HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.03.2020 pFEIS redlined to 2019-07900 KING STREET REDEVELOPMENT
Preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (pFEIS)
January 3, 2020
Redlined to the July 24, 2019 pFEIS Submission
Lead Agency: Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees
938 King Street
Rye Brook, New York 10573
Contact: Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator
Phone: 914-939-1121
SEQRA Classification: Type I Action
Project Location: 900 King Street, Rye Brook, New York (SBL: 129.68-1-13)
Applicant/Petitioner: 900 King Street Owner, LLC
c/o George Comfort & Sons, Inc.
200 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10016
Contact: Peter Duncan
Phone: 212-481-1137
Prepared by: AKRF, Inc.
34 South Broadway
White Plains, New York 10601
Contact: Peter Feroe, AICP
Phone: 914-922-2350
DEIS Acceptance Date: September 12, 2018
DEIS Public Hearing: October 22, 2018, November 8, 2018, December 11, 2018,
January 8, 2019
DEIS Comments Accepted
Through: January 23, 2019
pFEIS Submissions: May 14, 2019; January 3, 2020
Electronic copies of pFEIS documents can be downloaded from:
http://bit.ly/900KingJan2020pFEIS.
This document is a preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (pFEIS) for the 900 King
Redevelopment project.
DEIS Preparer: AKRF, Inc.
34 South Broadway
White Plains, New York 10601
Contact: Peter Feroe, AICP
Phone: 914-922-2350
Legal Counsel: Veneziano & Associates
84 Business Park Drive, Suite 200
Armonk, New York 10504
Contact: Anthony Veneziano, Esq.
Phone: 914-273-1300
Architect: Perkins Eastman
422 Summer Street
Stamford, Connecticut 06901
Contact: Richard Rosen, AIA, LEED AP
Phone: 212-353-7650
Site/Civil Engineer: JMC Engineering
120 Bedford Road
Armonk, New York 10504
Contact: James Ryan, RLA
Phone: 914-273-5225
Traffic Engineer: Maser Consulting, P.A.
400 Columbus Avenue, Suite 180E
Valhalla, New York 10595
Contact: John Collins, Ph.D., P.E.
Phone: 914-347-7500
This FEIS will be sent to the following Involved and Interested Agencies:
Involved Agencies
Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees, Lead Agency
Village of Rye Brook Building Department
Village of Rye Brook Department of Public Works
Village of Rye Brook Planning Board
Village of Rye Brook Architectural Review Board
Westchester County Department of Health
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Region 3
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Environmental Permits
New York State Department of Health
New York State Department of Transportation, Region 8
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
Interested Agencies
Blind Brook-Rye Union Free School District
Rye Brook Emergency Services Task Force
Town of Greenwich Planning and Zoning Department
Westchester County Planning Board
Village of Port Chester
The Arbors Homeowner’s Associations
Rye King Associates, LLP, Applicant
DRAFT 1-1 1/3/2020
Chapter 1: Revised Proposed Project
1.1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF REVISED PROPOSED ACTION
900 King Street Owner, LLC (the “Applicant”) proposes to construct an integrated age-restricted
residential community (the “Proposed Project”) that would replace the existing, largely vacant, office
building and surface parking lot at 900 King Street (the “Project Site” or the “Site”) in the Village of
Rye Brook, New York (the “Village”), New York.”). To effectuate its proposal, the Applicant has
petitioned the Village Board of Trustees (the “Lead Agency”) to amend the Rye Brook Zoning Code
to include a section entitled, 900 King Street Planned Unit Development, as Section 250-7(E)(6)
(“Proposed Zoning”). The Proposed Project and Proposed Zoning are together referred as the
Proposed Action.
Consistent with State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) regulations at 617.9(b)(8), the
Applicant modified the Proposed Project and the Proposed Zoning described in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The modifications are referred to herein as the “Revised
Proposed Project” and “Revised Proposed Zoning”—collectively, the “Revised Proposed Action.”
The significant modifications to the Proposed Project are described in further detail in this chapter
and include the following:
Raising the age restriction for residents of the Proposed Project from 55 years old and older
to 62 years old and older, consistent with the existing Site zoning;
Reducing the proposed gross square feet (gsf) of the Proposed Project by 68,81889,098 square
feet (sf), a 15.520 percent reduction in size, through:
- Reducing the number of proposed Independent Living (IL) units by 524 units (15 percent) from
160 to 152136;
- Reducing the average IL unit size by 150100 sf, or 128 percent;
- Reducing the number of two- and three-bedroom IL units and increasing the
numberpercentage of one-bedroom IL units, thereby reducing the total number of
bedrooms in the IL building by 2422 percent;
- Reducing the size of the amenity and common spaces in the IL and Assisted Living (AL)
building; and,
- Reducing the number of townhouse units by 16.7 percent from 24 units to 20 units.
Increasing the setback of the IL building from Arbor Drive and from The Arbors, as follows:
- Increasing the setback of the three-story portion of the IL building an additional 1931 feet
from Arbor Drive, for a total setback of 135147 feet, and an additional 7186 feet from The
Arbors, for a total setback of 535550 feet from the property line with The Arbors; and,
- Increasing the setback of the four-story portion of the IL building an additional 1230 feet
from Arbor Drive, for a total setback of 304 feet, and an additional 24 feet from theThe
Arbors, for a total setback of 488494 feet from the property line with The Arbors.
Reducing the height of the IL roof closest to The Arbors to reduce the potential for visual impacts;
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 1-2 DRAFT
Increasing the setback of the townhouses from The Arbors;
Reconfiguring the interior layout of the proposed age-restricted townhouses to more clearly meet
the needs of the target population and to differentiate the product from other Village townhouses;
Reducing the amount of grading required during construction of the Revised Proposed Project
as well as significantly reducing the amount of fill material required to be imported to the Site
by lowering the elevation of the finished floor of the IL and AL building by 18 -inches and by
reconfiguring the layout and reducing the number of townhouses; and,
Expanding the on-Site pedestrian path system and providing an enhanced landscape program,
most notably along Arbor Drive.
1.2. PROJECT SITE
The Project Site is located at 900 King Street in the Village and is approximately 17.77 acres (see
Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2). The Site is bounded to the north by the Hutchinson River Parkway
(the “Parkway”),”); the east by the Rye Brook Police Department (RBPD), Rye Brook Fire
Department (RBFD), Village Hall, and approximately 168 feet along King Street (NYS Rt.
120A),); to the south by Arbor Drive, Harkness Park, and the Blind Brook Middle School and
High School,; and to the west by The Arbors townhouse community. Access to the Site is from
Arbor Drive, which connects to King Street at a signalized intersection. Arbor Drive is a private
street, owned by The Arbors Homeowner’s Association. The Project Site is the beneficiary of an
easement, allowing the Project Site to access an improved Arbor Drive (see DEIS Appendix B-3).
The Project Site, The Arbors, and Harkness Park are within the Village’s Planned Unit
Development (PUD) zoning district. The schools, municipal buildings, the Parkway, and the area
to the north are within residential zoning districts (e.g., R-15 and R-20).
The Project Site is dominated by a gently sloping surface parking lot in the eastern and northern
portions of the Site and a three-story, 215,000-sf office building in the center of the Site. The
existing office building is rectangular in shape and measures approximately 220 feet by 430 feet.
The Site ranges in elevation (el.) from a low point of approximately 220 feet at the southeastern
corner (Arbor Drive and King Street) to approximately 276 feet at the northwestern corner of the
property. The center of the Site contains an abrupt, human-made change in elevation from the
relatively flat parking area to the east (~el. 246), to a higher plateau (~el. 260) to the west. A total
of 15.35 acres, or 85.9 percent of the Site, is sloped less than 15 percent. The Site’s soils primarily
consist of those known as “Urban land,” as described in Chapter 4, “Geology, Soils, and
Topography” of the DEIS.1
The exterior of the Project Site contains areas of extensive vegetation, which obscures visibility of
the interior of the Site during much of the year. Along the Site’s King Street frontage, extending
west into the Project Site and along Arbor Drive for approximately 250 feet, is an area of thick
wooded vegetation. Similarly, the area between the Project Site and Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD
contains wooded vegetation that obscures the view into or out of the Project Site. To the north,
between the parking lot and the Parkway, is an area of thick wooded vegetation that obscures views
into and out of the Project Site from the Parkway. The western edge of the Project Site contains an
undeveloped area of thick wooded vegetation in which a stream corridor and wetland are present.
1 The United States Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) describes urban soil mapping units as
areas where the land surface is covered with buildings, structures, or parking lots and where the natural
soil layers have been altered or mixed.
Chapter 1: Revised Proposed Project
DRAFT 1-3 1/3/2020
This vegetation, along with the rise in topography within the area to the east of the stream, restricts
views into and out of the Project Site from The Arbors community. An approximately 0.72-acre
area of maintained lawn on the Project Site is located between this wooded area and the easternmost
townhouses within The Arbors. The Project Site’s southern frontage is heavily vegetated with the
exception of the area between the Site’s two driveways. As such, the interior of the Project Site is
currently only visible from approximately 400 feet along Arbor Drive.
Five wetlands were identified on the Project Site (see Figure 1-3). Wetlands B and C are
hydrologically supplied by runoff from the Parkway. Wetland E’s hydrology is partially supplied
by a drainage pipe from an adjacent residential property. Wetland D was created as a stormwater
retention basin when the Site was developed with the current office building. Its hydrology is
supplied by stormwater runoff that is conveyed from the developed portion of the Project Site and
off-Site parcels to the east. Stream S, which is associated with Wetland D, flows southeast from
the retention basin to a culvert under Arbor Drive. Wetland A and Stream A are located in a heavily
vegetated corridor in the western portion of the Site. Stream A runs southeast across the lawn in
the southwestern corner of the Site and continues under Arbor Drive via a culvert.
The Project Site is currently improved with an approximately 215,000-sf office building (see DEIS
Appendix B-1) and approximately 595 parking spaces. The Site’s improvements create
approximately 7.46 acres of impervious cover, which is approximately 42 percent of the Project
Site. The office building is a three-story structure, with an area of covered parking provided on a
portion of the building’s lower level.
1.3. REVISED PROPOSED ZONING
SEQRA allows for, and in principle encourages, applicants to modify projects in response to
public comment on the DEIS, so long as those modifications, and any potential environmental
impacts of those modifications, are described and analyzed in the FEIS.
In response to comments from the public, Involved and Interested Agencies, and Village officials,
staff, and consultants, the Applicant has modified the Proposed Zoning. This section summarizes
the Revised Proposed Zoning.
Contemporaneous with this FEIS, the Applicant revised the text of the zoning amendment
proposed for the Project Site. As with the zoning described in the DEIS, the Revised Proposed
Zoning (see Appendix A) would add a new site-specific section to the Rye Brook Zoning Code
as Section 250-7(E)(6), entitled 900 King Street Planned Unit Development. Specifically, the
Revised Proposed Zoning would include the following:
Permit only the “senior living facility” use on the Project Site, except as otherwise allowed by
the existing PUD zoning for other sites in the Village;
Establish site-specific density standards for the proposed “senior living facility” of 14.513.6
residential units per acre, made up of 9.78.8 dwelling units per acre and 4.8 AL units per acre;
Establish site-specific setback and area requirements for the Project Site, including a front-
yard setback of 3842 feet, a side yard setback of 8584 feet, and a rear yard setback of 2530
feet;
Establish a maximum gross land coverage for the Project Site of 40 percent, which is less than
the Site’s currently developed condition (42 percent); and,
Increase the maximum permitted height of senior living facilities from 35 feet to 45 feet,
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 1-4 DRAFT
In response to comments, the Revised Proposed Zoning makes the following changes from the
original zoning proposed in the DEIS:
The Applicant is no longer requesting that the Village change the minimum age for residents
of senior living facilities from 62 years old to 55 years old. The Applicant is now proposing
that the Revised Proposed Project be a 62 years old and older community;
The site-specific density standard for the proposed “senior living facility” has been reduced
to match the corresponding decrease in the density of the Revised Proposed Project; and,
The site-specific setback and area requirements have been modified to match the changes to
the Revised Proposed Project.
1.4. REVISED PROPOSED PROJECT
As with the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Project is the construction of an integrated age-restricted
residential community that includes IL, AL, and age-restricted residential townhouse units. The
Revised Proposed Project proposes 257238 residential units, including 152136 IL units, 20 townhouse
units, and 85 AL units. The community is anticipated to be owned and operated by a single entity that
would offer the various units for rent. Residency within the community is proposed to be restricted to
those 62 years old or older—a change from the DEIS, which proposed a community restricted to those
55 years old and older.
To construct the Revised Proposed Project, the existing 215,000-sf office building and 5.3-acre
surface parking lot on the Project Site would be removed. Construction of the Revised Proposed
Project would occur on the portions of the Project Site that have been previously disturbed by prior
development (see Appendix B for site plans depicting the condition of the Site prior to development
of the current office building). The Revised Proposed Project would not disturb the existing
vegetation in the western portion of the Project Site, between the Project Site and The Arbors.
1.4.1 BUILDINGS AND USES
As with the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Project would include the construction of an
integrated age-restricted residential community consisting of a three- and four-story IL
facility in the center of the Site; a three- and four-story AL structure in the northeast
portion of the Site; and, residential townhouses in the western portion of the Site. Figure
1-4 illustrates the layout of the Revised Proposed Project. The full-size PUD Concept
Plan2 contains floorplans, elevations, sections, and exterior dimensions of the proposed
buildings.
As shown in Table 1.4-1, the Revised Proposed Project is 68,81889,098 sf smaller than the
original project—a reduction of 15.520 percent. The majority of the reduction in floor area
(i.e., 60,85370,922 sf) was achieved in the IL building by reducing the number of IL units
by 524 units (15 percent,), the size of the units, incorporating morea larger proportion of
one-bedroom units, and reducing the size of the common and amenity spaces.
2 The complete PUD Concept Plan, as well as the preliminary site plan for the Revised Proposed Project, is
provided in the full-size drawings prepared by JMC Engineering and Perkins Eastman Architects located
in Volume 4 of this FEIS. An index of the requirements for submission of a PUD Concept Plan and
preliminary site plan and the location of all the required elements therein can also be found in Volume 4.
Chapter 1: Revised Proposed Project
DRAFT 1-5 1/3/2020
Table 1.4-1
Proposed Building Sizes
Project
Component
ProposedOriginal Project
(DEIS)
Gross Floor Area (sf)1
Revised Proposed Project
(FEIS) Gross Floor Area (sf)1
Town Homes 50,000 44,30041,443
Assisted Living 90,000 87,73580,381
Independent Living 305,000 244,147234,078
Total 445,000 376,182355,902
Note: 1 Gross Floor Area calculated pursuant to Section 250-2 of the Village Code.
1.4.1.1. Independent Living
As was proposed in the DEIS, the center of the Site with the Revised Proposed
Project would be improved with a three- and four-story IL building. Independent
Living is housing for able-bodied, healthy seniors who can care for themselves
within a setting that provides enhanced support and recreational services. Each
IL unit would contain a full kitchen and full bathroom. The units are designed to
accommodate accessibility and aging in place.
In response to public and Village comments, the Applicant has reduced the
number of IL units 515 percent, from 160 units to 152136 units), the average
size of the IL units, the number of two- and three-bedroom units, and has
increased the number of one-bedroom units (see Table 1.4-2). As a result of
these reductions, and reductions in the size of the amenity spaces, the IL
building was reduced in size by 60,85370,922 sf—a 2023 percent reduction.
Table 1.4-2
Independent Living Building Size Reduction
DEIS Plan FEIS Plan
Average Unit Size 1,219 sf 1,069119 sf
Number of Bedrooms 301 228236
Largest Unit Size 1,800 sf
(36 units >1,500 sf)
1,500440 sf
(2 units @ 1,440 sf)
3-Bedroom Units
Number of Units 18 1213
Percent of Total 11% 7.910%
Average Size (sf) 1,700 sf 1,450368 sf
2-Bedroom Units
Number of Units 99 5274
Percent of Total 62% 3454%
Average Size (sf) 1,270 sf 1,215200 sf
1-Bedroom Units
Number of Units 43 8849
Percent of Total 27% 5836%
Average Size (sf) 900 sf 931985 sf
Source: PerkinsEastman
As with the DEIS, the IL building in the Revised Proposed Project will contain
a full commercial kitchen that can provide three meals a day for residents and
also serve the AL building. Other amenity spaces, including a fitness center,
multipurpose room, library, and a personal care suite, may be included. Figure
1-5, Figure 1-6, and Figure 1-7 present the conceptual floor plans and exterior
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 1-6 DRAFT
dimensions of the IL and AL building. Additional floorplans, as well as
detailed elevations of the IL building, are included in Volume 4.
The IL building is proposed to be three stories in the front, facing Arbor Drive,
and four stories in the back, facing the Parkway (see Figure 1-8 and Figure 1-9).
However, as shown in Figure 1-10, the Revised Proposed Project increases the
IL building setback from Arbor Drive from the original project. The closest
point of the IL building, which is a three-story building, is now 135147 feet
from Arbor Drive—an increase of 1931 feet. TheWhile the setback from Arbor
Drive to the four-story portion of the IL building is now 304was reduced by
about 20 feet, an increase of 12 to 283 feet. The, the setback between the Site’s
western property line with The Arbors and the IL building increased to 535550
feet for the three-story portion and 488494 feet to the four-story portion—
increases of 7186 feet and 2430 feet, respectively.
The overall height of the building in the Revised Proposed Project, pursuant to
the PUD zoning regulations, is 41.6481 feet, a slight reduction from the DEIS,
which was 44.75 feet. However, the change in height as viewed from The
Arbors has been more substantially reduced as a result in a change to the
proposed roof design from the original project, a slight lowering in the finished
floor elevation of the IL building, and an increase in the building’s setback. As
shown in Figure 1-11 and Figure 1-12, and the roof plan included as sheet A-
301 in Volume 4, the tallest portion of the peak of the roof facing The Arbors
has been lowered in elevation by 710.5 feet from the original project. Together
with the 2430 foot increase in setback from The Arbors, which makes the
closest Arbors unit 541550 feet from this location, the reduction in the elevation
of the highest portion of the roof has reduced the perceived height of the IL
building as viewed from The Arbors.
1.4.1.2. Assisted Living
As with the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Project proposes an 85-unit three-
and four-story AL building attached to the northeast portion of the IL
building. As was the case with the original project, the AL building included
in the Revised Proposed Project would provide 94 beds. Assisted Living
provides care for individuals who need help with one or more tasks of daily
living, but who do not require skilled nursing care. The AL units will not have
a kitchen and, therefore, in the Applicant’s opinion, do not meet the definition
of a “dwelling unit” as set forth in the Village’s Zoning Code. Twenty-five
AL units would be reserved for “memory care,” which provides services to
those with some form of dementia. All memory care units would be on the
firstfourth floor and the remaining 6057 AL units would be located on the
first, second, and third, and fourth floors.
As shown in Figure 1-4, the AL building has been reconfigured to improve
operational efficiency and reduce its size. Figure 1-5, Figure 1-6, and Figure
1-7 illustrate the typical floor plan of the AL building. The reconfigured AL
building is approximately 2,2659,619 sf (or 11 percent) smaller than in the
original project (see Table 1.4-3).
Chapter 1: Revised Proposed Project
DRAFT 1-7 1/3/2020
Table 1.4-3
Assisted Living Building Size Reduction
DEIS Plan FEIS Plan
Gross Square Feet 90,000 sf 87,73580,381 sf
Total Number of Units 85 85
Memory Care Units 26 25
Assisted 1-bed units 50 51
Assisted 2-bed units 9 9
Total Number of Beds 94 94
Source: PerkinsEastmanPerkins Eastman
Consistent with the original project, in the Revised Proposed Project the AL
building would share back-of-house space with the IL building, including
mechanical equipment, housekeeping, kitchen, and receiving facilities. To the
east of the AL building would be a secure “wandering garden” in which AL
residents could safely and securely access the outdoors.
1.4.1.3. Townhouses
Twenty townhouses, a reduction of 16.7 percent or 4 units from the DEIS, are
proposed to the west of the IL building. These 20 townhouses would be age-
restricted to those at least 62 years old, an increase in the minimum age of 55
years old proposed in the original project. Each townhouse unit would include
a one-car garage and driveway space for one additional car. As with the other
components of the Revised Proposed Project, it is anticipated that these units
would be rental units.
The townhouses in the Revised Proposed Project would be setback furtherset
back farther from The Arbors, especially in the southwest of the Site. The
townhouses would be architecturally reconfigured from those proposed in the
original project. While each unit would still be two stories, they would be
configured as “master-down” units with the master bedroom on the first floor
(see Figure 1-13 and Figure 1-14). Together with the change in the site layout
of the townhouse buildings, this architectural change reinforces the intended
market for the townhouses (e.g., senior citizens that desire to live in a lifestyle
community) and further differentiates the townhouses from existing Village
housing.
1.4.1.4. Affordable Housing
As required by Section 209-3F of the Village Code, similar to what was included
in the original project, 1715 dwelling units would be provided as affordable units
in accordance with the requirements of Section 250-26.1F(3)(d) of the Village
Zoning Code. In the Revised Proposed Project, it is anticipated that twoone of
these units would be within the townhouses. The balance of the affordable units,
1514 units, would be within the IL building. The same proportion of one-, two-
, and three-bedroom units would be made available under the Village’s
affordable housing program as are provided in the IL building.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 1-8 DRAFT
1.4.2 SITE OPERATION
As with the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Project is anticipated to be owned by a single
entity. A managing agent and/or operator may be retained to manage and operate the
Revised Proposed Project, and that party may be an affiliate of the owner. There is no plan
to subdivide the Project Site. All units (IL, AL, and townhouse) are anticipated to be rental
units and residency will be limited to those 62 years old and older.
As with the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Project would contain accessory uses (e.g.,
library, café, dining, sale of sundries), which would be for the exclusive use by residents
of the Project Site and their guests. The facilities would not be open to the public nor
would memberships be offered to the public.
The Applicant has agreed to coordinate with the Blind Brook-Rye Union Free School
District (BBRUFSD) to ensure that shift changes for Project staff are not scheduled during
morning school drop-off times or afternoon dismissal times. This commitment will help
ensure that the Revised Proposed Project does not concentrate trip generation during times
of peak roadway congestion.
1.4.3 PARKING AND CIRCULATION
With the Revised Proposed Project, parking and circulation would remain similar in
layout and operation to the original project.
1.4.3.1. Vehicular Circulation
The Project Site would continue to be accessed from Arbor Drive and there
would continue to be two access points from Arbor Drive. Vehicular access
would be provided within a two-way, 26-foot-wide circular access drive that
loops around the Site (see Figure 1-15). Loading for the IL and AL building
would continue to be located on the north side of the IL building and would
be screened from off-Site view (see Figure 1-16). The townhouses would be
accessed from a single driveway off the main driveway.
The Applicant proposes to construct an emergency access driveway in the
northeast corner of the Project Site, as described in the DEIS. During normal
operation, this driveway would be secured at both ends with a bollard and
chain assembly.
1.4.3.2. Parking
The Revised Proposed Project would include 276238 parking spaces, 24
less64 fewer spaces than the original project. As with the original project, the
number of parking spaces proposed exceeds that required by the Revised
Proposed Zoning and the current PUD zoning (see Table 1.4-4). The
adequacy of the parking provided is discussed in Section 2.12.18, “Parking.”
Entrance to the underground parking would be consolidated from two
entrances with the original project to one entrance in the Revised Proposed
Project. This entrance would be located in the rear of the building to minimize
impacts to visual resources and to reduce the grading required around the
sides of the proposed IL building.
Chapter 1: Revised Proposed Project
DRAFT 1-9 1/3/2020
Table 1.4-4
Proposed Parking for the Revised Proposed Project
Use Original Project
Revised
Proposed Project
Revised
Proposed Zoning
Current
PUD Zoning1
Independent Living 179 174136 152136 12011021
Assisted Living 60 52 43 641
Townhouse 61 50 50 602
Total 300 276238 245229 244226
Notes:
1 “Senior Living Facility” defined in the PUD zoning district as those that provide a range of living
accommodations for people age 62 years old and older, requires 0.75 spaces per unit pursuant
to Section 250-7E(2)(g).
2 Calculated pursuant to Section 250-6G(1)(c)[3].
1.4.3.3. Pedestrian Circulation
Pedestrian circulation with the Revised Proposed Project has been expanded
from the original project. In addition to the 5five-foot-wide sidewalk around
the IL and AL building and extension of the 4four-foot-wide paved walking
path along the Site’s eastern boundary, paved walking paths would be created
along the Site’s northern boundary and to the west of the proposed
townhouses (see Figure 1-17). These paths would include crosswalks at all
siteSite roadways and would allow residents the opportunity to safely and
securely recreate throughout the landscaped Site.
As with the original project, access to the walking path on the eastern side of
the Site would be provided to the public pursuant to an easement with the
BBRUFSD, which is currently responsible for its maintenance (see DEIS
Appendix B-3). Given the integration of this path into the design and
operation of the Revised Proposed Project, the Site’s owner/operator will
assume responsibility for maintaining this path on the Project Site and will
preserve public access to the path from the southern property line to the
intersection with the path to the Village Hall/Fire Department property. The
internal Site sidewalk system would connect to the southern end of this
walking path at Arbor Drive. As part of the Revised Proposed Project, the
Applicant would install standard crosswalk markings on Arbor Drive at this
location to better identify the crossing.
1.4.4 LANDSCAPING
As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project is designed to promote health
and wellness. As such, the grounds around the building would have pathways for walking
within the overall landscaped site. Additional paved walking paths along the Site’s
northern boundary and behind the townhouses have been proposed to allow residents the
opportunity to recreate throughout the Site. The IL and AL buildings would also feature
six landscaped terraces, which would be programmed for use by Site residents.
As with the original project, the existing vegetation within the western portion of the
Project Site, between the Site and The Arbors, would remain with the Revised Proposed
Project, maintaining the buffer between the two properties. In addition, the vegetation
along the Site’s King Street frontage, extending west along Arbor Drive to the new Site
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 1-10 DRAFT
driveway, would also remain, maintaining this significant vegetative buffer between King
Street and the interior of the Project Site. Similarly, the majority of the existing vegetation
along the Site’s northern boundary and between Arbor Drive and the southernmost
townhouse would also be preserved. Most of the vegetation to be removed (a total of 74
trees with a diameter at breast height [dbh] greater than 10 inches) is located along the
eastern boundary of the Site, between the Site and the Village-owned land and in the
vicinity of the proposed easternmost site access point. The vegetation proposed to be
removed between the Site and the Village property would allow for expansion of the
stormwater management basin.
As shown on sheet L-300 in Volume 4, an extensive landscape plan has been developed for
the Proposed Project. In total, a minimum of 438 trees and 309 shrubs are proposed to be
planted within the Project Site with emphasis on providing or enhancing the visual buffer
between the Site and the properties to the east and west. In addition, the area along the Site’s
Arbor Drive frontage has been prioritized for additional buffer landscaping. Specifically,
the large planted island between the Site’s two main driveways has been designed to provide
an enhanced visual buffer between the interior of the Project Site and Arbor Drive. As a
result of the reduction in size of the IL and AL building and the increased setback of that
building from Arbor Drive, this landscaped island was also extended approximately 25 feet
further ‘deeper’ farther—“deeper”—into the Project Site. As a result, this island is now
proposed to be approximately 75 feet wide at its most narrow point. The result would be
increased screening of the IL building from Arbor Drive and a visual “framing” of the main
entrance to the IL building. Additional trees and shrubs would be planted to the west of the
westernmost Site access, to enhance the visual screening of the townhouses from Arbor
Drive. Within the interior of the Site, the landscaping would include a variety of deciduous
and evergreen trees, ornamental flowering trees, and shrub areas, to present an attractive
appearance for the residents and the surrounding community and to provide seasonal
interest. Along the Site’s northern site boundary with the Parkway, additional trees and
shrubs will be planted. These plantings will serve several purposes, including enhancing the
wetland buffers, maintaining the limited wildlife corridor along the Parkway, and helping
to screen the views of the interior of the Project Site from the Parkway.
The landscaping plan utilizes native species to the maximum extent practicable and
carefully avoids the introduction of invasive species. As such, these plantings will require
less watering once established. The Applicant has not retained a landscaping or pest
management service; however, at the time that such firms are retained, consideration will
be given to utilizing an Integrated Pest Management approach.
1.4.5 GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
1.4.5.1. Grading
The Site ranges in elevation from a low point of approximately 220 feet at the
southeastern corner (Arbor Drive and King Street) to approximately 276 feet
at the northwestern corner of the property. The center of the Site contains an
abrupt, human-made change in elevation from the relatively flat parking area
to the east (~el. 246), to a higher plateau (~el. 260) to the west. A total of
15.35 acres, or 86.4 percent of the Site, is sloped less than 15 percent.
The proposed grading for the Revised Proposed Project, similar to the original
project, was designed to create a relatively level Site. Age-restricted residential
Chapter 1: Revised Proposed Project
DRAFT 1-11 1/3/2020
communities seek to provide pedestrian paths and sidewalks with minimal
slope so residents can easily walk throughout the Site. However, reducing the
number of townhouse units and reconfiguring the layout of that portion of the
Site allowed for the townhouses to be located at a slightly higher elevation
than the original project, reducing the amount of “lowering” or “cut” required.
As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project includes “raising”
the elevation of the eastern side of the Site to level the terrain. The proposed
grading also allows for underground parking, which in addition to reducing
the adverse visual impact of expansive surface parking lot, reduces the amount
of impervious cover on the Site concomitant potential for adverse stormwater
impacts. To minimize the impacts of this regrading, the finished floor
elevation of the IL and AL building, and the underground parking garage, has
been lowered by 18 -inches, significantly reducing the amount of fill required
for the Revised Proposed Project (± 1,27236,686 cubic yards) as compared to
the original project (±51,600 cubic yards), resulting in a more “balanced” site
in terms of cut and fill (±1,472 net export for the Revised Proposed Project
compared to ±9,000 cubic yards of import with the original project).
As described in more detail in Section 2.4, “Geology, Soils, and Topography,”
the Project Site, including the vegetated area that is “up the hill” from the current
parking lot, is not indicative of the “native” contours of the Project Site having
been heavily disturbed during the Site’s prior development through mass-grading
and building construction.
As discussed in more detail in Section 2.4, “Geology, Soils, and
Topography,” the Proposed Project would disturb approximately 0.95 acres
of slopes greater than 15 percent, much, if not all of which, is associated with
the human-made slope in the center of the Site. The proposed grading plan
would result in a Site that has approximately 3.39 acres of slopes greater than
15 percent, which is 0.94 acres more than the Site has at present. As detailed
in Section 2.4, “Geology, Soils, and Topography,” areas of steep slope in the
proposed condition that would be similar to the existing condition would occur
on the eastern portion of the Site around the existing stormwater basin (i.e.,
Wetland D) and Stream S to its south, the southern portion of the wooded area
between the existing Site building and The Arbors, the northern boundary of
the Site, and the Site’s frontage along King Street. New steep slope areas in the
proposed condition would be on either side of the entrance drive to the sub-
surface parking garage, on the western portion of the Site behind the
townhomes, and on the eastern side of the proposed IL building between the
building and the proposed interior drive.
The potential environmental impacts of the proposed grading plan are
discussed in Section 2.4, “Geology, Soils, and Topography,” Section 2.6,
“Stormwater Management,” and Section 2.16, “Construction.” In general,
with the implementation of Erosion and Sediment Control Plans (ESCP)
during construction, it is the Applicant’s opinion that there would be no
adverse environmental impacts from disturbance of the Site’s steep slopes
during construction. Upon completion of the Revised Proposed Project, the
remaining steep slopes of the Project Site would be stabilized and would not
be anticipated to create an adverse environmental impact.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 1-12 DRAFT
1.4.5.2. Proposed Stormwater Management
As summarized in Section 2.6, “Stormwater Management,” and presented more
fully in Appendix D, the general drainage patterns of the Site would not be
significantly altered with the Proposed Project. Off-Site areas that currently
discharge to the Project Site, including areas from the north (i.e., the Parkway)
and east (i.e., Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD), would continue to do so. The
vast majority of the Project Site, including the entire area of the existing building
and parking lot, would continue to drain to the southeast. The westernmost
portion of the Site that currently drains through Wetland A, in between the
Project Site and The Arbors, would not be adversely affected by the Revised
Proposed Project. A small area of the Site that currently drains to the west would,
with the Proposed Project, instead drain to the east. As described more fully in
Section 2.6, “Stormwater Management,” despite the slight increase in area
draining to the east, the rate and volume of runoff draining from the Site will be
reduced with the Revised Proposed Project.
A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been developed for
the Proposed Project in accordance with State and Village regulations and
design guidelines.3 The proposed stormwater management system consists of
standard stormwater practices, including vegetated swales, subsurface
infiltration systems, and improvements to the existing stormwater detention
basin. Implementation of these practices will enhance stormwater quality and
reduce peak rates of runoff from the Project Site when compared to the
existing condition. In addition, runoff volumes would be reduced in all
analyzed storms compared to the existing condition. As such, there would be
no off-Site stormwater impacts as a result of the Revised Proposed Project.
1.4.6 IMPROVEMENTS TO ON-SITE WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE
As described more completely in Section 2.11, “Infrastructure and Utilities,” the Project
Site is currently served by a 4-inch potable water line that is connected to an 8-inch water
main in Arbor Drive. Sanitary Sewer service to the Project Site is currently provided by a
10-inch sewer line that exits the Project Site to the west.
With the Revised Proposed Project, an 8-inch watermainwater main is proposed to loop
around the IL and AL building, with extensions provided to serve the proposed
townhouses. The watermainwater main would connect to the existing municipal main
within Arbor Drive at two locations. Fire hydrants are proposed within the Project Site in
accordance with fire code requirements. A 4-inch domestic water service and a 6-inch fire
service are proposed to serve the main building.
3 Applicable stormwater requirements are found in the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit No. GP-
0-15-002, effective January 29, 2015, last modified November 23, 2016, the New York State Stormwater
Management Design Manual, last revised January 2015 and Chapter 217 “Stormwater Management” of
the Village Zoning Code.
Chapter 1: Revised Proposed Project
DRAFT 1-13 1/3/2020
With the Revised Proposed Project, an 8-inch sanitary service would connect the IL and
AL building to the existing 10-inch private main. Separate connections for the townhouses
would be made to the 8-inch main.
1.5. PURPOSE AND NEED
The Revised Proposed Project would return the Site to productive use for the benefit of the owner
and the Site’s various property taxing jurisdictions with uses that would minimize impacts to the
surrounding residential and institutional uses. Specifically, the Revised Proposed Project would
dramatically minimize the generation of traffic as compared to the full occupancy of the existing
office building.4 In addition, the Revised Proposed Project would maintain the current landscaped
buffers between the Project Site and the surrounding uses, including the residential uses to the west.
The Revised Proposed Project would also serve a community and market need by providing senior
living options in the region—a need documented by the Village’s recently adopted Comprehensive
Plan. The current need market need for this type of age-restricted community was confirmed by the
demographic studies in the DEIS as well as a recent economic market study by JLL, a leading real
estate valuation and advisory firm (see Appendix C). The JLL study concludes, in pertinent part,
that within the market area “the assisted living (including memory care) and independent living
segments [are] under-supplied at this time. This is supported by the higher occupancies reported
throughout each segment (95 percent for assisted living (including memory care), 92 percent specific
to memory care, and 93 percent for independent living).”5 The report goes on to note that though
there are 399 IL units and 346 AL units forecast to come online within the next 3three years,
including the Revised Proposed Project, there is forecast to be excess demand of 720 AL beds, 319
memory care beds, and 1,417 IL units.
4 The Revised Proposed Project would generate 5451 trips in the Weekday Peak AM Hour; 6259 trips in
the Weekday Peak Midday Hour; and, 71 67 trips in the Weekday Peak PM Hour. This is 16-19-23 fewer
trips per hour than the original project, which would have generated 70, 80, and 90 trips in the respective
peak hours analyzed. When compared to the existing conditions at the office building when counted in
2017 and 2018, the Revised Proposed Project would generate only 2017 additional trips in the AM Peak
Hour, 3734 additional trips in the midday hour, and 5046 additional trips in the PM Peak Hour. That is to
say, the Revised Proposed Project is only expected to add one additional car to Arbor Drive every 1.23 to
3.5 minutes during the peak hours.
5 Page 4 of: Market Study: Rye Brook Senior Living, 900 King Street. JLL. October 2017. Included as
Appendix C.
DRAFT 2-1 1/3/2020
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
2.1. PROCEDURAL CONTEXT
Subsequent to the Village of Rye Brook’s (the “Village”) adoption of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) on September 12, 2018 and based primarily on public and agency input,
the Applicant, 900 King Street Owner, LLC, proposes the following changes to the Proposed Project:
Raising the age restriction for residents of the Proposed Project from 55 years old and older
to 62 years old and older, consistent with the existing Site zoning;
Reducing the proposed gross square feet (gsf) of the Proposed Project by 68,81889,098 square
feet (sf), a 15.520 percent reduction in size, through:
- Reducing the number of proposed Independent Living (IL) units by 524 units (15 percent) from
160 to 152136;
- Reducing the average IL unit size by 150100 sf, or 128 percent;
- Reducing the number of two- and three-bedroom IL units and increasing the
numberpercentage of one-bedroom IL units, thereby reducing the total number of
bedrooms in the IL building by 2422 percent;
- Reducing the size of the amenity and common spaces in the IL and Assisted Living (AL)
building; and,
- Reducing the number of townhouse units by 16.7 percent from 24 units to 20 units.
Increasing the setback of the IL building from Arbor Drive and from The Arbors, as follows:
- Increasing the setback of the three-story portion of the IL building an additional 1954 feet
from Arbor Drive, for a total setback of 135175 feet, and an additional 7180 feet from The
Arbors, for a total setback of 535544 feet from the property line with The Arbors; and,
- Increasing the setback of the four-story portion of the IL building an additional 12 feet
from Arbor Drive, for a total setback of 304 feet, and an additional 2430 feet from the
Arbors, for a total setback of 488494 feet from the property line with The Arbors.
Reducing the height of the IL roof closest to The Arbors to reduce the potential for visual impacts;
Increasing the setback of the townhouses from The Arbors;
Reconfiguring the interior layout of the proposed age-restricted townhouses to more clearly meet
the needs of the target population and to differentiate the product from other Village townhouses;
Reducing the amount of grading required during construction of the Revised Proposed Project
as well as reducing the amount of fill material required for import by lowering the elevation
of the finished floor of the IL and AL building by 18 -inches and by reconfiguring the layout
and reducing the number of townhouses; and,
Expanding the on-Site pedestrian path system and providing an enhanced landscape program,
most notably along Arbor Drive.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 2-2 DRAFT
Accordingly, the Applicant has updated the proposed zoning amendments (the “Revised Proposed
Zoning”) to correlate with the Revised Proposed Project (see Appendix A). The Revised Proposed
Project and Revised Proposed Zoning are collectively known as the Revised Proposed Action.
This chapter presents the evaluation of potential environmental impacts associated with the
Revised Proposed Action, described in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project.” Special attention
is paid to evaluating whether the Revised Proposed Action would result in any new or substantially
different impacts than were described in the DEIS.
2.2. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Table 2.2-1 summarizes the reduction in potential environmental impacts of the Revised Proposed
Project resulting from Project changes in response to comments received on the DEIS.
Table 2.2-1
Changes in Environmental Impacts with the Revised Proposed Project
Revised Proposed Project Potential Environmental Impact
62+ age restriction (changed from 55+) Reduce traffic, change community character impacts,
reduce potential for school-age children
Reduced size IL and AL building
Reduce visual impacts, reduce traffic, change community
character impacts, reduce physical site impacts
(impervious cover, grading, etc.)
Reduced IL units, unit size and bedrooms, reduce
number of THtownhouse units
Reduce traffic, change community character impacts,
reduce water and sewer impacts
Reduce height of IL building facing The Arbors Reduce visual impacts
Increase setbacks from Arbor Drive and The Arbors Reduce visual impacts and community character impacts
Reconfigure townhouses (e.g., master-down) Change community character impacts
Enhanced landscaping plan Visual and aesthetic impacts
The balance of this chapter presents environmental impacts attributable to the Revised Proposed
Project as compared to the original project analyzed in the DEIS.
2.3. LAND USE, PUBLIC POLICY, AND ZONING
2.3.1. LAND USE
The Project Site is currently improved with an approximately 215,000-square-foot (sf)
office building, a use allowed by the current Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning
district. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the office building is approximately 0.28, which
is more than twice that allowed by the current Site zoning. The roof of the building is
approximately 39 feet from ground level, which exceeds current PUD regulations, and the
fascia extends another 7.5 feet, which is also greater than that which is permitted in the
zoning code.
The area within ½-mile of the Project Site consists primarily of detached single-family
residential uses, with some exceptions, most notably adjacent to the Project Site.
Immediately to the south of the Project Site is the Blind Brook Middle School and High
School. The approximately 21-acre campus serves grades 6–12 and includes a Middle
School and High School building and gymnasium, multiple baseball and football fields, a
track, and various small ancillary buildings.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-3 1/3/2020
The Applicant proposes to construct an age-restricted residential campus on the Project
Site, defined by the Village zoning code as a “senior living facility.” The proposed use is
permitted within the existing PUD zoning district. A senior living facility, which is a
residential use, is compatible with both the non-age-restricted residential uses and the
institutional uses adjacent to the Site.
2.3.2. PROPOSED DENSITY
In response to comments from the Village Board of Trustees (the “Lead Agency”) and the
community, and to reduce the potential for adverse impacts, the Applicant has reduced
the size of the Revised Proposed Project from that analyzed in the DEIS. Specifically, the
Applicant has reduced the size of the project by 68,81289,908 sf through reductions in the
number of IL and Townhouse units, reductions in the average IL unit size, reductions in
the number of IL bedrooms, and reducing the size of the IL and AL building’s common
and amenity spaces.
As shown in Table 2.3-1, when considered on its own (e.g., not part of the entire PUD of
which it is a part), the density of the Revised Proposed Project is less than The Atria, Rye
Brook (both in terms of sf per acre and number of units per acre). The Revised Proposed
Project is less dense than the Doral Green PUD in terms of sfsquare feet per acre. While
the number of units or dwelling units per acre for the Revised Proposed Project exceeds
that of other PUDs, it is still within the range of “low- to medium-density” housing as
defined by the Comprehensive Plan (see Section 2.3.4.1, “Comprehensive Plan”). Further,
the units included in the Revised Proposed Project are smaller than the units included in
other PUDs and, most importantly, are age-restricted housing units, including AL units,
which have different impacts per unit than market-rate housing.
Table 2.3-1
Comparative Project Density
Development
Dwelling Units
per 5,000 sf
Dwelling Units
per Acre
Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Square feet
per Acre
Average Unit
Size (sf)
The Arbors 0.8 6.9 0.37 15,900 2,304
The Atria, Rye Brook 3.9 34.1 1.11 48,352 ukn
Revised Proposed
Project
1.01
(1.67.1.55)*
9.78.8
(14.513.51)* 0.4946 21.169
20,032
1,069127 (IL)
2,215072 (TH)
647 (AL)
PUD with Revised
Proposed Project
0.877
(1.0.93)*
6.7.0
(8.41)* 0.3635 15,743407 1,846895
(1,645685)*
Doral Green 0.9 7.9 0.54 23,369 2,943
Sun Homes 0.4 3.6 0.28 12,109 3,364
Note: * Includes dwelling units and AL units
Considering the entire PUD District of which the Project Site is a part, with the Revised
Proposed Project the PUD would have 6.7.0 dwelling units per acre, of which 4138
percent would be age restricted (see Table 2.3-1). Including the AL units in the Revised
Proposed Project, which are not dwelling units, the PUD would have 8.41 total units per
acre, more than half49 percent of which would be age-restricted and 17 percent of which
would be AL units. With the Revised Proposed Project, the FAR of the PUD District as a
whole would increase by 0.0605 FAR to 0.3635 FAR. The PUD of which the Revised
Proposed Project would be a part would consist of fewer dwelling units per acre (6.7.0
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 2-4 DRAFT
compared to 7.9) and less sfsquare feet per acre (15,743407 sf/acre comparecompared to
23,369 sf/acre sf) than Doral Green, which contains no age-restricted housing. When
compared to Sun Homes, the PUD of which the Revised Proposed Project would be a part
would consist of more dwelling units per acre (6.7.0 compared to 3.6) and slightly more
sfsquare feet per acre (15,743407 sf/acre compared to 12,109 sf/acre). The Revised
Proposed Project, and the PUD of which it would be a part, both have smaller average
unit sizes than both Doral Green and Sun Homes.
2.3.3. ZONING
The Project Site is located within the Village’s PUD zoning district (see DEIS Figure 3-1).
The Site is part of a larger PUD, one of three within the Village, which was established
between 1979 and 1981 when the Site was under the zoning jurisdiction of the Town of Rye
and prior to the establishment of the Village. The Village’s current PUD regulations allow
residential, office, senior living, and retail uses. As such, the Revised Proposed Zoning
would not change the allowable uses on the Project Site. Rather, the Revised Proposed
Zoning includes changes to the allowable height and density of senior living facilities on
the Project Site. Specifically, the Revised Proposed Zoning includes the following
provisions:
Permit only the “senior living facility” use on the Project Site, except as otherwise
allowed by the existing PUD zoning for other sites in the Village;
Establish site-specific density standards for the proposed “senior living facility” of
14.513.6 residential units per acre, made up of 9.78.8 dwelling units per acre and 4.8
AL units per acre (see Table 2.3-2);
Establish site-specific setback and area requirements for the Project Site, including a
front-yard setback of 3842 feet, a side yard setback of 8584 feet, and a rear yard
setback of 2530 feet (see Table 2.3-2);
Establish a maximum gross land coverage for the Project Site of 40 percent, which is
less than the Site’s currently developed condition (42 percent) (see Table 2.3-2); and,
Increase the maximum permitted height of senior living facilities from 35 feet to 45
feet, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations (see Table 2.3-2).
In response to public comments and comments from the Lead Agency, and to reduce the
potential for adverse impacts, the Revised Proposed Zoning includes two notable changes
to the zoning originally proposed. First, the Applicant no longer is requesting to lower the
minimum age for residents of senior living facilities from 62 years old to 55 years old.
Second, the Applicant has reduced the gross floor area and number of units permitted by
the Revised Proposed Zoning (see Table 2.3-2).
As was the case in the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Zoning would only apply to senior
living facilities on the Project Site and would not change the regulations governing any
other use in the Village’s PUD, including residential, office, conference center, or retail.
Further, as was the case in the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Project tracks closely with the
requirements of the Revised Proposed Zoning. That is, the Revised Proposed Zoning
would not allow the development of a project on the Project Site that is meaningfully
different from the Revised Proposed Project in terms of the number of units proposed for
the senior living facility and each component thereof, the amount of impervious land
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-5 1/3/2020
Table 2.3-2
Zoning Comparison
Current Zoning Current Condition
Proposed Zoning
(DEIS)
Revised Proposed
Zoning (FEIS)
Revised Proposed
Project (FEIS)
Requirements for Project Site
Front Yard (building setback) No site minimum, only PUD buffers -- 42 feet 38 42 feet 38 42 feet
Side Yard (building setback) No site minimum, only PUD buffers -- 90 feet 85 84 feet 87 84 feet
Rear Yard (building setback) No site minimum, only PUD buffers -- 30 feet 25 30 feet 25 30 feet1
Gross Land Coverage (maximum) No maximum 42% 40% 40% 39.9538.04%
Building Height (maximum) 35 feet 39 feet 45 feet / 4 stories 45 feet / 4 stories 41.64 81 / 4 stories
Floor Area per Acre 5,227 sf 12,196 sf 26,000 sf^ 22,00020,100^ 21,16920,032
All Units 6 per acre -- 15.2 per acre^ 14.513.6 13.6 per
acre^ 14.513.5 per acre^
Dwelling Units 6 per acre -- 10.4 per acre^ 9.78.8 8.8 per acre^ 9.78.8 per acre^
AL Units -- -- 4.8 per acre 4.8 per acre 4.8 per acre
PUD Site-wide Requirements
Buffer Areas (Section 250-7E(2)(e))
25% of PUD Site (Board of Trustees may increase
or decrease by 20%) N/A No Change No Change N/A
150 feet building setback from property line
abutting existing (public) road 623 feet (King Street) No Change No Change 330 feet (King Street)
100 feet along zoning district boundary
130 feet—Northern boundary
385 feet—Eastern boundary
244 feet-South
No Change Same as Yard
Requirements
25 30 feet-North 87 84 feet-East
88 92 feet-South1
Parking set back 50 or 100 feet from perimeter PUD property line
12 feet—North
77 feet—East No Change Same as Yard Requirements 77 feet-North 26 feet-East
Public Open Space 10% of PUD Site Applies to PUD Site as a whole.
See Chapter 10 in DEIS. No Change No Change N/A
Parking
Office: 1 per 200 sf2
(1,075 spaces) 595 spaces No Change No Change N/A
Two-family dwelling: 2.5 per unit3 N/A No Change No Change 50
Age-restricted multifamily: 0.75 spaces per unit N/A 1 per unit (160 total) 1 per unit (152 136 total) 174 136
Senior living facility: 0.75 spaces per unit4 N/A 0.5 per unit (43 total) 0.5 per unit (43 total) 52
Notes:
^ Applies only to senior living facilities, including AL facilities, and not to “standard” residential developments.
1 This is the setback of the southernmost 2-story townhouse. The IL building is set back further from Arbor Drive than the existing office building. 2 Section 250-6G(c)(1)(b)[11].
3 Section 250-6G(c)(1)(b)[3]. 4 Section 250-7E(2)(g)
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-6 DRAFT
coverage, the height of the buildings, or the required yards (see Table 2.3-2). The Revised
Proposed Zoning does not fundamentally change the nature of the uses that would be
allowed on-Site from what is currently allowed on-Site.
The consistency of the Revised Proposed Zoning with applicable public policy
documents, including the Comprehensive Plan, is discussed in Section 2.3.4, “Public
Policy.” The potential environmental impacts of the Revised Proposed Zoning, including
potential impacts to visual resources and community character, are described throughout
the DEIS and this Final EIS (FEIS).
Consistent with the Board of Trustee’sTrustees’ existing authority to establish site-
specific PUD buffer standards, pursuant to Section 250-7E(2)(e)[1][d] of the Zoning
Code, the Revised Proposed Zoning explicitly states that Site Plans in conformance with
the site-specific yard requirements established by the Revised Proposed Zoning shall also
be deemed to have an adequate PUD buffer.
As with the original zoning, the Revised Proposed Zoning does not propose changes to the
Village’s regulations with regard to the provisions of fair and affordable housing or adequate
parks and open space. As required by Section 209-3F of the Village Code, the Revised
Proposed Project would include 1715 affordable units, as defined in Section 250-26.1D of
the Village Code. These units would be provided in both the townhouses and IL facility in
proportion to the total number, and type, of market-rate units. Section 250-7E(2)(f) of the
Village Code requires that 10 percent of a PUD site be offered and dedicated to the Village
for recreational use or a fee in lieu of providing such land be paid to the Village. This
provision of the Village Code applies to a PUD site as a whole at the time that it is mapped
a PUD, and not to individual lots within a PUD site, including the Project Site. The Village
retains its authority to require the provision of adequate recreational facilities on the Project
Site at such time as the Site is redeveloped pursuant to its authority under Section 209-15 of
the Village Code. Specifically, Section 209-15 of the Village Code states that site plans
must, when required, contain a suitably sized park or parks for active or passive recreation
or applicants must remit a fee in lieu thereof. The ability of the Revised Proposed Project to
meet the requirements of Section 209-15 and provide adequate recreational facilities for the
projected population of the Project Site is discussed in detail in Section 2.10.3, “Open
Space.”
With respect to the purposes of the PUD district as codified in §250-7E(1), and as
provided in more detail in Section 3.2.2.2 of the DEIS, “Consistency with the Intent and
Current Condition of the PUD”:
The Revised Proposed Zoning would not introduce any new uses to the PUD zoning
district. In addition, the Revised Proposed Project would remove a large commercial
office building from the Project Site, consistent with the legislative intent of providing
“limited commercial” uses within the PUD.
The Revised Proposed Project would conserve natural resources and preserve open space
by focusing development within an area that has been disturbed by prior development.
In addition, the Revised Proposed Project would preserve the wetland corridor in the
western portion of the Site and would increase the amount of open space and decrease
the amount of impervious land cover by 0.367 acres (or approximately twonine percent
of the Site) from the current condition.
The Revised Proposed Project would provide benefits to the community by reducing
the traffic impacts compared to the re-occupancy of the existing office building,
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-7 1/3/2020
generating an increase in tax revenue for the Village and Blind Brook-Rye Union
Free School District (BBRUFSD) while placing no additional burden on BBRUFSD,
and providing additional housing options within the Village.
The Project Site is within the Village’s Scenic Roads Overlay District (SROD). The
SROD, codified in Section 250-7F of the Zoning Code, was “established for the purpose
of preserving the Village of Rye Brook’s historic resources, stone walls, natural features
and views from its roadways…” As demonstrated in detail in Section 3.2.2.3 of the DEIS,
“Consistency with Scenic Roads Overlay District,” the Revised Proposed Project would
be consistent with the requirements of the SROD. Specifically, and for the reasons set
forth in the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Project would:
Be architecturally compatible with the surrounding structures and the important
scenic and natural features of the Site shall be preserved;
Include a setback of 330 feet from King Street, the street frontage regulated by the
SROD, which would be maintained in its current condition, consisting of dense
wooded vegetation, as part of a future site plan approval;
Maintain the approximate location of the building signage along King Street;
Not include above-ground utility equipment within 35 feet of King Street;
Not include parking within the SROD vegetative buffer; and,
Not include earth moving within the SROD vegetative buffer.
2.3.4. PUBLIC POLICY
2.3.4.1. Comprehensive Plan
General
As demonstrated in detail in Section 3.3.1.1 of the DEIS, “General
Recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan,” the Revised Proposed
Project would be consistent with the relevant general recommendations of the
Village’s Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, and for the reasons set forth in
the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Project would:
Promote sustainable development,; encourage a stable and enduring
economic base,; provide for safety health and education,; preserve the
natural cultural, recreational, and historic assets of the Village,; enhance
the design of the built and natural environment,; and serve as an example
of smart-growth development.
Enhance the quality of life of Village residents, business, interest groups,
and future generations.
Promote a diversity of housing choices.
Include 1715 affordable dwelling units.
Site-Specific
The Village’s Comprehensive Plan makes several site-specific recommendations
for the Project Site. The consistency of the Revised Proposed Project with those
recommendations is described in detail in Section 3.3.1.2 of the DEIS, “Site
Specific Recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan,” and summarized
below.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-8 DRAFT
The Revised Proposed Project would reposition a property that is
improved with an office building with a long history of vacancy. The
Revised Proposed Project would provide significant tax revenues to the
Village and other taxing jurisdictions, including the Blind Brook-Rye
Union Free School District (BBRUFSD,), while placing no additional
burden on the BBRUFSD.
The Revised Proposed Zoning would encourage age-restricted and AL
facilities within the Village and provide zoning certainty for the Project
Site.
The Revised Proposed Zoning would allow for four-story age-restricted
housing buildings that are carefully controlled to avoid potential visual
impacts and would reduce the parking requirements for AL units in
recognition that these facilities are extremely low traffic generators.
The Comprehensive Plan also recommends that the Village “[a]djust the
density requirement for residential uses [within PUD districts] to a less
restrictive regulation that still maintains Rye Brook’s low-density character.”
Based on comments from the Lead Agency and the public with respect to the
impact of the original project on community character, the Applicant has
reduced the size of the Revised Proposed Project by 68,81289,098 sf—a 15.5-
20 percent reduction in gross floor area.
With regard to allowable density for new residential developments within PUD
districts, the Comprehensive Plan prioritizes preservation of the Village’s low-
density residential character. The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically
opine or ascribe a density limit or cap for new PUD district residential
development, which would be antithetical to the explicit recommendation to
allow increased density in the PUD zones. As noted in the Comprehensive Plan,
the Village is developed with a wide variety of residential densities. In general,
the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the Village’s single-family zoning districts
(e.g., R-5 to R-25) as “low density,” allowing up to one unit per 5,000 sf of lot
area. Low- to medium-density is recognized as generally occurring within the
Village’s two-family zoning districts (e.g., R-2F), which allow two units per
5,000 sf of lot area. Finally, the medium- to high-density residential areas are
defined as attached housing, regardless of the number of units per lot area.
Explicitly included in this definition of high-density housing is Doral Greens,
The Arbors, and Talcott Woods.
The Revised Proposed Project proposes 172156 dwelling units, a density of
9.78.8 dwelling units per acre, or 1.101 dwelling units per 5,000 sf. If AL
units, which are not dwelling units, are included in calculation, total units per
acre would be 14.513.51, or 1.755 units per 5,000 sf. Using the
Comprehensive Plan’s measure of density, the Revised Proposed Project
would be classified as “low- to medium-density”..” Using the Comprehensive
Plan’s consideration of housing type, regardless of the number of units,
though, the Revised Proposed Project would be considered medium- to high-
density housing, similar to The Arbors and Doral Greens.
It is important to note that, as described in the ResponseResponses to
Comments 20 and 36 in Chapter 3, “Response to Comments,” comparing the
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-9 1/3/2020
number of units per acre of an age-restricted residential project to the number
of units in a market-rate residential project does not provide sufficient
information to evaluate differences in the “look and feel,” or “character,” of
a project. Age-restricted residential projects are inherently different from
market-rate projects in terms of architecture, site layout, and off-Site impacts
per unit. This latter differentiating factor is critical to understanding how the
“character” of a site may change with a given use. For example, an age-
restricted residential community tends to generate significantly fewer car trips
per unit than a market-rate development. Residents of these communities are
– —by requirement - —older, potentially less active, and much less likely to
have children than residents in market-rate developments.
2.3.4.2. Village’s Affordable Housing Policies
The Village has adopted policies and zoning provisions that encourage the
development of Fair and Affordable Housing. As discussed above, the
Revised Proposed Project is fully consistent with these policies and would be
compliant with all zoning regulations with respect to the provision of
affordable housing. Specifically, as required by Section 209-3F of the Village
Code, the Revised Proposed Project would include 1715 affordable units, as
defined in Section 250-26.1D of the Village Code. TwoOne of these units
would be within the Revised Proposed Project’s townhouses, which are
proposed to be the same size. The balance of the affordable units, 1514 units,
would be within the IL building. The same proportion of one-, two-, and
three-bedroom units would be made available under the Village’s affordable
housing program as are provided in the IL building.
2.3.4.3. Applicable Documents of Westchester County
As detailed in Section 3.3.3 of the DEIS, “Applicable Policy Documents of
Westchester County,” of the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Project is consistent
with the Westchester County’s (the “County”) various land use policies.
Specifically, the Revised Proposed Project is consistent with the County’s
1996 Patterns for Westchester plan by redeveloping an existing built site with
convenient access to transportation instead of developing a greenfield; being
consistent with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan; providing affordable
housing for seniors; and protecting of the character of the Village.
The Revised Proposed Project is also consistent with Westchester 2025, a
County-wide planning effort. Specifically, the Revised Proposed Project
redevelops an existing built site and preserves natural resources by not
developing a greenfield. Finally, the Revised Proposed Project is consistent
with the Westchester County Greenway Compact Plan, which was adopted
by the Village and encourages projects that reduce impacts to natural and
cultural resources, are consistent with regional planning goals, and would
promote economic development.
2.4. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND TOPOGRAPHY
The overwhelming majority of the area within the proposed Limit of Disturbance (LOD) for the
Revised Proposed Project is within areas disturbed by the immediately preceding Site
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-10 DRAFT
development (i.e., the current office building and parking lot). Any area of proposed disturbance
outside the existing building and parking lot footprint was likely disturbed by the prior
development on the Site (e.g., the residential use). By concentrating development in activated in
areas previously disturbed by construction, the Revised Proposed Project avoids and minimizes,
impacts to mature vegetation, native soils, and native topography to the maximum extent
practicable. For example, the soils proposed to be disturbed are classified as “Urban Fill.” This
classification is the consequence of prior disturbance through mass grading and building
construction. The majority of proposed steep slopes disturbance occurs on human-made steep
slopes, including those around the existing stormwater basin on the Site’s eastern edge and the
vegetated slope towards the Site’s western edge. (See (see Appendix B for site plans depicting
the condition of the Site prior to development of the current office building as well as the changes
in topography proposed by construction of the office building.)).
To further reduce the potential for adverse environmental impacts, the Revised Proposed Project
reduces the area of the Site within the LOD from 13.21 acres to 12.54 acres.
2.4.1. SOILS
As with the original project, the vast majority of the disturbance associated with the
Revised Proposed Project would be to soils defined as Urban land (Uf and UhB) (see
Table 2.4-1 and Figure 2-1). Similarly, a small amount of disturbance to the Paxton fine
sandy loam (PnB and PnC) and Charlton fine sandy loam (ChB) soil type would be
required in the area of the proposed emergency access drive.
Table 2.4-1
Proposed Disturbance by Soil Type
Soil Unit Original Project (sf) Revised Proposed Project (sf)
ChB—Charlton Fine Sandy
Loam (3-8 percent slope) 2,766 0
PhB—Paxton fine sandy loam
(3-8 percent slope) 38,229 41,825
PhC—Paxton fine sandy loam
(8-15 percent slope) 1,814 1,814
Uf—Urban Land 531,329 498,365
UhB—Urban land-Charlton
complex (2-8 percent slope) 276 1,127
UhC—Urban land-Charlton
complex (8-15 percent slope) 255 0
WdB-Woodbridge Loam (3-8
percent slope) 912 3,116
Source: JMC Engineering
The proposed grading for the Revised Proposed Project, similar to the original project,
was designed to create a relatively level Site. Age-restricted residential communities seek
to provide pedestrian paths and sidewalks with minimal slope so residents can easily walk
throughout the Site. However, reducing the number of townhouse units and reconfiguring
the layout of that portion of the Site allowed for the townhouses to be located at a slightly
higher elevation than the original project, reducing the amount of “lowering” or “cut”
required. As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project includes “raising” the
elevation of the eastern side of the Site to level the terrain. The proposed grading also
allows for underground parking, which in addition to reducing the adverse visual impact
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-11 1/3/2020
of expansive surface parking lot, reduces the amount of impervious cover on the Site
concomitant potential for adverse stormwater impacts.
In addition to reducing the area of the Site proposed for disturbance, the Revised Proposed
Project reduces the excavation, or cut, required as well as the fill required for the Site. As
shown in Table 2.4-2, the Revised Proposed Project also reduces the net import of fill
material required from the original project, which reduces potential adverse impacts
related to on-Site construction activities and off-Site trucking of earthen material.
Table 2.4-2
Cut-and-Fill Analysis
Total Cut
(cubic yards)
Total Fill
(cubic yards)
Net Cut-and-Fill
(cubic yards)
Original Project ±42,600 ±51,600 ±9,000 net import
Revised Proposed Project ±37,95838,158 ±36,686
±1,272472 net
importexport
Source: JMC Engineering.
As described in FEIS Section 2.7, “Vegetation and Wildlife,” of this FEIS, the grading of
the Project Site would result in a temporary loss of habitat for species that use highly
fertilized, mowed lawn as a dominant habitat. Immediately adjacent to the Project Site is
similar habitat that will be available to wildlife during construction. No species of special
concern were found on-Site. After construction, the Revised Proposed Project would
result in a net increase in the amount of lawn habitat for existing wildlife.
To reduce the potential for erosion of soils during construction and to protect from the
loss of mature vegetation, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Erosion
and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) have been prepared (see Appendix D). The revised
SWPPP is described in Section 2.6, “Stormwater Management,” and the preliminary
ESCP is described in Section 2.16, “Construction.” These plans include measures to
prevent untreated stormwater runoff or sediments from leaving the Project Site during
construction. Measures proposed include the installation of stabilized truck entrances, silt
fencing, inlet protection, and a temporary sediment basin. Prior to final site plan approval,
the Village will review and approve the final SWPPP and ESCP to ensure compliance
with state and local regulations. With the implementation of the Village-approved SWPPP
and ESCP, the Revised Proposed Project would not be expected to have a significant
adverse impact to on-Site soils.
2.4.2. TOPOGRAPHY
The original project would have required approximately 13.17 acres of disturbance to the
Site. As stated above, the area of the Site proposed to be disturbed for the Revised
Proposed Project was decreased to 12.54 acres. In addition, the area of existing steep slope
disturbance on the Site has been reduced from 0.97 acres in the original project to 0.95
acres with the Revised Proposed Project (see Figure 2-1 and Table 2.4-3).
As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would create certain new areas
of steep slope on the Project Site, most notably in areas around the access ramp to the
underground parking area (see Figure 2-2 and Table 2.4-4). These areas of steep slope
are necessary to allow for a grading plan that accommodates the underground parking, the
need for a relatively flat pedestrian experience outside of the buildings, and the need to
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-12 DRAFT
meet the existing grades on Arbor Drive at the driveway connections. Another small area
of moderately steep slope would be created within the landscaped area between the two
driveways on Arbor Drive. This area would provide visual screening of the buildings and
Site from Arbor Drive.
Table 2.4-3
Steep Slopes Analysis
Slopes Category
Current Condition Original Project
Area of
Disturbance
Revised Proposed
Project Area of
Disturbance Area
Percent of
Project Site1
<15% 668,842 sf
(15.35 acres) 85.9% 530,125 sf
(12.17 acres)
507,422 sf
(11.65 acres)
Moderately Steep
Slope
(15–25%)
58,554 sf
(1.34 acres) 7.7% 19,166 sf
(0.44 acres)
17,314 sf
(0.40 acres)
Very Steep Slope
(25–35%)
29,885 sf
(0.69 acres) 4.0% 18,295 sf
(0.42 acres)
16,590 sf
(0.38 acres)
Extremely Steep
Slope
(>35%)
18,304 sf
(0.42 ares) 2.4% 6,098 sf
(0.14 acres)
5,090 sf
(0.17 acres)
Note: 1 Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Sources: JMC Engineering; Village Code Chapter 213.
Table 2.4-4
Proposed Steep Slopes
Slopes Category
Total Area Percent of Project Site1
Net Change from
Existing Condition
Original
Project
Revised
Proposed
Project
Original
Project
Revised
Proposed
Project
Original
Project
Revised
Proposed
Project
<15% 637,736 sf
(14.64 ac.)
627,835
(14.41 ac.) 82.4 80.9 -31,106 sf -41,007 sf
Moderately Steep
Slope
(15–25%)
69,518 sf
(1.60 ac.)
84,982
(1.95 ac.) 9.0 11.0 +10,964 sf +26,428 sf
Very Steep Slope
(25–35%)
45,641 sf
(1.05 ac.)
40,734
(0.94 ac.) 5.9 5.3 +15,756 sf +10,849 sf
Extremely Steep
Slope
(>35%)
22,690 sf
(0.52 ac.)
22,034
(0.51 ac.) 2.9 2.8 +4,386 sf -3,730 sf
Note: 1 Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Sources: JMC Engineering; Village Code Chapter 213.
2.4.3. CONSTRUCTION OF SUBSURFACE STRUCTURE
As a result of changes to the layout of the Revised Proposed Project, a single subsurface
infiltration practice is proposed, which combines the two separate practices proposed in
the original project. As described in Section 2.6, “Stormwater Management,” the bottom
of the infiltration basin is located at elevation 239.60. Based on the geotechnical data
collected on the Site and soils testing performed by JMC that is includeEngineering,
included in Appendix H of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), this
elevation allows for more than the required minimum 3three feet of clearance between
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-13 1/3/2020
rock and groundwater, which were not found at elevations greater than 235.5. As such,
and as was the case with the original project, it is not anticipated that rock blasting would
be required to accommodate the construction of the subsurface infiltration practices with
the Revised Proposed Project.
Competent rock is not expected within 11 feet of the bottom of the garage, which based
upon the current design, would be the lowest excavation (see sheet C-410 in Volume 4,
and the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (DEIS Appendix I) and Phase II ESA (DEIS
Appendix H-2). Bedrock height can be unpredictable but from the accessible information,
no blasting or rock crushing is anticipated during construction. As rock blasting, rock
crushing, rock chipping, and pile driving are not anticipated during construction, on-site
materials processing will not be necessary.
2.5. WATERS AND WETLANDS
Five wetlands meeting the three requirements for wetland identification were located on the
Project Site based on wetland investigations and delineations performed in accordance with
federal and Village standards (see DEIS Appendix D-2). The on-Site wetlands and/or streams are
created and sustained by untreated stormwater runoff from the adjacent Hutchinson River Parkway
(the “Parkway”) or by stormwater from impervious surfaces conveyed from Village Hall, Rye
Brook Police Department (RBPD), and Rye Brook Fire Department (RBFD), and the Project Site.
The wetlands are of comparatively low ecological value, dominated by a limited number of
common plant species, and are stressed by untreated stormwater runoff hydrology inputs of short
duration. Nevertheless, they do serve some habitat and modification of surface water quality
functions (see DEIS Appendix D-5 for a functional assessment of the wetlands). The wetland and
watercourse buffers within the Project Site are currently encroached upon by on-Site and off-Site
developments, including parking lots, roads, buildings, and manicured lawns.
2.5.1. DIRECT IMPACTS TO WETLANDS AND WATERBODIES
As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would not fill any wetland or
waterbody. The only activity that would occur within a wetland would be the clearing and
removal of debris within the existing stormwater basin (Wetland D).
2.5.2. DIRECT IMPACTS TO WETLAND AND WATERBODY BUFFER AREAS
In response to public comments and to reduce potential impacts to wetland buffers as well
as to mitigate the overall impact of the Revised Proposed Project, the Revised Proposed
Project reduces the total amount of construction required within 100 feet of on-Site
wetlands to 2.25 acres—a reduction of 0.33 acres (13 percent) from the original project.
Further, the Revised Proposed Project reduces the total amount of additional impervious
area proposed to be created within 100 feet of on-Site wetlands to 0.159163 acres—a
reduction of 0.017013 acres (107.4 percent) from the original project (see Table 2.5-1).
The increase in impervious area within 100 feet of on-Site wetlands would be
approximately 6,926 square feet7,100 sf with the Revised Proposed Project. As discussed
in Section 2.6, “Stormwater Management,” the amount of impervious area within the
Project Site would be reduced by 0.367 acres from the current condition with the Revised
Proposed Project.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-14 DRAFT
Table 2.5-1
Cumulative Changes to Wetland Buffers by Wetland Area
Existing
Buffer
Area
(acres)
Existing On-Site
Impervious
Coverage in
Buffer (acres)1
Proposed Impervious in
Buffer (acres)
Net Increase/Decrease in
Impervious in Buffer (acres)
Original
Project
Revised
Proposed
Project
Original
Project
Revised
Proposed
Project
Wetland A /
Stream A 2.363 0.025 0.005 0.000 -0.020 -0.025
Wetland B/C 0.893 0.098 0.370 0.366 0.272 0.268
Wetland D /
Stream S 1.444 0.630 0.473 0.465469 -0.157 -0.165161
Wetland E2 0.248 0.000 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.081
Total 4.948 0.753 0.929 0.912916 0.176 0.159163
Note:
1 There is additional impervious area within the 100-foot buffer that is located on-Site but outside of the
proposed Limit of Disturbance as well as additional impervious area on adjacent parcels.
2 The FEIS considers the grasscrete emergency access drive to be impervious, consistent with the
Village Code, while the DEIS considered this area to be permeable.
Source: JMC Engineering
As with the original project, the majority of the buffer area proposed to be affected by
construction of the Revised Proposed Project consists either of regrading areas that are
currently permeable (e.g., existing lawn area), redevelopment of existing impervious
surfaces with new buildings/pavement, or converting areas that are currently impervious
(e.g., parking lot) to lawn. As shown in Figure 2-3, construction of the Revised Proposed
Project requires activity within approximately 2.25 acres of area within 100 feet of on-
Site wetlands. This is a decrease of approximately 0.33 acres from the original project.
The majority of this reduction is the result of reducing the amount of regrading required
within the buffer surrounding Wetland A, the wetland with the greatest ecological value
on the Project Site, from the original project. This reduction was achieved through the
reduction in the number of townhouses proposed as well as the re-orientation of the
townhouses within the Site.
As noted above, approximately 0.753 acres of land within 100 feet of the on-Site wetlands
and the proposed limit of disturbance is currently impervious (e.g., building or parking
area). These areas currently provide no beneficial wetland buffer function. As shown in
Figure 2-3, with the Revised Proposed Project, approximately 0.56 acres of vegetated
functional wetland buffer would be converted to impervious surface (adjacent to Wetlands
B/C, E, and Stream S); however, approximately 0.40 acres of currently impervious
wetland buffer (adjacent to Wetlands A and D) would be restored to a vegetated condition.
Approximately 0.35 acres of wetland buffer that is currently impervious will remain
impervious. The remaining 0.94 acres of wetland buffer that would be affected by
construction of the Revised Proposed Project would consist of regrading and revegetating
areas that are currently maintained lawn or wooded areas, most of which have been
previously disturbed by previous on-Site development (see Figure 2-3). By locating
development within the central, previously disturbed and developed portion of the Project
Site, the total amount of impervious area within the Site’s wetland buffers would increase
by approximately 6,9267,100 sf with the Revised Proposed Project from its current
condition.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-15 1/3/2020
TheAs discussed in Section 5.3.2 of the DEIS, “Direct Impacts to Wetland and Waterbody
Buffer Areas,” and for the reasons below, the Revised Proposed Project would not
adversely impact the ecological functions of the Site’s wetland buffers. Both Wetlands A
and D would realize a net decrease in the amount of impervious surface within their 100-
foot Village-regulated wetland buffers from the current condition. Wetland A would have
a 0.025 acre reduction of impervious surface within its wetland buffer as a result of
removing the existing building and Wetland D would have a 0.165163 acre reduction of
impervious surface within its buffer as a result of removing the existing parking lot, which
will allow for additional infiltration of runoff in the buffers and a reduction in surface
water pollutants entering these wetlands.
Buffers surrounding Wetlands B, C, and E would have slight increases in impervious areas
with the Revised Proposed Project as compared with the existing condition. It is important
to note, however, that Wetlands B, C, and E are of low ecological value, deriving their
hydrology from the discharge of drainage from the Parkway or other off-Site practices
and that the wetland buffers are dominated by invasive species or manicured lawn and are
heavily disturbed by development. As such, in their current condition, they provide little
in the way of functional benefit to their associated wetlands.
Section 245-8(A) of the Village Code states that the following factors, highlighted below,
should be considered, to determine “the impact of the proposed activity upon public
health, safety and welfare, flora and fauna, rare and endangered species, water quality,
and additional wetland functions.”
Wetland hydrology: The Revised Proposed Project would avoid interference with
existing wetland hydrology and wetland water circulation. The Site’s five wetlands
occur around the periphery of the Project Site; therefore, and as described in more
detail above, redevelopment of the interior of the Project Site would not substantially
change wetland water circulation or hydrologic inputs to the Site’s wetlands.
Wetland flora and fauna: By avoiding direct disturbance to all wetlands, impacts to
wetland flora and fauna are avoided. The Revised Proposed Project would limit
disturbance to natural vegetation by keeping development within the previously
developed portions of the Site with the exception of minimal tree clearing for the loop
road and emergency access drive. All landscape plantings will be native species and
will include revegetation (i.e., enhancement) of portions of the existing lawn within the
wetland buffers, thereby improving the habitat functions of the existing wetland buffers.
Endangered species: There are no New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC)-listed or federally listed threatened, endangered, rare, or
special concern plant or animal species on the Project Site, as discussed in Section
2.7, “Vegetation and Wildlife.”
Public health, safety, and welfare: Wetland functions would be retained on the Project
Site for the benefit of public health, safety, and welfare. This would be achieved
principally by reducing overall impervious surface coverage on-Site by 0.367 acres
and increasing the treatment of stormwater runoff.
Sedimentation and turbidity: The Revised Proposed Project would prevent the influx
of sediments and other pollutants to the Site’s wetlands and waters by treating runoff
from the Revised Proposed Project in a new stormwater management system that
would improve treatment and result in reduced post-construction runoff rates, in
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-16 DRAFT
accordance with NYSDEC GP-0-15-002, as discussed in Section 2.6, “Stormwater
Management.”
Influx of toxic chemicals or thermal changes: The Revised Proposed Project would
avoid the release of toxic or heavy metals through the construction of the proposed
stormwater management system. The stormwater management system would remove
such pollutants through sediment settling and absorption/adsorption. Thermal
changes to wetland water supply would be avoided by reducing the amount of
impervious surface on the overall Site by 0.367 acres, which would increase
stormwater infiltration and minimize the potential for thermal impacts. In addition,
the stormwater management plan will utilize sub-surfacesubsurface runoff storage
that would similarly avoid the thermal impacts associated with surface detention
ponds.
Cumulative effects: The cumulative effects of the Revised Proposed Project would
not affect or jeopardize off-Site/downstream wetlands because the Revised Proposed
Project’s stormwater management plan and landscaping plan would prevent
degradation of stormwater runoff and would use native plants to improve vegetation
diversity on the Project Site.
As noted by the Village’s Planning Consultant, Chapter 245 of the Village Code
recommends that projects be located and designed to minimize impacts to wetlands and
wetland buffers. The consistency of the Revised Proposed Project with that standard is
discussed below.
Wetland Buffer A—The area proposed to be disturbed within Wetland Buffer A
consists of manicured lawn, which provides relatively low levels of wetland buffer
functionality, as well as impervious surface in the form of a portion of the existing
building, which provides no beneficial wetland buffer function. The Revised
Proposed Project would remove the existing portion of the building within the wetland
buffer and replace it with porous surface (e.g., lawn), which would improve the buffer
function from its current condition. The remainder of the disturbance proposed within
this wetland buffer area would consist of regrading existing areas of manicured lawn,
which would be returned to the same condition. As such, there would be no change to
the existing wetland buffer function in this area. Importantly, the Revised Proposed
Project avoids disturbing the wooded area of the wetland buffer, which currently
provides the highest level of ecological value to the wetlands within the Project Site.
Portions of the existing wooded area of the Wetland Buffer that would not be
disturbed would be selectively planted with native species as part of the wetland
buffer mitigation program described below.
Wetland Buffers B and C—Wetlands B and C are located primarily off-Site, within the
New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)-owned right-of-way for the
Parkway. The on-Site area within 100 -feet of the wetlands is characterized primarily
by manicured lawn, which provides relatively low levels of wetland buffer
functionality, an asphalt parking lot, which provides no beneficial wetland buffer
function, and, in the northeastern most corner of the buffer, an area of shrubs and trees.
The Revised Proposed Project would limit disturbance primarily to the area of the buffer
that is manicured lawn or existing parking lot. Approximately sixten trees within the
wetland buffer would be removed. Overall, the amount of impervious area within 100
feet of Wetlands B and C after construction of the Revised Proposed Project would
increase by approximately 0.268 acres, or 11,674 sf, from the current condition.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-17 1/3/2020
The Applicant and the Lead Agency considered an alternate placement of the proposed
IL and AL building that would “slide” the building and access drive to the south, toward
Arbor Drive. With this alternative configuration, the amount of new construction and
grading within the buffer to Wetlands B and C would be less than the Revised Proposed
Project. Given the comparatively low ecological value of Wetlands B and C (see the
Wetland Functional Analysis included as DEIS Appendix D-5), as well as the relatively
low functionality of their wetland buffers, and the relative importance of reducing the
visual impacts of the Revised Proposed Project from Arbor Drive, the layout of the
Revised Proposed Project (with the buildings further north) balances the need to reduce
visual impacts and reduce adverse impacts to wetland buffers.
Wetland Buffer E—As with the original project, the disturbance to Wetland Buffer E
with the Revised Proposed Project is solely attributable to the construction of the
secondary, emergency Site access. As described in the DEIS, the Applicant evaluated
the potential for the emergency access drive to be located in a different location that
would have fewer impacts to Wetland Buffer E (see DEIS Figure 10-2). This
alternative location, however, would have required a steeper driveway connection and
the turning movements into and out of the Site from this driveway would be more
constrained than in the proposed location. For these reasons, and after conversations
with Village staff, the Lead Agency decided, and the Applicant agreed, to advance
the proposed emergency access location.
Wetland/Stream Buffer D/S—Wetland D is a human-made settling basin that was
created to serve as the stormwater detention basin for the existing 900 King Street
improvements, as well as several off-Site locations (e.g., Village Hall and RBFD
firehouse). Off-site areas within 100-feet of the stormwater basin include a portion of
Village Hall and the Rye Brook Police Department (RBPD) station, the parking lot for
the police station, and a portion of the building associated with the cell tower on Village
property. On-Site, approximately 0.630 acres of the buffer around Wetland D and
Stream S—the stream that drains the stormwater basin—is improved with the existing
parking lot for 900 King Street. This area provides no beneficial wetland buffer
function. Other portions of the wetland/stream buffer include areas of maintained lawn
and areas of woody vegetation. In order to comply with current stormwater regulations,
redevelopment of the Project Site requires the expansion of the existing stormwater
basin. (This is true even though the Revised Proposed Project is reducing the amount of
impervious surfaces on the Project Site from the current condition.) As such, impacts to
the wetland buffer associated with this expansion are not avoidable. In addition, the
stormwater basin and its surrounding area is in relatively poor ecological health; it is
dominated with invasive species. Therefore, it is necessary to impact the area around
the stormwater basin to improve the current functionality of both the basin and the
buffer. In addition, the area of the wetland buffer currently improved with a parking lot
will be removed with the Revised Proposed Project. Replacing this area would be
various permeable surfaces (e.g., lawn) and a small portion of the access road as well
as a small portion of the IL building. In total, the Revised Proposed Project will modify
1.29 acres within 100 feet of Wetland D/Stream S. The overall amount of impervious
area within this wetland buffer will be reduced by 0.165163 acres compared to the
existing condition.
Finally, as described in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project,” the Revised Proposed
Project was reduced by 68,81889,098 gsf from the original project, thereby reducing the
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-18 DRAFT
overall width of the IL building. This reduction in width allowed the IL and AL building
to either be set back further from The Arbors or set back further from the existing
stormwater basin. Given the relative importance of reducing the visual impacts of the
Revised Proposed Project from The Arbors, and the fact that the Revised Proposed Project
is already reducing the amount of impervious area adjacent to the stormwater basin, the
layout of the Revised Proposed Project (with the buildings further east) balances the need
to reduce visual impacts and reduce adverse impacts to wetland buffers.
2.5.3. INDIRECT IMPACTS TO WETLAND AND WATERBODY HYDROLOGY
As was the case with the original project, with the Revised Proposed Project the hydrology
inputs to Wetlands B, C, and E would remain unchanged and the wetlands would continue
to receive surface water inputs exclusively from the Parkway or paved surfaces off-Site.
Drainage inputs to Wetland D (on-Site detention basin) from on-Site and off-Site sources
would similarly be retained, thereby sustaining the proposed revegetated and enhanced
wetland (e.g., stormwater basin). As was the case with the original project, the proposed
SWPPP for the Revised Proposed Project includes the use of vegetated swales, subsurface
infiltration system, reduction in overall site impervious cover, and improvements to the
existing detention basin to manage the Site’s stormwater. These measures will improve
Wetland D’s ability to provide “modification of water quality” and “storm and floodwater
storage” wetland functions and will result in a decrease in post-construction runoff rates.
The Revised Proposed Project would reduce the drainage area to Wetland A by
approximately 0.218 acres (a smaller reduction than the 1.0 acre proposed by the original
project), resulting in a small, 3.92 percent reduction in runoff volume for the 1- or 2-year
storm events (a smaller reduction than the 10–13 percent reduction proposed with the
original project). This small reduction would have minimal indirect impacts to Wetland
A, which would continue to receive adequate surface and unchanged groundwater inputs
considering its depressional landscape position and small size. The Revised Proposed
Project would redevelop a previously disturbed and a currently developed site, and
eliminate the large parking lot and office building currently on-Site, creating a net
reduction in overall impervious surface within the Site. This would enhance groundwater
infiltration that helps to sustain hydrology and improve water quality to downstream
wetlands and streams during dry weather. The Revised Proposed Project’s stormwater
management system would also substantially reduce the influx of sediment and other
pollutants to Wetland A.
2.5.4. WETLAND BUFFER MITIGATION
The Applicant proposes mitigation that satisfies the Village Code requirement for wetland
buffer disturbance by providing 4.505 acres of wetland buffer mitigation—two times the
amount of wetland buffer being affected by construction of the Revised Proposed Project.
As shown in Figure 2-4, the Applicant has identified approximately 2.4 acres of area on-
Site that could serve as wetland buffer mitigation areas. The Applicant’s wetland buffer
mitigation plan for these areas, which would be formally submitted during the site plan
approval process, would include a mixture of the following elements:
Replanting select areas within wetland buffers that would be re-graded with a diverse
mix of woody and herbaceous hydrophytic (i.e., wetland) vegetation;
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-19 1/3/2020
Selectively planting areas within the wetland buffer that would not be disturbed by
the Revised Proposed Project with native plants to increase floristic diversity and
wetland functions; and,
Removal of invasive species within select areas of the on-Site wetland buffers.
The Applicant proposes that the other 2.1 acres of mitigation that is required be located
off-Site. All on- and off-Site mitigation measures will require review and approval by the
Village Planning Board.
2.6. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The Project Site generally slopes, and surface water runoff generally flows, from north to south.
An existing detention basin (also identified as Wetland D) is located along the east side of the
Project Site. This basin receives stormwater runoff from the existing building and parking lot, as
well as runoff from adjacent Village properties to the east. Stormwater runoff exits the detention
basin and is discharged to the municipal drainage system below Arbor Drive, through Harkness
Park, and then along the Blind Brook High School driveway to King Street. There are two
easements onto the Project Site containing storm drain lines that drain into the existing detention
basin from Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD property.
2.6.1. ON-SITE STORWMATER MANAGEMENT
The Revised Proposed Project would result in a decrease in the amount of impervious area
on the Project Site from the current condition of 7.46 acres to 7.106.76 acres—a decrease
of 0.367 acres of impervious cover from the current condition and 0.0529 acres more than
the original project. In order to manage stormwater runoff from the Revised Proposed
Project, the Applicant’s engineer prepared a SWPPP in accordance with Chapter 9,
Redevelopment Projects of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual,
and Chapter 217, Stormwater Management, of the Village Code (see Appendix D1). As
with the original project, the stormwater management system for the Revised Proposed
Project includes standard stormwater practices, including vegetated swales, a subsurface
infiltration system, and improvements to the existing stormwater detention basin. To
accommodate an increase in the Site’s main drainage area as a result of proposed Site
grading and layout, the existing stormwater detention basin would be slightly expanded.
In addition to this slight expansion, the Revised Proposed Project would enhance the
functionality of this basin area by removing overgrown and dead vegetation, debris, etc.
The Project Site does not currently have any known stormwater practices with infiltration
to provide water quality and runoff reduction. To further mitigate the potential for
stormwater impacts, the SWPPP for the Revised Proposed Project includes practices that
enhance water quality and provide runoff reduction volume through infiltration.
1 The SWPPP in Appendix D was prepared based on an interim site plan (the “pFEIS Plan”) that had the
same basic layout, including the location of the driveways, townhouses, stormwater practices, and
buildings; but that had slightly more impervious surfaces interior to the loop driveway. The Revised
Proposed Project has less impervious surface than the plan in the SWPPP, and those differences are limited
to the interior of the ring road around the IL and AL building. The stormwater practices, both the design
and location, would remain unchanged from the interim plan to the Revised Proposed Project. Therefore,
the SWPPP accurately reflects the intended stormwater system for the Revised Proposed Project and may
be slightly conservative as it accounted for more impervious surface than is currently proposed.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-20 DRAFT
Infiltration measures include the grasscrete paver emergency drive, vegetated swales, and
disconnected impervious areas throughout the Site. These practices will result in
additional infiltration that was not considered in the SWPPP’s hydrologic model, resulting
in a conservative analysis presented in the SWPPP.
Two Design Points (DP), which are the same as the existing condition DPs and the same as
was used in the original project, were designated on-Site and convey water from the Site’s
two Proposed Drainage Areas (PDAs) (see Figure 2-5). In general, PDA-1 includes the
developed portion of the Site, similar to the existing condition, and the same off-Site areas
and “bypass.” PDA-2 would continue to include the western, undeveloped portion of the Site.
As with the existing condition and the original project, stormwater from the developed
portion of the Site with the Revised Proposed Project (i.e., PDA-1) would flow through a
piped network into the existing detention basin. However, an underground infiltration
system would be installed to promote infiltration and improve water quality.2 The
stormwater generated from off-Site locations that pass through the Project Site would be
accommodated with the Revised Proposed Project in the same manner as present.
As with the existing condition and the original project, with the Revised Proposed Project
DP-2 would collect stormwater runoff from the western, undeveloped, portion of the
Project Site, shown as PDA-2 in Figure 2-5. PDA-2 is approximately 0.2 acres smaller
than its corresponding Existing Drainage Area (EDA), EDA-2, due to slight changes in
the grade in the adjacent area.
As demonstrated in the SWPPP, and as was the case with the original project, the
stormwater design of the Revised Proposed Project would result in a reduction in both the
rate and volume of stormwater exiting the Site for each modeled storm event when
compared to the existing condition. Table 2.6-1 and Table 2.6-2 summarize the
reductions and compares those reductions to the original project.
2.6.2. OFF-SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
The existing downstream drainage infrastructure accepting stormwater runoff from the
Site is composed of two separate systems. The first system conveys stormwater runoff
exiting the Site from the southeastern area where Stream S flows beneath Arbor Drive via
an existing 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), (DP-1). From this point the system
continues south underground through Harkness Park. As noted above, the existing 24-
inch RCP under Arbor Drive has a maximum capacity of 58.08 cfs. With the Revised
Proposed Project, during periods of peak flows (e.g., the 50- and 100-year storms), the
maximum flow rate through the 24-inch RCP would be 44.22 cfs and 44.29 cfs, respectively,
which is a reduction from the current maximum flow rate (see Appendix D). Therefore, as
was the case with the original project, the existing RCP under Arbor Drive has the capacity
to accommodate the projected stormwater flow from the Revised Proposed Project.
2 Soil testing has been performed on-Site in an area chosen because of its accessibility and proximity to the
system that is, in fact, outside of the limits of the proposed infiltration system. The entire footprint of this
proposed system lies within the footprint of the existing building to be demolished. Soil testing for this
infiltration practice will be performed when the site design is further advanced, and the results would be
provided during the site plan approval process.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-21 1/3/2020
Table 2.6-1
Proposed Peak Runoff Rate
Design
Point
Storm
Recurrence
Interval
Existing Peak
Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Proposed Peak
Runoff Rate (cfs) Percent Reduction (%)
Original
Project
Revised
Project
Original
Project
Revised
Project
1
1 year 25.99 22.83 22.86 12.16 12.04
2 year 41.34 33.13 33.05 19.86 20.05
10 year 87.22 72.45 71.94 16.93 17.52
25 year 115.96 102.18 103.18 11.88 11.02
50 year 144.14 132.71 133.72 7.93 7.23
100 year 177.34 170.85 171.99 3.66 3.02
2
1 year 3.18 2.81 3.06 11.64 3.77
2 year 5.05 4.38 4.85 13.27 3.96
10 year 10.96 9.30 10.53 15.15 3.92
25 year 15.98 13.45 15.35 15.83 3.94
50 year 20.81 17.42 20.00 16.29 3.89
100 year 26.64 22.20 25.60 16.67 3.90
Note: cfs = cubic feet per second
Source: JMC Engineering
Table 2.6-2
Proposed Peak Runoff Volume
Design
Point
Storm
Recurrence
Interval
Existing
Peak Runoff
Volume
(cf)
Proposed Peak
Runoff Volume (cf) Percent Reduction (%)
Original
Project
Revised
Project
Original
Project Revised Project
1
1 year 187,631 183,267 184,201 2.33 1.83
2 year 265,706 257,159 257,374 3.22 3.14
10 year 495,031 480,065 486,680 3.02 1.69
25 year 680,786 670,383 673,676 1.52 1.04
50 year 856,809 850,937 850,957 0.69 0.68
100 year 1,067,613 1,067,361 1,063,328 0.02 0.40
2
1 year 14,536 12,646 13,966 13.00 3.92
2 year 21,963 18,907 21,102 13.91 3.92
10 year 46,072 39,049 44,266 15.24 3.92
25 year 67,072 56,476 64,442 15.80 3.92
50 year 87,696 73,534 84,257 16.15 3.92
100 year 113,019 94,427 108,588 16.45 3.92
Note: cf = cubic feet
Source: JMC Engineering
2.6.3. MITIGATION MEASURES
As summarized above, and presented in more detail in the SWPPP in Appendix D, the
Revised Proposed Project utilizes a variety of practices to enhance stormwater quality and
reduce peak rates of runoff associated with the Revised Proposed Project. With the
implementation of the SWPPP, runoff volumes would be reduced in all the analyzed
storms from the existing condition and result in water quantity and quality enhancements
that exceed the regulatory requirements.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-22 DRAFT
2.7. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
2.7.1. HABITAT
The Revised Proposed Project would reduce the amount of impervious surface on-Site by
0.367 acres. Wooded areas of the Site would decrease by 0.63 acres with the Revised
Proposed Project, which is 0.22 acres less than what was proposed in the original project.
Finally, the Revised Proposed Project would increase lawn habitat by 0.991.33 acres,
which is a smallerslightly larger increase than the 1.26 acres contemplated with the
original project (see Table 2.7-1). As with the original project, much of the wooded area
that would be disturbed with the Revised Proposed Project is located to the north of the
stormwater basin in the narrow area between the Site’s existing parking lot and Village
Hall.
Table 2.7-1
Habitats of the Project Site
Habitat
Existing
Acreage
Proposed Acreage Change from existing (acres)
Original Project Revised Project Original Project Revised Project
Impervious 7.46 7.05 7.106.76 - 0.41 -0.367
Wooded 3.61 2.76 2.98 - 0.85 -0.63
Lawn 6.70 7.96 7.698.03 + 1.26 +0.991.33
Total 17.77 17.77 17.77 — —
Note: Wooded and lawn habitats include acreage for wooded and emergent wetlands respectively.
Source: JMC Engineering.
During the construction period there would be a temporary loss of habitat for wildlife
species. However, immediately adjacent to the Project Site is a similar habitat that would
be available to wildlife during construction. After construction, the Revised Proposed
Project would result in a net increase in the amount of lawn habitat for existing wildlife.
2.7.2. WILDLIFE
As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would not have an adverse
impact on rare, threatened, or endangered species, or species of special concern, nor would
it have an adverse impact on significant natural communities. As discussed above, the
Project Site does not currently provide high-quality habitat for wildlife. After the
construction period the Revised Proposed Project would provide a net increase in pervious
surface (lawn) and a reduction in impervious surfaces. During the construction period,
there would be a temporary disruption of habitat,; however, that would not adversely
affect existing wildlife due to the availability of similar habitat immediately adjacent to
the Site.
2.7.3. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
No State or federally listed endangered, threatened, special concern, rare, or exploitably
vulnerable species of plants or animals were identified on-Site during site inspections nor
are any known for the Project Site or vicinity based on information from the NYSDEC
and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and
Consultation (IPaC). Therefore, no impacts to listed species would occur from the Revised
Proposed Project.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-23 1/3/2020
2.7.4. TREES
The Revised Proposed Project would require the removal of approximately 128134 trees
with 6 inches diameter breast height (dbh) or greater; 7477 of which have 10 inches dbh
or greater. Four of these trees (Trees #408, 436, 591, and 686) are considered “significant”
under the Village Code. This is a decrease from the tree removal contemplated with the
original project, as shown in Table 2.7-2.
Table 2.7-2
Tree Removal
DBH of Tree Removed
Trees Removed
Original Project Revised Project
Less than 10 dbh 79 5457
10 to 24 dbh 120 6669
25 to 36 dbh 12 6
37 to 48 dbh 2 2
49 dbh or more 0 0
Total 213 128134
Sources: Village Zoning Code Section 235-18; AKRF, Inc.
There would be temporary impacts of reduced on-Site shade and tree habitat associated
with tree loss during the construction period. In addition, as further discussed below, the
Revised Proposed Project includes the planting of 438 new trees and 309 new shrubs.
2.7.5. MITIGATION MEASURES
Section 235-18 of the Village Code requires that native, non-invasive trees with 2 to 2.5
inches dbh be planted on-Site to mitigate the removal of trees with 10 inches dbh or
greater. The number of trees required to be planted is based on the size of the tree being
removed. Based on the formula in the Village Code, the Revised Proposed Project would
be required to plant at least 8487 native, non-invasive 2- to 2.5-inch dbh caliper trees on-
Site (see Table 2.7-3).
Table 2.7-3
Tree Removal Mitigation
DBH of Tree
Removed
Required Replacement
(number of 2- to 2.5-inch
dbh caliper trees)
Number of Trees
Removed
Number of Trees
Required to be Planted
Less than 10 dbh No replanting necessary 54 0
10 to 24 dbh 1 6669 6669
25 to 36 dbh 2 6 12
37 to 48 dbh 3 2 6
49 dbh or more 4 0 0
Total 128134 8487
Sources: Village Zoning Code Section 235-18; AKRF, Inc.
A planting plan has been developed for the Revised Proposed Project (see Sheet L-300 in
Volume 4) that proposes to plant 438 new trees and 309 new shrubs. All 438 trees
proposed to be planted would be at least 2.5-inch caliber trees that the requirements of
Section 235-18 as mitigation for the proposed removal of on-Site trees, though some of
the trees (e.g., evergreens) are typically sold by height and not caliper size. It is noted that,
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-24 DRAFT
as with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would plant more trees (i.e.,
438) than would be removed by the project (i.e., 128134) and more trees than required to
replace removed trees (i.e., 8487). All trees would be installed in accordance with the
Village’s planting guidelines.3
The new trees would be planted throughout the Site with ornamental trees closer to the
buildings and trees that would help restore habitat closer to the edges of the Project Site.
Trees added along the right-of-way that parallels the Parkway would help control erosion
in this steep slope area. Trees would also be added along the Site’s Arbor Drive frontage
for the full length of the Project Site, except for the drive curb cuts, which would help
obscure views of the Revised Proposed Project from Arbor Drive. New trees planted after
construction would be monitored and maintained for 5five years by a horticultural
consultant and replaced as necessary due to potential mortality during this monitoring
period.
As discussed in Section 2.5, “Waters and Wetlands,” the Revised Proposed Project
includes a wetland buffer mitigation plan that includes the planting of wetland facultative
tree species in the areas surrounding the Site’s wetlands. Wetland buffer planting zones
are indicated on Figure 2-4 and their preservation in a wooded (unmowed) condition will
be included in the restrictions provided on the final drawings submitted to the Village.
For existing on-Site trees proposed to remain during and after construction, a Tree Protection
Plan (TPP) will be developed during site plan approval for review and approval by the
Village. This plan would be designed and implemented in accordance with the Village’s tree
protection guidelines and specifications.4 Specifically, this plan would identify trees
designated for protection and would include specifications for installation of protection
fencing, directives to avoid root pruning, air-spading, tunneling, and use of root curtains
where applicable. If root pruning is unavoidable, tree roots would be cleanly cut and the
crown would not be trimmed back. After cutting, excavations would be backfilled within one
hour and the root zones watered.
2.8. VISUAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER
2.8.1. ON-SITE VISUAL CHARACTER
The Project Site is dominated by a large footprint (approximately 94,600 sf) three-story
white concrete office building and a 5.3-acre surface parking lot. Areas of mature
vegetation along the northern and eastern periphery of the Site buffer its visibility from
adjacent properties. The western portion of the Site is dominated by a large wooded area,
containing a wetland and a stream, providing a visual buffer between the interior of the
Project Site and the residential neighborhood to the west. As with the original project, the
Revised Proposed Project would transform the on-Site visual character from one
dominated by a large surface parking area and rectangular three-story office building to a
landscaped campus featuring several residential uses, building sizes, and building types.
The western portion of the developed area of the Site would feature two-story townhouse
units, which would be similar in visual impact to the character of The Arbors townhouses
3 Village Attachment 235-1 PLANTING GUIDELINES FOR TREES AND SHRUBS
4 Village Attachment 235-2 TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-25 1/3/2020
located to the west of the Project Site. The northern portion of the developed area of the
Site would feature a three- and four-story IL and AL building. The IL and AL building
would rise to three stories closest to Arbor Drive and rise to four stories approximately
305 feet from Arbor Drive.
As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would increase the amount of
open space on the Project Site. Specifically, with the Revised Proposed Project,
10.6711.01 acres, or 6062 percent of the Site would be vegetated, an increase of 0.367
acres from the existing condition and a slight, 0.0534 acre, reduction from the original
project. In addition to the increase in open space on the Project Site, the redistribution of
the pervious and impervious area within the Site would have a dramatic effect on the Site’s
visual character. The Revised Proposed Project would break up areas of continuous
impervious area (e.g., building coverage and parking areas) and provide areas of
landscape interspersed with buildings and driveways.
2.8.2. VISIBILITY OF PROJECT SITE
As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would maintain the vegetative
buffer that currently exists around the Site’s perimeter. As a result, the interior of the
Project Site would continue to be visible from locations off-Site only through screening
provided by existing tree cover, with the exception of a short area along Arbor Drive.
With the Revised Proposed Project, the view into the Site from Arbor Drive would feature
residential buildings of similar scale, style, and character as found on adjacent properties,
as opposed to the existing view of the office building and surface parking lot.
The proposed residential buildings would be visible from North Ridge Street, King Street,
and the Parkway only through screening provided by existing tree cover.5 Looking north
from King Street into the Project Site from the southern end of Harkness Park, existing
on- and off-Site trees provide partial screening of the interior of the Site in the leaf off
condition and complete screening in the leaf-on condition (see DEIS Figure 8-10). The
mature oak and maple trees located between the park and the Project Site provide most of
the screening. All trees shown in DEIS Figure 8-10 are existing trees—no proposed trees
were added to the simulation. A few of the on-Site trees would be removed with the
Revised Proposed Project, in the area of the new easternmost driveway (see Sheet C-130
in Appendix 4). These trees appear in the image as the “2nd” or “3rd” row of trees in the
image. However, the majority of on-Site trees shown in this figure would remain with the
Revised Proposed Project. In addition, as shown in Figure 1-4 and Sheet L-300 in
Appendix 4, new trees would be planted along the entrance drive that would further
screen the interior of the Site from this Vantage Point.
Looking west into the Project Site from King Street in the vicinity of Village Hall, existing
on-Site trees would screen view of the interior of the Project Site (see DEIS Figure 8-14).
As noted in DEIS Section 8.2.2.6, “Vantage Point 5,” this vantage point is the only
location along King Street north of Arbor Drive where the interior of the Project Site is
visible. All trees shown in DEIS Figure 8-14 are existing trees—no proposed trees were
added to the simulation. These trees are located around the existing stormwater
5 See DEIS Figures 8-10, 8-14, 8-15, 8-20, and 8-21 for photo simulations of the original project that depict
the extent to which to existing on- and off-Site trees screen visibility of the interior of the Project Site
from N. Ridge Street, King Street, and the Hutchinson River Parkway.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-26 DRAFT
management basin. Most of these trees, located to the west of the basin, would remain
with the Revised Proposed Project though a few, to the left and right of the image, would
be removed (see Sheet C-130 in Appendix 4). Additional trees located between the
proposed driveway and the IL building, would be planted to further screen views from
this location.
Looking south into the Project Site from N. Ridge Street at the Hutchinson River Parkway
entrance, the Project Site is almost entirely screened during leaf-off condition and is
completely screened during leaf-on condition (see DEIS Figure 8-15). As noted in DEIS
Section 8.2.2.7, “Vantage Point 6,” this is the only location along N. Ridge Street where
there is a break in the existing vegetation between N. Ridge Street and the Parkway, which
vegetation completely screens the Project Site. All trees shown in DEIS Figure 8-15 are
existing trees—no proposed trees were added to the simulation. The majority of these
trees are located off-Site, in the NYSDOT right-of-way. A few trees would be removed
in the area of the secondary access driveway (see Sheet C-130 in Appendix 4). However,
the majority of the screening from this Vantage Point would remain as it is located in the
NYSDOT right-of-way. In addition, new trees would be planted to the north of proposed
driveway, adding additional screening from this location.
Looking south into the Project Site from the Hutchinson River Parkway right-of-way, the
Project Site partially screened during leaf-off condition (see DEIS Figures 8-20 and 8-21).
All trees shown in DEIS Figures 8-20 and 8-21 are representative of existing trees—no
proposed trees were added to the simulation. The majority of these trees are located off-
Site, in the NYSDOT right-of-way. As shown in Sheet C-130 in Appendix 4,
approximately five trees would be removed with the Revised Proposed Project that are
visible in Vantage Point 9a, and approximately two that are visible in Vantage Point 9b.
However, the majority of the screening from this Vantage Point would remain as the
vegetation is located in the NYSDOT right-of-way. In addition, new trees would be
planted to the north of proposed driveway, adding additional screening from these
locations. Finally, as noted in DEIS Sections 8.3.2.12 and 8.3.2.13, “Vantage Points 9a
and 9b,” views from these vantage points would be experienced by motorists on the
Parkway, in which case speed would distort views of the project and offer only a brief
view into the Project Site.
The Revised Proposed Project includes several changes from the original project to further
mitigate potential visual impacts. First, the size of the IL and AL building has been reduced
by 63,11280,541 sf. In addition to the change in visibility attributable to the reduction in
building size, the reduced size allows for the building to be set back further from Arbor
Drive than in the original project, further reducing potential visual impacts. Second, the
southern-mostsouthernmost wings of the IL building have been “narrowed” in shape from
the original project and now present a smaller profile as viewed from Arbor Drive as
compared to the original project. Third, the three-story portion of the IL building has been
setbackset back an additional 24 feet from The Arbors townhouses to the west as compared
to the original project and the four-story section of the IL building has been set back an
additional 71 feet. As a result, with the Revised Proposed Project, the IL building is at least
488 feet from the property line with The Arbors. Finally, the height of the IL building has
been reduced from the original project. Specifically, the peak of the roof of the four-story
section of the IL building is approximately 710.5 feet lower than the original project. This
is a result of a change to the shape of the roof that lowered the peak of the roof 5-9 feet 6-
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-27 1/3/2020
inches, combined with a smaller, 18-inch, lowering of the finished floor elevation of the IL
building.
Figure 1-11 and Figure 1-12 provide illustrative sections through the Project Site. As shown,
the reduction in height of the building and the increased setback from the Arbors reduces the
visual impact of the Revised Proposed Project as compared to the original project.
2.8.3. CONSISTENCY OF THE REVISED PROPOSED PROJECT WITH THE
EXISTING VISUAL AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER
As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would increase open space on
the Project Site from 10.3 acres to 11.17 acres and transform the monolithic visual
character of the Site caused by the large footprint rectangular building and the 5.3 acres
of surface parking to one of a landscaped residential campus. In order to mitigate potential
impacts resulting from the original project, the Revised Proposed Project reduces the
proposed gsfgross square footage by 68,81289,098 sf—a 15.520 percent reduction from
the original project. In addition, while still maintaining the four-story portionportions of
the IL building and the four-story AL building, consistent with the recommendation of the
Village’s Comprehensive Plan, the Revised Proposed Project reduces the visual impact of
the four-story buildings by increasing the setback from both Arbor Drive to the south and
The Arbors to the west (an additional 12 and 2430 feet, respectively to a distance of 304
and 488494 feet).. The Revised Proposed Project also reduces the maximum height of the
roof of the four-story IL building as it faces The Arbors by seven feet.
In terms of height, the Revised Proposed Project is consistent with the recommendations
of the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan, and with many buildings within the Village
that are at least four stories in height, specifically The Atria, Rye Brook (a three- and four-
story IL building with 168 units on 4.92 acres)), and the Hilton Westchester.
The setbacks of the proposed IL building from neighboring residences and Arbor Drive are
consistent with, or greater than, the setbacks of other four-story, and taller, buildings to their
neighboring residential properties (see Figures 2-6 to 2-10 and Table 2.8-1). While the
context of each building and residential neighborhood is different (e.g., surrounding
topography, level of activity on adjacent Site, intervening features), the comparison of the
setbacks of Revised Proposed Project to other Village properties illustrates the nature of
the setbacks proposed.
On- and off-Site vegetation screens or partially screens the Project Site from off-Site
locations, including the Parkway, King Street, and North Ridge Street even in the winter
when there are no leaves on deciduous trees (see Section 2.8.2, “Visibility of Project
Site”). From Arbor Drive, the interior of the Project Site is currently visible as there is no
tree cover to screen the Site. With the Revised Proposed Project, new trees would be
planted between Arbor Drive and the proposed buildings and Site roadways to increase
visual screening.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-28 DRAFT
Table 2.8-1
Setback Comparison
Development Setbacks Notes
Revised
Proposed Project
±540 feet from four-story IL building
to nearest Arbors residence
±302 feet from Arbor Drive to four-
story section of IL building
±400 feet from AL building to closest
residence on N. Ridge St.
±280 feet from AL building to closest
residence on King St.
Through wooded buffer
Through wooded buffer
Across Parkway
Doral Greens
±100 feet from closest residence to
parking lot for Arrowwood
±330 feet from closest residence to
ballroom
±500 feet from closest residence to
front door of Arrowwood
Relatively flat and unvegetated area
between Doral Green and Arrowwood
BelleFair
±48 feet from closest residence to
four-story section of Atria
Other nearby residences are ±72 feet;
64 feet; and 138 feet
Hilton
Westchester
±250 feet from four-story hotel wing to
residence
±115 feet from hotel parking lot to
closest residence
Through wooded buffer; hotel sits at
higher topography than residences to
the west and south, but lower than
residences to the north and east
800 Westchester
Ave
±305 feet and 415 feet from building
to closes residences
Building is ±560,000 sf with ±1,125
parking spaces and is four and five
stories above several stories of parking
On- and off-Site vegetation screens or partially screens the Project Site from off-Site
locations, including the Parkway, King Street, and North Ridge Street even in the winter
when there are no leaves on deciduous trees. From Arbor Drive, the interior of the Project
Site is currently visible as there is no tree cover to screen the Site. With the Revised
Proposed Project, new trees would be planted between Arbor Drive and the proposed
buildings and Site roadways to increase visual screening.
With respect to building and site coverage, as with the original project, the Revised
Proposed Project would increase building coverage on the Site by 0.876 acres from the
current condition, but would decrease the amount of surface parking and interior roadways
by an even larger amount (1.1646 acres) from the current condition. As a result, the
Revised Proposed Project would result in a decrease in gross land coverage on the Project
Site from the existing condition. The relative amount of building and Site coverage
proposed is consistent with other properties in the Village, especially when considering
the Project Site’s location, its visibility from areas outside of the Site, and the reduction
in total coverage from the Site’s current condition (see Table 2.8-2). Specifically, the
Revised Proposed Project’s building coverage, relative to its parcel size, would be similar
to The Arbors and the Hilton Westchester and slightly higher than 800 Westchester
Avenue, and the Doral Arrowwood Conference Center.
As with the original project, by using clapboard and stone siding, and incorporating
dormers and gabled roofs for the IL and AL building, the Revised Proposed Project is
architecturally compatible with the predominant characteristics of residential construction
within the Village.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-29 1/3/2020
Table 2.8-2
Parcel Coverage Comparison
Site
Parcel
Size (ac)
Building
Coverage
(ac)
Roads,
Drives,
Parking
(ac)
Total Site
Coverage
(ac)
Percent
Building
Coverage
Percent
Other
Coverage
Percent
Total
Coverage
Existing Condition 17.77 2.17 5.29 7.46 12.22% 29.77% 41.99%
Original Project 17.77 3.14 3.91 7.05 17.67% 22.00% 39.67%
Revised Proposed
Project 17.77 2.9793 4.133.83 7.106.76 16.7149% 23.2421.5
5%
39.9538.0
4%
The Arbors 35.29 5.58 6.26 11.83 15.80% 17.73% 33.53%
Arbors (w/o Arbor Dr) 33.49 5.58 5.26 10.83 16.65% 15.70% 32.34%
800 Westchester Ave 44.94 5.46 6.30 11.76 12.15% 14.02% 26.17%
Hilton Westchester 35.52 3.80 7.10 10.89 10.69% 19.97% 30.67%
Doral Arrowwood
Conference Center 105.93 10.67 13.51 24.18 10.07% 12.76% 22.83%
Doral (w/o golf) 46.46 10.38 11.89 22.26 22.34% 25.58% 47.92%
Sources: Westchester County GIS; JMC Engineering
As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project, save for views along a small
portion of Arbor Drive, would be minimally visible from outside of the Project Site. The
IL and AL building would barely be visible from North Ridge Street and would be
minimally visible from two points along King Street. As shown in the photosimulations
included in the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Project would be visible from a small area of
the parking lot of the Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD, similar to the visibility of the
existing office building. From the northwestern perimeter of Harkness Park, the Revised
Proposed Project would be visible through the existing and proposed vegetation, as the
current building and parking lot are in the existing condition. From this vantage point,
however, the IL building in the Revised Proposed Project would be perceived as smaller
than the original project, owing to the increased setback from Arbor Drive, and the
“narrowing” of the front wings. As with the original project, the view into the Site with
the Revised Proposed Project from this location would be of residential buildings as
opposed to the existing office building and surface parking lot. In addition, as with the
existing condition, the view from this vantage point would be screened by existing
vegetation.
As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would also be plainly visible
from Arbor Drive. The view into the Project Site from Arbor Drive would be of a
landscaped campus, which includes buildings of a residential-type use, scale, and
character, instead of a wide expanse of surface parking. The Project Site would be re-
graded to create a relatively level surface on which to build. As noted previously, existing
vegetation would be maintained to the greatest extent possible and new vegetation would
be added to help reinforce the existing vegetated screening of the Revised Proposed
Project. To mitigate the potential visual impact of the Revised Proposed Project from
Arbor Drive, the Revised Proposed Project increases the setback of the IL building from
Arbor Drive by 19 feet and modifies the configuration of the wings closest to Arbor Drive.
As a result, the IL building with the Revised Proposed Project will be perceived as smaller
from Arbor Drive than the original project.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-30 DRAFT
Finally, a detailed landscaping plan has been prepared, which will increase the tree and
shrub cover on the Project Site through the planting of 438 new trees and 309 new shrubs
(see Sheet L-300 in Volume 4). As shown, landscaping is proposed along the Site’s
boundaries, including along Arbor Drive and to the west of the proposed townhouses.
Implementation of this landscaping program will dramatically alter the visual character of
the Site from one dominated by a 5.3-acre parking lot to one of buildings interspersed
with landscaping and tree cover.
An important contribution of a project to the character of a community is the off-site
impacts of a project. For example, inIn addition to the visual character of a building, the
character of a site is also determined by the traffic generated by a site and the noise
generated by a site’s operation. As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project
would generate significantly less traffic than an office use or a market-rate residential
use—even a residential use with significantly fewer units.
2.9. SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS
2.9.1. DEMOGRAPHICS
With respect to demographic and housing characteristics, the Village population has
grown 10.8 percent since 1990 and the median age of Village residents has increased from
40.7 to 44.2 years old. This is consistent with the trend in the nation and Westchester
County (the “County”) as well, though the Village’s median age continues to be above
both that of the Town of Rye and the County. and, as stated in the Village’s
Comprehensive Plan, the Village has a larger proportion of senior citizens compared to
other municipalities in Westchester. As such, the Revised Proposed Project would be
expected to absorb a portion of the anticipated increase in senior citizen residents within
the Village that is anticipated to occur with or without the Revised Proposed Project. The
Revised Proposed Project would be anticipated to add a population of approximately
438406 people to the Project Site, which is slightly less than 5five percent of the Village’s
2016 population and 2456 fewer people than the original project as a result in the number
of IL and Townhouse units.6 The impacts of this increased population on community
services is addressed in Section 2.10, “Community Facilities.”
2.9.2. FISCAL CONDITIONS
As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would be expected to significantly
increase the assessed value of, and subsequently the property tax revenue generated by, the
Project Site. The Applicant has sought an estimated assessed value from the Town Tax
Assessor for the Revised Proposed Project, however, an estimate has not been provided at
the time of publication. Nevertheless, and forFor the reasons set forth in the DEIS, the
Applicant estimated the assessed value of the original project by applying the per unit
assessed value of The Atria, Rye Brook to the total number of units proposed for the Revised
Proposed Project. While an estimated assessed value for the Revised Proposed Project
provides a conservative estimate of the futurehas not been provided by the Town Tax
6 To estimate the future population of the Project Site, the following multipliers were assumed: 1one person
per bed at the 94-bed AL facility; 2two people within each of the 160136 IL units; and 2two people within
each of the 2420 townhomes.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-31 1/3/2020
Assessor as of the date of this publication, the Applicant has had conversations with the
assessor to refine the methodology for determining the assessment of the Revised Proposed
Project. Based on these conversations, the Applicant believes it is most appropriate to use an
income-based capitalization approach to estimate the assessed value of the Revised Proposed
Project. This methodology applies a standard capitalization rate to the estimated net operating
income of the Revised Proposed Project’s rental income. Using this methodology, the
Applicant estimates that the Revised Proposed Project, upon stabilized operation, would have
an assessed value of approximately $29,715,260, which is more than twice the current
assessed value of the Project Site. In turn, this provides a conservative estimate of the future
property taxes that may be generated by the Project Site.
The most recent assessed value of The Atria, Rye Brook is $32,805,400 (2018), which
equals $195,270 per unit. Applied to the number of units in the Revised Proposed Project,
The Atria, Rye Brook’s per-unit value would yield an estimated assessed value of
$50,184,450, which is approximately $2,343,240 less than the original project based on
the reduction in the number of units. As shown in Table 2.9-1, based on this assessed
value, the Project Site would be estimated to generate approximately $2.4061.427 million
per year in property taxes, which is approximately $1.68 million802,670 more than the
Site currently generates. (It should be noted that the total amount of property taxes
estimated to be generated by the Revised Proposed Project, and subsequently the increase
in taxes estimated to be generated by the Revised Proposed Project, is higher than that in
the original project owing to the general increase in non-homestead property tax rates. As
such, even though the estimated assessed value of the Revised Proposed Project is lower
than the original project, using the new property tax rates, the Revised Proposed Project
is anticipated to generate $560,594 more in property taxes than the original project.)
Of this, $479,034275,339 would go to the Village, which is an increase of
$334,420154,882 from the revenue currently generated, and $1,701,459028,161 would go
to the BBRUFSD, representing an increase of $1,187,812578,355 from the current
revenue generated by the Project Site.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-32 DRAFT
Table 2.9-1
Projected Property Tax Revenue of the Revised Proposed Project
Jurisdiction
2018/2019
Tax Rate
Current
Assessed Value
Current
Taxes
Projected
Assessed Value
Projected
Taxes Difference
Village of Rye
Brook 9.5454692
659
$15,15013,000,0
00
$144,614
120,457
$50,184,450
29,715,260
$479,034
275,339
$334,420
154,882
BBRUFSD 33.904111
34.60044
$15,15013,000,0
00
$513,647
449,806
$50,184,450
29,715,260
$1,701,459
1,028,161
$1,187,812
578,355
Westchester
County 3.2599891
74954
$15,15013,000,0
00
$49,389
41,274
$50,184,450
29,715,260
$163,601
94,345
$114,212
53,070
Town of Rye 0.0470714
0742
$15,15013,000,0
00
$713
1,830
$50,184,450
29,715,260
$2,362
4,182
$1,649
2,353
Blind Brook Sewer 0.9096525
73843
$15,15013,000,0
00
$13,781
7,460
$50,184,450
29,715,260
$45,650
17,052
$31,869
9,592
Solid Waste 0.2860772
64324
$15,15013,000,0
00
$4,334
3,436
$50,184,450
29,715,260
$14,357
7,854
$10,023
4,418
Total
47.952368
48.02021
$15,15013,000,0
00
$726,478
624,263
$50,184,450
29,715,260
$2,406,463
1,426,933
$1,679,985
802,670
Source: Tax rates: https://www3.westchestergov.com/property-tax-rates, last accessed 2/1512/22/2019
While it is noted that the projected property tax revenue of the Revised Proposed Project
at full stabilization is approximately $510,808, or 28 percent, less than was estimated in
the DEIS, part of this decrease is due to the reduction in the number of units included in
the project. On a per unit basis, the property taxes estimated to be generated by the Revised
Proposed Project is $5,921, which is only 14 percent lower than the per unit figure of
$6,862 estimated in the DEIS.
As discussed in the DEIS, the Applicant and owner of the property is a for-profit entity
and will remain so. Similarly, the Applicant will not be seeking standalone tax-exempt
status under the Internal Revenue Code. However, certain tax exemptions or reductions
may be available through the Westchester County Industrial Development Agency (IDA).
Under New York Law, IDAs are public benefit corporations with many of the same
benefits as governmental entities. These benefits are primarily associated with exemption
from various taxes, including mortgage recording tax, sales tax on construction costs, and,
property taxes to municipalities.
If the IDA confers partial property tax abatement benefits on the Project Site, the IDA will
require the negotiation and execution of a Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Agreement
pursuant to which the Applicant makes arrangement for payment of monies to the various
taxing jurisdictions. In the County, the consent of the municipality is required for the IDA
to provide assistance and, accordingly, the municipality plays an important role in the
negotiation of the PILOT Agreement. At this time, the Applicant intends to explore the
use of an IDA transaction with the understanding that the consent of the Village would be
required before the IDA can provide any benefits. However, the Applicant has not decided
if it will pursue an IDA transaction and, if so, for what benefits it would apply.
As described in Chapter 9 of the DEIS, “Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts,” of the DEIS,
while the Revised Proposed Project may change the base proportions of the Village with
respect to homestead and non-homestead properties, it is not expected to adversely impact
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-33 1/3/2020
the property tax rate of homestead properties. Instead, as with the original project, the
Revised Proposed Project would decrease the homestead property tax rate. Non-
homestead properties would experience a temporary increase in tax rates until such time
as a PILOT payment is equal to the taxes that would be paid on a valuation of
$27,018,84523,761,848, which is approximately 5480 percent of the estimated assessed
value of the Revised Proposed Project. Once PILOT payments, or property tax payments,
are equal to, or greater than that amount, non-homestead properties would also experience
a decrease in their property tax rates as a result of the Revised Proposed Project.
Therefore, as with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would increase the
amount of property taxes generated by the Project Site. While some level of additional
services will be required, as discussed in Section 2.10, “Community Facilities,” the
increased cost of providing these services would be mitigated by the anticipated increase
in property tax revenue. As such, the taxing jurisdictions serving the Project Site,
including the Village and BBRUFSD, would be anticipated to receive a net increase in
revenue from the Revised Proposed Project. Finally, homestead properties would
experience a reduction in tax rates as a result of the Revised Proposed Project.
2.10. COMMUNITY FACILITIES
2.10.1. EMERGENCY SERVICES
2.10.1.1. EMS—Municipal Contribution to Budget
The Village receives Emergency Medical Services (EMS) services from the
Port Chester-Rye-Rye Brook EMS. This shared municipal service provides
EMS coverage to the Villages of Port Chester and Rye Brook, as well as the
City of Rye. Approximately 71 percent of the EMS’ revenue was generated
by insurance recovery over the past 3three years and approximately 25
percent comes from municipal contributions. The municipal contribution is
an annual fixed fee that is allocated between the three municipalities
according to a formula; each municipality pays an equal share of 75 percent
of the municipal contribution and the remaining 25 percent is allocated based
on relative population. As noted by the Village Administrator in his response
to the DEIS, the EMS service requested a 5five percent increase in the
municipal contributions for 2019, an increase to $713,800, for the first time
since 2010 (see Appendix E-1). This increase was needed to provide
additional coverage for the number of calls currently being generated within
the three municipalities. The Administrator also notes that the EMS service
is discussing the need to add an ambulance on certain shifts to meet the
current call demand within the three municipalities. Table 2.10-1 details the
municipal contributions to the EMS service inclusive of the new level of
municipal contributions.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-34 DRAFT
Table 2.10-1
2019 EMS Municipal Contribution
75% of
contribution
split evenly
2010
Census
Population
% of
Population
25% of
contribution by
population
Total
Contribution
Port Chester $178,450 29,247 54% $96,363.00 $274,813.00
City of Rye $178,450 15,868 29% $51,750.50 $230,200.50
Rye Brook $178,450 9,347 17% $30,336.50 $208,786.50
Total $535,350 54,462 100% $178,450.00 $713,800.00
Source: October 11, 2018 letter to the EMS Committee (see Appendix E-1)
The increase in the Village’s population that could result from the Revised
Proposed Project, conservatively estimated at 438406 people as described in
Section 2.9, “Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts,” would necessarily change
the relative population of the Village as compared to Port Chester and the
City of Rye. If the City of Rye and Village of Port Chester were to experience
no growth in their population and the Village’s population were to increase
solely as a result of the Revised Proposed Project, the Village’s relative
population would change from 17.16 percent (rounded to 17 percent) to
17.8278 percent (rounded to 18 percent). This change would increase the
Village’s annual contribution to the EMS service by $1,784.50 and would
lower the Village of Port Chester’s by the same amount. However, if the
Village of Port Chester and the City of Rye were to also experience
population growth, this increase may be reduced or avoided altogether. As
discussed both above and below, the increase in taxes associated with the
Revised Proposed Project (an annual increase of approximately
$334,420154,882 to the Village of Rye Brook) would more than cover this
potential increase in the Village’s municipal contribution to the EMS service
(approximately $1,784.50).
2.10.1.2. EMS—Increase in Call Volume
As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would create an
increased demand for EMS services. As described in the DEIS, The Atria, Rye
Brook had an average call volume of approximately 1.7 calls per unit per year
to the EMS, while theThe Osborn had an average call volume of 1.3 calls per
unit per year.7 A third facility, The Bristal in Armonk, had a call volume of 0.25
calls per unit per year. Applying the average call volume from The Osborn,8 it
is estimated that the Revised Proposed Project would have approximately 334
7 The Osborn contains a mix of apartments, garden homes, rental units, memory care, and skilled nursing care.
The Atria contains only IL units, which are smaller in size than the Revised Proposed Project.
8 The call volume to the Osborn is the most representative of the future demand of the Revised Proposed
Project because the unit mix of apartments, garden homes, rental units, memory care, and skilled nursing
within the Osborn is more similar to that of the Revised Proposed Project than The Atria, Rye Brook which
are smaller, IL units only. It should also be noted that The Osborn has skilled nursing care, which provides
care to those needing more medical attention, which population may require a higher rate of ambulance calls
than AL care. The Revised Proposed Project, on the other hand, would include AL care, which would not
provide care to those needing skilled nursing care.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-35 1/3/2020
EMS calls per year. This would represent an increase of approximately 5.4
percent in calls system-wide and an increase of approximately 26.6 percent in
calls within the Village.
The increase in the number of calls within the Village as a result of the
Revised Proposed Project—approximately one additional call per day within
the Village—may necessitate certain operational adjustments by the EMS
service, such as the positioning of vehicles.
Subsequent to the publication of the DEIS, the Applicant obtained information
on the number of falls and the number of EMS calls from two senior living
facilities operated by the prospective operator for the Revised Proposed Project
from January 2018 until June of 2019. One facility has both IL and AL uses
(with approximately twice as many IL residents as AL residents) and the other
facility has only AL and memory care uses. In the combined IL/AL facility,
there were 0.59 EMS calls per resident per year.9 In the AL-only facility, there
were 0.68 EMS calls per resident per year. One factor contributing to these
relatively low rates of EMS calls per unit is that in the combined IL/AL facility,
28 percent of the number of EMS calls consisted of resident falls and in the
AL-only facility the number of EMS calls was 34 percent of the total number
of resident falls. That is to say, at least 64 to 72 percent of resident falls did not
require an EMS call. According to the prospective operator, staff at these
facilities do not automatically call 911 if a resident falls. If a resident has hit
their head, is unsure of how they fell, or seems unsteady, the staff will call 911.
If, however, the resident does not have pain, the staff may assist the residents
up. At both of these facilities, there is a nurse on site 24 hours a day, though it
is not required by the applicable regulations.
In order to reduce the number of EMS calls from the Revised Proposed Project,
the Applicant and its prospective operator, plan to institute similar policies
related to the evaluation of and assistance provided to residents who fall. In
addition, although not required by New York State regulation, the Applicant
intends to have a nurse on-Site 24 hours a day to assist with the evaluation of
residents who fall.
Given the similarities in unit mix between the combined IL/AL facility and the
Revised Proposed Project, the fact that the same operator is anticipated to
operate the Revised Proposed Project, and the Applicant’s commitment to have
a nurse on-Site 24 hours a day, the Applicant believes it is most appropriate to
use a rate of 0.59 EMS calls per unit per year to estimate the potential number
of EMS calls from the Revised Proposed Project. Using this rate, the Revised
Proposed Project would be estimated to have approximately 141 EMS calls per
year. This represents an approximately 2.3 percent increase in calls system-
wide and an increase of approximately 11.2 percent in calls within the Village.
9 The operator tracks and provides all statistics on a per resident basis; however, the operator also stated that
most units were occupied by only a single resident. Therefore, it is assumed that the per resident metrics
are materially equivalent to per unit metrics and therefore should not be adjusted up (based on more than
one person in some units) or adjusted down (based on an average unit occupancy rate).
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-36 DRAFT
The increase in the number of EMS calls system-wide would also likely result
in an increase in operational costs to the EMS service. While it is unlikely
that a 5.42.3 percent increase in call volumes would translate into a 5.42.3
percent increase in costs,10 this FEIS includes a conservative analysis of a
potential 5.42.3 percent increase in costs to the EMS service.
A 5.42.3 percent increase in expenses for the EMS service would be
approximately $138,08558,814 based on 2017 data, the last year for which
data is available. Assuming a 71 percent insurance recovery ratio, this would
create an increase in annual expenses of approximately $40,04517,056 per
year that would need to be made up through municipal contributions or other
sources. If this increased expense were offset by a corresponding increase in
municipal contribution, each of the three municipalities would pay an
additional $10,0114,635 per year plus an amount based on their relative
population as shown in Table 2.10-2.
Table 2.10-2
Potential Increase in EMS Municipal Contributions
75% of
contribution
split evenly
% of Population
(Revised to
include Project)
25% of
contribution by
population
Total
Contribution
Port Chester
$10,011 $4,635 53%
$5,305.962,456.
44
$15,317.21
6,523.93
City of Rye
$10,011 $4,635 29%
$2,903.261,344.
09
$12,914.51
5,500.57
Rye Brook
$10,011 $4,635 18%
$1,802.03834.26
$11,813.28
5,031.53
Total
$30,034$13,904 100%
$10,011.254,635
$40,045.00
17,056.04
Note:
Assumes an increase of $40,04512,792 in municipal contributions and assumes a
revised relative population percentage inclusive of the population of the Revised
Proposed Project.
The Applicant notes, however, that it is unlikely that the Revised Proposed
Project will require an increase in EMS expenses equal to the percentage
increase in calls. More likely, a smaller increase in expenses, and required
revenue, would likely be needed. The Applicant bases this assumption on two
findings. First, and as noted earlier, the EMS service did not raise the
municipal contribution to the service for nearly a decade, during which the
number of calls to the service increased. This indicates that the number of
calls is not directly proportional to the required municipal contribution.
Second, the EMS service has indicated that they are considering adding
another ambulance to certain shifts to meet the current demand of the service.
This fixed cost of service would be required with or without the Revised
10 The marginal cost of an additional EMS call is necessarily less than the average cost per EMS call as the
average cost per call includes several fixed costs, such as the ambulance costs and staff salaries.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-37 1/3/2020
Proposed Project. Further, it is likely that the recent increase in municipal
contributions to the EMS service was required, in part, to fund this anticipated
current need. Therefore, it is likely that the Revised Proposed Project, while
increasing the number of calls to the service, may not require the addition of
new staff or equipment; rather, it may lead to a higher utilization of the staff
and equipment that are currently budgeted for the EMS service.
Finally, even in the most conservative, worst case, the Village, could
experience an increase of approximately $11,8135,032 per year to support the
EMS service and the Village of Port Chester and City of Rye would also
experience increased costs. The costs to the Village would be offset by the
increase in property taxes attributable to the Revised Proposed Project. In the
unlikely event that the Revised Proposed Project directly increases the costs
to the EMS service in proportion to the anticipated increase in calls as
described above, the costs to the City of Rye and Village of Port Chester
would not be offset by increases in property tax revenue to those
municipalities.
2.10.1.3. Police Services
As described in the DEIS, the RBPD indicated that the original project,
considered with the other previously approved residential developments in the
Village, would require additional police personnel and associated equipment.
For the fiscal year 2017, the average salary of a RBPD patrolman was
approximately $107,500.11 However, the “fully loaded” cost of a patrolman,
including benefits, is approximately $225,750.12 As described in Section 2.9,
“Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts,” the Revised Proposed Project is expected
to result in an increase of approximately $334,420154,885 per year in property
taxes to the Village. As the need for an additional police officer is the result of
several projects within the Village, including the Revised Proposed Project, the
share of the total cost attributable to the Revised Proposed Project would be
some fraction of the $225,750. Even when combined with the potential
increased costs associated with EMS service of up to $5,031 per year, described
above, the additional tax revenue provided by the Revised Proposed Project is
expected to be well in excess of the additional costs to the Village.
2.10.1.4. Fire Services
As with the original project, the buildings within the Revised Proposed
Project would include modern life-safety equipment, alarm, and monitoring
systems, and would be fully sprinklered. Based on the relatively low call
volume to the RBFD from The Atria, Rye Brook, it is not anticipated that the
Revised Proposed Project would result in a significant increase in the number
of calls to the RBFD. As with the original project, the Revised Proposed
11 Correspondence from the RBPD indicated that there are 26 sworn officers. The fiscal year 2017 budget,
available on the Village’s website, lists the total salary by officer rank. The number of officers by rank
was estimated based on the total of 26 officers and assuming an increase in salary for each level of rank.
This yields a total of 16 patrolmen, 2 patrolmen/detectives, 6 sergeants, 1 lieutenant, and 1 chief.
12 Employee benefits are assumed to be 1.1 times the cost of the salary, the rate reflected in the 2017 Village
budget. Therefore, the “fully loaded” cost of an employee would be 2.1 times their salary.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-38 DRAFT
Project’s buildings would not be of a height or construction type that is not
already present within the Village. Finally, in RBFD’s correspondence to the
Applicant, the RBFD did not opine on whether additional personnel or
equipment to serve the original project would be needed.
2.10.1.5. Emergency Service Site Access
As with the original project, appropriate access to the IL and AL building has
been provided in accordance with preliminary meetings with Village fire
officials, as shown on drawing C-320 in Volume 4. Further, the IL and AL
building will be designed to comply with all applicable fire and life safety
codes, including but not limited to the New York State Uniform Fire
Prevention and Building Code and the 2017 New York State Uniform Code
Supplement. In addition, one or more elevators will be designed to fit a
gurney to enable full EMS operations on the second through fourth floors.
Based on the nature of the Revised Proposed Project, as an age-restricted
residential community, and comments received from the public as well as the
Lead Agency and Planning Board, the Applicant has proposed to construct a
secondary means of access to the Project Site in cases where the Site’s
primary access from Arbor Drive may not be available. Specifically, the
Applicant proposes to construct a minimum 24-foot-wide access drive that
would connect the northeast corner of the Site’s internal access road to the
northern terminus of the existing parking lot behind the Village’s firehouse
(see Figure 1-15). The drive would be constructed with grasscrete pavers and
during normal operation this driveway would be secured at both ends with a
bollard and chain assembly. The drive would only be used in the case of
emergencies and only authorized Site or Village personnel would be allowed
to unlock the chain. The Applicant would maintain this drive, including
providing for the necessary removal of snow during the winter.
As described in the DEIS, the Applicant evaluated the potential for the
emergency access drive to be located in a different location (see DEIS Figure
10-2). This alternative location would require a steeper driveway connection
and the turning movements into and out of the Site from this driveway would
be more constrained than in the proposed location. For these reasons, and
after conversations with Village staff, the Applicant decided to advance the
proposed emergency access location.
2.10.2. SCHOOLS
The original project proposed a Site-wide age restriction of 55 years old. In order to
estimate the number of school-age children that could be expected to live in the original
project, the Applicant collected information on the number of school-age children living
at eight residential developments totaling 1,173 units that are age-restricted to those 55
years old and older located within seven different school districts. Based on information
collected directly from the school districts, there was a total of three school-age children
enrolled from those units. The Applicant also requested information from the
Superintendent of the BBRUFSD regarding the number of school-age children residing at
The Atria, Rye Brook and the King Street Rehab facility, two age-restricted senior living
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-39 1/3/2020
communities located on King Street. To the best of the Superintendent’s knowledge, there
were no children living at either facility.
Nevertheless, in response to comments from the Lead Agency and the public and to further
minimize the potential for school-age children living at the Revised Proposed Project, the
Applicant has modified the original project to increase the minimum age of project
residents. Specifically, the Revised Proposed Project would be age-restricted to those 62
years old and older, which is consistent with the Village’s current definition of “senior
living facility.” As such, no school-age children are anticipated to live within the Revised
Proposed Project.
2.10.3. OPEN SPACE
The Revised Proposed Project would conservatively be anticipated to add a population of
438406 people to the Project Site. According to the New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) standards described in the DEIS, the new
population would create a need for approximately 1.5032 acres of open space (see Table
2.10-3 and Appendix F).
The Revised Proposed Project would preserve approximately 10.6711.01 acres of the
Project Site, or 59.562 percent, as open space—an increase of 0.360.7 acres from the
current condition. Of that space, at least 2.241.89 acres could be considered parks and
recreational space, as shown on Figure 2-11 and summarized in Table 2.10-4.
Table 2.10-3
New York State Recommended Available Open Space
Facility Type Approx. Size in Acres
Acres per 1,000
Population
Acres Needed for
Incoming Population
Pocket Park 0.25–0.5 0.25 0.1110
Play Lot 1–2 2 0.8881
Neighborhood Park 4–7 1 0.4441
Total 1.4232
Source: OPRHP, See Appendix F.
Table 2.10-4
On-Site Recreation Areas
Open Space Area Approximate Area Description
East Garden (Memory
Garden) 5,000155 sf For AL and memory care residents
South Courtyard 9,400 sf Primarily for IL residents
West Terrace Garden 2,662 sf Primarily for IL residents
West Sun Deck Garden 3,528539 sf Primarily for IL residents
North Courtyard Garden 10,79012,254 sf Primarily for IL residents
Dining Garden 4,590 sf Primarily for IL/AL residents
Walking Path 31,950 sf For all Project residents and staff
Backyard 29,830 sf For all Project residents and staff
Total 97,75082,728 sf (~2.241.89
acres)
The five main areas of open and recreation space are described in more detail below:
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-40 DRAFT
A Memory Garden (the East Garden, approximately 5,000155 sf) would be located
east of the AL facility for use by the facility’s residents. This secure, outdoor area
would be landscaped and programmed to allow AL residents to safely enjoy the
outdoors.
Various landscaped gardens and terraces would be provided adjacent to the IL building.
These spaces would be programmed for a various uses, including passive activities,
such as reading or having a conversation, as well as for slightly more active activities.
The existing Walking Path would be extended to the north within the Site and would
terminate at a landscaped loop in the Site’s northeast corner. This path, and the
landscaped area to its east, would give Project residents the opportunity to enjoy
longer walks on the Project Site. In addition, this Linear Walking Path would connect
to the existing sidewalk that connects the Project Site to Harkness Park, as well as to
the Backyard walking path.
The Backyard walking path would connect to pedestrian paths located at the northern
and southern portions of the Site. This path would meander through a slightly wooded
area and provide residents and staff with a more serene setting to recreate or simply
sit and relax.
There are two requirements in the Village Code relating to the provision of public parks
and open space. The first requirement is specified in Section 209-14 of the Village Code,
which states that site plans must, when required by the approval authority, contain “a park
or parks suitably located and usable for passive or active recreational purposes.” If such a
park or parks cannot be located on-site, Section 209-15 requires that an applicant remit a
fee in lieu of providing the required open space.
The Revised Proposed Project would include approximately 2.241.89 acres of space for
active and passive recreation, which is more than 5043 percent more than the amount
required to meet the needs of the projected on-Site population according to OPRHP.
The second requirement is specified in Section 250-7E(2)(f) of the Village Code, which
requires that 10 percent of a PUD site be offered and dedicated to the Village for
recreational use or a fee in lieu of providing such land be paid to the Village. This
provision of the Village Code applies to a PUD site as a whole at the time that it is mapped
a PUD, and not to individual lots within a PUD site, including the Project Site.
2.10.4. SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING
The Revised Proposed Project could result in the generation of approximately
258.04240.94 tons of solid waste per year, approximately 12.8329.93 tons less than the
original project (270.87 tons/year) and approximately 184.81214.74 tons less than what
would be generated with the full reoccupancyre-occupancy of the existing office building
(442.85 tons/year) (see Table 2.10-5).
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-41 1/3/2020
Table 2.10-5
Revised Proposed Project Solid Waste Generation
Project
Component
Number of
Units/Beds
Solid Waste Generation
Rate (pounds per week)
Pounds
per Week
Pounds per
Year3
Tons per
Year
Town Home1 20 41 per household 820 42,755 21.38
Assisted Living2 94 17 per individual 1,598 83,320 41.66
Independent Living3 152 41 per household 6,2325,576 324,936290,733 162.47145.37
Employees 96 13 per employee 1,248 65,071 32.54
Total 258.04240.94
Notes:
1 All townhomes and IL dwelling units are considered households for the purposes of a conservative
solid waste generation analysis.
2 The AL units are not considered dwelling units according to the Applicant’s understanding of Section
250-2 of the Village Code that defines a dwelling unit as containing complete housekeeping
facilities, which the AL units do not. 3 Based on a rate of 52.14 weeks per year.
Sources: CEQR Technical Manual; AKRF, Inc.
As with the original project, with the Revised Proposed Project, the Applicant would
continue to contract with a private carting company for refuse and recycling collection.
The private carter may ultimately dispose of the material at the Charles Point Resource
Recovery Plant, or another facility that is licensed to receive the waste.
Refuse and recycling would be picked up two to three times per week during daytime
hours. While not required by Chapter 135 of the Village Code, the private carter hired to
service the Revised Proposed Project would not pick up waste earlier than 6:00 AM, the
time at which municipal refuse collection may begin, to avoid potential adverse noise
impacts. Solid waste would be collected from the solid waste storage area, located within
the loading area in the rear of the IL and AL building. This area would not be visible from
Arbor Drive, Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD, or The Arbors due to intervening buildings.
As shown in Figure 1-16, this area has been designed to accommodate the turning
movements of a semi-trailer; therefore, the turning movements of a refuse collection truck
would also be accommodated. Solid waste from the townhouses is anticipated to be
collected several times a week by the site maintenance/housekeeping staff and delivered
to the solid waste storage area behind the IL and AL building.
To further mitigate potential impacts associated with solid waste, the Applicant has begun
conversations with the Village to determine the potential for the Revised Proposed Project
to make use of the Village’s existing food scrap recycling program by potentially proposing
a second pick-up location at the Project Site. This collaboration would be the first of its kind
within the Village. The Applicant plans to continue these discussions during the
construction of the Revised Proposed Project and, if possible, coordinate the recycling of
the Project’s food scraps with the Village’s existing program upon completion of the
Revised Proposed Project.is evaluating the feasibility of establishing a food scrap recycling
program on-Site. The Applicant notes that the Village has an existing food scrap recycling
program that allows Village residents to drop off food scraps at Village Hall where they are
picked up by a licensed carter once a week. It is the Applicant’s intention to evaluate whether
the Revised Proposed Project could serve as a second pick-up location for the Village’s
existing carter.
Under the Westchester County Source Separation Law, businesses or organizations that
own a building or buildings commonly hosting more than 100 employees, patients, or
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-42 DRAFT
students during a 24-hour period are required to submit a solid waste management plan
that details its solid waste and recycling disposal practices and update that plan every
3three years. While the Revised Proposed Project may not exceed the 100-employee
threshold, the Applicant will develop a solid waste management plan during final site plan
approval that meets the requirements of the County’s Source Separation Law. This plan
will be submitted to the Commissioner of Environmental Facilities of the County of
Westchester as well as the Village.
2.10.5. SENIOR SERVICES
The Village provides its senior citizens with a variety of services, a majority of which are
available at the Rye Brook Senior Center (the “Senior Center”) inside of the Anthony J.
Posillipo Community Center (the “Community Center”). The Senior Center is open from
9:00 AM to 4:00 PM on Mondays through Thursdays, and from 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM on
Fridays. Membership to the Senior Center is open to Village residents aged 60 years and
older for an annual cost of $15. General instructional classes for seniors, including
painting, mahjong, and computer basics, are free to attend. Health-related services at the
Senior Center include free blood pressure screenings and a free blood pressure self-
monitoring program. For a small fee, senior citizens can reserve a hot lunch any weekday
at the Senior Center, with the remaining cost of the meal paid for by the Village. Fees for
meals are $4 for Senior Center members and $8 for non-members. Exercise classes are
open to senior citizens, including general fitness and strength training, yoga, and tai chi.
Prices for exercise classes range from free for general fitness and strength training to $75
for a series of 13 yoga classes.
The Village also provides a Senior Dial-A-Ride Transportation service for its senior citizens
via a 20-passanger bus for $0.50 per ride, or free for seniors who can no longer drive or who
need assistance (i.e.., carrying grocery bags). On Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays,
seniors can reserve a ride on the bus to and from the Senior Center, as well as to local
doctor’s appointments. Senior citizens can register to take the bus to two grocery stores in
Port Chester on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Most Wednesdays the bus is reserved for group
outings organized by the Senior Center, such as going to the movie theater, which can be
reserved by interested seniors. Fees for group outings to the movies are $2 for a member
and $4 for non-members. Many Fridays the bus is reserved for special events, including
trips to Arthur Avenue, Empire City Casino, John Jay Homestead, and Westchester
Broadway Theater. Fees for special events range from $2 for a member to attend a trip to
Arthur Avenue through $60 for a non-member to see a play at the Hunterdon Hills
Playhouse. Dial-A-Ride service begins at 8:30 AM and ends as late as 2:30 PM.
TheOn August 27, 2019, AKRF staff spoke with Elizabeth Rotfeld, the Village of Rye
Brook’s Deputy Village Clerk/ Senior Coordinator to discuss the utilization and capacity
of the Village’s Senior Center. Ms. Rotfeld stated that over the past decade, attendance at
meals (e.g., lunch) and activities has declined. In the past, lunches were attended by
approximately 40 residents, whereas currently, approximately 20 seniors attend lunch.
Similarly, fewer residents stay at the center all day than in the past. Special lectures,
holiday activities, and special lunches are still well-attended. Based on the capacity of the
Senior Center and its current utilization, it is Ms. Rotfeld’s opinion that the Senior Center
has the capacity to accommodate additional seniors, such as those that may reside in the
Revised Proposed Project.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-43 1/3/2020
To reduce the potential for the Revised Proposed Project to increase demand for the
Village Senior Center’s services, it is noted that the Revised Proposed Project would
provide Project residents many of the same services offered by the Rye Brook Senior
Center, including hot lunch, exercise programs, transportation, enrichment classes. The
Revised Proposed Project would include a fitness center for use by residents that would
be equipped with strength-training machines and a group fitness room. The cost of
accessing the fitness center would be included in the cost of living at the senior living
community. In addition, trips and programs would be offered to Project residents, such as
to local grocery stores, shopping centers, malls, and cultural institutions. In terms of
dining, IL residents would be expected to participate in a meal plan that would include
some or all of their meals; AL residents would be expected to participate in a meal plan
for all of their meals and townhouse residents would have the option to participate in a
meal plan at the IL building, and would also have the opportunity to cook for themselves.
2.11. INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES
2.11.1. WATER SUPPLY
The Project Site is served by Suez Water Westchester, Inc. (SWWC), which purchases
approximately 60 percent of the Village’s supply from Aquarion Inc., in Greenwich,
CTConnecticut, and 40 percent from Westchester Joint Water Works (WJWW). The Revised
Proposed Project is estimated to generate a water/sanitary demand of 46,790 47,670 gallons
per day (gpd) (see Table 2.11-1), approximately 26,87727,757 gpd more than if the existing
office were fully occupied and approximately 8,910030 gpd less than the original project.
The domestic water usage was calculated based on the various uses proposed in accordance
with NYSDEC Design Standards for Intermediate Sized Wastewater Treatment Systems, last
revised March 5, 2014.
The Revised Proposed Project would install an 8-inch water main within the Site’s loop
road. This loop main would be privately owned and maintained by the Applicant and/or
Project-operator. From that main service, a 4-inch domestic water service and a 6-inch
fire service are proposed to serve the main IL and AL building and extensions are
proposed to serve the townhouses. The new water main would connect to the existing
municipal main within Arbor Drive at two locations. Fire hydrants would be provided
throughout the Site in accordance with the applicable Fire Codes and the requirements of
RBFD.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-44 DRAFT
Table 2.11-1
Estimated Water/Sanitary Generation
Units Quantity
Gallons per Day
per Unit
Total Gallons per
Day
Townhouses
(Full kitchen) Bedrooms 40 110 4,400
Assisted Living
(No in-unit kitchen)
Bedrooms 95 110 10,450
Kitchen/Lounge/
Employees
110 Seats/20 Seats/
64 Employees 50/20/15 6,860
Independent Living
(Full kitchen) Bedrooms 228236 110 25,080960
Total 46,79047,670
Note: Independent Living units are not part of the Assisted Living Facility and for purposes of this
analysis are treated as standard apartments.
Source: NYS Design Standards for Intermediate Sized Wastewater Treatment Systems, NYSDEC, March
5, 2014.
SWWC, in conjunction with Aquarion and WJWW, analyzed the potential impacts to the
water supply system as a result of the Revised Proposed Project (see Appendix G). The
analysis looked at both a “typical” flow rate (i.e., anticipated daily flows and peak flows)
and a flow rate under a condition where firefighting is occurring in the vicinity. SWWC’s
analysis indicated the need for two improvements to the water system. The first
improvement is the provision of additional interconnections with WJWW, at Anderson
Hill Road) and Aquarion, at King Street. SWWC indicated that it would perform those
upgrades at no cost to the Applicant. The second improvement was the installation of a
meter on the 16-inch main at Anderson Hill Road, which would bypass the existing 8-
inch meter vault that experiences significant head loss at times of peak flow. The cost
associated with this new meter and vault would be the responsibility of the Applicant.
Upon completion of these improvements, SWWC’s analysis indicates that the water
system would operate a residual pressure of 62 pounds per square inch (psi) during typical
conditions and 32 psi under fire flow conditions, which are higher than the minimum
standards of 35 psi and 20 psi, respectively (see Appendix G).
2.11.2. SANITARY SEWER
Sanitary wastewater is conveyed from the Site by an existing privately owned 10-inch
main that connects to an existing 8-inch Village-owned main, which travels through The
Arbors and connects to the County sewer trunk line at Hillandale Road before being
treated at the Blind Brook Wastewater Treatment Plan (WWTP). Monitoring of the
existing 8-inch Village-owned main indicates that the line flows at approximately 9
percent of its capacity on average and 21 percent of its capacity during periods of peak
flow (see DEIS Appendix EE).
As described above, the Revised Proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately
46,79047,670 gpd of sanitary sewage, approximately 26,87727,757 gpd more than if the
existing office building were fully occupied and approximately 8,910030 gpd less than
the original project. The Blind Brook WWTP currently has 2 million gallons per day
(mgd) excess capacity. Therefore, the WWTP would be able to serve the Revised
Proposed Project. A letter received from the Westchester County Department of
Environmental Facilities (WCDEF), confirmed the ability of the Blind Brook WWTP and
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-45 1/3/2020
the Blind Brook Trunk Sewer System to accommodate the increased sewer flows from
the Proposed Project (see DEIS Appendix E-3).
The Revised Proposed Project would construct an 8-inch sanitary service that would
connect the IL and AL building to the existing 10-inch private main. Separate connections
for the townhouses would be made to the 8-inch main. Based on the Site topography in
relation to the existing sewer system, it is not anticipated that a pump station would be
required. JMC Engineering conducted a downstream sanitary sewer main analysis to
evaluate the theoretical capacity of the sewer system to accommodate the increase in flows
from the original project, which as stated above had a larger estimated wastewater
generation than the Revised Proposed Project (see DEIS Appendix EE). This analysis
calculated the peak flow for each section of the sewer main between the Project Site and
the Westchester County sewer main at the intersection of Hillandale Road. The analysis
modeled the calculated and actual flows from the Site, The Arbors, and residences along
Hillandale Road. Based on this analysis, the existing downstream sanitary sewer system
would have sufficient capacity to serve the original project and accommodate the
increased flow. As shown in Table 6 of Appendix EE, the downstream sewer
infrastructure has the capacity to handle up to 0.960 cubic feet per second (cfs) of flow,
which is well in excess of the 0.645 cfs of flow projected in the post-development
condition with the original project. As shown in the analysis, with the original project, the
existing 8-inch sewer main would flow at 45 percent of its capacity during periods of peak
flow. As the Revised Proposed Project would generate less sanitary wastewater than the
original project, the sewer mains would similarly be able to handle the increase flows
associated with the Revised Proposed Project.
To minimize the potential for adverse impacts to the sanitary wastewater system, trash
receptacles would be provided by all toilets in the Revised Proposed Project in order to
reduce the potential for non-flushable items to enter the sanitary sewer system. Residents
would also receive notices and other literature detailing the items that should and should
not be flushed down the toilet. In addition, grease traps would be provided from proposed
common kitchen areas in the IL and AL building to prohibit unwanted greases from
entering the sewer system. The grease traps would be maintained on a regular basis to
maintain their effectiveness in grease removal.
The WCDEF recommends, as it has done in other County sewer districts, that the
additional flow to the system be offset by reductions in inflow and infiltration. The
removal for the Proposed Project is recommended to be on a 3:1 ratio. As described above,
the Proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 46,79047,670 gpd of sanitary
sewage, which is equal to an increment of 26,87727,757 gpd more than the No Build
condition. In accordance with WCDEF recommendations, the Applicant would mitigate
the additional 26,87727,757 gpd to the system at a 3:1 ratio, or a reduction in inflow and
infiltration in the amount of 80,63183,271 gpd. The Applicant intends to effectuate this
mitigation through a monetary contribution to the Village’s existing I&Iinflow and
infiltration (I&I) program in an amount equivalent to the per gallon contribution of
recently approved projects in the Village.
2.11.3. ENERGY USAGE (ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS)
The Revised Proposed Project would require electricity and gas to power building
systems. Con Edison would continue to provide electric service to the site, which would
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-46 DRAFT
be fed through an underground 13.2 kilovolt (kV) service originating from Arbor Drive.
This 13.2 kV service would be tapped by the various buildings on the Project Site with
pad-mounted utility transformers at each building. As confirmed by Con Edison, the
existing transformer on the Project Site is adequate for the electric loads of the Revised
Proposed Project (see Appendix H).
The Revised Proposed Project would be connected to the existing natural gas service
along Arbor Drive and a medium-pressure service main would run underground to provide
service to all buildings on the Site. Each building would be metered separately. Con
Edison has stated that they can provide firm gas to the Revised Proposed Project and that
two upgrades to Con Edison’s gas system would be required: replacement of 945 feet of
4- and 6-inch main with 12-inch main on Mohegan Lane and Latonia Road; and,
installation of a 12-inch tie on King Street from Arbor Drive to N. Ridge Street. The cost
of these improvements would be initially funded by the Applicant, and refunded by Con
Edison upon completion of the Revised Proposed Project (see Appendix H). Based on
Con Edison’s commitment letter, it is the Applicant’s understanding that Con Edison will
supply the Revised Proposed Project with firm natural gas service if the Applicant
demonstrates continued progress in completing the project even if construction is not
completed within two years despite Con Edison’s temporary gas moratorium in southern
Westchester County. In the event that firm gas is not available for the Revised Proposed
Project, the Applicant would propose another energy source and the environmental
impacts of using this other energy source would be analyzed in accordance with SEQRA.
The Revised Proposed Project would incorporate energy-efficient features, including
fixtures and HVAC and mechanical systems. The use of energy-efficient features would
reduce the Site’s energy consumption, which would also reduce the greenhouse gas
emissions attributable to the Proposed Project.
2.12. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
This section updates the analysis presented in Chapter 12 of the DEIS, “Traffic and
Transportation,” of the DEIS as a result of changes to the Proposed Project. SpecificallyAs part of
a preliminary FEIS (pFEIS) submitted to the Village on May 14, 2019, an updated impacts analysis
was performed to account for changes in the Revised Proposed Project, summarized in Chapter 1,
“Revised Proposed Project,” including: an increase in the minimum age of Project residents to 62
years old; a reduction in the number of units proposed; (eight fewer IL units and four fewer
townhouse units); a reduction in the size of the IL units proposed; and a reduction in the number
of bedrooms proposed. The updated analysis is included as Appendix I-1 of this FEIS (the “pFEIS
Plan”). An updated analysis for this pFEIS Plan is included as Appendix I-1 of this FEIS and is
summarized below. Subsequent to the May 14, 2019 pFEIS, the Applicant further reduced the
number of IL units proposed to 136, as described in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project.” The
anticipated number of peak hour trips generated from the Revised Proposed Project is presented
in Section 2.12.1, “Site-Generated Traffic,” which includes a comparison to the DEIS project and
the pFEIS project. The traffic capacity analyses summarized below are based on the analysis of
the pFEIS plan and were not updated for the Revised Proposed Project. Therefore, the capacity
analyses presented in Appendix I-1, and summarized below, are somewhat conservative as they
are reflective of a higher density than is included in the Revised Proposed Project.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-47 1/3/2020
2.12.1. SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC
The Revised Proposed Project would reduce the number of peak hour trips generated from
what was estimated for the original project. As shown in Table 2.12.1, the Revised
Proposed Project would generate 1619 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak AM Hour,
1821 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 1923 fewer trips during the
Weekday Peak PM Hour than the original project.
Table 2.12-1
Anticipated Site-Generated Traffic
Original Project
(DEIS) pFEIS Project
Revised Proposed
Project (FEIS) Trip Reduction
Entry Exit Total Entry Exit Total Entry Exit Total Entry Exit Total
Weekday Peak AM Hour 25 45 70 20 34 54 19 32 51 6 13 19
Weekday Peak Midday Hour1 38 42 80 29 33 62 28 31 59 10 11 21
Weekday Peak PM Hour 50 40 90 39 32 71 36 31 67 14 9 23
Note: 1 Average of weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour trip generation rates.
Sources: Maser Consulting P.A.; Townhouse Rates—ITE Land Use 230 – Residential Townhouse Rates with 25%
reduction for age-restriction; IL Rates—ITE Land Use 252 – Senior Adult Housing Rates; AL Rates—ITE Land
Use 254 – Assisted Living Rates
According to the existing conditions traffic counts that were performed in 2017 and 2018,
the existing office building is generating 34 existing trips during the Weekday Peak AM
Hour, 25 existing trips during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 21 existing trips during
the Weekday Peak PM Hour. As a result, the Revised Proposed Project would generate an
increase from the current condition of only 2017 trips during the Weekday Peak AM Hour,
3734 trips during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 5046 trips during the Weekday Peak
PM Hour. That is to say, the Revised Proposed Project is only expected to add one additional
car to Arbor Drive every 1.23 to 3.5 minutes during the peak hours.
2.12.2. TRAFFIC AND CAPACITY ANALSYSIS FOR THE REVISED PROPOSED
PROJECT
The Village’s traffic consultant (FPCA), as part of their review dated November 2, 2018
of the Traffic Impact Study (August 24, 2018) and DEIS (September 12, 2018)), indicated
that in addition to the re-occupancy of the existing office building, the Applicant has
accounted for five other future developments and has used an appropriate background
growth rate for increases in traffic volume not specifically related to a specific no-build
project; therefore the 2025 No-Build Traffic Volumes included in the DEIS are reasonably
acceptable. The Year 2025 Build analysis was updated to reflect the reduced vehicular
trip generation associated with the Revised Proposed ProjectpFEIS Plan and is compared
to the DEIS Year 2025 analysis with the re-occupancy of the existing office building (see
Table 2.12-2 and Appendix I-1).13
13 The traffic capacity analyses summarized in this Chapter are based on the analysis of the pFEIS plan (152
IL units; 20 townhouses; 85 AL units) and were not updated for the Revised Proposed Project (136 IL
units; 20 townhouses; 85 AL units). Therefore, the capacity analyses presented in Appendix I-1, and
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-48 DRAFT
Table 2.12-2
Level of Service Summary
Location
Year 2017/2018
Existing Conditions
Year 2025
No Build Conditions
Year 2025 Revised Proposed
ProjectpFEIS Plan Conditions
Weekday
AM
Weekday
Midday
Weekday
PM
Weekday
AM
Weekday
Midday
Weekday
PM
Weekday
AM
Weekday
Midday
Weekday
PM
LOS (Delay-
seconds)
LOS (Delay-
seconds)
LOS (Delay-
seconds)
LOS (Delay-
seconds)
LOS (Delay-
seconds)
LOS (Delay-
seconds)
LOS (Delay-
seconds)
LOS (Delay-
seconds)
LOS (Delay-
seconds)
King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Anderson Hill
Road
B
(15.6)
B
(13.0)
C
(21.6)
C
(20.7)
B
(16.9)
D
(38.7)
C
(20.3)
B
(16.5)
D
(36.2)
King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Hutchinson
River Parkway/Merritt Parkway SB Off Ramp
Minor movement—westbound right
C
(19.0)
B
(13.6)
B
(14.0)
D
(27.3)
C
(16.6)
C
(17.9)
D
(27.1)
C
(16.2)
C
(16.7)
King Street (NYS Route 120A) and North Ridge Street
Major movements—northbound
Minor movements—eastbound left
eastbound right
B (10.6)
F (160.9)
C (21.7)
A (9.8)
F (89.1)
C (17.6)
A (9.9)
F (60.8)
D (26.2)
B (12.1)
F (451.8)
F(58.8)
B (10.8)
F (248.4)
C (24.2)
B (11.1)
F (182.2)
E (39.9)
B (11.5)
F (329.6)
D (27.1)
B (10.4)
F (172.2)
C (21.3)
B (10.5)
F (99.5)
E (37.6)
King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Glen Ridge
Road/ Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkways
NB On/Off Ramp
Major movements—southbound left
Minor movements—westbound left/right
B (14.6)
F (53.1)
B (14.5)
D (31.4)
C (15.8)
E (41.8)
C (18.2)
F (168.7)
C (19.9)
F (79.0)
D (28.7)
F (284.6)
C (17.9)
F (136.3)
C (17.5)
F (53.0)
C (19.7)
F (85.7)
King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Hutchinson
River Parkway/Merritt Parkways NB On/Off Ramp
Major movements—northbound left
Minor movements—eastbound left/right
A (0.0)
F (82.1)
A (8.3)
C (22.4)
A (8.8)
F (53.9)
A (0.0)
F (365.4)
A (8.5)
E (42.0)
A (9.0)
F (166.1)
A (0.0)
F (146.3)
A (8.4)
D (29.9)
A (9.0)
F (106.3)
King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Arbor Drive
B
(10.3)
A
(6.4)
A
(7.0)
B
(13.9)
B
(13.5)
B
(17.9)
B
(13.7)
A
(8.1)
A
(8.5)
King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Blind Brook
MS/HS Right Turn Entry A A A A A A A A A
King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Blind Brook
MS/HS – Glenville Street
C
(24.5)
C
(26.9)
B
(17.7)
C
(31.4)
C
(30.6)
B
(18.6)
C
(27.7)
C
(30.3)
B
(18.8)
Arbor Drive and Site Driveway Major movements—westbound left Minor movements—southbound left/right A (0.0) A (9.6) A (0.0) B (10.1) A (0.0) A (9.5) A (0.0) B (11.3) A (0.0) B (12.2) A (0.0) B (12.6) A (0.0) A (9.9) A (0.0) B (10.4) A (0.0) A (9.8)
King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Comly Avenue
Major movements—southbound left
Minor movements—westbound left/right
A (8.8)
C (20.9)
A (8.4)
B (14.9)
A (8.6)
C (18.7)
A (9.3)
D (30.2)
A (8.6)
C (17.2)
A (8.9)
C (23.8)
A (9.1)
D (27.1)
A (8.6)
C (16.9)
A (8.9)
C (23.3)
King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Betsey Brown Road
Major movements—northbound left
Minor movements—eastbound left/right
A (9.8)
F (172.2)
A (9.3)
E (40.1)
A (8.7)
D (25.0)
B (10.3)
F (432.9)
A (9.7)
F (72.3)
A (9.1)
E (36.5)
B (10.3)
F (362.3)
A (9.6)
F (66.8)
A (8.9)
D (34.3)
N. Ridge Street and Hutchinson River Parkway SB
On/Off Ramps
Major movements—northbound left
Minor movements—eastbound left/right
A (8.9)
B (11.9)
A (8.0)
B (10.2)
A (7.9)
B (10.7)
A (9.3)
B (13.4)
A (8.2)
B (10.7)
A (8.2)
B (11.7)
A (9.3)
B (12.6)
A (8.2)
B (10.4)
A (8.0)
B (11.2)
Notes: See Appendix I-1 for the full analysis and associated volume/capacity ratios, and storage/queuing analysis.
SB = southbound; NB = northbound. Sources: Revised Traffic Impact Analysis (2019), Maser Consulting P. A.
As shown in Table 2.12-2, and as was the case with the original project, the Revised Proposed
ProjectpFEIS Plan would not have a significant adverse impact on any study area intersection
when compared to the No Build condition. In fact, certain study area intersections would see a
beneficial change to LOS and/or average delays with the Revised Proposed Project when
compared the No Build condition when compared to the re-occupancy of the existing office
building. As the Revised Proposed Project includes fewer units than the pFEIS Plan, the analyses
presented above are somewhat conservative.
summarized herein, are somewhat conservative as they are reflective of a higher density than is included
in the Revised Proposed Project.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-49 1/3/2020
2.12.3. NO-BUILD SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The traffic analysis included in the DEIS (DEIS Appendix F, as summarized in Chapter
12 of the DEIS, “Traffic and Transportation” of the DEIS),”), was conducted in
accordance with the Approved Scoping Document, which specified that the baseline for
the analysis should be re-occupancy of the existing approximately 200,000 sf office
building. The Village’s traffic consultant noted that including trips associated with the full
occupancy of the existing office building provided a “fair assessment” because the
building is “there and it could be reoccupied.” Further, the Village’s traffic consultant
noted that, “in the past the re-occupancy of vacant buildings was included to account for
the net change in site traffic for redevelopment” (emphasis added).
While there is case law to support the DEIS analysis, based upon comments received
during the DEIS review process from the public and from NYSDOT, this FEIS provides
a sensitivity analysis based upon the current utilization of the office building (see Table
2.12-3 and Appendix I-2).
Table 2.12-3
Sensitivity Analysis—Level of Service Summary
Location
Year 2017/2018
Existing Conditions
Year 2025 No Build Conditions without the
Existing Office Building
Year 2025 Revised Proposed
ProjectpFEIS Plan Conditions
Weekday AM Weekday Midday Weekday PM Weekday AM Weekday Midday Weekday PM Weekday AM Weekday Midday Weekday PM
LOS
(Delay-
seconds)
LOS
(Delay-
seconds)
LOS
(Delay-
seconds)
LOS
(Delay-
seconds)
LOS
(Delay-
seconds)
LOS
(Delay-
seconds)
LOS
(Delay-
seconds)
LOS
(Delay-
seconds)
LOS
(Delay-
seconds)
King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Anderson Hill Road
B
(15.6)
B
(13.0)
C
(21.6)
C
(20.2)
B
(16.4)
D
(35.2)
C
(20.3)
B
(16.5)
D
(36.2)
King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Hutchinson River
Parkway/Merritt Parkway SB Off Ramp Minor movement—westbound right C (19.0) B (13.6) B (14.0) D (26.7) C (16.1) C (16.6) D (27.1) C (16.2) C (16.7)
King Street (NYS Route 120A) and North Ridge Street
Major movements—northbound Minor movements—eastbound left
eastbound right
B (10.6) F (160.9)
C (21.7)
A (9.8) F (89.1)
C (17.6)
A (9.9) F (60.8)
D (26.2)
B (11.5) F (329.6)
D (28.2)
B (10.3) F (162.2)
C (20.7)
B (10.4) F (95.1)
E (35.5)
B (11.5) F (329.6)
D (27.1)
B (10.4) F (172.2)
C (21.3)
B (10.5) F (99.5)
E (37.6)
King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Glen Ridge Road/
Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkways NB On/Off
Ramp
Major movements—southbound left
Minor movements—westbound left/right
B (14.6)
F (53.1)
B (14.5)
D (31.4)
C (15.8)
E (41.8)
C (17.5)
F (123.6)
C (17.4)
F (50.3)
C (19.4)
F (85.7)
C (17.9)
F (136.3)
C (17.5)
F (53.0)
C (19.7)
F (85.7)
King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Hutchinson River
Parkway/Merritt Parkways NB On/Off Ramp Major movements—northbound left
Minor movements—eastbound left/right
A (0.0)
F (82.1)
A (8.3)
C (22.4)
A (8.8)
F (53.9)
A (0.0)
F (151.3)
A (8.4)
D (28.5)
A (8.9)
F (94.2)
A (0.0)
F (146.3)
A (8.4)
D (29.9)
A (9.0)
F (106.3)
King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Arbor Drive B (10.3) A (6.4) A (7.0) B (12.6) A (7.1) A (7.9) B (13.7) A (8.1) A (8.5)
King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Blind Brook MS/HS
Right Turn Entry A A A A A A A A A
King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Blind Brook MS/HS
– Glenville Street
C
(24.5)
C
(26.9)
B
(17.7)
C
(27.5)
C
(29.9)
B
(18.7)
C
(27.7)
C
(30.3)
B
(18.8)
Arbor Drive and Site Driveway Major movements—westbound left
Minor movements—southbound left/right
A (0.0)
A (9.6)
A (0.0)
B (10.1)
A (0.0)
A (9.5)
A (0.0)
A (9.7)
A (0.0)
B (10.2)
A (0.0)
A (9.6)
A (0.0)
A (9.9)
A (0.0)
B (10.4)
A (0.0)
A (9.8)
King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Comly Avenue
Major movements—southbound left
Minor movements—westbound left/right
A (8.8)
C (20.9)
A (8.4)
B (14.9)
A (8.6)
C (18.7)
A (9.1)
D (26.2)
A (8.6)
C (16.5)
A (8.8)
C (22.3)
A (9.1)
D (27.1)
A (8.6)
C (16.9)
A (8.9)
C (23.3)
King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Betsey Brown Road
Major movements—northbound left Minor movements—eastbound left/right A (9.8) F (172.2) A (9.3) E (40.1) A (8.7) D (25.0) B (10.2) F (346.2) A (9.5) F (61.9) A (8.9) D (32.0) B (10.3) F (362.3) A (9.6) F (66.8) A (8.9) D (34.3)
N. Ridge Street and Hutchinson River Parkway SB
On/Off Ramps Major movements—northbound left
Minor movements—eastbound left/right
A (8.9)
B (11.9)
A (8.0)
B (10.2)
A (7.9)
B (10.7)
A (9.2)
B (12.6)
A (8.1)
B (10.4)
A (8.0)
B (11.1)
A (9.3)
B (12.6)
A (8.2)
B (10.4)
A (8.0)
B (11.2)
Notes:
See Appendix I-2 for the full sensitivity analysis and associated volume/capacity ratios and storage/queuing analysis.
SB = southbound; NB = northbound.
Sources: 900 King Sensitivity Analysis (2019), Maser Consulting P. A.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-50 DRAFT
As shown in this analysis, the pFEIS Plan would not have a significant adverse impact on
any study area intersections with the re-occupancy of the existing office building included
in the analysis. Without the re-occupancy of the existing office building, there would be
the following impacts: the Glen Ridge Road westbound lane to King Street will maintain
a LOS “F” during the weekday morning peak hour, with an increase in delay of 12.7
seconds; the Hutchinson River Parkway northbound on-off ramp eastbound lane to King
Street will maintain a LOS “F” during the weekday afternoon peak hour, with an increase
in delay of 12.1 seconds; and the Betsy Brown Road eastbound land will maintain a LOS
“F” during the weekday morning peak hour, with an increase in delay of 16.1 seconds.
Consequently, redevelopment of the Project Site to an age-restricted residential
community would not significantly affect the area roadways. 14
2.12.4. SIGNAL RETIMINGS
As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would not have a significant
adverse impact on area roadways. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
However, signal retiming could be implemented at two King Street intersections (i.e.,
Arbor Drive and the Blind Brook Middle School and High School) to improve existing
and future operating conditions, including queuing along King Street as well as at the
Middle and High School Driveway, if required by the NYSDOT. In addition, these two
traffic signals could be expanded to include adaptive traffic signal control technology to
provide real time traffic data to improve traffic flow and minimize delays at these two
intersections.
2.12.5. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
A shuttle service is not currently planned as part of the Revised Proposed Project. As
stated in the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Project “would offer transportation services for
residents to off-site locations…Furthermore, depending on the demand, the Proposed
Project’s operator may provide shuttle service to and from a local train station (e.g., Port
Chester or White Plains).” If, in the future, the operator of the Revised Proposed Project
decided to operate a shuttle between the Project Site and a local train station, it is likely
that only one or two shuttles per ‘shift change’ would be utilized. The anticipated impact
of this service at a particular train station would be de minimis, owing to the infrequent
service. As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project is not anticipated to
require the expansion of Westchester County’s bus system.
2.12.6. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would not result in a significant
increase in pedestrian activity along Arbor Drive and, the additional traffic would not result
in a decrease in pedestrian safety along Arbor Drive. In fact, the Revised Proposed Project
would represent a significant decrease in the number of vehicular trips entering and exiting
14 The traffic capacity analyses summarized in this Chapter are based on the analysis of the pFEIS plan (152
IL units; 20 townhouses; 85 AL units) and were not updated for the Revised Proposed Project (136 IL
units; 20 townhouses; 85 AL units). Therefore, the capacity analyses presented in Appendix I-1, and
summarized herein, are somewhat conservative as they are reflective of a higher density than is included
in the Revised Proposed Project.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-51 1/3/2020
the Site as compared to the former office use. This would decrease the potential for conflict
between Site-generated traffic and pedestrians. When compared to the number of trips
generated by the Site in 2017, the Revised Proposed Project would only add 2017 trips in
the AM, 3734 trips in the midday, and 5046 trips in the PM. This minimal increase in the
number of Site-generated trips from the existing condition would not significantly impact
pedestrian safety on Arbor Drive. To further avoid and mitigate potential adverse impacts,
the Applicant has committed to staggering the shifts of the Site’s employees so that shift
changes do not occur during school arrival or dismissal times, further reducing the potential
for conflict between Site-generated traffic and pedestrians.
The Revised Proposed Project, though not required based on its impacts, would also install a
crosswalk leading from Harkness Park to the existing Site pedestrian path and easement area.
Additional pedestrian paths would be provided on-Site with the Revised Proposed Project, as
described in Section 1.4.3, “Parking and Circulation” and illustrated in Figure 1-17.
2.12.7. ACCIDENT PATTERNS
As outlined in the DEIS Traffic Impact Study (see DEIS Appendix F), “Based on the
anticipated traffic generation for the Proposed Project, it is expected that the Proposed
Project will not have a significant impact on the accident rates on the area roadways.” As
the Revised Proposed Project is anticipated to generate fewer trips than the original
project, it is similarly anticipated that the Revised Proposed Project would not have a
significant impact on accident rates on the area roadways.
2.12.8. PARKING
As described in Section 1.4.3.2, “Parking,” the Revised Proposed Project would provide
276238 parking spaces, which is 2464 fewer spaces less than the original project and
slightly in excess of the amount required by the Revised Proposed Zoning and the current
PUD zoning. The amount of parking included in the Revised Proposed Project is slightly
more than required by the Revised Proposed Zoning and more than the Institute for
Transportation Engineers (ITE) generic guidelines of the ITE (see Table 2.12-4).
Table 2.12-4
Comparison of Parking Spaces for the Revised Proposed Project
Use
Revised Proposed
Zoning ITE Guideline
Revised Proposed
Project
Independent Living
(152136 units)
1 per unit
(152136)
0.67 per unit
(10291) 174136
Assisted Living
(85 units/94 beds)
0.5 per unit
(43)
0.58 per bed
(55) 52
Townhouse
(20 units)
2.5 per unit
(50)
1.52 per unit
(31) 50
Total 245229 188180 276238
Source: Based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, 5th
Edition, January 2019. Values are for 85th percentile. ITE Land Use 252 – Senior
Attached Housing, ITE Land Use 254 – Assisted Living, ITE Land Use 220 – Low Rise
Multifamily
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-52 DRAFT
2.12.9. MITIGATION
As described above, the Revised Proposed Project is not anticipated to have a significant
adverse impact on area roadways. Therefore, no mitigation is required. However, signal
retiming could be implemented at two King Street intersections (i.e., Arbor Drive and the
Blind Brook Middle School and High School) to improve existing and future operating
conditions, if required by NYSDOT.
To further avoid and mitigate potential adverse impacts, the Applicant has committed to
staggering the shifts of the Site’s employees so that shift changes do not occur during
school arrival or dismissal times, further reducing the potential for conflict between Site-
generated traffic and pedestrians and reducing trip generation during times of peak
congestion on area roadways.
2.13. AIR QUALITY
This section analyzes the potential for the Revised Proposed Project to impact ambient air quality
from stationary sources (e.g., fossil fuel-fired equipment) and from mobile sources (i.e., traffic
generated by the Revised Proposed Action).
2.13.1. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The most recent concentrations of all criteria pollutants at the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) air quality monitoring stations nearest to the
Project Site are presented in Table 2.13-1. As shown, the recently monitored levels for all
pollutants other than ozone did not exceed the NAAQS. For most pollutants, the
concentrations presented in Table 2.13-1 are based on recent measurements obtained in
2018, the most recent year for which data are available.
Table 2.13-1
Representative Monitored Ambient Air Quality Data
Pollutant Location Units Averaging Period Concentration NAAQS
CO Botanical Garden (Pfizer Lab), Bronx ppm 8-hour 1.5 9
1-hour 2.3 35
SO2 Botanical Garden (Pfizer Lab), Bronx µg/m3 3-hour 23 1,300
1-hour 16(1) 196
PM10 IS 52, Bronx µg/m3 24-hour 41 150
PM2.5 White Plains, Westchester µg/m3 Annual 6.0 (2) 12
24-hour 15.7 (2) 35
NO2 Botanical Garden (Pfizer Lab), Bronx µg/m3 Annual 27 100
1-hour 104 (3) 188
Lead IS 52, Bronx µg/m3 3-month 0.0033 (4) 0.15
Ozone White Plains, Westchester ppm 8-hour 0.075+(5) 0.070
Notes:
+ Indicated values exceeding the NAAQS. (1) The 1-hour value is based on a 3-year average (2016-2018) of the 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average
concentrations. EPA replaced the 24-hour and the annual standards with the 1-hour standard.
(2) Annual value is based on a 3-year average (2016-2018) of annual concentrations. The 24-hour value is based on
the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour average concentrations.
(3) The 1-hour value is based on a 3-year average (2016-2018) of the 98th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average
concentrations.
(4) Based on the highest quarterly average concentration measured in 2018.
(5) Based on the 3-year average (2016-2018) of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentrations.
Source: New York State Air Quality Report Ambient Air Monitoring System, NYSDEC
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-53 1/3/2020
2.13.1.2.13.2. STATIONARY SOURCES
The Revised Proposed Project would include the construction of multiple buildings on the
Site: a single three- and four-story IL and AL building as well as 20 two-bedroom
residential townhouses with a site-wide total of 376,182 gsf, a reduction of 68,818 gsf or
15.5 percent from the original project. 355,902 gsf. Previous designs of the project
included: 1) a design with expanded IL and AL buildings with a total development size of
376,182 gsf analyzed for a preliminary FEIS (the “pFEIS Plan”); and, 2) a design with
expanded IL and AL buildings as well as 4 additional residential townhouses with a total
development size of 445,000 gsf analyzed for the DEIS (the original project). The Revised
Proposed Project would result in a reduction of 89,908 gsf (a 20 percent reduction) and
20,280 gsf (a 5.4 percent reduction) from the original project and pFEIS Plan,
respectively.
The potential for adverse air quality impacts from the combustion sources associated with
the original project was originally assessed in Chapter 13 of the DEIS, “Air Quality” of
the DEIS..” As discussed therein, an analysis was conducted that assumed a single,
combined, stack for the IL and AL building, to account for the potential cumulative effect
of emissions associated with the building. As there are no nearby sensitive receptors at
building heights similar to or greater than the proposed new buildings, it is not anticipated
that emissions sources of the size included in the original project would not cause any
exceedance of NO2 standards at elevated sensitive receptor locations nearest to the Site.
Given the 15.520 percent decrease in gross floor area from the original project, it is
anticipated that the Revised Proposed Project would similarly not cause any exceedance
of NO2 standards at elevated sensitive receptor locations.
PotentialAs part of a pFEIS submitted to the Village on May 14, 2019, potential impacts
to sensitive receptors at ground levels and lower elevations were evaluated using
screening procedures outlined in the 2014 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR)
Technical Manual15 to assess the potential impacts to 8-hour and 1-hour average CO
concentrations, as well as 24-hour average PM10 concentrations. An additional screening-
level analysis was performed using EPA’s AERSCREEN model (version 16216 EPA,
2016). For this analysis, it) to assess potential annual and 1-hour average NO2
concentrations, as well as annual and 24-hour average PM2.5 concentrations.16 This
analysis was based on the pFEIS Plan—a reduction of eight IL units and four townhouse
units from the original DEIS project. The analysis assumed that all emissions from the
Revised Proposed ProjectpFEIS Plan would exhaust from a single stack from the tallest
portion of the four-story IL building—combining emissions from the various proposed
buildings into a single stack. While the worst-case impacts at lower elevations and ground
level would occur with downwash, the analysis was performed both with and without
downwash as discussed in more detail in the DEIS.
For this FEISthe pFEIS Plan, an additional AERSCREEN analysis was performed to assess
the potential impact from lower elevation exhaust stacks associated with the two-story
townhouses. The FEIS analyzed the combined emissions associated with the HVAC
15 New York City Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination, CEQR Technical Manual, Chapter 17,
section 322.1, March 2014.
16 Consistent with the DEIS, the revised Proposed Project would not result in significant emissions of SO2,
lead, or ozone. Therefore, further analysis for these pollutants is not warranted.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-54 DRAFT
systems associated with the two-story townhouses (not including the HVAC systems
associated with the AL and IL buildings) within the Revised Proposed ProjectpFEIS Plan
from a single stack at a height of 28 feet.
Maximum projected concentrations from the original project analyzed in the DEIS as a
result of the combined HVAC systems are presented in Table 2.13-12. The maximum
projected NO2 and PM2.5 concentrations would not result in an exceedance of the NAAQS.
Therefore, given that the Revised Proposed Project would contain 15.520 percent less
floor area than the original project, it is anticipated that full development of the Revised
Proposed Project would not result in potential significant adverse air quality impacts from
stationary sources, such as the proposed HVAC systems.
Table 2.13-12
Maximum Modeled Pollutant Concentrations
HVAC Systems: Original (DEIS) Project
Pollutant
Averaging
Period
Maximum
Modeled Impact
Background
Concentration(1)
Total
Concentration NAAQS
NO2 1-hour 43 109104 152147 188
Annual 1 3027 3128 100
PM2.5 24-hour 2 1715.7 1917.7 35
Annual 0.1 7.16.0 7.26.1 12
Note: 1 See Table 2.13-1
Furthermore, the maximum projected concentrations associated with the combined
development of the two-story townhouses within the pFEIS Plan are presented in Table
2.13-23. Similar to the full development of the original project analyzed in the DEIS, the
maximum projected NO2 and PM2.5 concentrations would be well below the NAAQS.
Therefore, the Revised Proposed Project would not result in potential significant adverse
air quality impacts from stationary sources, such as the proposed HVAC systems.
Table 2.13-23
Maximum Modeled Pollutant Concentrations
HVAC Systems: Townhouses
Pollutant
Averaging
Period
Maximum
Modeled Impact
Background
Concentration(1)
Total
Concentration NAAQS
NO2 1-hour 21 104108 125129 188
Annual 6 2730 3336 100
PM2.5 24-hour 1.2 15.715.8 16.917.0 35
Annual 0.5 6.06.6 6.57.1 12
Note: 1 See Table 2.13-1
As noted in the DEIS, Thethe IL and AL building may have one or more standby
emergency generators. The exact location(s) of the generator(s) has not yet been
determined. However, the Applicant has committed to locating the generator(s) on the
west side of the Project Site, facing the Parkway, to avoid the potential for disturbance to
uses to the east of the Site. The generators would only be used in emergencies or during
testing, which would only occur during daytime hours during the week.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-55 1/3/2020
2.13.2.2.13.3. MOBILE SOURCES
An assessment of the potential air quality effects of CO emissions that would result from
vehicles coming to and departing from the Site was performed following the procedures
outlined in the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) The
Environmental Manual (TEM). The study area includes 1112 locations. The screening
procedure used the traffic analysis results for the 2025 analysis year as included in the DEIS
for the original project. As described in detail in Chapter 13 of the DEIS, “Air Quality,” of
the DEIS, the results of the screening analysis show that none of the 1112 study area
locations would require a detailed microscale air quality analysis; therefore, traffic
generated from the original project would not result in a significant air quality impact. Since
the Revised Proposed Project would generate fewer trips than the original project, the
Revised Proposed Project would similarly not be expected to result in a significant air
quality impact.
2.13.3.2.13.4. PARKING ANALYSIS
In response to a comment from the Village’s special engineering consultant, an analysis
of the potential air quality impacts associated with the underground parking garage was
performed.
Emissions from vehicles using the parking facility could potentially affect ambient levels
of CO and PM at adjacent receptors. An analysis of the emissions from the outlet vents
and their dispersion in the environment was performed, calculating pollutant levels in the
surrounding area, using the methodology set forth in the CEQR Technical Manual.
Emissions from vehicles entering, parking, and exiting the garages were estimated using
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Motor Vehicle Emissions
Simulator (MOVES) mobile source emission model, as referenced in the CEQR Technical
Manual. For all arriving and departing vehicles, an average speed of 5five miles per hour
(mph) was conservatively assumed for travel within the parking garages. In addition, all
departing vehicles were assumed to idle for 1one minute before proceeding to the exit.
Although design plans for the project have not yet been defined, the garage was specified
to be designed for a minimum airflow of 0.75 cubic foot per minute of fresh air per gsf of
garage area. (It is noted that this specified airflow is less than the CEQR typical minimum
airflow of 1.0 cubic foot of air per gross square foot per minute. As such, the analysis of
potential air quality impacts in this FEIS is conservative.)
To determine compliance with the NAAQS, CO concentrations were determined for the
maximum 8-hour average period. A persistence factor of 0.70 was used to convert the
calculated 1-hour average maximum concentrations to 8-hour averages, accounting for
meteorological variability over the average 8-hour period, as referenced in the CEQR
Technical Manual.
To determine pollutant concentrations, the outlet vents were analyzed as a “virtual point
source” using the methodology in EPA’s Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates,
AP-26. This methodology estimates CO and PM concentrations at various distances from
an outlet vent by assuming that the concentration in the garage is equal to the
concentration leaving the vent, and determining the appropriate initial horizontal and
vertical dispersion coefficients at the vent faces. It was assumed for the purpose of this
analysis that all levels of the parking garage would be mechanically ventilated.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-56 DRAFT
The CO concentrations were determined for the time periods when overall garage usage
would be the greatest, considering the hours when the greatest number of vehicles would
enter and exit the facility (PM concentrations were determined on a 24-hour and annual
average basis). Traffic data for the parking garage analysis were derived from the trip
generation analysis.17 Background street concentrations were added to the modeling
results to obtain the total ambient levels for CO and PM2.5.
Exhaust air from the analyzed parking garage was conservatively assumed to be vented
through a single outlet at a height of approximately three feet above grade. Since there is no
specific garage design at this time, the vent face was assumed to discharge towards the
nearest receptors, to be conservative. “Near” and “far” receptors were placed along the
sidewalks at a pedestrian height of 6six feet, and at the minimum exhaust stack height of
3three feet. A receptor also was modeled at and above the assumed vent release height,
directly at the location of the exhaust vent, to conservatively assess the air quality impacts
from the proposed garage on the adjacent buildings, representing windows or air intake
locations.
Based on this methodology, the maximum predicted CO and PM concentrations from the
underground parking area were analyzed, assuming a nearby ground level receptor (7
feet), and a far side sidewalk receptor across Arbor Drive (54 feet), as well as a receptor
on the façade of the original project. All values are the highest predicted concentrations
for any time period analyzed.
The maximum predicted 8-hour average CO concentration modeled is 1.1757 ppm. This
value includes a predicted concentration of 0.07 ppm from emissions within the parking
facility and a background level of 1.1050 ppm.
The maximum predicted 24-hour and annual average PM2.5 concentrations from the vehicles
using the garage are of 22.54 µg/m3 and 7.71 µg/m3, respectively. These values includes
predicted concentrations of 6.7 µg/m3 and 1.1 µg/m3, respectively, from emissions within
the parking facility and background levels of 15.87 µg/m3 and 6.60 µg/m3, respectively.
The location of maximum air quality impacts from the various on-site sources are unlikely
to impact the same location simultaneously. However, the maximum predicted 24-hour and
annual average PM2.5 concentrations from the vehicles using the garage when
conservatively combined with the maximum stationary source concentrations are of 24.54
µg/m3 and 8.27.6 µg/m3, respectively. The 24-hour value includes predicted concentrations
of 6.7 µg/m3 and 2 µg/m3, from emissions within the parking facility and all stationary
sources, respectively, and a background level of 15.87 µg/m3. Similarly, the annual value
includes predicted concentrations of 1.1 µg/m3 and 0.5 µg/m3, from emissions within the
parking facility and all stationary sources, respectively, and a background level of 6.60
µg/m3.
These values are below the respective NAAQS; therefore, no significant adverse impacts are
predicted for CO or PM2.5 from the Build condition as a result of emissions from the garage.
17 The analysis of the potential impacts of the underground parking operation on air quality was based on
the number of trips generated in the pFEIS Plan (see Section 2.12.1, “Site Generated Traffic”). The
Revised Proposed Project would generate fewer trips than the pFEIS Plan. Therefore, this analysis can be
considered conservative as it is reflective of a greater trip generation than would occur with the Revised
Proposed Project.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-57 1/3/2020
2.14. NOISE
This section analyzes the noise levels that would be produced by the operation of the Revised
Proposed Project and their potential to result in significant adverse noise impacts on the
surrounding area. The noise impact assessment examines noise generated by traffic traveling to
and from the Site (i.e., mobile sources), and the operation of mechanical equipment associated
with the Revised Proposed Project (i.e., stationary sources). Potential impacts associated with
construction of the Revised Proposed Project are discussed in Section 2.16, “Construction.”
In this analysis, all measured noise levels are reported in dBA or A-weighted decibels, as described
in DEIS Appendix G. In addition, the maximum 1-hour equivalent sound level (Leq(1)) has been
selected as the noise descriptor to be used in the noise impact evaluation. The Leq(1) is the noise
descriptor recommended by the NYSDEC for noise impact evaluation, and is used to provide an
indication of highest expected sound levels (see DEIS Appendix G).
For purposes of this impact assessment, consistent with NYSDEC guidance, operations that would
result in an increase of more than 6.0 dBA in ambient Leq(1) noise levels at receptor sites and produce
ambient noise levels of more than 65 dBA at residences or 79 dBA at an industrial or commercial area
would be considered to be a significant adverse noise impact resulting from the Proposed Project.
These criteria are consistent with the NYSDEC guidance document (see DEIS Appendix G).
2.14.1. MOBILE SOURCES
As described in Chapter 14, “Noise,” of the DEIS, “Noise,” noise levels in the Future with
the Proposed Project (the “Build” condition) would be less than in the Future without the
Proposed Project (the “No Build” condition), with the exception of Noise Receptor Sites
5 and 56 (e.g., Project Site boundary with the Hutchinson River Parkway and boundary
with the Arbors townhouses). At these two receptor sites, noise levels in the Future
Without the Proposed Project would be expected to be the same as current conditions as
the dominant source of noise at these receptors is the Hutchinson River Parkway on which
traffic volumes would not be significantly affected by the Project. The adopted scoping
outline for the DEIS required that the No Build condition include the condition where the
existing on-Site office building was fully occupied. As the existing office building was
not fully occupied at the time of the existing condition traffic counts, the No Build
condition results in higher traffic increments than the Build condition, particularly along
Arbor Drive. The increased traffic in the No Build condition is the source of increased
noise levels.
Comparing noise levels with the original project to existing conditions, the maximum
increase in Leq(1) noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors would be 1.6 dBA, which would
be experienced at the intersection of Arbor Drive and the Site driveway in the afternoon.
Increases of this magnitude would be imperceptible and would be below NYSDEC’s
threshold for a significant noise level increase of 6.0 dBA. Future noise levels at the Site
driveway would remain below the NYSDEC’s recommended level for residential uses of
65 dBA. At all other receptor locations and peak hours, including the Arbors townhouses,
and the intersection of King Street and Arbor Drive,18 the incremental increase in noise
associated with Project-generated traffic would be less than one dBA.
18 Noise level increases from Project-generated mobile sources within Harkness Park would be less than the
increment predicted for the intersection of King Street and Arbor Drive.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-58 DRAFT
As described in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” the Revised Proposed Project
would generate less traffic than the original project. Therefore, the maximum increase in
mobile source noise generated by the Revised Proposed Project would be expected to be
less than 1.6 dBA, which would be imperceptible.
As discussed in Chapter 2 of the DEIS, “Project Description,” of the DEIS, and Chapter
1, “Revised Proposed Project,” three to four deliveries are anticipated each day during the
week, with one to two deliveries possible during the weekend. Deliveries would not be
expected to occur during overnight hours. Therefore, less than one delivery truck would
be expected in a single hour, which would not result in a significant increase in mobile
source noise levels above ambient conditions at existing receptors (e.g., Arbor
Townhouses, Town and Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD) and at the proposed AL and IL
building.
2.14.2. STATIONARY SOURCES
The Revised Proposed Project’s mechanical systems would be designed to avoid
producing a 6.0 dBA or more increase at nearby receptors and consequentlycombined 6.0
dBA or more increase at nearby receptors. At receptors where the existing noise level is
less than 65 dBA during the daytime hours, the Revised Proposed Project’s mechanical
systems would be designed to avoid causing future noise levels to exceed 65 dBA.
Consequently, the mechanical systems would not result in a significant adverse impact.
The IL and AL building may utilize an emergency backup generator or generators. While
the Village Administrative Code Chapter 158, “Noise”,” does not specify a maximum
allowable sound level for emergency generators, emergency power systems installed
exterior to the building would be designed to avoid producing a combined 6.0 dBA or
more increase at nearby receptors using a combination of generator enclosures, noise
barriers, and generator site selection. Consequently, these systems would not result in a
significant adverse impact.
To further mitigate the potential for adverse impacts from emergency generators, the
Applicant has agreed to place generators on the west side of the Project Site facing the
Parkway, which would avoid direct line of sight from the generators to the surrounding
sensitive receptors, including the Arbors Condominiums, Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD.
2.15. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
To identify historic and current uses on-Site and other potential sources of hazardous materials,
reports from prior investigations were reviewed to assess the potential presence of contamination
on the Project Site. The reports reviewed included Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site
Assessments (ESA) (see DEIS Appendix H). The Phase I ESA was conducted to identify
recognized environmental conditions (RECs) and other environmental concerns associated with
the Site resulting from past or current Site usage and usage of neighboring properties. RECs are
defined in ASTM International (ASTM) Standard Practice E 1527-13 as the presence or likely
presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property (1) due to any
release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or
(3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. The Phase
I ESA identified the following RECs:
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-59 1/3/2020
Regulatory databases indicate the Project Site was a historic generator of ignitable waste,
corrosive waste, and spent halogenic solvents. Storage and handling of these wastes have the
potential to have affected the subsurface.
Building department records indicated an abandoned steam boiler vault was removed in 2003.
The likely fuel source for the steam boiler was fuel oil situated in either an aboveground storage
tank (AST) or underground storage tank (UST), which may have been removed when the former
buildings were demolished. Potential buried debris from former on-Site structures could contain
historic fill of unknown origin and/or abandoned USTs. Based on the age of the previous
structures on the property, fuel oil may have historically been used for heating purposes.
Based on historic dry cleaner listings in the regulatory database, Putnam Services Unlimited,
located at 941 King Street in Greenwich, Connecticut, approximately 350 feet north-northeast
of the property, was listed as a carpet and upholstery cleaner in 1994 and 1995. Although no
releases from Putnam Services Unlimited were reported, based on the proximity to the
property, if a release occurred, residual contaminants could be migrating through groundwater
onto the subject property.
In addition to the above RECs, the Phase I ESA noted de minimis conditions and other on-Site
environmental concerns: existing diesel generators, arsenic, and insecticide associated with the
historic arboretum on the Project Site, suspect asbestos-containing material (ACM), potential lead-
based paint (LBP), and electrical and hydraulic equipment (including existing elevators and in-
ground lift) that may include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or mercury-containing components.
To further assess the RECs and other environmental concerns identified in the Phase I ESA, a
Phase II ESA was prepared by AKRF, Inc. in November 2017 (see DEIS Appendix H-2). The
Phase II ESA included the advancement of nine soil borings, installation of one groundwater
monitoring well, installation of three temporary soil vapor points, and the collection of soil,
groundwater, soil vapor, and ambient air samples for field-screening and laboratory analysis.
The Phase II ESA concluded the following:
The analytical data from the soil, groundwater, and soil vapor sampling indicated that there
was no evidence of a release of contamination associated with the RECs or de minimis
condition observations identified during AKRF’s October 2017 Phase I ESA. No evidence of
hazardous, non-hazardous, and/or petroleum-like releases (e.g., odors, staining, or elevated
PID readings) were identified through the soil, groundwater, and soil vapor sampling.
No concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds
(SVOCs), PCBs, or pesticides were detected above their respective Part 375 Unrestricted Use
Soil Cleanup Objectives (UUSCO), Restricted Residential Use Soil Cleanup Objectives
(RRSCO), or Protection of Groundwater Soil Cleanup Objectives (PGWSCO) in the soil
samples from this investigation.
Based on the Phase II field observations, the metals detected in soil at levels above their
respective Part 375 UUSCOs are likely attributable to contaminants in the shallow fill layer
observed at the Site and/or background conditions, and not related to an on-Site release or
other source area.
No concentrations of VOCs or SVOCs were detected above their respective New York State
Ambient Water Quality Guidance Values in the groundwater samples from this investigation.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-60 DRAFT
No concentrations of VOCs were detected above their respective New York State Department
of Health (NYSDOH) Air Guideline Values in the soil vapor/ambient air samples from this
investigation.
Evidence of an ongoing hydraulic oil condition was noted on the concrete slab floor in the
elevator machine room on the ground floor of the building. Hydraulic oil and sorbent pads
were noted on the slab floor adjacent to elevator motors denoted “Car #1” and “Car #2”. The
findings from the soil sampling in the elevator machine room suggest the condition has not
affected subsurface soils.
To avoid and mitigate the potential for adverse impacts, the Revised Proposed Project would
include the following mitigation measures, as described in the DEIS:
Any soil or fill excavated as part of future Site redevelopment activities should be managed
in accordance with applicable regulations. All material intended for off-Site disposal should
be tested in accordance with the requirements of the intended receiving facility. Transportation
of all soil leaving for off-Site disposal should be in accordance with requirements covering
licensing of haulers and trucks, placarding, truck routes, manifesting, etc. Excavation may
reveal different or more significant soil contamination in areas not tested as part of this
investigation. If discovered, such contamination could require further investigation and/or
remediation in accordance with applicable regulations.
While no evidence of USTs or other buried tanks was identified during the geophysical survey
or the sampling program, if any storage tanks or contaminated soil are encountered during
redevelopment, such tanks should be registered with NYSDEC and/or the Westchester County
Department of Health (WCDOH), if required, and closed and removed along with any
contaminated soil in accordance with applicable regulations.
If any USTs and/or petroleum contaminated soil are encountered during the development
activities, consideration should be given to installing a vapor barrier below the proposed
building foundation. A membrane-type waterproofing product, if used as part of the
foundation construction, could also function as a vapor barrier.
The hydraulic oil condition noted in the elevator machine room should be addressed, including
cleaning the residual hydraulic oil from the slab floor and properly draining the hydraulic oil
reservoirs from the faulty elevator motors until they are properly repaired and/or removed. All
oil soaked materials and residual hydraulic oil should be disposed of in accordance with
applicable regulations.
Prior to demolition, ACM surveys would be conducted throughout the existing structure.
ACM would be removed prior to demolition by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor in
accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.
Demolition activities with the potential to disturb LBP would be performed in accordance
with the applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulation (OSHA 29 CFR
1926.62—Lead Exposure in Construction).
If dewatering is required, treatment and discharge of dewatering fluids would be conducted in
accordance with all applicable regulations and guidance, including obtaining appropriate permits.
Appropriate erosion and sediment controls would be implemented in accordance with
NYSDEC SWPPP requirements.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-61 1/3/2020
In response to comments from the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant, and to further
mitigate the potential for adverse impacts, the Revised Proposed Project would include two
additional measures:
The Applicant would provide the Village with a copy of the pre-demolition ACM/LBP
surveys as well as provide progress reports on any required pre-demolition abatement; and,
A Materials Management Plan (MMP) would be prepared by the Applicant prior to the start of
excavation. or ground disturbing activities. The MMP would establish a protocol for the
handling of site soil and other subsurface materials encountered during the proposed excavation
work. The MPP would include measures for appropriate soil handling, soil stockpile
management, site controls to mitigate sediment and dust, and would include contingency
measures to address potential unknown conditions (unknown tanks or contamination) in
accordance with all prevailing regulations. Specifically, the MMP will include a plan for the
contractor to monitor soil during all earthwork activities for evidence of contamination (i.e.,
staining, odors, etc.). In the event that areas of contamination are encountered, the MMP will
include an action response where soil disturbance will cease in the affected area of the
excavation, and an environmental consultant will respond to the Site to properly address the
contamination. Any unknown contamination areas will be addressed in accordance with all
prevailing local, state, and federal regulations, including Spill notification (if necessary),
excavation, removal, stockpiling, and off-site disposal of the contaminated soil, and
performance documentation (i.e., soil endpoint sampling) to confirm that the contamination
area has been properly removed.
With the implementation of the measures noted above, no significant adverse impacts related to
hazardous materials would be expected to occur as a result of the Revised Proposed Project.
As the Revised Proposed Project would not include hospital care or skilled nursing care, it would
not be expected to generate significant quantities of medical waste. Any medical or biological
waste generated would be handled, stored, and disposed in accordance with all applicable
regulations, including those of the NYSDOH.
2.16. CONSTRUCTION
2.16.1. CONSTRUCTION PHASING
Construction of the Revised Proposed Project would occur in a substantially similar
manner to the process outlined in Chapter 16 of the DEIS, “Construction” of the DEIS,”
for the original project. Construction of the Revised Proposed Project would be completed
in approximately 30 months and is expected to occur in approximately seven phases,
which are summarized in this paragraph and described in more detail in the sections
below. As shown in DEIS Figure 16-1, construction would begin with the installation of
silt fencing, disconnection of utilities, demolition of the existing Site building, asphalt and
tree removal, and expansion of the detention pond. There will be no removal of asphalt
outside of the existing building footprint until the entire building has been demolished and
the footrpintfootprint of the demolished building has been stabilized. This phase is
anticipated to take approximately 3 months.
Once the building is demolished, road and Site utilities work would start, the garage
foundation would be constructed, and the northern wings of the IL building would begin
construction. Construction of the proposed buildings would be separated into four phases
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-62 DRAFT
with overlapping construction times: AL facility (construction would last approximately
14 months), IL center core (construction would last approximately 23 months), IL south
wings (construction would last approximately 14 months), and townhouses (construction
would last approximately 14 months). The final phase is the Site restoration phase, which
would take place at the end of the building construction and is expected to last
approximately 2two months. Since multiple phases would be implemented
simultaneously, it is anticipated that the maximum number of workers on-Site is expected
to be 180 workers per day during construction months 20 and 21, and that the maximum
number of truck trips would be 140 weekly trips during construction month 21 (see DEIS
Figure 16--1).
As described in Section 2.4, “Geology, SoilSoils, and Topography,” the Site grading
design is anticipated to generate approximately 37,95838,158 cubic yards of earthen cut
material, and approximately 36,686 cubic yards of earthen fill material would be required,
resulting in approximately 1,272472 cubic yards of additional material to be brought to
the Site by truck. Conservatively assuming 14-yard capacity trucks, a total of
approximately 91105 truck trips would be required to deliver this material. These trucks
are accounted for in the estimated number of weekly truck trips described in more detail
below.
During construction, the Site would be fenced off to ensure safety from construction
activities. The pedestrian path leading from the Village buildings to Harkness Park and
the Blind Brook High School would be temporarily closed. Students and pedestrians
would instead be directed to the existing sidewalk along King Street, where they would
cross Arbor Drive at the existing signalized crosswalk, continue through the park or along
King Street. At the end of the construction period, the pedestrian path on the Project Site
would be restored and enhanced and would be re-opened to the public.
2.16.2. CONSTRUCTION PERIOD IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
As with the original project, adverse impacts from the construction of the Revised Proposed
Project would be avoided and minimized through the implementation of a detailed
Construction Management Plan (CMP). The CMP would be prepared by the Applicant, in
close coordination with Village staff and consultants, and would be approved as part of the
final Site Plan approval and be made a condition thereof. The Village would, therefore, be
able to enforce the provisions of the CMP throughout the construction process. The CMP
would provide for implementation of the SWPPP and ESCP, as well as the measures to
avoid impacts to traffic, air quality, and noise, described below.
2.16.2.1. Erosion and Sediment Control
Potential impacts associated with construction activities include sediment
deposition, rilling and erosion, and the potential for causing turbidity within
receiving waterbodies. To avoid an adverse impact from soil erosion, the
Proposed Project would conform to the requirements of NYSDEC State
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for
Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity Permit No.
GP-0-15-002, the “New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion
and Sediment Control,” dated July 2016, and Chapter 118 “Erosion and
Sediment Control” of the Village Code. The permit requires that proposed
projects disturbing more than 1 acre of land must develop a SWPPP,
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-63 1/3/2020
containing both temporary erosion control measures during construction and
post-construction stormwater management practices to avoid flooding and
water quality impacts in the long term.
An ESCP is included with the full size set of drawings (see Volume 4). The
ESCP depicts the measures to be utilized to control erosion and sediment
leaving the Site. These measures, described in more detail below, include two
Stabilized Construction Entrances (SCEs), the LOD beyond which no soil
disturbance is to occur, the installation of silt fencing, inlet protection and
other measures as described below, which would be used throughout the
construction period to minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation
impacts from construction of the Revised Proposed Project.
SCE—The SCEs would have a stabilized aggregate pad underlain with
filter cloth to prevent construction vehicles from tracking sediment off-
Site. SCEs would be located at specific transition areas between
concrete/asphalt to exposed earth.
Silt Fence—Silt fence would be installed on the down gradient edge of
disturbed areas parallel to existing or proposed contours or along the
property line as perimeter control. Silt fence would be used where stakes
can be properly driven into the ground as per the Silt Fence detail in the
NYSDEC Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control
and as shown on the full sized drawings. Silt fence controls sediment
runoff where the soil has been disturbed by slowing the flow of water and
encouraging the deposition of sediment before the water passes through
the silt fence. Built-up sediment would be removed from silt fences when
it has reached one-third the height of the bale/fence and would be
properly disposed.
Storm Drain Inlet Protection (Silt Sacks)—Inlet protection would be
installed at all inlets where the surrounding area has been disturbed. The
inlet protection would be constructed in accordance with NYSDEC
Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control.
Typically, they would be constructed to pass stormwater through, but
prevent silt and sediment from entering the drainage system.
Stockpile Detail—Stockpiled soil would be protected, stabilized, and
sited in accordance with the Soil Stockpile Detail, as shown on the detail
sheets. Soil stockpiles and exposed soil would be stabilized by seed,
mulch, or other appropriate measures when activities temporarily cease
during construction for 7 days or more in accordance with NYSDEC
requirements.
Dust Control—During the demolition and construction process, debris and
any disturbed earth would be wet down with water, if necessary, to control
dust. Dust suppression activities would not be expected to generate
standing or flowing water. After demolition and construction activities, all
disturbed areas would be covered and/or vegetated to provide for dust
control on the Site. Asphalt parking areas, driveways, and Arbor Drive
would be cleaned using a ‘street sweeper’ as needed to reduce fugitive dust.
Temporary Seeding and Stabilization—In areas where demolition and
construction activities, clearing, and grubbing have ceased, temporary
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-64 DRAFT
seeding or permanent landscaping would be performed to control
sediment laden runoff and provide stabilization to control erosion during
storm events. This temporary seeding/stabilization or permanent
landscaping would be in place no later than 14 days after demolition and
construction activity has ceased.
Sump Pit—Depending on the results of the geotechnical investigations, a
temporary pit may be necessary to trap and filter water for pumping to a
suitable discharge area. The purpose would be to remove excessive water
from excavations. Sump pits would be constructed when water collects
during the excavation phase of construction.
Dewatering—Depending on the results of the geotechnical
investigations, there may be areas of construction where the groundwater
table would be intercepted and dewatering activities would take place.
Site-specific practices and appropriate filtering devices would be
employed by the contractor so as to avoid discharging turbid water to the
surface waters of the State of New York.
Temporary Sediment Basin—The purpose of a sediment basin is to
intercept sediment-laden runoff and filter the sediment laden stormwater
runoff leaving the disturbed area in order to protect drainage ways,
properties, and rights-of-way below the sediment basin. The basin would
be installed down gradient of construction operations that expose critical
areas to soil erosion. The trap would be maintained until the disturbed
area is protected against erosion by permanent stabilization.
Materials Handling—The contractor would store construction and waste
materials as far as practical from any environmentally sensitive areas
(e.g., wetlands). Where possible, materials would be stored in a covered
area to minimize runoff. The contractor would incorporate storage
practices to minimize exposure of the materials to stormwater, and spill
prevention and response where necessary. Prior to commencing any
construction activities, the contractor would obtain all necessary permits
or verify that all permits have been obtained.
A continuing maintenance program would be implemented for the control
of sediment transport and erosion control after construction and
throughout the useful life of the project. With the implementation and
continuing maintenance of the ESCP that would be approved by the
Village and the NYSDEC, construction of the Revised Proposed Project
would not be expected to result in a significant adverse impact from
sedimentation or erosion.
2.16.2.2. Traffic and Transportation
Construction of the Revised Proposed Project would create daily
construction-related traffic to and from the Project Site, including
construction workers and the delivery of materials and equipment. The
numbers and types of vehicles would vary depending on the phase of
construction, as described above. All construction equipment, materials,
deliveries, and worker parking would be accommodated on-Site. There would
be no construction equipment, truck, material, or worker parking, queuing, or
staging permitted on Arbor Drive at any time. This requirement, as well as a
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-65 1/3/2020
detailed plan that delineates areas of construction worker parking, truck
queuing and unloading, and material and equipment staging, would be
included in the CMP.
Manpower for typical construction projects fluctuates over the duration of the
project in a bell-shaped curve. Beginning and ending months have relatively
low manpower and, during the middle of the schedule, manpower peaks.
Approximately 20–50 workers would be expected on-Site during the first 10
months of construction. Months 11–16 would have 100–120 workers on-Site.
Months 17–27 would have approximately 150 workers on-Site, with months
20 and 21 peaking at approximately 180 workers on-Site. The Construction
Manager for the Proposed Project, A.P. Construction, Inc., estimates that at
least 20 percent of the Site’s construction workers would arrive by van, with
two or three occupants per van. This would be especially true for many of the
specialized trades, including plumbing, electrical, and interior finishers.
These specialty trades are most active during the latter portion of construction
when the number of on-Site workers peaks.
Construction Traffic Analysis
A quantitative analysis was conducted to identify the potential for
construction related trips to impact the area’s roadways (see DEIS
Appendix F). To provide the most conservative analysis, the study analyzed
the construction time period during which the most number of on-Site
workers would be present—months 20 and 21. The study did not take any
credits for potential carpooling, and assumed that all 180 workers would
arrive and depart in separate vehicles during the peak hour. The peak hours
of 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM and 3:30 PM to 4:30 PM were chosen for this
analysis. While the Village’s Noise Code (Chapter 154) limits construction
that makes audible noise beyond the Project Site boundary to after 8:00 AM,
during this time of peak construction, a substantial number of the workers on-
Site would be working interior to the buildings and thus would not be limited
to an 8:00 AM start time. Rather, a more typical 7:00 AM start time is
assumed for this analysis.19
The results of the analysis indicate that the construction traffic impacts would
be less than the typical peak hours during the operation of the original project.
Construction Truck Traffic
Construction truck movements would be spread throughout the day and
would generally occur between the hours of 7:30 AM and 3:30 PM,
depending on the period of construction. Heavy construction equipment is
typically brought to the Site at the beginning of the project and kept on-Site
for the duration of the project, thereby minimizing trips. During most of the
construction period, it is estimated that only approximately 15–30 trucks per
19 At other times during construction, such as the beginning stages of construction, work would be primarily
exterior to the buildings and, according to the existing Village Noise Code, would not be allowed to begin
until 8:00 AM. However, during these times, significantly fewer workers would be working on-Site.
Therefore, the construction-period traffic study presents the worst-case scenario.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-66 DRAFT
week would access the Site. This translates to an average of 2–5 trucks per
day. There would be three peak times of truck activity, where the number of
trucks accessing the Site would rise to between 65 and 140 trucks per week,
or approximately 11–23 trucks per day.
To mitigate potential adverse cumulative impacts with school operations, to
the extent possible, truck trips would be encouraged not to coincide with the
school’s entry and exit hours.
Construction trucks would be expected to use one of the following routes to
access the Project Site:
I-684 Southbound to Manhattanville Road to Purchase Street to Anderson
Hill Road to King Street;
I-287 eastbound to Westchester Avenue and Anderson Hill Road to King
Street;
I-95 northbound to Boston Post Road (US Route 1) to King Street or I-
287 to Boston Post Road (US Route 1) to King Street; or,
I-95 southbound to Exit 2 to Delavan Avenue to North Main Street (US
Route 1) to King Street via Willet Avenue or Adee Street.
The use of these major area roadways for construction trucks would not be
expected to create a significant adverse impact to the roadway network, as
these roads typically carry heavy vehicles.
To mitigate potential adverse impacts to Arbor Drive from construction truck
traffic, the Applicant would monitor the condition of Arbor Drive throughout
the construction period and make repairs to Arbor Drive during the
construction period as warranted and as appropriate.
At the Village’s request, the Applicant evaluated the potential for an
alternative construction entrance to the Project Site that would not use the
Site’s Arbor Drive (e.g.., southern) frontage. Access from the north (e.g., the
Parkway) or west (e.g., The Arbors) of the Site is not feasible. Therefore,
access from the east is the only other potential option. The Site’s King Street
frontage is currently unimproved, vegetated, and is at a significantly higher
elevation than the Project Site or King Street. Constructing a new entrance at
this point would require extensive Site disturbance and, with the location of
the current traffic signal at Arbor Drive, would not be practical. The only
other potential option for construction access would therefore be through the
Village’s property. Specifically, it may theoretically be feasible to construct
an entrance into the Project Site that used the driveway in between the RBFD
and Village Hall for access to King Street. Such an access point would,
however, interfere with Village operations, including RBFD. Finally, as
discussed above, construction of the Proposed Project is not anticipated to
have a significant adverse impact on Arbor Drive, which would warrant the
use of the Village property for construction site access.
Potential Traffic Impacts on Blind Brook Middle School and High School
The Blind Brook Middle School and High School have a start time of 7:45
AM and a dismissal time of 2:40 PM. Dismissal occurs prior to the typical
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-67 1/3/2020
end of the construction day. As such, the afternoon peak construction hour
would occur after the peak school dismissal traffic hour.
With respect to the morning, the peak school arrival time is assumed to be
between 7:00 AM and 7:45 AM. As stated above, the Village’s Noise Code
(Chapter 154) restricts construction noise audible beyond the property line
until after 8:00 AM. The Applicant notes that 8:00 AM is not typical of
construction start times in the region and is out of sync with the larger
construction industry’s typical schedule. In general, construction workers
arrive on-Site prior to the beginning of the regional commuter rush, which
typically begins in earnest around 7:00 AM. In typical scenarios, therefore,
construction worker trips generally peak between 6:00 AM and 7:00 AM and
therefore occur outside of the morning peak hour and do not coincide with
school start times.
Strict adherence to the Village’s existing noise code could create the situation
where, during times of predominantly exterior construction that is not allowed
to start prior to 8:00 AM, construction workers would be arriving at the Project
Site at the same time as the peak school arrival time. As a potential mitigation
measure, and to reduce potential conflicts between construction worker trips and
school arrival trips, the Applicant proposes that the Village allow for a waiver
of the 8:00 AM start time by no more than 1 hour (i.e., allow a start time of 7:00
AM) in cases where the Village Board finds that such a waiver could reduce
potential traffic impacts at sensitive locations within the Village, such as the
Project Site (see Appendix L). As noted by the Village’s Traffic Consultant,
permitting such a waiver “makes sense” from a traffic perspective “because the
volumes [on the area roadways] are substantially lower before 7:00 AM.”
In 2017, BBRUFSD approved a bond for renovations to the Bruno M.
Ponterio Ridge Street School and the Blind Brook Middle School and High
School. Construction of these improvements is anticipated to begin at the end
of the 2018/2019 school year and conclude immediately prior to the
beginning of the 2020/2021 school year.20 While most construction is planned
for the elementary school, several improvements are planned for the middle
and high schools, including the construction of a new laboratory space,
enclosing the corridors between the middle and high schools, replacing the
fire alarm systems, replacing the windows and installing weatherization
improvements in the high school, and renovating the high school custodial
room for classroom space. There is the potential for the construction of the
Revised Proposed Project and the middle school and high school
improvements to occur simultaneously. It is anticipated that the construction
access for the middle and high schools will be from their signalized
intersection with King Street and the Project Site would have construction
access from the Arbor Drive signalized intersection.
20 BBRUFSD.
https://www.blindbrook.org/cms/lib/NY01913277/Centricity/Domain/4/Bond%20Project%20Schedule.pdf
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-68 DRAFT
Notwithstanding the foregoing, applicable provisions of the CMP would be
discussed with BBRUFSD officials prior to the commencement of
construction to minimize the potential impacts to students and teachers. It is
expected that there would be continuous communication between the
Applicant’s contractor and BBRUFSD’s contractor and officials regarding
potential traffic along King Street and other impacts.
2.16.2.3. Air Quality
Construction of the Revised Proposed Project, as with the original project,
requires the use of both non-road construction equipment and on-road
vehicles. Non-road construction equipment includes equipment operating on-
Site such as cranes, loaders, and excavators. On-road vehicles include
construction delivery trucks, dump trucks, and construction worker vehicles
arriving to and departing from the Project Site as well as operating on-site.
Emissions from non-road construction equipment and on-road vehicles have
the potential to affect air quality. In addition, emissions from dust-generating
construction activities (i.e., truck loading and unloading operations) also have
the potential to affect air quality.
Emission Control Measures
Air quality impacts associated with construction activities are typically the
result of fugitive dust or emissions from vehicles or equipment. Fugitive dust
can result from earth moving, including grading and excavation, and from
driving construction vehicles over dry, unpaved surfaces. While a large
proportion of fugitive dust would be of relatively large particle size and would
be expected to settle within a short distance of being generated and thus not
affect off-Site receptors, measures to minimize and avoid this potential
impact to the maximum extent practicable would be incorporated into the
Proposed Project and would be included in the CMP, which would be
reviewed and approved by the Village during Site Plan approval. The erosion
and dust control procedures that would be implemented would include:
Minimizing the area of soil that is disturbed at any one time;
Minimizing the amount of time during which soils are exposed;
Installing truck mats or anti-tracking pads at egress points to clean the
trucks’ tires prior to leaving the Project Site;
Watering of exposed areas during dry periods;. Dust suppression activities
would not be expected to generate standing or flowing water.;
Using drainage diversion methods (e.g., silt fences) to minimize soil
erosion during Site grading;
Covering stored materials with a tarp to reduce windborne dust;
Limiting on-Site construction vehicle speed to 5 mph; and
Using truck covers/tarp rollers that cover fully loaded trucks and keep
debris and dust from being expelled from the truck along its haul route.
With the implementation of these measures, the Revised Proposed Project
would avoid and minimize potential air quality impacts from fugitive dust to
the maximum extent practicable. The CMP would include provisions for
robust and regular communication with the BBRUFSD and the Village. In
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-69 1/3/2020
the unlikely event that airborne dust from the Project Site creates an adverse
impact to the BBRUFSD, procedures would be in place to immediately alert
the on-Site construction manager and the Village so that appropriate measures
could be taken to ameliorate the potential temporary impact and, if
determined necessary by the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant,
initiate a CAMP.
Vehicle emissions from construction vehicles and equipment have the
potential to result in elevated levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate
matter (PM), and CO. The greatest potential for impact is typically associated
with heavy duty equipment that is used for short durations. The following
measures would be incorporated into the CMP, which would be reviewed and
approved by the Village during Site Plan approval, to minimize emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment to the maximum extent practicable:
Ultra-low sulfur diesel would be utilized for all construction equipment
and vehicles;
All equipment would be properly maintained; and
Idling of construction or delivery vehicles or other equipment would not
be allowed when the equipment is not in active use.
To further reduce the potential for adverse air quality impacts, the Revised
Proposed Project includes the following mitigation measures that was not
included in the original project:
Use of Best Available Tailpipe Reduction Technologies. The Revised
Proposed Project includes this mitigation measure that was not included in
the original project. Construction of the Revised Proposed Project would
mandate that non-road diesel engines with a power rating of 50 hp or greater
and controlled truck fleets (i.e., truck fleets under long-term contract with
the project) including but not limited to concrete mixing and pumping trucks
would utilize BAT technology for reducing DPM emissions. Diesel
particulate filters (DPFs) have been identified as being the tailpipe
technology currently proven to have the highest reduction capability.
Construction contracts would specify that all diesel non-road engines rated
at 50 hp or greater would utilize DPFs, either installed by the original
equipment manufacturer or retrofitted. Retrofitted DPFs must be verified by
EPA or the California Air Resources Board. Active DPFs or other
technologies proven to achieve an equivalent reduction may also be used.
Implementation of the measures listed above would avoid and minimize potential
adverse impacts to air quality during construction of the Revised Proposed Project.
In addition, should visual inspection of actual emission and dust conditions during
construction warrant, a Community Air Monitoring Program (CAMP) would be
implemented.
On-Road Sources
Construction of the Revised Proposed Project is anticipated to result in a
maximum of 24 trucks per day during the worst-case overlap of construction
activities for the IL building and the residential townhouses would occur.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-70 DRAFT
Over the worst-case annual period, construction activities to result in an
average of 11 trucks per day.
Construction worker commuting trips and construction truck deliveries would
generally occur during off-peak hours. Furthermore, construction-generated
truck trips would be distributed over the entire work day and would not arrive
at the Project Site within a single hour. When distributed over the
transportation network, the construction trip increments would not
concentrate at any single location outside of the Project Site. In addition,
construction-generated traffic impacts would be less than the typical peak
hours during operation of the Revised Proposed Project—which did not result
in an exceedance of NYSDOT’s screening criteria for mobile source air
quality impacts. Therefore, it is not anticipated that on-road sources of
emissions as a result of construction of the Revised Proposed Project would
generate a significant adverse air quality impact.
2.16.2.4. Noise
Construction Noise Analysis
As with the original project, potential temporary impacts on community noise
levels during construction of the Revised Proposed Project could result from noise
due to construction equipment operation and from noise due to construction
vehicles and delivery vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site. Noise levels
at a given location are dependent on the type and amount of construction
equipment being operated, the distance from the construction site, and any
shielding effects (from structures such as buildings, walls, or barriers). Noise
levels caused by construction activities would vary widely, depending on the stage
of construction and the location of the construction relative to receptor locations
as described below. Construction noise levels would fluctuate during the
construction period at each receptor, with the greatest levels of construction noise
occurring for limited periods during construction. Excavators, loaders, dozers, and
chippers during Site clearing and excavation activities would likely be the most
substantial construction noise sources.
To analyze the potential impacts of the construction of the Revised Proposed
Project, a revised construction noise analysis was conducted. The revised
analysis included additional receptors as requested by the Village’s special
engineering consultant and a more detailed analysis of the distance between
the closest receptors to the Project Site and the work areas of the Revised
Proposed Project based on specific sites plans and construction logistics
diagrams. All measured noise levels are reported in dBA or A-weighted
decibels, as described in DEIS Appendix G. In addition, the maximum 1-hour
equivalent sound level (Leq(1)) has been selected as the noise descriptor to be
used in the noise impact evaluation. The Leq(1) is the noise descriptor
recommended by NYSDEC for noise impact evaluation, and is used to
provide an indication of highest expected sound levels (see DEIS Appendix G
for more detail). The analysis includes noise generated from both mobile
sources and from the operation of construction equipment at the Project Site
over the course of construction. To determine the potential significance of an
impact, both the intensity and duration of noise levels must be assessed.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-71 1/3/2020
The receptor locations listed in Table 2.16-1 below were evaluated as part of
the construction analysis.
Table 2.16-1
Construction Noise Receptor Areas
Receptor(s) Land Use(s)
Relationship to Proposed
Construction Work Areas
Arbors Condos (North Side of Ivy
Hill Crescent) Residential 255 feet south of Townhouse
Work Area
Arbors Condos (South Side of Ivy Hill
Crescent) Residential 410 feet south of Townhouse
Work Area
Arbors Condos (South Side of Ivy
Hill Lane) Residential 420 feet south of Townhouse
Work Area
Arbors Condos (North Side of
Brush Hollow Crescent) Residential 505 feet south of Townhouse
Work Area
Blind Brook Middle/High School
West façade (facing Arbor Drive) Education 170 feet east of Townhouse Work
Area
Blind Brook Middle/High School
South façade (facing baseball field)
*
Education 295 feet southeast of Townhouse
Work Area
Blind Brook School Baseball Field* Active
Recreation
340 feet east of Townhouse Work
Area
Blind Brook School Football
Field/Track*
Active
Recreation
750 feet east of Townhouse Work
Area
Blind Brook Middle School Education 335 feet east of Townhouse Work
Area
Harkness Tennis Court* Active
Recreation
345 feet east of Independent
Living south Wings Work Area
Village Hall, Police Department and
Fire Department*
Community
Facility
95 feet North of Assisted Living
Work Area
942 King Street (Residences west of
King Street) Residential 250 feet north of Assisted Living
Work Area
947 King Street (Residences east
of King Street) Residential 540 Feet north of Assisted Living
Work Area
The Ridge Street Country School Residential 370 feet west of Independent
Living Core Work Area
446 North Ridge Street
(Residences North of Hutchinson
River Parkway)
Residential 490 feet west of Independent
Living Core Work Area
14 Walker Court (Residences East
of King Street south of Arbor Drive) Residential 665 feet east of Independent
Living south Wings Work Area
109 Glenville Street Residential 855 feet east of Independent
Living south Wings Work Area
Note: * Indicates new receptor location in FEIS
Construction Noise Mitigation Measures
To mitigate the impact of construction noise on nearby receptors, the
Applicant has included the following measures as part of the Revised
Proposed Project:
Erection of a noise barrier that is 12 feet tall along the perimeter of the
Project Site on Arbor Drive between the Main Site entrance and the
southern site boundary. The barrier would be constructed from plywood,
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-72 DRAFT
or a material of similar noise abatement properties, and would be installed
prior to the start of significant construction activities during the time that
the Blind Brook Middle School and High School is in session during the
normal school year;
Noisy construction equipment, such as cranes, concrete pumps, concrete
trucks, and delivery trucks, would be located away from, and shielded
from, sensitive receptors, such as the school, to the extent practicable;
Construction equipment, including the mufflers on the equipment, would
be required to be properly maintained;
Electrification of construction equipment to the extent feasible and
practicable would be undertaken as soon in the construction process as
logistics allow;
The construction site would be configured to minimize back-up alarm
noise to the extent feasible and practicable;
Construction trucks would not be allowed to idle for longer than 3
minutes.
The efficacy and practicality of additional mitigation measures, including a
barrier greater than 12 feet in height or noise absorption material on the noise
barrier, were considered as part of the construction noise analysis. However,
they would not result in significant reductions in construction noise levels.
Noise barriers are most effective for reducing noise at receptors within
approximately 50 feet of the barrier if the noise source, e.g., trucks,
excavators, etc., are within a comparably small distance to the noise barrier.
The benefit of the barrier reduces as the distances between source and barrier
or receptor and barrier increases. Taller barriers require horizontal structural
support to safeguard against wind loads and properly support the structure.
Consequently, a taller barrier would result in increased cost, logistical and
safety concerns with minimal increase in noise mitigation. Likewise, the
benefit of sound absorption material on the noise barrier would be minimal,
as most equipment would operate too far from the barrier for a majority of
the construction period for the material to be effective. Sound absorption
material would add material cost for minimal noise reduction benefit, given
the relatively long distances between the construction work areas and the
receptors and the minimal number of reflective surfaces in the project area.
Construction Noise Impacts
The projected maximum noise levels during construction that are included in
this revised analysis are summarized in Table 2.16-2. The construction noise
estimates for the full construction period are shown in Appendix J. The
maximum noise level estimates presented below are for noise levels exterior
to the receptor during the worst-case scenario. Noise levels interior to a
structure would be significantly lower than the levels presented below due to
the attenuation provided by building walls and windows (approximately 25
dBA lower for typical façade construction with a closed-window condition).
Typical façade construction, including insulated glass windows and some
kind of alternate means of ventilation (i.e., air conditioning) would be
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-73 1/3/2020
expected to provide approximately 25 dBA reduction in interior noise levels
compared to exterior levels for a closed-window condition.
Table 2.16-2
Estimated Maximum Construction Noise Summary (in dBA)
Receptor Area
Existing
Maximum
Construction Noise
Levels
Leq Leq Increase
Arbors Condos (North Side of Ivy Hill Crescent) 58.1 70.1 12.0
Arbors Condos (South Side of Ivy Hill Crescent) 58.1 60.3 2.2
Arbors Condos (South Side of Ivy Hill Lane) 58.1 65.7 7.6
Arbors Condos (North Side of Brush Hollow
Crescent) 58.1 59.9 1.8
Blind Brook Middle/High School West façade
(facing Arbor Drive) 59.0 70.6 11.6
Blind Brook Middle/High School South façade
(facing baseball field) * 59.0 59.6 0.6
Blind Brook School Baseball Field* 59.0 60.6 1.6
Blind Brook School Football Field/Track* 59.0 60.9 1.9
Blind Brook Middle School 59.0 59.6 0.6
Harkness Tennis Court* 70.0 73.1 3.1
Village Hall, Police Department and Fire
Department* 70.0 81.8 11.8
942 King Street (Residences west of King Street) 68.7 74.4 5.7
947 King Street (Residences east of King Street) 68.7 68.9 0.2
The Ridge Street Country School 61.8 63.6 1.8
446 North Ridge Street (Residences North of
Hutchinson River Parkway) 61.8 63.7 1.9
14 Walker Court (Residences East of King Street
south of Arbor Drive) 70.0 70.2 0.2
109 Glenville Street 70.3 70.4 0.1
Note: * Indicates new receptor location in FEIS
The maximum predicted noise levels shown in Table 2.16-2 would occur at
times during the most noise-intensive activities of construction, which would
not occur every day during the construction period, and would not occur
during every hour on days when those activities are underway. During hours
when the loudest pieces of construction equipment are not in use, receptors
would experience lower construction noise levels than those shown above.
As described below, construction noise levels would fluctuate during the
construction period at each receptor, with the greatest levels of construction
noise occurring for limited periods during construction.
The Arbors Condos (North Side of Ivy Hill Crescent)
As shown in Table 2.16-2, residents in The Arbors community along the
north side of Ivy Hill Crescent immediately adjacent to the Project Site would
experience high levels of construction noise and increases in noise level that
would be considered highly objectionable at times during the most noise-
intensive construction activities. Maximum Leq(1) noise levels at this receptor
resulting from construction would be in approximately the low 70s dBA,
resulting in noise level increases of up to approximately 12 dBA.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-74 DRAFT
The maximum exterior construction noise level increases, up to 12 dBA, would
occur during portions of the approximately 6 months of the site demolition and
ground clearing. Construction noise levels in the mid to high 60s dBA, resulting
in noise level increases up to approximately 9 dBA, would occur intermittently
over the course of another 11 months during the construction period.
During the remainder of the construction period, construction noise levels
would remain below the 65 dBA NYSDEC recommended exterior noise
levels and the 6 dBA noise increment threshold. Consequently, while
construction noise levels would not persist at their maximum level throughout
all construction activities, construction noise levels are predicted to exceed
the NYSDEC noise thresholds during portions of approximately 17 months
during construction of the Proposed Project.
As stated above, the noise level estimates presented above are for noise levels
exterior to the townhouses. Noise levels interior to the townhouses would be
significantly lower than the maximum levels presented above due to the
attenuation provided by building walls and windows (approximately 25 dBA
lower for typical façade construction with a closed-window condition). As
noted in Chapter 17, “Alternatives” of the DEIS, the nature and magnitude of
this temporary impact would be similar in all studied alternatives to the
Revised Proposed Project, save the No Action alternative.
The Arbors Condos (South Side of Ivy Hill Lane)
As shown in Table 2.16-2, residents of The Arbors community along the
south side of Ivy Hill Lane would experience high levels of construction noise
and increases in noise levels that would constitute a perceived doubling of
noise levels at times during the most noise-intensive construction activities.
Maximum Leq(1) noise levels at this receptor resulting from construction
would be in approximately the mid 60s dBA, resulting in noise level increases
of up to approximately 8 dBA. Consequently, the maximum noise levels
predicted to be generated by on-Site construction activities at this receptor
would be expected to result in exceedances of the NYSDEC noise level
thresholds at times during the construction period. The maximum
construction noise levels would occur during portions of the approximately 6
months of site demolition and ground clearing. During the remainder of
construction, noise levels may be noticeable at times, but construction noise
levels would remain below the 65 dBA NYSDEC recommended exterior
noise levels and the 6 dBA noise increment threshold.
Noise levels interior to the townhouses would be significantly lower than the
maximum levels presented above due to the attenuation provided by building
walls and windows (approximately 25 dBA lower for typical façade
construction with a closed-window condition).
Blind Brook Middle/High School
West Façade (Facing Arbor Drive)
As shown in Table 2.16-2, the west façade of the Blind Brook Middle
School and High School building across Arbor Drive from the Project
Site would experience high levels of construction noise and increases in
exterior noise levels that would be considered highly objectionable at
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-75 1/3/2020
times during the most noise-intensive construction activities. Maximum
Leq(1) noise levels at this receptor resulting from construction would be in
approximately the low 70s dBA, resulting in exterior noise level increases
of up to approximately 12 dBA. Consequently, the maximum exterior
noise levels predicted to be generated by on-Site construction activities
at this receptor would be expected to exceed the NYSDEC noise level
threshold at times during the construction period.
The maximum construction noise levels would occur during portions of the
approximately 3 months of road and utilities installation and parking garage
foundation construction as well as during the approximately 2 months during
the overlap of interior and exterior finishing at the AL facility and IL center
core and framing and roofing construction at the IL south wings and
townhouses. Construction noise levels in the mid-60s dBA, resulting in noise
level increases up to approximately 8 dBA, would occur intermittently over
portions of another 6 months during the construction period. During the
remainder of construction, noise levels would remain below the 65 dBA
NYSDEC recommended exterior noise levels and the 6.0 dBA noise
increment threshold identified by NYSDEC. Consequently, while
construction noise levels would not persist at their maximum level
throughout all construction activities, construction noise levels are predicted
to exceed the NYSDEC noise threshold for approximately 11 months during
construction of the Revised Proposed Project.
It is important to note that the spaces along this west façade, generally
include areas that would not be considered noise-sensitive, including the
cafeteria, gymnasium, custodial, and loading spaces. The only
classrooms along this façade are those on the second floor towards the
north end of the building, and these classrooms have very limited window
area, with the façade facing the Arbor Drive consisting mostly of brick.
As suchstated above, standard façade construction (e.g., with regular size
windows in a closed window condition), provides at least 25 dBA
attenuation from exterior noise levels. Given that there are no façade
penetrations for ventilation and there is a relatively small amount of
glazing in an otherwise brick façade, noise levels interior to the these
classrooms would be significantly lower than the, in a closed window
condition, benefit from façade attenuation in excess of 25 dBA.
Therefore, given maximum exterior noise levels presented above due to
the attenuation provided by building façade (from construction of
approximately 35 dBA lower in a closed-window condition with no
façade penetrations for ventilation, and mostly brick façade area;70.6
dBA at this attenuation value is higher than the typical 25 dBA value
because so much of the façade area consists of masonry, which provides
more noise attenuation than glazing, and because there are no façade
penetrations for air conditioning sleeves or louvers). This would result in
location, noise levels in these classrooms of would be expected to be
approximately 45 dBA or lower during construction, which would be
considered acceptable for classroom use.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-76 DRAFT
South Façade (facing the baseball field)
As shown in Table 2.16-2, the south façade of the Blind Brook Middle
School and High School building, facing the baseball field, would
experience minimal levels of construction noise. Maximum exterior Leq(1)
noise levels at this receptor resulting from construction would be in
approximately the high 50s dBA. Consequently, the maximum exterior
noise levels predicted to be generated by on-Site construction activities
at this receptor would not be expected to exceed the NYSDEC noise level
threshold during the construction period.
North and East Façades (facing Harkness Park and the School Parking
Lot)
The south and west façades of the school, analyzed above, represent the
locations with the maximum potential for adverse noise impacts within
the school during construction. Receptors along the north and east
façades of the school would experience lower noise levels than those for
the south façade due to additional distance and shielding from the
construction work areas at these façades.
Blind Brook Middle School and High School Additional Mitigation
Measures
Because of the predicted high levels of construction noise at a limited
area along the west façade of the school, the Applicant has agreed to the
following additional mitigation measures as part of the Revised Proposed
Project. These measures, in addition to the ones listed above, would be
expected to further reduce the potential for adverse impacts to the
operation of the school during construction of the Revised Proposed
Project. The additional mitigation measures include:
Working with the Village approval authorities to expedite demolition
of the existing office building to allow that noise-intensive activity to
occur during the summer, when the Blind Brook Middle School and
High School is not in regular use;
Coordinating with the BBRUFSD to avoid the most noise-intensive
activities during critical testing days/times (e.g., Advanced
Placement, and other tests).
Coordinating with the BBRUFSD during the construction process
and providing a 2-week look-ahead construction schedule that would
identify potentially noise-intensive activities;.
Blind Brook School Baseball Field, Track, and Football Field
As shown in Table 2.16-2, the Blind Brook School baseball field, track, and
football field across Arbor Drive from the Project Site would experience low
levels of construction noise. Increases in noise levels at the track and football
field would be considered imperceptible to barely perceptible during the most
noise-intensive construction activities. Maximum Leq(1) noise levels at this
receptor resulting from construction would be in approximately the mid-50s
dBA, resulting in noise level increases of up to approximately 1 dBA.
Consequently, the maximum noise levels predicted to be generated by on-Site
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-77 1/3/2020
construction activities at these receptors would not be expected to result in
exceedances of the NYSDEC noise level thresholds.
Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD
As shown in Table 2.16-2, Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD buildings north
of the Project Site would experience moderate levels of construction noise
and increases in noise levels that would be considered noticeable at times
during the most noise-intensive construction activities. Maximum exterior
Leq(1) noise levels at this receptor resulting from construction would be in
approximately the low 80s dBA, resulting in exterior noise level increases of
up to approximately 12 dBA. Consequently, the maximum noise levels
predicted to be generated by on-Site construction activities at this receptor
would be expected to result in exceedances of the NYSDEC noise level
thresholds at times during the construction period.
The maximum construction exterior noise levels would occur during portions
of the approximately 5 months of framing construction for the AL building.
Construction noise would result in increases up to approximately 9 dBA
during the 6 months of site demolition and ground clearing. Construction
noise levels during the remainder of the construction period would not exceed
the NYSDEC 6.0 dBA noise increment threshold. Consequently, while
construction noise levels would not persist at their maximum level throughout
all construction activities, exterior construction noise levels are predicted to
exceed the NYSDEC noise thresholds for approximately 11 months during
construction of the Revised Proposed Project.
As stated above, the noise level estimates are for noise levels exterior to the
buildings. Noise levels interior to the buildings would be significantly lower
than the maximum levels presented above due to the attenuation provided by
building walls and windows (approximately 25 dBA lower for typical façade
construction with a closed-window condition). This would result in interior
noise levels at these receptors of up to approximately 57 dBA during the most
noise-intensive periods of construction.
Harkness Park Tennis Court
As shown in Table 2.16-2, the Harkness Park Tennis Court across Arbor
Drive from the Project Site would experience moderate levels of construction
noise and increases in noise levels that would be considered noticeable at
times during the most noise-intensive construction activities. Maximum Leq(1)
noise levels at this receptor resulting from construction would be in
approximately the low 70s dBA, resulting in noise level increases of up to
approximately 3 dBA. Consequently, the maximum noise levels predicted to
be generated by on-Site construction activities at this receptor would not be
expected to result in exceedances of the NYSDEC noise level thresholds.
942 King Street (Residences west of King Street)
As shown in Table 2.16-2, residences and sensitive uses on the west side of
King Street between the Parkway and Arbor Drive—represented by 942 King
Street—would experience high levels of construction noise and increases in
noise level that would be considered highly objectionable at times during the
most noise-intensive construction activities. Maximum Leq(1) noise levels at
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-78 DRAFT
this receptor resulting from construction would be in approximately the mid
70s dBA, resulting in noise level increases of up to approximately 6 dBA.
Consequently, the maximum noise levels predicted to be generated by on-Site
construction activities at this receptor would be expected to result in
exceedances of the NYSDEC noise level thresholds at times during the
construction period.
The maximum exterior construction noise levels would occur during portions
of the approximately 5 months of framing and roofing of the AL facility.
During the remainder of construction, construction noise levels would remain
below the NYSDEC 6 dBA noise increment threshold. Consequently,
construction noise levels would not persist at their maximum level throughout
all construction activities and are not predicted to exceed the NYSDEC noise
thresholds during construction of the Revised Proposed Project.
As noted in Chapter 17, “Alternatives” of the DEIS, the nature and magnitude
of this temporary impact would be similar in all studied alternatives to the
Revised Proposed Project, save the No Action alternative.
Other Receptors: The Arbors Condos (North Side of Brush Hollow Crescent)
As shown in Table 2.16-2, the receptors at the locations listed below would
experience minimal levels of construction noise and negligible increases in
noise levels at times during the most noise-intensive construction activities.
These receptors include:
The Arbors Condos (South Side of Ivy Hill Crescent and North Side of
Brush Hollow Crescent);
Blind Brook Middle School;
947 King Street (Residences East of King Street);
The Ridge Country School;
446 North Ridge Street (Residences North of the Parkway);
14 Walker Court (Residences East of King Street south of Arbor Drive); and,
109 Glenville Street (Residences South of Glenville Street).
2.16.2.5. Vibration
Construction activities with the highest source strength and potential to result in
perceptible or potentially damaging vibrations include excavation and rock
disturbance operations such as blasting, pile driving, and rock drilling.
Construction of the Revised Proposed Project is not anticipated to include
excavation or rock disturbance activities. Aside from excavation and rock
disturbance, demolition would have the most potential to result in perceptible or
damaging vibrations at nearby sensitive uses. Vibrations from building erection
and finishing activities would be less than demolition activities and would not
have the potential to produce damaging or perceptible levels of vibration at
surrounding receptors.
Demolition of the existing structure will occur at least approximately 250 feet
from the nearest residences within The Arbors community. At this distance,
vibrations from building demolition would be expected to be imperceptible and
would not have the potential to result in architectural or structural damage to
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-79 1/3/2020
even a structure extremely susceptible to damage from vibration. Therefore,
vibrations from construction of the Revised Proposed Project would not have
the potential to result in a significant adverse impact at The Arbors townhouses.
Demolition of the existing structure will occur at least approximately 1,000
feet from the Tennessee Gas Pipeline. At this distance, vibration from
building demolition would be expected to be well below the threshold of
damage to even a structure extremely susceptible to damage from vibration.
Therefore, vibrations from construction of the Revised Proposed Project
would not have the potential to result in a significant adverse impact at the
Tennessee Gas Pipeline.
Nevertheless, as part of the Revised Proposed Project, the Applicant proposes
to a vibration monitoring program at the Arbors community and at the
Tennessee Gas Pipeline during demolition of the existing office building to
ensure that vibration levels do not exceed the thresholds that could potentially
result in damage during construction.
DRAFT 3-1 1/3/2020
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
3.1. INTRODUCTION
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) addresses comments that were made on the
Draft EIS (DEIS), either verbally at the Public Hearings held on October 22, 2018, November 11,
2018, December 11, 2018, and January 8, 2019, or provided in writing through January 23, 2019.
This includes all comments made by the public or their representatives, the Village of Rye Brook
(the “Village”) Board of Trustees (the “Lead Agency”), and Interested and Involved Agencies.
This chapter provides responses to the substantive verbal and written comments submitted on the
DEIS. Full transcripts of the public testimony and complete correspondence from which these
comments are drawn can be found in Volume 3. Comments were assigned numbers, as shown in
Volume 3.
Similar comments, in terms of subject or technical points, multiple or by the same commenter,
were grouped together. Each comment is presented in this chapter. For ease of reading, a comment
summarizing each group of similar comments was provided, with careful attention to ensure that
the substance of the comments was preserved.
Comments were received that generally expressed support or opposition to the Proposed Project,
but that did not substantively comment on the DEIS. These comments are not included in this
chapter. Comments were received regarding the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA) process, such as the time of the public hearings. These comments are similarly not
included in this FEIS. Finally, duplicative comments from the same commenter were received.
These duplicate pieces of correspondence are noted and responded to in their first instance.
3.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AGE RESTRICTION
Comment 1: Comments were received recommending that the age restriction for the Proposed
Project should be set at 62 years old and older, not 55 years old and older as
proposed by the Applicant. Commenters cited community character concerns
associated with a 55 years old and older project and the potential for a 62 years
old and older project to have decreased traffic impacts and a reduced potential for
school-age children. A comment was also received from the Westchester County
(the “County”) Planning Board encouraging consideration of making the
townhouses non-age-restricted. (Straubinger 003, Zhao 006, Planning Board 018,
Rosenberg 021, Levine 029, Drummond 037)
Straubinger 003 (#12): Look at alternatives that: set the age restriction at 62
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-2 DRAFT
Zhao 006 (#25): I don’t see any reason for seeking a code change to lower the age limit
to 55 years.
Planning Board 018 (#236): Age restriction should be 62+ to alleviate traffic and school
impacts.
Rosenberg 021 (#247): We are very serious about this being a 62 and older project.
Levine 029 (#263): What is the reason for the 55 and over being a nonstarter?
Rosenberg 021 (#264): The 55+ community has different impacts than the 62+
community: traffic and school children.
Drummond 037 (#286): We encourage the Applicant to consider making a portion of
the development non-age restricted and open to families...[such as the townhouses]
given the Site’s proximity to the school. This may also be a fair exchange for the
residential density increase the Applicant is seeking.
Rosenberg 063 (#525): The residents MUST be limited to 62 and over.
Response 1: In response to comments from the Lead Agency and members of the public, the
Revised Proposed Project would be a residential community constructed and
operated for those 62 years old and older, not 55 years old and older. Consistent
with this change, the Revised Proposed Zoning, included in Appendix A, no
longer includes a proposed change to the definition of “senior living facility”
within the Village.
Comment 2: Comments were received questioning whether age-restricted housing is legal
given the experience of Heritage Hills in Somers and, if so, how the age restriction
would be enforced. (Mignogna 001, Planning Board 018)
Mignogna 001 (#5): Age restrictions may not be valid. Look at the Heritage Hills in
Somers which lost its age restriction through legal proceedings.
Planning Board 018 (#237): Explain how the age restriction will be enforced.
Response 2: The proposed age restriction, and its enforcement, are governed by the Federal
Fair Housing Act (FHA). Under the FHA, the general rule is that it is illegal to
discriminate in housing based, among other things, upon family status, i.e.,
discrimination against families with children. However, as an exception to the
general rule, the FHA has carved out two “safe harbor” provisions. If the
requirements of either of those safe harbor provisions are met, a property owner
or landlord is not liable for discrimination. In the case of the Revised Proposed
Project, the Applicant proposes to follow the safe harbor requirements for an age
62 years old or older project. Under those requirements, occupancy in any unit
will be restricted to persons over the age of 62 years old, thereby precluding
children from residing at the project.
Enforcement is regulated by the requirement that the property owner provide
annual reports to the Federal government demonstrating compliance with the safe
harbor provisions. Failure to comply can result in liability on the part of the
property owner for improper discrimination in violation of the FHA.
With respect to the Heritage Hills project in Somers, little information is
available. We have located an article that appeared in the New York Times on
June 2, 1985 that sheds some light on the Heritage Hills project. Based upon that
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-3 1/3/2020
article, it appears that the project opened in 1975 and permitted only people over
the age of 40 years old, or their spouses, to live there. When the law changed to
prohibit age discrimination, except in the case of the safe harbor provisions, the
management was required to either allow anyone to live there or to restrict
ownership to those 55 years old or older. Again, based upon the newspaper article,
it appears that the owners of Heritage Hills chose to allow anyone to live there,
rather than restrict the potential market.
With respect to Revised Proposed Project, the age requirement will be 62 years
old or older from the commencement of occupancy and will, as noted above, be
regulated pursuant to the provisions of the FHA.
SITE PLAN DETAILS
Comment 3: Comments were received requesting more detail on the height of the Independent
Living (IL) and Assisted Living (AL) building, the square footage of each Project
component, and the number of proposed parking spaces, and how that compares to
the existing condition. (Planning Board 018, Chakar 025, Boccini 035, Heiser 051)
Planning Board 018 (#233): Clarify and explain the height of the units and building height.
Chakar 025 (#252): What is the square footage of each of the [components] of the
projects, the 24, the 160 units, that total the 445,000?
Heiser 051 (#347): How much is it going up in height?
Boccini 035 (#282): On that first screen that they put up, there was parking shown as one
number and 300. Then on the second screen he did a comparison and they only used the 300
parking lot. I’m confused as to percentages. I think that should be looked at very carefully.
Response 3: Table 3.2-1 lists the components of the Revised Proposed Project, including their
size (i.e., gross square feet) and number of units and beds.
Table 3.2-1
Proposed Building Sizes
Project Component
Gross Floor Area (sf)1 Number of Units (Beds/Bedrooms)
Original Project
(DEIS)
Revised Proposed
Project (FEIS)
Original
Project (DEIS)
Revised Proposed
Project (FEIS)
Town Homes 50,000 44,30041,443 24 (48) 20 (40)
Assisted Living 90,000 87,73580,381 85 (94) 85 (94)
Independent Living 305,000 244,147234,078 160 (301) 152 (228136 (236)
Total 445,000 376,182355,902 269 (444) 257 (362241 (370)
Note: 1 Gross Floor Area calculated pursuant to Section 250-2 of the Village Code.
The roof of the existing office building has a height of 39 feet above current grade
(el. 246.5 feet) and features a fascia that extends approximately 7 feet 6 inches
above the roof, such that the building appears approximately 46.67 feet tall (el.
293.17 feet)
The proposed IL and AL building would have an average height of 41.6481 feet
above the proposed grade, which grade would be approximately 6 feet 6 inches
higher than the current grade. As such, the elevation of the IL and AL building’s
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-4 DRAFT
average height would be approximately el. 294.6481 feet, or about 1.56 feet
higher than the existing office building.
The proposed IL and AL building would feature various architectural features,
which would create multiple “peaks” along the roof line to add visual interest to
the building. These various “peaks” would have differing heights, as shown on
sheets A-104 and A-301, included in Volume 4. As stated in Chapter 1, “Revised
Proposed Project,” in response to public comments and to decrease the potential
for visual impacts, the IL and AL building have been set back further from Arbor
Drive and The Arbors. In addition, the ‘peak’ of roof on the four-story section of
the proposed IL building has been reduced in elevation 710.5 feet from the
original project. With this change, the peak of the roof of the four-story IL
building closest to The Arbors, which extends only for approximately 30 feetthe
rear half of the building, would be approximately 117.5 feet higher in absolute
elevation than the height of the existing three-story office building, which extends
for the length of the entire building. However, this proposed peak would be
approximately 541550 feet from the nearest townhouse in The Arbors, which is
approximately 264273 feet further away than the existing office building. The
remainder of the peak of the four-story section of the IL roof facing The Arbors
would be approximately 7 feet higher in elevation than the top of the existing
office building and would be set back even further than the tallest peak facing the
Arbors.
With respect to parking, the existing office building has approximately 595
parking spaces. As stated in Section 1.4.3.2, “Parking,” the Revised Proposed
Project would have 276238 parking spaces.
Comment 4: Comments were received requesting additional information on the Applicant’s plan
for emergency or secondary access and suggesting that it was not the Village’s
responsibility to provide land for that purpose. (Snyder 007, Orris 032, Snyder 022)
Snyder 007 (#50): Applicant’s proposal to have an emergency access driveway using
Village owned land does not appear to be a true secondary access. The Village has no
obligation to burden its public land (especially right next to the firehouse and police
station) for the applicant.
Orris 032 (#270): My question is, if anything goes through, of getting in and out of The
Arbors on a different access road. Right now we have an access road you can’t use
behind The Arbors for emergencies, but there’s no way for us to get in and out
otherwise. If there’s an accident, a tree down, we’re already captive, but you add all
these people, what is the plan for that, if there is one?
Snyder 022 (#279): Second is that we would like to discuss if secondary access is not
feasible, we’re wasting a lot of time and resources on a proposal which really wouldn’t
have much feasibility.
Response 4: As described in Section 1.4.3, “Parking and Circulation,” the Applicant proposes
to construct a secondary, emergency-only access to the Project Site from Village-
owned property. This access was included at the specific request of Village staff
and consultants. The specific location and alignment of the access was discussed
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-5 1/3/2020
with Village staff and consultants and determined to best meet the needs of the
Revised Proposed Project and the Village.
Comment 5: The Village’s Consulting Engineer stated that an easement would be required for
the proposed realignment of the curb at the existing Rye Brook Fire Department
(RBFD) firehouse. (Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#109): Proposed realignment of the curb at the existing firehouse crosses
the property line, an easement would be required to do this.
Response 5: No curb improvements are necessary to accommodate this new fire truck
movement and the existing curb alignment would remain. This truck movement
is depicted on drawing C-320, “Fire Truck, Emergency Vehicle & Truck Turning
Plan” (see Volume 4).
Comment 6: The Village’s Consulting Engineer made several comments requesting additional
information be provided on the proposed site plan. (Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#110): The Fire Department should verify noted fire truck dimensions on
the proposed turning plan.
Oliveri 011 (#111): Road profiles will be required for review & approval; road slopes on
the west loop road seem to approach 10% in some areas.
Oliveri 011 (#117): Indicate locations for concrete and Belgium block curbs on the
layout plan, stone curbing should be 18” in depth within the village R.O.W.
Oliveri 011 (#118): Handicap parking dimensions should be indicated on the details.
Response 6: A template of the largest Village fire truck was emailed by the Village’s Fire
Inspector, Michael Izzo, to the Applicant’s engineer, JMC, on September 20,
2017. These dimensions were used in the truck turning simulation, shown on
drawing C-320 and included in the JMC site plan set (see Volume 4).
Drawing C-310 has been added to the site plans showing all road profiles (see
Volume 4). The slopes on all roads are less than or equal to 10 percent.
Labels have been added to drawing C-300 to clarify where stone curb shall be
installed. The stone curb detail #37 on drawing C-905 has been updated to show
a depth of 18 inches for all stone curbs, within the Village right of way (see
Volume 4).
Dimensions have been added to both accessible parking details (details #42 &
#47) on drawing C-906 (see Volume 4).
Comment 7: A comment was received requesting more information on the layout of, and
access and egress to, the underground parking proposed as well as a discussion of
the impacts of that access to on-Site circulation. (Snyder 007)
Snyder 007 (#44): There is no clear depiction of the underground parking, and the
access way out of the parking areas and how traffic will be distributed in connection
therewith.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-6 DRAFT
Response 7: Figure 1-15 depicts the access and egress to the proposed underground parking. The
full size underground parking plan is included on sheet A-100 in Volume 4. As
shown, access and egress to the underground parking area will be from a single
location along the Site’s main access road in the rear of the Site. Egress from the
parking area to the internal Site drive will be controlled with a stop sign.
Comment 8: The Chairman of the Village’s Architectural Review Board stated that, “the layout
[of the Proposed Project] appears to work well for the three different groups.”
(Levy 004)
Levy 004 (#17): The layout appears to work well for the three different groups.
Response 8: Comment noted. As stated in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project,” the layout
of the Proposed Project was designed to promote operational efficiencies as well
as to create an aesthetically pleasing, landscaped residential community.
PROPOSED PROGRAM
Comment 9: A comment was received asking if an operator for the Proposed Project was
selected and suggesting that without an operator the Proposed Project was
speculative. (Schlank 040)
Schlank 040 (#321): Without some evidence of commitments from a future manager
and/or occupants, the project appears to amount to “building on speculation.” This
strategy is particularly risky.
Response 9: The final selection of an operator for the Revised Proposed Project has not yet
been made. As indicated in Section 1.5, “Purpose and Need,” there is a current
market demand for an age-restricted residential community in the Village. In
addition, and as was the case with the original project, the Revised Proposed
Project is anticipated to be owned by a single entity and there is no plan to
subdivide the Site. A managing agent and/or operator may be retained to manage
and operate the Revised Proposed Project, and that party may be an affiliate of
the owner.
Comment 10: Comments were received requesting more information on the ancillary and
accessory uses included in the Proposed Project, including food service, fitness,
and other amenity spaces, and questioning whether the impacts of those uses were
considered in the DEIS. (Snyder 007, Greenbaum 031)
Snyder 007 (#41): Second, the independent living component is massive, consisting of
305,000 square feet with 301 bedrooms. The component is also likely to have additional
uses such as “an indoor fitness center, small clinical space for visiting medical
professionals, hair salon, manicure/pedicure and massage therapy.” The DEIS fails to
specify the size of these uses and whether they can be utilized by non-residents and the
impact of same.
Snyder 007 (#47): The "residential amenity spaces" are not defined and need to be
analyzed…“wandering garden” needs to be clearly depicted and its security analyzed,
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-7 1/3/2020
especially in light of the site’s proximity to a main road, King Street and the middle
school/high school campus.
Greenbaum 031 (#269): Does this mean that along with independent living, meals will
be provided to the residents? So the dining room will be staffed, with enough staff to
provide three meals a day. 365 days a year…like a restaurant that seats 300 people, 400
people…that should be considered as well.
Response 10: The Revised Proposed Project includes the following uses that are considered
accessory or ancillary to the primary residential use of the Site, as defined in the
Village’s Zoning Code: indoor and outdoor recreation facilities, libraries, food
preparation facilities, dining facilities, laundry facilities, examination and
treatment rooms, housekeeping services, administrative offices, staff facilities,
storage and maintenance facilities, beauty parlors, and a facility for the sale of
sundries for residents.
The impacts of the Revised Proposed Project, as described in this FEIS and the
DEIS, are inclusive of the various accessory and ancillary uses described above
and in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project.” For example, the estimates of
traffic generation are inclusive of the staff associated with the Revised Proposed
Project and the water and sewer demand that was estimated included both an
estimate for each household in the IL and townhouse units, as well as the an
estimate for the commercial kitchen.
Comment 11: A comment was received suggesting that The Arbors would suffer adverse
financial impacts as a result of the Proposed Project’s residential program.
Specifically, the commenter stated that the residential nature of the Proposed
Project would increase acts of trespassing within The Arbors (including walking
on private property and dog walking), increase the necessity of road maintenance,
and increase acts of illegal parking within The Arbors—all of which would place
an additional financial burden on The Arbors as it is the responsibility of the
individual owners or the Home Owners Association (HOA) to “self-police.”
(Schlank 060, Schlank 068)
Schlank 060 (#425): Questions related to ‘self-policing’ services that must be
established and funded by private property owners under the laws governing VRB
PUDs with private roads.
Schlank 068 (#538): If a residential option is approved, the challenges for The Arbors
will be more difficult to meet in a cost effective manner because The Arbors was not
designed to be a fully-secured gated community. Significant adverse financial impacts
could be felt on property values, as well as costs of self-policing services, road
maintenance, and safety/security.
Schlank 068 (#546): Trespassing is a common area of self-policing, and incidents of
trespassing would likely increase if additional individuals start taking walks along The
Arbors roadways.
Response 11: The Revised Proposed Project is not anticipated to result in increased trespassing
on The Arbors’ property. With respect to parking, the Revised Proposed Project
would contain sufficient on-Site parking for residents, guests, and staff, obviating
the need for Project residents to park within The Arbors (see Section 2.12.8,
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-8 DRAFT
“Parking,”). With respect to making use of The Arbors’ property for recreation,
as described in Section 2.10.3, “Open Space,” the Revised Proposed Project
would provide more than sufficient space to meet the outdoor recreation needs of
Project residents. In addition, Harkness Park and the Village ballfields are also
within walking distance of the Project Site. For these reasons, it is not anticipated
that residents of the Project Site would choose to trespass on The Arbors’ property
for recreational purposes. With respect to road maintenance, it is noted that the
Project Site is the beneficiary of an easement that provides for access to an
improved Arbor Drive for access and egress and that the provision of that drive
is the responsibility of The Arbors. The Revised Proposed Project would not in
and of itself, change that obligation. As noted in Section 2.12, “Traffic and
Transportation,” the Revised Proposed Project would, however, substantially
reduce the amount of traffic that would utilize Arbor Drive to access the Project
Site from the Site’s currently permitted office use.
PURPOSE AND NEED
Comment 12: Comments were received questioning whether the Proposed Project and Proposed
Zoning were in the best interests of the Village or only in the best interests of the
Applicant. (Mignogna 001, Snyder 007, Feinstein 049)
Mignogna 001 (#6): Paragraph 23 which states the density of 102 units is now allowed
by current law is “simply economically unfeasible.” Does the Village of Rye Brook
Board want to allow a change in the law [density and height] which affects our quality
of life solely for the profit motive of a developer?
Snyder 007 (#30): The proposed text amendment is only to the advantage of the
applicant and not to the Village. There is absolutely no reason that the applicant cannot
comply with the zoning text in its current form.
Feinstein 049 (#379): Status quo of this parcel cannot be maintained indefinitely.
Question is, something’s going to happen at some point in time to this particular parcel.
So what’s in the best interests of Rye Brook?
Response 12: As discussed in this FEIS and the DEIS, there is a current market demand for age-
restricted housing within the Village. The Revised Proposed Project would help
meet this existing community need. In addition, the Project Site as currently
improved is not economically viable. Despite the efforts of the Applicant, and
previous owners, it has not been possible to lease the current office building in a
sustained and profitable manner. As a result, the assessment of the Project Site,
and the property tax revenue generated by the Site, has declined over the past 5
years and is expected to decline further in the future. The Revised Proposed
Project offers the Applicant and the Village the opportunity to meet a current
market demand while also increasing the tax revenue generated by the Project
Site without overtaxing the existing community services.
Comment 13: Comments were received questioning the overall economic viability of age-
restricted housing in the Village given current vacancies at The Atria, Rye Brook
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-9 1/3/2020
and the construction of an age-restricted facility in Purchase. (Levy 004, Snyder
007, Planning Board 018, Feinstein 049, Schlank 068)
Levy 004 (#16): It [The Project] does answer many needs for the community and our
baby boomer population in Westchester
Snyder 007 (#57): Also the Atria has vacancies, thereby questioning as to the need for
another independent living facility.
Planning Board 018 (#220): Is there a market demand for assisted living in this
geographic area? Is there a market demand for senior living in this geographic area? Are
the rentals competitively priced with other facilities with similar amenities? Will the
new senior housing at SUNY Purchase result in a need for fewer units at 900 King?
How will the Village be protected against a scenario whereby the senior housing at 900
King is built but not occupied thereby resulting in another empty or near empty
structure, or conversion to more traditional rental apartments? Please explain.
Feinstein 049 (#380): The concept, I applaud in the sense that we are community. And
what we’re missing in this community is housing stock for seniors. Yes we have Atria,
but what happened is that it was built as independent living, and over the years the
average age of the Atria has crept up. The people we know, they want to stay in Rye
Brook. But they have nowhere to go. We don’t want to be a transient community. So I
applaud the fact that there’s going to be senior housing. I think it’s important to have
different housing stock - that’s the sense of a community. And things can’t stay
stagnant. Things are going to have to change.
Feinstein 049 (#385): No one has really spoken in favor of the project per se. But I think
the concept of senior housing, 62 and above, and to have also independent living and
rental apartments, is something that would be very unique to Rye Brook.
Schlank 040 (#322): Statistics show the inventory of senior housing has soared in recent
years while occupancy rates have fallen dramatically since 2014. Occupancy rates for
assisted living facilities are at their lowest levels since 2006 (October 30, 2018 Wall Street
Journal Article). How do the current trends affect the assumptions made by the applicant
and the management firm about future occupancy rates and affordable low income housing
tax credits? What evidence does the applicant have that the proposal will in fact provide a
stable economic base for the Village and/or meet a real need for senior housing options,
especially in view of competing facilities such as at Purchase College?
Schlank 068 (#539): King Street and other nearby areas in Rye Brook and bordering
municipalities already have significant senior housing capacity. To date, there has been
no known attempt to measure the extent to which the current citizens of Rye Brook want
and need additional age-restricted housing. In the absence of a grass-roots study of this
nature, there are open questions about whether a senior housing facility will truly serve
the citizens of Rye Brook well and whether it can survive and prosper in future years.
Response 13: As described in Section 1.5, “Purpose and Need,” the Revised Proposed Project
responds to an existing market need within the Village. This need is documented
by both demographic trends as well as a recent economic market study by JLL, a
leading real estate valuation and advisory firm (see Appendix C). The JLL study
concludes, in pertinent part, that within the market area “the assisted living
(including memory care) and independent living segments [are] under-supplied at
this time. This is supported by the higher occupancies reported throughout each
segment (95 percent for assisted living (including memory care), 92 percent specific
to memory care, and 93 percent for independent living).”1 The report goes on to
note that though there are 399 IL units and 346 AL units forecast to come online
1 Page 4 of: Market Study: Rye Brook Senior Living, 900 King Street. JLL. October 2017. Included as
Appendix C.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-10 DRAFT
within the next three years, including the Revised Proposed Project, there is forecast
to be excess demand of 720 AL beds, 319 memory care beds, and 1,417 IL units.
This data suggests that the local market can support both the new senior housing
at SUNY Purchase as well as the Revised Proposed Project at 900 King Street.
Comment 14: Comments were received questioning whether the Applicant is purposefully not
leasing the existing on-Site office building so that it can propose to redevelop the
Project Site and claim that the office building is not economically viable.
Commenters cited the Applicant’s recent purchase and efforts to re-tenant 1100
King Street in the Village as a potential example of the strength of the local office
market as well as the regional demand for “flex space.” (Mignogna 001, Snyder
007, Schlank 040, Gorek 050, Schlank 060, Schlank 068)
Mignogna 001 (#3): Is the reason for a relatively modern building used as an office
building being vacant a result of the owners wishing to make a larger profit by offering
this proposal? Or has the market changed and rents have gone down forcing office space
to rent at a lower price?
Snyder 007 (#31): As detailed herein and the attached article ("Applicant’s Article"), the
applicant’s principal, Mr. Duncan has stated in a public forum in October 2018 that
there is a vibrant office market in Rye Brook. Therefore, contrary to the DEIS, there is
no reason that 900 King Street cannot be updated to Class A office space and utilized
for office use, just like the developer is doing with 1100 King Street.
Schlank 040 (#320): Applicant complains of vacancies in office facilities and it projects
that the vacancies will continue in the future. Does the applicant recognize that the
actions it has taken during the past year might be construed as constituting a self-
fulfilling prophecy of defeat? A repurposing of the office building [part-office, part-
research laboratories – this would appear to be more consistent with the intent of the
zoning laws and comprehensive plan.
Gorek 050 (#387): I can’t see why the 900 building cannot be recycled. I was told that
there were parts of the buildings that had no windows, why can’t those particular spots
be used for storage? You build nice condos and you put in storage. It would solve every
senior’s problem, of what you do with all your stuff.
Schlank 060 (#427): Questions about the implications of evolving business events and
trends that affect the proposed and alternative uses of the property at 900 King Street,
including the announcement of Amazon’s nearby NYC HQ, the continued growth of e-
commerce, and the accompanying high level of demand for conversion of commercial
office buildings to the increasingly popular concept of “flex space” – a less radical form
of redevelopment that results in lower occupancy levels by office workers and less
traffic to and from the office buildings during rush hours.
Schlank 068 (#543): Include an alternative that would convert the existing office space
into “flex space.”
Response 14: The Applicant, as well as predecessors in interest, unsuccessfully attempted to
lease the existing office building for a variety of uses to a variety of tenants. These
efforts were not successful in producing sufficient building occupancy or long-
term tenancy to make operating the building profitable. One reason contributing
to the inability to lease the existing Site is the building’s relatively large floorplate
broken up by twin atriums. The large, rectangular, floorplate makes it inefficient
to subdivide the space while providing for the necessary means of egress for each
tenant. As a result, buildings with more efficient floorplates, such as the buildings
at 1100 King Street, which utilize a single core are more easily adapted for
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-11 1/3/2020
multiple tenants and have had more success in re-tenanting existing space. For
the same reasons, reusing the existing building for residential uses would not be
feasible—the circulation and unit configurations would not be conducive to
creating a marketable product.
Comment 15: Comments were received questioning why three-bedroom IL units were needed
in an age-restricted project and why the three-bedroom units were so large.
(Snyder 007, Drummond 037, Rosenberg 064, Tazbin 071)
Snyder 007 (#42): If {the IL} units are truly for seniors, then it would seem that the
three bedroom units should be eliminated.
Drummond 037 (#284): Such a wide mix of unit types is atypical for housing
developments restricted solely to seniors. For example, the draft EIS offers no
explanation for why so many three-bedroom units are proposed.
Rosenberg 064 (#530): The question is, why for 62 and older, why a three-bedroom units?
Tazbin 071 (#560): Three bedrooms seem a little bit much, a little bit large [for a 62+
community] and only one parking spot.
Response 15: In response to public comments, the Applicant has both reduced the number of
three-bedroom units included in the IL building as well as reduced the size of the
three-bedroom units that are included in the Revised Proposed Project (see
Section 1.4.1.1, “Independent Living”).
As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project proposes a relatively
up-market product. As indicated in the market study (see Appendix C), there is
a market demand for larger, three-bedroom units. These units tend to appeal to
those residents that are accustomed to a larger residential setting (e.g., house)
where separate rooms for sitting, reading, watching TV, and engaging in activities
are available. Therefore, while the Applicant has reduced the number and size of
the three-bedroom units proposed, these units have not been eliminated from the
Revised Proposed Project.
Comment 16: Comments were received questioning why age-restricted townhouses are
included in the Proposed Project, especially if elevators are not included. Some
commenters requested that this use be eliminated or further setback from The
Arbors to provide more open space or to reduce potential adverse impacts.
(Snyder 007, Planning Board 018, Drummond 037, Snyder 038, Feinstein 049,
Rosenberg 064, Heiser 065)
Snyder 007 (#48): The town homes appear to be an unnecessary feature of the project,
just resulting in more congestion of the site. Alternative designs without the town homes
should be considered.
Planning Board 018 (#223): Consider eliminating the townhouses to preserve more open
space.
Drummond 037 (#285): It is not clear if the two-story townhouse units are intended to
be part of an arrangement where tenants live in the townhouses first and are then given
the option to move to the independent living facility as they age.
Snyder 038 (#294): The Applicant has not provided any meaningful mitigation
measures that would aid in reducing the significant traffic impacts associated with the
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-12 DRAFT
project. Given that the DEIS has disclosed potential for adverse impacts associated with
the project, the project should be modified....reduction in the overall size and density of
the project. At a minimum, the Applicant should eliminate the townhomes.
Feinstein 049 (#382): I think that this project is necessary and good for the community
in a scaled-back version of it. I personally am opposed to all the townhouses for lots of
reasons; it’s closer to the Arbors and the like.
Rosenberg 064 (#526): I shared that concern as well [townhouses would interfere with the
nice buffer between the assisted living facility and the border of the Arbors’ property],
because I think that we do want to create the greatest – a buffer to the greatest extent possible.
Heiser 065 (#531): Are there going to be elevators in the townhouses?
Response 16: As described in Section 1.4.1.3, “Townhouses,” the townhouses proposed to be
included in the Revised Proposed Project have been redesigned from the original
project. The townhouses are being provided in a “master-down” format that has
the master bedroom located on the first floor. As such, elevators are not included
in the townhouses. Other architectural features have been included that make the
townhouses both more suitable to a senior population as well as more
distinguishable from other Village townhouse communities, including double-
height living rooms, evoking a “grand” space, and kitchens and bathrooms of a
more generous size that are also designed for adaptability and accessibility for
aging-in-place. Finally, residents of the townhouse units would have access to the
amenities within the IL building, including the dining room and meal service,
fitness center and pool, and on- and off-Site activities. While it is anticipated that
some residents of the townhouses may decide to move to the IL or AL building
due to changes in circumstances, it is also likely that some residents would choose
to, and have the physical ability to, continue living in the townhouses for an
extended period of time.
As noted in Figure 1-10, the two-story townhouse units in the Revised Proposed
Project are set back a minimum of ±270 feet from the closest unit in The Arbors.
In between The Arbors and the proposed townhouses is a wooded stream corridor
with a topographic rise in the middle. As such, visibility from The Arbors into the
Project Site, including visibility of the proposed townhouses, is extremely limited.
This is demonstrated in the visual simulations included as Figures 8-9, 8-17, 8-18,
and 8-19 in the DEIS. Therefore, and as explained in Section 2.8, “Visual
Resources and Community Character,” the proposed townhouses would not
create an adverse visual impact for The Arbors residents. As such, eliminating the
townhouses would not avoid or mitigate an adverse visual impact to the Arbors.
In addition, as described in Section 2.10.3, “Open Space,” the Revised Proposed
Project would not only increase the amount of open space on the Project Site from
the current condition, it would provide a sufficient amount of open space to meet
the outdoor recreational needs of the Site’s future residents.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-13 1/3/2020
3.3. LAND USE, PUBLIC POLICY, AND ZONING
LAND USE
Comment 17: The Planning Board requested that the FEIS include an explanation of, “the
impacts, if any, of changing the existing use of the property such that the overall
[Planned Unit Development] PUD which includes The Arbors would be altered
from a mix of uses (residential/office) to solely residential.” (Planning Board 018)
Planning Board 018 (#215): Explain the impacts, if any, of changing the existing use of
the property such that the overall PUD which includes the Arbors would be altered from
a mix of uses (residential/office) to solely residential.
Response 17: As with the original zoning, the Revised Proposed Zoning does not add any
allowable uses to the PUD zoning district. Rather, the Revised Proposed Zoning
would limit the allowable uses on the Project Site to only senior living facilities
in recognition that that is the only use included in the Revised Proposed Project.
The impacts of changing the overall PUD of which the Project Site is apart from
a residential/office/park use to a residential/age-restricted residential/park use are
examined throughout the DEIS and this FEIS. As demonstrated in the
environmental analyses, the change in use from office use to age-restricted
residential use would dramatically decrease the number of traffic trips to and from
the Site, increase the assessed value and property tax revenue of the Project Site
while placing no additional burden on the Blind Brook-Rye Union Free School
District (BBRUFSD), and improve the aesthetic character of the Project Site,
which is currently dominated by a 5.3-acre surface parking lot and single
rectangular building with an uninterrupted footprint of 94,600 square feet (sf),
through the development of a landscaped residential campus with buildings of
varying height and sizes interspersed with open space throughout.
Comment 18: A comment was received suggesting that the Proposed Project is inconsistent with
the other uses in the existing PUD, including The Arbors and Harkness Park, as a
result of the introduction of noise and light pollution and additional traffic
generation. (Snyder 007)
Snyder 007 (#55): Project would be consistent with other existing uses of the PUD
which include The Arbors and Harkness Park, alleging that the buildings would not
introduce negative noise or light pollution to the adjoining properties and would
similarly have very low levels of traffic generation. These statements cannot fairly be
supported by the facts.
Response 18: No evidence has been presented to indicate that an age-restricted residential use
is incompatible with other residential uses, a school, a park, or municipal uses.
Further, given the relative traffic generation and the intensity with which Project
residents and staff are anticipated to use the Project Site, an age-restricted
residential use is not only inherently compatible with the surrounding uses, but
that it is, in many ways, less disruptive to the surrounding area than many other
uses, including commercial uses.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-14 DRAFT
As demonstrated in the analysis included in Section 2.12, “Traffic and
Transportation,” the Revised Proposed Project would represent a significant
decrease in the number of vehicular trips entering and exiting the Site as compared
to the former office use. In addition, the Revised Proposed Project would add only
2017 trips in the AM, and 5046 trips in the PM to the amount of trips counted
entering and exiting the Project Site in 2017. Compared to the existing volume of
traffic on King Street, this increase is minimal and would not adversely affect
Harkness Park.
With respect to the potential for light pollution, as stated in Section 3.3.1.1,
“General Recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan,” of the DEIS, “The
Proposed Project would utilize energy-efficient building design and fixtures. All
outdoor lighting would utilize LED fixtures with full cut-offs.” With the
implementation of full cut-off fixtures, there is not be anticipated to be off-site
light spillage to the ground level of Harkness Park as a result of the Revised
Proposed Project. With respect to the potential for noise pollution, theWith
respect to the potential for noise pollution, the incremental increase in noise
associated with Project-generated traffic would be less than one dBA at the
intersection of King Street and Arbor Drive. Noise level increases from Project-
generated mobile sources within Harkness Park would be less than the increment
predicted for the intersection of King Street and Arbor Drive owing to the distance
between the source and receptor. The Revised Proposed Project, as was the case
with the original project, will include building mechanical systems and
emergency generators that are designed to avoid producing a 6.0 A-weighted
decibel (dBA) or more increase at nearby receptors, including Harkness Park. As
a result, the Revised Proposed Project would not have an adverse impact on noise
conditions at the Harkness Park.
Comment 19: Comments were received questioning the appropriateness of comparing the Proposed
Project to The Atria, Rye Brook in the DEIS. (Snyder 007, Planning Board 018)
Snyder 007 (#56): The DEIS compares itself to the Atria in Rye Brook but that facility
is only for independent living.
Planning Board 018 (#224): How does the proposed project compare with the Atria?
Response 19: The Atria, Rye Brook is an IL facility in the Village that has approximately 168
units. Unlike the Revised Proposed Project, The Atria, Rye Brook does not have
townhouses or AL units, nor does it have landscaped open space on-Site. The
Atria, Rye Brook is the closest IL facility to the Project Site and was therefore
used within the DEIS and this FEIS for purposes of providing specific, limited,
comparisons. The reasons for each comparison, and the limitations of each
comparison, are presented within this FEIS. In general, The Atria, Rye Brook was
used for purposes of benchmarking the number of emergency services calls that
may result from the Revised Proposed Project (e.g., emergency medical services
[EMS] and fire), the potential for the Revised Proposed Project to have school-
age children as residents, and the potential assessed value of the Revised Proposed
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-15 1/3/2020
Project. For all of these comparisons, the DEIS and FEIS note the limitation of
the comparison and the usefulness of the comparison in understanding a potential
impact of the Revised Proposed Project.
Comment 20: Comments were received suggesting that density, in and of itself, is an impact to
the community and that the Proposed Project, for that reason, should be modified.
(Planning Board 018, Chakar 025, Schlank 040, Snyder 045, Zimmerman 046,
Feinstein 049, Snyder 053, Snyder 061)
Planning Board 018 (#219): Putting aside potential appreciable impacts of a high
density development, high density in and of itself should be considered an impact to the
character of the Village which is predominantly low density.
Chakar 025 (#253): That’s [Proposed Project] two and a half times the size of the
Arbors (based on number of units and gsf per acre).
Chakar 025 (#254): This is 257,000 square feet more than what should go there. You
have a density problem there [at the Project Site with the Proposed Project].
Schlank 040 (#315): The "condition precedent" [existing office building] was
established as a way to ensure a balanced and complementary mix of commercial and
residential land uses…a way to mitigate the population shift that would otherwise result
from a density of 7 dwellings per acre. This 7-per-acre density was unusual for the
Town of Rye. How can the effects of the increased density be effectively mitigated?
Snyder 045 (#348): This project is way too dense. They are proposing 15.2 units per
acre when your zone now only allows six units per acre. This is a huge discrepancy.
Zimmerman 046 (#354): We are very concerned about the density of the project.
Feinstein 049 (#386): As a person who worked very hard on the Comprehensive Plan,
the density has to be addressed.
Snyder 053 (#409): As recommended by the Planning Board in the Planning Board
resolution, there shall be, and I quote, "a reduction in the overall size and density of the
project. At a minimum, the applicant should eliminate the townhomes and more
considerably reduce the assisted living and independent living components to make the
project have less of an impact."
Snyder 061 (#502): Again, we support the recommendation of the Planning Board that
there should be a "reduction in the overall size and density of the project." At a minimum,
the Applicant should eliminate the townhomes and considerably reduce the assisted living
and independent living components to make the project have less of an impact.
Response 20: As detailed in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project,” in response to public and
Lead Agency comments, and to reduce the potential for adverse impacts, the
Applicant has reduced the size of the Revised Proposed Project from what was
originally included in the DEIS. Specifically, the Applicant has reduced the size
of the project by 68,81889,908 gsf through reductions in the number of IL and
townhouse units, reduction in the IL unit sizes and number of bedrooms, and
reductions in the common and amenity spaces in the IL and AL building.
As detailed in Section 2.3.2, “Proposed Density,” and shown in Table 3.3-1, when
considered on its own (e.g., not part of the entire PUD of which it is a part), the
density of the Revised Proposed Project is less than The Atria, Rye Brook (both
in terms of sf per acre and number of units per acre). The Revised Proposed
Project is less dense than the Doral Greens PUD in terms of sf per acre. While the
number of units or dwelling units per acre for the Revised Proposed Project
exceeds that of other PUDs, it is still within the range of “low- to medium-
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-16 DRAFT
density” housing as defined by the Comprehensive Plan (see Section 2.3.4.1,
“Comprehensive Plan” and the Response to Comment 36). Further, the units
included in the Revised Proposed Project are considerably smaller than the units
included in other PUDs and, most importantly, they are age-restricted housing
units, including AL units, which have different impacts per unit than market-rate
housing.
Table 3.3-1
Comparative Project Density
Development
Dwelling
Units per
5,000 sf
Dwelling
Units per
Acre
Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Square feet
per Acre
Average
Unit Size
(sf)
The Arbors 0.8 6.9 0.37 15,900 2,304
The Atria, Rye Brook 3.9 34.1 1.11 48,352 ukn
Revised Proposed
Project
1.01
(1
(1.7.55)*
9.7
(14.5 8.8
(13.51)*
0.4946 21,169
20,032
1,069119
(IL)
2,215072
(TH)
647 (AL)
PUD with Revised
Proposed Project
0.877
(1.0.93)*
6.7.0
(8.41)* 0.3635 15,743407 1,846895
(1,645685)*
Doral Green 0.9 7.9 0.54 23,369 2,943
Sun Homes 0.4 3.6 0.28 12,109 3,364
Notes: * Includes Dwelling Units and Assisted Living Units
Considering the entire PUD District of which the Project Site is a part, with the
Revised Proposed Project the PUD would have 6.7.0 dwelling units per acre, of
which 4138 percent would be age restricted (see Table 3.3-1). Including the AL
units in the Revised Proposed Project, which are not dwelling units, the PUD
would have 8.41 total units per acre, more than half49 percent of which would be
age restricted and 17 percent of which would be AL units. With the Revised
Proposed Project, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the PUD District as a whole
would increase by 0.0605 FAR to 0.3635 FAR. Therefore, the Revised Proposed
Project would not result in a PUD that was significantly denser than other PUDs.
Further, the PUD of which the Revised Proposed Project would be a part would
consist of fewer units per acre and less sf per acre than Doral Greens, which
contains no age-restricted housing.
As analyzed in the DEIS and this FEIS, uses proposed by the Applicant (e.g., age-
restricted housing and assisted living) have different impacts on a per unit basis
than market-rate residential uses. For example, when compared to market-rate
housing, on a per unit basis, age-restricted housing generates fewer traffic trips,
places less (or no) burden on the school district, and places less burden on the
community’s parks and open space and most other community facilities. The two
uses have similar impacts on a per unit basis with respect to water and sewer
usage. Age-restricted housing tends to place a larger burden on EMS services than
market-rate housing. As such, regulating age-restricted housing at the same per
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-17 1/3/2020
unit density as market-rate housing does not appropriately take into account the
differences in impacts (i.e., beneficial and adverse) of the various uses.
Impacts related to site development, including impervious coverage, and site
disturbance and the necessary stormwater management, natural resource
protection, and construction staging as well as site-specific environmental factors,
are more meaningful than density when evaluating the physical impacts of a given
project. As shown in Table 17-1 of the DEIS and Table 3.17-1 in Section 3.17,
“Alternatives,” the Revised Proposed Project has 7.206.76 acres of impervious
coverage compared to the as-of-right residential building coverage of 4.92 acres
or, if the Project was built using the same size units as The Arbors, 7.06 acres. As
such, the impacts to natural resources and the impacts of constructing the Revised
Proposed Project are anticipated to be similar to the impacts of construction of
the as-of-right alternatives (see Response to Comment 152).
As discussed in the DEIS and this FEIS, the Project Site has been heavily
impacted by human development that has altered the topography and natural
features of the vast majority of the Site. The Revised Proposed Project will protect
the natural feature with the most beneficial ecological function, the stream and
wetland corridor on the western portion of the Site. As analyzed in Sections 2.8
and 3.8, “Visual Resources and Community Character,” the Revised Proposed
Project would break down the scale of the built environment through building
massing and articulation and the introduction of landscaped spaces throughout the
Site. The increase in height proposed, from three stories to four stories, would be
visually mitigated through the setbacks to the four-story portion of the building.
Comment 21: Comments were received questioning why age-restricted housing is the only use
proposed to be allowed by the Proposed Zoning and questioning why construction
of that use should be allowed at greater densities than other uses. (Schlank 040)
Schlank 040 (#319): Why is the Applicant requesting that senior living be the only
permitted use?
Schlank 040 (#323): A residential project of similar density was proposed and rejected
in the early 1970s. There is no evidence that the proposed restrictions on the ages of
occupants should alter the basic determination, and the issue of inconsistency with
community character continues to be an apparent “showstopper” for the proposal.
Response 21: The Applicant is proposing an integrated age-restricted residential community in
response to market demand. See Response to Comment 13. Age-restricted
housing and assisted living have vastly different impacts on a per unit basis than
market-rate residential uses. See Response to Comment 20.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-18 DRAFT
ZONING
GENERAL
Comment 22: A comment was received suggesting there was no evidence, such as an appraisal,
to support the statement in the DEIS that the “Proposed Zoning would not
adversely impact the existing zoning districts in the study area.” (Snyder 007)
Snyder 007 (#54): “Proposed zoning would not adversely impact the existing zoning districts
in the study area.” There are no appraisals or any other evidence to support that statement.
Response 22: The Revised Proposed Zoning would not change the allowable uses on the Project
Site. Rather, the Revised Proposed Zoning includes changes to the allowable
height and density of senior living facilities on the Project Site as well as
establishes additional, site-specific setback and area requirements (see Section
2.3.3, “Zoning”). The DEIS and FEIS analyze the potential impact of the Revised
Proposed Action on the uses and users within the surrounding zoning districts,
including potential impacts to visual and community character, air quality, noise,
and traffic. As stated in Section 2.8.3 of this FEIS, “Consistency of the Revised
Proposed Project with the Existing Visual and Community Character,” “in terms
of height, the Revised Proposed Project is consistent with the recommendations
of the Comprehensive Plan.” In the same section, the FEIS states that “the
setbacks of the proposed IL building from neighboring residences and Arbor
Drive are consistent with, or greater than, the setbacks of other four-story, and
taller, buildings to their neighboring residential properties.” Finally, as stated in
Section 2.3.2 of this FEIS, “Proposed Density,”
“With the Revised Proposed Project, the FAR of the PUD District as a
whole would increase by 0.0605 FAR to 0.3635 FAR. The PUD of which
the Revised Proposed Project would be a part would consist of fewer
dwelling units per acre (6.7.0 compared to 7.9) and less sf per acre
(15,743407 sf/acre compare to 23,369/acre sf) than Doral Green, which
contains no age-restricted housing. When compared to Sun Homes, the
PUD of which the Revised Proposed Project would be a part would consist
of more dwelling units per acre (6.7.0 compared to 3.6) and slightly more
sf per acre (15,743407 sf/acre compared to 12,109 sf/acre). The Revised
Proposed Project, and the PUD of which it would be a part, both have
smaller average unit sizes than both Doral Green and Sun Homes.”
Comment 23: A comment was received questioning why the Proposed Zoning was different in
nature than the section of the Village’s PUD ordinance that applies to The Arbors
and to other PUDs. (Schlank 040)
Schlank 040 (#309): Nature of the applicant’s proposed zoning amendments appears to
differ markedly from the nature of the matters addressed in the site-specific Arbors
Code. For each of the proposed zoning amendments, which ones does the applicant
believe are similar in nature to the ones in the Arbors site-specific section? Which ones
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-19 1/3/2020
are fundamentally different in that the changes would create a significant variance from
the laws that apply to other PUDs in the Village?
Response 23: The Revised Proposed Zoning was prepared to establish appropriate densities for
senior living facilities, as opposed to standard market-rate housing, as well as to
add site-specific setback requirements that were not included in the PUD zoning
district. §250-7E(5) of the Village Code, which applies only to the Arbors
Residential Development, provides administrative regulations with respect to
certain applications for building and site plan permits that specify the process by
which those applications are processed. In contrast, the Revised Proposed Zoning
proposes regulations for the height and density of senior living facilities on the
Project Site. The two zoning sections are not comparable.
Comment 24: Comments were received questioning why the Village would allow another non-
conforming PUD when The Arbors is already a non-conforming PUD. (Mignogna
001, Schlank 041)
Mignogna 001 (#7): The Arbors is a non-conforming PUD does the Village Board wish
to have another non-conforming PUD if so is the Board opening up a new can of worms
with regard to conforming issues?
Schlank 041 (#325): The office building was approved under the original Town of Rye
resolution dated June 19, 1973. Please clarify that it does not need to be rebuilt to meet
the current VRB requirements regarding the maximum height and floor area.
Response 24: The Revised Proposed Zoning, if approved, would guide the development of a
conforming PUD on the Project Site and the Revised Proposed Project would
include the demolition of the existing office building.
Comment 25: A commenter questioned whether other amendments to the Village’s PUD should
be considered, including changing the requirement for new PUDs to be north of
the Hutchinson River Parkway (the “Parkway”). The commenter also questioned
whether periodic reviews of any new zoning were appropriate. (Schlank 040,
Schlank 041)
Schlank 040 (#310): Does the applicant agree that the purpose of its proposed
amendments is to streamline the review process? If not, what is the objective? Would
the applicant object to periodic after-the-fact reviews of its proposed site-specific zoning
amendments? If so, which ones and why? In the applicant’s view, what would be a
suitable time period for such reviews?
Schlank 041 (#324): Type 1 revisions would include statements, where appropriate, that
clarify the Village will honor the terms of the original 1973 Town of Rye resolution for
the Arbors/900 King Street PUD. The Arbors/900 King Street PUD is located south of
the Hutchinson River Parkway in accordance with the terms of the 1973 Town of Rye
resolution which permitted PUDs to be located adjacent to or north of the Hutch. Please
clarify that it does not need to be relocated to meet the VRB requirement that all PUDs
must be located north of the Hutch.
Response 25: The Project Site is mapped within the Village’s PUD zoning district. As such, it
is not necessary to change the language of the PUD section of the zoning
ordinance with respect to the siting of new PUDs. If the Village determines that
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-20 DRAFT
other, unrelated, amendments are necessary to the Village’s zoning ordinance, it
has the authority to adopt those amendments.
Comment 26: Comments were received questioning the precedential nature of the Proposed
Zoning. (Barnett 047)
Barnett 047 (#361): They are dissolving our PUD and asking for zoning regulations to
make a brand-new PUD, one that really only benefits themselves, with a zoning text that
they say can’t be used by any future development.
Barnett 047 (#362): Why can’t another development in the future or some other
property, if something goes out of business, do this? What can’t on King Street if the old
age home that’s there falls into disrepair in 15, 20 years and you have a large property
there, why can’t you say, well, there’s a four-story building right up the road and it’s
right in this neighborhood, let’s build one, as well, because we have to compete with
them because we’re going to be competing against that project.
Response 26: With respect to the precedential nature of the Revised Proposed Zoning, it is
important to note that zoning is a legislative act within the jurisdiction of the
Village Board. As such, the Village Board has almost unfettered discretion. In
addition, every proposed zoning amendment must be considered on its own merits.
Accordingly, any approval of the proposed zoning in no way obligates the Village
Board to use it as a basis for rezoning another property. Of course, should the
Village Board believe that it is in the best interest of the Village to utilize the
proposed zoning elsewhere, it has the authority to do so.
PRIOR APPROVALS AND RESOLUTIONS
Comment 27: The Village Administrator stated that, “The 1998 Village Board Resolution
regarding the zoning status of the Project Site does not necessarily determine the
project’s ‘legal status’ or that it is ‘zoning compliant’ so those statements should
be deleted.” Other commenters, including the Planning Board, asked for
clarification on the relationship between the 1998 Resolution and the Proposed
Zoning. (Bradbury 017, Planning Board 018, Schlank 040)
Bradbury 017 (#203): The May 26, 1988 Resolution does not necessarily determine the
project’s “legal status” or that it is “zoning compliant” so those statements should be deleted.
Planning Board 018 (#216): Explain the relationship between, or impact of, the 1998
Resolution of the Board of Trustees (DEIS, Appendix B-2) and the proposed Zoning
Amendments and Concept Plan.
Schlank 040 (#313): The 1998 Village of Rye Brook Resolution states that, "any
modifications should continue to be governed by the PUD regulations in effect under
the Town Code as of the date of the original Site Plan Approval, rather than the
provisions currently governing a PUD under the Rye Brook Code."
Response 27: Comment noted. The 1998 Resolution, included as Appendix B-2 of the DEIS,
stated that, “The Site and all existing conditions, improvements, and information
as shown on the current site plan are hereby deemed to have been developed and
in accordance with the original site plan approval and the applicable regulations
of the Town Code (the “Approved Site Plan”) and, accordingly, are legally
conforming.”
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-21 1/3/2020
At the time of the approval of the PUD, of which 900 King Street is a part, all of
the property was within the municipal boundaries of the Town of Rye and,
accordingly, subject to the provisions of the Town of Rye Zoning Code.
Subsequently, on July 7, 1982, the Village was incorporated. The land comprising
the subject PUD, including 900 King Street, The Arbors, Harkness Park, and the
Blind Brook schools were all within the municipal boundaries of the new Village.
On July 24, 1984, the Board of Trustees adopted a Zoning Code for the Village.
With respect to amendments to a PUD, the Town of Rye Zoning Code requires
the consent of all of the owners within the PUD. The Village Zoning Code
contains no such requirement. There are state statutes as well as case law that
dictate what zoning code applies to 900 King Street. The first relevant state statute
is Town Law § 132, which reads in full as follows:
“A rule, regulation, or ordinance of a town shall be effective and
operative only in that portion of such town outside of any
incorporated village or city therein, except as otherwise
specifically provided by statute.”
In other words, as soon as the Village was incorporated, the Village became a
separate municipal entity and the Town’s Zoning Ordinance no longer governed
the subject property, except temporarily as set forth below.
In order to provide an opportunity for a newly incorporated Village to establish
its own codes, including zoning, § 2-250 of the Village Law provides in relevant
part as follows:
“For a period of two years after the date of incorporation, all
local laws, ordinances, rules or regulations, which otherwise
would apply to and affect only such part of a town as is outside
the limits of any incorporated village…including, but not limited
to, zoning ordinances, shall remain in effect in such village…as
if same had been duly adopted by the board of trustees….”
This statute further provides that the Board of Trustees may adopt legislation to take
effect before the two years have expired. In other words, once a village is incorporated
within a town, the town’s codes and ordinances remain in effect until superseded by
Village legislation, or for a period of two years, whichever occurs first.
Based upon the date of incorporation of the Village (July 7, 1982), and absent
intervening legislation, the Zoning Code of the Town of Rye would have
remained in effect until July 7, 1984, the expiration of the two year “grace period”
established by Village Law § 2-250. The Village Zoning Code would thereafter
have taken effect on July 24, 1984 when it was adopted by the Board of Trustees.
Notwithstanding the 1998 Village Board Resolution, pursuant to the clear and
unambiguous language of the foregoing state statutes, the Town of Rye Zoning
Code has been of no force and effect whatsoever within the boundaries of the
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-22 DRAFT
incorporated Village of Rye Brook since July 24, 1984. The consent provision of
the Town of Rye Code is, therefore, not applicable to the current zoning petition.
While the unambiguous language set forth in the Town of Rye Law and the
Village Law described above makes it clear that the Town of Rye Zoning Code
has no applicability within the Village, case law demonstrates that, even if it were
to be applicable (which the Applicant does not in any way concede), the consent
provision is violative of the Federal constitution and, therefore, invalid.
In practical terms, if the Town of Rye Zoning Code provision regarding consent
of the owners were applicable and enforceable, any single unit owner within The
Arbors could prevent any proposed amendment whatsoever with respect to 900
King Street. Numerous cases provide that such a consent provision cannot stand
because it is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power in violation of the
14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Those cases include Eubank
v. Richmond, 226 U.S. 137 (1912); Washington ex. rel. Seattle Title Trust Co. v.
Roberge, 278 U.S. 116 (1928); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356; Concordia
Collegiate Institute v. Miller, 301 NY 189 (1950); Crossroads Realty, Inc. v.
Gilbert, 109 NYS2d 59 (Supreme Court, Westchester County, 1951); In re N.Y.,
New Haven & Hartford R.R. Co., 198 NYS2d 353 (Supreme Court, Westchester
County, 1960); and General Elec. Co. v. New York State Dep’t of Labor, 936 F.
2d 1448 (2d Circuit, 1991).
The provisions of Town Law § 132 and Village Law § 2-250 are clear and
unambiguous. When the Village was incorporated, all Town Ordinances,
including the Zoning Ordinance, were rendered ineffective in the Village, except
for the two-year grace period established by Village Law § 2-250. Accordingly,
since July 24, 1984, when the Board of Trustees adopted a Zoning Code for the
Village, the only relevant and effective zoning provisions governing any property
within the Village were those contained in the Rye Brook Zoning Code.
Even if the Town of Rye Zoning Code were somehow deemed to be applicable to
900 King Street, the cases listed above demonstrate that the unanimous consent
provision is unconstitutional and unenforceable as an improper delegation of
legislative powers.
Comment 28: Several comments were received questioning the relationship between the
original approval for the Project Site (e.g., the existing office building and parking
lot) by the Town of Rye and the Proposed Zoning amendments and Concept Plan.
(Planning Board 018, Schlank 040, Schlank 068)
Planning Board 018 (#214): Explain the relationship, if any, between the property’s
original PUD approval by the Town of Rye and the proposed Zoning amendments and
Concept Plan.
Schlank 040 (#308): The Applicant should not be permitted to avoid its obligations
under the Town of Rye regulations by submitting proposed zoning amendments to the
Village without the consent of the other owners in the PUD...Demolition of the office
building would trigger a requirement to comply with the specifications of the Village
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-23 1/3/2020
zoning code. This does not mean the applicant can completely ignore the provisions of
the original Town of Rye resolution.
Schlank 040 (#311): Please include in the FEIS all known and relevant terms,
conditions, provisions, benchmarks and precedents reflected in the Town’s PUD
regulations and site-specific approvals.
Schlank 040 (#312): All of the permitted 250 dwellings have already been built in the
Arbors section of the PUD. So, under the Town’s ruling, the number of additional
dwelling units that can be built now is zero. Why does the applicant think the addition
of any dwelling units at all is consistent with the intent of the original PUD regulations?
Schlank 040 (#316): Why does the Applicant believe that any expansion beyond the
original footprint of the office building is consistent with the intent of the PUD
regulations and precedents?
Schlank 068 (#540): All but one of the alternatives presented in the DEIS involves
construction of new housing facilities, and this is not permitted by the site-specific
regulations that apply to 900 King Street.
Schlank 068 (#541): It would be helpful for the applicant to get an independent opinion
from an outside realtor about how other businesses might use the existing building.
Schlank 068 (#544): The Town Code also established a process by which any
modifications to the approved site plan for the 60-acre PUD must be signed by all the
owners of property within this PUD zone. In effect, this resolution provides assurances
to the property owners that no major changes will be made without our [Arbors’
property owners] consent.
Schlank 041 (#571): Type 2 revisions would include assurances that the Village will
also honor other rights and conditions specified in the original resolution for the
Arbors/900 King Street PUD. Specifically, the revisions should clarify that the Village
will enforce the following: (1) Please clarify that the Village will not approve any
changes in land use from those originally approved by the Town of Rye without the
consent of all the property owners in the PUD. For the Arbors/ 900 King Street PUD,
this means the application must be filed jointly by the individual owners of the 250
private properties as well as the owner of the streets and common areas (the Arbors
HOA). (2) Please clarify that the Village will not approve any changes in land use from
those originally approved by the Town of Rye if the proposed changes would violate the
1973 restrictions with regard to the maximum number of residences within a PUD. For
the Arbors/900 King Street PUD, the maximum has already been met (250 dwelling
units and/or 450 bedrooms or sleeping quarters as defined therein).
Response 28: See Response to Comment 27.
Comment 29: A comment was received suggesting that open space required by the original
approval by the Town of Rye to be permanently preserved should be preserved in
the Proposed Project. (Schlank 041)
Schlank 041 (#326): Please clarify that the Village will not approve any changes in land
use that infringe on areas that are designated as “permanent” open space in the Town of
Rye resolution.
Response 29: The Village Administration is not aware of any easement or other covenant that
restricts the use of any land on the Project Site for open space, other than the
easement benefitting the BBRUFSD for the purpose of the pedestrian path on the
Site’s eastern boundary, which will be improved with the Revised Proposed
Project. (See Appendix B-3 in the DEIS for the Site’s current deed, covenants,
and restrictions.)
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-24 DRAFT
PROPOSED ZONING
Comment 30: Comments were received questioning whether the Proposed Project, or a
modification thereof, could be constructed without modifications to the existing
zoning. (Planning Board 018, Snyder 045, Schlank 068)
Planning Board 018 (#217): Consider whether the Project, or a modified version thereof,
can be developed without amending the Zoning Code and instead relying on waivers by
the Board of Trustees or variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Snyder 045 (#351): It is so out of scale, and the developer should be able to follow your
text. There’s no absolute reason for them to have all these different uses.
Schlank 068 (#542): The discussion of alternatives should be updated to take into
account the provisions of those documents and to include additional realistic and
practical alternatives that will not require zoning waivers or amendments.
Response 30: The PUD zoning district grants wide latitude to the Lead Agency to establish the
project-specific densities and setbacks appropriate for development within the
PUD district. Section 250-7(E)(3) of the Village Code states that, “The Village
Board shall retain the jurisdiction to waive, in whole or in part, dimensional
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for flexibility of design in the site
plan.” The section goes on to specifically indicate that the density requirements
for residential uses, and by extension, senior living facilities, “may be waived, in
whole or in part, to permit additional floor area…if the development provides
affordable housing equivalent to 10 percent in number of the market-rate dwelling
units in such development.” As such, the Lead Agency has the authority to
approve the number of units proposed, as well as the GFA proposed, for the
Revised Proposed Project without modifying the PUD as the Revised Proposed
Project included a 10 percent affordable housing component. Similarly, the Lead
Agency has the explicit authority to “reduce the buffer in specific areas.” (Section
250-7(E)(2)(e)[1][d]) Therefore, the Lead Agency can also approve, without
modification to the existing zoning ordinance, the building and parking setbacks
included in the Revised Proposed Project.
Comment 31: The Village’s Planning Consultant request a comparison of the propose zoning
with the current site zoning. (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#132): The current PUD regulations should be considered the starting
point for the Applicant’s proposed zoning amendments and PUD Concept Plan. The
proposed 26,000 square feet per acre gross floor area and the combined 10.4 dwelling
units plus 4.8 assisted living units (total of 15.2 residential units per acre) should be
reviewed against the current requirements of 9,000 square feet per acre and 6 residential
units per acre, and other PUDs in Rye Brook, such as the Arbors (15,900 square feet per
acre and 7 units per acre), Sun Homes at Reckson (12,000 square feet per acre and 3.5
units per acre), BelleFair (1.9 units per acre), Doral Green (7.9 units per acre). The
proposed 45-foot building height and 4 story building should be compared to the current
35-foot building height for senior living facilities, and the proposed setbacks/buffers of
16 feet, 22 feet, and 70 feet should be compared to the current required buffers of 150
feet, 100 feet, and 50 feet. These comparisons should be clear when considering the new
zoning and waivers requested for the Proposed Action.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-25 1/3/2020
Response 31: As detailed in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project,” in response to public and
Lead Agency comments, and to reduce the potential for adverse impacts, the
Applicant has reduced the size of the Revised Proposed Project from what was
originally included in the DEIS. Specifically, the Applicant has reduced the size
of the project by 68,81889,098 gsf through reductions in the number of IL and
townhouse units, reductions in the IL unit sizes and number of bedrooms, and
reduction in the common and amenity spaces in the IL and AL building.
The comparative density of the Revised Proposed Project and the PUD of which
it is a part is described in detail in Response to Comment 20. The compliance of
the Revised Proposed Project with the Revised Proposed Zoning is detailed in
Section 2.3.3, “Zoning,” specifically Table 2.3-2.
The proposed three- and four-story IL and AL building is setback further from
Arbor Drive than the existing office building. The southernmost two-story
townhouse is setback approximately 8892 feet from the nearest PUD zoning
boundary, while the Village’s current zoning requires a 100 foot setback (i.e.,
buffer) from a PUD zoning boundary. The proposed townhouse would be located
behind existing vegetation to remain, as well as new vegetation that would be
planted. Similarly, the proposed AL building would be approximately 8784 feet
from the Site’s eastern PUD boundary, across from which is located Village Hall.
Finally, the northernmost townhouse and the northernmost wing of the IL
building would be 2530 and 7383 feet from the Site’s northern PUD boundary.
The Revised Proposed Project purposefully locates these buildings to the north to
minimize visual impacts from Arbor Drive as the Site shares a northern boundary
with the Hutchinson River Parkway.
The Revised Proposed Zoning would allow these deviations from the standard
PUD buffers by utilizing the Board of Trustee’s current power under the existing
PUD zoning to set site-specific PUD buffer requirements.
Comment 32: The Village’s Planning Consultant requested a comparison of proposed PUD
standards with existing PUD standards. (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#133): Revision of the PUD regulations is recommended in the Rye
Brook 2014 Comprehensive Plan, provided any changes made maintain “…Rye Brook’s
low density character,” which consists of the number of dwelling units, the size and
gross floor area of the units, and the type of buildings housing the units on a lot. Any
revised PUD standards should not stand out from, but should maintain the low density
character and complement the existing zoning and land uses in the neighborhoods
surrounding the Site, which are predominately attached townhomes, local civic
buildings (middle/high school, firehouse and village hall), and detached single family
homes...Consideration of the buffer/setback requirements should be based, as a starting
point, on the current PUD regulations because the Proposed Action is a completely new
use and concept plan for the Site. The consideration by the Village Board of revisions to
the current requirements should include a determination of the appropriate
setbacks/buffers for the size and location of the proposed building allowable under the
new zoning and its PUD Concept Plan regarding loading areas, roads, and parking areas,
and the environmental constraints of the site, such as the presence of steep slopes and
wetlands and wetland buffer areas.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-26 DRAFT
Response 32: As discussed in Section 2.3.4, “Public Policy,” and Section 2.8.3, “Consistency
of the Revised Proposed Project with the Existing Visual and Community
Character,” the Revised Proposed Project is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan’s recommendation to allow increased residential density at the Project Site
in a manner that maintains the predominantly low-density character of the
Village. As stated in Section 2.3.3, “Zoning,” specific buffers and setbacks
proposed as part of the Revised Proposed Project are appropriate for the buildings
and uses. Further, such buffers and setbacks support the ecological benefit of on-
Site environmental resources when balanced with the need to avoid and minimize
other potential adverse impacts (e.g., visual impacts). See Response to
Comment 20.
Comment 33: The Village’s Planning Consultant stated that, “The setbacks of the proposed
PUD Concept Plan do not conform with the proposed zoning, which would
require the Board to waive certain of the proposed zoning setbacks. The Applicant
should explain these differences.” (FP Clark 012, Timpone-Mohamed 043)
FP Clark 012 (#134): The setbacks of the proposed PUD Concept Plan are less
restrictive than the proposed zoning, which would require the Village Board to waive
certain of the setbacks in the zoning proposed by the Applicant. The Applicant should
explain the need for the differences.
Timpone-Mohamed 043 (#335): We had a question about the difference between the zoning
petitions requirements for setbacks in particular, and the setbacks that are part of the PUD
concept plan. Since this is a zoning that is directly related to the concept plan, it is unclear
why they don’t match. Right now, the PUD plan that’s in the DEIS actually doesn’t comply
with the zoning that they’re asking for. It wouldn’t comply; it would need a waiver.
Response 33: The Proposed Action has been modified such that the Revised Proposed Project
complies with the setbacks in the Revised Proposed Zoning. See also Section
2.3.3, “Zoning.”
Comment 34: The Village’s Planning Board questioned how the 40 percent gross land coverage
included in the Proposed Zoning compares with gross land coverage in other
existing PUDs and why 40 percent was chosen for the Proposed Zoning?
(Planning Board 018)
Planning Board 018 (#222): How does 40% gross land coverage compare with gross
land coverage in other existing PUDs? How was the 40% figure arrived at?
Response 34: The current PUD zoning regulations do not contain a maximum gross land
coverage (e.g., maximum impervious cover). As with the original zoning, the
Revised Proposed Zoning includes a 40 percent maximum land coverage, which
is less than the existing condition on-Site (42 percent) and only slightly more than
is proposed with the Revised Proposed Project.
As noted in the DEIS, the building coverage of the original project as a percent
of the total lot size would be less than Doral Greens, similar to that of The Arbors
and the Hilton Westchester, and slightly higher than 800 Westchester Avenue and
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-27 1/3/2020
the Doral Arrowwood Conference Center. With the Revised Proposed Project, the
Site’s building coverage as a percentage of lot area would continue to be less than
the Doral Greens and would be slightly higher than The Arbors. The Site’s total
land coverage as a percent of lot area with the Revised Proposed Project would
be similar to The Arbors and continue to be less than Doral Greens. In addition,
both the original project and the Revised Proposed Project, would reduce the
Site’s gross land coverage from the existing Site condition. Table 3.3-2 provides
a comparison of parcel size, building coverage, and gross land coverage for other
properties within the Village.
Table 3.3-2
Parcel Coverage Comparison
Site
Parcel
Size
(ac)
Building
Coverage
(ac)
Roads,
Drives,
Parking
(ac)
Total Site
Coverag
e (ac)
Percent
Building
Coverage
Percent
Other
Coverage
Percent
Total
Coverage
Existing Condition 17.77 2.17 5.29 7.46 12.22% 29.77% 41.99%
Original Project 17.77 3.14 3.91 7.05 17.67% 22.00% 39.67%
Revised Proposed
Project 17.77 2.9793 4.133.83 7.106.76 16.7149% 23.2421.5
5%
39.9538.0
4%
The Arbors 35.29 5.58 6.26 11.83 15.80% 17.73% 33.53%
The Arbors (w/o Arbor
Drive) 33.49 5.58 5.26 10.83 16.65% 15.70% 32.34%
800 Westchester Ave 44.94 5.46 6.30 11.76 12.15% 14.02% 26.17%
Hilton Westchester 35.52 3.80 7.10 10.89 10.69% 19.97% 30.67%
Doral Arrowwood Conference Center 105.93 10.67 13.51 24.18 10.07% 12.76% 22.83%
Doral Green 23.13 5.63 4.73 10.36 24.37% 20.47% 44.84%
Notes:
*includes area of pervious pavers Sources:
Westchester County GIS & 900 King Site Survey and Proposed Project (originally included as
Table 8-2 in the DEIS)
Comment 35: The Planning Board stated that, “The AL units should be considered ‘dwelling
units’ for the purposes of calculating the number of units of affordable housing
that are required for the Project. The Applicant should consider providing
additional affordable housing units beyond what is currently proposed.”
(Planning Board 018, Tazbin 071)
Planning Board 018 (#230): The assisted living units should be considered “dwelling
units” for the purposes of calculating the number of units of affordable housing that are
required for the project. The Applicant should consider providing additional affordable
housing units beyond what is currently proposed.
Tazbin 071 (#565): What about affordable housing units? I know there a lot of units
going up like this around the county and I’ve heard that other units have affordable
housing units. Would this have any?
Response 35: The requirement for providing affordable housing (AFFH) units is set forth in
Section 209-3F of the Village Code. That section states in part that affordable
units “…shall be provided as set forth in the table below when the new
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-28 DRAFT
construction of a minimum of 11 dwelling units is proposed in a site development
plan application.” (emphasis added)
The table referred to above bases the number of required AFFH units on the
“Number of Proposed Dwelling Units” (emphasis added). According to the chart,
a project comprising 41 to 50 dwelling units requires four AFFH units. For
projects over 50 dwelling units, the chart provides “1 additional AFFH Unit shall
be required for each additional increment of 10 dwelling units or part
thereof.”(emphasis added)
The Zoning Code defines a “dwelling unit” as follows: “A building, or portion
thereof, providing complete housekeeping facilities for one family.”
Inasmuch as the assisted living units do not contain kitchens, they do not provide
“complete housekeeping facilities” and, therefore, they are not dwelling units as
defined in the Village Code. Accordingly, they cannot be considered in the
calculation of the number of required AFFH units.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Comment 36: Comments were received requesting clarity on the Proposed Project’s consistency
with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. (FP Clark 012, Marrow 024, Timpone-
Mohamed 043, Rosenberg 063, Heiser 065, Klein 070)
FP Clark 012 (#136): The proposed amendments in the Applicant’s zoning petition and
the accompanying proposed PUD Concept Plan would develop a high density,
largescale multi-family building on a relatively small site that is not consistent with the
recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan in our opinion. The Applicant should re-
consider the zoning petition to reduce the allowable building bulk, the number of units
per acre and the gross floor area per acre to be more compatible with existing zoning
adjacent to and surrounding the Site.
Marrow 024 (#251): The Comprehensive Plan is a roadmap for the future...it gives the
Village options. The Comprehensive Plan talks about the Site at 900 King Street and
preserving the low density character of the Site.
Timpone-Mohamed 043 (#334): I think one of the biggest issues is the requirement in
the Comprehensive Plan that any changes made would maintain Rye Brook’s low
density character. It is clear that the number of units and the GFA that’s being proposed
isn’t in that category of low density.
Rosenberg 063 (#524): The building is too big, too bulky. The scale and massing of the
proposed building needs to be further reduced in what is presented in the FEIS.
Heiser 065 (#527): I think the buildings are too big and I think you are talking about too
many people.
Klein 070 (#558): I really would like to see a reduction in size and density
Response 36: Based on comments from the Lead Agency and the public regarding the impacts
of the original project on community character, the Applicant has reduced the size
of the Revised Proposed Project by 68,81889,098 gsf—a 15.520 percent
reduction in gross floor area.
As described in Section 2.3.2, “Proposed Density,” the Comprehensive Plan
encourages increased density for new residential development within PUDs and
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-29 1/3/2020
suggests such density should not alter the Village’s overall low-density character.
With regard to allowable density for new residential developments within PUD
districts, the Comprehensive Plan prioritizes preservation of the Village’s low-
density residential character. The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically opine
or ascribe a density limit or cap for new PUD district residential development,
which would be antithetical to the explicit recommendation to allow increased
density in the PUD zones. As noted in the Comprehensive Plan, the Village is
developed with a wide variety of residential densities. In general, the
Comprehensive Plan recognized the Village’s single-family zoning districts (e.g.,
R-5 to R-25) as “low density,” allowing up to one unit per 5,000 sf of lot area. Low-
to medium-density is recognized as generally occurring within the Village’s two-
family zoning districts (e.g., R-2F), which allow two units per 5,000sf000 sf of lot
area. Finally, the medium- to high-density residential areas are defined as attached
housing, regardless of the number of units per lot area. Explicitly included in this
definition of high-density housing is Doral Greens, The Arbors, and Talcott Woods.
The Revised Proposed Project proposes 172156 dwelling units, a density of 9.78.8
dwelling units per acre, or 1.101 dwelling units per 5,000 sf. If AL units, which
are not dwelling units, are included in calculation, total units per acre would be
14.513.51, or 1.755 units per 5,000 sf. Using the Comprehensive Plan’s measure
of density, the Revised Proposed Project would be classified as “low- to medium-
density.” Using the Comprehensive Plan’s consideration of housing type,
regardless of the number of units, though the Revised Proposed Project would be
considered medium- to high-density housing, similar to The Arbors and Doral
Greens.
It is important to note that, as described in the Response to Comment 20, age-
restricted housing and assisted living uses have different impacts on a per unit
basis than market-rate residential uses. For example, when compared to market-
rate housing, on a per unit basis, age-restricted housing generates fewer traffic
trips, places less (or no) burden on the school district, and places less burden on
the community’s parks and open space and most other community facilities. The
two uses have similar impacts on a per unit basis with respect to water and sewer
usage. Age-restricted housing tends to place a larger burden on EMS services than
market-rate housing. As such, regulating age-restricted housing at the same per
unit density as market-rate housing does not appropriately take into account the
differences in impacts (i.e., beneficial and adverse) of the various uses.
Comment 37: A comment was received suggesting that the Comprehensive Plan’s
recommendation for allowing four-story AL facilities was likely targeted to the
proposal at the Hilton Rye Brook Site and that it was not aimed at the Project Site.
(Schlank 040)
Schlank 040 (#318): At the time the Plan was written, the Hilton Westchester had
proposed developing a 100-unit assisted-living buildings and a memory-care facility
with 25 units. This is likely the site the Plan had in mind when it suggested that the
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-30 DRAFT
Village might consider allowing assisted-living or senior care facilities to be four stories
or 45 feet in height. The 2014 plan offers suggestions that relate to keeping the office
buildings and making it more marketable. The Plan does not mandate (or even suggest)
the kind of radical redevelopment of the portion of the PUD that is discussed in the
DEIS…the plan suggests that, “the Village clearly desires to carefully control the type
of largescale development that is contemplated by the PUD zone.”
Response 37: The Rye Brook Comprehensive Plan recommends allowing AL and senior
congregate housing to be four stories or 45 feet in height in the PUD District to
address nonconformity issues (pg. 196 of Comprehensive Plan).
3.4. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND TOPOGRAPHY
Comment 38: The Village’s Planning Consultant requested an analysis demonstrating site
changes necessary to support the proposed development and amendments to the
site plan to reduce tree removal and grading impacts. (Straubinger 003, Levy 004,
Snyder 007, FP Clark 012, Snyder 045)
Straubinger 003 (#13): Increased analysis of alternatives to the Project that will
incorporate less – bulk, density, and scale: impact on ground disturbance and wetlands
and impact on vegetation.
Levy 004 (#21): There appears to be a lot of impervious surface
Snyder 007 (#26): The applicant’s proposal will impact 74% of the property, thereby
effectively changing substantially all of the property.
Snyder 007 (#39): Applicant should state exactly how many acres are being disturbed
(regardless of whether the area was previously disturbed or not); which existing vegetated
areas and the size of those areas are being disturbed with a plan showing same.
Snyder 007 (#40): A Chart should be provided to show the difference between the {the
physical impacts of the} proposed zoning, existing zoning, and existing conditions, so
that they can more easily be compared.
Snyder 007 (#61): The DEIS should analyze reducing the project’s scope to i) avoid
erosion, ii) avoid blasting, iii) avoid cut/fill, iv) keep all buffers intact, and v) eliminate
steep slope disturbance.
Snyder 007 (#63): The reduction in impervious surfaces is a mere 0.41 acres…the
project is affecting the wooded areas by twice that. Alternatives should be considered
which do not affect the wooded areas and do not require impacting 74% of the Property.
FP Clark 012 (#138): However, the cut and fill and grading required to achieve the
proposal results in 13.17 acres of disturbance, the creation of 0.72 additional acres of
steep slopes and the removal of 213 trees on the Site. The Applicant should explain the
specific aspects of the existing site that prevent it from properly functioning as an age-
restricted community. The PUD Concept Plan should be reconsidered by the Applicant
to reduce disturbance to the Site.
Snyder 045 (#349): They are affecting over 13.17 acres of the 17-acre property. They
like to say that they are reducing impervious surfaces, but it’s by like 0.4 of an acre, and
they are affecting 13 of their acres, and affecting, really, the entire site in multiple ways.
Snyder 045 (#350): Project will have significant adverse environmental impact, which
includes significant adverse impacts to wetlands, steep slopes, existing vegetation,
aesthetics, community character, as well as affecting the community in real ways, such
as having adverse noise, contaminants in the air, for a significant period of time.
Response 38: In response to comments received, the Revised Proposed Project reduces the gross
floor area of the original project by 68,81889,908 gsf and reduces the area of the
Site proposed to be disturbed by construction from 13.17 acres with the original
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-31 1/3/2020
project to 12.54 acres with the Revised Proposed Project. The area proposed to
be disturbed is shown on Figure 2-1 and within the full size engineering plans,
sheets C-110, “Demolition,” C-200, “Erosion & Sediment Control Plan,” and C-
400, “Grading” (see Volume 4). The Applicant also notes that with construction
of the Revised Proposed Project, the amount of impervious area on the Project
Site would be reduced from its current condition by 0.367 acres.
As described in Section 2.4.1, “Soils,” the Revised Proposed Project was designed
to create a relatively level Site. Age-restricted residential communities seek to
provide pedestrian paths and sidewalks with minimal slope so residents can easily
walk throughout the Site. However, reducing the number of townhouse units and
reconfiguring the layout of that portion of the Site allowed for the townhouses to
be located at a slightly higher elevation than the original project, reducing the
amount of “lowering” or “cut” required. As with the original project, the Revised
Proposed Project includes “raising” the elevation of the eastern side of the Site to
level the terrain. The proposed grading also allows for underground parking,
which in addition to reducing the adverse visual impact of expansive surface
parking lot, reduces the amount of impervious cover on the Site concomitant
potential for adverse stormwater impacts.
As stated in Section 2.4.2, “Topography,” the Revised Proposed Project would
create new areas of steep slope on the Project Site, most notably in areas around
the access ramp to the underground parking area (see Figure 2-2 and Table 2.4-4).
These areas of steep slope are necessary to allow for a grading plan that
accommodates the underground parking, the need for a relatively flat pedestrian
experience outside of the buildings, and the need to meet the existing grades on
Arbor Drive at the driveway connections. Another small area of moderately steep
slope would be created within the landscaped area between the two driveways on
Arbor Drive. This area would provide visual screening of the buildings and Site
from Arbor Drive.
With respect to the proposed removal of trees, as stated in Section 2.7.4, “Trees,”
the number of trees proposed to be removed has been reduced from 213 with the
original project to 128134 with the Revised Proposed Project. As was the case
with the original project, the majority of the trees proposed to be removed with
the Revised Proposed Project are less than 25 inches diameter breast height (dbh).
Only 8 trees proposed for removal have a dbh of 25 inches or greater. As shown
on sheet C-130 of the full size plans in Volume 4, most of the trees proposed for
removal are in two areas: (1) the emergency access drive, and (2) north and east
of the existing stormwater basin. With respect to the trees proposed to be removed
in the northeast of the Site, the removal is required to allow for a secondary means
of accessing the Project Site. The tree removal proposed around the existing
stormwater basin is required to accommodate the expansion of the stormwater
basin as a result of the modern stormwater system that is being installed as part
of the Revised Proposed Project.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-32 DRAFT
The overwhelming majority of the area within the proposed Limit of Disturbance
(LOD) for the Revised Proposed Project is within areas disturbed by the
immediately preceding Site development (e.g., construction of the existing office
building and parking lot). Any disturbance outside the existing building and
parking lot footprint was likely disturbed by the prior development on the Site
(e.g., the residential use). By concentrating development activities in areas
previously disturbed by construction, the Revised Proposed Project avoids and
minimizes impacts to mature vegetation, native soils, and native topography to
the maximum extent practicable. For example, the soils proposed to be disturbed
are classified as “Urban Fill.” This classification is the consequence of prior
disturbance through mass grading and building construction. The majority of
proposed steep slopes disturbance occurs on human-made steep slopes, including
those around the existing stormwater basin on the Site’s eastern edge and the
vegetated slope towards the Site’s western edge. (See Appendix B for site plans
depicting the condition of the Site prior to development of the current office
building as well as the changes in topography proposed by construction of the
office building.)
Table 17-1 in the DEIS provides a direct comparison between the area proposed
to be disturbed for each of the alternatives studied and the original project.
The potential impacts of the Revised Proposed Project on natural resources is
described in Section 2.7, “Vegetation and Wildlife.” As described in Sections 2.6,
“Stormwater,” and Section 2.16, “Construction,” the Revised Proposed Project
would implement a Village- and State-approved Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan (ESCP) to avoid and mitigate the potential for significant adverse impacts
from erosion during construction.
Comment 39: Comments were received opining that the cut-and-fill required for the Proposed
Project is “enormous” and that alternatives to the underground parking or
elimination of the IL building should be considered in order that the impacts from
the cut-and-fill be reduced. (Snyder 007)
Snyder 007 (#52): The cut and fill is an enormous volume of material. The Applicant
should be sure that no blasting will be required, rather than just claim it is not
anticipated. Additionally the impacts {of the cut/fill/grading} on the neighborhood in
terms of noise, dust, vermin, vibration, and other adverse impacts should be more
adequately analyzed.
Snyder 007 (#60): The DEIS should provide alternatives to the underground parking and as
a proper mitigation measure, eliminate the independent living component from the project.
Response 39: As noted in Section 2.4.1, “Soils,” the Revised Proposed Project reduces the
excavation, or cut, required as well as the fill required within the Site. As shown in
Table 3.4-1, the Revised Proposed Project also reduces the net cut-and-fill
compared to the original project, which further mitigates potential adverse impacts
related to on-Site construction activities and off-Site trucking of earthen material.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-33 1/3/2020
Table 3.4-1
Cut-and-Fill Analysis
Total Cut
(cubic yards)
Total Fill
(cubic yards)
Net Cut-and-Fill
(cubic yards)
Original Project ±42,600 ±51,600 ±9,000 net import
Revised Proposed Project ±37,95838,158 ±36,686
±1,272472 net
importexport
Source: JMC Engineering.
The potential impacts associated with the cut-and-fill proposed are evaluated in
the DEIS and this FEIS, specifically in Section 2.6, “Stormwater Management,”
Section 2.7, “Vegetation and Wildlife,” and Section 2.16, “Construction.”
Comment 40: The Village’s Planning Consultant stated that, “The DEIS states that areas of
steep slopes along the northern, western, and southeastern portion of the Project
Site have been avoided. However, based on Figure 4-5, the slopes along the
northern and western portions of the Site have been disturbed and in some cases
result in additional steep slopes. The Applicant should explain specifically how
the areas have been avoided. Based on review of the PUD Concept Plan the areas
have not been avoided. The only way to completely avoid these areas would be
for the PUD Concept Plan to be reconsidered by the Applicant to reduce
disturbance to the Site.” (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#139): The [DEIS] states that areas of steep slopes along the northern,
western, and southeastern portion of the Project Site have been avoided. However,
based on Figure 4-5 “Proposed Steep Slope Condition,” the slopes along the northern
and western portions of the site have been disturbed and in some cases result in
additional steep slopes. The Applicant should explain specifically how the areas have
been avoided. Based on review of the PUD Concept Plan the areas have not been
avoided. The only way to completely avoid these areas would be for the PUD Concept
Plan to be reconsidered by the Applicant to reduce disturbance to the Site.
Response 40: As shown in Table 2.4-3, the Revised Proposed Project reduces the impact to the
existing steep slopes on the Project Site from the original project. Specifically,
and as shown in Figure 2-2, the Revised Proposed Project avoids the existing area
of steep slopes in the northern portion of the Site adjacent to the Hutchinson River
Parkway right-of-way. Similarly, the Revised Proposed Project does not disturb
the areas of steep slopes in the western portion of the Site, between the existing
office building and the Arbors, which are primarily located within the wetland
buffer for Wetland A. Finally, the Revised Proposed Project reduces the area of
the Site proposed to be impacted by construction from 13.21 with the original
project acres to 12.54 acres with the Revised Proposed Project.
Comment 41: The Village’s Planning Consultant stated that, “The DEIS then concludes that
there is a possibility of a perched water flowing beneath the asphalt into OW-2,
one of the temporary observation wells installed during the preliminary
geotechnical investigation. The Applicant should explain how this conclusion
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-34 DRAFT
was made. If there is perched water beneath the Site, why were extra monitoring
wells not installed to explore the extent of the perched water. The Applicant
should explain why the two locations for the groundwater observation wells were
chosen and why other locations on the Site were excluded from groundwater
observation.” (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#137): The DEIS then concludes that there is a possibility of a perched
water flowing beneath the asphalt into OW-2. The Applicant should explain how this
conclusion was made. If there is perched water beneath the site, why were extra
monitoring wells not installed to explore the extent of the perched water? The Applicant
should explain why the two locations for the groundwater observation wells were
chosen and why other locations on the site were excluded from groundwater
observation.
Response 41: AKRF’s preliminary geotechnical engineering report for the Project Site was
prepared in 2017 (see DEIS Appendix I). As part of this exploration, two wells
(OW-1 and OW-2) were installed near the eastern and northwestern areas of the
Site where proposed buildings were to be sited. The locations of the wells were
intended for geotechnical engineering purposes in developing design and
construction recommendations for the proposed foundations. Section 6.7.3 of the
DEIS indicated that due to the difference in groundwater levels (6 feet in OW-1
and 2 feet in OW-2), localized areas of perched water may be present at the
Project Site. No definitive conclusion was stated that the water was perched. The
section also indicated that additional efforts were to be taken to confirm the depth
to groundwater. Additional testing was performed by AKRF in January of 2018
to further investigate the possibility of perched groundwater. An additional
observation well was drilled and installed approximately 10 feet southwest of
OW-2 and the depth to groundwater in wells OW-1, OW-2 and OW-2X were
measured at 3.73 feet below grade, 1.14 feet below grade, and 0.98 feet below
grade. These results indicate the presence of high groundwater, not perched
groundwater. The observed groundwater condition is very consistent with the area
where low permeability, heterogeneous dense glacial till overlying a shallow
bedrock results in a variable shallow groundwater condition.
3.5. WATERS AND WETLANDS
Comment 42: The Village’s Planning Consultant recommends that the Applicant re-consider
the zoning proposed and the PUD Concept Plan to reduce or eliminate disturbance
of wetlands buffers on the property so the PUD Concept Plan complies with the
requirements of Chapter 245 of the Village Code, which recommends avoidance
of impacts. (Snyder 007, FP Clark 012, Timpone-Mohamed 043)
Snyder 007 (#62): The project has significant grading requirements and would reduce
the drainage area to at least one of the wetlands by at least 1 acre, and impact 2.79 acres
of wetlands through regrading, new construction, and new plantings. Project alternatives
should be considered whereby these impacts [waters and wetlands] are eliminated since
wetlands have important function in the environment.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-35 1/3/2020
FP Clark 012 (#141): Before mitigation is considered by the wetland regulations,
Chapter 245 encourages the conservation of wetland buffers and recommends re-design
of impactful projects to eliminate or reduce impacts. We recommend that the Applicant
re-consider the zoning proposed and the PUD Concept Plan to reduce or eliminate
disturbance of wetlands buffers on the property so the PUD Concept Plan complies with
the requirements of Chapter 245.
Timpone-Mohamed 043 (#336): Right now the application -- the PUD concept plan that
is being provided actually does not comply with the requirements of the wetlands law.
That will have to be resolved in the FEIS.
Response 42: In response to public comments and to reduce potential impacts to wetland buffers
as well as to mitigate the overall impact of the Revised Proposed Project, the
Revised Proposed Project reduces the total amount of construction required
within 100 feet of on-Site wetlands to 2.25 acres—a reduction of 0.33 acres (13
percent) from the original project (see Section 2.5.2, “Direct Impacts to Wetland
and Waterbody Buffer Areas”). Further, the Revised Proposed Project reduces the
total amount of additional impervious area proposed to be created within 100 feet
of on-Site wetlands to 0.159163 acres—a reduction of 0.017013 acres (107.4
percent) from the original project (see Table 3.5-1). The increase in impervious
area within 100 feet of on-Site wetlands would be approximately 6,9267,100
square feet with the Revised Proposed Project. As discussed in Section 2.6,
“Stormwater,” the amount of impervious area within the Project Site would be
reduced by 0.367 acres from the current condition with the Revised Proposed
Project.
Table 3.5-1
Cumulative Changes to Wetland Buffers by Wetland Area
Existing
Buffer
Area
(acres)
Existing
On-Site
Impervious
Coverage in
Buffer
(acres)1
Proposed Impervious in
Buffer (acres)
Net Increase/Decrease in
Impervious in Buffer
(acres)
Original
Project
Revised
Proposed
Project
Original
Project
Revised
Proposed
Project
Wetland A /
Stream A 2.363 0.025 0.005 0.000 -0.020 -0.025
Wetland
B/C 0.893 0.098 0.370 0.366 0.272 0.268
Wetland D /
Stream S 1.444 0.630 0.473 0.465469 -0.157 -0.165161
Wetland E2 0.248 0.000 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.081
Total 4.948 0.753 0.929 0.912916 0.176 0.159163
Note:
1 There is additional impervious area within the 100-foot buffer that is located on-Site but
outside of the proposed Limit of Disturbance as well as additional impervious area on
adjacent parcels.
2 The FEIS considers the grasscrete emergency access drive to be impervious, while the DEIS
considered this area to be permeable.
Source:
JMC Engineering
As noted above, approximately 0.753 acres of land within 100 feet of the on-Site
wetlands and the proposed limit of disturbance is currently impervious (e.g.,
building or parking area). These areas currently provide no beneficial wetland
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-36 DRAFT
buffer function. As shown in Figure 2-3, with the Revised Proposed Project,
approximately 0.56 acres of vegetated functional wetland buffer would be
converted to impervious surface (adjacent to Wetlands B/C, E, and Stream S);
however, approximately 0.40 acres of currently impervious wetland buffer
(adjacent to Wetlands A and D) would be restored to a vegetated condition.
Approximately 0.35 acres of wetland buffer that is currently impervious will
remain impervious. The remaining 0.94 acres of wetland buffer that would be
affected by construction of the Revised Proposed Project would consist of
regrading and revegetating areas that are currently maintained lawn or wooded
areas, most of which have been previously disturbed by previous on-Site
development (see Figure 2-3). By locating development within the central,
previously disturbed and developed portion of the Project Site, the total amount
of impervious area within the Site’s wetland buffers would increase by
approximately 6,9267,100 sf with the Revised Proposed Project from its current
condition.
Also as noted in Section 2.5.2, “Direct Impacts to Wetland and Waterbody Buffer
Areas,” the Revised Proposed Project would not adversely impact the ecological
functions of the Site’s wetland buffers. Both Wetlands A and D would realize a
net decrease in the amount of impervious surface within their 100-foot Village-
regulated wetland buffers as compared to the current condition. Wetland A would
have a 0.025-acre reduction of impervious surface within its wetland buffer as a
result of removing the existing building and Wetland D would have a 0.165163
acre reduction of impervious surface within its buffer as a result of removing the
existing parking lot. These actions will allow for additional infiltration of runoff
in the buffers.
Buffers surrounding Wetlands B, C, and E would have slight increases in
impervious areas with the Revised Proposed Project as compared with the
existing condition. It is important to note, however, that Wetlands B, C, and E are
of low ecological value, deriving their hydrology from the discharge of drainage
from the Parkway or other off-Site practices and that the wetland buffers are
dominated by invasive species or manicured lawn and are heavily disturbed by
development. As such, in their current condition, they provide little in the way of
functional benefit to their associated wetlands.
Section 245-8(A) of the Village Code states that the following factors, highlighted
below should be considered, to determine “the impact of the proposed activity
upon public health, safety and welfare, flora and fauna, rare and endangered
species, water quality, and additional wetland functions.”
Wetland hydrology: The Revised Proposed Project would avoid interference
with existing wetland hydrology and wetland water circulation. The Site’s
five wetlands occur around the periphery of the Project Site; therefore, and as
described in more detail above, redevelopment of the interior of the Project
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-37 1/3/2020
Site would not substantially change wetland water circulation or hydrologic
inputs to the Site’s wetlands.
Wetland flora and fauna: By avoiding direct disturbance to all wetlands,
impacts to wetland flora and fauna are avoided. The Revised Proposed Project
would limit disturbance to natural vegetation by keeping development within
the previously developed portions of the Site with the exception of minimal
tree clearing for the loop road and emergency access drive. All landscape
plantings will be native species and will include revegetation (i.e.,
enhancement) of portions of the existing lawn within the wetland buffers,
thereby improving the habitat functions of the existing wetland buffers.
Endangered species: There are no New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)-listed or federally listed threatened,
endangered, rare, or special concern plant or animal species on the Project
Site, as discussed in Section 2.7, “Vegetation and Wildlife.”
Public health, safety, and welfare: Wetland functions would be retained on the
Project Site for the benefit of public health, safety, and welfare. This would be
achieved principally by reducing overall impervious surface coverage on-Site
by 0.367 acres and increasing the treatment of stormwater runoff.
Sedimentation and turbidity: The Revised Proposed Project would prevent
the influx of sediments and other pollutants to the Site’s wetlands and waters
by treating runoff from the Revised Proposed Project in a new stormwater
management system that would improve treatment and result in reduced post-
construction runoff rates, in accordance with NYSDEC GP-0-15-002, as
discussed in Section 2.6, “Stormwater Management.”
Influx of toxic chemicals or thermal changes: The Revised Proposed Project
would avoid the release of toxic or heavy metals through the construction of
the proposed stormwater management system. The stormwater management
system would remove such pollutants through sediment settling and
absorption/adsorption. Thermal changes to wetland water supply would be
avoided by reducing the amount of impervious surface on the overall Site by
0.367 acres, which would increase stormwater infiltration and minimize the
potential for thermal impacts. In addition, the stormwater management plan
will utilize sub-surface runoff storage that would similarly avoid the thermal
impacts associated with surface detention ponds.
Cumulative effects: The cumulative effects of the Revised Proposed Project
would not affect or jeopardize off-Site/downstream wetlands because the
Revised Proposed Project’s stormwater management plan and landscaping
plan would prevent degradation of stormwater runoff and would use native
plants to improve vegetation diversity on the Project Site.
As noted by the Village’s Planning Consultant, Chapter 245 of the Village Code
recommends that projects be located and designed to minimize impacts to
wetlands and wetland buffers. The consistency of the Revised Proposed Project
with that standard is discussed below.
Wetland Buffer A—The area proposed to be disturbed within Wetland Buffer
A consists of manicured lawn, which provides relatively low levels of wetland
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-38 DRAFT
buffer functionality, as well as impervious surface in the form of a portion of
the existing building, which provides no beneficial wetland buffer function.
The Revised Proposed Project would remove the existing portion of the
building within the wetland buffer and replace it with porous surface (e.g.,
lawn), which would improve the buffer function from its current condition. The
remainder of the disturbance proposed within this wetland buffer area would
consist of regrading existing areas of manicured lawn, which would be returned
to the same condition. As such, there would be no change to the existing
wetland buffer function in this area. Importantly, the Revised Proposed Project
avoids disturbing the wooded area of the wetland buffer, which currently
provides the highest level of ecological value to the wetlands within the Project
Site.
Wetland Buffers B and C—Wetlands B and C are located primarily off-Site,
within the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)-owned
right-of-way for the Parkway. The on-Site area within 100-feet of the
wetlands is characterized primarily by manicured lawn, which provides
relatively low levels of wetland buffer functionality, an asphalt parking lot,
which provides no beneficial wetland buffer function, and, in the northeastern
most corner of the buffer, an area of shrubs and trees. The Revised Proposed
Project would limit disturbance primarily to the area of the buffer that is
manicured lawn or existing parking lot. Approximately sixten trees within the
wetland buffer would be removed. Overall, the amount of impervious area
within 100 feet of Wetlands B and C after construction of the Revised
Proposed Project would increase by approximately 0.268 acres, or 11,674 sf
from the current condition.
The Applicant and the Lead Agency considered an alternate placement of the
proposed IL and AL building that would “slide” the building and access drive
to the south, toward Arbor Drive. With this alternative configuration, the
amount of new construction and grading within the buffer to Wetlands B and
C would be less than the Revised Proposed Project. Given the comparatively
low ecological value of Wetlands B and C (see the Wetland Functional
Analysis included as DEIS Appendix D-5), as well as the relatively low
functionality of their wetland buffers, and the relative importance of reducing
the visual impacts of the Revised Proposed Project from Arbor Drive, the
layout of the Revised Proposed Project (with the buildings further north)
balances the need to reduce visual impacts and reduce adverse impacts to
wetland buffers.
Wetland Buffer E—As with the original project, the disturbance to Wetland
Buffer E with the Revised Proposed Project is solely attributable to the
construction of the secondary, emergency Site access. As described in the
DEIS, the Applicant evaluated the potential for the emergency access drive
to be located in a different location that would have fewer impacts to Wetland
Buffer E (see DEIS Figure 10-2). This alternative location, however, would
have required a steeper driveway connection and the turning movements into
and out of the Site from this driveway would be more constrained than in the
proposed location. For these reasons, and after conversations with Village
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-39 1/3/2020
staff, the Lead Agency decided, and the Applicant agreed, to advance the
proposed emergency access location.
Wetland/Stream Buffer D/S—Wetland D is a human-made settling basin that
was created to serve as the stormwater detention basin for the existing 900
King Street improvements, as well as several off-Site locations (e.g., Village
Hall and RBFD firehouse). Off-site areas within 100-feet of the stormwater
basin include a portion of Village Hall and the Rye Brook Police Department
(RBPD) station, the parking lot for the police station, and a portion of the
building associated with the cell tower on Village property. On-Site,
approximately 0.630 acres of the buffer around Wetland D and Stream S—
the stream that drains the stormwater basin—is improved with the existing
parking lot for 900 King Street. This area provides no beneficial wetland
buffer function. Other portions of the wetland/stream buffer include areas of
maintained lawn and areas of woody vegetation. In order to comply with
current stormwater regulations, redevelopment of the Project Site requires the
expansion of the existing stormwater basin. (This is true even though the
Revised Proposed Project is reducing the amount of impervious surfaces on
the Project Site from the current condition.) As such, impacts to the wetland
buffer associated with this expansion are not avoidable. In addition, the
stormwater basin and its surrounding area is in relatively poor ecological
health; it is dominated with invasive species. Therefore, it is necessary to
impact the area around the stormwater basin to improve the current
functionality of both the basin and the buffer. In addition, the area of the
wetland buffer currently improved with a parking lot will be removed with
the Revised Proposed Project. Replacing this area would be various
permeable surfaces (e.g., lawn) and a small portion of the access road as well
as a small portion of the IL building. In total, the Revised Proposed Project
will modify 1.29 acres within 100 feet of Wetland D/Stream S. The overall
amount of impervious area within this wetland buffer will be reduced by
0.22163 acres compared to the existing condition.
Finally, as described in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project,” the Revised
Proposed Project was reduced by 68,81889,098 gsf from the original project,
thereby reducing the overall width of the IL building. This reduction in width
allowed the IL and AL building to either be set back further from The Arbors or
set back further from the existing stormwater basin. Given the relative importance
of reducing the visual impacts of the Revised Proposed Project from The Arbors,
and the fact that the Revised Proposed Project is already reducing the amount of
impervious area adjacent to the stormwater basin, the layout of the Revised
Proposed Project (with the buildings further east) appropriately balances the need
to reduce visual impacts and reduce adverse impacts to wetland buffers.
Comment 43: The Village’s Planning Consultant and Planning Board, along with members of
the public, opined that any change to the existing condition of the site within 100
feet of a delineated wetland should be considered “disturbance” and would
require mitigation at at least a 2:1 ratio pursuant to Chapter 245 of the Village
Code. (Snyder 007, FP Clark 012, Timpone-Mohamed 043)
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-40 DRAFT
Snyder 007 (#51): The DEIS must provide specific measures to appropriately mitigate
that impact {to wetland buffers}. A plan [alternative] should also be prepared that has
no wetland or steep slope disturbances.
FP Clark 012 (#140): Based on the currently proposed PUD Concept Plan, the Proposed
Action would require 5.58 acres of buffer and/or wetland mitigation for the 2.79-acre
disturbance. The DEIS indicates that the current plan would provide only 1 acre of
mitigation, which is inconsistent with the requirements of Chapter 245. The Applicant
should provide the required area of mitigation.
Planning Board 018 (#240): The Planning Board recommends requiring compliance
with the current requirements of Chapter 245 of the Village Code and upholding its
historic interpretation and application of Chapter 245 to require all activities in the
regulated wetland buffer to be mitigated, regardless of whether the surface of the land is
currently pervious or impervious.
Response 43: As described in Section 2.5.4, “Wetland Buffer Mitigation,” the Applicant has
identified on- and off-Site wetland buffer mitigation areas that would satisfy the
Planning Board’s historical interpretation of the mitigation required pursuant to
the Village’s Wetland Ordinance. On-Site, wetland buffer mitigation would be
incorporated into the overall Landscape Plan for the Revised Proposed Project.
The specific wetland buffer planting plan would be finalized during the site plan
approval process. The plan would include a mixture of the following: replanting
select areas within wetland buffers that would be re-graded with a diverse mix of
woody and herbaceous hydrophytic (i.e., wetland) vegetation; selectively planting
areas within the wetland buffer that would not be disturbed by the Revised
Proposed Project with native plants to increase floristic diversity and wetland
functions; and, removal of invasive species within select areas of the on-Site
wetland buffers. Areas of conceptual wetland buffer mitigation on-Site totaling
approximately 2.4 acres are identified in Figure 2-4. If wetland buffer mitigation
in excess of the amount that can be accommodated on-Site is required by the
Planning Board, the Applicant would improve off-Site wetland buffer areas as
identified and approved by the Superintendent of Public Works such that the total
amount of on- and off-Site wetland buffer areas improved totaled 4.50 acres. The
off-Site improvements could include the removal of invasive species and debris,
as well as select plantings of appropriate vegetation.
3.6. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
STORMWATER
Comment 44: A comment was received expressing concern about the Proposed Project’s
potential impact on downstream flooding conditions. (Zimmerman 046)
Zimmerman 046 (#357): Concerned about flooding, which has been a major concern in
the Village of Rye Brook. We are very concerned about both of these things in this
development, which is in Rye Brook proper.
Response 44: The Revised Proposed Project would reduce post-construction peak runoff rates
in all analyzed storm events from pre-construction conditions. This is a result of
the stormwater improvements included in the Revised Proposed Project,
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-41 1/3/2020
including underground infiltration systems, a reduction in impervious surfaces,
and the expansion of the existing stormwater detention basin.
Stormwater runoff is conveyed from the 900 King Street Site, through a stream that
empties into the aforementioned pipe, and then conveyed into the drainage system
running along King Street. A downstream stormwater analysis was performed by
the Applicant’s engineer, JMC, to determine the potential for flooding on the
existing 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe running underneath Arbor Drive. This
pipe was chosen for analysis because all drainage that will be affected by the
Revised Proposed Project is upstream of this pipe. This analysis is summarized in
the report Existing Downstream Storm Sewer Analysis (see DEIS Appendix C-2)
and demonstrates that the existing pipe under Arbor Drive has the capacity to
accommodate the projected stormwater flow from the Project Site.
Comment 45: The Village’s Consulting Engineer noted that, “The Boring Locations Plan
prepared by AKRF does not show the locations of PB-1 and PB-2. The locations
of these borings must be provided.” (Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#124): The Boring Locations Plan prepared by AKRF does not show the
locations of PB-1 and PB-2. The locations of these borings must be provided.
Response 45: The locations of PB-1 and PB-2 are depicted on Sheet C-100 (see Volume 4).
Comment 46: The Village’s Consulting Engineer stated that, “Based on the existing drainage
piping that is shown on the watershed maps, the area tributary to the drain inlet at
the entrance to the Hutchinson River Parkway South (from North Ridge Street)
should be included in the “Bypass Area.” Where does the drainage go from the
drain inlet that is located on the exit ramp (to King Street) of Hutchinson River
Parkway North?” (Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#122): Based on the existing drainage piping that is shown on the
watershed maps, the area tributary to the drain inlet at the entrance to the Hutchinson
River Parkway South (from North Ridge Street) should be included in the “Bypass
Area”. Where does the drainage go from the drain inlet that is located on the exit ramp
(to King Street) of Hutchinson River Parkway North?
Response 46: A set of drawings titled Drainage Structures Rehabilitation on Hutchinson River
Parkway, dated March 19, 1986, was acquired from the NYSDOT and used to
supplement the information from the JMC survey. Structures, pipes, and flow
arrows, from the 1986 drawings have been added to the site plan depicting the
direction of flow of stormwater runoff through the pipes. Stormwater runoff
collected by the drain inlet located at the exit ramp of the Northbound Hutchinson
River Parkway to King Street is conveyed northeast to the Parkway’s drainage
system running along the centerline of the Parkway. The bypass area drainage
divide has been updated on JMC’s drawing DA-2A titled “Proposed Drainage
Area Map” (see Appendix D) to include the catch basin, and its associated
drainage area, located in the southbound lane of the Parkway.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-42 DRAFT
Comment 47: The Village’s Consulting Engineer stated that conservative infiltration rates
should be used for areas where infiltration testing cannot occur due to the presence
of the existing building. The Village’s Consulting Engineer also requested more
information on test pits and percolation tests and stated that a future site plan
application may require test pits and percolation tests witnessed by the Village.
(Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#119): It is required that percolation tests and test pits must be conducted in
the vicinity of all infiltration practices including Detention Pond 1B and infiltration
systems 1A-2 and 1A-3 to determine feasibility of infiltrating stormwater and the
presence of rock or groundwater. The applicant did perform a percolation test near
system 1A-2, however tests were not performed near Pond 1B or for system 1A-3 (due
to the presence of the building); we recommend use of conservative infiltration rates in
these areas until actual infiltration rates can be field verified.
Oliveri 011 (#120): The locations of all test pits and percolation tests must be
superimposed on the watershed maps contained in the SWPPP. The percolation test
method and the methodology of how the percolation rate was translated into an
infiltration rate for the stormwater model must be provided.
Oliveri 011 (#121): Any future site plan approval for this project may require test pits
and percolation tests to be conducted at the time of the application. All tests must be
witnessed by the Village.
Response 47: A conservative percolation rate of 1 inch per hour was used in the area of
infiltration system 1A-2 until percolation tests can be performed. These
percolation test will be performed after the existing building has been demolished.
The NYSDEC requires a minimum percolation rate of 0.5 inches per hour to
install an infiltration system.
All test pit and percolation test locations are depicted on both the existing and
proposed drainage area maps included in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) (Drawings 1, 1A, 2 &2A).
Any additional test pits and percolation tests that may be required will be
coordinated and witnessed by the Village. This will be addressed as the site plan
approval process progresses.
Comment 48: The Village’s Consulting Engineer stated that, “The SWPPP cites the New York
State Stormwater Design Manual in that if the hydrology and hydraulic study
shows that the post-construction 1-year 24-hour discharge rate and velocity are
less than or equal to the preconstruction discharge rate, providing 24-hour
detention of the 1-year storm to meet the channel protection criteria is not
required. Pre- and post-construction discharge velocities must be provided.”
(Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#123): The SWPPP cites the New York State Stormwater Design Manual in
that if the hydrology and hydraulic study shows that the post-construction 1-year 24 hour
discharge rate and velocity are less than or equal to the preconstruction discharge rate,
providing 24 hour detention of the 1-year storm to meet the channel protection criteria is
not required. Pre- and post-construction discharge velocities must be provided.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-43 1/3/2020
Response 48: Pre- and post-construction discharge velocities for the 1-year storm event have
been provided in Appendix C of the SWPPP, which is included as Appendix D.2
Comment 49: The Village’s Consulting Engineer made several technical comments on the
design of the stormwater system and requested certain technical modifications to
the system’s design. (Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#112): Additional catch basins should be considered within the town house
areas and front/side entry drive to avoid excessive runoff travel down the loop roads and
possibly into Arbor Drive.
Oliveri 011 (#116): Hoods should be added to all drainage structure outlets.
Oliveri 011 (#125): Sizing calculations must be provided for all proposed drainage piping.
Oliveri 011 (#126): More specific storm-tech chamber details and layouts drawn to scale
should be included as opposed to generic details.
Oliveri 011 (#127): The “Schedule of Inverts” tables for the two infiltration systems on
Sheet C-903 appear to include the incorrect designations and overflow weir elevations.
Oliveri 011 (#128): The invert elevations on each Stormtech chamber section (Sheet C-
903) appear to have been provided for the incorrect chamber models. All invert
elevations, section dimensions, and detail titles must be corrected.
Oliveri 011 (#129): Overflow weir elevations must be reconciled among the “Schedule of
Inverts” tables on Sheets C-903 and C-904, and with the invert elevations provided on C-500.
Oliveri 011 (#130): Greater detail must be provided for how the “Initial Water Quality
Volume”, “Adjusted Water Quality Volume”, and “Minimum Runoff Reduction
Volume” values were calculated (Appendix C of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan). Calculations must also be provided for how runoff reduction volumes are
provided in the infiltration systems.
Oliveri 011 (#131): Water levels must be shown on each Stormtech chamber section
(Sheet C-903) and each outlet control structure section (Sheet C-904) for all design
storms, including the 90th percentile rainfall event.
Response 49: An additional catch basin has been added to the end of each driveway to the
townhouses, as depicted on drawing C-500 (see Volume 4).
A detail for a Hooded Outlet (#19) has been added to drawing C-902 and a note
has been added to the Notes and Legends Drawing (Drawing C-010) calling for
hoods to be installed on all drainage structure outlets (see Volume 4).
Appendix K has been added to the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan which
includes sizing calculations for all proposed drainage piping (see Appendix D).
2 The SWPPP in Appendix D was prepared based on an interim site plan (the “pFEIS Plan”) that had the
same basic layout, including the location of the driveways, townhouses, stormwater practices, and
buildings; but that had slightly more impervious surfaces interior to the loop driveway. The Revised
Proposed Project has less impervious surface than the plan in the SWPPP, and those differences are limited
to the interior of the ring road around the IL and AL building. The stormwater practices, both the design
and location, would remain unchanged from the interim plan to the Revised Proposed Project. Therefore,
the SWPPP accurately reflects the intended stormwater system for the Revised Proposed Project and may
be slightly conservative as it accounted for more impervious surface than is currently proposed.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-44 DRAFT
A plan view, that is to scale, has been added to the Stormtech Chamber details on
Drawing and C-904 (see Volume 4). These details have been updated to include
all pertinent Stormtech Chamber information.
The “Schedule of Inverts” has been updated and coordinated between all plans
and reports.
Additional calculation sheets have been added to Appendix C of the SWPPP to
clarify the “Initial Water Quality Volume,” “Adjusted Water Quality Volume,”
“Minimum Runoff Reduction Volume,” and how runoff reduction volumes are
provided in each of the infiltration systems (see Appendix D).
Water levels for each analyzed storm have been added to each Stormtech
Chamber detail on drawing and C-904 (see Volume 4).
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
Comment 50: The Village’s Consulting Engineer stated that the “Site disturbance proposed is
greater than the maximum 5 acres allowed under the NYSDEC Design Manual.
The proposed disturbance appears to be greater than 13 acres at one time. This
presents great concerns with regard to sediment and erosion control during
construction. This will require a NYSDEC waiver with adequate use of Best
Management Practices before a final site plan can be approved.” (Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#103): Site disturbance proposed is greater than the maximum 5 acres
allowed under the NYSDEC Design Manual. The proposed disturbance appears to be
greater than 13 acres at one time, this presents great concerns with regard to sediment
and erosion control during construction. This will require a NYSDEC waiver with
adequate use of Best Management Practices before a final site plan can be approved.
Response 50: Comment noted. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plans (ESCPs) (Drawings C-
200 through C-205) that are included in the site plan submission set have been
updated to further clarify the disturbances throughout each particular phase and
how the stormwater runoff will be treated and mitigated during each of these
phases (see Volume 4). Square footages and acreages have been added to these
plans and also to the notes included on each plan. Section VI of the SWPPP, titled
Soil Erosion & Sediment Control, and has also been updated to include more
detail of the phasing process (see Appendix D).
Comment 51: The Village’s Consulting Engineer made several technical comments on the
design of the ESCP and requested certain technical modifications to the plan’s
design. (Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#104): Square footage of disturbance should be noted for each construction
phase on the sediment and erosion control plans.
Oliveri 011 (#106): No details have been provided for the proposed temporary sediment
basin. An analysis to size the temporary basin and outlet pipe/structure should be
included to demonstrate adequate capacity for the large disturbance proposed and
extended construction time anticipated.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-45 1/3/2020
Oliveri 011 (#107): The plan notes call for “hay bale filters” on drain inlets, these
should be noted as “silt sacks.”
Response 51: Square footages and acreages have been added to the ESCPs and also to the notes
included on each of these plans.
The sizing analysis for the temporary sediment basin, along with all
appurtenances, has been included in Appendix C of the SWPPP (see
Appendix D). A detail of this basin is included on drawing C-903 (see
Volume 4).
The Construction Phase 2 Sequence on drawing C-201 has been updated to show
“silt sacks” instead of “hay bale filters” (see Volume 4).
Comment 52: The Village’s Consulting Engineer made several comments with respect to the
proposed construction phasing as it relates to the avoidance of erosion during
construction. (Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#105): Construction phase 1 should denote when asphalt is removed from
the existing parking lot, asphalt should be maintained during building demo.
Oliveri 011 (#108): It may be necessary to further stage disturbance in the town house
areas & south wings of the A.L. facility since the temporary sediment basin is removed
by phase 5 of construction and no further temporary sediment basins or traps seem to be
proposed. Individual sediment traps or basins should be added during these phases of
construction as needed.
Response 52: The Construction Phase 1 Sequence on drawing C-200 has been updated to ensure
all existing asphalt shall remain during the existing building demolition (see
Volume 4).
Silt fence has been added to drawing C-204 downgradient of all areas to be
disturbed during construction of the townhouses (see Volume 4). It has been
determined by JMC that the silt fence, accompanied by the already installed silt
sacks, will adequately treat runoff coming from the disturbed soils during this
phase of construction, and individual sediment traps or basins will not be
necessary. Square footages and acreages of disturbance have been added to
drawing C-204 for the townhouses (see Volume 4).
3.7. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
Comment 53: Comments were received regarding the potential impacts of the Proposed Project
on the wildlife on, and proximate to, the Project Site. (Carravone 002, Levy 067,
Levy 072)
Carravone 002 (#11): there is so much beautiful wildlife, (deer, rabbits, turtles) in
my/our back yards, where are they supposed to go?
Levy 067 (#537): We have seen deer and red-tail hawks inhabiting the land behind 900
King Street. We are concerned with the habitat disturbance and loss for those and other
animals. Having wildlife around us is also a part of our quality of life.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-46 DRAFT
Levy 072 (#567): I just wanted to make sure this was noted. I observed over the past
couple of months that more than just squirrels but there are also deer and Canadian geese
actually rest and actually I believe breed, I have baby deer every spring born on the grass
at 900 King Street and I just would, if possible, just how that will affect their life.
Response 53: As indicated in Section 7.2.2 “Wildlife,” of the DEIS, “the Project Site does not
provide high-quality habitat for wildlife due to the existing development on and
adjacent to the Site and the lack of any sizeable areas of undeveloped wooded land.
As such, wildlife expected to occur on-Site would include urban tolerant species.”
Section 7.3.2, “Wildlife,” of the DEIS adds that, “the Project would not have an
adverse impact on rare, threatened, or endangered species, nor would it have an
adverse impact on significant natural communities,” as neither are known to be
present on-Site. During the construction period, there would be a temporary
disruption of habitat, however, immediately adjacent to the Project Site is a similar
habitat that would be available to wildlife. After the construction period, the
Revised Proposed Project would result in an increase of 0.367 acres of permeable
coverage (lawn habitats), resulting in an increase in the amount of habitat currently
found on-Site.
Comment 54: Comments were received regarding the impact of the tree removals that will be
necessary for the Proposed Project. In addition, commenters requested more
information on the magnitude and type of impacts that would occur from the tree
removal (e.g., shade trees, mature trees) and clarity with respect to the amount of
vegetation along the Site’s northern boundary and southern boundary that is
proposed to be removed. (Snyder 007, FP Clark 012)
Snyder 007 (#53): A true representation of the disturbance should be
provided…landscaping can be adequately reviewed…evaluate its impact on The Arbors.
The “majority” of the existing vegetation along the Site’s northern boundary and
between Arbor Drive and the southernmost townhouse cluster would be preserved. The
meaning of “majority” should be clarified.
Snyder 007 (#64): The project requires 686 significant trees to be removed, resulting in
reduced shade and tree habitat that even temporarily could be a significant adverse
impact. The new trees planted will not provide shade cover as much as the old ones
being removed.
FP Clark 012 (#142): The Applicant has not identified the impact of the loss of 213
mature trees on the existing site due to the excessive disturbance to site to achieve the
PUD Concept Plan. The FEIS should address the impacts of the loss of mature
vegetation and the Applicant should reconsider the PUD Concept Plan to reduce
disturbance to the Site.
Response 54: As stated in Section 2.7.4, “Trees,”, the Revised Proposed Project would require the
removal of approximately 128134 trees with 6 inches dbh or greater, of which 7477
trees have a diameter of 10 inches dbh or greater, and 4 of which are considered
“significant” under the Village Code. This is a decrease from the tree removal
contemplated with the original project, as shown in Table 3.7-1. In addition, as
further discussed in Section 2.7.5, “Mitigation Measures,” the Revised Proposed
Project includes the planting of 438 new trees and 309 new shrubs, which would fully
mitigate the loss of the 128134 trees to be removed as required by the Village Code.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-47 1/3/2020
Table 3.7-1
Tree Removal
DBH of Tree Removed
Trees Removed
Original Project Revised Project
Less than 10 dbh 79 5457
10 to 24 dbh 120 6669
25 to 36 dbh 12 6
37 to 48 dbh 2 2
49 dbh or more 0 0
Total 213 128134
Sources: Village Zoning Code Section 235-18; AKRF, Inc.
As stated in Section 2.7.4, “Trees,”, “there would be temporary impacts of reduced
on-Site shade and tree habitat associated with tree loss during the construction
period.” Sheet C-100 in Volume 4 includes an Existing Conditions plan, which
depicts the locations of the inventoried trees. Sheets C-130 and C-131 in Volume 4,
include an updated tree removal plan. As noted in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed
Project,” the Revised Proposed Project would preserve more existing vegetation
along the southern property line with Arbor Drive than was the case with the
original project as a result of a shift in the location of the western-most driveway.
Comment 55: Comments were received regarding the Applicant’s plan to mitigate the removal
of Village-regulated trees. The Village’s Planning Consultant inquired as to why
not all of the trees the Applicant proposes to plant would count as “mitigation.”
The attorney for The Arbors HOA stated that the Applicant cannot plant trees
within the Arbor Drive ROW as it is not owned by the Applicant. (Snyder 007,
FP Clark 012)
Snyder 007 (#65): The tree plan envisions adding trees along Arbor Drive. Alternatives
need to be considered since the applicant has no right to plant trees on Arbor Drive since
it is owned by The Arbors.
FP Clark 012 (#143): The DEIS states that 212 of the 438 trees proposed to be planted
would meet the requirements of Section 235-18 of the Tree Ordinance. The Applicant
should explain how the other 226 do not meet this criteria of the Code Section and why
the Applicant is proposing non-complying trees.
Response 55: Table 2.7-3 details the required tree mitigation per Section 235-18 of the Village
Code. The Revised Proposed Project would be required to plant at least 8487 trees
that have a caliper of 2 to 2.5 inches dbh. The Revised Proposed Project proposes
to plant 438 trees and 309 shrubs, as shown on sheet L-300 in Volume 4. All 408
trees would be at least 2-inch caliper. All trees would be installed in accordance
with the Village’s planting guidelines.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-48 DRAFT
3.8. VISUAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER
VISUAL CHARACTER OF PROJECT SITE
Comment 56: Comments were received questioning the methodology for and locations of the
photosimulations presented in the DEIS. Specific comments included requests for
additional photosimulations from vantage points within The Arbors, balloon
test(s), and removal of computer-generated trees in Figures 8-20 and 8-21.
(Snyder 007, Snyder 045, Klein 062)
Snyder 007 (#43): Not only is the size of the independent living building nearly more
than 100,000 square feet larger than the existing office building, the height of the
building is more than 6 feet taller. The applicant should be required to prepare a visual
analysis comparing the existing structure to that proposed. The visual breaks that the
applicant alludes to in the DEIS are not forthcoming and should be presented so that the
public can truly see the magnitude of the project.
Snyder 007 (#66): The Visual Study is insufficient. It was not performed using any
proven methodology and the preparer has indicated it utilized a standard smartphone
camera, rather than a 55 mm lens, typically utilized as the industry standard. Moreover,
no balloon test was provided so that The Arbor residents and all Village residents could
determine its visibility, particularly due to the project’s proposed increased height and
massiveness, with its extensive use of the property.
Snyder 007 (#68): photographs must be taken throughout The Arbors during leaf-off
conditions and computer simulated to render the proposed buildings, including lighting
and mechanical equipment at full build-out. At least 25 locations should be selected
within The Arbors, including locations from second story windows inside of residences.
Snyder 045 (#377): Unless they are showing someone on the ground, they are not
showing someone from their second floor window.
Snyder 045 (#378): If you look at their visuals they are totally deficient. They are not
really formed and done with proper methodology. So we would hope that once the
project is scaled down, that a proper visual analysis will be prepared.
Klein 062 (#506): No balloon tests have been done. These should be conducted and
pictures added to Volume 2, Chapter 8 to show from different locations
Klein 062 (#507): As suggested by public comment, permission should be sought to
take pictures from 2nd floor windows of selected Arbors residences
Klein 062 (#508): Figures 8-20 and 8-21 have trees added by computer graphic. These
should be removed and replaced with appropriate pictures showing proper view sheds.
Response 56: The visual analyses included in the DEIS, including the photosimulations, were
performed in accordance with NYSDEC-approved guidelines, and using
industry-standard, state-of-the-art methodology. The locations were selected by
the Village Board and its consultants as documented in the adopted DEIS Scoping
Outline. The general methodology consisted of the following:
Taking photographs that are reflective of what could be seen by a person
standing at the vantage points specified in the approved DEIS scoping outline;
Creating an electronic three-dimensional (3-D) model of the existing terrain
on and around the Project Site based on Site-specific survey information and
2-foot contour data provided by Westchester County Geographic Information
System (GIS);
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-49 1/3/2020
Aligning the existing conditions photos with the 3-D model using computer
software that allows for various adjustment of the model view to account for
the unique perspective of each individual photograph;
Creating an electronic 3-D model of the Proposed Project, inclusive of the
proposed grading and the proposed building locations and size;
Producing a snapshot of the computer-generated 3D model from each vantage
point location that is aligned with the existing condition photograph; and,
Using photo-editing software to “remove” the existing buildings from the
existing condition photograph, “add” the location and size of the proposed
new buildings and new topography/roads, and then add façade and ground
materials to the location of the new site buildings and infrastructure.
This methodology produces a photosimulation that appropriately locates and
scales the proposed new buildings and topography from each existing condition
location. The result is a “before” and “after” picture demonstrating the first person
point of view of the project from various vantage points.
For photosimulations in Figures 8-20 and 8-21 of the DEIS, existing on-Site
natural trees were simulated with computer-generated trees. This was necessary
to accurately depict the visibility of the proposed buildings with “new” trees
added in the foreground. The computer-generated trees and tree cover depict the
potential for the proposed IL and AL building to be visible from the Parkway
through the existing tree cover.
Balloon testing is not considered state-of-the-art for visual impact assessment. If
properly executed, balloon tests allows the public to see the height of a proposed
structure at a single point. Balloon tests do not provide an observer with context,
including the size, shape, color, or articulation of proposed new structures, which
are important to understand the visual impacts of a building, or buildings. In
addition, balloon tests can be unreliable. Weather conditions can affect the
accuracy of the balloon’s placement. For those reasons, the Lead Agency required
the Applicant to prepare photosimulations of the original project using actual
photographs and 3-D computer modeling.
The Village Board and its consultants selected the locations for the
photosimluations, as stipulated in the approved scoping document. The selected
vantage points represent the maximum potential for the original project to be
visible from The Arbors. Vantage points further west or south within the Arbors
would likely not have a view of the Project Site given intervening topography and
buildings. Finally, changes in views from private property as a result of a project,
including second-story windows, are generally not considered to be an
environmental impact under SEQRA. Rather, SEQRA encourages the evaluation
of publicly accessible views to determine whether there is a “detrimental effect
on the perceived beauty of,” or that causes a “diminishment of the public
enjoyment and appreciation of…[or]…impairs the character or quality of” a
public resource. The visual impact analyses included in the DEIS and this FEIS
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-50 DRAFT
demonstrate that the IL and AL building would be visible from certain vantage
points. See Section 2.8, “Visual Resources and Community Character,” for a
more complete discussion of the impacts of the Revised Proposed Project.
Comment 57: A comment was received opining that the proposed removal of trees would create
a significant adverse visual impact. (Snyder 045)
Snyder 045 (#376): One thing that should be noted is in connection with the visual
impact. So there’s over 686 trees that are being removed. When they show those little
line of sight and they show someone standing in the trees, there’s a huge magnitude of
all these mature trees being removed.
Response 57: As stated in Section 2.7.4, “Trees,” the number of trees proposed to be removed
has been reduced from 213 with the original project to 128134 with the Revised
Proposed Project. As was the case with the original project, the overwhelming
majority of the trees proposed to be removed with the Revised Proposed Project
are less than 25 inches dbh. Only 8 trees proposed for removal have a dbh of 25
inches or greater. As shown on sheet C-130 of the full size plans in Volume 4, a
large portion of the trees proposed for removal are in two areas of the Site: (1) the
proposed emergency access drive, and (2) north and east of the existing
stormwater basin. With respect to the trees proposed to be removed in the
northeast of the Site, removal of trees from this area will not significantly change
the view into the Site from publicly accessible vantage points. There will still be
significant tree coverage between the Project Site and both King Street and the
Parkway with the Revised Proposed Project. With respect to the tree removal to
the north and east of the existing stormwater basin, these removals are necessary
to facilitate the slight expansion of the stormwater basin, as well as to regrade the
area surrounding the basin. Most of the trees proposed for removal in this area are
directly between Village Hall and the Project Site. As such, their removal would
not change the view of the Project Site from King Street because Village Hall
would screen views of this change. The trees proposed to be removed further
south of Village Hall, in the area closer to the cell phone tower on Village
property, would similarly not change the view into the Project Site from King
Street as Village Hall’s property sits on a “hill” in this location, blocking views
of the interior of the Project Site from King Street.
While some trees will be removed along the Site’s southern boundary with Arbor
Drive, the Revised Proposed Project includes a landscaping program, as described
in Section 1.4.4, “Landscaping.” In addition to meeting the minimum
requirements for tree plantings (i.e., 8287 trees) to mitigate the removal of
Village-regulated trees (i.e., 1281134), the proposed landscaping program will
significantly enhance the aesthetics of the Project Site (i.e, 438 trees and 309
shrubs), which is currently dominated by a 5.3-acre surface parking lot and an
approximately 94,600-sf footprint monolithic office building.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-51 1/3/2020
Comment 58: Comments were received suggesting that the proposed height and “size” of the IL
and AL building would be a substantial increase from the current condition and
create an adverse impact owing to its visibility from public and private rights of
way as well as Harnkess Park. (Snyder 007, Schlank 040, Barnett 047)
Snyder 007 (#70): the DEIS does not adequately evaluate the visual impacts created by
the project, nor does it provide mitigation measures utilized to address adverse visual
impacts, namely a reduction in the scale of the massive project.
Schlank 040 (#307): DEIS indicates the applicant feels the proposed facility is
consistent with the character of the community. What factual support does the applicant
have for this conclusion in terms of: (a) zoning laws of either the Village of Rye Brook
or the Town of Rye, (b) past precedents involving either the Village or the Town, or (c)
court decisions in which similar shifts in population and architectural style were not
seen as inconsistent with community character?
Barnett 047 (#360): It would be extremely visible and a part of Rye Brook that really
does not look like this proposed development.
Barnett 047 (#364): Also doesn’t change the fact that we still can all see it, a large
percent of us daily, and honestly, way more than that as you pull up.
Barnett 047 (#365): You are, by your numbers, saying 14 feet, maybe 20. That’s a story
above what the current building is. So when we’re talking about numbers that equate to
a story, which by definition is about 14 feet, that’s a substantial increase. You’re talking
about a building now at 14 feet higher. So this would be substantial.
Barnett 047 (#366): To say that one road of The Arbors would be able to see this
property and so it’s not such a big deal, ask an Arbor’s resident, you know, has to.
Response 58: The Revised Proposed Zoning would permit the construction of four-story senior
living facilities, as specifically recommended by the Village’s Comprehensive
Plan. This is a one-story increase over the height that is currently permitted within
the PUD district. To mitigate the potential for this increase in height to have an
adverse visual impact, the Applicant has done the following:
Increased the setback of the four-story portion of the IL building to 304494
feet from Arbor Drive and 488 feet fromnearest unit in The Arbors with the
Revised Proposed Project, an increase of 12 and 2430 feet, respectively, from
the original project.
Decreased the peak of the roof closest to The Arbors by 710.5 feet from the
original project. With this change, the peak of the roof of the four-story IL
building closest to The Arbors, which extends only for approximately 30
feetthe rear half of the building, would be approximately 117.5 feet higher in
absolute elevation than the height of the fascia of the existing 3-story office
building, which extends for the length of the entire building. However, this
proposed peak would be approximately 541550 feet from the nearest
townhouse in The Arbors, approximately 264243 feet further away than the
existing office building. The remainder of the peak of the 4-story section of
the IL roof facing The Arbors would be approximately 7 feet higher in
elevation than the top of the existing office building and would be set back
even further.
The setbacks of the proposed IL building from neighboring residences and Arbor
Drive are consistent with, or greater than, the setbacks of other four-story, and
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-52 DRAFT
taller, buildings to their neighboring residential properties (see Figures 2-6 to 2-
10 and Table 2.8-1). See also Response to Comment 59.
CONSISTENCY OF PROPOSED PROJECT WITH COMMUNITY CHARACTER
Comment 59: The Village’s Planning Consultant questioned the visual and community
character impacts of the Proposed Project, which contains a much larger building
(in terms of square footage) than the existing office building. (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#145): the DEIS presents large commercial buildings in Rye Brook in
this section to point out that there is a precedent of large buildings in Rye Brook, it is
the visual impacts and changed community character of adjacent residential properties
and the neighborhoods immediately surrounding the Proposed Action that is of concern,
especially as the proposed GFA would be significantly higher than the current PUD
zoning allows. In our opinion, the locations and siting of the commercial buildings
mentioned are very different from the situation of the Proposed Action. These buildings
are not impactful to the character of the residential neighborhoods they are adjacent to
or within by virtue of a number of factors.
The Atria at BelleFair is separated by significant topography from the BelleFair
residential neighborhoods and by distance from the closest residences in Greenwich,
C.T. The Doral/Arrowwood Conference Center is located on a very large site separating
it by great distances from the Doral Green homes, area roads and the Blind Brook Golf
Club. The Hilton at Rye Brook is located on a large parcel that is enclosed by significant
topography and separated from adjacent homes and area roadways by substantial grade
changes. And, 800 Westchester Avenue is located on an insular large site surrounded by
roadways, and it is not located near any residences.
Response 59: The Revised Proposed Project would develop an integrated age-restricted
residential community with approximately 376,182355,905 gsf. The three- and
four-story IL and AL building would be approximately 331,882314,459 sf
(244,147234,078 sf of IL and 87,73580,381 sf of AL) and would be 41.6481 feet
tall. The two-story townhouses would total approximately 44,30041,443 sf. It is
noted that this is a reduction of approximately 15.520 percent, or 68,81889,098 sf
from the original project.
The existing office building on the Project Site is approximately 215,000 sf and
is 39 feet tall.
The Revised Proposed Project incorporates several measures to avoid and
mitigate potential adverse visual and community character impacts that could
result from the size of the Revised Proposed Project (i.e., the increase in floor area
from the existing condition). As with the original project, the Revised Proposed
Project locates the largest and tallest building away from the residential uses in
The Arbors and toward the center and northeast portion of the Project Site. The
buildings closer to The Arbors are the proposed two-story townhouses, which are
further setback from The Arbors with the Revised Proposed Project than the
original project.
As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project decreases both the
overall amount and continuous nature of impervious coverage on the Site from
the current condition. The vegetative buffer that currently exists around the Site’s
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-53 1/3/2020
perimeter would also be maintained. As a result, the interior of the Project Site
would continue to be visible from locations off-Site only through screening
provided by existing tree cover, with the exception of a short area along Arbor
Drive. With the Revised Proposed Project, the view into the Site from Arbor
Drive would feature residential buildings of similar scale, style, and character as
found on adjacent properties, as opposed to the existing view of the office
building and surface parking lot.
Compared to the original project, the Revised Proposed Project increases the
setback of the three-story portion of the IL building an additional 7186 feet from
the property line with The Arbors, for a total setback of 535550 feet. Similarly,
the Revised Proposed Project increases the setback of the 4-story portion of the
IL building an additional 2430 feet from the property line with The Arbors
compared to the original project, for a total setback of 488494 feet. The Revised
Proposed Project also reduces the height of the IL roof closest to the Arbors from
the original project to further reduce the potential for adverse visual impacts to
The Arbors and as ‘narrowed’ the southernmost wings of the IL building closest
to Arbor Drive.
See also Section 2.8, “Visual Resources and Community Character.”
Comment 60: A comment was received stating that the architectural style of the Proposed
Project was inconsistent with the suburban character of the Village. (Schlank 040)
Schlank 040 (#306): The architectural style would give the area a more populous,
citified effect than the comfortable suburban surroundings in the rest of the Village.
Schlank 040 (#317): The two-story office building with its gently-sloping lawn area
blends in with the surroundings. But the height and architectural style of the proposed
senior-housing building appear to be out of sync with the surroundings. A spokesperson
for the applicant has tried to justify the appearance of the building in public hearings by
discussing the extent to which the building would be visible to others while standing or
walking in certain locations. But that is not the issue. The issue is with the architectural
style of the building and whether it is consistent with the character of the community.
Response 60: Section 2.8.3, “Consistency of the Revised Proposed Project with the Existing
Visual and Community Character,” analyzes the potential change to the visual
character of the Project Site with the Revised Proposed Project. As stated therein,
the proposed buildings have been designed to be architecturally compatible with
the predominant residential characteristics within the Village, including the use
of clapboard and stone siding, as well as incorporating dormers and gabled roofs,
commonly seen on single-family homes within the Village.
The nature and amount of impervious coverage on the Site also affects the
character of the Site. In addition to reducing the overall amount of impervious
coverage on the Site, the Revised Proposed Project would redistribute the
pervious and impervious area within the Site, which would have a dramatic
impact on the Site’s visual character (e.g., new parking and building areas would
be interspersed with green space, creating a landscaped residential campus). The
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-54 DRAFT
view into the Site from Arbor Drive with the Revised Proposed Project would
feature residential buildings of similar scale, style, and character as found on
similar Village properties, as opposed to the existing view of the office building
and surface parking lot.
In terms of height, the Revised Proposed Project is consistent with the
recommendations of the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan, and with many
buildings within the Village that are at least four stories in height, specifically The
Atria, Rye Brook (a three- and four-story IL building with 168 units on 4.92 acres)
and the Hilton Westchester.
The setbacks of the proposed IL building from neighboring residences and Arbor
Drive are consistent with, or greater than, the setbacks of other four-story, and
taller, buildings to their neighboring residential properties (see Figures 2-6 to 2-
10 and Table 2.8-1). While the context of each building and residential
neighborhood is different (e.g., surrounding topography, level of activity on
adjacent Site, intervening features), the comparison of the setbacks of Revised
Proposed Project to other Village properties illustrates the nature of the setbacks
proposed.
Comment 61: Comments were received opining that the character of the community would be
adversely affected by the density of the Proposed Project. The Village’s Planning
Consultant stated that, “The proposed amendments in the Applicant’s zoning
petition and the accompanying proposed PUD Concept Plan would develop a
high-density, large-scale multifamily building on a relatively small,
environmentally constrained site, and would be significantly less restrictive than
the current PUD regulations, impacting the character of the neighborhoods
adjacent to the Site. We recommend the Applicant re-consider the zoning petition
and the PUD Concept Plan to reduce the allowable building bulk, the number of
units and the gross floor area per acre to be more compatible with existing
development adjacent to and surrounding the Site.” (Carravone 002, Levy 004,
Snyder 007, FP Clark 012, Planning Board 018, Schlank 040, Barnett 047)
Carravone 002 (#8): If they build that tremendous development at 900 King Street it
would be a major disaster in every which way for the tranquil surroundings everyone is
so accustomed to in The Arbors community.
Levy 004 (#19): The project massing, SF and height seems too large for the Site
Snyder 007 (#27): the scale of the project is not in keeping with the character of the community.
Snyder 007 (#67): The project contains buildings which would represent a substantial
departure from conventional suburban development patterns.
FP Clark 012 (#146): Rye Brook’s low-density character is created by the size, scale
and building types of existing residential and PUD neighborhoods and the relationship
of built areas to the open space areas on lots. Any revised PUD regulations for 900 King
Street should not create development that alters the character of neighborhoods
surrounding the Site, which are predominantly attached townhomes, local civil buildings
(middle/high school, firehouse and village hall), and detached single-family homes. The
proposed amendments in the Applicant’s zoning petition and the accompanying
proposed PUD Concept Plan would develop a high density, large-scale multi-family
building on a relatively small, environmentally constrained site, and would be
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-55 1/3/2020
significantly less restrictive than the current PUD regulations, impacting the character of
the neighborhoods adjacent to the Site. We recommend the Applicant re-consider the
zoning petition and the PUD Concept Plan to reduce the allowable building bulk, the
number of units and the gross floor area per acre to be more compatible with existing
development adjacent to and surrounding the Site.
Planning Board 018 (#235): The mass of the buildings appear too large for the property.
Schlank 040 (#305): An inconsistency with community character…the proposed senior
housing facility would not fit in with its surroundings: (1) the facility would concentrate
too many people in one area.
Barnett 047 (#363): When we talk about the density of the village, I really think it’s
important to understand that whether or not you can see it, because some trees block it
from King Street, doesn’t change the fact that it’s there.
Response 61: As detailed in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project,” in response to public and
Lead Agency, the Applicant has reduced the size of the Revised Proposed Project
from what was originally included in the DEIS. Specifically, the Applicant has
reduced the size of the project by 68,81889,908 gsf through reductions in the
number of IL and townhouse units, reduction in the IL unit sizes and number of
bedrooms, and reductions in the common and amenity spaces in the IL and AL
building.
As discussed in Section 2.3.2, “Proposed Density,” as well as the Response to
Comment 20, the Revised Proposed Project would not result in a PUD that is
significantly denser than other PUDs. Further, the PUD of which the Revised
Proposed Project would be a part, would consist of fewer units per acre and less
sf per acre than Doral Greens, which contains no age-restricted housing.
With respect to building and site coverage, as with the original project, the
Revised Proposed Project would increase building coverage on the Site by 0.876
acres from the current condition, but would decrease the amount of surface
parking and interior roadways by an even larger amount (1.1646 acres) from the
current condition. As a result, the Revised Proposed Project would result in a
decrease in gross land coverage on the Project Site from the existing condition.
The relative amount of building and Site coverage proposed is consistent with
other properties in the Village, especially when considering the Project Site’s
location, its visibility from areas outside of the Site, and the reduction in total
coverage from the Site’s current condition (see Table 2.8-2). Specifically, the
Revised Proposed Project’s building coverage, relative to its parcel size, would
be similar to The Arbors and the Hilton Westchester and slightly higher than 800
Westchester Avenue, and the Doral Arrowwood Conference Center.
See also Section 2.8.3, “Consistency of the Revised Proposed Project with the
Existing Visual and Community Character.”
Comment 62: A comment was received suggesting that the Proposed Project’s rental units
would adversely affect the existing community character and quality of life.
(Stella-Turner 014)
Stella-Turner 014 (#194): The building plans, rental units...will threaten our quality of life.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-56 DRAFT
Response 62: The Revised Proposed Project would develop an age-restricted residential
community with units that would be rented by their occupants. Similar communities
exist throughout the region, including The Atria, Rye Brook and The Osborn in
Rye. No evidence has been presented that those communities, or others similar in
nature, adversely affect the property values or community character of their
community. It should be noted that both The Atria, Rye Brook and The Osborn in
Rye are situated in proximity to stable and desirable residential neighborhoods.
3.9. SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS
DEMOGRAPHICS
Comment 63: Comments were received suggesting that the Proposed Project might have a larger
population than estimated in the DEIS as a result of the proposed age restriction (55
years old and older) and the number of bedrooms proposed. (Snyder 007, FP Clark 012)
Snyder 007 (#28): The project will generate 462 people but that number is not realistic.
You must consider the scope of the project since it calls for 301 bedrooms of Independent
Living alone, together with 94 bedrooms of Assisted Living, and 48 bedrooms in the
townhomes for independent living. Therefore, just in terms of bedrooms, there are a total
of 443 bedrooms. Easily, the project could generate at least 600 more residents.
FP Clark 012 (#148): The DEIS states that the Proposed Project is anticipated to add a
population of 462 people to the Village. This was calculated by estimating 1 person per
Assisted Living facility bed, 2 people per Independent Living unit and 2 people per
townhouse. With the proposed age-restriction of 55 and the number of 2- and 3-
bedroom units, in addition to “empty-nesters” and elderly people, the proposed project
would also attract families with children. The projected population should be
recalculated to take into consideration the above.
Response 63: Chapter 1, “Revised Project Description,” describes the following relevant changes
to the original project: (1) maintaining the age restriction for the Site at 62 years old
and older, consistent with the existing Site zoning; (2) reducing the number of
bedrooms proposed for the IL building by 2422 percent and reducing the size of the
IL units; and (3) reconfiguring the layout of the proposed age-restricted townhouses
to more clearly target an older population and to differentiate the product from other
Village townhouses. Within the IL building specifically, the Applicant has reduced
the size of the units proposed, reduced the number of two- and three-bedroom units,
and increased the numberpercentage of one-bedroom units (see Table 3.9-1).
As stated in Section 2.9.1, “Demographics,” the Revised Proposed Project
anticipates having a population of approximately 438406, which assumes 1
person per AL bed, and 2 people per townhouse and IL unit. While the data
presented in Section 10.3.4, “Potential Impact of the Proposed Project,” of the
DEIS indicates that 55 years old and older communities rarely have school-age
children as residents, the proposed change to a 62 years old and older community
further decreases the likelihood that families with school-age children would live
at the Revised Proposed Project.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-57 1/3/2020
Table 3.9-1
Independent Living Building Size Reduction
DEIS Plan FEIS Plan
Average Unit Size 1,219 sf 1,069119 sf
Number of Bedrooms 301 228236
Largest Unit Size 1,800 sf
(36 units >1,500 sf)
1,500440 sf
(2 units @ 1,440 sf)
3-Bedroom Units
Number of Units 18 1213
Percent of Total 11% 810%
Average Size (sf) 1,700 sf 1,450368 sf
2-Bedroom Units
Number of Units 99 5274
Percent of Total 62% 3454%
Average Size (sf) 1,270 sf 1,215200 sf
1-Bedroom Units
Number of Units 43 8849
Percent of Total 27% 5836%
Average Size (sf) 900 sf 933985 sf
Sources: PerkinsEastman
Comment 64: A comment was received opining that the Proposed Project would increase the
average age and decrease the average income of Village residents, which would
make the Village less attractive to prospective residents. (Schlank 068)
Schlank 068 (#552): Does the applicant agree that the effect of constructing additional
senior housing in Rye Brook would be to raise the average age of a Rye Brook resident
and lower the average income of a Rye Brook resident? …less desirable place to live.
Schlank 068 (#552): Does the applicant agree that the effect of constructing additional
senior housing in Rye Brook would be to raise the average age of a Rye Brook resident
and lower the average income of a Rye Brook resident? …less desirable place to live.
Response 64: As shown in Section 9.4.1, “Demographics,” of the DEIS, the population of the
Village has increased 10.8 percent since 1990 and the median age of Village
residents has also increased. In addition, the median household income has
decreased 14.9 percent since 2000. The Revised Proposed Project may absorb a
portion of this increase in senior citizen residents within the Village.
FISCAL
GENERAL
Comment 65: Comments were received requesting additional information on the potential fiscal
impacts of the Proposed Project and suggesting that the Proposed Project would
have an adverse fiscal impact on the community. (Snyder 007, Schlank 068)
Snyder 007 (#74): A more detailed analysis of the fiscal impacts proposed by the project
should be provided since it would appear that the project, as proposed, could have an
adverse financial impact. A more realistic analysis should be provided, and project
alternatives to reduce the size, scope and components of the project should be
considered in connection therewith.
Schlank 068 (#538): If a residential option is approved, the challenges for The Arbors
will be more difficult to meet in a cost effective manner because The Arbors was not
designed to be a fully-secured gated community. Significant adverse financial impacts
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-58 DRAFT
could be felt on property values, as well as costs of self-policing services, road
maintenance, and safety/security.
Schlank 068 (#575 or #538B): The DEIS notes that a change to senior housing could
result in additional tax revenue to the Village of $281 thousand per year, and that would
be sufficient to fund any additional police personnel and associated equipment that
might be required as a result of the change. Who will compensate the Arbors property
owners for any increase in the cost of our self-policing services as a result of changes at
900 King Street?
Schlank 068 (#576 or #538C): For each alternative discussed in the FEIS, describe the
potential impacts on the costs borne by the PUD property owners for road maintenance,
traffic control, procedured, and safety and security.
Schlank 068 (#577 or #538D): Is the applicant willing to work out an intra-PUD
agreement that would cover the costs of road maintenance, traffic control and safety and
security, as well as any related systems, processes, and controls?
Response 65: Section 2.9.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” and Section 2.10, “Community Facilities,”
analyze the potential fiscal benefits (e.g., tax revenue) and the potential fiscal
impacts (e.g., increase municipal costs) of the Revised Proposed Project.
As stated in those sections, it is conservatively estimated that the Revised
Proposed Project, upon project stabilization, would generate approximately $1.68
million802,670 more in tax revenue than the Project Site currently generates,
including an $1,187,812a $578,355 increase in revenue to the BBRUFSD and
$334,420154,882 to the Village. With respect to the BBRUFSD, there would be
no additional costs to the BBRUFSD from the Revised Proposed Project. With
respect to the Village, there is the potential for the Revised Proposed Project to
result in additional municipal expenses, specifically those related to police and
EMS service. As detailed in Section 2.10.1, “Emergency Services,” the
conservative estimate of potential additional municipal costs associated with the
Revised Proposed Project is anticipated to be less than the conservative estimate
of the additional property tax revenue generated.
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY TAXES
Comment 66: Comments were received questioning the validity of the DEIS’ statement that in
the Future without the Proposed Project (the “No Build” condition) the assessed
value of the Project Site would continue to decline. The commenter notes that the
Applicant has stated, when commenting on another office building in the Village,
that it has a strong office market. (Snyder 007, Schlank 060)
Snyder 007 (#71): The DEIS states that in the future without the project (the "No Build"
condition), the assessed value would be expected to decline. In light of the applicant’s
own statement in the attached Applicant’s Article, that does not have to be the case. The
applicant has noted in the Applicant’s Article that Rye Brook has a strong office market
and that with marketing, re-occupancy of the existing office building has potential. It
may be that the applicant will have to perform upgrades to its building, like was done
with The Atrium building at Westchester Avenue. Again, it is respectfully submitted
that this Board should halt further review of the proposal in its current form and
encourage the applicant to pursue the No Action alternative.
Schlank 060 (#424): Questions related to tax effects of any change in zoning from
commercial to residential.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-59 1/3/2020
Response 66: The Project Site has experienced declining assessed values over the last 5 years
as a result of the inability to successfully re-tenant the Site. As noted in the
Response to Comment 14, the Applicant, as well as its predecessors in interest,
unsuccessfully attempted to lease the existing office building for a variety of uses
to a variety of tenants. These efforts were not successful in producing sufficient
building occupancy or tenancy to make operating the building profitable. One of
the reasons for this lack of success is the relatively large floorplate of the building
that is broken up by two atriums. The large, rectangular, floorplate makes it
inefficient to subdivide the space while providing for the necessary means of
egress for each tenant. As a result, buildings with more efficient floorplates, such
as the buildings at 1100 King Street, are more easily adapted for multiple tenants.
Given the consistent lack of success in re-tenanting the existing office building,
it is unlikely that one or more substantial and long-term tenants could be identified
to re-occupy the existing building, which is the only way for the assessed value
of the Site to increase.
Comment 67: The Village’s Planning Consultant requested that, “The FEIS…provide the
estimated assessment from the Town Tax Assessor and the projected taxes for all
jurisdictions used in Table 9-9 of the DEIS.” (FP Clark 012, Rosenberg 021)
FP Clark 012 (#149): The FEIS should provide the estimated assessment from the Town
Tax Assessor and the projected taxes for all jurisdictions used in Table 9-9 of the DEIS.
Rosenberg 021 (#248): Peter Feroe stated, “…if you look at tax revenue for the project
site, as Tony mentioned, you’d have about a 350 percent increase. Mayor Rosenberg
responded, “Have you checked – where are you coming up with those numbers?”
Response 67: As discussed in Section 2.9.2, “Fiscal ConditionConditions,” the Applicant has
sought an estimated assessed value from the Town Tax Assessor for the Revised
Proposed Project, however, an estimate has not been provided at the time of
publication. Nevertheless, and for the reasons set forth more completely in the
DEIS, applying the per unit assessed value of The Atria, Rye Brook to the number
of units included in the Revised Proposed Project provides a conservative (i.e.,
low) estimate of the future assessed value of the Project Site. In turn, this provides
a conservative (i.e., low) estimate of the future property taxes that may be
generated by the Project Site. For example, it is noted that The Osborn in Rye,
which, like the Revised Proposed Project, features more amenities and a larger
landscaped campus than The Atria, Rye Brook, has a much higher per unit
assessed value than The Atria, Rye Brook. In order to be conservative, however,
the Applicant utilized the per unit assessed value of The Atria, Rye Brook within
the DEIS and this FEIS to estimate the assessed value of the Revised Proposed
ProjectThe Applicant has, however, had conversations with the Town to refine the
methodology for determining the assessment of the Revised Proposed Project. Based
on these conversations, the Applicant believes it is most appropriate to use an
income-based capitalization approach to estimate the assessed value of the Revised
Proposed Project. This methodology applies a standard capitalization rate to the
estimated net operating income of the Revised Proposed Project’s rental income.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-60 DRAFT
Using this methodology, the Applicant estimates that the Revised Proposed Project,
upon stabilized operation, would have an assessed value of approximately
$29,715,260, which is more than twice the current assessed value of the Project Site.
Section 2.9.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” provides the projected property tax revenue for
the various taxing jurisdictions using this assessed value.
Comment 68: The Village’s Planning Consultant stated that, “The loss per year of tax revenue
was incorrectly calculated. The loss of $65,000 in revenue took place over 5 years,
not 1 year. The FEIS should provide the correct calculations.” (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#147): The loss per year of tax revenue was incorrectly calculated. The
loss of $65,000 in revenue took place over 5 years, not 1 year. The FEIS should provide
the correct calculations.
Response 68: This comment refers to the decrease in annual property tax revenue generated by
the Project Site since 2013. As stated in Section 9.2.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” of the
DEIS, “the property tax revenue generated by the Project Site has decreased by
more than $65,000, or 11 percent, in the past 5 years.” The DEIS goes on to say
in Section 9.3.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” that “since 2013 the assessed value of the
Site has decreased nearly $2 million, resulting in a loss of approximately $65,000
per year in tax revenue.” In other words, the amount of property tax revenue
generated by the Project Site in a given year declined 4 out of 5 years between
2013 and 2017. As a result, by 2017, the Project Site was generating $65,000 less
per year than it was 5 years earlier. In total, the declining assessed value of the
Project Site resulted in the loss of an amount equal to $153,060 in property tax
revenue between 2013 and 2017 using 2017 tax rates.
Comment 69: The Village’s Planning Consultant stated that, “The FEIS should identify any tax
exemptions or subsidies that the [Proposed] Project would be eligible to receive,
other than the tax exemptions and reductions that maybe available through the
Westchester County Industrial Development Agency [IDA].” Another
commenter requested additional information on the IDA inducement process and
whether the Village had the capacity to successfully participate in that process.
(FP Clark 012, Schlank 068)
FP Clark 012 (#150): The DEIS states that the Applicant will not be seeking “standalone
tax-exempt status” from the Internal Revenue Code. The FEIS should identify any tax
exemptions or subsidies that the Project would be eligible to receive, other than the tax
exemptions and reductions that maybe available through the Westchester County
Industrial Development Agency.
Schlank 068 (#548): Does the Village of Rye Brook have sufficient authority to approve
a PILOT agreement? Or do other governments, including the Town of Rye and/or the
school district, need to approve the agreement as well?
Schlank 068 (#549): How long do these PILOT agreements typically take to negotiate?
Are PILOT agreements relatively easy to negotiate? Or are they complicated enough for
municipalities the size of Rye Brook and Town of Rye to require the use of outside
help? How does the sales tax exemption work? Would the owners be exempt from
collecting taxes from others or from paying taxes on their own purchases? On what
types of items would the applicant collect or pay sales taxes for each alternative, if it
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-61 1/3/2020
were not exempt? Do the Village, Town, or School District get a share of any sales
taxes? Could the applicant estimate how much the sales taxes would be for each
alternative discussed in the FEIS?
Schlank 068 (#550): From the applicant’s perspective, what are the pros and cons of
these kinds of IDA/PILOT agreements?
Schlank 068 (#551): If a senior housing facility is approved and constructed at 900 King
Street and it subsequently goes out of business, how will this affect tax payments under
the PILOT agreement? (assuming one is negotiated and agreed-upon).
Response 69: As stated in Section 2.9.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” “The Applicant and owner of the
property is a for-profit entity and will remain so. Similarly, the Applicant will not
be seeking standalone tax-exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code.
However, certain tax exemptions or reductions may be available through the
Westchester County [IDA].” The Applicant does not foresee applying for or
availing itself of tax exemption, reductions, or subsidies other than those available
through the IDA.
The IDA process is summarized in Section 2.9.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” and
detailed in Section 9.4.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” of the DEIS. The Applicant needs
financial benefits from the IDA to make the project financially feasible and, as
such, the Applicant plans on making an application to the IDA for sales tax
exemption, mortgage tax exemption as well as real property tax abatements (i.e.,
a PILOT). With respect to the PILOT, the IDA’s general policy is to have the
Applicant agree upon a PILOT with the local municipality and then submit that
PILOT to the IDA for final approval. IDA benefits are typically awarded to
incentivize the creation of new jobs as well as to assist in developing or
redeveloping strategic sites within a municipality by lowering construction costs
and allowing for the phase in of full property taxes during the period when a
project is “stabilizing,” or in this case, becoming fully leased.
OFF-SITE IMPACTS
Comment 70: Comments were received suggesting that the Proposed Project would adversely
affect the property values of off-Site properties in the Village. (Mignogna 001,
Maniscalco 005, Schlank 068, Gudaski 075)
Mignogna 001 (#4): this [Project] will adversely affect our values which is something
we do not need to see again.
Maniscalco 005 (#22): If we are to allow any type of rental properties [in the School District],
particularly those in such volume as in the proposal, we will be creating undue taxation on
our school system, and the children in our schools (and our property values) will suffer
Schlank 068 (#545): Estimate the resulting adverse financial impact on the property
values in the Arbors. Please include both short-term construction impacts and longer-
term impacts, and please indicate how the applicant plans to proceed to negotiate a
settlement or agreement with the Arbors property owners to mitigate the adverse
financial impacts on our property values.
Gudaski 075 (#570): So, if they are rentals they always, you know, affect the value of
the houses, they seem to decrease the value of the houses.
Response 70: See Response to Comment 62.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-62 DRAFT
3.10. COMMUNITY FACILITIES
GENERAL
Comment 71: A comment was received stating that the Proposed Project would “drain valuable
resources from the community.” (Mandell 010)
Mandell 010 (#99): [The project will] drain valuable resources from the community.
Response 71: See Response to Comment 65. The Revised Proposed Project is anticipated to
generate property tax revenue to the Village in excess of the increased cost
required to provide additional community services.
EMS
Comment 72: The Village Administrator provided additional information with respect to the
current condition of the EMS service, including its service area, procedures for
positioning ambulances, staffing levels, and the financial contributions of its three
member municipalities. The Administrator also noted that, “in order to meet
current demand, EMS has hired an additional supervisor. They are also
considering adding an additional ambulance at certain times of the day. For
FY2019, they have requested a 5-percent increase in their municipal contributions
for the first time since 2010 in order to address the need for additional coverage.
The EMS is discussing the need to add an ambulance on certain shifts to meet the
call demand.” (Bradbury 017)
Bradbury 017 (#204): The Emergency Services section does not fully address the
service area or the revenue sources. The DEIS should more fully explain that the EMS
covers three (3) municipalities. Rye Brook, Rye City, and Port Chester (this relationship
is briefly discussed in DEIS Section 10.2.1.1).
Bradbury 017 (#207): The EMS’s headquarters is at 417 Ellendale Avenue in Port Chester.
Based on staffing and call volume, the EMS positions an ambulance in other locations,
including at the Rye Brook firehouse. As calls come in, they will reposition these
ambulances as needed based on those calls and ambulances available. When patients need
transport, they usually go to Greenwich Hospital or White Plains Hospital pulling those
ambulances out of the response area. If mutual aid is needed in their service area, they will
typically call Harrison EMS or Greenwich EMS. Similarly, they will also go to mutual aid
calls in Harrison or elsewhere if needed and staffing is available.
Bradbury 017 (#208): In order to meet current demand, EMS has hired an additional
supervisor. They are also considering adding an additional ambulance at certain times of
the day. For FY2019, they have requested a 5% increase in their municipal contributions
for the first time since 2010 in order to address the need for additional coverage.
Response 72: Comment noted. Additional detail with respect to the existing operational and
budgetary conditions of the EMS service is provided in Section 2.10.1,
“Emergency Services.”
Comment 73: Comments were received regarding the magnitude of the potential impacts to the
EMS service from the Proposed Project. These comments included questions
regarding the number of calls estimated for the Proposed Project (e.g., “why the
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-63 1/3/2020
large variation in potential calls?”); the percentage increase in call volume that
would be attributable to the Proposed Project; the cost to the Village and the two
other municipalities in the EMS district from the increase in calls attributable to
the Proposed Project as well as the increase in population attributed to the
Proposed Project; and, the impact of the Proposed Project, and the senior living
facility proposed at Purchase, on mutual aid operations. (Snyder 007, FP Clark
012, Bradbury 017, Planning Board 018)
Snyder 007 (#72): The DEIS asserts that the increase in EMS calls and expenditures
would be offset by an increase in revenue but it fails to provide evidence to support that
conclusion. The DEIS simply states with no evidence that the financial impact of an
increase in calls would be primarily mitigated through future insurance recovery. It does
not take into the account that the EMS service would have to be expanded since it is
operating near or at capacity.
FP Clark 012 (#152): The Port Chester-Rye-Rye Brook EMS received 1257 calls in 2017.
By the Applicant’s estimate, the potential projected calls per year by the Proposed Project
would be 465. This would be a 37% increase in the numbers of calls to the EMS that is
currently operating near or at capacity, not a 7.8% increase as incorrectly identified by the
Applicant in the DEIS. The FEIS should analyze the cost of the 37% increase in call
versus the increase in funding from tax revenue and the 70% insurance recovery rate.
Bradbury 017 (#205): The DEIS states that since most of the EMS revenue comes from
insurance recovery, the costs for any increase in calls will be recovered through insurance
recovery and additional property tax revenue. This conclusion is not reflective of the impacts
of the additional calls on the three municipalities in the EMS service area. Approximately
70% of the EMS revenues come from insurance recovery, while 25% of the remaining
revenues come from municipal contributions…75% of the municipal contributions are
divided equally among the 3 municipalities while the remaining 25% is based on population.
As populations change in the census figures, the 25% share of the municipal contributions
change as well. The potential impact of an increase in Rye Brook’s population from this
development is not discussed in the DEIS. In terms of property tax revenue offsets, both Port
Chester and Rye City would not receive additional property tax revenues from this project to
offset any potential increase in their municipal contributions.
Bradbury 017 (#206): The DEIS should break down the calls by municipality to more
clearly reflect t6he number of EMS calls to Rye Brook. The DEIS indicates that there
could be as much as a 7.8% increase in call volume from this site but this is in the entire
service area, not just Rye Brook.
Bradbury 017 (#212): There is a significant difference between 66 and 465 EMS calls per
year and the DEIS indicates that this difference in response rate “could be attributable to a
number of factors, including the relative age and health of the on-Site population.” And
that to “minimize the number of additional calls for EMS services, the Proposed Project
would seek to incorporate physical and operational measures to minimize unnecessary
EMS calls, such as instituting physical improvements and operational policies to reduce
fall hazards throughout the facility.” The differences in the number of calls, and how this
impact could be mitigated, should be more specifically identified.
Planning Board 018 (#239): How will the proposed senior housing in nearby Purchase
impact mutual aid for emergency services.
Response 73: Section 2.10.1, “Emergency Services,” provides an expanded discussion of the
potential impacts of the Revised Proposed Project on the EMS service as well as
on the municipal contributions to that service. In summary, Village population
increases by 438406 people as a result of the Revised Proposed Project, and the
Village of Port Chester and City of Rye do not also experience similarly
proportioned increases in their municipal population, the Village may be required
to contribute an additional $1,784.50 per year to the EMS service. Increases in
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-64 DRAFT
the population of the Village of Port Chester and/or City of Rye would have the
potential to reduce, or eliminate, this increase.
TheIn order to reduce the number of EMS calls from the Revised Proposed
Project, though not required by New York State regulation, the Applicant intends
to have a nurse on-Site 24 hours a day. The nurse would assist with the evaluation
of residents that fall. With this, and other operational policies previously described,
the Revised Proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 334141
EMS calls per year—approximately one additional call perevery other day. This
would represent an increase of approximately 5.42.3 percent in calls system-wide
and an increase of approximately 26.611.2 percent in calls within the Village.
If the EMS service determined that the increase in EMS calls attributable to the
Revised Proposed Project would substantially increase the non-reimbursed
expenses of the service, an increase in the municipal contribution to the EMS
service may be required. As noted in Section 2.10.1.2, “EMS: Increase in Call
Volume,” it is unlikely that the Revised Proposed Project will require an increase
in EMS expenses equal to the percentage increase in calls attributable to the
Revised Proposed Project. More likely, a smaller increase in expenses, and
required revenue, would likely be needed. The Applicant bases this assumption
on two findings. First, and as noted earlier, the EMS service did not raise the
municipal contribution to the service for nearly a decade, during which the
number of calls to the service increased. This indicates that the number of calls is
not directly proportional to the municipal contribution. Second, the EMS service
has indicated that they are currently considering adding another ambulance to
certain shifts to meet the current demand of the service. This increased fixed cost
of service would be required with or without the Revised Proposed Project.
Further, it is likely that the recent increase in municipal contributions to the EMS
service was required, in part, to fund this anticipated current, fixed-cost need.
Therefore, the Revised Proposed Project, while increasing the number of calls to
the service, may not, in and of, itself require the addition of new staff or
equipment; rather, it may lead to a higher utilization of the staff and equipment
that are currently budgeted for the EMS service.
Finally, even in the most conservative, worst case, the Village could experience
an increase of approximately $11,8135,032 per year to support the EMS service
and the Village of Port Chester and City of Rye would also experience increased
costs. The costs to the Village would be offset by the increase in property taxes
attributable to the Revised Proposed Project, which the costs to the City of Rye
and Village of Port Chester would not be offset by increases in property tax
revenue to those municipalities.
The Village has not been made aware of potential adverse impacts to mutual aid
as a result of the Revised Proposed Project and the proposed senior living project
at SUNY Purchase.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-65 1/3/2020
Comment 74: The Village’s Planning Consultant requested additional information on the
measures proposed to reduce the number of EMS calls for “lift assist,” such as
providing an on-Site emergency medical technician (EMT). (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#151): The Applicant should advise whether there will be an EMT required
to be on-site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in the assisted living and independent living
facility to help in cases that would require “lift assist.” If there is an EMT on-Site, this
would limit the number of calls to the Port Chester-Rye-Rye Brook EMS.s
Response 74: Consistent with industry practices, the Applicant does not anticipate hiring an
EMT to staff the Revised Proposed Project. Instead, as state in the DEIS, the
Applicant would institute physical improvements and operational policies to
minimize unnecessary EMS calls, including physical improvements and
operational policies to reduce fall hazards throughout the facility.
POLICE
Comment 75: A comment was received questioning whether the Proposed Project would
generate sufficient additional property tax revenue to offset the cost of increased
police services attributable to the Proposed Project. (Snyder 007)
Snyder 007 (#73): with respect to police services, the DEIS states that an additional
police officer would be required due to the scale of the project at a cost of
approximately $225,750 per year. However, the project will generate only $281,359 in
tax revenue, providing a small spread of the differential between the tax revenue and
cost for police. This differential does not take into account other community services
such as additional fire and EMS services which would be needed. Unlike other projects
in the Village, the very nature of the project here relies on having sufficient emergency
services and an adverse fiscal impact appears likely.
Response 75: As stated in Section 10.2.3.2, “Police Services,” of the DEIS, RBPD noted that
the Proposed Project “together with other previously approved residential
developments in the Village, would require additional police personnel and
associated equipment” (emphasis added). As such, the Revised Proposed Project
would only be responsible for a fraction of the total annual cost of an additional
police officer—$225,750. Even when combined with the potential increased costs
associated with EMS service described above (up to $11,8135,032), and fire
services described below (nominal cost), the additional tax revenue payable to the
Village by the Revised Proposed Project (an additional $334,420154,882 per
year) is expected to be well in excess of the additional costs to the Village. See
also Response to Comment 73.
FIRE SERVICES
Comment 76: The Village Administrator requested that the current conditions of the RBFD be
updated in light of the new fire services agreement with the Village of Port
Chester and the Village of Port Chester requested additional discussion of the
impacts that the Proposed Project may have on the fire services agreement. In
addition, the Administrator clarified that the RBFD and Port Chester Fire
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-66 DRAFT
Department (PCFD) both respond to calls within the Village together and that the
RBFD is under the operational control of the PCFD. Finally, a comment was
received questioning whether the RBFD had the capacity to provide service to the
Proposed Project. (Bradbury 017, Bradbury 017, Port Chester 019, Tazbin 071)
Bradbury 017 (#209): The opening paragraph [of Section 10.2 of the DEIS] indicates
that the PCFD responds “with assistance from the RBFD”. This should be modified that
both the PCFD and RBFD both respond to calls together and that the RBFD is under the
operational control of the PCFD.
Bradbury 017 (#210): The number of RBFD personnel (and their working hours) and
the contract with Port Chester is currently very different in FY2019 compared to
FY2015 and should be updated.
Port Chester 019 (#245): Additional discussion should occur regarding the potential
impact of the project on fire services and the April 3, 2018 agreement between the
Village of Port Chester and Village of Rye Brook.
Tazbin 071 (#563): The police and fire department, they are wonderful, but do they feel
with the current staffing that they could support.
Response 76: The Village and the Village of Port Chester executed a fire services agreement in
March 2018 (see Appendix E-2). This agreement details the roles and
responsibilities of the villages with respect to fire protection services within the
Village. As noted therein, the RBFD will respond to calls within the Village
together with the PCFD. The RBFD will be under the operational control of the
PCFD. The RBFD has a budget of $2,035,018 for the 2019 Fiscal Year.3 As noted
in Section 2.10.1.4, “Fire Services,” the Revised Proposed Project is not
anticipated to result in significant increases in calls to RBFD. The Revised
Proposed Project’s height and construction would be of a similar height and
construction type to buildings already present within the Village. Finally, in
RBFD’s correspondence to the Applicant, the RBFD did not discuss whether
additional personnel or equipment to serve the Revised Proposed Project would
be needed.
Comment 77: The Village Administrator requested confirmation of the RBFD’s actual historical
response time to the Project Site with data from the County’s dispatcher.
(Bradbury 017)
Bradbury 017 (#211): While the location [Project Site] is admittedly very close to the
Rye Brook Firehouse, it is unlikely that it would take “less than 1 minute” to get to the
site from the time of dispatch. This information should be verified with factual
information available from 60 Control.
Response 77: The Applicant requested and received documentation with respect to the elapsed
time from dispatch of the Fire Department to the time of the equipment’s arrival
at 900 King Street (see Appendix E-3).
3 https://www.cleargov.com/new-york/westchester/village/rye-brook/2019/expenditures/public-safety/fire
department-&-ems/fire
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-67 1/3/2020
According to this documentation, the historical overall response time (2016,
2017, 2018) to the Project Site from the time of dispatch is 3 to 7 minutes, with
an average of 4 minutes 30 seconds. It noted that the Project Site is adjacent to
the Rye Brook Fire Department’s building and that buildings within the Revised
Proposed Project would contain modern life safety systems (e.g., sprinklers).
Comment 78: The Planning Board requested that the Proposed Project demonstrate compliance
with the New York State Fire Code. (Planning Board 018)
Planning Board 018 (#225): Demonstrate compliance with the NYS Fire Code,
including means of egress from the building for the staff and residents.
Response 78: The building will be designed to fully comply with the applicable provisions of
the New York State Building and Fire Codes, including Chapter 10, “Means of
Egress.” Compliance with these provisions would be determined by the Village’s
Building Inspector during the building permit review process.
SCHOOLS
Comment 79: Comments were received expressing concern that an age-restricted population
might not vote in favor of school budgets. Another commenter noted that in her
experience, age-restricted populations do not necessarily vote against school
budgets. Finally, other commenters noted that age-restricted developments may
be appropriate to balance the potential of a project adding more school-age
children in the district with the potential for a project to add a voting bloc that
may be less supportive of the school budget. (Ghosh 008, Parvani 009, Samuels
016, Levine 029, Neumann 030, Barnett 034, Feinstein 049) (AKRF)
Ghosh 008 (#90): A 55+ community would impact our school budget proposals. More
residents in our small community that do not have a stake in passing our school
budgets…negatively impact property values for all residents.
Parvani 009 (#94): A 55+ community would impact our school budget proposals. More
residents in our small community that do not have a stake in passing our school
budgets…negatively impact property values for all residents.
Samuels 016 (#199): The 55+ community would adversely impact financial support for
our school budget proposals. More residents in our small community who do not have a
stake in passing the budgets would be detrimental to future school funding…decrease
the stature of our schools in district rankings…negatively impact property values.
Levine 029 (#265): So why would they [the residents of the proposed project] ever vote
to pass the school budget if they have no school-age children?
Neumann 030 (#267): You really can’t have it both ways. If you don’t want to impact
the school, in terms of number of children, then we are taking the risk that we’re going
to have a large community that doesn’t really care about the extremely high taxes and
school taxes in this district.
Barnett 034 (#276): what’s the impact on the schools and what about the voters? There’s
a surefire way to make sure that the impact is mitigated to the schools, and that’s to
make sure that the number of residents that goes to this project, whether 62, that the
number of units is as little as possible so that it’s economically viable.
Feinstein 049 (#383): I’ve taken offense – I’ve read some of the letters online. I don’t
want people to feel that if you have seniors in a development that they are going to be
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-68 DRAFT
against the school budget. Some of your best supporters of budgets are your seniors who
have had children go through the schools and the like.
Feinstein 049 (#384): I personally think that this development will add tax revenue, which
is needed, because we want our schools to be maintained to the quality they are right now.
Response 79: No evidence was presented that an age-restricted population might be more
included to vote in favor of, or be less supportive of, school budgets.
Comment 80: Several commenters suggested that a 55 years old and older community (or 62
years old and older community) would be more likely to have school-age children
than estimated in the DEIS. (Maniscalco 005, Mandell 010, Samuels 016,
Rosenberg 021, Levy 067)
Maniscalco 005 (#23): We lack the capacity to handle potentially hundreds more families
in the schools...the 55+ community does not preclude older parents, grandparents, or
subsequent occupants from occupying the units at this, or some future time.
Mandell 010 (#97): This development will overcrowd our schools (I know it is 55+, but
so was Belle Fair when proposed).
Samuels 016 (#200): A larger number of young families with children (will) soon find
their way into the community, despite the 55-and-over goal, this would further crowd
our schools with finite resources.
Rosenberg 021 (#278): There wasn’t a concern in terms of the increase of school-age
children. They felt that they – if it was 55 and above, they felt that they could
accommodate them.
Levy 067 (#535): One of the primary reasons people move to Rye Brook is the
wonderful schools. Even with an age limit of 62, there will be residents with children;
these days, people having school-age children at the age of 62 is not uncommon.
Response 80: In response to comments from the Lead Agency and the public, and to further
minimize the potential for school-age children to live within the Revised
Proposed Project, the Applicant has modified the original project to increase the
minimum age of project residents to 62 years old and older, which is consistent
with the Village’s current definition of “senior living facility.”
In order to estimate the number of school-age children that could have been
expected to live in the original project, which was proposed to be age restricted
to those 55 years old and older, the Applicant collected information on the number
of school-age children living at eight residential developments in the region that
was age restricted to 55 years old and older. Within the eight developments, there
was a total of 1,173 dwelling units across seven different school districts. Based
on information collected directly from the school districts, there was a total of
three school-age children enrolled from those developments. The Applicant also
requested information from the Superintendent of the BBRUFSD regarding the
number of school-age children residing at The Atria, Rye Brook and the King
Street Rehab facility, two age-restricted senior living communities located on
King Street. To the best of the Superintendent’s knowledge, there were no
children living at either facility. As such, no school-age children are anticipated
to live within the Revised Proposed Project.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-69 1/3/2020
Comment 81: A commenter questioned the impact of the Proposed Project on the BBRUFSD
would be if current residents of the Village who do not have school-age children
move into the Proposed Project and sell their houses to a family that does have
school-age children. (Barnett 034)
Barnett 034 (#277): If this community, this new community, is designed to get people to
move out of their homes, what isn’t addressed…is especially in that first year or two or
three, how many people who live in this area…decide to move to this structure…and
decide to get out of their house, and those people are replaced with people who have
school-age children and the impact on the schools.
Response 81: As noted in Section 2.9.1, “Demographics,” the Village’s population has grown
10.8 percent since 1990 and the median age of Village residents has increased from
40.7 to 44.2 years old. This is consistent with the trend in the nation and the County.
As such, it can be expected that with or without the construction of the Revised
Proposed Project, an increasing number of Village residents that may seek to sell
their houses due to time and cost associated with home maintenance and the desire
to live closer to friends and live in a setting where car usage is not required.
Nevertheless, in the event that the Revised Proposed Project did incentivize a
small number of Village senior citizens that might not otherwise have wanted to
move to sell their houses to families with children, it would not be expected to
adversely affect the BBRUFSD. As discussed in Section 10.3.1, “Schools:
Existing Conditions,” of the DEIS, enrollment within BBRUFSD declined by 90
students—or 6 percent—between the 2014-2015 school year and the 2017-2018
school year. According to the BBRUFSD, enrollment is anticipated to continue
to decline slightly during the next few years. Therefore, even with the anticipated
increase in school-age children within the district as a result of the Kingfield
development, there would still be sufficient capacity to serve new students to the
district. With respect to the financial costs associated with potential new school
children, it is noted that the Revised Proposed Project would generate
approximately $1,187,812578,355 more per year in property tax revenue to the
BBRUFSD than the Site does currently. This would be enough to cover the costs
of at least 4220 school children based on the 2017-2018 average annual
expenditure per pupil of $28,061.
OPEN SPACE
Comment 82: The Village’s Planning Consultant requested that the source of the guidelines
used to estimate the appropriate amount of open space for the Proposed Project’s
residents be provided. In addition, the Village Administrator requested more
detail on how the open space provided on the Project Site fulfills the requirements
of Section 209-14 of the Village Code with respect to the siting of “a park or
parks.” (FP Clark 012, Bradbury 017, Klein 062)
FP Clark 012 (#153): The tables provide the amount of open space that should be
provided per 1,000 people based on guidelines provided by the New York State Office
of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). The attached appendices and
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-70 DRAFT
figures do not contain the original information from the OPRHP and we have been
unable to verify the information. The FEIS should include the original report from the
OPRHP to verify that the information on recommended open space is correct.
Bradbury 017 (#213): The DEIS indicates that the Project would include 2.7 acres of
space for active and passive recreation, which exceeds the Section 209-14 code
requirement (for) that purpose. However, the DEIS ignores the first part of the code
requirement for “a park or parks suitably located and usable for passive or active
recreational purposes”. The Village Board should decide if providing the identified open
space on the project meets this code requirement.
Klein 062 (#510): Agree with Bradbury comments that Village Board determines what
is appropriate.
Response 82: The source of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation (OPRHP) guidelines is the New York State Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Specifically, Appendix I, Recreation
Facility Design Guidelines,4 which is included as Appendix F.
The Applicant notes that these guidelines were published to help municipalities
develop open space and recreation plans for their entire community. As such, they
reflect a blended average of the open space needs of those members of the
community that require more opportunities for open space and recreation and
those that require less. The Applicant also notes that neither New York State, nor
the National Recreation and Park Association, the organization that published
data on which some of the New York State data is based, currently publish a
“target” for the amount of park space per capita.
As stated in Section 2.10.3, “Open Space,” the Revised Proposed Project would
preserve approximately 10.6711.01 acres of the Project Site, or 6062 percent, as
open space—an increase of 0.367 acres from the current condition. Of that space,
at least 2.241.89 acres could be considered parks and recreational space, as shown
on Figure 2-11 and summarized in Table 3.10-1.
Table 3.10-1
On-Site Recreation Areas
Open Space Area Approximate Area Description
East Garden (Memory Garden) 5,000155 sf For AL and memory care residents
South Courtyard 9,400 sf Primarily for IL residents
West Terrace Garden 2,662 sf Primarily for IL residents
West Sun Deck Garden 3,528539 sf Primarily for IL residents
North Courtyard Garden 10,79012,254 sf Primarily for IL residents
Dining Garden 4,590 sf Primarily for IL/AL residents
Walking Path 31,950 sf For all Project residents and staff
Backyard 29,830 sf For all Project residents and staff
Total 97,75082,728 sf
(~2.241.89 acres)
The five main areas of open and recreation space are described in more detail
below:
4 The 2014-2019 Plan no longer publishes these guidelines and the 2009-2013 Plan edited the guidelines to
remove the targeted amount of open space per capita, focusing instead on guidelines and park development.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-71 1/3/2020
A Memory Garden (the East Garden, approximately 5,000115 sf) would be
located east of the AL facility for use by the facility’s residents. This secure,
outdoor area would be landscaped and programmed to allow AL residents to
safely enjoy the outdoors.
Various landscaped gardens and terraces would be provided adjacent to the
IL building. These spaces would be programmed for a various uses, including
passive activities, such as reading or having a conversation, as well as for
slightly more active activities.
The existing Walking Path would be extended to the north within the Site and
would terminate at a landscaped loop in the Site’s northeast corner. This path,
and the landscaped area to its east, would give Project residents the
opportunity to enjoy longer walks on the Project Site. In addition, this Linear
Walking Path would connect to the existing sidewalk that connects the Project
Site to Harkness Park, as well as to the Backyard walking path.
The Backyard walking path would connect to pedestrian paths located at the
northern and southern portions of the Site. This path would meander through
a slightly wooded area and provide residents and staff with a more serene
setting to recreate or simply sit and relax.
In the event that the Lead Agency determines during the Site Plan Review process
that the Revised Proposed Project does not meet the requirements of Section 209-
14, then the Applicant would be required to remit a fee in lieu of the amount of
deficient parkland.
SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING
Comment 83: A comment was received requesting that the FEIS more fully “discuss the
potential for food waste composting to reduce the waste stream from food services
at the Project.” (Drummond 037)
Drummond 037 (#290): The final scoping outline for the EIS required the applicant to
address the potential for food waste composting. However, the draft EIS did not contain
a discussion on this topic beyond a statement that “the Applicant would welcome the
opportunity to partner with a community organization that may want to make use of the
Proposed Project’s organic waste by composting it.” The draft EIS cites the lack of a
finalized solid waste management plan as the reason why no further discussion of food
composting could be made. The final EIS should fulfill the scoping requirement to
(more) fully ‘discuss the potential for food waste composting to reduce the waste stream
from food services at the Project."
Response 83: The Applicant understands that food waste can be a sizeable portion of the solid
waste generated by residential uses. At this time, the Revised Proposed Project has
not yet finalized its solid waste management plan. The Applicant will develop a solid
waste management plan during final site plan approval that meets the requirements
of the County’s Source Separation Law. This plan will be submitted to the
Commissioner of Environmental Facilities of the County as well as the Village.
The Applicant notes that the Village operates a Food Scrap Recycling Program,
where residents can collect their food scraps and bring them to a designated drop-
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-72 DRAFT
off in the parking lot at Village Hall (938 King Street). The food scraps are then
carted to a licensed compost facility in Ulster County, where they are converted
into nutrient rich top soil. The Village currently pays $400/month to maintain 10
large 64-gallon compost bins, which are emptied every Wednesday. To date, the
program has composted 3 tons of food waste from residents individually dropping
off food scraps at the Village Hall parking lot. On any given week, the Village
fills the equivalent of three 64-gallon bins.
The To further mitigate potential impacts associated with solid waste, the Applicant has
begun conversations with the Village to determineis evaluating the potential for the
Revised Proposed Project to make usefeasibility of the establishing a food scrap recycling
program, but not the existing drop-off location, by potentially including a second pick-up
location at the Project on-Site. This collaboration would be the first of its kind in the
Village. The Applicant plans to continue these discussions and, if possible, coordinate
thenotes that the Village has an existing food scrap recycling of the Project’s program that
allows Village residents to drop off food scraps with the at Village Hall where they are
picked up by a licensed carter once a week. It is the Applicant’s intention to evaluate whether
the Revised Proposed Project could serve as a second pick-up location for the Village’s
existing program.carter.
SENIOR SERVICES
Comment 84: The Village’s Planning Consultant requested that, “The Applicant…explain why
[it] believes that residents of the proposed development will not use the existing
Rye Brook Senior Center inside the Anthony J. Posillipo Community Center.”
(FP Clark 012, Timpone-Mohamed 043)
FP Clark 012 (#154): The Applicant should explain why the Applicant believes that
residents of the proposed development will not use the existing Rye Brook Senior
Center inside the Anthony J. Posillipo Community Center.
Timpone-Mohamed 043 (#337): What (is) the impact on the senior center that is run by
the Village, the Posillipo Center, what impacts would there be on them from this influx
of seniors who will be -- you know, those who the Village property would be available
to them. I don’t think that’s touched in the DEIS.
Response 84: The Revised Proposed Project would provide Project residents many of the same
services offered by the Rye Brook Senior Center, including hot lunch, exercise
programs, transportation, enrichment classes. The Revised Proposed Project
would include a fitness center for use by residents that would be equipped with
strength-training machines and a group fitness room. The cost of accessing the
fitness center would be included in the cost of living at the senior living
community. In addition, trips and programs would be offered to Project residents,
such as to local grocery stores, shopping centers, malls, and cultural institutions.
In terms of dining, IL residents would be expected to participate in a meal plan
that would include some or all of their meals; AL residents would be expected to
participate in a meal plan for all of their meals and townhouse residents would
have the option to participate in a meal plan at the IL building, and would also
have the opportunity to cook for themselves.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-73 1/3/2020
On August 27, 2019, AKRF staff spoke with Elizabeth Rotfeld, the Village of
Rye Brook’s Deputy Village Clerk/ Senior Coordinator to discuss the utilization
and capacity of the Village’s Senior Center. Ms. Rotfeld stated that over the past
decade, attendance at meals (e.g., lunch) and activities has declined. In the past,
lunches were attended by approximately 40 residents, whereas currently,
approximately 20 seniors attend lunch. Similarly, fewer residents stay at the
center all day than in the past. Special lectures, holiday activities, and special
lunches are still well-attended. Based on the capacity of the Senior Center and its
current utilization, it is Ms. Rotfeld’s opinion that the Senior Center has the
capacity to accommodate additional senior seniors, such as those that may reside
in the Revised Proposed Project.
3.11. INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES
WATER SUPPLY
Comment 85: Comments were received questioning the capacity of Suez to provide adequate
water to the Proposed Project without adversely affecting other areas within the
Village. (Carravone 002, Planning Board 018, Zimmerman 046)
Carravone 002 (#10): poor air quality, water pressure and sewer system will be a big
problem for our neighborhood
Planning Board 018 (#227): Notwithstanding the “will serve” letter, does Suez have
capacity to meet the projected water supply demand? The concern is that a majority of
water supply in this area of the Village comes from Greenwich and when we are in
drought alert residents are advised to restrict water use.
Zimmerman 046 (#356): As far as environmental analysis on water supply, your Village
Board said you were concerned about insufficient pressure of volume of water for
firefighting and domestic use.
Response 85: A thorough analysis was performed by Suez Water Westchester Inc. (SWWC), in
conjunction with Westchester Joint Water Works (WJWW) located in
Mamaroneck, New York and Aquarion Water Company (Aquarion CT) in
Bridgeport, Connecticut, regarding the capacity of the existing water
infrastructure to serve the Proposed Project (see Appendix G). The report
concluded that SWWC’s supply pressure will have to be upgraded by providing
an interconnection to WJWW on Anderson Hill Road via the Blind Brook
pressure reducing valve and an interconnection made with Aquarion CT via the
King Street pressure reducing valve. SWWC will be financially responsible for
making these interconnections. Based on this analysis, SWWC reissued a Will
Serve Letter, dated February 1, 2019 that takes into account the maximum fire
flow demand of the Revised Proposed Project (see Appendix G).
In addition to upgrades to the existing infrastructure, a new meter needs to be
installed on the 16-inch main at Anderson Hill Road, bypassing the existing 8-
inch meter vault, due to the significant head losses that are currently occurring in
the vault during peak flow conditions. The design criteria of the meter vault are
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-74 DRAFT
being finalized by WJWW. The cost associated with the meter upgrade and new
vault would be the responsibility of the Applicant.
The report prepared by SWWC, dated February 1, 2019, summarizes the findings
of the analysis performed to ensure these upgrades are sufficient to provide
adequate water flows and pressures during both normal and extreme scenarios (i.e.
during fire demand) (see Appendix G). SWWC service standards establish a
minimum pressure of 35 psi at the service tap location and a minimum residual
pressure of 20 psi during fire-flow conditions. The analysis shows pressures of 62
psi under post-development conditions and 32 psi under fire flow conditions, which
are both more than the required 35 psi and 20 psi, respectively. Therefore, sufficient
flows and pressures during both normal and extreme conditions will be provided.
Comment 86: The Village’s Consulting Engineer requested additional information on the ability
of the water system to provide adequate capacity and pressure to serve the
Proposed Project in the event of an on-Site fire during a condition where an off-
Site fire occurs within the same area. Specifically, the Village’s Consulting
Engineer requested a discussion of the potential impacts to the booster system on
Anderson Hill Road along with mitigation measures that may be required,
including on-Site pumps or tanks. (Snyder 007, Oliveri 011)
Snyder 007 (#77): Details on storage tanks and pumps in connection with fire
requirement (needs to be provided).
Oliveri 011 (#100): Section 11.2.3 of the Scoping Outline required an analysis of the
capacity available while firefighting is occurring in the vicinity. While fire flow hydrant
tests have been performed, and SUEZ has provided a "willingness to serve" letter, this
analysis has not yet been performed. The DEIS states that "confirmation of this analysis
has been requested from SUEZ". SUEZ has acknowledged problems with the system in
this area, not necessarily restricted to drought conditions.
Oliveri 011 (#101): The DEIS does not discuss the status of increasing capacity and
reliability of the system. The DEIS states that SUEZ noted that there is infrastructure in
place “to secure water from different locations”, however this is not discussed in any
detail. Additional information is also needed on potential problems within the area
supplied by the booster system on Anderson Hill Road that would affect this
development. Particularly if an off-site fire occurs within the area served by the booster
system. If fire pumps and/or water storage are required, the applicant should provide
information now. As discussed previously, this issue should be resolved by the time of
FEIS submission.
Response 86: The latest analysis performed by SWWC on the existing infrastructure has shown
that on-Site storage tanks and pumps to accommodate fire flows in connection
with the Revised Proposed Project are not needed (see Appendix G). See also the
Response to Comment 85.
SANITARY SEWER
Comment 87: Comments were received requesting confirmation that the sanitary sewer system,
specifically the section of the system between the Project Site and the County’s
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-75 1/3/2020
trunk main, had sufficient capacity to accommodate the Proposed Project.
(Carravone 002, Snyder 007, Saboia 052)
Carravone 002 (#10): poor air quality, water pressure and sewer system will be a big
problem for our neighborhood
Snyder 007 (#76): The sufficiency of the sanitary sewer needs to be more properly
documented.
Saboia 052 (#388): My biggest concern is effluent...waste discharge from toilets, showers,
dish washers, washing machines. The scope of this project...one of the biggest complaints
was the worry of what was going to happen to all the waste water, the effluent.
Saboia 052 (#389): There were years back where we had horrible floods down towards
the lower end of Bayberry. My concern is that with the scope of this [proposed project]
and the size, we would have to be facing major issues with our water and the fluid.
Response 87: As described in Section 2.11.2, “Sanitary Sewer,” an analysis of the capacity of
the sanitary sewer network connecting the Project Site to the County’s sewer
trunk line was performed (see DEIS Appendix EE). As shown in Table 6 of DEIS
Appendix EE, this sewer infrastructure has the capacity to handle up to 0.960
cubic feet per second (cfs) of flow, which is well in excess of the 0.645 cfs of
flow projected in the post-development condition with the original project. As
shown in the analysis, with the original project, the existing 8-inch sewer main
would flow at 45 percent of its capacity during periods of peak flow. As the
Revised Proposed Project would generate less sanitary wastewater than the
original project, the sewer mains would similarly be able to handle the increase
flows associated with the Revised Proposed Project.
Comment 88: The Village’s Consulting Engineer noted that, “The DEIS states that the
Applicant agrees to mitigate increases to sewage flow (net 35,787 [gallons per
day] gpd increase) at a 3:1 ratio (107,361 gpd). This is in accordance with the
County Departments of Planning and Environmental Facilities recommendations
and should be made a condition of any future site plan approval. The Applicant
agrees to either complete further investigation to identify I&I sources in the
downstream sewer system and conduct repairs or to contribute sufficient funds to
the Village’s current I&I program as mitigation.” (Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#102): The DEIS states that the applicant agrees to mitigate increases to
sewage flow (net 35,787 gpd increase) at a three for one ratio (107,361 gpd). This is in
accordance with the Westchester County Departments of Planning and Environmental
Facilities recommendations and should be made a condition of any future site plan
approval. The applicant agrees to either complete further investigation to identify I&I
sources in the downstream sewer system and conduct repairs or to contribute sufficient
funds to the Village’s current I&I program as mitigation.
Response 88: As described in Section 2.11.2, “Sanitary Sewer,” the Proposed Project is
estimated to generate approximately 46,79047,670 gpd of sanitary sewage, which
is equal to an increment of 26,87727,757 gpd more than the No Build condition.
In accordance with WCDEF recommendations, the Applicant would mitigate the
additional 26,87727,757 gpd to the system at a 3:1 ratio, or a reduction in inflow
and infiltration in the amount of 80,63183,271 gpd. The Applicant intends to
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-76 DRAFT
effectuate this mitigation through a monetary contribution to the Village’s
existing I&I program in an amount equivalent to the per gallon contribution of
recently approved projects in the Village. The Applicant is open to restricting the
use of these funds to a specific project, including the relining of the sewer main
from 900 King Street to the existing main.
Comment 89: The Village’s Consulting Engineer made several comments with respect to
specific design elements of the on-Site sanitary sewer system. (Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#113): Connection of sanitary sewer services from the proposed town
houses directly into manholes should be avoided.
Oliveri 011 (#114): Sewer main alignment between SMH-3-1 and SMH-3 is at an
extremely acute angle, this should be avoided.
Oliveri 011 (#115): Sewer and drainage profiles are required for review and approval.
Response 89: The sanitary sewer service connections are designed to connect directly into
sewer mains instead of manholes. This is illustrated on drawing C-500 (see
Volume 4).
The proposed sanitary sewer main alignments have been designed to avoid any
connections at acute angles. This is illustrated on drawing C-500 (see Volume 4).
Drawings C-510, C-511, and C-520 has been added to the site plans showing the
sanitary sewer and storm sewer profiles (see Volume 4).
ENERGY USAGE (ELECTRICITY AND GAS)
Comment 90: Comments were received requesting that Con Ed confirm that sufficient electric
and gas service for the Proposed Project is available. (Snyder 007, Planning Board
018, Tazbin 071)
Snyder 007 (#75): Existing electric service and existing gas service will accommodate
the proposed project. It is imperative that these statements be confirmed.
Planning Board 018 (#234): Consolidated Edison should confirm (and such
confirmation should be independently analyzed) that its existing infrastructure can
handle the increased electricity demand. The Arbors experiences blackouts that also
affect properties on Country Ridge Drive.
Tazbin 071 (#562): Con Edison. Do they honestly feel that they would support a couple
hundred extra units if they can’t even support what they have now with all the outages
that we have?
Response 90: The Revised Proposed Project would require electricity and gas to power building
systems. Con Edison would continue to provide electric service to the site, which
would be fed through an underground 13.2 kilovolt (kV) service originating from
Arbor Drive. This 13.2 kV service would be tapped by the various buildings on
the Project Site with pad-mounted utility transformers at each building. As
confirmed by Con Edison, the existing transformer on the Project Site is adequate
for the electric loads of the Revised Proposed Project (see Appendix H).
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-77 1/3/2020
Con Edison has stated that they can provide firm gas to the Revised Proposed
Project and that two upgrades to Con Edison’s gas system would be required:
replacement of 945 feet of 4- and 6-inch main with 12-inch main on Mohegan
Lane and Latonia Road; and, installation of a 12-inch tie on King Street from
Arbor Drive to N. Ridge Street. The cost of these improvements would be initially
funded by the Applicant, and refunded by Con Edison upon completion of the
Revised Proposed Project (see Appendix H). It is the Applicant’s understanding
that Con Edison will supply the Revised Proposed Project with firm natural gas
service if the Applicant demonstrates continued progress in completing the
project even if construction is not completed within two years despite Con
Edison’s temporary gas moratorium in southern Westchester County.
3.12. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
METHODOLOGY
Comment 91: Comment 91: The Village of Port Chester’s Board of Trustees requested that
the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and DEIS examine the following additional
intersections:
King Street (Route 120A) and Indian Road/Quintard Drive
King Street (Route 120A) and Putnam Terrace/Putnam Avenue. (Port Chester 019)
Port Chester 019 (#241): The Traffic Impact Study and DEIS should examine the
following additional intersections:
a. King Street (Route 120A) and Indian Road/Quintard Drive
b. King Street (Route 120A) and Putnam Terrace/Putnam Avenue
Response 91: As per the Adopted Scoping Document (see DEIS Appendix A-1), the DEIS
Traffic Impact Study evaluated twelve (12) intersections, including the
unsignalized King Street/Comly Avenue and the unsignalized King Street/Betsy
Brown Road intersections to the south. Based on the anticipated
arrival/distributions shown in the Traffic Impact Study and the reduction in
vehicular trip generation as described in Section 2.12, “Traffic and
Transportation,” it is anticipated that the Revised Proposed Project would add an
additional 16 trips during the Weekday Peak AM Highway Hour, 19 trips during
the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 22 trips during the Weekday Peak PM
Highway Hour to the unsignalized King Street/Indian Hill Road/Quintard Drive
and the signalized King Street/Putnam Avenue/N. Regent Street/Putnam Terrace
intersections. This would be an increase in traffic of approximately 2 percent,
which is expected to have minimal impact at the above two intersections.
It should also be noted that, as with the original project, the Revised Proposed
Project would generate significantly less traffic than the re-occupancy of the
existing office building.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-78 DRAFT
Comment 92: Questions were received questioning the validity of the existing condition traffic
counts used in the TIS. (Snyder 007, FP Clark 012, Galante 020, Galante 044)
Snyder 007 (#86): the applicant’s Traffic Impact Study appears to have been done when
the private schools in Greenwich (nearby Greenwich Academy, Sacred Hart,
Brunswick, and Eagle Hill to name a few) may have been out of session, thereby not
reflecting real traffic patterns, and does not evaluate more than peak periods.
FP Clark 012 (#155): The traffic volumes from June [for the North ridge Street at
Hutchinson River Parkway Southbound Ramps], which were used in the Traffic Study,
are reasonably acceptable for the purposes of this Study [based on recounts done in
September and October].
FP Clark 012 (#156): Clark Associates has conducted their own traffic counts at the
King Street/Arbor Drive intersection on Tuesday, October 2, 2018. The intersection
total volume comparison indicated that the traffic volumes used in the Traffic Study are
reasonably acceptable.
Galante 020 (#246): In comparison of the data obtained by the Applicant (traffic counts
included in the DEIS) and traffic counts obtained by our office (traffic counts performed
by FP Clark on King Street), it is our opinion that the baseline traffic volumes used by
the Applicant for the purposes of completing their Traffic Study are appropriate and
represent typical traffic conditions on King Street and at each of the intersections
included in the analyses.
Galante 044 (#339): The count was redone this past fall on two different days, and generally
speaking the volumes were almost identical. We’re comfortable with those volumes.
Galante 044 (#340): We went out and did separate traffic counts. We counted actually
King Street at The Arbors driveway, turn moving counts, following the turn movements
at different peaks, morning with schools, commuters, after school dismissal, and at the
end of the day commuter traffic. We did that with video cameras, and we recorded the
volumes, and they matched very closely to the volumes that were included in the
document -- in the DEIS.
Galante 044 (#341): We did another method of collecting traffic data, which was the
hoses across the road. We did that along King Street, basically between Arbors and the
Village Hall driveway. It took us three different tries on three different weeks to obtain
that data. Three different times because the hoses were tampered with: Either removed,
cut, damaged, whatever. But in the end we have the data. Using that volume, which is
hourly directional volumes for a period of days, we matched that to the volumes used in
the traffic study for the different time periods by direction, and those volumes were very
similar, almost identical to what’s in the report.
Galante 044 (#342): Volumes that were identified as the baseline, volumes were
existing condition, volumes in the traffic report, we would agree with. We think it’s
good data as far as the traffic volumes out there.
Response 92: The Existing Traffic Volumes were conducted when the area schools were in
session and, as outlined in the comment above, Village’s the Traffic Consultant
(FPCA) indicated that “the baseline traffic volumes used by the Applicant for the
purposes of completing their traffic study are appropriate and represent typical
traffic conditions on King Street and at each of the intersections included in the
analysis.”
Comment 93: The Village’s Traffic Consultant noted that, “The capacity analysis provided [in
the TIS] is reasonably acceptable and is properly calibrated to illustrate existing
conditions with capacity deficiencies on the minor street approaches at the
Hutchinson River Parkway interchange as well as queue along King Street at key
signalized intersections.” (FP Clark 012)
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-79 1/3/2020
FP Clark 012 (#158): The capacity analysis provided is reasonably acceptable and is
properly calibrated to illustrate existing conditions with capacity deficiencies on the
minor street approaches at the Hutchinson River Parkway interchange as well as queue
along King Street at key signalized intersections.
FP Clark 012 (#164): The capacity analysis provided (for Build Conditions) is
reasonably acceptable.
Response 93: Comment noted.
Comment 94: The Village’s Traffic Consultant noted that the 2025 No Build traffic volumes in
the TIS are reasonably acceptable and that it is the opinion of the Village’s Traffic
Consultant that inclusion of trips associated with the full occupancy of the
existing office building provided a “fair assessment” because the building is
“there and it could be reoccupied.” (FP Clark 012, Galante 044)
FP Clark 012 (#159): The 2025 no-build traffic volumes are reasonably acceptable.
Galante 044 (#344): There was a comparison with the office building. I know there’s
some concern in here why are we comparing it to the office building. It’s there. It could
be reoccupied. And I think that’s a fair assessment that should be -- for the Village to
see and understand.
Response 94: The Village’s traffic consultant (FPCA), as part of their review dated November
2, 2018 of the Traffic Impact Study (August 24, 2018) and DEIS (September 12,
2018) indicated that in addition to the re-occupancy of the existing office
building, the Applicant has accounted for five other future developments and has
used an appropriate background growth rate for increases in traffic volume not
specifically related to a specific no-build project; therefore the 2025 No-Build
Traffic Volumes are reasonably acceptable. The Year 2025 Build analysis was
updated to reflect the reduced vehicular trip generation associated with the
Revised Proposed Project and is compared to the DEIS Year 2025 no-build
analysis with the re-occupancy of the existing office building (see Section 2.12,
“Traffic and Transportation,” and Appendix I-1).
Subsequently, based on a comment by the New York State Department of
Transportation (NYSDOT) and at the request of FPCA, the Applicant has provided
a sensitivity analysis of a No-Build Condition without any traffic associated with
re-occupancy of the existing office building. The Year 2025 Build analysis for the
Revised Proposed Project is compared to the Year 2025 No-Build analysis without
the re-occupancy of the existing office building (see Section 2.12, “Traffic and
Capacity Analysis for the Revised Proposed Project” and Appendix I-2).
It should be noted that FPCA in their January 4, 2019 memorandum addressing
NYSDOT commented that, “It is important to note that in the past the re-
occupancy of vacant buildings was included to account for the net change in site
traffic for redevelopment.”
See also the Response to Comment 98.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-80 DRAFT
Comment 95: Comments were received questioning the number of trips estimated for the
Proposed Project during the peak hours, including whether the trip generation
estimates took into account the proposed staffing of the facility. The Village’s
Traffic Consultant stated that the trip generation estimates are acceptable and that
“the proposed uses generate significantly less traffic than the current office
building, if fully occupied.” (Mignogna 001, FP Clark 012, Levine 029, Galante
044, Klein 062)
Mignogna 001 (#1): Total 269 “units”…”fewer than 100 vehicle trips”…The numbers
are hard to believe.
FP Clark 012 (#160): The proposed uses generate significantly less traffic than the
current office building, if fully occupied.
FP Clark 012 (#162): The Applicant has increased the trip rates for the 160-units of senior
adult housing by 25 percent (x 1.25) to account for larger units and is acceptable. Site traffic
estimates for the 24 residential townhouses and 94-Bed assisted living are acceptable. Site
traffic distribution is reasonably acceptable for the proposed residential development.
FP Clark 012 (#163): The 2025 build traffic volumes are reasonably acceptable.
Levine 029 (#260): There’s no basis for it at all to say there’s a reduction in traffic
during peak hours. We have no idea what hours people are going to be leaving for work
out of those units, or people coming in and visiting them. But with an assisted living,
there’s going to be emergency vehicles coming in, there’s going to be physical
therapists coming in. They are going to be coming in during peak hours. Any kind of
employees for those buildings will be coming in during peak hours. And there’s no way
to say when people will be leaving.
Galante 044 (#343): As far as site traffic generation, we agree with that. The site traffic
volumes are actually increased by 25% to look at a worst case. There was some concern
that the units were bigger than what you might find in the ITE trip handbook, so the
volumes were increased by 25%, and the analysis reflects that increase in site traffic.
Klein 062 (#511): It is unclear in the traffic study if staff trips are incorporated in the
[trip generation] numbers. Table 2-4...shows expected staffing levels, however
Appendix F in the Proposed Project Section does not seem to incorporate staff trips
during the commuting hours.
Response 95: The anticipated trip estimates for the original project, as included in the DEIS,
were based on industry standards contained in the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. These standards
include trips generated both by residents and staff of similar facilities. Based on
these standards, the original project would have been anticipated to generate a
total of 70 trips during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 80 trips during the Weekday
Peak Midday Hour, and 90 trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour. As noted by
the Village’s traffic consultants, these estimates were “reasonably acceptable”
and reflective of the expectation that the “proposed uses generate significantly
less traffic than the current office building if fully occupied.”
As stated in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” the Revised Proposed
Project would generate a total of 5451 trips (reduction in 16of 19 trips) during the
Weekday Peak AM Hour, 6259 trips (reduction in 18of 21 trips) during the
Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 7167 trips (reduction in 19of 23 trips) in during
the Weekday Peak PM Hour.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-81 1/3/2020
Comment 96: The Village’s Traffic Consultant stated that the TIS “that was eventually accepted
by the Village was pretty much what we were looking for from a traffic
perspective.” (Galante 044)
Galante 044 (#338): The document that was eventually accepted by the Village was
pretty much what we were looking for from a traffic perspective.
Galante 044 (#345): We’re in agreement in what’s in the document as far as how it was
put together, how it was analyzed, and we do agree with the results.
Response 96: Comment noted. The DEIS Traffic Impact Study followed the Adopted Scoping
Document and standard Traffic Impact Study methodology.
Comment 97: A commenter suggested that the traffic associated with the office building when
it was fully occupied was generally moving in the opposite direction from the
peak flow on Arbor Drive and therefore had a less adverse impact than the
Proposed Project may have. (Fiedler 027)
Fiedler 027 (#257): The office building only had incoming traffic in the morning; nobody
was ever leaving. The Arbors is leaving. The high school, the middle school, their lining up
of cars. So I don’t know how it’s 79% less (than traffic generated by the office building).
Response 97: The re-occupancy of the existing office building would generate a total of 333
trips (293 entering trips and 40 exiting trips) during the Weekday Peak AM Hour,
227 trips (102 entering trips and 125 exiting trips) during the Weekday Peak
Midday Hour, and 302 trips (51 entering trips and 251 exiting trips) during the
Weekday Peak PM Hour (see DEIS Appendix F). As such, it would be expected
that a percentage of the total office-related trips would be moving toward King
Street in the morning and toward the Arbors in the afternoon.
The Revised Proposed Project would generate a total of 5451 trips (20 entering
trips and 34 exitingreduction of 19 trips) during the Weekday Peak AM Hour,
6259 trips (29 entering trips and 33 exitingreduction of 21 trips) during the
Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 7167 trips (39 enteringreduction of 23 trips and
32 exiting trips)) in during the Weekday Peak PM Hour. As shown above, the
existing office development would generate significantly more traffic the Revised
Proposed Project.
Based on the existing conditions traffic counts that were performed in 2017 and
2018, the existing office building is generating 34 existing trips during the
Weekday Peak AM Hour, 25 existing trips during the Weekday Peak Midday
Hour, and 21 existing trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour. As a result, the
Revised Proposed Project would generate an increase from the current condition
of only 2017 trips during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 3734 existing trips during
the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 5046 existing trips during the Weekday
Peak PM Hour. That is to say, the Revised Proposed Project is only expected to
add one additional car to Arbor Drive every 1.23 to 3.5 minutes during the peak
hours.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-82 DRAFT
Comment 98: Comments were received suggesting that considering the existing office building
on the Project Site to be fully occupied in the No Build condition in the TIS was
inappropriate either because it did not demonstrate the “real feel” of the Project’s
traffic impacts or because it was contrary to SEQRA policy. (Snyder 007,
Planning Board 018, Levine 029, Drummond 037, Snyder 038, Adler 039, Snyder
053, Darelius 056, Galante 057, Galante 058, Klein 062)
Snyder 007 (#32): comparing the Proposed Redevelopment to a fully occupied office
building for the purpose of analyzing impacts is not consistent with law. As the Court held
in Kirk Astor Drive Neighborhood Association v. Town Board of Town of Pittsford. 106
AD 2d 868 (1984), the board action under SEQRA must encompass the impacts associated
with the actual change from its current use (a partially occupied office building) to the
Proposed Development. Therefore, the DEIS is fatally flawed in all respects and proper
comparisons to its current use must be reviewed by the Village Board.
Snyder 007 (#87): The applicant’s position that the project will have a reduced traffic
impact on the community when compared to a full re-occupancy of the existing office
use is not supported by the law or facts.
Planning Board 018 (#221): In the Traffic Study, the vehicle trips generated by the
existing occupancy level of the building should be compared with the proposed
condition to help demonstrate the “real feel” of the project’s traffic impacts.
Levine 029 (#262): A half occupied office building right now is not providing the same
amount of traffic that will be happening with all the additional employees and residents.
Drummond 037 (#287): The (traffic) analysis should take into account the fact that there
is currently very minimal traffic to and from the Site and that the proposed development
would change this.
Snyder 038 (#292): The Applicant has misrepresented the overall size and intensity of
the Proposed Redevelopment by comparing its impact to that of a nonexistent full
occupancy of the existing office building at 900 King Street...This comparison is
completely inappropriate since it does not adequately reflect the impact of the project
and seeks to deprive the Village Board and the Rye Brook community of their
opportunity to truly understand the devastating magnitude of this project.
Adler 039 (#295): Using the No-Build to mean a full re-occupancy of the existing office
building is not appropriate in the instant case…current office buildings on the 900 King
Street Site have been minimally used for many years. A comparison between a full re-
occupancy of the existing office building to the proposed development does not
adequately reflect the traffic impact that the proposed 900 King Street redevelopment
would have on the surrounding roadway network. A more appropriate gauge would
have been to compare the Build operating conditions with the existing conditions.
Snyder 053 (#394): As set forth in the Adler Report, the applicant’s comparison of the
no-build, which they connote to mean full re-occupancy of existing office buildings to
the proposed project is inappropriate.
Snyder 053 (#395): Indeed the applicant should be directed to redo the traffic impact
study in a manner that demonstrates the true impact of the proposed project against the
existing conditions.
Darelius 056 (#420): The TIS may have overestimated the no-build traffic in the study due
to wording of the scoping document. The office building located at this location has been
operating at a very low occupancy for several years, and the submitted analysis provides a
no-build model with the current land use fully occupied. Please have the developer to [sic]
resubmit a TIS that accurately depicts the current no-build situation. A no-build analysis
that includes growth rate, surrounding development and existing traffic conditions at the
site is requested to properly adhere to SEQR policy 617-2-L regarding existing
neighborhood character and existing patterns of population concentration.
Galante 057 (#421): We are recommending that the Applicant provide in the FEIS a
separate analysis of a 2025 no-build condition, which includes other development and a
growth rate, to a build condition which only includes the site traffic to be generated by
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-83 1/3/2020
the proposed residential use of the Subject Property. This analysis would not take any
credit for the previous office use of the Subject Property since it has been mostly vacant
for many years. This analysis will provide the Village with additional information to
determine potential impact on area roadways and the need for mitigation to address
traffic related to this specific proposed residential development.
Galante 058 (#422): Based on these comments from NYSDOT we are recommending
that the Applicant include the analysis of a no-build and build condition, without any
office building estimated traffic under full occupancy, be included in the FEIS.
Klein 062 (#513): There is too much comparison to full re-occupancy of the existing
office building in the trafficstudy and subsequently in the DEIS. New York State DOT
has commented as such in their 1/4/19 letter and the FEIS should include builds from
existing conditions as specified in FP Clarkletter also dated 1/4/19
Response 98: The TIS submitted as part of the DEIS utilized as a baseline the existing 200,000-
sf office building as if it were fully occupied, pursuant to the adopted DEIS
Scoping Outline. While there is case law to support the DEIS analysis, based upon
comments received during the DEIS review process, this FEIS provides an
analysis based upon the current utilization of the office building.
In addition, as noted in Comment 94, a sensitivity analysis was conducted without
the re-occupancy of the existing office building, as summarized in Section 2.12,
“Traffic and Transportation,” and contained in its entirety in Appendix I-2.
Comment 99: The Village’s Traffic Consultant noted that, “The Applicant has provided
accident data from 2014 to 2016 and [it] is acceptable.” (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#165): The Applicant has provided accident data from 2014 to 2016 and
is acceptable.
Response 99: Comment noted.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS
Comment 100: Comments were received regarding the overall traffic impacts of the Proposed
Project. Several commenters expressed their opinion that the Proposed Project
would create a “traffic nightmare,” especially along King Street, which is already
a heavily trafficked corridor. (Mandell 010, FP Clark 012, Adler 039, Ross 042,
Levine 048, Snyder 061, Heiser 065)
Mandell 010 (#98): (The proposed project will) create a traffic nightmare.
FP Clark 012 (#157): During the morning peak period, as it relates to both commuter
traffic and School-related traffic, significant delays were observed along King Street
generally from and including the Parkway ramp intersections, along King Street in the
vicinity of the Arbors signalized intersection and including the Blind Brook School’s
driveways. This congestion and delays were clearly related to School activity and included
School buses, staff, parents and students. Combined with this traffic was the typical
commuter traffic found along King Street. During the afternoon School dismissal, traffic
conditions were found to be better with reduced delays; however, there were observed
traffic delays related to the School dismissal, mostly in the vicinity of the Blind Brook
School’s signalized intersection, which continued to the Arbors signalized intersection.
However, during both the morning and midday time periods the Arbors Drive intersection
driveway had minimal traffic delays. The dismissal time delays were found to dissipate
within 15 minutes and is typical for any School activity on adjacent roads. During the
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-84 DRAFT
typical weekday afternoon commuter time period, which essentially excludes any or most
School-related traffic the delays were found to be less and traffic flowed reasonably well,
although there were short-terms delays at the signalized intersections near Glenville Street.
The field observations mostly match the results of the computer modeling for these
intersections, as completed by the Applicant’s Traffic Consultant.
Adler 039 (#296): Proposed redevelopment project will have a significant adverse
impact on traffic conditions…which are already at or near capacity. Several
intersections in the immediate area around the project will operate at capacity Levels of
Service (LOS) “E” or LOS “F”.
Adler 039 (#300): The Proposed Project’s senior population could be at risk since
emergency service vehicles would be unable to quickly enter and exit the property due
to the failing LOS conditions.
Adler 039 (#301): (The site would) result in individual movements operating at capacity
LOS “E” conditions or failure conditions (LOS “F”) during the peak hours at the six (6)
intersections studied: King Street (Route 120A) & Anderson Hill Road, King Street
(Route 120A) & North Ridge Street, King Street (Route 120A) & Glen Ridge
Road/Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway NB on/off-ramp, King Street (Route
120A) & Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway NB on/off-ramp, and King Street
(Route 120A) & Betsy Brown Road.
Ross 042 (#327): we (Blind Brook-Rye Union Free School District) are very concerned
with traffic on King Street in Rye Brook as it is currently extremely heavy during rush
hour periods each weekday morning and afternoon. Traffic will only worsen…the
situation may get so poor that the safety of pedestrians and motorists will be
jeopardized. Very concerned about the potential for congestion especially on King
Street southbound between the Belle Fair Boulevard and Magnolia Drive and
northbound on King Street from Magnolia Drive to Belle Fair Boulevard.
Levine 048 (#372): You have no control over when people will be visiting the residents,
when people will be going in and out in the care facility, when the hospitality people
will be coming in and out.
Levine 048 (#373): Emergency vehicles, I’m concerned about the fire trucks being able
to get to where they need to go. And any other police that are going to be needing to go
down King Street.
Levine 048 (#374): You cannot control the flow of traffic. 600 other residents and an
elderly care facility in there, and the traffic is going to explode. There’s one road in, one
road out. King Street is used by many and it’s going to be used by even more. Access to
it from the Hutch is going to be affected as well. There’s no control over what’s going to
be going on during construction.
Heiser 065 (#528): I’m concerned about the traffic.
Maniscalco 076 (#574): It seems to me that the biggest challenge with replacing an
office building with any type of residential development, particularly one so dense will
greatly add to the problem. This is true because, unlike an office building, drivers
coming to and from the new development will be traveling the same direction as current
residents. In other words, office workers are coming to the building in the morning and
night, as opposed to residents which do the opposite. This will multiply our issue.
Snyder 061 (#500): Adler Consulting prepared the attached chart, using numbers from
the Applicant’s TIS and comparing the proposed project to existing conditions. The
chart highlights the “F” conditions resulting from the project and demonstrates the true
significant adverse traffic impact of the project.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-85 1/3/2020
Table 1
Level-of-Service Comparison1
Intersection App1
Weekday Peak AM Weekday Peak Midday Weekday Peak PM
Existing Build Existing Build Existing Build
King Street (Route 120A) and
Anderson Hill Road
NB l A (4.3) A (6.2) A (3.3) A (4.6) B (12.0) C (20.9)
NB t B (17.9) C (27.7) B (10.9) B (14.5) B (13.9) B (18.1)
SB t B (12.9) B (17.9) B (13.3) B (18.6) C (30.6) E (63.8)
SB r A (0.7) A (0.8) A (0.5) A (0.7) A (1.1) A (1.3)
EB l D (35.6) D (40.1) C (33.9) D (36.2) C (32.4) C (34.3)
EB r B (19.1) B (18.6) B (18.3) B (18.6) C (21.2) C (21.4)
Overall B (16.6) C (20.3) B (13.0) B (16.5) C (21.6) D (36.5)
King Street (Route 120A) and
Hutchinson River Pkwy/Merritt Pkwy SB off-ramp WB r c (19.0) d (27.3) b (13.6) c (16.2) b (14.0) c (16.7)
King Street (Route 120A) and N. Ridge Street
NB l b (10.6) b (11.6) a (9.8) b (10.4) a (9.9) b (10.5) EB l f (160.9) f (346.3) f (89.1) f (177.6) f (60.8) f (99.5)
EB r c (21.7) d (27.4) c (17.6) c (21.5) d (26.2) e (38.6)
King Street (Route 120A) and Glen Ridge Road/Hutchinson River Pkwy/Merritt Pkwy NB on/off ramp
SB l b (14.6) c (18.0) b (14.5) c (17.6) c (15.8) c (19.8)
WB l/r f (53.1) f (138.3) d (31.4) f (53.6) e (41.8) f (97.7)
King Street (Route 120A) and Hutchinson River Pkwy/Merritt Pkwy NB on/off ramp
NB l a (0.0) a (0.0) a (8.3) a 98.4) a (8.8) a (9.0)
EB l/r f (82.1) f (151.1) c (22.4) d (30.7) f (53.9) f (110.7)
King Street (Route 120A) and Arbor
Drive
NB l A (3.0) A (3.8) A (2.1) A (2.5) A (2.5) A (2.9)
NB t A (8.2) B (13.2) A (5.3) A (7.8) A (4.3) A (5.6)
SB t B (10.1) B (15.6) A (6.4) A (7.8) A (7.9) B (10.2)
SB r A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.1) A (0.1) A (0.1)
EB l D (45.1) D (46.6) D (40.8) D (42.8) D (51.0) D (52.0)
EB r B (14.2) B (12.6) B (17.2) B (15.8) B (18.2) B (16.8)
Overall B (10.3) B 915.5) A (6.4) A (8.4) A (7.0) A 98.7)
King Street (Route 120A) and Blind
Brook MS/HS right turn entry SB r a a a a a a
King Street (Route 120A) and Blind Brook MS/HS Glenville Street
NB l A (9.7) B (10.4) B (12.0) B 913.2) A (8.0) A (8.4)
NB t/r C (31.5) D (38.3) C (29.7) D (36.6) B (19.7) C (22.7)
SB l B (12.5) B (17.5) B (13.1) B (15.5) A (5.2) A (5.8)
SB t/r C (20.3) C (22.8) C (22.7) C (25.5) B (10.1) B (10.9)
EB l D (46.0) D (46.4) D (47.5) D (49.0) D (50.6) D (50.8)
EB t/r B (15.5) B(15.2) B (12.8) B (12.7) C (21.8) C (21.3)
WB l/t D (46.4) D (47.0) D (50.5) D (D (48.9) E (60.5) E (60.8)
WB r B (18.9) B (18.8) C (22.2) C (25.0) B 916.0) B 915.7)
Overall C (24.5) C (27.8) C (26.9) C (30.4) B (17.7) B (18.8)
Arbor Drive and Site Driveway WB l a (0.0) a (0.0) a (0.0) a (0.0) a (0.0) a (0.0)
SB l/r a (9.6) b (10.0) b (10.1) b (10.6) a (9.5) a (9.9)
King Street (Route 120A) and Comely Avenue SB l a (8.8) a (9.1) a (8.4) a (8.6) a (8.6) a (8.9)
WB l/r c (20.9) d (27.4) b (14.9) c (16.9) c (18.7) c (23.6)
King Street (Route 120A) and Betsey Brown Road NB l a (9.8) b (10.3) a (9.3) a (9.6) a (8.7) a (8.9)
EB l/r f (172.2) f (374. 9) e (40.1) f (69.6) d (25.0) d (34.8)
N. Ridge Street and Hutchinson River Pkwy SB on/off ramps SB l a (8.9) a (9.3) a (8.0) a (8.2) a (7.9) a (8.0)
WB l/r b (11.9) b (12.7) b (10.2) b (10.4) b (10.7) b (11.2)
Notes: 1. Letters indicate levels of service, delays (in parentheses) are in seconds per vehicle. 2. EB – eastbound, WB = westbound, NB = northbound, SB = southbound, l = left, t = through, r= = right. Overall = the weighted average delay of all the movements at the intersection and the corresponding LOD.
4. Uppercase letters indicate signalized intersections, lowercase letters indicate unsignalized intersections.
Response 100: As described in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” and in Response to
Comment 95, the Revised Proposed Project would result in 1619 fewer trips
during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 1821 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak
Midday Hour, and 1923 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour than the
original project.
The results of the analysis with and without the re-occupancy of the existing office
development are summarized in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” and
detailed in Appendix I-1 and Appendix I-2, respectively. As was the case with
the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would not have a significant
adverse impact on any study area intersection when compared to the No Build
condition (i.e., re-occupancy of the existing office building). In fact, certain study
area intersections would see a beneficial change to LOS and/or average delays
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-86 DRAFT
with the Revised Proposed Project when compared the No Build condition when
compared to the re-occupancy of the existing office building.
While there is case law to support the DEIS analysis, based upon comments
received during the DEIS review process from the public and from NYSDOT,
this FEIS provides a sensitivity analysis based upon the current utilization of the
office building (see Table 2.12-3 and Appendix I-2).
As shown in this analysis, the Revised Proposed Project would not have a
significant adverse impact on any study area intersections with the re-occupancy
of the existing office building included in the analysis. Without the re-occupancy
of the existing office building, there would be the following impacts: the Glen
Ridge Road westbound lane to King Street will maintain a LOS “F” during the
weekday morning peak hour, with an increase in delay of 12.7 seconds; the
Hutchinson River Parkway northbound on-off ramp eastbound lane to King Street
will maintain a LOS “F” during the weekday afternoon peak hour, with an
increase in delay of 12.1 seconds; and, the Betsy Brown Road eastbound land will
maintain a LOS “F” during the weekday morning peak hour, with an increase in
delay of 16.1 seconds. Consequently, redevelopment of the Project Site to an age-
restricted residential community would not significantly affect the area roadways.
It should be noted that typically, the Build Condition with the Proposed Project is
compared to the No-Build Condition, which includes a background growth factor
as well as other pending/approved developments (as included in the DEIS
Scoping outline) to determine the future impacts of the Proposed Project. As
noted above, the results of this analysis is detailed in Appendix I-1 and Appendix
I-2.
See also the Response to Comment 94.
Comment 101: Comments were received regarding the potential impacts of the Proposed Project
on Arbor Drive and its intersection with King Street. Some commenters suggested
that the Proposed Project would not adversely affect Arbor Drive. Other
commenters suggested that the traffic from the Proposed Project would
“overwhelm” Arbor Drive and severely inconvenience residents of The Arbors
and, eventually, residents of the Proposed Project. (Straubinger 003, Levy 004,
Snyder 007, Planning Board 018, Levine 029, Adler 039, Snyder 045, Levine 048,
Snyder 061, Tazbin 071)
Straubinger 003 (#14): (Increased analysis of alternatives to the Project that will
incorporate) the major traffic congestion impacts the project will have on Arbor Drive
traffic patterns and the King Street Interchange
Levy 004 (#18): I do think they were sensitive to the use of Arbor Drive to limit the
concerns of the Arbors.
Snyder 007 (#49): in light of the magnitude of the project, a much more careful analysis
needs to be made regarding access...there is only one access drive, Arbor Drive, to be
used by the 250 townhome owners at the Arbors and the potential 600 residents of the
project, is alarming.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-87 1/3/2020
Planning Board 018 (#238): Capability of emergency services to address the increased
demand from the proposed project needs further study. The adequacy of proposed
ingress and egress for the property for emergency vehicles should be confirmed.
Levine 029 (#261): Without a second access road, this should never have gone any
further. Arbor Drive cannot maintain that amount of traffic.
Adler 039 (#299): Arbor Drive cannot safely sustain the significant increase in vehicles
and trips associated with the proposed project.
Snyder 045 (#353): Board must take into account there’s one road in. There’s Arbor Drive,
and whatever ends up being with the secondary access, which they don’t even have.
Levine 048 (#375): If there is an emergency in The Arbors, how do we all get out? That
hasn’t really been answered either. There needs to be another way in an out that’s
accessible to all, and I don’t want to figure it out when there is an emergency.
Snyder 061 (#503): Mitigation measures need to be designed and implemented by the
Applicant...to address the one way access road of Arbor Drive and the anticipated traffic
from the project compared to existing conditions.
Response 101: The signalized intersection of King Street (Route 120A) and Arbor Drive is
anticipated to operate at similar Levels of Service for the No-Build conditions and
under the Build condition with the Revised Proposed Project (see Section 2.12,
“Traffic and Transportation,” and Appendix I-1 and Appendix I-2). It should be
noted that the current office building is generating some 34 existing trips during the
Weekday Peak AM Hour, 25 existing trips during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour,
and 21 existing trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour. As a result, the Revised
Proposed Project would generate an increase from the current condition of only
2017 trips during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 3734 existing trips during the
Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 5046 existing trips during the Weekday Peak PM
Hour.
In the existing condition, fire trucks are able to access Arbor Drive from King
Street and the Arbors is provided with an emergency access road to Meadowlark
Avenue. The Revised Proposed Project will not alter these conditions. The
driveways into the Project Site that are proposed for the Revised Proposed Project
are designed to accommodate the turning movements of emergency response
vehicles (see Figure 1-16). In addition, the Revised Proposed Project includes
another emergency access drive that connects to the Fire Department property and
ultimately to King Street.
Comment 102: Comments were received opining that the Proposed Project would have a
significant adverse impact on the intersections of the Parkway with King Street.
(Ghosh 008, Parvani 009, Maniscalco 015, Samuels 016, Ross 042)
Ghosh 008 (#89): The increase in traffic on and off the Hutch and King Street would be
seriously impacted. The width of the street is not adequately designed to handle that
kind of an increase in traffic.
Parvani 009 (#93): The increase in traffic on and off the Hutch and King Street would
be seriously impacted. The width of the street is not adequately designed to handle that
kind of an increase in traffic.
Maniscalco 015 (#197): Concern over the handling of traffic coming off of the
Northbound Hutchinson River Parkway onto King Street. Poor signage on the highway
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-88 DRAFT
and/or poor traffic controls at the exit caused unnecessary and extended backups due to
the number of drivers who make left turns off of that exit.
Samuels 016 (#198): The increase in traffic on and off of the Hutch and on King Street,
from 600 new housing units, could be devastating to our community and those passing
through. The width of the street is not adequately designed to handle that kind of an
increase in traffic flow.
Ross 042 (#328): Problem with cars backing up on the Hutchinson River Parkway
(North), a longstanding issue and hazard.
Maniscalco 015 (#573): Now, a proposal exists to allow hundreds of more drivers to use
this exit [Northbound Hutchinson River Parkway onto King Street] to get home, which
already sometimes takes me 10 or more minutes to clear during peak times. Our sleepy
little village exit off of the parkway cannot handle volume at its current state. Adding
hundreds more drivers, all of whom likely to want to use this exit will further
complicate the matter. What provisions will the Village be requiring to change the
current traffic at the King Street exit in the Northbound Hutchinson River Parkway?
Will there be better signage on the Parkway? Will there be a traffic light? Will there be
a no left turn sign on King Street? Will the exit ramp provide for two lanes, one for left
and one for right turns?
Response 102: The Revised Proposed Project would result in 1619 fewer trips during the
Weekday Peak AM Hour, 1821 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak Midday
Hour, and 1923 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour than the original
project. See also the Response to Comment 95.
The results of the analysis with and without the re-occupancy of the existing office
development are summarized in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” and
detailed in Appendix I-1 and Appendix I-2, respectively. As was the case with
the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would not have a significant
adverse impact on any study area intersection when compared to the No Build
condition (i.e., re-occupancy of the existing office building). In fact, certain study
area intersections would see a beneficial change to LOS and/or average delays
with the Revised Proposed Project when compared the No Build condition when
compared to the re-occupancy of the existing office building.
While there is case law to support the DEIS analysis, based upon comments
received during the DEIS review process from the public and from NYSDOT,
this FEIS provides a sensitivity analysis based upon the current utilization of the
office building (see Table 2.12-3 and Appendix I-2).
As shown in this analysis, the Revised Proposed Project would not have a
significant adverse impact on any study area intersections with the re-occupancy
of the existing office building included in the analysis. Without the re-occupancy
of the existing office building, there would be the following impacts: the Glen
Ridge Road westbound lane to King Street will maintain a LOS “F” during the
weekday morning peak hour, with an increase in delay of 12.7 seconds; the
Hutchinson River Parkway northbound on-off ramp eastbound lane to King Street
will maintain a LOS “F” during the weekday afternoon peak hour, with an
increase in delay of 12.1 seconds; and, the Betsy Brown Road eastbound land will
maintain a LOS “F” during the weekday morning peak hour, with an increase in
delay of 16.1 seconds. Consequently, redevelopment of the Project Site to an age-
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-89 1/3/2020
restricted residential community would not significantly affect the area roadways.
See also the Response to Comment 94.
Comment 103: The Village’s Traffic Consultant noted that, “The northbound through movement
at the intersection of King Street (Route 120A) and Betsy Brown Road during the
weekday peak PM highway hour should be 542 vehicles, not 452 vehicles. This
should be revised and the capacity table updated.” (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#161): the northbound through movement at the intersection of King
Street/Betsy Brown Road during the weekday peak PM highway hour should be 542
vehicles, not 452 vehicles. This should be revised and the capacity table updated.
Response 103: Comment noted. The northbound through movement at the intersection of King
Street/Betsy Brown Road during Peak PM Highway Hour has been corrected
under the Year 2025 No-Build Condition.
Comment 104: The Village of Port Chester stated that, “A traffic signal should be provided at the
intersection of King Street (Route 120A) and Betsy Brown Road.” (Port Chester 019)
Port Chester 019 (#242): A traffic signal should be provided at the intersection of King
Street (Route 120A) and Betsy Brown Road.
Response 104: The results of the analysis with re-occupancy of the existing office building would
not significantly impact this intersection, whereas, the analysis without the re-
occupancy of will maintain a Level of Service “F” during the weekday morning
peak hour, with an increase in delay of 16.1 seconds (see Appendix I-1 and
Appendix I-2). The Revised Proposed Project is anticipated to add approximately
19 additional trips during Weekday Peak AM Hour, 22 additional trips during the
Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 26 additional trips during the Weekday Peak
PM Hour and would equate to less than 2% of the No-Build traffic projections.
As a result, a traffic signal is not proposed at this location.
It should be noted that a Traffic Signal Warrant analysis was conducted for the
Village of Port Chester at this location by the Village’s traffic consultant, AKRF,
Inc., as part of the 1 Betsy Brown Road Proposed Subdivision Traffic Review
Update (see Appendix I-3). That analysis indicated that a “traffic signal is
warranted” at Betsy Brown Road/King Street. If the Village of Port Chester is
successful in getting approval for a traffic signal at this location from the New
York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), the Applicant (900 King
Street) is willing to contribute a fair share contribution to the cost of the
installation of a traffic signal at this location.
Comment 105: Comments were received repeating the finding of the DEIS that during the build
condition, certain intersection movements would be expected to experience
queues that exceed the available storage length during the 95th and 50th percentile
traffic conditions. (Adler 039, Snyder 053)
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-90 DRAFT
Adler 039 (#298): Vehicle queues are expected: King Street (Route 120A) & Anderson
Hill Road; King Street (Route 120A) & North Ridge Street; King Street (Route 120A)
& Glen Ridge Road/Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway NB on/off-ramp; King
Street (Route 120A) & Arbor Drive; King Street (Route 120A) & Blind Brook MS/HS –
Glenville Street.
Snyder 053 (#402): The project will cause a queue spill back which is in excess of what
is available for the length of the same, resulting in difficulties to the area. Lines will
back up beyond the available length in the queue…particularly by the Hutch. It will be
similar to the devastating traffic that occurred during the recent November 15th snow
storm, but this will occur in a daily basis.
Response 105: As shown in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” and Appendix I, the
Revised Proposed Project would not significantly increase the queuing on the area
roadways.
Comment 106: A comment was received stating that level of service (LOS) E and LOS F
intersection operations will result in a greater likelihood of more traffic accidents.
(Adler 039, Snyder 061)
Adler 039 (#297): LOS “E” and “F”, the delay will result in a myriad of
consequences…based on an earlier study published in the June 2010 ITE Journal, a
greater likelihood of more traffic accidents (will occur).
Snyder 061 (#501): [LOS] “F” conditions have been found to cause an increase in traffic
accidents, and the proposed project’s senior population could be at risk since emergency
service vehicles would be unable to quickly enter and exit the property due to the failing
LOS conditions.
Response 106: As outlined in the DEIS Traffic Impact Study (see DEIS Appendix F), “Based on
the anticipated traffic generation for the Proposed Project, it is expected that the
Proposed Project will not have a significant impact on the accident rates on the
area roadways.” As the Revised Proposed Project is anticipated to generate fewer
trips than the original project, it is similarly anticipated that the Revised Proposed
Project would not have a significant impact on accident rates on the area
roadways.
TRAFFIC MITIGATION
Comment 107: Comments were received requesting information on the measures proposed to
mitigate potential traffic impacts of the Proposed Project, including the staggering
of shift changes to avoid peak hours and school arrival/dismissal times, or
reducing the size of the Proposed Project. (Drummond 037, Adler 039, Ross 042,
Snyder 053, Klein 062)
Drummond 037 (#288): How will the anticipated staffing level of 121 daily employees
be handled in terms of traffic...King Street has issues with stopped school buses during
the period just before and after school. If possible…avoid these times for shift changes
and other staff arrival and departure times.
Adler 039 (#304): The Village Board should consider reducing the density and size of
the project to alleviate the traffic impacts. At a minimum, the Village Board must
require mitigation for the significant adverse traffic impacts that the current proposal of
redeveloping the 900 King Street Site would have on the area intersections.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-91 1/3/2020
Ross 042 (#329): Several hundred cars and buses that already travel on King Street to
Blind Brook MS/HS located at 840 King Street during rush hour period. Please do not
forget to take into consideration what the proposed complex may do to a traffic situation
that is already not good and for the safety of students who walk and bike between their
homes and the Middle and High School campus. We request that traffic generated by the
construction be limited during school arrival (7:15-8:00 am) and dismissal (2:15-3:00 pm)
Snyder 053 (#407): Applicant has not provided any meaningful mitigation measures that
would result in reducing the significant traffic impacts associated with the project.
Klein 062 (#512): Mitigating measures in 12.6 should include proposed staff schedules
that will mitigate traffic.
Response 107: The Revised Proposed Project would result in 1619 fewer trips during the
Weekday Peak AM Hour, 1821 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak Midday
Hour, and 1923 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour. See also the
Response to Comment 95.
The results of the analysis with and without the re-occupancy of the existing office
development are summarized in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” and
detailed in Appendix I-1 and Appendix I-2, respectively. As was the case with
the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would not have a significant
adverse impact on any study area intersection when compared to the No Build
condition (i.e., re-occupancy of the existing office building). In fact, certain study
area intersections would see a beneficial change to LOS and/or average delays
with the Revised Proposed Project when compared the No Build condition when
compared to the re-occupancy of the existing office building.
While there is case law to support the DEIS analysis, based upon comments
received during the DEIS review process from the public and from NYSDOT,
this FEIS provides a sensitivity analysis based upon the current utilization of the
office building (see Table 2.12-3 and Appendix I-2).
As shown in this analysis, the Revised Proposed Project would not have a
significant adverse impact on any study area intersections with the re-occupancy
of the existing office building included in the analysis. Without the re-occupancy
of the existing office building, there would be the following impacts: the Glen
Ridge Road westbound lane to King Street will maintain a LOS “F” during the
weekday morning peak hour, with an increase in delay of 12.7 seconds; the
Hutchinson River Parkway northbound on-off ramp eastbound lane to King Street
will maintain a LOS “F” during the weekday afternoon peak hour, with an
increase in delay of 12.1 seconds; and, the Betsy Brown Road eastbound land will
maintain a LOS “F” during the weekday morning peak hour, with an increase in
delay of 16.1 seconds. Consequently, redevelopment of the Project Site to an age-
restricted residential community would not significantly affect the area roadways.
See also the Response to Comment 94.
In response to public comments and to further reduce the potential for adverse
traffic impacts, the Applicant has committed to staggering the shifts of the Site’s
employees so that shift changes do not occur during school arrival or dismissal
times. See also the Response to Comment 112.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-92 DRAFT
Comment 108: Comments were received supporting the concept of a shuttle to and from the
Proposed Project and local downtowns and train stations. The Village of Port
Chester’s Board of Trustees requested additional information regarding potential
impacts at the Port Chester Train Station from the shuttle’s operation. (Port
Chester 019, Drummond 037)
Port Chester 019 (#244): More information should be provided regarding the potential
of a shuttle to and from the project to potentially the Port Chester train station as this
could potentially not only impact King Street, but the area in and around the train station
and downtown.
Drummond 037 (#289): We are supportive of any initiative undertaken by the applicant to
provide a shuttle service to building residents to allow them to avoid using personal cars.
Response 108: A shuttle service is not currently planned as part of the Revised Proposed Project.
As stated in the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Project “would offer transportation
services for residents to off-site locations…Furthermore, depending on the
demand, the Proposed Project’s operator may provide shuttle service to and from
a local train station (e.g., Port Chester or White Plains).” If, in the future, the
operator of the Revised Proposed Project decided to operate a shuttle between the
Project Site and a local train station, it is likely that only one or two shuttles per
‘shift change’ would be utilized. The anticipated impact of this service at a
particular train station would be de minimis, owing to the infrequent service.
Comment 109: The Village of Port Chester requested that, “A traffic meeting between the Village
of Port Chester and Village, hosted by NYSDOT should be scheduled, similar to
a series of meetings that NYSDOT hosted with the two Villages and the City of
Rye regarding the redevelopment of the United Hospital site.” (Port Chester 019)
Port Chester 019 (#243): A traffic meeting between the Village of Port Chester and
Village of Rye Brook, hosted by NYSDOT should be scheduled, similar to a series of
meetings that NYSDOT hosted with the two Villages and the City of Rye regarding the
redevelopment of the United Hospital site.
Response 109: If a meeting with NYSDOT is requested, the Applicant would coordinate with the
Village of Rye Brook and the Village of Port Chester.
Comment 110: A comment was received requesting that, “Bicycle access, including travel and
parking, should be discussed, pursuant to the scope. As the Site is not located
along a bus line, but is within biking distance of a train station, bicycle access
should be explored to help employees get to the Site from the train station.”
(Drummond 037)
Drummond 037 (#291): There was no discussion of bicycle travel or parking contained
in the draft EIS. Because the site is not located along a bus line, but is within biking
distance of a train station, bicycle access should be explored to help employees get to
the site from the train station.
Response 110: As stated in Section 12.5.4, “Public Transportation,” of the DEIS, “The Proposed
Project would have at least 900 fewer employees than the fully occupied office
building.” The Applicant notes that the potential expansion of the public transit
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-93 1/3/2020
system to serve the Proposed Project is under the jurisdiction of the system’s
governing body, Westchester County. However, as stated in this section of the
DEIS, “depending on the demand, the Proposed Project’s operator may provide
shuttle service to and from a local train station (Port Chester or White Plains).”
Similarly, if there is a demand from employees regarding bicycle amenities within
the Site, the Revised Proposed Project would provide secure areas for on-Site
bicycle storage.
PEDESTRIANS
Comment 111: A comment was received questioning the accuracy of the pedestrian counts and
the representative nature of the counts owing to the season in which the counts
were collected. (Zhao 006, Levy 072)
Zhao 006 (#24): Data presented here are not reliable for the following reasons: (1) Data
are collected on two specific dates: Both are Wednesdays…all in the winter season, and
are not statistically acceptable as representative data; (2) There is no weather condition
reported. The two dates are all in winter, severe weathers like snow or rain could result
in significant decrease of pedestrian counts; (3) Manual counting conducted by a single
person or the average of multiple people? Considering there are lots of middle school
and high school students walking to school in the AM peak hour, it’s hard to believe
that such a low number was observed.
Levy 072 (#566): There are numerous kids who are walking home and friends who
accompany them walking home who might have to deal with noise, and I just want the
Board to know that there are a lot of kids.
Response 111: In addition to the January 2018 traffic counts, traffic counts were collected in
March 2017 and reflected pedestrian activity at the study area intersections,
including King Street/Arbor Drive, and the King Street/Blind Brook Middle/High
School intersections. It should be noted that a sidewalk is currently provided
along the west side of King Street in the vicinity of the Project Site. See also the
Response to Comment 112, below.
Comment 112: A comment was received expressing concern about the safety of pedestrians on
Arbor Drive, including residents of The Arbors and students walking to and from
the Blind Brook Middle School and High School owing to the increase in traffic
on Arbor Drive and the service people coming to the Proposed Project. (Joy 033,
Levy 055, Levy 067)
Joy 033 (#272): I worry about their safety when they walk home, because even after the
construction’s finished there’s going to be so many service people coming, you don’t
even know who they are.
Levy 055 (#417): I just want to mention…just quality of life to being in the Arbors. For
people who walk down Arbor Drive to go for walks and walk their dogs, when it comes
to thinking about traffic. In terms of quality of life, that is our way in and out. It is the
children who walk to school, and… it (construction of proposed project) limits how kids
walk to and from.
Levy 067 (#534): Arbors residents use Arbor Drive for walking and driving. Residents
use Arbor Drive for walking, for exercise, walking their dogs, and walking to school. It
is our only means in and out of the Arbors. Arbor Drive is also used as party parking as
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-94 DRAFT
well. I am concerned that the traffic created during the construction and after this project
due to the density proposed will greatly impact our quality of life and safety.
Response 112: As described in Section 1.4.3, “Parking and Circulation,” the Revised Proposed
Project includes enhancements to the existing pedestrian path along the Project
Site’s eastern boundary and will include standard crosswalk markings on Arbor
Drive at the location where this path crosses Arbor Drive and enters the Blind
Brook Middle School and High School property. This will be an improvement
from the current condition where no crosswalk markings are present.
As described in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” the Revised Proposed
Project would represent a significant decrease in the number of vehicular trips
entering and exiting the Site as compared to the former office use. This would
decrease the potential for conflict between Site-generated traffic and pedestrians.
When compared to the number of trips generated by the Site in 2017, the Revised
Proposed Project would only add 2017 trips in the AM, 3734 trips in the midday,
and 5046 trips in the PM (see also Response 101). This minimal increase in the
number of Site-generated trips from the existing condition would not significantly
impact pedestrian safety on Arbor Drive. To further avoid and mitigate potential
adverse impacts, the Applicant has committed to staggering the shifts of the Site’s
employees so that shift changes do not occur during school arrival or dismissal
times, further reducing the potential for conflict between Site-generated traffic
and pedestrians.
Finally, the Applicant notes that the number of employees and residents of the
Revised Proposed Project, combined (705 + 438 = 518406 = 476), would be less
than the number employees that could have worked at the existing office building
(e.g., 1,0756). Therefore, the Revised Proposed Project would not cause an
adverse impact to public safety as a result of the introduction of a large population
to the Project Site.
PARKING
Comment 113: The Village’s Planning Consultant asked why the Applicant is providing more
parking spaces than required by its Proposed Zoning and requested a comparison
of the parking rates proposed to Institute for Traffic Engineers (ITE) parking
guidelines. Other commenters opined that the amount of parking proposed for the
Project and its various components was insufficient. (Levy 004, Snyder 007, FP
Clark 012, Tazbin 036, Schlank 068, Tazbin 071)
Levy 004 (#20): There appears not enough parking for the number of units and required staff
5 This is the maximum number of staff anticipated to be on-Site during a single shift. See DEIS Section
2.4.2.
6 The number of parking spaces required under the Village’s zoning ordinance for the existing office
building.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-95 1/3/2020
FP Clark 012 (#135): The Applicant is providing an additional 37 parking spaces or 14
percent over the [Applicant’s proposed] requirements. The Applicant should provide a
comparison using the latest Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) “Parking
Generation,” 4th Edition for all proposed land uses to provide additional backup
information for the parking required for the proposed development.
Tazbin 036 (#283): you’re assuming one person will be living in each one of the units,
and based on the number of parking spaces, there will be one car per unit. And I find
that hard to imagine, living in The Arbors, and I don’t know how you’re calculating
your figures in terms of density, people density, and in terms of car usage.
Snyder 007 (#46): Third, the assisted living component with its 90,000 square feet and
85 units/beds, only has 60 parking spots. The 60 spots appear deficient and should be
more carefully reviewed.
Snyder 007 (#45): A better analysis as to how just 173 spots will accommodate 301
bedrooms of independent living should be provided, especially in light of the staff
needed to keep the facility running.
Schlank 068 (#547): The risks of parking violations are compounded by the limited
availability of spaces for 3-car families. Since the inception of the PUD, the 900 King
Street site has had ample parking spaces, and the owners/managers of the site have been
willing to provide overflow parking for 3-car families in the Arbors and others who
require it. Continuation of this arrangement would likely not be feasible under
alternatives that would provide additional residential housing at 900 King Street. For
each alternative discussed in the FEIS, please describe the potential parking impacts. To
what extent might it raise the risk that the 900 King Street site would need to find
(rather than provide) overflow parking? To what extent would it compound the parking
problems within the Arbors section of the PUD, add to the costs of self-policing, and
increase the risks of losses there?
Tazbin 071 (#559): I didn’t really understand that, you are living in the Arbors and its
one car per unit. We struggle with that every day and now you are going to have three
bedrooms and one car.
Response 113: As set forth in more detail in Section 2.12.8, “Parking,” the Revised Proposed
Project would provide sufficient on-Site parking resources for the expected demand
of Project residents and employees. As such, the Revised proposed Project would
not require ‘overflow’ parking off-Site. The amount of parking included in the
Revised Proposed Project is slightly more than required by the Revised Proposed
Zoning and more than the ITE generic guidelines of the ITE (see Table 3.12-1).
Table 3.12-1
Comparison of Parking Spaces for the Revised Proposed Project
Use
Revised Proposed
Zoning ITE Guideline
Revised Proposed
Project
Independent
Living (152136
units)
1 per unit
(152136)
0.67 per unit
(10291) 174136
Assisted Living
(85 units/94 beds)
0.5 per unit
(43)
0.58 per bed
(55) 52
Townhouse
(20 units)
2.5 per unit
(50)
1.52 per unit
(31) 50
Total 245229 188180 276238
Source: Based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation
Manual, 5th Edition, January 2019. Values are for 85th percentile. ITE Land
Use 252 – Senior Attached Housing, ITE Land Use 254 – Assisted Living, ITE
Land Use 220 – Low Rise Multifamily
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-96 DRAFT
With respect to the historical use of the Project Site as overflow parking for the
Arbors, it is noted that the owner of the Project Site has no obligation to provide
parking for Arbors residents.
3.13. AIR QUALITY
GENERAL
Comment 114: A comment was received suggesting that the Proposed Project would have an
adverse impact on the air quality within The Arbors. (Carravone 002)
Carravone 002 (#10): poor air quality, water pressure and sewer system will be a big
problem for our neighborhood
Response 114: The DEIS assess the potential for significant adverse air quality impacts resulting
from the on-Site fuel combustion and Project-generated vehicles on the surrounding
neighborhood—including the adjacent residential and institutional properties along
King Street to the east/northeast; the residential properties to the north/northwest
along North Ridge Street, the residential properties and open spaces to the
west/southwest along Ivy Hill Lane (The Arbors), and the Blind Brook High School
grounds to the south/southwest. Based on the results of the air quality analyses, the
DEIS identified that the original project would not result in a potential for
significant adverse air quality impacts. The Revised Proposed Project is anticipated
to generate slightly fewer air emissions than the original project owing to the
reduction in vehicle trips and the reduction in gross floor area to be heated and
cooled. Therefore, as with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would
not result in a potential for significant adverse air quality impacts. See also
Response to Comment 122.
EXISTING CONDITIONS—METHODOLOGY
Comment 115: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant requested clarification with respect
to the number of intersections screened for air quality impacts. (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#176): Section 13.4.2 states the traffic study area included nine
intersections, but then states that screening was performed at 11 intersections. It should
be clarified if nine or 11 intersections were screened for air quality.
Response 115: Mobile source screening was performed for the following twelve intersections
included in the study area, as defined in Section 2.12, “Traffic and
Transportation,” which also lists twelve intersections:
King Street (Route 120A) and Anderson Hill Road
King Street (Route 120A) and Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway
SB Off Ramp
King Street (Route 120A) and N. Ridge Street
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-97 1/3/2020
King Street (Route 120A) and Glen Ridge Road (Hutchinson River
Parkway/Merritt Parkway NB On/Off Ramp)
King Street (Route 120A) and Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway
NB On/Off Ramp
King Street and Arbor Drive
King Street (Route 120A) and Blind Brook Middle/High School Right Turn
Entry Driveway
King Street (Route 120A) and Glenville Street / Blind Brook Middle/High
School
Arbor Drive and Existing Office / Proposed Site Driveway
King Street (Route 120A) and Comly Avenue
King Street and Betsy Brown Road
N. Ridge Street and Hutchinson River Parkway SB On/Off Ramp
Comment 116: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant stated that, “The data in the DEIS
was based on the NYSDEC New York State Ambient Air Quality Report for
2016, which the DEIS states is the most recent year for which data are available.
However, the NYSDEC New York State Ambient Air Quality Report for 2017 is
available (https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8536.html).” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#167): The data in the DEIS was based on the NYSDEC New York State
Ambient Air Quality Report for 2016, which the DEIS states is the most recent year for
which data are available. However, the NYSDEC New York State Ambient Air Quality
Report for 2017 is available (https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8536.html).
Response 116: At the time, 2016 was the most recent year for which data was available. The
concentrations of all criteria pollutants including the 20172018 report are
presented in Table 3.13-1 (see also Appendix K). The 20172018 concentrations
were used for the analyses in the FEIS. Consistent with the DEIS, the recently
monitored levels for all pollutants other than ozone did not exceed the NAAQS.
Table 3.13-1
Representative Monitored Ambient Air Quality Data
Pollutant Location Units Averaging Period Concentration NAAQS
CO Botanical Garden
(Pfizer Lab), Bronx ppm 8-hour 1.15 9
1-hour 1.92.3 35
SO2 Botanical Garden
(Pfizer Lab), Bronx µg/m3 3-hour 23 1,300
1-hour 2016(1) 196
PM10 IS 52, Bronx µg/m3 24-hour 3741 150
PM2.5 White Plains, Westchester µg/m3 Annual 6.60(2) 12
24-hour 15.87(2) 35
NO2 Botanical Garden
(Pfizer Lab), Bronx µg/m3 Annual 3027 100
1-hour 108104(3) 188
Lead IS 52, Bronx µg/m3 3-month 0.0160033(4) 0.15
Ozone White Plains, Westchester ppm 8-hour 0.074075+(5) 0.070
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-98 DRAFT
Notes:
+ Indicated values exceeding the NAAQS. (1) The 1-hour value is based on a 3-year average (2015–20172016–2018) of the 99th percentile of daily
maximum 1-hour average concentrations. EPA replaced the 24-hour and the annual standards with
the 1-hour standard.
(2) Annual value is based on a 3-year average (2015–20172016–2018) of annual concentrations. The 24-
hour value is based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour average concentrations. (3) The 1-hour value is based on a 3-year average (2015–20172016–2018) of the 98th percentile of daily
maximum 1-hour average concentrations. (4) Based on the highest quarterly average concentration measured in 20172018. (5) Based on the 3-year average (2015–20172016–2018) of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour
average concentrations.
Source:
New York State Air Quality Report Ambient Air Monitoring System, NYSDEC
Comment 117: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant stated that, “The assumption of
HVAC systems being natural gas fired systems may be a reasonable assumption,
but not conservative. This statement should be revised in the DEIS.” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#169): The assumption of HVAC systems being natural gas fired systems
may be a reasonable assumption, but not conservative. This statement should be revised
in the DEIS.
Response 117: The Revised Proposed Project is assumed to use natural gas for all fossil fuel-
fired HVAC systems to provide space heating, air conditioning, and domestic hot
water. Therefore, the analysis in this FEIS is based on the proposed fuel source
(e.g., natural gas) and is not necessarily a ‘conservative’ analysis that includes
alternative fuel sources not under consideration for the Revised Proposed Project
(e.g., fuel oil).
Con Edison has stated that they can provide firm gas to the Revised Proposed
Project and that two upgrades to Con Edison’s gas system would be required:
replacement of 945 feet of 4- and 6-inch main with 12-inch main on Mohegan
Lane and Latonia Road; and, installation of a 12-inch tie on King Street from
Arbor Drive to N. Ridge Street. The cost of these improvements would be initially
funded by the Applicant, and refunded by Con Edison upon completion of the
Revised Proposed Project (see Appendix H). Based on Con Edison’s
commitment letter, it is the Applicant’s understanding that Con Edison will
supply the Revised Proposed Project with firm natural gas service if the Applicant
demonstrates continued progress in completing the project even if construction is
not completed within two years despite Con Edison’s temporary gas moratorium
in southern Westchester County. In the event that firm gas is not available for the
Revised Proposed Project, the Applicant would propose another energy source
and the environmental impacts of using this other energy source would be
analyzed in accordance with SEQRA.
Comment 118: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant requested clarification as to why
additional criteria pollutants were not modeled, such as PM10. (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#170): The DEIS should discuss why additional criteria pollutants were not
modeled, such as PM10.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-99 1/3/2020
Response 118: An initial screening was performed using the screening procedures outlined in the
2014 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual. Manual to
assess the potential impacts to 8-hour and 1-hour average CO concentrations,
annual average NO2 concentrations, as well as 24-hour average PM10
concentrations.7 The screening procedure determines the potential for significant
air quality impacts for all criteria pollutants based on the square footage of the
development, the distance to the nearest receptor of similar or taller heights, and
the type of fuel to be utilized on-site. The screening considers developments
between approximately 20,000 and 2,000,000 gross square feet (gsf); therefore
the screening procedure would be applicable to development sources of a similar
size as the Proposed Project (376, 182355,902 gsf). An additional screening using
the USEPA’s AERSCREEN model was performed to assess standards that have
been introduced following development of the CEQR screening procedures—the
1-hour average NO2, 24-hour average PM2.5, and annual average PM2.5.
Comment 119: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “The DEIS mentions the
more stringent criteria to be applied when a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
intersection is located within ½-mile of the Project Site. However, this criteria is no
longer included in the NYSDOT [The Environmental Manual] TEM.” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#175): It should be noted that the DEIS mentions the more stringent criteria
to be applied when a State Implementation Plan (SIP) intersection is located within 0.5
mile of the project. However, this criteria is no longer included in the NYSDOT TEM.
Response 119: Comment noted.
Comment 120: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “The last sentence in
the first paragraph in Section 13.3 of the DEIS incorrectly states that the
“….pollutant concentrations in the Future with the Proposed Project (the “Build”
condition) would be similar or less than those predicted for the Proposed Project.”
(Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#168): It should be noted that the last sentence in the first paragraph in
Section 13.3 of the DEIS incorrectly states that the “….pollutant concentrations in the
Future with the Proposed Project (the “Build” condition) would be similar or less than
those predicted for the Proposed Project.”
Response 120: Comment noted. The sentence should read, “Therefore, the pollutant
concentrations in the No Build condition would be similar or less than those
predicted for the Future with the Proposed Project (the “Build” condition).
7 Consistent with the DEIS, the revised Proposed Project would not result in significant emissions of SO2,
lead, or ozone. Therefore, further analysis for these pollutants is not warranted.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-100 DRAFT
ANALYSIS
Comment 121: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “While the emissions
from the HVAC systems for the townhouses would be considered negligible, the
DEIS does not address emissions from the underground parking area.” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#172): While the emissions from the HVAC systems for the townhomes
would be considered negligible, the DEIS does not address emissions from the
underground parking area.
Response 121: As discussed in Section 2.13, “Air Quality,” the original air quality analysis
presented in the DEIS was revised to include an assessment of the proposed
parking garage. 8
Emissions from vehicles using the parking facility could potentially affect
ambient levels of CO and PM at adjacent receptors. An analysis of the emissions
from the outlet vents and their dispersion in the environment was performed,
calculating pollutant levels in the surrounding area, using the methodology set
forth in the CEQR Technical Manual. Emissions from vehicles entering, parking,
and exiting the garages were estimated using the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) mobile
source emission model, as referenced in the CEQR Technical Manual. For all
arriving and departing vehicles, an average speed of 5 miles per hour (mph) was
conservatively assumed for travel within the parking garages. In addition, all
departing vehicles were assumed to idle for 1 minute before proceeding to the
exit. Although design plans for the project have not yet been defined, the garage
was specified to be designed for a minimum airflow of 0.75 cubic foot per minute
of fresh air per gsf of garage area. (It is noted that this specified airflow is less
than the CEQR typical minimum airflow of 1.0 cubic foot of air per gross square
foot per minute. As such, the analysis of potential air quality impacts in this FEIS
is conservative.)
To determine compliance with the NAAQS, CO concentrations were determined
for the maximum 8-hour average period. A persistence factor of 0.70 was used to
convert the calculated 1-hour average maximum concentrations to 8-hour
averages, accounting for meteorological variability over the average 8-hour
period, as referenced in the CEQR Technical Manual.
To determine pollutant concentrations, the outlet vents were analyzed as a “virtual
point source” using the methodology in EPA’s Workbook of Atmospheric
Dispersion Estimates, AP-26. This methodology estimates CO and PM
8 The analysis of the potential impacts of the underground parking operation on air quality was based on the
number of trips generated in the pFEIS Plan (see Section 2.12.1, “Site Generated Traffic”). The Revised
Proposed Project would generate fewer trips than the pFEIS Plan. Therefore, this analysis can be
considered conservative as it is reflective of a greater trip generation than would occur with the Revised
Proposed Project.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-101 1/3/2020
concentrations at various distances from an outlet vent by assuming that the
concentration in the garage is equal to the concentration leaving the vent, and
determining the appropriate initial horizontal and vertical dispersion coefficients
at the vent faces. It was assumed for the purpose of this analysis that all levels of
the parking garage would be mechanically ventilated.
The CO concentrations were determined for the time periods when overall garage
usage would be the greatest, considering the hours when the greatest number of
vehicles would enter and exit the facility (PM concentrations were determined on a
24-hour and annual average basis). Traffic data for the parking garage analysis were
derived from the trip generation analysis. Background street concentrations were
added to the modeling results to obtain the total ambient levels for CO and PM2.5.
Exhaust air from the analyzed parking garage was conservatively assumed to be
vented through a single outlet at a height of approximately 3 feet above grade.
Since there is no specific garage design at this time, the vent face was assumed to
discharge towards the nearest receptors, to be conservative. “Near” and “far”
receptors were placed along the sidewalks at a pedestrian height of 6 feet and at
the minimum exhaust stack height of 3 feet. A receptor also was modeled at and
above the assumed vent release height, directly at the location of the exhaust vent,
to conservatively assess the air quality impacts from the proposed garage on the
adjacent buildings, representing windows or air intake locations.
Based on this methodology, the maximum predicted CO and PM concentrations
from the underground parking area were analyzed, assuming a nearby ground
level receptor (7 feet), and a far side sidewalk receptor across Arbor Drive (54
feet), as well as a receptor on the façade of the original project. All values are the
highest predicted concentrations for any time period analyzed.
The maximum predicted 8-hour average CO concentration modeled is 1.1757
ppm. This value includes a predicted concentration of 0.07 ppm from emissions
within the parking facility and a background level of 1.1050 ppm.
The maximum predicted 24-hour and annual average PM2.5 concentrations from
the vehicles using the garage are of 22.54 µg/m3 and 7.71 µg/m3, respectively.
These value includes predicted concentrations of 6.7 µg/m3 and 1.1 µg/m3,
respectively, from emissions within the parking facility and background levels of
15.87 µg/m3 and 6.60 µg/m3, respectively.
The location of maximum air quality impacts from the various on-site sources are
unlikely to impact the same location simultaneously. However, the FEIS has been
updated to reflect that maximum predicted 24-hour and annual average PM2.5
concentrations from the vehicles using the garage when conservatively combined
with the maximum stationary source concentrations are of 24.54 µg/m3 and 8.27.6
µg/m3, respectively. The 24-hour value includes predicted concentrations of 6.7
µg/m3 and 2 µg/m3, from emissions within the parking facility and all stationary
sources, respectively, and a background level of 15.87 µg/m3. Similarly, the annual
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-102 DRAFT
value includes predicted concentrations of 1.1 µg/m3 and 0.5 µg/m3, from emissions
within the parking facility and all stationary sources, respectively, and a background
level of 6.60 µg/m3.
These values are below the respective NAAQS; therefore, no significant adverse
impacts are predicted for CO or PM2.5 from the Build condition as a result of
emissions from the garage.
Comment 122: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant stated that, “The stationary source
analysis consisted of modeling a single stack from a four-story building. This is
identified in the DEIS as being conservative. However, the proposed multifamily
residential buildings consists of three and four stories. Since the receptors of
concern are ground level, placing a stack on a four-story building is not
conservative.” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#173): the stationary source analysis consisted of modeling a single stack
from a four-story building. This is identified in the DEIS as being conservative.
However, the proposed multifamily residential buildings consists of three- and four-
stories. Since the receptors of concern are ground level, placing a stack on a four-story
building is not conservative.
Response 122: The stationary source analysis9 assumed that the exhaust stacks would be located
on the tallest portion of each building. In order to account for the potential
cumulative, or conservative, effect, the emissions associated with the HVAC
systems for the entire Revised Proposed Project would be exhausted from a single
stack. Since the majority of the HVAC needs for the Revised Proposed Project
would be associated with the IL and AL building (approximately 8788 percent of
the total development area), the exhaust stack was analyzed at a height of 48 feet
(3 feet above the tallest portions of either building).
An additional AERSCREEN10 analysis was performed for the combined HVAC
systems associated with the full development of two-story townhouses at a height
of 28 feet. Maximum projected concentrations that were generated from the
AERSCREEN model as a result of the combined HVAC systems are presented in
Table 3.13-2. Similar to the DEIS, the maximum projected NO2 and PM2.5
concentrations with the addition of the Revised Proposed Project at any ground-
level receptor would be well below the NAAQS. Therefore, the Revised Proposed
Project would not result in potential significant adverse air quality impacts from
stationary sources, such as the proposed HVAC systems.
9 The stationary source analysis was based pFEIS Plan (see Section 2.13.2, “Stationary Sources”). The
Revised Proposed Project has 16 fewer IL units and 20,280 fewer total GSF than the pFEIS Plan. As such,
both the DEIS and pFEIS analyses can be considered conservative as they are reflective of a higher density
than is included in the Revised Proposed Project.
10 The additional AERSCREEN analysis was based pFEIS Plan. See the note above.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-103 1/3/2020
Table 3.13-2
Maximum Modeled Pollutant Concentrations from Townhouses
Pollutant
Averaging
Period
Maximum
Modeled
Impact
Background
Concentration(1)
Total
Concentration NAAQS
NO2 1-hour 21 108104 129125 188
Annual 6 3027 3633 100
PM2.5 24-hour 1.2 15.87 17.016.9 35
Annual 0.5 6.60 7.16.5 12
Note: 1 See Table 3.13-1
The location of maximum air quality impacts from the various on-site sources are
unlikely to impact the same location simultaneously. However, the FEIS has been
updated to reflect that maximum predicted 24-hour and annual average PM2.5
concentrations11 from the vehicles using the garage when conservatively
combined with the maximum stationary source concentrations are of 24.54 µg/m3
and 8.27.6 µg/m3, respectively. The 24-hour value includes predicted
concentrations of 6.7 µg/m3 and 2 µg/m3, from emissions within the parking
facility and all stationary sources, respectively, and a background level of 15.87
µg/m3. Similarly, the annual value includes predicted concentrations of 1.1
µg/m3 and 0.5 µg/m3, from emissions within the parking facility and all
stationary sources, respectively, and a background level of 6.60 µg/m3.
Comment 123: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “Section 13.4.1 of the
DEIS states…‘no significant adverse air quality impacts would be expected from
the Proposed Project on lower elevations.’ However, the statement should be
based on elevated sensitive receptors. In addition, the DEIS should clarify if
receptors along Ivy Hill Crescent, Arbor Drive, and within the [Project Site] along
the existing and new pedestrian paths and new sidewalks were considered in the
model. If not, why not?” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#171): Section 13.4.1 of the DEIS states “…no significant adverse air
quality impacts would be expected from the Proposed Project on lower elevations.”
However, the statement should be based on elevated sensitive receptors. In addition, the
DEIS should clarify if receptors along Ivy Hill Crescent, Arbor Drive, and within the
Proposed Project site along the existing and new pedestrian paths and new sidewalks
were considered in the model. If not, why not?
Response 123: As discussed in the FEIS, concentrations at ground-level receptors and elevated
receptors up to 25 feet in elevation were predicted in the AERSCREEN analysis.
Maximum concentrations at ground level receptors presented in the FEIS
represent the predicted maximum concentration ant any distance from the source
regardless of the location. Additionally, sensitive receptors at lower elevation
building locations are located approximately 150 feet to the northeast of the Site
(along King Street), 350 feet to the northwest of the Site (along North Ridge
11 The analysis was based pFEIS Plan. See the note above.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-104 DRAFT
Street), 470 feet to the south (along Ivory Hill Lane), and 370 feet to the southeast
at Blind Brook High School. The minimum distance of 150 feet was used to
predict the maximum concentrations at elevated receptors. Therefore,
concentrations at receptors along Ivy Hill Crescent, Arbor Drive, and within the
Project Site along the existing and proposed new pedestrian paths and new
sidewalks would be similar to or less than those predicted for the AERSCREEN
analysis.
MITIGATION
Comment 124: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant “recommended that the Applicant be
required as a condition to the permit/approvals for the Proposed Project to not place
generators on the east side of the Project Site to avoid disturbance to receptors in
that area, including the Village Hall, [RBPD], and [RBFD].” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#174): it is recommended that the applicant be required as a condition to the
permit/approvals for the proposed project to not place generators on the east side of the
project site to avoid disturbance to receptors in that area, including the Village Hall, Rye
Brook Police Department and Rye Brook Fire Department.
Response 124: As discussed in Section 2.13, “Air Quality,” the Applicant has committed to
locating the generators on the west side of the Project Site, facing the Parkway.
3.14. NOISE
EXISTING CONDITIONS—METHODOLOGY
Comment 125: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “Based on the
NYSDEC Noise Program Policy, appropriate receptor locations may be either at
the property line of the parcel on which the facility is located or at the location of
use or inhabitance on adjacent property. However, the most conservative
approach utilizes the property line. The DEIS did not include a sensitive receptor
along the eastern side of the property line near Village Hall, [RBPD] and
[RBFD].” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#178): Based on the NYSDEC Noise Program Policy, appropriate receptor
locations may be either at the property line of the parcel on which the facility is located
or at the location of use or inhabitance on adjacent property. However, the most
conservative approach utilizes the property line. The DEIS did not include a sensitive
receptor along the eastern side of the property line near Village Hall, Rye Brook Police
Department and Rye Brook Fire Department.
Response 125: Noise Measurement Site 2, on the corner of King Street and Arbor Drive,
represents existing noise levels at receptors along King Street, including the
Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD, for which traffic along King Street is the
dominant noise source. The operational analysis presented in Chapter 14,
“Noise,” of the DEIS uses noise levels measured at Site 2 as the basis for analysis
at these receptors since the dominant noise source at Site 2 was vehicular traffic
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-105 1/3/2020
along King Street, to which these buildings are also exposed. As such, the
incremental change in noise at Site 2, which is based on the potential changes in
vehicular traffic volume on King Street, reflect the maximum expected mobile
source noise increment at these buildings. Existing noise levels further from King
Street may experience less noise from traffic on King Street (including both
existing traffic and traffic associated with the proposed project), but are closer to
the Hutchinson River Parkway and would tend to experience more noise from this
roadway. An analysis receptor representing the Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD
has been added to the construction analysis. Please see response to Comment 148.
Comment 126: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “The DEIS recognizes
schools and hospitals as ‘most sensitive receptors’. However, a 3 dBA noise level
increase limit was not used for Site #4, representative of the Blind Brook High
School.” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#179): the DEIS recognizes schools and hospitals as “most sensitive
receptors”. However, a 3 dBA noise level increase limit was not used for Site #4,
representative of the Blind Brook High School.
Response 126: As shown in Table 14-4 of Chapter 14, “Noise,” of the DEIS, the Build condition
maximum noise level increase at Receptor Site 4, which represents the Blind
Brook High School, is less than 2 dBA, which is considered imperceptible to
barely perceptible. Furthermore, the total Build condition noise level would be
approximately 62 dBA, which is considered acceptable for residential uses
according to NYSDEC guidance, and is likewise considered an acceptable
exterior noise level for comparably sensitive educational uses such as the Blind
Brook High School. Further, a hospital or school was noted to be an example of
a receptor that could be considered “most sensitive.” However, Blind Brook High
School, which does not have outdoor uses facing the Project Site or the roadways
on which the Revised Proposed Project would have the potential to add vehicles
and also has a building façade consisting primarily of masonry with no ventilation
louvers, would not constitute a “most sensitive” receptor in this case because it is
not particularly susceptible to outdoor noise from the Revised Proposed Project.
Comment 127: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “Weekend existing
noise levels were not measured. A discussion of the weekend vehicular traffic
anticipated for the Proposed Project should be added and, if deemed to be
necessary, the noise analysis should include a typical Saturday, including
obtaining existing noise levels. Similarly, the DEIS is silent on nighttime noise
level (10 PM to 7 AM) increases due to the Proposed Project.” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#180): Weekend existing noise levels were not measured. A discussion of
the weekend vehicular traffic anticipated for the Proposed Project should be added and,
if deemed to be necessary, the noise analysis should include a typical Saturday,
including obtaining existing noise levels. Similarly, the DEIS is silent on nighttime
noise level (10 PM to 7 AM) increases due to the Proposed Project.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-106 DRAFT
Response 127: Weekday peak hours were identified as the periods with the greatest project-
generated traffic and consequently the greatest potential to result in project
generated noise level increases. Weekend and overnight hours would experience
less traffic generation and consequently lower noise levels. As the noise level
increments as a result of project-generated traffic would be well below the
threshold for a significant adverse impact in peak traffic periods, weekend, and
overnight noise level increments would likewise not rise to the level of significant
adverse impact.
Comment 128: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant stated that, “The noise levels from
the on-Site movement of traffic, including trucks, should be assessed to determine
the noise level increases for the proposed sensitive receptors, as well as The
Arbors townhouses.” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#181): The proposed project consists of adding a sensitive receptor to the
area, residences. The noise levels from the on-site movement of traffic, including trucks,
should be assessed to determine the noise level increases for the proposed sensitive
receptors, as well as the Arbors Townhouses.
Response 128: As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” of the DEIS, and Chapter 1,
“Revised Proposed Project,” three to four deliveries are anticipated each day
during the week, with one to two deliveries possible during the weekend.
Deliveries would not be expected to occur during overnight hours. Therefore, less
than one delivery truck would be expected in a single hour, which would not result
in a significant increase in mobile source noise levels above ambient conditions
at existing receptors (e.g., Arbor Townhouses, Town and Village Hall, RBPD,
RBFD) and at the proposed IL and AL building. With less than a doubling of
mobile source levels, the potential increase in noise level at these receptors would
be less than 3 dBA.
As described in Section 2.14.1, “Noise: Mobile Sources,” the maximum noise
increment from mobile sources attributed to the original project was 1.6 dBA,
which would be imperceptible. The Revised Proposed Project would have fewer
trips than the original project, therefore resulting in smaller increments. The
majority of passenger vehicles would park in an underground parking facility,
which would shield nearby receptors from noise generated during parking
operations. Finally, the Revised Proposed Project’s mechanical systems would be
designed to avoid producing a combined 6.0 dBA or more increase at nearby
receptors, inclusive of the noise increments generated by on-Site mobile sources.
At receptors where the existing noise level is less than 65 dBA during daytime
hours, the Revised Proposed Project’s mechanical systems would be designed to
avoid causing future noise levels to exceed 65 dBA.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-107 1/3/2020
IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS
Comment 129: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “The Future with the
Proposed Project noise levels presented in Table 14-4 are lower than those
provided in Table 14-3 for the Future without the Proposed Project. Please explain
or correct.” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#182): The Future With the Proposed Project noise levels presented in
Table 14-4 are lower than those provided in Table 14-3 for the Future Without the
Proposed Project. Please explain or correct.
Response 129: As discussed in Chapter 12, “Traffic and Transportation,” of the DEIS, the
adopted scoping outline for the DEIS required that the No Build condition include
the condition where the existing on-Site office building was fully occupied. As
the office building was not fully occupied at the time of the existing condition
traffic counts, the No Build condition results in higher traffic increments than the
Build condition, particularly along Arbor Drive. The increased traffic in the No
Build condition is the source of increased noise levels.
Table 14-4 of the DEIS compares the existing noise condition with the expected
Build condition. As shown, the maximum increase in mobile source Leq(1)
attributable to the Proposed Project would be 1.6 dBA. As discussed in Chapter
2, “Environmental Analysis,” Sections 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” and
2.14, “Noise,” the Revised Proposed Project would generate fewer peak hour trips
than the original project. Therefore, the maximum increase in mobile source noise
generated by the Revised Proposed Project would be expected to be less than 1.6
dBA, which would be imperceptible.
Comment 130: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant stated that, “The total noise level
from the Proposed Project should not result in an increase of 6 dBA or more at
nearby receptors. In addition, the total noise level from the Proposed Project
should not cause interior noise levels within the proposed buildings greater than
45 dBA. This includes noise from all sources, including mobile sources as well
as the combined noise level from stationary sources, as opposed to on an
individual basis.” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#183): The total noise level from the proposed project should not result in an
increase of 6 dBA or more at nearby receptors. In addition, the total noise level from the
proposed project should not cause interior noise levels within the proposed buildings greater
than 45 dBA. This includes noise from all sources, including mobile sources as well as the
combined noise level from stationary sources, as opposed to on an individual basis.
Response 130: Chapter 14, “Noise,” Section 14.4.3 “Noise Levels at the 900 King Street
Residences,” of the DEIS states that interior noise levels within the original
project’s buildings would be less than 45 dBA with standard façade construction.
As stated in Table 14-4 of the DEIS, the maximum increase in mobile source Leq(1)
attributable to the original project would be 1.6 dBA, which would be
imperceptible. Further, as discussed in Sections 2.12, “Traffic and
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-108 DRAFT
Transportation,” and 2.14, “Noise,” the Revised Proposed Project would generate
fewer peak hour trips than the original project. Therefore, the maximum increase
in mobile source noise generated by the Revised Proposed Project would be
expected to be less than 1.6 dBA, which would be imperceptible.
As stated in Chapter 14, “Noise,” Section 14.4.4, “Stationary Source Analysis”
of the DEIS, mechanical equipment would be designed to avoid a
combinecombined 6.0 dBA increase at nearby receptors. At receptors where the
existing noise level is less than 65 dBA during the daytime hours, the project-
generated stationary sources should not cause the future noise levels to exceed 65
dBA. With respect to application of a 3 dBA incremental increase threshold at
Blind Brook High School, please see Response to Comment 128.
MITIGATION
Comment 131: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant “recommended that the Applicant be
required as a condition to the permit/approvals for the Proposed Project to not place
generators on the east side of the Project Site to avoid disturbance to receptors in
that area, including the Village Hall, [RBPD], and [RBFD].” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#184): it is recommended that the applicant be required as a condition to the
permit/approvals for the proposed project to not place generators on the east side of the
project site to avoid disturbance to receptors in that area, including the Village Hall, Rye
Brook Police Department and Rye Brook Fire Department.
Response 131: The Applicant has agreed to place generators on the west side of the Project Site
facing the Parkway, which would avoid direct line of sight from the generators to
the surrounding sensitive receptors, including The Arbors, Village Hall, RBPD,
and RBFD.
3.15. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Comment 132: Comments were received questioning the potential for hazardous materials to be
present in the subsurface and the potential for the community, including The
Arbors and the Blind Brook Middle School and High School, to be exposed to
those materials during construction. Other comments questioned the sufficiency of
the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs). The Village’s
Special Engineering Consultant commented that the Phase I and Phase II ESAs
were completed in accordance with ASTM International (ASTM) and industry
standards and that the DEIS conclusion that there is no evidence of a release
appears reasonable. The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant went on to state
that the controls proposed in the DEIS to address the Phase II recommendations
are reasonable standards of practice. The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant
recommended that the asbestos-containing material (ACM) and lead-based paint
(LBP) surveys proposed in the DEIS be required and that the information be shared
with the Village’s Building Department. Finally, the Village’s Special Engineering
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-109 1/3/2020
Consultant recommended the preparation of a Materials Management Plan (MMP)
prior to the start of construction that would include a plan for soil, groundwater,
and dust management as well as contingency plans in the event that unforeseen
contaminants are encountered during construction. (Snyder 007, Musso 013,
Barnett 034, Ross 042, Levine 048, Tazbin 071)
Snyder 007 (#78): The DEIS indicates that the project site was a “historic generator of
ignitable waste, corrosive waste, and spent halogenic solvents. Storage and handling of
these wastes have the potential to have affected the subsurface.” Although a Phase II
was conducted, the Phase II testing only involved 9 soil borings on the 17.7 acre site.
The DEIS states that “excavation may reveal different or more significant soil
contamination in areas not tested as part of this investigation.” It also indicates that “the
greatest potential for exposure to contaminated materials would occur during subsurface
disturbance associated with construction of new buildings as part of the Proposed
Project.” The DEIS concedes the “Proposed Project could potentially result in an
increase in exposure for the community and construction workers.” The Village Board
has a duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. The middle school
and high school filled with the children of this community is proximate to the project.
With this danger lurking in connection with the substantial excavation of the site
(requiring 42,600 cubic yards of fill to be excavated), project alternatives must be
considered. Certainly, the project must be modified to avoid the excavation and the
disturbance of more than 74% of the project site.
Musso 013 (#189): It appears that the Phase I has been completed in conformity with
the applicable ASTM standard. The RECs identified were investigated as part of the
Phase II in accordance with industry practice. Based on the RECs identified the scope of
the sampling and laboratory analysis appears reasonable and appropriate. The
conclusion that there is no evidence of a release appears reasonable.
Musso 013 (#190): due to the RECs identified the majority of the samples were
collected in the shallow soils. The Village should note that, due to the significant
earthwork proposed as part of the development, deeper excavation may reveal differing
soils conditions and/or contamination in areas not tested as part of this investigation.
Musso 013 (#191): ACM and lead-based paint surveys and abatement as recommended
in the DEIS by AKRF will reduce the risk to hazardous materials during building
demolition. Should the project and demolition / development move forward, it is
recommended that the Village Building Department track progress on ACM and lead-
based paint surveys and abatement. Surveys and abatement, as required, should be
completed prior to disturbing existing building materials.
Musso 013 (#192): The controls proposed in the Hazardous Materials section of the
DEIS address the Phase II Recommendations and are reasonable standards of practice.
Musso 013 (#193): HDR is providing the following recommendation[s] for consideration
in order to further reduce risk of exposure and document that there are appropriate plans in
place that are in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations and that aim to
prevent a release to the surrounding environment or community.
The proposed project plans indicate that a significant amount of earth work will be a
part of development. The DEIS reports that the western portion of the site will be
lowered by 42,600 cubic yards of excavation and 51,600 cubic yards of fill will be used
to raise the central portion of the site. The preparation of a Materials Management
Plan(s) prior to the start of construction would allow the contractor to provide plans for
soil, groundwater and dust management prior to disturbance. The plans should also
provide procedures to follow if unforeseen contaminants or hazardous materials are
encountered during construction, such as odors, sheen, petroleum and/or USTs.
Due to the volume of soils that will be exposed at the site, dust management and
suppression should also be included in the plans. To ensure there is no dust release to
the surrounding community Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be identified.
Additionally, plans for monitoring (visual or instrumentation) are typically included
with action levels and the appropriate responses outlined.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-110 DRAFT
Barnett 034 (#274): There is no time when construction can occur, if we’re not very
careful, especially without knowing with all the boring samples what’s going to be
under there…it could be too late, if there’s going to be any sort of adverse impact,
because you have a site that has been…it was constructed in the ‘70s, and regulation
wasn’t the same for the structure as it was today.
Ross 042 (#331): We (BBSD) are concerned about the amount of dust and dirt that may be
released from the site during construction and encourage the Village of Rye Brook to
establish and enforce restrictions to address this matter. Especially the case with hazardous
materials such as those containing asbestos or any other harmful substances. This is critical
during the "subsurface disturbance associated with construction of the new building" as
described on page 15-3 of the "Hazardous Materials" section of the proposal.
Levine 048 (#368): What about during construction? The construction is what I’m most
concerned about. There is such an unknown when you knock down a building and
excavate the land and try to build something. We don’t even know what they are going
to find, and it could potentially be hazardous.
Response 132: As described in Section 2.15, “Hazardous Materials,” the Applicant conducted
Phase I and Phase II ESAs to identify potential sources of hazardous materials
and to assess the potential presence of contamination. The Village’s Special
Engineering Consultant, HDR, reviewed these reports and stated that, “It appears
that the Phase I has been completed in conformity with the applicable ASTM
standard. The [recognized environmental conditions] RECs identified were
investigated as part of the Phase II in accordance with industry practice. Based on
the RECs identified, the scope of the sampling and laboratory analysis appears
reasonable and appropriate. The conclusion that there is no evidence of a release
appears reasonable.” With respect to the mitigation measures proposed in the
original project, which are summarized in Section 2.15, “Hazardous Materials,”
the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “the controls proposed
in the Hazardous Materials section of the DEIS address the Phase II
Recommendations and are reasonable standards of practice.”
As noted in Section 2.15, “Hazardous Materials,” and reiterated by the Village’s
Special Engineering Consultant, the majority of the subsurface samples were
collected in shallow soils as the majority of the RECs identified in the Phase I
were above ground, and sampling protocol dictated that samples be collected from
the soil zone with the highest potential for contamination (e.g., shallow soil). As
with any construction project, excavation may reveal unknown or unreported
conditions (e.g., underground tanks). In the event that unforeseen and unexpected
contamination is discovered during construction, these areas would be addressed
and handled in accordance with applicable State regulations. In addition, and as
recommended by the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant, the Revised
Proposed Project would include an MMP, which would be prepared by the
Applicant prior to the start of excavation. The MMP would establish a protocol
outlining the handling of Site soil and other subsurface materials encountered
during the proposed excavation work. The MPP would include measures for
appropriate soil handling, soil stockpile management, site controls to mitigate
sediment and dust, and would include contingency measures to address potential
unknown conditions (unknown tanks or contamination) in accordance with all
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-111 1/3/2020
prevailing regulations. Specifically, the MMP will include a plan for the
contractor to monitor soil during all earthwork activities for evidence of
contamination (i.e., staining, odors, etc.). In the event that areas of contamination
are encountered, the MMP will include an action response where soil disturbance
will cease in the affected area of the excavation, and an environmental consultant
will respond to the Site to properly address the contamination. Any unknown
contamination areas will be addressed in accordance with all prevailing local,
state, and federal regulations, including Spill notification (if necessary),
excavation, removal, stockpiling, and off-site disposal of the contaminated soil,
and performance documentation (i.e., soil endpoint sampling) to confirm that the
contamination area has been properly removed.
As stated in Section 2.15, “Hazardous Materials,” prior to demolition, ACM and
LBP surveys would be conducted throughout the existing structure. ACM would be
removed prior to demolition by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor in
accordance with applicable regulatory requirements and activities with the potential
to disturb LBP would be performed in accordance with applicable Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OHSA) regulations. In addition, the Applicant,
as recommended by the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant, would provide
the Village with results of the pre-demolition ACM and LBP surveys as well as
provide progress reports on any required pre-demolition abatement.
Based on the above, and with the implementation of the mitigation measures
noted in Section 2.15, “Hazardous Materials,” no significant adverse impacts
related to hazardous materials would be expected to occur as a result of the
construction of the Revised Proposed Project. Following construction, there
would be no further potential for adverse impacts.
Section 2.16.2.3, “Construction: Air Quality,” describes the measures included in
the Revised Proposed Project that would avoid or mitigate potential off-Site air
quality impacts during construction (e.g., dust) that are not specifically related to
subsurface conditions.
Comment 133: Comments were received requesting additional discussion of plans for the
disposal of medical waste and hazardous material from the AL facility. (Snyder
007, Planning Board 018)
Snyder 007 (#79): DEIS states that there will not be hospital care of skilled nursing care so
it is not “expected” to generate significant quantities of medical waste. This statement is
without support since the Assisted Living component intends to have dementia patients.
Planning Board 018 (#226): Discuss and explain the plans for disposal of medical and
hazardous material from the assisted living facility.
Response 133: According to the National Institute on Aging at the National Institute of Health
(NIH), there are differences between assisted living and nursing homes, where
“Assisted living is for people who need help with daily care, but not as much help
as a nursing home provides.” In addition, according to Chapter X of the New York
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-112 DRAFT
Public Health Code, “Assisted Living Residences,” AL facilities are defined as
entities which provide or arrange for housing, on-site monitoring, and personal
care services and/or home care services in a home-like setting. AL residents
usually live in their own apartments or rooms and share common areas. They have
access to a number of services, including up to three meals a day; assistance with
personal care; help with medications; housekeeping and laundry; and 24-hour
supervision. However, AL residences differ from nursing homes, where full-time
nurses provide skilled nursing care to patients and medical waste could be more
common. In Chapter 15, “Hazardous Materials,” of the DEIS, the Applicant notes
that “the Proposed Project would not include hospital care or skilled nursing care
at the AL facility, it would therefore not be expected to generate significant
quantities of medical waste. Any medical or biological waste generated would be
handled, stored, and disposed in accordance with all applicable regulations,
including those of the Department of Health (DOH).” Therefore, the Revised
Proposed Project would not have an adverse impact as a result of the handling of
disposable medical waste.
3.16. CONSTRUCTION
GENERAL
Comment 134: A comment was received requesting information on the duration of construction
for the Proposed Project. (Fox 023)
Fox 023 (#250): How long is the construction scheduled from mobilization to
substantial completion?
Response 134: As stated in Section 2.16.1, “Construction Phasing,” construction of the Revised
Proposed Project would be completed in approximately 30 months.
Comment 135: Comments were received requesting more definitive information on the need for
blasting, rock chipping, pile-driving, and materials processing (e.g., rock
crushing) during construction of the Proposed Project. (Snyder 007, Klein 062)
Snyder 007 (#59): DEIS does not assure that there will not be blasting or rock crushing.
The DEIS merely states rock crushing and blasting are not “anticipated” without any
adequate support.
Klein 062 (#514): Is rock chipping or pile driving expected and if so, at what stages and
for how long?
Klein 062 (#572): DEIS states that materials processing will not be done on site yet
Figure 16-1 includes a crusher as part of the included equipment in both Phase 1 and
Phase 2 - please clarify.
Response 135: Drawing C-410 titled “Excavation Cross Section” has been added to JMC’s site
plan set to clarify the extents of excavation and the height of rock encountered
during the soil borings performed by AKRF on November 9, 2017 and January
2018 (see Volume 4). As shown on drawing C-410 and using information from the
Preliminary Geotechnical Report (DEIS Appendix I) and the Phase II ESA (DEIS
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-113 1/3/2020
Appendix H-2), competent rock will come no closer than approximately 11 feet
from the bottom of the garage, which based upon the current design, would be the
lowest excavation. Bedrock height can be unpredictable but from the accessible
information, no blasting or rock crushing is anticipated during construction. As rock
blasting, rock crushing, rock chipping, and pile driving are not anticipated during
construction, on-Site materials processing will not be necessary.
Based upon the recommendation from the geotechnical report, proposed
foundations can be supported upon the soils present on-Site (see DEIS
Appendix I). Therefore, shallow foundations are proposed and deep foundations,
such as piles, are not feasible, nor recommended.
Comment 136: Comments were received suggesting that adverse impacts from construction of
the Proposed Project would be significant, especially to nearby residents in The
Arbors, and that those impacts may affect the potential of The Arbors residents to
sell their houses during construction. (Carravone 002, Stella-Turner 014, Levine
029, Barnett 034, Levy 055, Klein 062, Levy 067)
Carravone 002 (#9): the noise of construction will be horrendous for me and every one
of my neighbors.
Stella-Turner 014 (#196): (Would you want to listen to) 3 years of building? Suffer the
air and noise pollution?
Levine 029 (#266): How are the Arbors residents or any houses around there going to sell
their homes during that construction time? Our property values will definitely go down.
Barnett 034 (#275): The Arbors is concerned because some people are only going to be
150 feet away from the construction that’s occurring.
Levy 055 (#418): Quality of life certainly during construction in terms of noise for those
of us who have businesses at homes, who are self-employed and can’t have that king of
noise going on when we are working and trying to make a living. Especially for those
people who are home all day, whether they are home because they are working or not
home. I am a self-employed person, my husband is a self-employed person and we
spend a lot of time working during the day and that noise level could really affect our
work…quality of life during and after.
Klein 062 (#505): Much of the concern about the project, aside from traffic, is regarding
the construction phase and not the operational phase. Greater attention should be paid in
the FEIS to mitigating measures to disturbance to the school and the Arbors during the
construction phase, as mentioned below, and a Construction Management Plans should
be cognizant of these concerns.
Levy 067 (#532): There will be the noise of construction vehicles coming and going as
well as the noise of the construction. At one meeting, it was mentioned that residents of
the Arbors may need to keep windows closed to insulate us from some of the noise.
Whether residents are working from home -as both myself and my husband do - or
socializing on our patios, studying for school or sleeping, our quality of life should not
be affected for 3 years of construction. Additionally, we should not be disturbed on the
weekends with Sunday construction.
Response 136: The potential impacts to The Arbors as a result of construction of the Revised
Proposed Project is detailed in Section 2.16.2, “Construction Period Impacts and
Mitigation.” As noted in Chapter 17, “Alternatives,” of the DEIS, the nature and
magnitude of this temporary impact would be similar in all studied alternatives to
the Revised Proposed Project, save the No Action alternative.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-114 DRAFT
Comment 137: A comment was received requesting additional information regarding “mitigation
measures for the potential construction-period impacts to Harkness Park.” (Klein 062)
Klein 062 (#509): [Section] 10.4.3 [of the DEIS] should include mitigation for loss of
use of the tennis courts at Harkness due to construction during the 21 months of heavy
construction anticipated
Response 137: As summarized below, and described in more detail in response to Comment 149,
the existing noise level at Harkness Park is approximately 70.0 dBA, which is
greater than the NYSDEC recommended level for noise exterior to residential
uses. The maximum predicted noise levels at the Park during construction of the
Revised Proposed Project, which would occur during the approximately 3 months
of excavation work, would be in the mid-70s dBA. This would be an increase of
approximately 3 dBA, which would be barely perceptible. This approximately 3
dBA increase is below the 6 dBA threshold for potential significant adverse noise
impacts as specified by NYSDEC. Outside of the approximately 3 months of
excavation work, noise impacts from construction, and overall noise levels at the
Park, would be lower. Consequently, the Park would not have the potential to
experience a significant adverse construction noise impact as defined by
NYSDEC and further mitigation would not be appropriate.
Comment 138: A comment was received asking how off-Site stormwater flow that currently uses
the on-Site stormwater basin will be accommodated during construction.
(Planning Board 018)
Planning Board 018 (#231): If other properties currently utilize the drainage basin on
the subject property, how will this drainage be accommodated during construction?
Response 138: The existing drainage basin will remain fully functional throughout the entire
duration of construction. The extent of work to be done on the existing basin is
minimal and should not take an extended period of time. The clearing of the basin
would be limited to invasive species only. Reshaping of the basin would be limited
to lowering the northeast portion of the basin in a 2,500-sf area (from 3 inches in
some portions and up to 2 feet in other portions) and pulling back the western
portion of the basin in order to increase the overall size of the basin. This work
would occur on the opposite side of where the off-Site drainage is piped into the
basin. As soon as the proposed grade is established, the exposed soil will be seeded
and stabilized to prevent further erosion. This excavation will also be carefully
planned around the weather to avoid exposing bare soil to any rain events before
this soil can be stabilized. To further reduce potential siltation downstream, silt
fence will be installed at the toe of the reshaped slope until vegetation is established.
This work will take place during Phase 1 of construction.
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Comment 139: The traffic consultant hired by The Arbors provided a letter which, in part, recited the
potential construction period traffic impacts as identified in the DEIS. (Adler 039)
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-115 1/3/2020
Adler 039 (#302): Intersection capacity analysis shows that the proposed redevelopment
of the 900 King Street Site would result in LOS “F” operating conditions for individual
movements during the PM peak construction activity hour at the following intersections:
(1) King Street (Route 120A) & North Ridge Street (2) King Street (Route 120A) &
Glen Ridge Road/Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway NB on/off ramp.
Adler 039 (#303): The 95th percentile queue in the northbound shared through/right-
turn lane at the intersection of King Street with Blind Brook MS/HS -- Glenville Street
is expected to exceed the available 345-foot storage lane during the PM peak
construction activity hour.
Response 139: As stated in the DEIS, to provide the most conservative analysis, the study
analyzed the construction time period during which the most number of on-Site
workers would be present—months 20 and 21. The study did not take any credits
for potential carpooling, and assumed that all 180 workers would arrive and
depart in separate vehicles during the peak hour.
In reality, the periods of construction that have the most workers on-Site are those
that include multiple trades. As stated in DEIS Section 16.3.2.1, “Construction
Period Trip Generation,” it is unlikely that all 180 workers would arrive during a
single peak hour, nor is it likely that each worker would arrive in a separate
vehicle. In addition, only two months are estimated to have 180 workers present
on-Site, with all other months expected to have fewer workers on-Site. Potential
temporary adverse traffic impacts during construction are unavoidable and
mitigation is not typically required.
Comment 140: Comments were received regarding the potential impacts of construction truck
traffic. One commenter questioned the accuracy of the number of trucks estimated
in the DEIS based on a belief that the DEIS assumed a truck size that was too
large. Other commenters questioned whether the intersection of Arbor Drive and
King Street was properly configured to handle construction truck movements,
while others questioned the overall impact to the traffic network from the number
of trucks anticipated and requested more detail on the duration and timing of peak
construction activity. (Snyder 007, Neumann 030, Zimmerman 046, Klein 062)
Snyder 007 (#58): 9,000 cubic yards is the best case scenario…you would need at least
900 dump trucks to bring the fill to the site. (The DEIS assumes a 20 yard capacity truck
and thus 420 truck trips, but that seems dubious when most trucks are 10-14 yard
capacity). The DEIS needs to address worst case scenario as well as best case to fully
analyze the impact of the subsurface structure excavation.
Neumann 030 (#268): Where are all these trucks going to come from? They can’t go on
the Hutch? How (are) they going to take the turn into the street? We’re talking about a
big project. It’s huge.
Zimmerman 046 (#358): Third thing was construction traffic. You were concerned with
the construction at Broadview impact on Rye Brook. This one is right in Rye Brook, and
it most assuredly is going to affect many areas in Rye Brook, as well as nearby
Greenwich and Port Chester and whichever way the trucks are going to have to go.
Klein 062 (#516): Please specify the amount of weeks for typical truck activity and peak
truck activity (Section 16.3.2.3).
Response 140: As noted in Section 2.4.1, “Soils,” the Revised Proposed Project reduces the
excavation, or cut, required as well as the fill required within the Site. As shown
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-116 DRAFT
in Table 3.4-1, the Revised Proposed Project also reduces the net cut-and-fill
compared to the original project, which further mitigates potential adverse
impacts related to on-Site construction activities and off-Site trucking of earthen
material. It is anticipated that, owing to the size of the Revised Proposed Project,
larger (20 cubic yard) capacity trucks would be primarily utilized for the import
or export of earthen material. Conservatively assuming 14-yard capacity trucks,
a total of approximately 91105 truck trips would be required to deliver this
material. These trucks are accounted for in the estimated number of weekly truck
trips described in more detail below.
Section 16.3.2.3, “Construction Truck Traffic,” of the DEIS describes the potential
truck routes to and from the Site (i.e., I-95, I-684, and I-287). As shown in Figure
16-1 of the DEIS, 22 of the 30 months of construction are anticipated to have 30 or
fewer weekly tuck trips to and from the Site and only three (non-consecutive)
months are estimated to have more than 100 truck trips per week. At no time would
truck parking or queuing be permitted on King Street or Arbor Drive. Figure 3-1
demonstrates the ability of a 20-yard dump truck to both access and exit Arbor
Drive from both northbound and southbound King Street.
As described in Section 2.16.2, “Construction Period Impacts and Mitigation,” a
detailed Construction Management Plan (CMP) would be implemented that
would provide for communication between the Project’s construction manager
and Village staff, including the Police Department. Through the CMP, Village
staff would be alerted to times of peak truck activity.
Comment 141: A comment was received questioning the validity of the construction traffic
analysis given that it assumed peak construction traffic would occur between 6
AM and 7 AM though the Village’s noise ordinance prohibits construction before
8 AM, which might indicate a later construction traffic peak time. (Klein 062)
Klein 062 (#515): Given that the waiver has not been granted, the traffic study should
examine an 8AM start time for construction.
Response 141: The Village’s noise ordinance prohibits construction that makes audible noise
beyond the project boundary prior to 8:00 AM on weekdays. During the periods
of peak construction activity, a large number of workers in various trades will be
doing interior finishing work. This work can take place prior to 8:00 AM as it
would not create noise outside of the Site.
To further mitigate the potential for adverse impacts related to construction
workers arriving during school arrival time, the Applicant has proposed that the
Village allow for a waiver of the 8:00 AM start time by no more than 1 hour (i.e.,
allow a start time of 7:00 AM) in cases where the Village Board finds that such a
waiver could reduce potential traffic impacts at sensitive locations within the
Village, such as the Project Site (see Appendix L).
See also the Response to Comment 139.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-117 1/3/2020
Comment 142: The Village’s Traffic Consultant stated that, “The Applicant has provided an
analysis for a worst-case condition at months 20-21 where up to 180 workers will
arrive to the site between 6:00 and 7:00 AM and leave between 3:30 and 4:30 PM.
To develop the 6:00 to 7:00 existing baseline volumes, the Applicant reduced the
7:00 to 8:00 AM traffic volumes from their counts by 50%.” (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#166): The Applicant has provided an analysis for a worst-case condition
at months 20-21 where up to 180 workers will arrive to the site between 6:00 and 7:00
AM and leave between 3:30 and 4:30 PM. To develop the 6:00 to 7:00 existing baseline
volumes, the Applicant reduced the 7:00 to 8:00 AM traffic volumes from their counts
by 50%.
Response 142: Comment noted.
Comment 143: Comments were received that expressed concern for pedestrian safety,
specifically for students walking to and from school, during construction of the
Proposed Project. (Stella-Turner 014, Joy 033, Levine 048, Klein 062, Levy 067)
Stella-Turner 014 (#195): Compromise your child’s safety when he walks to school
every day? Wonder what was to become of the school systems.
Joy 033 (#271): My concern…about the kids’ safety walking home from middle and
high (schools). I will be concerned about safety during all (of) the construction time.
Levine 048 (#370): The kids walk to school and they walk home crossing Arbor Drive.
Sports take place throughout that land: Are those sports going to go away? What’s going
to be the plan for the school? This is going to immediately impact the school for
potentially three years.
Klein 062 (#521): Pedestrian access to the school from the Arbors should be guaranteed
during construction.
Levy 067 (#533): Arbors residents use Arbor Drive for walking and driving. Residents
use Arbor Drive for walking, for exercise, walking their dogs, and walking to school. It
is our only means in and out of the Arbors. Arbor Drive is also used as party parking as
well. I am concerned that the traffic created during the construction and after this project
due to the density proposed will greatly impact our quality of life and safety.
Response 143: During construction, the Site would be fenced off to ensure safety from
construction activities and the existing parking lot would be physically closed
from public use. The pedestrian path leading from the Village buildings to
Harkness Park and the Blind Brook High School would be temporarily closed. At
the end of the construction period, the pedestrian path on the Project Site would
be restored and enhanced and would be re-opened to the public.
To further reduce the potential for conflicts between pedestrians and construction
traffic, the Applicant proposes that the Village allow for a waiver of the 8:00 AM
construction start time for noise-producing activities by no more than 1 hour (i.e.,
allow a start time of 7:00 AM) in cases where the Village Board finds that such a
waiver could reduce potential traffic impacts at sensitive locations within the
Village, such as the Project Site (see Appendix L). This would minimize the
number of workers anticipated to arrive during the peak school arrival time.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-118 DRAFT
Comment 144: Comments were received regarding the potential construction traffic mitigation
measure of allowing construction to start at 7 AM, as opposed to 8 AM. Several
commenters stated that allowing construction noise to begin at 7 AM would be
detrimental to their quality of life. Other comments expressed concern over the
impacts to the school district and the traffic network. The Village’s Traffic
Consultant stated that from a traffic perspective, allowing construction to start at
7 AM, rather than 8 AM, would be beneficial and would avoid both the AM peak
hour and the morning drop off time at the Blind Brook Middle School and High
School. (Snyder 007, Ghosh 008, Parvani 009, Samuels 016, Planning Board 018,
Zimmerman 026, Snyder 038, Ross 042, Galante 044, Zimmerman 046, Levine
048, Snyder 053, Zarkower 054)
Snyder 007 (#84): Due to the magnitude of the project and the proximity to the school,
the DEIS proposes a potential mitigation measure which would allow a start time of 7
a.m. (as opposed to the Village Code Section 158 provision requiring a start time of 8
a.m. Weekdays and Saturdays of 9 a.m.) Monday-Saturday, 6 days a week in an effort to
reduce potential traffic impacts. The DEIS provides no analysis as to how that will
impact The Arbors and the use of Arbor Drive and what specific measures will be in
place to assure the surrounding community is not impacted.
Ghosh 008 (#91): Construction starting a 7am for 3 years would severely impact King
Street Traffic - morning school drop off would be a nightmare.
Parvani 009 (#95): Construction starting a 7am for 3 years would severely impact King
Street Traffic - morning school drop off would be a nightmare.
Samuels 016 (#201): The impact of the proposed construction beginning at 7am for
three years would impact the ability of school buses to get kids to school on time (and
home on time for activities.) King Street would be the hardest hit, as mentioned above.
Morning school drop off would be a nightmare.
Planning Board 018 (#228): How will a 7AM construction start time affect planned
renovations for the public school during summer months? How will that construction
time affect school drop-off and children walking to school? After school activities
should be considered in determining construction time frames.
Zimmerman 026 (#281): the developer has proposed that they get a variance to have
their construction crews come in at 7:00 am every day instead of 8:00 am. And we in the
Arbors feel that would be a tremendous disservice to the community. It would severely
negatively impact our quality of life for up to three years.
Snyder 038 (#293): The Change in construction [start] time will certainly be adverse to
the community.
Ross 042 (#329): Several hundred cars and buses already travel on King Street to Blind
Brook MS/HS located at 840 King Street during rush hour period. Please do not forget
to take into consideration what the proposed complex may do to a traffic situation that is
already not good and for the safety of students who walk and bike between their homes
and the Middle and High School campus. We request that traffic generated by the
construction be limited during school arrival (7:15-8:00am) and dismissal (2:15-
3:00pm). Traffic generated by shift workers at the assisted living & memory care
facility be limited during these arrival and dismissal times as well.
Galante 044 (#346): From a traffic perspective and looking at our traffic volumes, we
support what they were saying, because the volumes are substantially lower before 7:00
am in the morning. They increase from 7:00 on in the morning. The comment that
bringing employees in, construction employees in, before 7:00, from a traffic
perspective, does make sense. I’m not suggesting impacts to neighbors. Just from a
traffic perspective.
Zimmerman 046 (#359): As far as starting at 7:00am in the morning, while I understand
that would mitigate traffic, that’s putting people in The Arbors and in nearby homes here
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-119 1/3/2020
in a very untenable living situation for three years, and I don’t think that’s fair to even
consider. I don’t think it’s fair to ask our residents to live that way for a three-year period.
Levine 048 (#371): So the trucks are going to be in you’re saying before 7:00 am. So no
trucks are going to be coming in and out after 7:00? 7:20 is when parents, 7:15, 7:20 is
when parents start bringing their kids to school.
Snyder 053 (#405): This all assumes that the village will grant a waiver for their time
requirements for construction and 3:30 to 4:30 when all 180 workers are expected to
depart from the site. The change in these construction times would certainly be adverse
to the community.
Zarkower 054 (#413): The 3:30 to 4:30 slot which was discussed before, has the
developer reached out to the school district directly to discuss some of these concerns
and how to mitigate some of the issues during this 21 to 30 month period, the retrieve
school buses come right through Arbor Drive, between 3:30 and 4:00.
Response 144: Strict adherence to the Village’s existing noise code could create the situation
where, during times of predominantly exterior construction that is not allowed to
start prior to 8:00 AM, construction workers would be arriving at the Project Site
at the same time as the peak school arrival time. As a potential mitigation measure
and to reduce potential conflicts between construction worker trips and school
arrival trips, the Applicant proposes that the Village allow for a waiver of the 8:00
AM start time by no more than 1 hour (i.e., allow a start time of 7:00 AM) in cases
where the Village Board finds that such a waiver could reduce potential traffic
impacts at sensitive locations within the Village, such as the Project Site (see
Appendix L).
As noted by the Village’s Traffic Consultant, permitting such a waiver “makes
sense” from a traffic perspective “because the volumes [on the area roadways] are
substantially lower before 7:00 AM.”
Comment 145: The Planning Board stated that, “repairs to Arbor Drive should be performed by
the Applicant as needed during construction; not just when construction is
complete.” (Planning Board 018)
Planning Board 018 (#232): Regarding page 6-11, repairs to Arbor Drive should be
performed by the Applicant as needed during construction; not just when construction is
complete.
Response 145: In Section 16.3.2.3, “Construction Truck Traffic,” the Applicant committed to
“monitor the condition of Arbor Drive throughout the construction period and
make necessary repairs, such as repaving, at the conclusion of the construction
period.” While it was always the Applicant’s intent, the Revised Proposed Project
includes an explicit commitment to make repairs to Arbor Drive during the
construction period as warranted and as appropriate.
AIR QUALITY
Comment 146: Comments were received expressing a concern for the air quality impacts of
construction as experienced by The Arbors and the school, especially outdoor
activities at the school. An additional comment advocated for a reduced scale
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-120 DRAFT
project that would necessitate less construction and earth moving, which would
in turn reduce impacts to air quality during construction. In addition, the Village’s
Special Engineering Consultant recommended that the measures listed in the
DEIS to avoid and minimize adverse air quality impacts during construction be
memorialized as part of any Project approvals and that two other measures be
included: (1) the use of Best Available Technology (BAT) for all non-road diesel-
powered vehicles rated at 50 horsepower (hp) or above; and, (2) the
implementation of a Community Air Monitoring Plan (CAMP) during
construction. (Snyder 007, Musso 013, Ross 042, Klein 062)
Snyder 007 (#83): Furthermore, the extent of the air quality resulting in air pollutant
emissions which would be occurring for more than 6 months due to the use of "large
non-road diesel engines, such as excavators, dozers, graders and loaders" needs to be
analyzed, especially as to its impact on school aged children. Again, the statement in the
DEIS that the nature and magnitude of these significant adverse impacts would be
similar in all alternatives, except for the No Action alternative cannot be supported.
Certainly, project alternatives reducing the scale of the project should be considered
which include decreasing the footprint of the buildings and eliminating the underground
parking excavation. Accordingly, the project in its current form must be modified
Musso 013 (#177): These control measures [The list of erosion and dust control
measures listed in the DEIS] should be a listed as conditions included in the
approvals/permits for the proposed project. In addition, use of best available technology
(“BAT”) for reducing emissions, such as diesel particulate filters (“DPFs”) or diesel
oxidation catalysts (“DOCs”), on all nonroad diesel-powered vehicle rated at 50
horsepower or more should be required. Since the project site is adjacent to sensitive
receptors, the proposed project should also be required to prepare and implement a
Community Air Monitoring Plan (CAMP). The focus of the CAMP would be to monitor
airborne particulate levels during demolition, soil removal/handling activities and other
activities that could potentially generate airborne particulates. The CAMP should
include action levels and steps to be taken shall these action levels be met or exceeded.
Ross 042 (#332): Air quality during demolition and construction is of greater concern.
Air quality will be an issue for our students during the school day during construction,
and particularly for students participating in Physical Education classes and team
practices and competitions outside on the fields and tennis courts.
Klein 062 (#517): Given that the construction is happening so close to a school I would
differ and would prefer that further analysis be done once a specific CMP is complete
and specific timing of activities is known.
Response 146: As discussed in Section 2.16.2.3, “Air Quality,” the Revised Proposed Project
includes the following measures to reduce pollutant emissions during
construction to further reduce and mitigate potential air quality impacts during
construction.
To reduce the potential for fugitive dust emissions (those emissions as a result of
earth moving), the Revised Proposed Project would implement the following
mitigation measures, which would be codified in the Construction Management
Plan (CMP), which would be made a condition of site plan approval:
Minimizing the area of soil that is disturbed at any one time;
Minimizing the amount of time during which soils are exposed;
Installing truck mats or anti-tracking pads at egress points to clean the trucks’
tires prior to leaving the Project Site;
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-121 1/3/2020
Watering of exposed areas during dry periods;. Dust suppression activities
would not be expected to generate standing or flowing water.;
Asphalt parking areas, driveways, and Arbor Drive would be cleaned using a
‘street sweeper’ as needed to reduce fugitive dust.
Using drainage diversion methods (e.g., silt fences) to minimize soil erosion
during Site grading;
Covering stored materials with a tarp to reduce windborne dust;
Limiting on-Site construction vehicle speed to 5mph; and
Using truck covers/tarp rollers that cover fully loaded trucks and keep debris
and dust from being expelled from the truck along its haul route.
With the implementation of these measures, the Revised Proposed Project would
avoid and minimize potential air quality impacts from fugitive dust to the
maximum extent practicable. As stated in Section 2.16, the CMP would include
provisions for robust and regular communication with the BBRUFSD and the
Village. In the unlikely event that airborne dust from the Project Site creates an
adverse impact to the BBRUFSD, procedures would be in place to immediately
alert the on-Site construction manager and the Village so that appropriate
measures could be taken to ameliorate the potential temporary impact and, if
determined necessary by the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant, initiate a
CAMP.
As stated in Section 2.16.2.3, “Air Quality,” the Revised Proposed Project would
also include the following measures to minimize emissions from construction
vehicles and equipment:
Ultra-low sulfur diesel would be utilized for all construction equipment and
vehicles;
All equipment would be properly maintained;
Idling of construction or delivery vehicles or other equipment would not be
allowed when the equipment is not in active use; and
To further reduce the potential for adverse air quality impacts, the Revised
Proposed Project includes the following mitigation measure that was not included
in the original project:
Use of Best Available Tailpipe Reduction Technologies. The Revised
Proposed Project includes this mitigation measure that was not included in
the original project. Construction of the Revised Proposed Project would
mandate that non-road diesel engines with a power rating of 50 hp or greater
and controlled truck fleets (i.e., truck fleets under long-term contract with the
project) including but not limited to concrete mixing and pumping trucks
would utilize BAT technology for reducing DPM emissions. Diesel
particulate filters (DPFs) have been identified as being the tailpipe technology
currently proven to have the highest reduction capability. Construction
contracts would specify that all diesel non-road engines rated at 50 hp or
greater would utilize DPFs, either installed by the original equipment
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-122 DRAFT
manufacturer or retrofitted. Retrofitted DPFs must be verified by EPA or the
California Air Resources Board. Active DPFs or other technologies proven
to achieve an equivalent reduction may also be used.
NOISE AND VIBRATION
Comment 147: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant questioned whether the
construction noise analysis should be augmented with data collected on a
weekend. (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#187): Table 16-4 of the DEIS provides existing noise levels for the
sensitive receptors included in the construction noise analysis. However, it is not stated
if this noise measurement data is from a weekday or Saturday. Since construction may
occur on Saturdays, the noise analysis should be performed for both a typical weekday
and Saturday.
Response 147: Regular construction will occur on Monday through Friday, with limited Saturday
work as required by the Project schedule. The primary noise-generating
construction activities (e.g., excavation, concrete operations) would not typically
occur on Saturday. Because the primary noise-generating construction activities
would typically occur on weekdays, the construction noise analysis considered
weekday construction as the worst-case construction scenario.
Comment 148: Comments were received suggesting that the noise impacts to the Blind Brook
Middle School and High School from construction noise, both within the school
building and outside of the school building during physical education and/or
sports practices and games, may be significant. One commenter requested
additional information on the distance from the various on-Site construction
locations (e.g., townhouses and IL and AL building) and the school and suggested
that additional receptors on the school and Village playing fields be evaluated. In
addition, several commenters questioned what measures would be implemented
to mitigate this impact. Suggestions included restrictions on the most noise-
intensive construction activities during sensitive times (e.g., AP testing) and the
prioritizing of summers and school holidays for noise-intensive activities. (Ghosh
008, Parvani 009, Samuels 016, Zarkower 028, Barnett 034, Ross 042, Levine
048, Feinstein 049, Zarkower 054, Levy 055, Klein 062, Heiser 065, Levy 067,
Stella-Turner 073, Barnett 074)
Ghosh 008 (#92): The noise from blasting and construction would negatively impact our
students.
Parvani 009 (#96): The noise from blasting and construction would negatively impact
our students.
Samuels 016 (#202): The noise from blasting and construction would negatively impact
our students.
Zarkower 028 (#258): Middle and high school…especially those classrooms that
overlook this construction site, are in harm’s way. That is not a soundproof
building…you’re talking about impacting high school kids for three years.
Zarkower 028 (#259): Is this developer prepared to shut down the construction during,
say, the two weeks of Advanced Placements (APs)? You have to be able to provide
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-123 1/3/2020
classrooms that are quiet…you also have Regents, you have PSATs. There has to be
more addressed in terms of that building, which to me is in harm’s way.
Barnett 034 (#273): Construction noise…how are you going to protect students after
school? Those fields are right up against 900 (King Street).
Ross 042 (#330): If the 900 King Street project is approved, the District expects that
during the time of construction the Village of Rye Brook will issue general restrictions
on the amount of noise that emanates from construction site during the day from 7:45
am to 3:45 pm during days when school is in session. Based on Appendix J of the DEIS,
BBHS will be exposed to one of the highest Constant LEQ of 80.0dB due to its close
proximity to the site. We request that noise-intensive construction work be contained
during summer months and school holiday and vacation days. Curtailing noise will be a
particularly important matter during the testing periods that occur through the school
year.
Ross 042 (#333): Concerned that the District may lose use of its outdoor sports fields
due to noise and air quality issues…and the implications should this occur. We (BBSD)
would want some sort of assurances that this will not occur but if it does, the developer
will provide compensation to the District if it incurs costs because it had to relocate
athletic programs.
Levine 048 (#369): Noise is going to be right there when our kids are studying, our kids
are working, our kids are taking tests. What’s going to happen during the school day
during testing? Are they not going to be blasting? Are they not going to be bulldozing?
Are they not going to be digging? Because all of that will affect the kids.
Feinstein 049 (#381): I just want to let you know that Blind Brook High School existed
before The Arbors was constructed. So we had to deal with that issue way back in the
early ‘70s, in the mid ‘70s when The Arbors were built…because construction was
going on when kids were at Blind Brook High School.
Zarkower 054 (#410): I am focusing on the concern with the school district. I brought up the
fact that those noise components during key periods such as AP exams, PSATs will have to
be addressed…have to be some kind of commitment to work around those schedules.
Zarkower 054 (#411): Should there be noise during those times that the students can’t
hear in the classrooms, every student’s report and file will have to show an irregularity
that would be reported to the college board, and could wind up being put on their exams
that are sent later to colleges if this isn’t remedied ahead of time.
Zarkower 054 (#412): If this goes more than the testing site, the school could be in
jeopardy of losing a key status if they can’t not provide, they have to agree to provide a
quiet setting during each test period the following year.
Zarkower 054 (#414): You have tennis courts out there that are utilized by the school
for the tennis team. What will the developer proposed if during that period of time those
tennis courts are not going to be able to utilize and those students will have to
be…relocated? It shouldn’t really be beyond the cost to the school district.
Zarkower 054 (#415): There are greater issues that the school district can really benefit
from, an enriched tuition program at the high school and that it actually offsets the
budget and helps them stay within the tax cap. If I was a parent coming to look at the
school district and this noise was going on for 20 months, I might not go there. You
could lose one or two kids, maybe, but you lose 10 or 15 that’s going to have a direct
financial impact on the school district, may push them either towards to override that tax
cap or take money out of those classrooms.
Zarkower 054 (#416): I’d like to know if the developer has reached out and really
understood the short term impacts when running the school district.
Levy 055 (#419): In terms of our children and the noise. It is important during APs and
those big testing periods for a lot of the kids. Noise, any day, in test taking and listening
to their teachers and paying attention. You know, there is a discussion in the school
about this block schedule that has longer periods, so they (the kids) are already going to
be asked to be focused longer and then you are going to add noise to that, and dust and
whatever else is going to come from that.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-124 DRAFT
Klein 062 (#518): How far is the High School from the AL and IL work areas where
more prolonged construction is taking place?
Klein 062 (#519): Table 16-4 should include additional points of the high school
baseball field, football field, and King Street Fields (or generally the closest point at the
combined athletic fields) with noise summary analyzed.
Klein 062 (#520): Why are there not mitigation measures listed in this section as with
other sections? These could include measures around testing times. Paying to increase
insulation on the walls closest to the construction.
Heiser 065 (#529): I am concerned about the adequacy of protection for the school when
you are doing the construction.
Levy 067 (#536): The construction times will interfere with children coming and going
to school. Also, the noise created during construction, if heard in the middle school and
high school, will impact students’ ability to learn.
Stella-Turner 073 (#568): 21 months of building is what we are putting at the back door
of an educational school system which is bar none.
Barnett 074 (#569): He essentially asked for no construction until 3:45 pm, and the
Arbors, you know, while we agree, the school has to you know, have protections. We
also live right there as well.
Response 148: As discussed in Section 2.16.2.4, “Noise,” a revised construction noise analysis
was conducted. The revised analysis included additional receptors as requested
by the Village’s special engineering consultant and a more detailed analysis of
the distance between the closest receptors to the Project Site and the work areas
of the Revised Proposed Project based on specific sites plans and construction
logistics diagrams. The updated construction noise analysis uses the same
methodology and evaluation criteria as the DEIS analysis, but includes the
additional receptors. The updated analysis also assumes implementation of the
construction noise mitigation measures that were identified in the DEIS and FEIS,
specifically:
Erection of a noise barrier that is 12 feet tall along the perimeter of the Project
Site on Arbor Drive between the Main Site entrance and the southern site
boundary. The barrier would be constructed from plywood, or a material of
similar noise abatement properties, and would be installed prior to the start of
construction activities during the time that the Blind Brook Middle School
and High School is in session during the normal school year;
Noisy construction equipment, such as cranes, concrete pumps, concrete
trucks, and delivery trucks, would be located away from, and shielded from,
sensitive receptors, such as the school, to the extent practicable;
Construction equipment, including the mufflers on the equipment, would be
required to be properly maintained;
Electrification of construction equipment to the extent feasible and
practicable would be undertaken as soon in the construction process as
logistics allow;
The construction site would be configured to minimize back-up alarm noise
to the extent feasible and practicable;
Construction trucks would not be allowed to idle for longer than 3 minutes.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-125 1/3/2020
Noise receptor locations associated with the BBRUFSD listed Table 3.16-1 were
evaluated as part of the revised analysis. A detailed discussion of the complete
revised construction analysis is included in Section 2.16.2.4, “Construction: Noise.”
Table 3.16-1
BBRUFSD Construction Noise Receptor Areas
Receptor(s)
Land
Use(s)
Relationship to Proposed
Construction Work Areas
Blind Brook Middle/High School West façade
(facing Arbor Drive) Education 170 feet east of Townhouse Work Area
Blind Brook Middle/High School South façade
(facing baseball field) * Education 295 feet southeast of Townhouse Work
Area
Blind Brook School Baseball Field* Active
Recreation 340 feet east of Townhouse Work Area
Blind Brook School Football Field/Track* Active
Recreation 750 feet east of Townhouse Work Area
Blind Brook Middle School Education 335 feet east of Townhouse Work Area
Harkness Tennis Court* Active
Recreation
345 feet east of Independent Living
south Wings Work Area
Note:* Indicates new receptor location in FEIS
The projected maximum noise levels during construction for the BBRUFSD
receptors are summarized in Table 3.16-2. The construction noise estimates for
the full construction period are shown in Appendix J and discussed in detail in
Section 2.16.4.2, “Construction: Noise.” The maximum noise level estimates
presented below are for noise levels exterior to the receptor during the worst-case
scenario. Noise levels interior to a structure would be significantly lower than the
levels presented below due to the attenuation provided by building walls and
windows (approximately 25 dBA lower for typical façade construction with a
closed-window condition). Typical façade construction, including insulated glass
windows and some kind of alternate means of ventilation (i.e., air conditioning)
would be expected to provide approximately 25 dBA reduction in interior noise
levels compared to exterior levels for a closed-window condition.
Table 3.16-2
BBRUFSD Estimated Maximum Construction Noise Summary
(in dBA)
Receptor Area
Existing
Leq
Maximum Construction
Noise Levels
Leq Increase
Blind Brook Middle/High School West façade (facing Arbor
Drive) 59.0 70.6 11.6
Blind Brook Middle/High School South façade (facing
baseball field) * 59.0 59.6 0.6
Blind Brook School Baseball Field* 59.0 60.6 1.6
Blind Brook School Football Field/Track* 59.0 60.9 1.9
Blind Brook Middle School 59.0 59.6 0.6
Harkness Tennis Court* 70.0 73.1 3.1
Note: * Indicates new receptor location in FEIS
The maximum predicted noise levels shown in Table 3.16-2 would occur at times
during the most noise-intensive activities of construction, which would not occur
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-126 DRAFT
every day during the construction period, and would not occur during every hour
on days when those activities are underway. During hours when the loudest pieces
of construction equipment are not in use, receptors would experience lower
construction noise levels than those shown above. As described below,
construction noise levels would fluctuate during the construction period at each
receptor, with the greatest levels of construction noise occurring for limited
periods during construction.
Blind Brook Middle/High School
West Façade (Facing Arbor Drive)
As shown in Table 3.16-2, the west façade of the Blind Brook Middle School and
High School building across Arbor Drive from the Project Site would experience
high levels of construction noise and increases in exterior noise levels that would
be considered highly objectionable at times during the most noise-intensive
construction activities. Maximum Leq(1) noise levels at this receptor resulting from
construction would be in approximately the low 70s dBA, resulting in exterior
noise level increases of up to approximately 12 dBA. Consequently, the
maximum exterior noise levels predicted to be generated by on-Site construction
activities at this receptor would be expected to exceed the NYSDEC noise level
threshold at times during the construction period.
The maximum construction noise levels would occur during portions of the
approximately 3 months of road and utilities installation and parking garage
foundation construction as well as during the approximately 2 months during the
overlap of interior and exterior finishing at the AL facility and IL center core and
framing and roofing construction at the IL south wings and townhouses.
Construction noise levels in the mid 60s dBA, resulting in noise level increases
up to approximately 8 dBA, would occur intermittently over portions of another
6 months during the construction period. During the remainder of construction,
noise levels would remain below the 65 dBA NYSDEC recommended exterior
noise levels and the 6.0 dBA noise increment threshold identified by NYSDEC.
Consequently, while construction noise levels would not persist at their maximum
level throughout all construction activities, construction noise levels are predicted
to exceed the NYSDEC noise threshold for approximately 11 months during
construction of the Revised Proposed Project.
It is important to note that the spaces along this west façade, generally include
areas that would not be considered noise-sensitive, including the cafeteria,
gymnasium, custodial, and loading spaces. The only classrooms along this façade
are those on the second floor towards the north end of the building, and these
classrooms have very limited window area, with the façade facing the Arbor
Drive consisting mostly of brick. As suchstated above, standard façade
construction (e.g., with regular size windows in a closed window condition),
provides at least 25 dBA attenuation from exterior noise levels. Given that there
are no façade penetrations for ventilation and there is a relatively small amount
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-127 1/3/2020
of glazing in an otherwise brick façade, noise levels interior to the these
classrooms would be significantly lower than the, in a closed window condition,
benefit from façade attenuation in excess of 25 dBA. Therefore, given maximum
exterior noise levels presented above due to the attenuation provided by building
façade (from construction of approximately 35 dBA lower in a closed-window
condition with no façade penetrations for ventilation, and mostly brick façade
area;70.6 dBA at this attenuation value is higher than the typical 25 dBA value
because so much of the façade area consists of masonry, which provides more
noise attenuation than glazing, and because there are no façade penetrations for
air conditioning sleeves or louvers). This would result in location, noise levels in
these classrooms of would be expected to be approximately 45 dBA or lower
during construction, which would be considered acceptable for classroom use.
South Façade (facing the baseball field)
As shown in Table 3.16-2, the south façade of the Blind Brook Middle School
and High School building, facing the baseball field, would experience minimal
levels of construction noise. Maximum exterior Leq(1) noise levels at this receptor
resulting from construction would be in approximately the high 50s dBA.
Consequently, the maximum exterior noise levels predicted to be generated by
on-Site construction activities at this receptor would not be expected to exceed
the NYSDEC noise level threshold during the construction period.
North and East Façades (facing Harkness Park and the School Parking Lot)
The south and west façades of the school, analyzed above, represent the locations
with the maximum potential for adverse noise impacts within the school during
construction. Receptors along the north and east façades of the school would
experience lower noise levels than those for the south façade due to additional
distance and shielding from the construction work areas at these façades.
Blind Brook School Baseball Field, Track, and Football Field
As shown in Table 3.16-2, the Blind Brook School baseball field, track, and
football field across Arbor Drive from the Project Site would experience low
levels of construction noise. Increases in noise levels at the track and football field
would be considered imperceptible to barely perceptible during the most noise-
intensive construction activities. Maximum Leq(1) noise levels at this receptor
resulting from construction would be in approximately the mid-50s dBA,
resulting in noise level increases of up to approximately 1 dBA. Consequently,
the maximum noise levels predicted to be generated by on-Site construction
activities at these receptors would not be expected to result in exceedances of the
NYSDEC noise level thresholds.
Blind Brook Middle School and High School Additional Mitigation Measures
Because of the predicted high levels of construction noise at a limited area along
the west façade of the school, the Applicant has agreed to the following additional
mitigation measures as part of the Revised Proposed Project. These measures, in
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-128 DRAFT
addition to the ones listed above, would be expected to further reduce the potential
for adverse impacts to the operation of the school during construction of the
Revised Proposed Project. The additional mitigation measures include:
Working with the Village approval authorities to expedite demolition of the
existing office building to allow that noise-intensive activity to occur during
the summer, when the Blind Brook Middle School and High School is not in
regular use;
Coordinating with the BBRUFSD to avoid the most noise-intensive activities
during critical testing days/times (e.g., Advanced Placement, and other tests).
Coordinating with the BBRUFSD during the construction process and
providing a 2-week look-ahead construction schedule that would identify
potentially noise-intensive activities;.
Harkness Park Tennis Court
As shown in Table 3.16-2, the Harkness Park Tennis Court across Arbor Drive
from the Project Site would experience moderate levels of construction noise and
increases in noise levels that would be considered noticeable at times during the
most noise-intensive construction activities. Maximum Leq(1) noise levels at this
receptor resulting from construction would be in approximately the low 70s dBA,
resulting in noise level increases of up to approximately 3 dBA.
As discussed in Section 2.16, “Construction” of this FEIS, it is not anticipated
that construction of the Revised Proposed Project would require blasting.
Comment 149: Comments were received regarding the general mitigation measures included in
the DEIS with respect to construction noise. Specifically, the Village’s Special
Engineering Consultant requested documentation with respect to the DEIS’
statement that typical façade construction would be expected to provide
approximately 25 dBA noise attenuation and recommended that the noise
mitigation measures included in the DEIS, including the time of day and day of
week restrictions, be conditions of any future permit or approval. The Village’s
Special Engineering Consultant also requested a discussion of the appropriateness
of additional construction noise mitigation measures, including a barrier of
greater than 12 feet, noise absorbent material for the barrier, and path controls for
construction equipment expected to increase noise levels by more than 6 dBA or
to a level greater than 65 dBA at the property boundary. Other commenters
suggested that the Proposed Project should be reduced in scope to avoid potential
significant adverse, though temporary, noise impacts, while still other
commenters expressed their concern with the overall level of noise anticipated
during construction. (Snyder 007, Musso 013, Planning Board 018)
Snyder 007 (#80): The DEIS readily admits that “construction of the Proposed Project
would result in large noise level increases and high noise levels during the most noise-
intensive construction activities at the adjacent work area. These noise levels would
have the potential to occur for approximately 21 months. Therefore, in the Applicant’s
opinion, construction noise at these receptors would rise to the level of significant but
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-129 1/3/2020
temporary adverse impact.” The DEIS concedes that the project does indeed result in the
creation of significant adverse environmental impacts [with respect to noise impacts
during construction] that cannot be mitigated, and thus the project must be modified.
The applicant, a private developer, cannot require a community to endure significant
adverse impacts for nearly 2 years and likely longer.
Musso 013 (#185): Maximum noise levels during construction at 12 noise-sensitive
receptor sites are predicted to range from 57.4 dBA to 84 dBA, resulting in an increase
of 0.3 to 21 dBA. Per the DEIS, “construction of the Proposed Project would be
expected to result in elevated noise levels at nearby receptors and noise due to
construction would at times be noticeable and highly objectionable. However, at
receptors other than those directly adjacent to the Project Site, noise from construction
would be intermittent and of limited duration, and estimated construction noise levels
would not exceed NYSDEC noise screening thresholds. Consequently, in the
Applicant’s opinion, noise associated with the construction of the Proposed Project
would not rise to the level of a significant adverse noise impact at receptors not directly
adjacent to the project.
At receptors immediately adjacent to the Project Site, construction of the Proposed
Project would result in large noise level increases and high noise levels during the most
noise-intensive construction activities at the adjacent work areas. These noise levels
would have the potential to occur for approximately 21 months. Therefore, in the
Applicant’s opinion, construction noise at these receptors would rise to the level of
significant, but temporary, adverse impact.”
The noise control measures presented in the DEIS should be a listed as conditions
included in the approvals/permits for the proposed project.
The DEIS states that these temporary noise impacts would only occur during the
daytime hours, Monday through Saturday, and that construction would not regularly
occur during evening and overnight hours or on Sundays. It is recommended that the
approvals/permits for the proposed project restrict construction hours to Monday
through Saturday and NOT allow construction to occur during evening and overnight
hours or on Sundays.
Musso 013 (#186): In addition, the predicted increases would be greater than 10 dBA
and for a duration of approximately 21 months. Although temporary, exposure to this
much of an increase in noise for almost two years would cause an annoyance and
disturbance to the adjacent receptors. The noise analysis should determine if a noise
barrier greater than 12 feet and/or with noise absorbent material would reduce the noise
level increase. In addition, equipment predicted to increase noise levels at the property
boundary by more than 6 dBA or to a noise level greater than 65 dBA should be
required to include path controls.
Musso 013 (#188): The DEIS states that “Typical façade construction, including
insulated glass windows and some kind of alternate means of ventilation (i.e., air
conditioning) would be expected to provide approximately 25 dBA reduction in interior
noise levels compared to exterior levels for a closed-window condition.” A source for
this value should be provided.
Planning Board 018 (#229): Consider a prohibition of construction on Sundays.
Response 149: The assumption of a 25 dBA reduction in noise levels associated with typical
façade construction is based on New York City Environmental Quality Review
(CEQR) guidelines and AKRF’s experience with acoustical test reports for typical
insulated glass windows. Table 19-3 from Chapter 19 of the CEQR Technical
Manual has been added to Appendix J.
Additional mitigation measures, including a barrier greater than 12 feet in height
or noise absorption material on the noise barrier would not result in significant
reductions in construction noise levels. Noise barriers are most effective for
reducing noise at receptors within approximately 50 feet of the barrier if the noise
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-130 DRAFT
source (e.g., trucks, excavators) are within a comparably small distance to the
noise barrier. The benefit of the barrier reduces as the distances between source
and barrier or receptor and barrier increases. Taller barriers require horizontal
structural support to safeguard against wind loads and properly support the
structure. Consequently, a taller barrier would result in increased cost, logistical
and safety concerns with minimal increase in noise mitigation. Likewise, the
benefit of sound absorption material on the noise barrier would be minimal, as
most equipment would operate too far from the barrier for a majority of the
construction period for the material to be effective. Sound absorption material
would add material cost for minimal noise reduction benefit, given the relatively
long distances between the construction work areas and the receptors and the
minimal number of reflective surfaces in the project area.
The Applicant agrees that the noise mitigation measures described in the DEIS
and this FEIS should be conditions of any future site plan approval for the Revised
Proposed Project. These mitigation measures include:
The days of the week and time of day restrictions codified in the Village Noise
Code, with the exception of the morning start time, as discussed in Section
2.16.2.2, “Construction: Potential Traffic Impacts on the MS/HS”;
Construction of the noise wall as described above; and,
Coordination with the school district.
As stated in Section 2.16, “Construction,” the Applicant would prepare a detailed
Construction Management Plan (CMP), which would provide for implementation
of the proposed construction plan and the measures proposed to mitigate potential
adverse impacts. The CMP would be reviewed by Village staff and consultants
and approved as part of the final site plan approval and would be made a condition
thereof. Implementation of the CMP would be enforceable by the Building
Department The Building Department would ensure compliance with the various
noise control commitments in the CMP and may conduct noise assessments as
needed to determine compliance. It is important to note that demolition of the
existing office building may occur after the conclusion of the SEQRA process,
but before final site plan approval so as to minimize the impact on the Blind Brook
Middle School and High School. In this case, the CMP would not yet be approved
by the Village, but the Applicant would commit to adhering to the mitigation
measures included in the DEIS and FEIS during demolition activities and would
be subject to the specific approvals and conditions of a future demolition permit.
Comment 150: A comment was received requesting confirmation of the DEIS’ statement that
vibration from building demolition would be expected to be well below the
threshold of damage to the Tennessee gas pipeline or to structures within the
Arbors. (Snyder 007)
Snyder 007 (#85): the DEIS makes statements that vibration from building demolition
"would be expected" to be well below the threshold of damage to the Tennessee gas
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-131 1/3/2020
pipeline and the residents of The Arbors, some of who are only 250 feet away.
Statements as to "would be expected" to not have an impact require further definitive
review, especially when you have nearby residents and a major gas line in the vicinity of
the project.
Response 150: As described in Section 16.3.5, “Vibration,” of the DEIS, demolition of the
existing office building will occur at least approximately 250 feet from the nearest
residences within The Arbors community. At this distance, vibrations from
building demolition would be imperceptible and would not have the potential to
result in architectural or structural damage to even a structure extremely
susceptible to damage from vibration. Therefore, vibrations from construction of
the Revised Proposed Project would not have the potential to result in a significant
adverse impact at The Arbors townhouses.
Similarly, at a distance of 1,000 feet from demolition activity, vibration levels at
the Tennessee Gas Pipeline would be well below the threshold of damage to even
a structure extremely susceptible to damage from vibration. Therefore, vibrations
from construction of the Revised Proposed Project would not have the potential
to result in a significant adverse impact at the Tennessee Gas Pipeline.
Nevertheless, the Applicant will commit to a vibration monitoring program at The
Arbors community and at the Tennessee Gas Pipeline during demolition of the
existing office building to ensure that vibration levels do not exceed the thresholds
that could potentially result in damage during construction.
3.17. ALTERNATIVES
GENERAL
Comment 151: A comment was received requesting an evaluation of a range of alternatives to
the Proposed Project that includes what is allowable under existing zoning, on the
low end, to what is proposed by the Applicant, on the high end. (Barnett 047)
Barnett 047 (#367): This complex, I think most of us in our gut know, is too large, and
so what number is acceptable? Until we see real alternatives that encompass a range
from what is legally allowed today to the moon…we really can’t sit back as a
community, to try to determine what would be best for all of us.
Response 151: Chapter 17, “Alternatives,” of the DEIS, evaluated the potential environmental
impacts of a range of alternatives to the Proposed Project as required by the
adopted DEIS scoping outline. These alternatives included, among others, the
following:
An alternative that did not involve demolition of the existing building or
construction or a new building (i.e., the “No Action” alternative);
Two alternatives that could be constructed under the existing zoning (i.e., the
“Residential As-of-Right” and “Senior Living Facility As-of-Right”
alternatives);
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-132 DRAFT
A project similar to the Proposed Project, but with 20 percent fewer units (i.e.,
the Reduced Density” alternative); and,
A project with the same number of units as originally proposed, but in three-
story buildings and reduced unit sizes (i.e., the “Reduced Size” alternative).
As shown in the analyses in Chapter 17, “Alternatives,” of the DEIS, with the
exception of the reuse of the existing office building, which would result in a
significant increase in traffic generation, the remaining alternatives would
generate similar volumes of traffic as the Proposed Project. Community service
impacts would be similar for the various senior living alternatives, with the
market-rate residential alternative having a smaller impact on EMS service, but a
significantly larger impact on the school district. Similarly, and with the exception
of the No Action alternative, each alternative, as well as the Proposed Project,
would entail similar levels of site disturbance and construction and similar
impacts to the Site’s natural resources.
Another difference between the various new construction alternatives and the
Proposed Project would be in terms of visual impacts. In the Reduced Size
alternative and the two As-of-Right alternatives, building height would be three and
two stories, respectively. With the Proposed Project, buildings would be two, three,
and four stories. In addition, the Revised Proposed Project includes measures to
further reduce the potential for adverse visual impacts, including increasing the
setback of the four-story portion of the buildings from Arbor Drive and from The
Arbors, as well as reducing the roof height of the four-story building closest to The
Arbors.
Comment 152: The Village’s Planning Consultant requested a comparative analysis of building
coverage, parking coverage, impervious coverage, and gross floor area for Alternative
17.3, Senior Living Facility under the Existing PUD Regulations. (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#144): it would be helpful to provide the same type of statistics [building
coverage, parking coverage, impervious coverage, and gross floor area], presented in a
similar manner, for Alternative 17.3, Senior Living Facility under the Existing PUD
Regulations, to inform the Village Board’s review of the potential impacts to
community character from the current building as built, a development under the current
zoning and the Proposed Action.
Response 152: The building coverage, road coverage, and total Site coverage for the Senior
Living Facility As-of-Right alternative is shown in Table 3.17-1, which was
originally included as Table 8-2 in the DEIS and updated and presented in
Response to Comment 34. As described in Chapter 17, “Alternatives,” of the
DEIS, the As-of-Right alternative could reasonably include two configurations;
one that adheres to the baseline PUD standard of 9,000 sf of gross floor area per
acre (“Alternative 17.3”) and one that uses building sizes similar to The Arbors,
while maintaining the base six units per acre PUD standard (“Alternative 17.3A”).
As shown in Table 3.17-1, the building and impervious coverage of the
alternative using the PUD baseline standard for both the number of units and total
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-133 1/3/2020
gsf could yield a project with a total of 4.92 acres of impervious coverage—27.67
percent of the Site. The alternative that adheres to the PUD baseline standard of
six units per acre but allows for unit sizes similar to The Arbors, could create a
project with 2.78 acres of building coverage, 4.28 acres of roads and other
impervious areas, and a total of 7.06 acres of impervious area—39.74 percent of
the Site. As shown in Table 3.17-1, if the Revised Proposed Project utilized the
baseline PUD standards for number of units and gsf building and Site coverage
could be reduced from that proposed. However, an increase in gsf that would
permit units of the same size of The Arbors, while still maintaining the baseline
PUD standard of six units per acre, could result in a project with greater building
and Site coverage than the Revised Proposed Project.
Table 3.17-1
Parcel Coverage Comparison
Site
Parcel
Size
(ac)
Building
Coverage
(ac)
Roads,
Drives,
Parking
(ac)
Total Site
Coverage
(ac)
Percent
Building
Coverage
Percent
Other
Coverage
Percent
Total
Coverage
Existing
Condition 17.77 2.17 5.29 7.46 12.22% 29.77% 41.99%
Original Project 17.77 3.14 3.91 7.05 17.67% 22.00% 39.67%
Revised
Proposed
Project
17.77 2.9793 4.133.83 7.106.76 16.7149% 23.2421.55% 39.9538.04%
DEIS Alternative
17.3 17.77 1.84 3.08 4.92 10.35% 17.33% 27.67%
DEIS Alternative
17.3A 17.77 2.78 4.28 7.06 15.64% 24.09% 39.74%
The Arbors 35.29 5.58 6.26 11.83 15.80% 17.73% 33.53%
The Arbors (w/o
Arbor Dr) 33.49 5.58 5.26 10.83 16.65% 15.70% 32.34%
800 Westchester
Ave 44.94 5.46 6.30 11.76 12.15% 14.02% 26.17%
Hilton
Westchester 35.52 3.80 7.10 10.89 10.69% 19.97% 30.67%
Doral
Arrowwood
Conference
Center
105.93 10.67 13.51 24.18 10.07% 12.76% 22.83%
Doral (w/o golf) 46.46 10.38 11.89 22.26 22.34% 25.58% 47.92%
Notes:
*includes area of pervious pavers
Sources:
Westchester County GIS & 900 King Site Survey and Proposed Project (originally included as Table
8-2 in the DEIS)
As stated in Response to Comment 24, it is the Applicant’s understanding that,
with the exception of BelleFair, there is no PUD development within the Village
that meets all of the “standard” PUD requirements set forth in the zoning
ordinance. Instead, the Lead Agency utilized the discretion provided by the PUD
Zoning District to make site-specific findings that allowed appropriately scaled
development that deviated from the baseline standards of the ordinance.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-134 DRAFT
Comment 153: A comment was received suggesting that the DEIS alternatives should be
compared to the existing condition of the Site and not to the full occupancy of the
existing office building. (Snyder 007)
Snyder 007 (#33): The entire alternative analysis should reference [the] current
conditions-not a fully occupied office building
Response 153: Chapter 17, “Alternatives,” of the DEIS, compares the potential environmental
impacts of the Proposed Project to several other alternative Site configurations
and developments, as required by the DEIS Scoping Outline. One of the project
alternatives is the No Action alternative, which in the instance, was defined as the
full occupancy of the existing office building. This is consistent with both
SEQRA regulation and guidance.12 Each chapter in the DEIS also describes the
current, relevant, environmental conditions so as to allow the Lead Agency the
ability to compare the Revised Proposed Project’s impacts to the current
condition, a future condition without the Proposed Project, and to project
alternatives.
Comment 154: A comment was received suggesting that, “The statement in the DEIS that the
nature and magnitude of these significant adverse impacts [with respect to
construction noise or air emissions] would be similar in all studied alternatives,
except the No Action alternative, cannot be supported.” (Snyder 007)
Snyder 007 (#81): In addition, if a potentially adverse impact has been identified, the
DEIS must provide specific measures to appropriately mitigate that impact. Referencing
that a Construction Management Plan (CMP) will be prepared is inadequate and does
not meet the requirements of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA) regulations. The DEIS notes that approximately 180 workers will be working
at the construction site, and the impacts of that magnitude require the project to be
modified. Moreover, the DEIS construction noise levels to occur at the Blind Brook
High School, The Arbor condos, 942 King Street, and Walker Court, among others, are
unacceptable levels at any time and incompatible with the surroundings. For a
comparison with selected typical sounds, if the project proceeds, Blind Brook High
School and The Arbors as well as the other properties would be forced to ensure noise
as if a radio or vacuum cleaner was blasting for at least 13 months, according to the
DEIS. These noise levels, some as high as 80 dBA levels, can be found to result in
hearing loss. The DEIS’ suggestion that windows be kept closed to mitigate the impacts
is unacceptable.
Response 154: Section 2.16.2, “Construction Period Impacts and Mitigation,” lists the measures
that have been identified and would be implemented to avoid and mitigate potential
adverse impacts resulting from construction of the Revised Proposed Project. The
12 6 NYRCR 617.9(g)(5)(v) states that “For private project sponsors, any alternative for which no
discretionary approvals are needed may be described.” The SEQRA Handbook states that, “For many
private actions, the no action alternative may be simply and adequately addressed by identifying the direct
financial effects of not undertaking the action, or by describing the likely future conditions of the property
if developed to the maximum allowed under the existing zoning.” Re-occupancy of the existing site
building requires no discretionary approvals and describes the likely future conditions of the property if
developed to the maximum allowed by zoning.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-135 1/3/2020
CMP, which would be approved as part of Site Plan Approval, would memorialize
the Applicant’s commitment to those mitigation measures such that those
commitments would be enforceable by the Village during the construction process.
As stated in Section 16.3.3, “Construction: Air Quality,” of the DEIS, and Section
16.3.4, “Construction: Noise,” of the DEIS, potential off-Site impacts during
construction related to air quality and noise are directly related to the operation of
construction vehicles, as well as the various construction processes (e.g., dust-
generating and noise-generating activities). As with the original project, all of the
alternatives, with the exception of the No Action alternative, would utilize on-
Site construction vehicles and require the demolition of the existing office
building, regrading of the Project Site, and construction of new buildings.
Therefore, the impacts to the community as a result of those activities would be
the same. As noted in Chapter 17, “Alternatives,” of the DEIS, the main difference
in the level of off-Site noise and air impacts relates to the duration of construction.
The As-of-Right alternatives would likely require slightly shorter construction
periods than the original project, which would reduce the duration of off-Site
construction impacts when compared to the Revised Proposed Project. While
these alternatives would not include excavation for an underground garage
included in the original project, significant Site-regrading and foundation work,
which are noise intensive, would be required. Similarly, these alternatives would
also require the demolition of the existing building, which would also be a noise-
intensive activity.
With respect to the Reduced Density and Reduced Size alternatives, the
construction phases and sequences would be nearly identical to the original
project. As such, the impacts of construction would be similar.
COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC DEIS ALTERNATIVES
Comment 155: A comment was received requesting the evaluation of alternatives that “do not
require major demolition or construction.” (Straubinger 003)
Straubinger 003 (#15): (Look at alternatives that) do not require major demolition and a
massive construction.
Response 155: Section 17.1 “No Action Alternative,” of the DEIS, evaluates the scenario where
the Proposed Zoning is not adopted and the Proposed Project is not implemented.
This alternative considers the existing office building to be fully occupied, which
may include rehabilitation and upgrades to the building for energy efficiency,
incorporation of green building practices, and other amenities consistent with
current zoning and a modern office building. Section 17.1, “No Action
Alternatives,” of the DEIS, discusses an analysis of the potential environmental
impacts of the No Action alternative. As noted therein, although the No Action
alternative has been evaluated, this alternative does not meet the Applicant’s
purpose and would be following a downward trend of declining demand for stand-
alone office buildings in the region.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-136 DRAFT
Comment 156: A comment was received requesting additional specificity on the number of
vehicular trips and the duration of construction for Alternatives 17.2 and 17.2A
in the DEIS. (Snyder 007)
Snyder 007 (#34): Development under the Existing PUD regulations, 17.2 and 17.2A
references to slightly fewer trips than proposed project, slightly shorter construction
time and other vague terms are made. These terms should be quantified and again
should also be compared to its current use, not to a fully occupied office building.
Response 156: As stated in Section 17.2.10, “Traffic and Transportation,” of the DEIS, the As-
of-Right residential alternatives are, “anticipated to generate 55 AM peak hour
trips (10 in/45 out), 59 Midday peak hour trips (26 in/33 out), and 63 PM peak
hour trips (42 in/21 out). This is 15 to 27 fewer peak hour trips than the Propose[d]
Project and significantly less than the number of vehicular trips generated in the
No Action alternative.” The number of trips generated by the Project Site at the
time of the Existing Conditions Traffic Counts in 2017 were, as noted in the TIS
included as Appendix F of the DEIS, 34 AM peak hour trips (30 in/4 out), 26
Midday peak hour trips (3 in/22 out), and 21 PM peak hour trips (6 in/15 out).
As stated in Section 17.2.13, “Construction,” of the DEIS, “Construction of [the
residential As-of-Right] alternative would be expected to take approximately 24
months, 6 months less than the Proposed Project.”
Comment 157: A comment was received asking, “if the population [of Alternative 17.3] is
expected to be half of the population of the Proposed Project, why aren’t the
impacts ‘considerably less’ than the Proposed Project?” (Snyder 007)
Snyder 007 (#35): (In alternative) 17.3…it would seem that with half as many people as
the Proposed Redevelopment, the impacts should be considerable less than the project.
Response 157: The impacts of a given alternative are not necessarily directly proportional to the
population of that alternative. Specifically with respect to a comparison of the
potential impacts of Alternative 17.3, the “Senior Living Facility As-of-Right”
alternative to the original project, the Applicant notes the following (which is
further explained in Section 17.3, “Senior Living Facility Development under the
Existing PUD Regulations,” of the DEIS):
Site coverage and limit of disturbance would be similar as Alternative 17.3
would have buildings of lower height that are more spread out than the
original project;
Water and sewer demand would be lower with Alternative 17.3 than the
original project as the number of units and bedrooms are lower;
The visual and community character impacts would be similar to that of the
Residential As-of-Right alternative in that the physical layout of the
alternatives are the same;
The impacts to the Village’s senior services would be greater with Alternative
17.3 as it would not contain the same level of amenities included in the
original project;
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-137 1/3/2020
The number of vehicle trips would only be slightly lower than the original
project, as attached townhouses, even age-restricted townhouses, generates a
trips at a higher rate than an IL building.
Comment 158: Comments were received questioning why 20 percent was chosen as the
percentage by which the density of the Proposed Project was reduced in the
Reduced Density alternative. One comment requested that an alternative that
reduces the density by more than 20 percent be studied, while other comments
suggested that an alternative with just the AL facility be analyzed. (Snyder 007,
Planning Board 018, Snyder 022)
Snyder 007 (#36): Reduced Density, 17.4, alternative of a senior living facility for
assisted living within just one structure. Given that the DEIS has disclosed potential
adverse impacts, simply reducing the scale by 20 percent is not meaningful. Rather an
analysis of just one component should be considered. This will also substantially reduce
the traffic and other site development impacts.
Planning Board 018 (#218): Why was 20% chosen as the percentage by which the
density of the project was reduced in the “Reduced Density” alternative? How is the
Reduced Density alternative consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendation
for increased density that is in keeping with the low density character of the Village?
Snyder 022 (#280): Alternatives that are presented – really are not adequate to mandate
that – alternatives that reduce the scope much more substantially than what we – you
have in the scoping…rather than being stuck with the alternatives that the Applicant has
proposed. I would hope…Applicant will…reduce that scope of the project much more
considerably than what they’ve presented at their alternatives. I wouldn’t want to be
limited to the alternatives that they proposed.
Response 158: As stated in the SEQRA Handbook, “An analysis of alternative project
configurations or designs will enable the lead agency to determine if there are
reasonable, feasible alternatives which would allow some or all of the adverse
impacts to be avoided while generally satisfying the sponsor’s goals…The goal
of the alternatives discussion in an EIS is to investigate means to avoid or reduce
one or more identified potentially adverse environmental impacts.”
The Applicant selected a 20-percent reduction in the number of units to illustrate
the impact of a significant reduction in the number of units proposed that had the
potential to avoid or reduce potential adverse impacts relating to density, traffic,
visual and community character, and construction. The analysis of this alternative
illustrates that eliminating 20 percent of the units proposed would reduce the peak
generation of vehicular trips by 14-18 per hour; or put another way, result in 1
less trip every 3 to 4 minutes. As noted in Section 2.12.1, “Site Generated
Traffic,” the Revised Proposed Project reduces the trip generation 1619 to 1923
trips per hour from the original project. The analysis of the Reduced Density
Alternative in the DEIS also illustrates that reducing the density of the original
project would not significantly change the duration or sequencing of construction,
and therefore the construction-period impacts of the Reduced Density alternative
would be similar in nature and duration to the original project.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-138 DRAFT
With respect to the consistency of the density proposed in the original project or
the Reduced Density alternative with the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendation
to allow increased density on the Project Site while maintaining the Village’s
overall low-density character, please see Response to Comment 36. It is also
noted that the Applicant has reduced the size of the Revised Proposed Project by
15.520 percent, or 68,81889,908 sf, from the original project to address the
concerns expressed that the size of the original project was not in keeping with
the character of the community.
To illustrate the potential reduction in traffic impacts associated with further
reducing the number of units proposed, the Applicant prepared trip generation
estimates for a project that had 40 percent fewer units than the original project.
Such an alternative could reduce the total number of Site-generated trips by 28 to
36 per hour from the original project, or 1 trip every 2 minutes, from the original
project. As noted in Section 2.12.1, “Site Generated Traffic,” the Revised
Proposed Project reduces the trip generation 1619 to 1923 trips per hour from the
original project.
Comment 159: Comments were received regarding the design of the site plan for the Reduced
Size alternative in Section 17.5, “Reduced Size Proposed Project,” of the DEIS.
One commenter stated that while “size” was the factor listed in the scope, the
intention of the alternative was to have a project reduced in not only sf, but
number of units. Another commenter stated that this alternative should eliminate
the townhouses and reduce both the size and number of units within the IL and
AL components to reduce adverse impacts associated with the Proposed Project.
(Snyder 007, Snyder 045, Klein 062)
Snyder 007 (#37): in the Reduced Size Proposed Project in 17.5, the alternative should
eliminate the townhomes and more considerably reduce the assisted living and
independent living (in terms of size and number of units) to make it have less of an
impact. Given that the DEIS has disclosed potential for adverse impacts associated with
the project, simply providing for smaller buildings and reduced unit sizes is
meaningless. A site development plan with fewer residential units, possibly just the
assisted living units, should be presented.
Snyder 045 (#352): The Arbors has stated if it was just assisted living and you just had
that one building, I think they would be able to work alongside the Applicant.
Klein 062 (#523): (Alternative) 17.5 does not meet the intention of this alternative. While
size is the listed factor, the alternative simply made the units smaller and kept nearly the
same number of units. Through the multiple public hearings the applicant has mentioned
that they will in the FEIS submit a reduced scope project. I hope that this meets both size
and density reductions, which I think was really the true intention of 17.5.
Response 159: The Approved Scoping Outline required that the Reduced Size alternative should
“maintain the proposed density” and reduce the size of the units. In addition, the
scoping outline requires that buildings in this alternative be limited to 35 feet in
height. As such, the analysis of this alternative in Section 17.5 of the DEIS,
“Reduced Size Proposed Project,” considered a 10 percent reduction in the gross
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-139 1/3/2020
square footage of the project by reducing the average unit size and maintaining
the number of units proposed and a 3-story height limit.
In response to comments from the Lead Agency and the public, including those
comments on the analysis of the Reduced Size alternative in the DEIS, the
Applicant has revised the original project, as described in Chapter 1, “Revised
Proposed Project.” The Revised Proposed Project reduces the gross square feet of
the project by 15.520 percent from the original project, reduces the number of
bedrooms in the IL building by 2422 percent, reduces the average IL unit size by
128 percent, reduces the number of IL units by 515 percent, and reduces the
number of townhouse units by 17 percent.
Comment 160: Comments were received suggesting that additional details on the potential
impacts of the DEIS alternative that considered the Proposed Project with an age
restriction of 62 years old and older were needed. In addition, comments were
received that expressed concerned that the only 62 years old and older project that
the Lead Agency could adopt is the original project at 62 years old and older and
not a project with reduced density that was also age-restricted to 62 years old and
older. (Snyder 007, Zimmerman 026, Zimmerman 046)
Snyder 007 (#38): an alternative providing for the same project but raising the minimum
age for residents to 62 does not take into account the practical effect of having residents
older than 62. If the minimum age of the project is 62, the project will more fully
address senior housing and not just end up being a rental development with no set
purpose. There should be a discussion as to what services will be for seniors as opposed
to those at age 55.
Zimmerman 026 (#256): There’s only one scenario, which was a full build with all 269
units, and that was the only one that was addressed with age 62.
Zimmerman 046 (#355): There was only one scenario that encompassed age 62, which
we know now 62 is going to be the age limit. All of the other ones only encompassed
age 55. We have not to this date seen any plan that shows any kind of reduction in the
density of this project that also encompassed the age 62.
Response 160: As stated in Response to Comment 158, the analysis of Project alternatives in the
DEIS is intended to provide an illustration as to the type and magnitude of
changes to environmental impacts that could be expected given a range of changes
to a given project. In this case, while there was only one alternative that contained
a 62 years old and older community, the DEIS analyzed the potential change in
environmental impacts associated with that specific project modification, as well
as other specific modifications. Based on these analyses, and the comments from
the Lead Agency and members of the public, the Applicant has revised the
original project and is no longer seeking to lower the minimum age of Project
residents to 55 years old. In addition, and based on the analysis of other Project
alternatives and comments received, the Applicant has also revised the original
project to reduce the size of the units proposed, reduce the roof height of the four-
story building closest to The Arbors, increase the setback of the IL building from
both The Arbors and Arbor Drive, and modify the design of the townhouse units
to further differentiate them from other Village properties.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-140 DRAFT
3.18. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
Comment 161: A comment was received opining that because the “DEIS has disclosed the
potential for adverse impacts associated with the project, the project should be
modified, if not totally denied.” (Snyder 053)
Snyder 053 (#408): DEIS has disclosed potential for adverse impacts associated with the
project, the project should be modified, if not totally denied.
Response 161: The Applicant has incorporated measures to avoid and reduce adverse
environmental impacts associated with the Revised Proposed Project.
3.19. IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE IMPACTS
No comments received.
3.20. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
No comments received.
3.21. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Comment 162: Comments were received requesting a revision to the cumulative impact analyses
to include projects, such as projects in Glenville, proposals to toll I-95 in
Connecticut, and another senior living facility in the Village. (Snyder 007,
Schlank 060, Schlank 068)
Snyder 007 (#88): The DEIS does not adequately evaluate the project and particularly
its cumulative impacts which include long term visual impacts, traffic impacts, noise
and air quality impacts, socio-economic impacts resulting in a potential fiscal drain on
the Village due to EMS, fire and other essential services, as well as avoidable erosion
and wetlands impacts.
Schlank 060 (#426): Questions related to the implications of other local
projects…including the cumulative effects of recent land-use decisions in Glenville and
other neighboring areas, the effects of major construction projects and toll proposals on
nearby roads, and the potential for a competing senior living facility in a more suitable
area of Rye Brook.
Schlank 068 (#553): As a result of events that occurred subsequent to January 2018,
there are other planned or potential projects that may need to be considered when
evaluating and discussing the environmental impacts in the FEIS, particularly with
regard to traffic on King Street.
Response 162: The Lead Agency identified relevant projects to be included in the cumulative
impact analyses that were included in the DEIS. Impacts related to speculative
projects or proposals, or projects or proposals that are not likely to significantly
impact the same resources as the Proposed Project, were not discussed in the
DEIS.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-141 1/3/2020
3.22. COMMENTS NOT REQUIRING RESPONSE
DUPLICATE
Comment 163: These comments, made at a public hearing, consisted of reading excerpts of a
letter or statement that was submitted in writing, the contents of which are already
included and responded to in this FEIS.
Snyder 053 (#396): The Adler Report states, "the proposed redevelopment project will
have a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions in the immediate neighborhood
and the community as a whole. Traffic conditions which were already at or near
capacity will be exacerbated by the influx of passing vehicles and trucks associated with
the project resulting in deleterious conditions."
Snyder 053 (#397): The project will cause several intersections in the immediate area to
operate at capacity levels of service, E, or levels of service F during peak travel times
Snyder 053 (#398): Intersections at failing conditions include King Street at Anderson
Hill Road, King Street and North Ridge Street, King Street and Glen Ridge Road, by the
Hutch. King Street and the Hutchinson River Parkway off ramp, and King Street at
Betsy Brown Road. The project will cause at all peak hours at the intersection of King
Street and North Ridge Street to result in level of service F.
Snyder 053 (#399): Significant increases in vehicle delays to almost six minutes in a.m. peak
hour, almost three minutes in the mid-day peak hour, and 99.5 seconds in the p.m. peak hour.
Snyder 053 (#400): The project will also result in the intersection of the King Street and
Betsy Brown Road to also operate at (LOS) F during a.m. and mid-day peak hours, with
significant increases to vehicle delays to more than six minutes in the a.m. peak hour
and 69.6 seconds in the mid-day peak hour.
Snyder 053 (#401): The Adler Report aptly concludes that the levels of service of E and
F, that delay will result in a myriad of consequences…driver discomfort, frustration,
fuel consumption, increase travel time, and most importantly a greater likelihood of
more traffic accidents.
Snyder 053 (#403): The project only has Arbor Drive as a sole method of ingress and
egress to King Street. The Adler Report determined that, "the singular access point for
vehicles traveling to or from King Street cannot safely sustain the significant increase in
vehicles and trips associated with the proposed project. In its current form, the proposed
project would likely result in an adverse environment for both pedestrians and drivers alike
as levels of service F conditions have been found to lead to many more traffic accidents.
Snyder 053 (#404): The proposed project senior population could be at risk since
emergency service vehicles would be unable to quickly enter and exit the property due
to a failing level of service condition."
Snyder 053 (#406): The Adler Report found, "the intersection capacity analysis shows
that the project will result in levels of service F, operation conditions for individual
movements during the pm peak construction activity hours at the following intersections
resulting in more than doubling the delay experienced by motorist making the left turn
from North Ridge Street onto King to 149.4 seconds, almost three minutes, in the build
condition and tripling the delay experienced by motorist in the westbound shared left
turn right turn at King Street and Glen Ridge Road, by the Hutch. The change in time
proposed by the applicant provides no benefit to the area.
Snyder 022 (#249): Oral testimony was duplicate of first letter, already cataloged as
correspondence 007. (Ms. Snyder’s written comments were read during the PH so her
oral comments are noted in the FEIS.)
Rosenberg 064 (#554): {Read stmt, which is categorized as 063}
Fry 069 (#555): {Duplicate of Snyder Letter, which was 061}
Klein 070 (#557): {Testimony captured in ltr, #062)
Response 163: Responses previously provided.
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 3-142 DRAFT
NOT SUBSTANTIVE
Comment 164: These comments are not considered substantive and/or they do not deal with a
substantive environmental issue associated with an impact of the Proposed Project.
Mignogna 001 (#2): The Arbors is not a condominium community
Snyder 053 (#392): Arbors reiterates its opposition to the project in its current form to the
devastating impacts that the Arbors and the community will be forced to endure if approved.
Snyder 007 (#29): The Village Board does not have any obligations to continue to
entertain the zoning text amendment being sought by the Applicant.
Zimmerman 026 (#255): Our development (The Arbors) will be more impacted than any
other place in Rye Brook. We are not against having something at 900 King. What we
are against is something of this size and this scope.
Schlank 040 (#314): Who is the current owner of the 900 King Street property? Could
the Applicant please disclose the names of the LLC principals that hold title to the
property through the LLCs named on the deed?
Snyder 053 (#390): Numerous residents in extreme close proximity to the project.
Snyder 053 (#391): The Arbors will share an access drive with the proposed
project....single access point for both.
Snyder 053 (#393): Tonight I would like to focus on the significant adverse, traffic impacts
of the project, if approved, that will have on the surrounding roadway network…affect
village residents on a daily basis, not only during the applicant’s conservative estimate of
21 to 30 months for construction, but also for the many years to follow.
Maniscalco 059 (#423): Please advise me how I can view the proposed contractor’s
responses to my concerns.
Snyder 061 (#504): Once the public hearing has been closed, please allow for an
additional 30-day period for submission of any written comments.
Klein 062 (#522): There is too much commentary in the alternatives section as a whole -
the point is to present straight alternatives and it will be up to the various boards to
determine the merits of the alternatives.
Fry 069 (#556): The only other request that I would make is that as changes to the plans
are being made, if perhaps the public would have the opportunity to also comment on
any updates really in connection with the FEIS.
Response 164: Comments noted.