HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.03.2020 Chapter 02_Environmental AnalysisDRAFT 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 89,098 square feet
(sf), a 20 percent reduction in size, through:
- Reducing the number of proposed Independent Living (IL) units by 24 units (15 percent) from
160 to 136;
- Reducing the average IL unit size by 100 sf, or 8 percent;
- Reducing the number of two- and three-bedroom IL units and increasing the percentage
of one-bedroom IL units, thereby reducing the total number of bedrooms in the IL building
by 22 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 54 feet
from Arbor Drive, for a total setback of 175 feet, and an additional 80 feet from The
Arbors, for a total setback of 544 feet from the property line with The Arbors; and
- Increasing the setback of the four-story portion of the IL building an additional 30 feet
from the Arbors, for a total setback of 494 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 townhouse 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 89,908 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 square 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
(1.55)*
8.8
(13.51)* 0.46 20,032
1,127 (IL)
2,072 (TH)
647 (AL)
PUD with Revised
Proposed Project
0.77
(0.93)*
6.7
(8.1)* 0.35 15,407 1,895
(1,685)*
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 dwelling units per acre, of which 38 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 8.1 total units per acre, 49
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 0.05 FAR to 0.35 FAR. The PUD of which the Revised Proposed Project
would be a part would consist of fewer dwelling units per acre (6.7 compared to 7.9) and
900 King Street Redevelopment
1/3/2020 2-4 DRAFT
less square feet per acre (15,407 sf/acre compared to 23,369 sf/acre) 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 compared to 3.6) and slightly more square feet per acre (15,407 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
13.6 residential units per acre, made up of 8.8 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 42 feet, a side yard setback of 84 feet, and a rear yard setback
of 30 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 42feet 42 feet
Side Yard (building setback) No site minimum, only PUD buffers -- 90 feet 84 feet 84 feet
Rear Yard (building setback) No site minimum, only PUD buffers -- 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet1
Gross Land Coverage (maximum) No maximum 42% 40% 40% 38.04%
Building Height (maximum) 35 feet 39 feet 45 feet / 4 stories 45 feet / 4 stories 41.81 feet / 4 stories
Floor Area per Acre 5,227 sf 12,196 sf 26,000 sf^ 20,100^ 20,032
All Units 6 per acre -- 15.2 per acre^ 13.6 per acre^ 13.5 per acre^
Dwelling Units 6 per acre -- 10.4 per acre^ 8.8 per acre^ 8.8 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
30 feet-North
84 feet-East 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
(136 total) 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 Trustees’ 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 15 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 0.7 acres (or approximately nine percent of the
Site) from the current condition.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-7 1/3/2020
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 15 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.
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
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-8 DRAFT
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 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 89,098 sf—a 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 156 dwelling units, a density of 8.8
dwelling units per acre, or 1.01 dwelling units per 5,000 sf. If AL units, which
are not dwelling units, are included in calculation, total units per acre would
be 13.51, or 1.55 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 Responses to Comments 20
and 36 in Chapter 3, “Response to Comments,” comparing the 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
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-9 1/3/2020
“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 15 affordable units, as
defined in Section 250-26.1D of the Village Code. One 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, 14 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,” 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
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
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
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-10 DRAFT
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).
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
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
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-11 1/3/2020
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 ±38,158 ±36,686 ±1,472 net export
Source: JMC Engineering.
As described in 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
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.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-12 DRAFT
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 Engineering, included in
Appendix H of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), this elevation allows
for more than the required minimum three feet of clearance between 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.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-13 1/3/2020
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 0.163 acres—a
reduction of 0.013 acres (7.4 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
7,100 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 0.7 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 0.469 -0.157 -0.161
Wetland E2 0.248 0.000 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.081
Total 4.948 0.753 0.929 0.916 0.176 0.163
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 7,100 sf with the Revised Proposed Project from its current condition.
As 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
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-15 1/3/2020
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 0.163 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 0.7 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.”
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-16 DRAFT
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 0.7 acres, which would increase stormwater
infiltration and minimize the potential for thermal impacts. In addition, the stormwater
management plan will utilize subsurface 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 ten 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
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-17 1/3/2020
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 0.163 acres compared to the existing
condition.
Finally, as described in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project,” the Revised Proposed
Project was reduced by 89,098 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.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-18 DRAFT
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 4.5 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;
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,
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-19 1/3/2020
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 6.76 acres—a decrease of
0.7 acres of impervious cover from the current condition and 0.29 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.
Infiltration measures include the grasscrete paver emergency drive, vegetated swales, and
disconnected impervious areas throughout the Site. These practices will result in
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
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
0.7 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 1.33 acres, which
is a slightly 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 6.76 - 0.41 -0.7
Wooded 3.61 2.76 2.98 - 0.85 -0.63
Lawn 6.70 7.96 8.03 + 1.26 +1.33
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 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 134 trees with
6 inches diameter breast height (dbh) or greater; 77 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 57
10 to 24 dbh 120 69
25 to 36 dbh 12 6
37 to 48 dbh 2 2
49 dbh or more 0 0
Total 213 134
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 87 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 69 69
25 to 36 dbh 2 6 12
37 to 48 dbh 3 2 6
49 dbh or more 4 0 0
Total 134 87
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., 134) and more trees than required to
replace removed trees (i.e., 87). 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 five 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, 11.01
acres, or 62 percent of the Site would be vegetated, an increase of 0.7 acres from the
existing condition and 0.34 acre 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 80,541 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 southernmost
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 set 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
10.5 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 9 feet, combined with a smaller, 18-inch, lowering of the
finished floor elevation of the IL building.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-27 1/3/2020
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 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
gross square footage by 89,098 sf—a 20 percent reduction from the original project. In
addition, while still maintaining the four-story portions of the IL and 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 The Arbors to the west an additional 30 feet to a distance of 494 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
With respect to building and site coverage, as with the original project, the Revised
Proposed Project would increase building coverage on the Site by 0.76 acres from the
current condition, but would decrease the amount of surface parking and interior roadways
by an even larger amount (1.46 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 2.93 3.83 6.76 16.49% 21.55% 38.04%
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.
In 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 406 people
to the Project Site, which is slightly less than five percent of the Village’s 2016 population
and 56 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. For 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 has not been provided by the Town Tax 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
6 To estimate the future population of the Project Site, the following multipliers were assumed: one person
per bed at the 94-bed AL facility; two people within each of the 136 IL units; and two people within each
of the 20 townhomes.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-31 1/3/2020
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.
As shown in Table 2.9-1, based on this assessed value, the Project Site would be estimated
to generate approximately $1.427 million per year in property taxes, which is
approximately $802,670 more than the Site currently generates. Of this, $275,339 would
go to the Village, which is an increase of $154,882 from the revenue currently generated,
and $1,028,161 would go to the BBRUFSD, representing an increase of $578,355 from
the current revenue generated by the Project Site.
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 9.2659 $13,000,000 $120,457 $29,715,260 $275,339 $154,882
BBRUFSD 34.60044 $13,000,000 $449,806 $29,715,260 $1,028,161 $578,355
Westchester
County 3.174954 $13,000,000 $41,274 $29,715,260 $94,345 $53,070
Town of Rye 0.140742 $13,000,000 $1,830 $29,715,260 $4,182 $2,353
Blind Brook Sewer 0.573843 $13,000,000 $7,460 $29,715,260 $17,052 $9,592
Solid Waste 0.264324 $13,000,000 $3,436 $29,715,260 $7,854 $4,418
Total 48.02021 $13,000,000 $624,263 $29,715,260 $1,426,933 $802,670
Source: Tax rates: https://www3.westchestergov.com/property-tax-rates, last accessed 12/22/2019
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
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-32 DRAFT
use of an IDA transaction with the understanding that the consent of the Village would be
required before the IDA can provide any benefits.
As described in Chapter 9 of the DEIS, “Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts,” 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 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 $23,761,848, which is
approximately 80 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 three 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 five 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.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-33 1/3/2020
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 406 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 17.78
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 $154,882 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 The 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.
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.8 In the AL-only facility, there
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 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
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-34 DRAFT
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.
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 2.3 percent increase in call volumes would translate into a 2.3 percent
increase in costs,9 this FEIS includes a conservative analysis of a potential 2.3
percent increase in costs to the EMS service.
A 2.3 percent increase in expenses for the EMS service would be
approximately $58,814 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 $17,056 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 $4,635
per year plus an amount based on their relative population as shown in Table
2.10-2.
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).
9 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 2-35 1/3/2020
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 $4,635 53% $2,456.44 $ 6,523.93
City of Rye $4,635 29% $1,344.09 $ 5,500.57
Rye Brook $4,635 18% $834.26 $ 5,031.53
Total $13,904 100% $4,635 $ 17,056.04
Note:
Assumes an increase of $12,792 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
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 $5,032 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
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-36 DRAFT
approximately $107,500.10 However, the “fully loaded” cost of a patrolman,
including benefits, is approximately $225,750.11 As described in Section 2.9,
“Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts,” the Revised Proposed Project is expected
to result in an increase of approximately $154,885 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 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
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
10 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.
11 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.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-37 1/3/2020
(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
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
406 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 1.32 acres of open space (see Table
2.10-3 and Appendix F).
The Revised Proposed Project would preserve approximately 11.01 acres of the Project
Site, or 62 percent, as open space—an increase of 0.7 acres from the current condition. Of
that space, at least 1.89 acres could be considered parks and recreational space, as shown
on Figure 2-11 and summarized in Table 2.10-4.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-38 DRAFT
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 0.10
Play Lot 1–2 2 0.81
Neighborhood Park 4–7 1 0.41
Total 1.32
Source: OPRHP, See Appendix F.
Table 2.10-4
On-Site Recreation Areas
Open Space Area Approximate Area Description
East Garden (Memory
Garden) 5,155 sf For AL and memory care residents
West Sun Deck Garden 3,539 sf Primarily for IL residents
North Courtyard Garden 12,254 sf Primarily for IL residents
Walking Path 31,950 sf For all Project residents and staff
Backyard 29,830 sf For all Project residents and staff
Total 82,728 sf (~1.89 acres)
The five main areas of open and recreation space are described in more detail below:
A Memory Garden (the East Garden, approximately 5,155 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 1.89 acres of space for active
and passive recreation, which is 43 percent more than the amount required to meet the
needs of the projected on-Site population according to OPRHP.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-39 1/3/2020
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 240.94 tons
of solid waste per year, approximately 29.93 tons less than the original project (270.87
tons/year) and approximately 214.74 tons less than what would be generated with the full
re-occupancy of the existing office building (442.85 tons/year) (see Table 2.10-5).
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 5,576 290,733 145.37
Employees 96 13 per employee 1,248 65,071 32.54
Total 240.94
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, 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 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
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-40 DRAFT
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
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 three
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.
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.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-41 1/3/2020
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.
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,
Connecticut, and 40 percent from Westchester Joint Water Works (WJWW). The Revised
Proposed Project is estimated to generate a water/sanitary demand of 47,670 gallons per day
(gpd) (see Table 2.11-1), approximately 27,757 gpd more than if the existing office were
fully occupied and approximately 8,030 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 2-42 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 236 110 25,960
Total 47,670
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
47,670 gpd of sanitary sewage, approximately 27,757 gpd more than if the existing office
building were fully occupied and approximately 8,030 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 the Blind Brook Trunk
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-43 1/3/2020
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 47,670 gpd of sanitary
sewage, which is equal to an increment of 27,757 gpd more than the No Build condition.
In accordance with WCDEF recommendations, the Applicant would mitigate the
additional 27,757 gpd to the system at a 3:1 ratio, or a reduction in inflow and infiltration
in the amount of 83,271 gpd. The Applicant intends to effectuate this mitigation through
a monetary contribution to the Village’s existing inflow 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 2-44 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,” as a result of changes to the Proposed Project. As 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 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 “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 2-45 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 19 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 21
fewer trips during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 23 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 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 17 trips during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 34
trips during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 46 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 1.3 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 pFEIS 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).12
12 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 2-46 DRAFT
Table 2.12-2
Level of Service Summary
Location
Year 2017/2018
Existing Conditions
Year 2025
No Build Conditions
Year 2025 pFEIS 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 pFEIS 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 2-47 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”), 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 pFEIS 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 2-48 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. 13
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 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
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
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
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 17 trips in the
AM, 34 trips in the midday, and 46 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
238 parking spaces, which is 64 fewer spaces 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
(136 units)
1 per unit
(136)
0.67 per unit
(91) 136
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 229 180 238
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 2-50 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 2-51 1/3/2020
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 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.” 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 20
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.
As 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
Manual14 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) to assess
potential annual and 1-hour average NO2 concentrations, as well as annual and 24-hour
average PM2.5 concentrations.15 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 pFEIS 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 the 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
systems associated with the two-story townhouses (not including the HVAC systems
14 New York City Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination, CEQR Technical Manual, Chapter 17,
section 322.1, March 2014.
15 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 2-52 DRAFT
associated with the AL and IL buildings) within the pFEIS 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 2.13-2. 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 20 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 2.13-2
Maximum Modeled Pollutant Concentrations
HVAC Systems: Original (DEIS) Project
Pollutant
Averaging
Period
Maximum
Modeled Impact
Background
Concentration(1)
Total
Concentration NAAQS
NO2 1-hour 43 104 147 188
Annual 1 27 28 100
PM2.5 24-hour 2 15.7 17.7 35
Annual 0.1 6.0 6.1 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
2.13-3. 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.
Table 2.13-3
Maximum Modeled Pollutant Concentrations
HVAC Systems: Townhouses (pFEIS Plan)
Pollutant
Averaging
Period
Maximum
Modeled Impact
Background
Concentration(1)
Total
Concentration NAAQS
NO2 1-hour 21 104 125 188
Annual 6 27 33 100
PM2.5 24-hour 1.2 15.7 16.9 35
Annual 0.5 6.0 6.5 12
Note: 1 See Table 2.13-1
Subsequent to the May 14, 2019 pFEIS, the Applicant further reduced the number of IL
units proposed to 136 and further reduced the total gross square footage of the project, as
described in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project.” As such, both the DEIS and the
pFEIS analyses can be considered conservative as they are reflective of a higher density
than is included in the Revised Proposed Project. Therefore, the Revised Proposed Project
would not result in potential significant adverse air quality impacts from stationary
sources, such as the proposed HVAC systems.
As noted in the DEIS, the 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
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-53 1/3/2020
of the Site. The generators would only be used in emergencies or during testing, which
would only occur during daytime hours during the week.
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 12 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,” the
results of the screening analysis show that none of the 12 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.
2.13.4. 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 five miles per hour
(mph) was conservatively assumed for travel within the parking garages. In addition, all
departing vehicles were assumed to idle for one 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
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-54 DRAFT
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.16 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 six feet, and at the minimum exhaust stack height of three
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 1.57 ppm. This
value includes a predicted concentration of 0.07 ppm from emissions within the parking
facility and a background level of 1.50 ppm.
The maximum predicted 24-hour and annual average PM2.5 concentrations from the vehicles
using the garage are of 22.4 µg/m3 and 7.1 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 15.7 µg/m3 and 6.0 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 24.4
µg/m3 and 7.6 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 15.7 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 6.0 µg/m3.
16 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 2-55 1/3/2020
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.
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 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 6 (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
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-56 DRAFT
and the intersection of King Street and Arbor Drive,17 the incremental increase in noise
associated with Project-generated traffic would be less than one dBA.
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,” 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 combined 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
17 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.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-57 1/3/2020
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:
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.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-58 DRAFT
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.
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 2-59 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,” 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
footprint 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 2-60 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 two 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, Soils, and Topography,” the Site grading design
is anticipated to generate approximately 38,158 cubic yards of earthen cut material, and
approximately 36,686 cubic yards of earthen fill material would be required, resulting in
approximately 1,472 cubic yards of additional material to be brought to the Site by truck.
Conservatively assuming 14-yard capacity trucks, a total of approximately 105 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,
containing both temporary erosion control measures during construction and
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-61 1/3/2020
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
seeding or permanent landscaping would be performed to control
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-62 DRAFT
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
detailed plan that delineates areas of construction worker parking, truck
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-63 1/3/2020
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.18
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
week would access the Site. This translates to an average of 2–5 trucks per
18 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 2-64 DRAFT
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 2-65 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.19 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.
19 BBRUFSD.
https://www.blindbrook.org/cms/lib/NY01913277/Centricity/Domain/4/Bond%20Project%20Schedule.pdf
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-66 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 2-67 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 2-68 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 2-69 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 2-70 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 2-71 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 2-72 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 2-73 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 stated 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 these
classrooms would, in a closed window condition, benefit from façade
attenuation in excess of 25 dBA. Therefore, given maximum exterior
noise levels from construction of approximately 70.6 dBA at this
location, noise levels in these classrooms 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 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
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-74 DRAFT
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:
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
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
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-75 1/3/2020
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
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
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
1/3/2020 2-76 DRAFT
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
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.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-77 1/3/2020
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.