alternate evacuation routes. Provide detailed storm drain maps to emergency The Village is conducting this mapping with a responders to identify direction of flow in case of In Progress spills. grant. Provide topographic maps to emergency responders to identify low-lying areas that might Discontinued Current maps are adequate. require evacuation. Coordinate strategic placement of clean up materials and protective equipment with the Discontinued Current storage locations are appropriate. Westchester County Hazardous Materials Team. Provide training and supplemental protective equipment/materials to the Highway Department Training and equipment are ongoing and (i.e.ability to block downstream drains in case of Capability available,respectively. spill). Conduct joint drills with the Westchester County This is ongoing. The Fire and Police Hazardous Materials Team and adjoining Capability Departments participate in joint County-run communities. exercises that include the airport. Conduct annual inspections of alternative emergency exits to residential and commercial Deferred Deferred developments to ensure availability and user awareness. Identify and mitigate,to extent feasible,all essential village facilities located within the 100- Discontinued These facilities are not in the SFHA. year flood zone(i.e.A.J.Posillipo Community Center and Highway Garage). Continue with Storm Water Drainage projects in Nearly all of the stormwater projects outlined in problem areas of the village in order to diminish the 2002 report have been completed. These risk of flooding as identified in 2002 Storm Water In Progress(80%) include ball field retention,Loeb Lane drainage analysis of East Branch Blind brook(Dolph lines,Loch Lane/Phillips Pond stabilization,and Rotfeld Engineering,P.C.) the Edgewood detention basin. Acquire undeveloped flood prone property and These studies have been completed. A new explore joint project with City of Rye to enhance In Progress action item is provided below in the table of storm water detention at Bowman Avenue. Proposed Hazard Mitigation initiatives. Inspect annually all dams and storm water Discontinued/ The Village does not have the ability to inspect detention structures in village. Capability dams,but does inspect its stormwater facilities. The Village is aggressive with tree removal, Inspect village trees on regular basis to ensure Capability trimming,and pruning in the ROW. proper trimming and removal as necessary. Furthermore,the Village will only plant trees that do not grow into overhead wires. Consider local legislation establishing stormwater management requirements to minimize increases in stormwater runoff from land development to Capability The Village has amended and revised its stormwater management local law as needed. reduce flooding,siltation and help maintain the integrity of stream channels. DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-19 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Table 9.40-10. Past Mitigation Initiative Status Description Status Review Comments Provide information to residents and businesses The Village has provided information via its regarding the risk of severe storms and flooding. Capability web site,on cable TV,and through the Distribute information on damage prevention and emergency response before a disaster occurs. emergency notification system. Develop links off of the village's web pages to These links are in place. They include FEMA, county,state and federal emergency response sites Capability SEMA,and the County emergency to help residents prepare for hazardous events. management. Maintain a stock of sand bags to be used in a In Progress(50%) The Village has bags provided by the County, flooding event and store at the highway garage. although excess sand is not available. Upgrade the capability of municipal(Village Hall, Police and Fire Stations)to wive as an emergency The Village Hall is the EOC and the Community response center.This will require some Capability Center is used for warming and charging(it is modifications including acquisition of adequate not an overnight shelter)and as an information center. Both locations are served by generators. emergency power generators. Review emergency shelter options identified in The Community Center is used for warming and Rye Brook's Disaster Preparedness Plan. charging(it is not an overnight shelter). Port Determine suitability of each for various Capability Chester High School is the regional overnight emergencies and upgrade facilities as necessary shelter for Rye Brook and Port Chester. The (i.e.emergency generators,pre-positioned shelter is staffed by the ARC. Both are served supplies,etc.). by generators. Maintain trained shelter management team (annual refresher training). Capability ARC is trained. Explore feasibility of additional emergency shelter options in conjunction with neighboring Discontinued Existing facilities are sufficient. communities. Obtain materials and equipment for mitigating impact of hazard event and minimizing the discomfort of the public.Work with other Capability Capability per the discussions provided above in municipalities or organizations that can supply this table. aid.Assess need for food and water storage. Contact Red Cross as possible supplier. Use resources provided by county level Capability These are available as needed. emergency response teams. New generators are available in the Community Center and Village Hall/Police Station. The water company's pumping station lost power and the generator failed during Irene. This is a major problem because the pressure Consider methods of maintaining electricity at In Progress(50%) zone does not have a storage tank;it is served designated locations. only by the pumping station. The village would like to upgrade the highway garage generator. The Village is interested in microgrids for power supply redundancy.New action items are provided below in the table of Proposed Hazard Mitigation Initiatives. When possible,identify or provide advanced The Village Emergency Response Team meets warning to residents if a storm presents particular Capability in advance of storms to coordinate appropriate notifications per the capabilities described risks(i.e.tides,snow on roof,snow shoveling). above. The Village Emergency Response Team meets Encourage residents to react to severe weather in Capability in advance of storms to coordinate appropriate a safe and responsible way. notifications per the capabilities described above. Encourage residents to maintain emergency The Village does this continuously through its supplies and develop individual emergency Capability web site and using displays at the Village Hall response plans. and other locations. Develop a procedure to address companion Capability The Village provides information on approved ��--a--ni��mal evacuation and recovery and inform shelters. may' DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-20 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Table 9.40-10. Past Mitigation Initiative Status Description Status Review Comments residents about temporary shelter locations to house these displaced animals. Encourage residents with respiratory problems to Capability The Village provides a cooling center on days of limit exposure to the sun and stay in a cool place. extreme heat. Inform residents to drink plenty of fluids and The Village cannot provide this level of beware of any signs of dehydration of days with Discontinued individualized advice to residents. extreme heat. Encourage residents to ensure pets and animals Discontinued The Village cannot provide this level of are properly cared for in extreme heat. individualized advice to residents. Use the services of a cooling center for residents Capability The Village provides a cooling center on days of who do not have access to air conditioning. extreme heat. See above("Consider methods of maintaining Develop a plan to provide a standby generator to electricity at designated locations"). New action all critical facilities for the Village. In Progress items are provided below in the table of Proposed Hazard Mitigation Initiatives. Encourage residents to check their batteries in the The Village cannot provide this level of fire and carbon monoxide alarms and flash lights Discontinued individualized advice to residents. However, in case of a heat related power failure. this is somewhat accomplished during fire safety week. Continue to ensure all Steep slope permit applications adhere to the strictness standards for Capability Ongoing. possible earthquakes on the property. Continue to enforce and strengthen the Rye Brook Building Code. Capability Ongoing. Conduct discrete inventory of potential terrorist targets within and near the village and implement Capability The Village maintains a list of facilities. appropriate security measures. Improve security measures at emergency response Complete Security is increased over time. facilities and other sensitive facilities. Monitor changes in flight paths to Westchester County or other regional airports that may impact Capability Ongoing. the village. Improve communication among regional responding agencies and enhance ability to alert Complete Capability has increased over time. residents regarding terrorism. Encourage regional response drills on an annual This is ongoing. The Fire and Police basis regarding terrorism. Capability Departments participate in joint County-run exercises that include potential terrorism. Equip highway department with protective gear Highway Department personnel are provided regarding terrorism. Capability with equipment that is appropriate for their potential needs. Enhance training of Police,Fire,EMS personnel. Capability Ongoing. When a water supply emergency is declared,the Village is subject to the Drought Response Plan (`Drought Response Plan of the Connecticut- American and New York-American Water Companies,"1995,and now served by United Water)and the water use restrictions imposed Consider amending local legislation to encourage pursuant to the plan. Copies of the Drought greater water conservation practices in non-and Discontinued Response Plan and the water use restrictions are drought emergency times. available from the Village Clerk. This plan recognizes that the Village Comp Plan states that"the Village should explore adopting planning guidelines and policies to mandate more water conservation,and should coordinate ---- with regional experts on effective and innovative DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-21 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Table 9.40-10. Past Mitigation Initiative Status Description Status Review Comments potential tools." Improve coordination with local medical care facilities to determine whether additional support Discontinued Current capabilities are believed sufficient. is necessary in the event of a heat wave or problem with the water supply. Improve coordination with local and regional Complete Capability has increased over time. power service providers. See above f"Consider methods of maintaining Ensure that critical facilities in the village have electricity at designated locations"). New action appropriate backup generation capabilities. In Progress items are provided below in the table of Proposed Hazard Mitigation Initiatives. Enhance training and equipment of emergency service personnel. Capability Ongoing. Retrieve stormwater drainage marking projects to Public education in this matter is believed inform the public of the risk associated with Discontinued sufficient. improper drainage use. Distribute and post information to residents on Ongoing with information posted to the Village what they can do to minimize risk of flooding on Capability web site and via printed information distributed their property. throughout the village. Require all new building in the flood plain to be Capability Per State code. built at least 2 feet above the base flood elevation. Require the use of flood proofing new buildings and existing structures if owner is applying for Capability Per State code. construction permits. Consider revisions to the building code for low lying areas to comply with strict standards to Capability Per State code. reduce the potential for flooding. Routinely clear drainage basins to increase Capability Annual cleaning. storage capacity. Construct new detention basin off Edgewood Drive. Complete Complete. Secure final property easements for Loch Lane drainage improvements. Complete Complete. Explore possible detention basin on Beachwood Discontinued Not believed necessary. Blvd Install new pipe at Avon Circle under Westchester Deferred Deferred. Ave. Explore dredging projects at Rich Manor Park and Discontinued Not believed necessary. Hidden Falls Pond. DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-22 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Completed Mitigation Initiatives not Identified in the Previous Mitigation Strategy The Village of Rye Brook has identified the following as mitigation projects/activities that have been completed, are planned, or on-going within the municipality: • The recently-completed drainage projects listed on page 16. • Updates to the ordinances listed on page 15 • The Comprehensive Plan was developed with a chapter that specifically addresses hazard mitigation Proposed Hazard Mitigation Initiatives for the Plan Update The Village Rye Brook has identified mitigation initiatives that it would like to pursue in the future. Some of these initiatives may be previous actions carried forward for this plan update. These initiatives are dependent upon available funding(grants and local match availability) and may be modified or omitted at any time based on the occurrence of new hazard events and changes in municipal priorities. Table 9.40-11 identifies the municipality's updated local mitigation strategy. As discussed in Section 6, 14 evaluation/prioritization criteria are used to complete the prioritization of mitigation initiatives. For each new mitigation action, a numeric rank is assigned (4, 0, or 1) for each of the 14 evaluation criteria to assist with prioritizing actions as `High', `Medium', or `Low.' Table 9.40-12 below summarizes the evaluation of each mitigation initiative, listed by Action Number. DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-23 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Table 9.40-11. Proposed Hazard Mitigation Initiatives Applies to r New and/or Lead and Existing Hazard(s) Goals Support Estimated Estimated Sources of CA Mitigation Initiative Structures* Mitigated Met Agencies Benefits Cost Funding Timeline Priority New Initiatives Pursue regional sharing of All Village RB-1 salt storage facilities Existing Hazards L5 Admin, High High Municipal DOF Medium SIP ES PW Evaluate locations that may All Village RB-2 be well suited for microgrids Existing Hazards 115 Admin, Medium Medium Municipal Short Medium SIP ES PW Work with ConED to identify All Village RB-3 locations for utility hardening Existing Hazards 1 Admin, High High ConED Short Medium SIP ES PW Upgrade the highway garage EAll Municipal, RB-4 generator Existing Hazards 1,5 PW High High HMA Short High SIP ES Work with United Water to improve water system All Village Municipal, RB-5 pumping station power Existing Hazards 1,5 Admin High High HMA Short High SIP ES redundancies to avoid fature shut-downs Consider acquiring or encouraging the raising up of Village floodprone homes along Admin, Municipal PP, RB-6 Blind Brook and its Existing Flooding 1,2,4 Engineer, High High HMA DOF Medium NSP NR tributaries(Wyman Road, Building Knollwood Road,and Rock Dept. Ridge Drive neighborhoods) Work with other jurisdictions to implement the Blind Brook HMA or Army flood mitigation project Village RB 7 (stormwater pond)in Existing Flooding 1, 4 Admin High High Caps/ DOF Medium SIP SP Purchase at Anderson Hill Federal Road Previous Deferred Initiatives and Modifications of Previous Initiatives Work with other jurisdictions HMA or Army RB-8 to implement the Blind Brook Existing Flooding L2,4 Village High High Corps/ DOF Medium SIP SP flood mitigation project at theAdmin Boman Avenue dam Federal vt Coordinate Tennessee Gas Pipeline response drills with RB-9 the Town of Greenwich,CT. Existing All 1 5 EMD Medium Low Municipal Medium High EAP ES Seek better location maps and Hazards ensure adjacent property owner awareness. ODMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-24 July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Table 9.40-11. Proposed Hazard Mitigation Initiatives Applies to r New and/or Lead and Existing Hazard(s) Goals Support Estimated Estimated Sources of CA Mitigation Initiative Structures* Mitigated Met Agencies Benefits Cost Funding Timeline Priority Determine feasibility of the RB-10 use of school district buses in Existing All 1,5 EMD Medium Low Municipal Medium High EAP ES case evacuations are required. Hazards Determine feasibility of the All R13-1 1 use of village hotels in case Existing Hazards 115 EMD Medium Low Municipal Medium Medium EAP ES sheltering is required. Conduct annual inspections of alternative emergency RB 12 exits to residential and Existing All 1,5 EMD Medium Medium Municipal Medium Medium EAP ES commercial developments to Hazards ensure availability and user awareness. Install new culvert at Avon Municipal, RB-13 Circle and under Westchester Existing Flooding 1,2,4 PW High High HMA DOF Medium SiP SP Ave. Notes: Not all acronvms and abbreviations defined below are included in the table. *Does this mitigation initiative reduce the effects of hazards on new and/or existing buildings and/or infrastructure? Not applicable(N/A)is inserted if this does not apply. Acronyms and Abbreviations: Potential FEDVIA HMA Funding Sources: CAV Community Assistance Visit FILA Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Program CRS Community Rating System HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program DPW Department of Public Works PD,Vf Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency RFC Repetitive Flood Claims Grant Program(discontinued in 2015) FPA Floodplain Administrator SRL Severe Repetitive Loss Grant Program(discontinued in 2015) HMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance N/A Not applicable Timeline: NFIP National Flood Insurance Program Short 1 to 5 years OEM Office of Emergency Management Long Term 5 years or greater OG On-going program DOF Depending on funding Costs: Benefits: Where actual project costs have been reasonably estimated: Where possible,an estimate of project benefits(per FEMA's benefit calculation methodology)has Low <$10,000 been evaluated against the project costs,and is presented as. Medium $10,000 to$100,000 Low— <$10,000 High >$100,000 Medium $10,000 to$100,000 High >$100,000 Where actual project costs cannot reasonably be established at this time: Low Possible to fund under existing budget.Project is part of,or can be part of an Where numerical project benefits cannot reasonably be established at this time: existing on-going program. Low Long-term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term. Medium Could budget for under existing workplan,but would require a Medium Project will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life ODMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-25 July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook costs: Benefits: reapportionment of the budget or a budget amendment,or the cost of the and property,or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk project would have to be spread over multiple years. exposure to property. High Would require an increase in revenue via an alternative.source(i.e.,hon&, High Project will have an immediate impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life grants,fee increases)to implement.Existing funding levels are not adequate and property. to cover the costs of the proposed project. Mitigation Category: • Local Plans and Regulations(LPR)-These actions include government authorities,policies or codes that influence the way land and buildings are being developed and built. • Structure and Infrastructure Project(SIP)- These actions involve modifying existing structures and infrastructure to protect them from a hazard or remove them from a hazard area. This could apply to public or private structures as well as critical facilities and infrastructure. This type of action also involves projects to construct manmade structures to reduce the impact of hazards. • Natural Systems Protection(NSP)-These are actions that minimize damage and losses,and also preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. • Education and Awareness Programs(EAP)-These are actions to inform and educate citizens,elected officials,and property owners about hazards and potential ways to mitigate them. These actions may also include participation in national programs,such as StormReady and Firewise Communities CRS Categor�v: • Preventative Measures(PR)-Government,administrative or regulatory actions,or processes that influence the way land and buildings are developed and built.Examples include planning and zoning floodplain local laws,capital improvement programs,open space preservation,and storm water management regulations. • Property Protection(PP)-These actions include public activities to reduce hazard losses or actions that involve(1)modification of existing buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or(2)removal ofthe structures from the hazard area. Examples include acquisition,elevation,relocation,structural retrofits,storm shutters,and shatter-resistant glass. • Public Information(PI)-Actions to inform and educate citizens,elected officials,and property owners about hazards and potential ways to mitigate them. Such actions include outreach projects,real estate disclosure,hazard information centers,and educational programs for school-age children and adults. • Natural Resource Protection(NR)-Actions that minimize hazard loss and also preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. These actions include sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration,watershed management,forest and vegetation management,and wetland restoration and preservation. • Structural Flood Control Projects(SP)-Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact ofa hazard. Such structures include dams,setback levees,floodwalls, retaining walls,and safe rooms. • Emergency Services(ES)-Actions that protect people and property during and immediately following a disaster or hazard event Services include warming systems,entergency response services,and the protection of essential facilities ODMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-26 July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Table 9.40-12. Summary of Prioritization of Actions Mitigation 41 Project r. 3 Medium -Number Mitigation Action/Initiative - RB-1 Pursue regional sharing of salt storage facilities 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 8 Medium Evaluate locations that may be well suited for -2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 8 Medium microgrids RB-3 Work with ConED to identify locations for 0 1 0 1 1 1 -1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 7 Medium utility hardening RB-4 Upgrade the highway garage generator 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 11 High RB-5 Improve water system pumping station power 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 11 High redundancies to avoid future shut-downs Acquire floodprone homes along Blind Brook RB-6 and its tributaries(Wyman Road,Knollwood 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 0 0 0 1 0 6 Medium Road,and Rock Ridge Drive neighborhoods) Work with other jurisdictions to implement the RB-7 Blind Brook flood mitigation project 1 1 0 1 1 0 -1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 6 Medium (stormwater pond)in Purchase at Anderson Hill Road Work with other jurisdictions to implement the RB-8 Blind Brook flood mitigation project at the 1 1 0 1 1 0 -1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 6 Medium Bowman Avenue dam Coordinate Tennessee Gas Pipeline response RB-9 drills with the Town of Greenwich,CT. Seek 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 High better location maps and ensure adjacent property owner awareness. RB-10 Determine feasibility of the use of school 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 High district buses in case evacuations are required. RB-I 1 Determine feasibility of the use of village 0 0 0 1 1 0 -1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Medium hotels in case sheltering is required. Conduct annual inspections of alternative RB 12 emergency exits to residential and commercial 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 8 Medium developments to ensure availability and user awareness. RB-13 Install new culvert at Avon Circle under ] 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 8 Medium Westchester Ave. Note:Refer to Section 6 which contains the guidance on conducting the prioritization of mitigation actions. ODMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-27 July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook 9.40.7 Future Needs To Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability None at this time. 9.40.8 Hazard Area Extent and Location Hazard area extent and location maps have been generated for the Village of Rye Brook that illustrate the probable areas impacted within the municipality. These maps are based on the best available data at the time of the preparation of this plan, and are considered to be adequate for planning purposes. Maps have only been generated for those hazards that can be clearly identified using mapping techniques and technologies, and for which the Village of Rye Brook has significant exposure. These maps are illustrated in the hazard profiles within Section 5.4,Volume I of this Plan. 9.40.9 Additional Comments None at this time. DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-28 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Figure 9.40-1.Village of Rye Brook Hazard Area Extent and Location Map Nath C�ee North Caste 32: 0 O 1 18A L 16 Harnsan 153 g 1 * Part Chester White Plains f I 308 Rye Cay J rNsrcr Dwuross Legend O M—"6t ea + Aa ■ B] m SubMib ppuek Weer Hood I%Chance olMnual PuerW.n Q Courcy Bardcr O+mge ® •h_'•' Fe^7•i"I+^^a-Pon c1r Pk. NYGIS HO�nd HrG15.8—d.—reo.A..n ConneetieuS Imerwles B.n 0.2%Chime orAnnval wau.Wd.rs.ADSN U.S.Rwes Fire Rao tt�Hppy,� FEMA.Flooa.NFiP HF.•.�:...•,: StAw Rp , eOnnarwitS Fla2rrpi SLR tYOAA.Seal el Rae Rodler�d Courcy Routes g Schvar Riarbe a aL 70x$-Wdd ne rkwgs y mm �' = +0.3 it +1.3 k V*whwr co�.ry-R-4 1•ss ^— Ee4 T M W ry Q Senor +0.7 h +2.0 it ESR I'-8aumap Tuu n Hood Prone Arw O Sheher SLOSH 8wnenxs New Jersey Caasnl Risk � [flC ® Nr., WddBrc (�': vvr��ter GCascggarryy:E:vea W. Stew P3,01, V °"aI Goeaory 3 Caeeanry4 lressau Sulra� Hi;h6n[H'iace t'�a] •?w o 1.700 �Pe"E Q Modenre Repnmre Leis ,Se re RL[= IriSerrnlx EM C\LTJ] a nings �� DDMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-29 July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Figure 9.40-2.Village of Rye Brook Hazard Area Extent and Location Map North Castle u s ISA - r 18 Harr son i Lf7 f O L 153 V cS 1, g .e While Plains ` \l 7 P❑r!Cheslef fs �+ 4 1oa• � 1 J± C r� a Rye cl�r S szr 5d y PWrwm o 14w" kW + M y EOC F1edw-al ® FLU IGrs= O+d.pn 0 C—ty 9-1er ® Fec.Yry MYhry O Lona I Ooh Swrcr: Iinerwon 9w g Slwrt? Nrca-a—bf.M.Rwd-P COnnecrlc�l khppl Q LS,Rowes E]enrit Suhsss6on NwIar w.ree6emar i4andicsrcrUNP'V"a`''�` �� sef —snoe Rowe, cwm..wnrion � Fen,,.Mr..,Fors � ❑w.. VSGs""T Rpr�.fP.� RexrtnKAMM MH-HEMP,Fac 6— — Cefritr Rre /� si.eher V*-h srer Co-hdrtrr ` 1r0 Drsn F4annS 6 Po"Ww"a @J YYsue - � ure Bw.m.ie.S BisPke New Jersey Lsndsllde Im dencc Sweplb ty NEW g�sr HIS(greeter dun I o k sr'�pe` Moderate(I.5%-IS%of amImdolftd)red] g`E 7.sao ..ra o oxo Q+brnr Law(rens than I-S%of area inrc7ved] C r.n DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-30 July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Name of Jurisdiction: Village of Rye Brook Action Number: RB-4 Action Name: Highway Garage Generator Assessing the Risk Hazard(s)addressed: All hazards The Village would like to obtain generators for all critical facilities. Building generators are present at the Village Hall/Police Station, Fire House, Community Center, and sewer pumping station at 1200 King Street. Specific problem being Portable generators are available at the highway department. The water mitigated: company has a generator at and the Anderson Hill Road water pumping station. If the highway garage facility was to be upgraded, a new generator would likely be included. However, the village would like to upgrade this generator even if the garage is not upgraded. PotentialEvaluation of No action - sufficient power not available to support highway garage Actions/Projects Considered 1 operations (name of project and reason Z for not selecting): 3. Action/Project Intended for Implementation If the highway garage were to be upgraded, a new generator may be Description Selected included. However, the village would like to upgrade this generator even if Action/Projecc t the garage were not upgraded. Mitigation Action/Project Type SIP Objectives Met 1, 5 Applies to existing structures/infrastructure, Existing future,or not applicable Benefits (losses avoided) Medium benefits expected as public works personnel will be fully able to respond to incidents throughout the community. Estimated Cost $100,000(High) Priority* High Plan for Implementation Responsible Organization Village of Rye Brook,Village Administrator Local Planning Mechanism The Village Administrator will work with the highway garage personnel Potential Funding Sources HMGP;Local Match Timeline for Completion DOF(Short preferred) ReportingProgress Date of Status Report/ Date: Report of Progress Progress on Action/Project: *Refer to results of Prioritization(page 2) DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-31 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Action Number: RB-4 Action Name: Highway Garage Generator Numeric Rank Criteria (-1,0,1) Provide brief rationale for numeric rank when appropriate Life Safety 1 Improved highway garage function can help protect life safety. Property I Improved highway garage function can help protect property at the highway Protection garage and throughout the community. Cost-Effectiveness 1 Costs are high,but benefits may be higher. Technical 1 Project is feasible and effective. Political 1 Political will to support project. Legal 1 Village owns the highway garage and can legally make improvements. Fiscal 0 Grant funding preferred. Environmental 0 Does not improve or impact the environment. Social 1 Benefit to entire community. Administrative 1 Community can implement action. Multi-Hazard 1 Benefit for all hazards. Timeline 1 Short duration preferred. Agency Champion 1 Village Administration is championing this action. Other Community 0 Objectives Total 11 Priority High Relative to other ranked actions in Rye Brook (High/Med/Low) DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-32 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Name of Jurisdiction: Village of Rye Brook Action Number: RB-5 Action Name: Water Pumping Station Generator Assessing the Risk Hazard(s)addressed: All hazards Permanent generators are present at the Village Hall/Police Station, Fire House, Community Center, a sewer pumping station at 1200 King Street. Portable generators are available at the highway department. The water Specific problem being company has a generator at the Anderson Hill Road water pumping station. mitigated: However, the water pumping station lost power and the generator failed during Hurricane Irene. This is a major problem because the pressure zone does not have a storage tank;it is served only by the pumping station. PotentialEvaluation of Actions/Projects Considered 1. No action-future loss of power to the pumping station is unacceptable. (name of project and reason 2. for not selecting): 3. Action/Project Intended for Implementation The water pumping station lost power and the generator failed during Description of Selected Hurricane Irene. This is a problem because the pressure zone does not have Action/Project a storage tank. Redunant power supply is needed to prevent this type of loss from occuring again. Mitigation Action/Project Type SIP Objectives Met 1, 5 Applies to existing structures/infrastructure, Existing future,or not applicable Benefits (losses avoided) High benefits expected if loss of water service is avoided. Estimated Cost $100,000(High) Priority* High Wan for Implementation Responsible Organization Village of Rye Brook,Village Administrator Local Planning Mechanism The Village Administrator will work with the water company and other appropriate personnel. Potential Funding Sources HMGP;Local Match Timeline for Completion DOF(Short preferred) ReportingProgress Date of Status Report/ Date: Report of Progress Progress on Action/Project: *Refer to results of Prioritization(page 2) DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-33 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Action Number: RB-5 Action Name: Water Pumping Station Generator Numeric Rank Criteria (-1,0,1) Provide brief rationale for numeric rank when appropriate Life Safety 1 Loss of water service is mainly a public health problem,but fire protection is lost without pressure. Property 1 Loss of water service is mainly a public health problem,but fire protection is Protection lost without pressure. Cost-Effectiveness 1 Costs are high,but benefits may be higher. Technical 1 Project is feasible and effective. Political 1 Political will to support project. Legal 1 Village owns the pumping station and can legally make improvements. Fiscal 0 Grant funding preferred. Environmental 0 Does not improve or impact the environment. Social 1 Benefit to large part of the community. Administrative 1 Community can implement action. Multi-Hazard 1 Benefit for all hazards. Timeline 1 Short duration preferred. Agency Champion 1 Village Administration is championing this action. Other Community 0 Objectives Total 11 Priority High Relative to other ranked actions in Rye Brook (High/Med/Low) DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-34 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Name of Jurisdiction: Rye Brook and City of Rye Action Number: RB-7 and RB-8 for Rye Brook;RC-13 for City of Rye Action Name: Main Branch of Blind Brook Flood Mitigation Projects Assessing the Risk Hazard(s)addressed: Flooding The main branch of the Blind Brook has been subject to increasingly more Specific problem being frequent damaging flooding including major flood events in 2007 and 2011. mitigated: Flooding affects Harrison,Rye Brook,and the City of Rye. PotentialEvaluation of No action if further action is not taken, then Rye Brook and Rye City Actions/Projects Considered 1. may need to focus on elevations and acquisitions of hundreds of (name of project and reason structures that remain at risk to flooding. for not selecting): 2. 3. Action/Project Intended for Implementation The main branch of Blind Brook forms the municipal boundary between the Town/Village of Harrison and the Village of Rye Brook before flowing through the City of Rye. The eastern branch of the Blind Brook also flows directly into the Blind Brook lower pond. The three communities therefore share flooding concerns associated with the brook, but damage has affected more properties in the City of Rye than in Rye Brook, and likewise damage in Rye Brook has affected more properties than in Harrison. Reports and plans that evaluate various flood mitigation methods have included: • Project Report, Flood Mitigation Study, Bowman Avenue Dam Site (Chas H. Sells, Inc., 2008)—evaluated different options to detain water at the upper and lower ponds at Bowman Avenue. This study also reviewed the potential to mitigate flooding of properties immediately to the north of the upper and lower ponds near Brook Lane and Avon Circle. • Project Report, Flood Mitigation Study, Lower Pond Supplemental Description of Selected (Chas H. Sells, Inc., 2008)—evaluated different options to detain water Action/Project at the lower pond at Bowman Avenue. • Blind Brook Watershed Management Plan (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2009) — evaluated different options to detain water and the upper and lower ponds at Bowman Avenue, detention at Anderson Hill Road near SUNY Purchase, and non-structural mitigation such as home elevations. • Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis, Study for Resizing the Upper Pond Reservoir (Paul C. Rizzo Engineering, 2012) evaluated different options to detain water at the upper pond at Bowman Avenue. The sluice gate at the Bowman Avenue dam is completed, with the goal of providing some flood mitigation along Blind Brook. The detention basin at SUNY Purchase is still being studied and considered as a strong contender for watershed flood mitigation,but this option will be costly. Dredging and improvements of the Upper Pond at Bowman Avenue would reportedly cost $20 million. aDMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-35 July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook To help advance these previous studies to the present time, the City of Rye retained Parsons Brinkerhoff. The report `Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Report, Blind Brook Watershed Study" (August 2014)updates the cost estimates for the SUNY Purchase detention pond and Upper Bowman Pond and recommends limited additional work to advance the alternatives. The cost for resizing Upper Pond is ranging from 6.1 million dollars to 6.6 million dollars. The cost for two detention ponds on SUNY-Purchase is approximately 0.51 million dollars. Mitigation Action/Project Type SIP Objectives Met 1,2,4 Applies to existing structures/infrastructure, Existing future,or not applicable Benefits (losses avoided) Significant flood damage occurred in 2007 and 2011. These projects may reduce flood water surface elevations by one to seven feet in some locations. The cost estimate for resizing Upper Pond ranges from $6.1 million to $6.6 Estimated Cost million. The cost estimate for two detention ponds on SUNY-Purchase is approximately$0.51 million. Priority* Plan for Implementation Responsible Organization Representatives from Harrison,Rye Brook, and the City of Rye would work with the County to implement these projects if they are advanced. Local Planning Mechanism Representatives from Harrison,Rye Brook, and the City of Rye would work with the County to plan these projects if they are advanced. Potential Funding Sources State and Federal funding sources which may include Army Corps or FEMA mitigation funds Timeline for Completion Long Term Reporting on Progress Date of Status Report/ Date: Report of Progress Progress on Action/Project: *Refer to results of Prioritization(page 2) DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-36 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Action Number: Rye Brook and City of Rye Action Name: RB-7 and RB-8 for Rye Brook;RC-13 for City of Rye Numeric Rank Criteria (-1,0,1) Provide brief rationale for numeric rank when appropriate Life Safety 1 Residential areas will benefit from these flood mitigation projects. Property I Many private residential, commercial, and municipal properties may benefit Protection from these flood mitigation projects. The Upper Pond (Bowman) costs are likely too high to be cost effective, but Cost-Effectiveness 0 the SUNY Purchase detention basin is less costly and may present a cost effective flood mitigation project. Technical 1 Many studies have demonstrated that these flood mitigation projects will result in lower flood water surface elevations. Political 1 Significant political will for these flood mitigation projects. Legal 0 The legal logistics may be complex given the various property owners and three communities involved. Fiscal -1 The costs are very high. In general, flood mitigation projects have environmental benefits because Environmental 0 reduced flood damage will protect water quality. However these projects rely on storage of water which will require significant earthwork. Social 1 Many private residential, commercial, and municipal properties in three communities may benefit from these flood mitigation projects. Administrative 0 The three communities may need additional assistance to implement. Multi-Hazard 0 Addresses mainly flooding. Timeline 0 Long term Agency Champion 1 The three communities have representatives that will champion the projects. Other CommunityI The flood mitigation projects demonstrate coordinated flood mitigation for Objectives three communities. Total 6 Priority Medium Medium priority relative to other mitigation actions for these communities. (High/Med/Low) DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-37 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Name of Jurisdiction: Village of Rye Brook Action Number: RB-13 Action Name: Avon Circle culvert replacement Assessing the Risk Hazard(s)addressed: Flooding The condominiums on Avon Circle have flood risk because the East Branch Blind Brook flows beneath the property and then under Westchester Avenue Specific problem being in a culvert that is undersized for larger storms. Residents living in mitigated: buildings at Avon Circle were cut off from emergency services due to rushing stormwater and flooding had to be evacuated during the flood of April 2007. PotentialEvaluation of No action - flooding problems will continue - not acceptable to Actions/Projects Considered �' residents of Avon Circle (name of project and reason Z for not selecting): 3. Action/Project Intended for Implementation The eastern branch of the Blind Brook flows directly into the Blind Brook lower pond. Reports and plans that evaluate various flood mitigation methods near Avon Circle have included: • Stormwater Analysis- Eastern Branch Blind Brook (Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, 2002)- Evaluated various locations and proposed projects Description of Selected to reduce flooding on the Eastern Branch of Blind Brook. This included enlarging the culvert to convey greater discharges. Action/Project • Project Report, Flood Mitigation Study, Bowman Avenue Dam Site (Chas H. Sells, Inc., 2008)-evaluated different options to detain water at the upper and lower ponds at Bowman Avenue. This study also reviewed potential mitigation to reduce flooding of properties along Brook Lane and through Avon Circle. The recommendations included increasing the size of the culvert under Westchester Avenue from 5 feet wide to a 12 foot by 6 foot box culvert. Mitigation Action/Project Type SIP Objectives Met 1,2,4 Applies to existing structures/infrastructure, Existing future,or not applicable Benefits (losses avoided) High(flood losses reduced) Estimated Cost High Priorit * Medium Plan for Implementation Responsible Organization Village of Rye Brook and Avon Circle Condo Association Local Planning Mechanism The Village will need to work with the condo association and school district located to the south to plan for the project DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-38 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Potential Funding Sources HM P;Local Match Timeline for Completion DOF(Short preferred) Reporting Progress Date of Status Report/ Date.. Report of Progress Progress on Action/Project: *Refer to results of Prioritization(page 2) DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-39 U July 2015 Section 9.40: Village of Rye Brook Action Number: RB-13 Action Name: Avon Circle culvert replacement Numeric Rank Criteria (-1'0,1) Provide brief rationale for numeric rank when appropriate Life Safety 1 Reduced flooding will reduce the risk to life. Property 1 Reduced flooding will reduce the risk to property. Protection Cost-Effectiveness 0 Uncertain but likely that benefits will exceed the cost. Technical 1 Project is technically feasible and is a long-term solution. Political 1 Political will to implement project. Legal 0 The Village will need to closely coordinate with the condo association to facilitate work on private(condo association)land. Fiscal 0 Grant funding preferred to implement project. Environmental 1 Larger culverts tend to have associated environmental benefits. Social 1 Benefits mainly the condominium residents, but the entire community benefits from improved services if fewer evacuations are needed at this location. Administrative 1 Village can implement the project. Multi-Hazard 0 Flooding only. Timeline 0 Project may not be able to be completed in five years. Agency Champion 1 The Village administration has long been a champion of this project. Other Community 0 Objectives Total 8 Priority Low Medium compared to other projects for Rye Brook (High/Med/Low) 'http://www.stormready.noaa.gov/com-maps/ny-com.htm http://submissions.ntpa.org/tirewise/fw communities_list.php DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-Westchester County,New York 9.40-40 U July 2015 Increasing Resilience Together Friday, October 14, 2015 WESTCHESTER COUNTY Resources for Implementing Your Approved Plan Local Mitigation Planning Handbook. It is the official guide for local governments to develop, update and implement local mitigation plans. While federal requirements have not changed, the Handbook provides revised and expanded guidance, offering practical approaches, tools, worksheets and local mitigation planning examples for how communities can engage in effective planning to reduce long-term risk from natural hazards and disasters. http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=7209 Using Cost Benefit Review in Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-5). This How-To #5 is available online at http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/I 0210 Mitigation Ideas: A Resource for Reducing Risk from Natural Hazards provides a resource that communities can used to identify and evaluate a range of potential mitigation actions for reducing risk to natural hazards and disasters. https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/30627 FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Grant Programs provide funding for eligible mitigation activities that reduce disaster losses and protect life and property from future disaster damages including the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA). For disasters declared after February 27, 2015, HMGP funding may be used to fund additional mitigation planning-related activities including updating or enhancing HMP elements or integrating HMP risk assessments or mitigation strategies into other planning efforts. Please note that states are ultimately responsible for prioritizing how HMGP funding will be spent. https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/103279 Hazard Mitigation Planning Resources: A variety of resources on the hazard mitigation planning process, including developing and implementing local mitigation plans and mitigation grant programs. http://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-planning-resources#7 Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into Planning: This resource, prepared by the American Planning Association (APA), seeks to close the gap that often exists between hazard mitigation planning and other local planning and regulatory land-use processes. It introduces hazard mitigation as a vital area of practice for planners; provides guidance on how to integrate hazard mitigation strategies into comprehensive, area, and functional plans; and shows where hazard mitigation can fit into zoning and subdivision codes. Best practices and practical applications are provided. https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/19261 cFEMA 1 . Increasing Resilience Together Other FEMA Resources NFIP Community Ratings System: The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) is a voluntary program for recognizing and encouraging community floodplain management activities exceeding the minimum NFIP standards. Any community in full compliance with the minimum NFIP floodplain management requirements may apply to join the CRS. The CRS uses a Class rating system to determine flood insurance premium reductions for residents. Each CRS Class improvement produces a 5% discount on flood insurance premiums for properties in the SFHA. It should be noted that NYS requirements exceed NFIP minimums for some activities. For a summary of New York State's Uniform Minimum Credit, see http://crsresources.org/200-2/#. The current CRS Coordinator's Manual is here: http://crsresources.org/ Reducing Damage from Localized Flooding: A Guide for Communities: This guide is intended to help local offices in cities, towns, villages, and counties in the United States understand what they can do to reduce the damage, disruption, and public and private costs that result from the shallow, localized flooding that occurs within their jurisdictions. This is flooding that all too often escapes the attention received by larger floods or those that are clearly mapped and subject to floodplain development regulations. June 2005. https://www.fema.gov/media-libraU/assets/documents/I 012 Engineering With Nature: Alternative Techniques to Riprap Bank Stabilization : While land erosion, stream migration and even flooding are natural processes, they can cause havoc when occurring near human populations. This has led to the creation of a number of measures to control or eliminate such hazards. Unfortunately, while many of these techniques - such as riprap or hard armoring - solve the immediate problem, they are not always the safest or most environmentally conscious choice for the long-term. This FEMA Region X report documents case studies where alternatives to riprap have been employed. Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery: Next Generation: This resource is designed to help communities improve their resiliency and provides how-to guidance for communities to start their mitigation planning and disaster-recovery planning processes. The new report was produced by the American Planning Association (APA) through a cooperative agreement from FEMA, and is a follow-up edition to the popular Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction (FEMA 421) report originally published in 1998. https://www.fema.gov/media-libraU/assets/documents/I 03445 Subdivision Design in Flood Hazard Areas (PAS 473): Economic, political, and market pressures make some development on floodplains inevitable. But appropriate subdivision designs can minimize risks of flood damage-or eliminate them entirely. This report explores the full range of planning techniques to minimize possible problems in a flood-hazard area. Cluster development, coast-to-road lots, and elevated buildings are all suggested as techniques that will minimize flood damage. Detailed diagrams illustrate the natural functions of a floodplain and describe the tools used to preserve these functions and protect properties from flooding. 1997. Update currently underway. $15. https://www.planning.org/store/product/?ProductCode=BOOK_P473 cFEMA2 . Increasing Resilience Together Westchester County-specific Resources Flood Risk Tools for New York Communities: Besides the regulatory tools FEMA develops, the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, FEMA, in partnership with local and state partners, also provides communities with other GIS tools they can use to better understand and plan for flood risk. For Westchester County's coastal communities, a Flood Risk Report, Flood Risk Map, and Flood Risk Database can be found here: https://data.femadata.com/NationalDisasters/Hurricane%20Sandy/RiskMAP/Public/Draft_Non_Regulatory_Flo od Risk Products/Westchester/ Westchester County Stormwater Reconnaissance Plans: Westchester County enacted a Stormwater Management Law in 2011 requiring the county to assess current conditions and identify cost-effective projects to address flooding and flood damage. Since 2012 a Stormwater Advisory Board has met regularly to advise the county on flood-related matters, including the development of"reconnaissance plans"for each of the county's major watersheds or drainage basins. (1) Saw Mill River-Pocantico River Watershed (December 2012); (2) Bronx River Watershed (April 2013); (3) Coastal Long Island Sound Watershed (August 2013); (4) Peekskill-Haverstraw Bay Watershed (March 2014); and (5) Croton River and Inland Long Island Sound Watersheds (July 2014). http://planning.westchestergov.com/environment/flooding Flooding and Land Use Planning: A Guidance Document for Municipal Officials and Planners: This manual was created for elected officials, planning and zoning board members, planners and development professionals to improve land use decisions with respect to flooding and flood damage. The manual covers: (1) flooding causes and the relationship to development; (2) regulations for government agencies associated with flood control and flood hazard mitigation; (3) comprehensive and watershed planning; (4) stormwater management; (5) successful floodplain management tools; (6) local ordinances; (7) site plan review tools; and (8) stormwater management design. The manual also includes an extensive appendix with a glossary and references, including a summary of Federal and State programs that support the items addressed. June 2010. See "View the manual" link under County Efforts: http://planning.westchestergov.com/environment/flooding Historic Flood Map Information: Communities can receive Community Rating System credits for maintaining earlier editions of flood insurance rating maps (FIRMS) and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps and making these maps readily available. Copies of old FIRMS and studies are available from the FEMA Map Service Center: https:Hmsc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch#searchresultsanchor Floodplain Management Training: Please note that NYSDEC will be providing Floodplain Management Training in all NYS counties. Please check website for schedule: http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/101275.html cFEMA 3 . Increasing Resilience Together WESTCHESTER COUNTY RESILIENCE MEETING Other Planning and Implementation Resources New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual: Green infrastructure consists of a variety of site design techniques and structural practices used for managing stormwater. On a larger scale, it can include preserving and restoring natural landscape features (such as forests, floodplains and wetlands), and reducing impervious surfaces. On a smaller scale, it can include green roofs, pervious pavement, rain gardens, vegetated swales, planters and stream buffers. These smaller tools are also referred to as Low Impact Development or LID. Please see: http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/58930.html and Chapter 5 in NYSDEC Stormwater Management Design Manual: http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/29072.html NYS Climate Smart Communities Climate Smart Resiliency Planning: A Planning Evaluation Tool: Designed specifically for New York State Communities, this NYSDEC-developed resource is a self- administered planning assessment tool designed to help local officials assess their communities' readiness and resilience in the face of changing weather patterns and rising sea levels. See the Climate Smart Resiliency link on the right under"Important Links".http://www.dec.ny.gov/ener-gy/82168.html Using Multi-Objective Management to Reduce Flood Losses in Your Watershed: This citizen's guidebook explains "multiobjective management" or"M-0-M" - a proven approach to reduce flood losses and simultaneously address other community concerns. Based on strong communication, it capitalizes on the technical and financial help that is already available from government agencies and private organizations. It succeeds because it coordinates flood loss reduction with other community needs and goals to develop a stronger, more comprehensive program. Developed by EPA and the Association of State Floodplain Managers; http://floods.org/index.asp?menuID=726&firstlevelmenuI D=188&siteID=1 Post-Flood Emergency Stream Intervention: Originally developed by the Delaware County Soil and Water Conservation District and Delaware County Planning Department in cooperation with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, this resource was later expanded for state-wide application by New York Department of Environmental Conservation. March 2014. www.dec.ny.gov/docs/ad min istration-pdf/streammn 11.pdf Stream Processes: A Guide to Living in Harmony with Streams: This was a collaborative project of the Chemung County Soil and Water Conservation District, Upper Susquehanna Coalition, and Southern Tier Central Regional Planning and Development Board. Additional input and assistance was provided by the Hydrologic and Habitat Modifications Workgroup of the NYS Nonpoint Source Coordinating Committee, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, the NYS Department of Transportation, the Bradford County (PA) Conservation District, and others. August 2006. http://www.stcplanning.org/index.asp?pageld=103 Local Flood Proofing Programs: This document was prepared by French &Associates, Ltd., Park Forest, Illinois for the US Army Corps of Engineers National Nonstructural/Flood Proofing Committee. It is based on publications, research findings, site visits, and interviews with a number of communities and organizations. Included as a resource from the NFIP Community Ratings System program. February 2005. See link 360 Local Flood Proofing Programs: http://crsresources.org/300-3/ cFEMA 4 . Increasing Resilience Together No Adverse Impact Floodplain Management: No Adverse Impact floodplain management takes place when the actions of one property owner are not allowed to adversely affect the rights of other property owners. The adverse effects or impacts can be measured in terms of increased flood peaks, increased flood stages, higher flood velocities, increased erosion and sedimentation, or other impacts the community considers important. A variety of resources available from the Association of State Floodplain Managers. http://www.floods.org/index.asp?menuID=460 New York State Floodplain and Stormwater Managers Association: The NYSFSMA is the NYS chapter of the Association of State Floodplain Managers. Helpful information regarding floodplain management is available from their website: .http://n)dloods.org/content.aspx?page id=O&club id=735785 cFEMA 5 . December 15, 2015 R-7 RESOLUTION CONSIDERING THE AUTHORIZATION OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH VERIZON NEW YORK,INC. WHEREAS, Michael Canton of Compute]Consultants,as the Village's utility auditing consultant,has recommended that the Village of Rye Brook enter into a Settlement Agreement with Verizon New York,Inc.regarding prior taxable gross receipts payable to the Village of Rye Brook. NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,that the Village Board hereby authorizes the acceptance of the Settlement Agreement between the Village of Rve Brook and Verizon New York,Inc.;and be it further RESOLVED, that the Mayor and Administrator are authorized to sign any documents relating to this Settlement Agreement with Verizon New York,Inc. December 15, 2015 R- 8 RESOLUTION CONSIDERING THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES: OCTOBER 13, OCTOBER 27, NOVEMBER 10, and NOVEMBER 24, 2015 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees hereby certifies the approval of the minutes for the meetings held on October 13, October 27, November 10, and November 24, 2015.