HomeMy WebLinkAbout2_AKRF Updates to FEIS-Memo & Change PagesMemorandum
To: Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees, Staff, and Consultants
From: Peter Feroe, AICP (AKRF, Inc.)
Date: October 8, 2020
Re: 900 King Street: Updates to July 2020 pFEIS
cc: 900 King Street Project Team
This memo summarizes changes made to the July 2, 2020 pFEIS based on comments from the Board of
Trustees at the August 11, 2020 meeting. The memo also summarizes comments made by the Board that,
for the reasons set forth below, did not require an update to the pFEIS. Individual “change pages,” showing
the relevant changes to the pFEIS, accompanies this memo.
A.EDITS MADE TO THE FEIS
In response to the Board of Trustees comments at the August 11, 2020 meeting, the Applicant has made the
following edits to the FEIS:
Project Staffing – At the Board’s request, we added a description (text and table) of the anticipated
staffing levels of the project to FEIS Section 1.4.2, “Site Operation.” This information was
previously presented in the DEIS, Section 2.4.2, “Site Operation,” and has not materially changed.
{See revised page 1-9.}
Assessed Value – Members of the Board expressed their desire to have a more nuanced estimated
assessed value presented in the FEIS and for the FEIS not to include a range of potential assessed
values. On October 6, 2020, the Town Assessor provided her opinion that the Revised Proposed
Project would have an assessed value of approximately $55,000,000. The FEIS has been updated
to include that estimated assessed value, and only that value. Subsequent updates to tax revenues
produced were also updated. {See revised pages 2-30 to 2-34; 2-44 to 2-45; 3-57 to 3-59; 3-64 to
3-65; and, 3-68 to 3-69.}
Lift Assist – Reiterated that project staff will assist residents up who have fallen if it is safe to do
so. In Section 2.10.1.2, “EMS—Increase in Call Volume,” {revised page 2-36} the following two
sentences were added to the discussion: “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, trained staff
will evaluate the resident and will help the resident up if it is safe to do so without calling 911.”
Second Entrance to the Underground Garage. The Board expressed its opinion that a second
vehicular entrance to the underground garage was likely to be necessary. The Applicant
understands and respects that opinion. The FEIS was updated to remove the Applicant’s opinion
about the necessity of this entrance.
Based on previous conversations with the Village’s counsel, it was understood that the FEIS could
illustrate the location of the potential second entrance and quantify the impacts of including that
entrance, without having to update all the figures and site plan drawings in the FEIS. Instead, it was
our understanding that the FEIS could be accepted as complete in its current form and the Board
could make the second entrance a requirement in either the Statement of Findings or Site Plan
approval. {See revised pages 2-39 to 2-40.}
Village of Rye Brook 2 October 8, 2020
Senior Services – The revisions clarified Section 2.10.5, “Senior Services,” with respect to the
amenities that the project will offer to residents. {See revised pages 2-43 to 2-44.} Specifically:
o Clarified that “on-Site” hot meals are provided to residents; and,
o Added the following paragraph concerning transportation services:
“The Revised Proposed Project would provide transportation services for project
residents. These services would include regular trips to local places of interest,
such as grocery stores, shopping centers, and cultural institutions. Trips to the Rye
Brook Senior Center, if desired by project residents, would also be provided to
project residents by the Revised Proposed Project. In addition, the Revised
Proposed Project anticipates providing transportation and programming for
special events on an ad hoc basis.”
Arbor Drive Crosswalk – In response to concerns about the safety of a the proposed crosswalk at
the terminus of the on-Site pedestrian path at Arbor Drive, the FEIS was clarified to state that the
design and details of the potential crosswalk would be reviewed during Site Plan approval. {See
revised page 2-54.}
Marketability of Independent Living – JLL provided an update on market conditions for
Independent Living. The letter is attached hereto and will be added to Appendix C of the FEIS.
B. COMMENTS ALREADY ADDRESSED IN THE FEIS
With respect to the following questions and comments, edits to the text of the FEIS were not required;
however, the following clarifications are offered.
Adequacy of on-Site parking. The Applicant understands that the Village has asked their
Transportation consultant to explain why the amount of on-Site parking proposed is adequate. The
following table, comprised of information in the FEIS, may also help clarify the adequacy of the
parking proposed for the Project. As shown, the amount of parking proposed exceeds the Village’s
current zoning requirements as well as the ITE recommendations.
900 King Parking Program
Use
Number
of Units
Existing Zoning
Requirement
(Applied to
Project)
ITE Guideline
(Applied to
Project)
Revised Zoning
Requirement (Applied
to Project)
Project Parking Ratio
(Provided on-Site)
Age-Restricted
Townhouse 20
2.5 per unit1
(50)
1.52 per unit
(31)
2.5 per unit
(50)
2.5 per unit
(50)
Independent
Living 136
0.75 per unit2
(102)
0.67 per unit
(91)
1 per unit
(136)
1 per unit
(136)
Assisted Living
85 units
94 beds
0.75 per unit2
(64)
0.58 per bed
(55)
0.5 per unit
(43)
0.6 per unit
(52)
Total Number of Spaces
Required/Provided 216 177 229 238
Notes: 1. Parking requirement for two-family dwellings. Section 250-6G(c)(1)(b)[3] of the Rye Brook
Zoning Ordinance. It is noted that these age-restricted townhomes could also qualify as a “senior living
facility” within the Village’s zoning, which have a parking requirement of 0.75 per unit.
2. Senior Living Facilities, defined in the existing PUD regulations as a “range of living
accommodations” within age-restricted housing.
Village of Rye Brook 3 October 8, 2020
With respect to scheduling shift changes to avoid school arrival and dismissal times, the FEIS, in
Section 2.12.9, “Traffic: Mitigation,” states, “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.”
C. COMMENTS NOT REQUIRING UPDATES TO THE FEIS
During the August 11, 2020 meeting, individual members of the Board of Trustees made statements
indicative of their preliminary evaluation of certain environmental analyses included in the FEIS. We
believe that these statements do not require changes to be made to the FEIS as they do not question the
analyses in the FEIS; rather, the statements indicate potential findings that may be made based on those
analyses.
Open Space and Recreation – Comments were made indicating a preliminary finding that the open
space and recreation areas provided on-Site are not adequate to meet the needs of the project’s
population and that a recreation fee may be imposed on the project. It is understood that final Board
findings on this matter would be made at the time of Site Plan approval, pursuant to §209-15 of the
Village Code and that the FEIS accurately presents factual information regarding the project in this
regard.
Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) Mitigation. The FEIS notes that the Applicant is responsible for
mitigating the increase in sanitary sewer flows attributable to the project. However, the precise
method of the mitigation – a specific project or a fee-in-lieu – is not specified in the FEIS. The
FEIS could set the mitigation fee at the Village’s prior established rate of $100 per unit (or,
$24,000). Alternatively, the FEIS could remain unchanged and allow the possibility of having the
Applicant undertake a specific project, at a comparable cost, which would be determined at the
time of site plan approval.
Construction Period Noise Wall – Comments were made indicating preliminary concurrence with
the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant’s recommendation that a temporary noise wall be
installed along the east and west sides of the Project Site during construction. It is understood that
a final Board decision on this matter would be made as part of the Statement of Findings adopted
with respect to the Proposed Zoning and PUD Concept Plan and that the FEIS, as concurred with
by the Village’s consultant, presents an accurate analysis of the potential impacts.
Construction Start Time Waiver – Comments were made indicating a disinclination to adopt the
proposed local law that would allow the Board of Trustees the ability to allow construction noise
to start at 7 A.M. rather than 8 A.M. upon a Board finding that doing so would mitigate potential
adverse traffic impacts due to a Site’s proximity to a sensitive generator and receptor of traffic (i.e.,
the school). It is understood that final Board findings on this matter would be made during the
Statement of Findings adopted with respect to the Proposed Zoning and PUD Concept Plan.
COVD-19 Impacts – Comments were made regarding the impacts of COVID-19 on the site and
architectural design the proposed project. Please see the attached letter from Perkins Eastman,
which has a world-leading senior living practice, documenting that design changes to senior living
facilities necessitated by COVID-19 are relatively minor and do not materially affect the proposed
site plan.
Sprint Tower – Comments were made regarding the status of removing the Sprint antennae from
the existing office building. It is recognized that adoption of the FEIS as complete, as well as the
subsequent adoption of Findings and Zoning, do not immediately implicate the status of the
antennae. It is understood that it is the Applicant’s responsibility to have the antennae removed
prior to demolishing the building.
Village of Rye Brook 4 October 8, 2020
D. OTHER CHANGES TO FEIS
In response to the 8/11/2020 letter from Leslie Snyder, Esq., the Applicant made the following non-
substantive edits to the pFEIS:
Response to Comment 6 – While the fire truck turning plans were updated many months ago to utilize
Port Chester’s largest fire engine, and the revised diagram was reviewed by Village staff and
consultants, this response still stated that the turning plan used information from 2017. The response
has been clarified to match the plans. {See revised page 3-5.}
Response to Comment 7 – The Applicant updated the figure reference for the Project circulation
diagram. {See revised page 3-5.}
Chapter 1: Revised Proposed Project
DRAFT 1-9 7/2/202010/08/2020
The IL facility is anticipated to have a director, activity/social program staff, as well as
administrative staff during the day. The AL facility would be staffed with resident aides
around the clock. Dining staff would serve both the AL and IL uses and housekeeping,
building maintenance, and site maintenance staff would serve all three project components.
The anticipated approximate staffing levels are presented in Table 1.4-5.
Table 1.4-5
Anticipated Staffing Levels
Staffing Category and Time of Day* Approximate Number of Staff
IL Administration, Social/ Activity (Day only) 6
AL Resident Aides
Morning to Afternoon 30
Afternoon to Evening 25
Overnight 6
Dining Staff (Shared)
Morning 15
Afternoon/Evening 15
Housekeeping (Shared)
Morning 15
Afternoon/Evening 4
Building and Site Maintenance (Shared)
Day 4
Night 1
Note: *Shift changes will be coordinated with the School District so they do not occur within
approximately 30 minutes of MS/HS arrival or dismissal times, which are currently at
approximately 7:50 AM and 2:40 PM.
Source: Anticipated staffing levels provided by the Applicant
1.4.3 PARKING AND CIRCULATION
With the Revised Proposed Project, parking and circulation would remain similar in
layout and operation to the original project.
1.4.3.1. Vehicular Circulation
The Project Site would continue to be accessed from Arbor Drive and there
would continue to be two access points from Arbor Drive. Vehicular access
would be provided within a two-way, 26-foot-wide circular access drive that
loops around the Site (see Figure 1-16). Loading for the IL and AL building
would continue to be located on the north side of the IL building and would
be screened from off-Site view (see Figure 1-17). The townhouses would be
accessed from a single driveway off the main driveway.
The Applicant proposes to construct an emergency access driveway in the
northeast corner of the Project Site, as described in the DEIS. During normal
operation, this driveway would be secured at both ends with a bollard and
chain assembly.
1.4.3.2. Parking
The Revised Proposed Project would include 238 parking spaces, 64 fewer
spaces than the original project. As with the original project, the number of
parking spaces proposed exceeds that required by the Revised Proposed
Zoning and the current PUD zoning (see Table 1.4-6). The adequacy of the
parking provided is discussed in Section 2.12.8, “Parking.”
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
7/2/202010/08/2020 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 are
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 original project.
Based on conversations with the Town of Rye Tax Assessor and guidance from a certiorari
attorney, the Applicant now believes it is most appropriate to use an income-based
capitalization approach to estimate the assessed value of the Revised Proposed Project.
This methodology applies a standard capitalization rate to the estimated net operating
income of the Revised Proposed Project’s rental income. Using this methodology and
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 7/2/202010/08/2020
projections of revenue and expenses associated with operation, the Applicant estimates
that the Revised Proposed Project, upon stabilized operation, would have an assessed
value of approximately $29,715,260, which is more than twice the current assessed value
of the Project Site. In correspondence with the Applicant and the Village, the Town’s Tax
Assessor has estimated the Revised Proposed Project’s assessed value at $55,000,000.
The Tax Assessor noted that the final assessed value of the Revised Proposed Project
would be based on the final project that is constructed and operated.
The Town of Rye Tax Assessor, while agreeing that the income capitalization approach
should be used to generate the assessed value ofAs shown in Table 2.9-1, if the Revised
Proposed Project, has noted in correspondence to the Village that she cannot support the
Applicant’s estimated assessed value based on information available at this time.
Therefore, the Tax Assessor believes that it is most appropriate to estimate the assessed
value of the Revised Proposed Project using the approximately $200assessed at $55,000
per unit assessed value of the Atria, which was derived using an income capitalization
approach. Therefore, the Tax Assessor estimates that the assessed value of the Revised
Proposed Project would be approximately $48,200,000. Finally, the Tax Assessor notes
that the final assessed value of the Revised Proposed Project would be based on what is
actually constructed, occupied, and operated.
As shown in Table 2.9-1, based on the Applicant’s estimated assessed value, the Project
Site would be estimated to generate approximately $1.4272.32 million per year in property
taxes, which is approximately $802,6701.78 million more than the Site currently
generates. Of this, $275,339469,187 would go to the Village, which is an increase of
$154,882358,288 from the revenue currently generated, and $1,028,161627,150 would go
to the BBRUFSD, representing an increase of $578,3551,242,551 from the current
revenue generated by the Project Site.
If the Revised Proposed Project was assessed at $48.2 million, the Project Site would
generate approximately $2.315 million per year in property taxes, which is approximately
$1.690 million more than the Site currently generates (see Table 2.9-1). Of this, $446,616
would go to the Village, which is an increase of $326,160 from the revenue currently
generated, and $1,667,741 would go to the BBRUFSD, representing an increase of
$1,217,935 from the current revenue generated by the Project Site.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
7/2/202010/08/2020 2-32 DRAFT
Table 2.9-1
Projected Property Tax Revenue of the Revised Proposed Project
Jurisdiction
2018/2019
Tax Rate
Current
Assessed Value
Current
Taxes
Projected
Assessed Value
Projected
Taxes Difference
Village of Rye
Brook 9.2659 $13,000,000 $120,457 $29,715,260 $275,339 $154,882
$48,200,000 $446,616 $326,160
BBRUFSD 34.60044 $13,000,000 $449,806 $29,715,260 $1,028,161 $578,355
$48,200,000 $1,667,741 $1,217,935
Westchester
County 3.174954 $13,000,000 $41,274 $29,715,260 $94,345 $53,070
$48,200,000 $153,033 $111,758
Town of Rye 0.140742 $13,000,000 $1,830 $29,715,260 $4,182 $2,353
$48,200,000 $6,784 $4,954
Blind Brook
Sewer 0.573843 $13,000,000 $7,460 $29,715,260 $17,052 $9,592
$48,200,000 $27,659 $20,199
Solid Waste 0.264324 $13,000,000 $3,436 $29,715,260 $7,854 $4,418
$48,200,000 $27,659 $20,199
Total 48.02021 $13,000,000 $624,263 $29,715,260 $1,426,933 $802,670
$48,200,000 $2,314,574 $1,690,311
Source: Tax Rates: https://www3.westchestergov.com/property-tax-rates, last accessed 12/22/2019
Table 2.9-1
Projected Property Tax Revenue of the Revised Proposed Project
Jurisdiction
2020/2021
Tax Rate
Current
Assessed Value
Current
Taxes
Projected
Assessed Value
Projected
Taxes Difference
Village of Rye
Brook 8.530673 $13,000,000 $110,899 $55,000,000 $469,187 $358,288
BBRUFSD 29.584546 $13,000,000 $384,599 $55,000,000 $1,627,150 $1,242,551
Westchester
County 3.174954 $13,000,000 $41,274 $55,000,000 $174,622 $133,348
Town of Rye 0.140742 $13,000,000 $1,830 $55,000,000 $7,741 $5,911
Blind Brook
Sewer 0.573843 $13,000,000 $7,460 $55,000,000 $31,561 $24,101
Solid Waste 0.264324 $13,000,000 $3,436 $55,000,000 $14,538 $11,102
Total 42.269082 $13,000,000 $549,498 $55,000,000 $2,324,800 $1,775,301
Sources:
Village, Sewer, Solid Waste, Town, County Tax Rates from:
https://www.westchestergov.com/property-tax-rates; accessed 10/7/2020.
School Tax Rates from most recent property tax bill.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-33 7/2/202010/08/2020
While it is noted that based on the Applicant’s estimated assessed value, 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 14 percent lower than thwe per unit figure of $6,862 estimated in the DEIS.
As discussed in the DEIS, the Applicant and owner of the property is a for-profit entity
and will remain so. Similarly, the Applicant will not be seeking standalone tax-exempt
status under the Internal Revenue Code. However, certain tax exemptions or reductions
may be available through the Westchester County Industrial Development Agency (IDA).
Under New York Law, IDAs are public benefit corporations with many of the same
benefits as governmental entities. These benefits are primarily associated with exemption
from various taxes, including mortgage recording tax, sales tax on construction costs, and
property taxes to municipalities.
If the IDA confers partial property tax abatement benefits on the Project Site, the IDA will
require the negotiation and execution of a Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Agreement
pursuant to which the Applicant makes arrangement for payment of monies to the various
taxing jurisdictions. In the County, the consent of the municipality is required for the IDA
to provide assistance and, accordingly, the municipality plays an important role in the
negotiation of the PILOT Agreement. At this time, the Applicant intends to explore the
use of an IDA transaction with the understanding that the consent of the Village would be
required before the IDA can provide any benefits.
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 $23,761,84822,204,093,
which is approximately 8040.4 percent of the estimated assessed value of the Revised
Proposed Project as estimated by the Applicant and 49 percent of the assessed value as
estimated by the Town of Rye Tax Assessor. 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. Specifically, Section 2.10, “Community Facilities,” estimates that
the Revised Proposed Project has the potential to generate approximately $85,282 in
additional annual costs to the Village. UsingBased on the Applicant’sTown Tax
Assessor’s estimate of the Revised Proposed Project’s assessed value, the Village would
receive $154,882358,288 more in property taxes per year from the Project Site than it
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
7/2/202010/08/2020 2-34 DRAFT
does at present. This would create an annual surplus of $69,600273,006 for the Village.
If the assessed value of the Revised Proposed Project is as estimated by the Tax Assessor,
the annual surplus to the after accounting for increases in Village would be $240,878.
Regardless of the final assessed value,costs. The BBRUFSD would receive a substantial
increase in tax revenue (i.e., $1.24 million) and not experience additional costs associated
with the Revised Proposed Project. 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.
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
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
7/2/202010/08/2020 2-36 DRAFT
available to both IL and AL residents, help lead to the relatively low EMS
call rate. According to the prospective operator, staff at their 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, trained staff will evaluate the resident and
will help the resident up if it is safe to do so without calling 911.
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. These procedures outline the process by which IL and AL residents
would be triaged by facility staff prior to calling for EMS services. Each room
will be equipped with an emergency response system. Activation of this
system (e.g., pulling cord or pushing button on a pendant) will result in
notifications being sent to the main desk as well as to a designated
pager/phone, which will be carried by a specified staff person at all times.
The facility’s staff, including concierge, security, and Wellness staff, will
coordinate and proceed to the resident’s apartment to triage the situation. In
the IL facility, the concierge/security may attempt to call the resident before
proceeding to the apartment. 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 both the IL and AL residents who fall or have
another emergency. The main wellness office would be located on the first
floor of the AL building and would house the facility’s Health and Wellness
Director. It is anticipated that there will be nursing “touchdown” stations on
the second and fourth floor of the AL. In addition, a Physical Therapist /
Occupational Therapist will be on-Site most days, as will an Exercise
Therapist. These various staff members, as well as all other on-Site staff, will
be available to assist in the event of resident emergencies. 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, trained staff will evaluate
the resident and will help the resident up if it is safe to do so without calling
911. It is noted that the on-Site nurse would be available to both IL and AL
residents and would not be limited by regulation or policy to being physically
present within the AL at all times.
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
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-39 7/2/202010/08/2020
2.10.1.5. Emergency Service Site Design
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. During site plan review,
the Applicant will coordinate with Village fire and emergency service
officials to ensure that design of the buildings’ roofs and entrances facilitate
the safe movement of emergency personnel as well as provide for adequate
interior and exterior emergency response communication. 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, all elevators will be designed to fit a gurney to enable
full EMS operations on the second through fourth floors and the garage.
Based on the nature of the Revised Proposed Project as an age-restricted
residential community and comments received from the public as well as the
Lead Agency and Planning Board, the Applicant has proposed to construct a
secondary means of access to the Project Site in cases where the Site’s
primary access from Arbor Drive may not be available. Specifically, the
Applicant proposes to construct a minimum 24-foot-wide access drive that
would connect the northeast corner of the Site’s internal access road to the
northern terminus of the existing parking lot behind the Village’s firehouse
(see Figure 1-15). The drive would be constructed with grasscrete pavers and
during normal operation this driveway would be secured at both ends with a
bollard and chain assembly. The drive would only be used in the case of
emergencies and only authorized Site or Village personnel would be allowed
to unlock the chain. The Applicant would maintain this drive, including
providing for the necessary removal of snow during the winter.
As described in the DEIS, the Applicant evaluated the potential for the
emergency access drive to be located in a different location (see DEIS Figure
10-2). This alternative location would require a steeper driveway connection
and the turning movements into and out of the Site from this driveway would
be more constrained than in the proposed location. For these reasons, and
after conversations with Village staff, the Applicant decided to advance the
proposed emergency access location.
It is noted that the Village’s Emergency Services Task Force (ESTF) has
recommended that the underground parking garage be serviced by two remote
points of vehicular entry/exit. The ESTF believes that two points of entry/exit
would provide emergency responders with two remote options to access the
garage as well as improve the speed with which vehicles could be evacuated
in an emergency. With respect to this second point, the ESTF notes that
vehicular evacuation may be important as modern vehicles include a major
increase in the use of flammable plastics and a subsequent increase in fire
loads. The ESTF also notes that some occupants evacuating the building in
an emergency may seek to get out via the garage and their car as this may be
their normal path of travel.
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
7/2/202010/08/2020 2-40 DRAFT
The Applicant notes that the New York State Building Code does not require
a second vehicular ramp and specifically prohibits the use of vehicular ramps
for emergency egress. With respect to evacuating the garage, the Applicant
notes that the building’s design prioritizes the evacuation of people. The
garage has four, two-hour fire rated egress stairs that exit directly to grade.
Occupants that mistakenly try to evacuate to the garage in the event of an
emergency would be instructed to exit the building as quickly as possible,
without their vehicle. With respect to emergency responders accessing the
garage, the Applicant notes that emergency vehicles would not enter the
garage with or without the secondary vehicular entrance for two reasons.
First, the garage would not be tall enough to accommodate a fire truck or an
ambulance; and second, in the event of a fire in the building, it would not be
prudent to bring emergency vehicles under the building. The Applicant notes
that access to the garage for first responders would be the same as it would
for access to any other floor of the building. There are four sets of emergency
access stairs accessible at grade that serve the garage and five elevators
servicing the garage, all of which fit a gurney. Standpipes would be provided
within the two-hour rated stair enclosures.
With respect to the potential changes in environmental impacts associated
with a second vehicular entrance, the Applicant notes that providing a second
vehicular entrance to the underground garage will require the construction of
large retaining walls in the front of the building to accommodate the ramp.
The ramp’s potential location, to the east of the IL building’s eastern front
wing, would be readily visible from the Site’s main entrance and would
replace a location that would otherwise be a gently sloping grass and
landscaped area in the front of the building (see Figure 2-11). The second
vehicular entrance would add approximately 3,361 sf of impervious surface
to the Project Site, 390 sf of which would be located in the wetland buffer.
As the location of the second vehicular entrance would otherwise be a “fill”
area of the project, an additional approximately 260 cubic yards (cy) of
material that would be excavated elsewhere on the Site would be exported
off-Site. This would increase the next export of material from approximately
1,472 cy to 1,732 cy and result in approximately 19 additional truck trips from
the Site. over the course of construction. Finally, the “average grade” around
the IL/AL building would be “lowered” by approximately three inches. As
such, the zoning height of the IL/AL building would be approximately 42.06
feet, though the location and actual elevation of the building would not
change.
The Lead Agency notes that the decision on whether to require a second
vehicular entrance to the underground parking is most appropriately decided
during the detailed Site Plan review. The potential environmental impacts of
both scenarios, one or two vehicular entrances, are analyzed in this FEIS.
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
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-43 7/2/202010/08/2020
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 55 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. 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 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 days the bus is reserved for group outings organized by the Senior Center.
Fees for group outings vary depending upon the destination. Many days the bus is reserved
for special events, including shopping, museums, theater, local eateries, and casinos. Fees
for special events range from $2 for a member to attend a trip to Arthur Avenue through
±$200 for a Broadway. 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) has declined, while the number of activities and participants has grown.
In the past, lunches were attended by an average of 40 residents, whereas currently, an
average of 20 seniors attend lunch. Similarly, fewer residents stay at the center all day
than in the past. Special lectures, holiday activities, and special lunches are still well-
attended. Based on the capacity of the Senior Center and its current utilization, it is Ms.
Rotfeld’s opinion that the Senior Center has the capacity to accommodate additional
seniors, such as those that may reside in the Revised Proposed Project.
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
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
7/2/202010/08/2020 2-44 DRAFT
provide Project residents many of the same services offered by the Rye Brook Senior
Center, including on-Site hot lunch, exercise programs, transportation,and enrichment
classes. The Revised Proposed Project would also 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.
The Revised Proposed Project would provide transportation services for project residents.
These services would include regular trips to local places of interest, such as grocery
stores, shopping centers, and cultural institutions. Trips to the Rye Brook Senior Center,
if desired by project residents, would also be provided to project residents by the Revised
Proposed Project. In addition, the Revised Proposed Project anticipates providing
transportation and programming for special events on an ad hoc basis.
2.10.6. COMMUNITY FACILITIES FISCAL IMPACT
Based on the analysis presented above, the Revised Proposed Project may, conservatively,
result in an additional approximately $85,282 in annual Village expenditures, which
would be offset by an increase in annual property tax revenue from the Project Site of
between $154,882 and $326,160.approximately $358,288. Specifically, the Revised
Proposed Project may increase Village costs as follows:
$5,032 in increased EMS costs, assuming EMS costs rise in direct proportion to the
increase in calls from the Revised Proposed Project. In addition, and as discussed
above, the Applicant plans to implement several policies to reduce the number of
EMS calls, such as having a nurse on-Site 24 hours a day. These policies will
significantly reduce the potential increase in EMS call activity as a result of the
Revised Proposed Project;
A de minimis increase in Fire Department spending as a result of the few calls
expected. For purposes of this analysis, we could assume another $5,000 per year;
$75,250 for increased police services. This is conservatively calculated based on 1/3
of the cost of one police officer ($225,750). As noted by the police department in
correspondence to the Applicant that was included in the DEIS, the Revised Proposed
Project, along with other recently approved and proposed projects in the Village, may
require the addition of one additional police officer. Further, as noted by the Village,
even without the Revised Proposed Project, the Village may have to add a police
officer to certain shifts. It is further noted that unlike other projects in the Village,
such as Kingfield, the Revised Proposed Project is a redevelopment and repurposing
of an already existing site (which has or had an existing police demand) and not a ‘net
new’ development. Taken together, it is reasonable to believe that the Revised
Proposed Project would not require the full-time services of a new police officer.
Rather, based on the current demand of the Village, the increase in demand from net
new projects such as Kingfield, and the nature of project as a redevelopment of a
previously developed Site, the police department may have to add another officer.
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-45 7/2/202010/08/2020
Therefore, this analysis conservatively assumes that the project would be responsible
for 1/3 of the cost of a new officer. It is noted that the Village budgeted for an
additional police officer in its 2020-2021 budget.
Senior Services. As described above, the Revised Proposed Project would offer a wide
array of services to its residents, including many of the services offered by the
Village’s senior center. As such, it is not anticipated that the Revised Proposed Project
would result in a significant increase in the Village’s cost of providing senior services.
Taken together, the costs above total approximately $85,282 in annual Village
expenditures related to the project. As described in Section 2.9.2, “Fiscal Conditions,”
withbased on the $29.7 million potential assessed value of the project as estimated by the
ApplicantTown Tax Assessor’s estimate, the Revised Proposed Project would generate
$275,339469,187 in property taxes to the Village each year. This is a $154,882358,288
annual increase from the taxes currently generated by the Site, resulting in an annual
surplus to the Village of $69,600273,006 after accounting for potential increased costs. In
the event that the Revised Proposed Project is assessed at a higher rate as estimated by the
Town of Rye Tax Assessor, this annual surplus to the Village would increase.costs.
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
7/2/202010/08/2020 2-54 DRAFT
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.,
the details of which would be reviewed during Site Plan approval. 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 229 177 238
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
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.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-5 7/2/202010/08/2020
Comment 5: The Village’s Consulting Engineer stated that an easement would be required for
the proposed realignment of the curb at the existing Rye Brook Fire Department
(RBFD) firehouse. (Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#109): Proposed realignment of the curb at the existing firehouse crosses the
property line, an easement would be required to do this.
Response 5: No curb improvements are necessary to accommodate this new fire truck
movement and the existing curb alignment would remain. This truck movement
is depicted on drawing C-320, “Fire Truck, Emergency Vehicle & Truck Turning
Plan” (see Volume 4).
Comment 6: The Village’s Consulting Engineer made several comments requesting additional
information be provided on the proposed site plan. (Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#110): The Fire Department should verify noted fire truck dimensions on the
proposed turning plan.
Oliveri 011 (#111): Road profiles will be required for review & approval; road slopes on
the west loop road seem to approach 10% in some areas.
Oliveri 011 (#117): Indicate locations for concrete and Belgium block curbs on the layout
plan, stone curbing should be 18” in depth within the village R.O.W.
Oliveri 011 (#118): Handicap parking dimensions should be indicated on the details.
Response 6: A template of the largest Village fire truck was emailed by the Village’s Fire
Inspector, Michael Izzo, to the Applicant’s engineer, JMC, on September 20,
2017. These dimensions wereThe dimensions used in the truck turning
simulation, shown on drawing C-320 and included in the JMC site plan set (see
Volume 4).), are based on the Village of Port Chester’s largest fire truck.
Drawing C-310 has been added to the site plans showing all road profiles (see
Volume 4). The slopes on all roads are less than or equal to 10 percent.
Labels have been added to drawing C-300 to clarify where stone curb shall be
installed. The stone curb detail #37 on drawing C-905 has been updated to show
a depth of 18 inches for all stone curbs, within the Village right of way (see
Volume 4).
Dimensions have been added to both accessible parking details (details #42 &
#47) on drawing C-906 (see Volume 4).
Comment 7: A comment was received requesting more information on the layout of, and
access and egress to, the underground parking proposed as well as a discussion of
the impacts of that access to on-Site circulation. (Snyder 007)
Snyder 007 (#44): There is no clear depiction of the underground parking, and the access
way out of the parking areas and how traffic will be distributed in connection therewith.
Response 7: Figure 1-1516 depicts the access and egress to the proposed underground parking.
The full size underground parking plan is included on sheet A-100 in Volume 4.
As shown, access and egress to the underground parking area will be from a single
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-57 7/2/202010/08/2020
on property values, as well as costs of self-policing services, road maintenance, and
safety/security.
Schlank 068 (#575 or #538B): The DEIS notes that a change to senior housing could
result in additional tax revenue to the Village of $281 thousand per year, and that would
be sufficient to fund any additional police personnel and associated equipment that might
be required as a result of the change. Who will compensate the Arbors property owners
for any increase in the cost of our self-policing services as a result of changes at 900 King
Street?
Schlank 068 (#576 or #538C): For each alternative discussed in the FEIS, describe the
potential impacts on the costs borne by the PUD property owners for road maintenance,
traffic control, procedured, and safety and security.
Schlank 068 (#577 or #538D): Is the applicant willing to work out an intra-PUD
agreement that would cover the costs of road maintenance, traffic control and safety and
security, as well as any related systems, processes, and controls?
Response 65: Section 2.9.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” and Section 2.10, “Community Facilities,”
analyze the potential fiscal benefits (e.g., tax revenue) and the potential fiscal
impacts (e.g., increase municipal costs) of the Revised Proposed Project.
As stated in those sections, based upon the Applicant’sTown of Rye Tax
Assessor’s estimate of the Revised Proposed Project’s assessed value, it is
estimated that the Revised Proposed Project, upon project stabilization, the
project would annually generate approximately $802,6701.78 million more in tax
revenue than the Project Site currently generates, including a $578,3551.24
million annual increase in revenue to the BBRUFSD and $154,882358,288 to the
Village. With respect to the BBRUFSD, there would be no additional costs to the
BBRUFSD from the Revised Proposed Project. With respect to the Village, there
is the potential for the Revised Proposed Project to result in additional municipal
expenses, specifically those related to police and EMS service. As detailed in
Section 2.10.6, “Community Facilities Fiscal Impact,” the conservative estimate
of potential additional municipal costs associated with the Revised Proposed
Project of $85,282, is anticipated to be less than the estimate of the additional
property tax revenue generated for the Village of $154,882, as estimated by the
Applicant. It is also noted that the Town of Rye Tax Assessor has estimated that
the Revised Proposed Project would have an assessed value of $48,200,000,
which would generate $1.690 million more in property taxes. Of this, $446,616
would go to the Village, which is an increase of $326,160 from the revenue
currently generated, and $1,667,741 would go to the BBRUFSD, representing an
increase of $1,217,935 from the current revenue generated by the Project
Site.358,288.
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY TAXES
Comment 66: Comments were received questioning the validity of the DEIS’ statement that in
the Future without the Proposed Project (the “No Build” condition) the assessed
value of the Project Site would continue to decline. The commenter notes that the
Applicant has stated, when commenting on another office building in the Village,
that it has a strong office market. (Snyder 007, Schlank 060)
900 King Street Redevelopment
7/2/202010/08/2020 3-58 DRAFT
Snyder 007 (#71): The DEIS states that in the future without the project (the "No Build"
condition), the assessed value would be expected to decline. In light of the applicant’s
own statement in the attached Applicant’s Article, that does not have to be the case. The
applicant has noted in the Applicant’s Article that Rye Brook has a strong office market
and that with marketing, re-occupancy of the existing office building has potential. It may
be that the applicant will have to perform upgrades to its building, like was done with The
Atrium building at Westchester Avenue. Again, it is respectfully submitted that this Board
should halt further review of the proposal in its current form and encourage the applicant
to pursue the No Action alternative.
Schlank 060 (#424): Questions related to tax effects of any change in zoning from
commercial to residential.
Response 66: The Project Site has experienced declining assessed values over the last 5 years
as a result of the inability to successfully re-tenant the Site. As noted in the
Response to Comment 14, the Applicant, as well as its predecessors in interest,
unsuccessfully attempted to lease the existing office building for a variety of uses
to a variety of tenants. These efforts were not successful in producing sufficient
building occupancy or tenancy to make operating the building profitable. One of
the reasons for this lack of success is the relatively large floorplate of the building
that is broken up by two atriums. The large, rectangular, floorplate makes it
inefficient to subdivide the space while providing for the necessary means of
egress for each tenant. As a result, buildings with more efficient floorplates, such
as the buildings at 1100 King Street, are more easily adapted for multiple tenants.
Given the consistent lack of success in re-tenanting the existing office building,
it is unlikely that one or more substantial and long-term tenants could be identified
to re-occupy the existing building, which is the only way for the assessed value
of the Site to increase.
Comment 67: The Village’s Planning Consultant requested that, “The FEIS…provide the
estimated assessment from the Town Tax Assessor and the projected taxes for all
jurisdictions used in Table 9-9 of the DEIS.” (FP Clark 012, Rosenberg 021)
FP Clark 012 (#149): The FEIS should provide the estimated assessment from the Town
Tax Assessor and the projected taxes for all jurisdictions used in Table 9-9 of the DEIS.
Rosenberg 021 (#248): Peter Feroe stated, “…if you look at tax revenue for the project
site, as Tony mentioned, you’d have about a 350 percent increase. Mayor Rosenberg
responded, “Have you checked – where are you coming up with those numbers?”
Response 67: As discussed in Section 2.9.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” the Applicant has sought an
estimated assessed value from the Town Tax Assessor for the Revised Proposed
Project. However, the Tax Assessor has not developed a project-specific
estimated assessed value for the Revised Proposed Project. Instead, the Tax
Assessor has stated in correspondence that she believes it is most appropriate to
estimate the assessed value of the Revised Proposed Project using the
approximately $200,000 per unit assessed value of the Atria, which was derived
using an income capitalization approach. Therefore, the Tax Assessor estimates
that the assessed value of the Revised Proposed Project would be approximately
$48,200,000, or approximately 62 percent greater than the Applicant’s estimate
of $29,715,260. Finally,Town of Rye Tax Assessor has estimated that the Revised
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-59 7/2/202010/08/2020
Proposed Project would have an assessed value of $55,000,000. The Tax Assessor
notes that the final assessed value of the Revised Proposed Project would be based
on what is actually constructed, occupied, and operated. Section 2.9.2, “Fiscal
Conditions,” provides the projected property tax revenue for various taxing
jurisdictions using boththis estimated assessed valuesvalue.
Comment 68: The Village’s Planning Consultant stated that, “The loss per year of tax revenue
was incorrectly calculated. The loss of $65,000 in revenue took place over 5 years,
not 1 year. The FEIS should provide the correct calculations.” (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#147): The loss per year of tax revenue was incorrectly calculated. The
loss of $65,000 in revenue took place over 5 years, not 1 year. The FEIS should provide
the correct calculations.
Response 68: This comment refers to the decrease in annual property tax revenue generated by
the Project Site since 2013. As stated in Section 9.2.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” of the
DEIS, “the property tax revenue generated by the Project Site has decreased by
more than $65,000, or 11 percent, in the past 5 years.” The DEIS goes on to say
in Section 9.3.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” that “since 2013 the assessed value of the
Site has decreased nearly $2 million, resulting in a loss of approximately $65,000
per year in tax revenue.” In other words, the amount of property tax revenue
generated by the Project Site in a given year declined 4 out of 5 years between
2013 and 2017. As a result, by 2017, the Project Site was generating $65,000 less
per year than it was 5 years earlier. In total, the declining assessed value of the
Project Site resulted in the loss of an amount equal to $153,060 in property tax
revenue between 2013 and 2017 using 2017 tax rates.
Comment 69: The Village’s Planning Consultant stated that, “The FEIS should identify any tax
exemptions or subsidies that the [Proposed] Project would be eligible to receive,
other than the tax exemptions and reductions that maybe available through the
Westchester County Industrial Development Agency [IDA].” Another
commenter requested additional information on the IDA inducement process and
whether the Village had the capacity to successfully participate in that process.
(FP Clark 012, Schlank 068)
FP Clark 012 (#150): The DEIS states that the Applicant will not be seeking “standalone
tax-exempt status” from the Internal Revenue Code. The FEIS should identify any tax
exemptions or subsidies that the Project would be eligible to receive, other than the tax
exemptions and reductions that maybe available through the Westchester County
Industrial Development Agency.
Schlank 068 (#548): Does the Village of Rye Brook have sufficient authority to approve
a PILOT agreement? Or do other governments, including the Town of Rye and/or the
school district, need to approve the agreement as well?
Schlank 068 (#549): How long do these PILOT agreements typically take to negotiate?
Are PILOT agreements relatively easy to negotiate? Or are they complicated enough for
municipalities the size of Rye Brook and Town of Rye to require the use of outside help?
How does the sales tax exemption work? Would the owners be exempt from collecting
taxes from others or from paying taxes on their own purchases? On what types of items
would the applicant collect or pay sales taxes for each alternative, if it were not exempt?
900 King Street Redevelopment
7/2/202010/08/2020 3-64 DRAFT
and Village of Port Chester would not be offset by increases in property tax
revenue to those municipalities.
The Village has not been made aware of potential adverse impacts to mutual aid
as a result of the Revised Proposed Project and the proposed senior living project
at SUNY Purchase.
Comment 74: The Village’s Planning Consultant requested additional information on the
measures proposed to reduce the number of EMS calls for “lift assist,” such as
providing an on-Site emergency medical technician (EMT). (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#151): The Applicant should advise whether there will be an EMT required
to be on-site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in the assisted living and independent living
facility to help in cases that would require “lift assist.” If there is an EMT on-Site, this would
limit the number of calls to the Port Chester-Rye-Rye Brook EMS.s
Response 74: Consistent with industry practices, the Applicant does not anticipate hiring an
EMT to staff the Revised Proposed Project. Instead, as state in the DEIS, the
Applicant would institute physical improvements and operational policies to
minimize unnecessary EMS calls, including physical improvements and
operational policies to reduce fall hazards throughout the facility.
POLICE
Comment 75: A comment was received questioning whether the Proposed Project would
generate sufficient additional property tax revenue to offset the cost of increased
police services attributable to the Proposed Project. (Snyder 007)
Snyder 007 (#73): with respect to police services, the DEIS states that an additional police
officer would be required due to the scale of the project at a cost of approximately
$225,750 per year. However, the project will generate only $281,359 in tax revenue,
providing a small spread of the differential between the tax revenue and cost for police.
This differential does not take into account other community services such as additional
fire and EMS services which would be needed. Unlike other projects in the Village, the
very nature of the project here relies on having sufficient emergency services and an
adverse fiscal impact appears likely.
Response 75: As stated in Section 10.2.3.2, “Police Services,” of the DEIS, RBPD noted that
the Proposed Project “together with other previously approved residential
developments in the Village, would require additional police personnel and
associated equipment” (emphasis added). As such, the Revised Proposed Project
would only be responsible for a fraction of the total annual cost of an additional
police officer—$225,750. Taken together, the conservative estimate of the
additional annual municipal costs attributable to the Revised Proposed Project is
approximately $85,282. As described in Section 2.9.2, “Fiscal Conditions,”
withbased on the $29.7 million potential Town of Rye Tax Assessor’s estimated
assessed value of the project as estimated by the Applicant, the Revised Proposed
Project, the project would generate $275,339469,187 in property taxes to the
Village each year. This is a $154,882358,288 annual increase from the taxes
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-65 7/2/202010/08/2020
currently generated by the Site, resulting in an annual surplus to the Village of
$69,600273,006 after accounting for potential increased costs. In the event that
the Revised Proposed Project is assessed at a higher rate as estimated by the Town
of Rye Tax Assessor, this annual surplus to the Village would increase. It is noted
that the Village budgeted for an additional police officer in its 2020-2021 budget
See also Response to Comment 73.
FIRE SERVICES
Comment 76: The Village Administrator requested that the current conditions of the RBFD be
updated in light of the new fire services agreement with the Village of Port
Chester and the Village of Port Chester requested additional discussion of the
impacts that the Proposed Project may have on the fire services agreement. In
addition, the Administrator clarified that the RBFD and Port Chester Fire
Department (PCFD) both respond to calls within the Village together and that the
RBFD is under the operational control of the PCFD. Finally, a comment was
received questioning whether the RBFD had the capacity to provide service to the
Proposed Project. (Bradbury 017, Bradbury 017, Port Chester 019, Tazbin 071)
Bradbury 017 (#209): The opening paragraph [of Section 10.2 of the DEIS] indicates that
the PCFD responds “with assistance from the RBFD”. This should be modified that both
the PCFD and RBFD both respond to calls together and that the RBFD is under the
operational control of the PCFD.
Bradbury 017 (#210): The number of RBFD personnel (and their working hours) and the
contract with Port Chester is currently very different in FY2019 compared to FY2015 and
should be updated.
Port Chester 019 (#245): Additional discussion should occur regarding the potential
impact of the project on fire services and the April 3, 2018 agreement between the Village
of Port Chester and Village of Rye Brook.
Tazbin 071 (#563): The police and fire department, they are wonderful, but do they feel
with the current staffing that they could support.
Response 76: The Village and the Village of Port Chester executed a fire services agreement in
March 2018 (see Appendix E-2). This agreement details the roles and
responsibilities of the villages with respect to fire protection services within the
Village. As noted therein, the RBFD will respond to calls within the Village
together with the PCFD. The RBFD will be under the operational control of the
PCFD. The RBFD hashad a budget of $2,035,018 for the 2019 Fiscal Year.3 As
noted in Section 2.10.1.4, “Fire Services,” the Revised Proposed Project is not
anticipated to result in significant increases in calls to RBFD. The Revised
Proposed Project’s height and construction would be of a similar height and
construction type to buildings already present within the Village. Finally, in
RBFD’s correspondence to the Applicant, the RBFD did not discuss whether
3 https://www.cleargov.com/new-york/westchester/village/rye-brook/2019/expenditures/public-safety/fire
department-&-ems/fire
900 King Street Redevelopment
7/2/202010/08/2020 3-68 DRAFT
In order to estimate the number of school-age children that could have been
expected to live in the original project, which was proposed to be age restricted
to those 55 years old and older, the Applicant collected information on the number
of school-age children living at eight residential developments in the region that
was age restricted to 55 years old and older. Within the eight developments, there
was a total of 1,173 dwelling units across seven different school districts. Based
on information collected directly from the school districts, there was a total of
three school-age children enrolled from those developments. The Applicant also
requested information from the Superintendent of the BBRUFSD regarding the
number of school-age children residing at The Atria, Rye Brook and the King
Street Rehab facility, two age-restricted senior living communities located on
King Street. To the best of the Superintendent’s knowledge, there were no
children living at either facility. Based on this data, as well as the revision to the
project’s age restriction, it is unlikely that school-aged children would reside
within the Revised Proposed Project.
Comment 81: A commenter questioned the impact of the Proposed Project on the BBRUFSD
would be if current residents of the Village who do not have school-age children
move into the Proposed Project and sell their houses to a family that does have
school-age children. (Barnett 034)
Barnett 034 (#277): If this community, this new community, is designed to get people to
move out of their homes, what isn’t addressed…is especially in that first year or two or
three, how many people who live in this area…decide to move to this structure…and
decide to get out of their house, and those people are replaced with people who have
school-age children and the impact on the schools.
Response 81: As noted in Section 2.9.1, “Demographics,” the Village’s population has grown
10.8 percent since 1990 and the median age of Village residents has increased from
40.7 to 44.2 years old. This is consistent with the trend in the nation and the County.
As such, it can be expected that with or without the construction of the Revised
Proposed Project, an increasing number of Village residents that may seek to sell
their houses due to time and cost associated with home maintenance and the desire
to live closer to friends and live in a setting where car usage is not required.
Nevertheless, in the event that the Revised Proposed Project did
incentivizeincentivizes a small number of Village senior citizens that might not
otherwise have wanted to move to sell their houses to families with children, it
would not be expected to adversely affect the BBRUFSD. As discussed in Section
10.3.1, “Schools: Existing Conditions,” of the DEIS, enrollment within
BBRUFSD declined by 90 students—or 6 percent—between the 2014–2015
school year and the 2017–2018 school year. According to the BBRUFSD,
enrollment is anticipated to continue to decline slightly during the next few years.
Therefore, even with the anticipated increase in school-age children within the
district as a result of the Kingfield development, there would still be sufficient
capacity to serve new students to the district. With respect to the financial costs
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-69 7/2/202010/08/2020
associated with potential new school children, it is noted that the Revised
Proposed Project would generate approximately $578,3551.24 million more per
year in property tax revenue to the BBRUFSD than the Site does currently using
the Applicant’s estimated assessed value, and $1,217,935 more using the Town
of Rye Tax Assessor’s estimate.. This would be enough to cover the costs of at
least 20 to 4344 school children based on the 2017–2018 average annual
expenditure per pupil of $28,061.
OPEN SPACE
Comment 82: The Village’s Planning Consultant requested that the source of the guidelines
used to estimate the appropriate amount of open space for the Proposed Project’s
residents be provided. In addition, the Village Administrator requested more
detail on how the open space provided on the Project Site fulfills the requirements
of Section 209-14 of the Village Code with respect to the siting of “a park or
parks.” (FP Clark 012, Bradbury 017, Klein 062)
FP Clark 012 (#153): The tables provide the amount of open space that should be provided
per 1,000 people based on guidelines provided by the New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). The attached appendices and figures do
not contain the original information from the OPRHP and we have been unable to verify
the information. The FEIS should include the original report from the OPRHP to verify
that the information on recommended open space is correct.
Bradbury 017 (#213): The DEIS indicates that the Project would include 2.7 acres of
space for active and passive recreation, which exceeds the Section 209-14 code
requirement (for) that purpose. However, the DEIS ignores the first part of the code
requirement for “a park or parks suitably located and usable for passive or active
recreational purposes”. The Village Board should decide if providing the identified open
space on the project meets this code requirement.
Klein 062 (#510): Agree with Bradbury comments that Village Board determines what is
appropriate.
Response 82: The source of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation (OPRHP) guidelines is the New York State Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Specifically, Appendix I, Recreation
Facility Design Guidelines,4 which is included as Appendix F.
The Applicant notes that these guidelines were published to help municipalities
develop open space and recreation plans for their entire community. As such, they
reflect a blended average of the open space needs of those members of the
community that require more opportunities for open space and recreation and
those that require less. The Applicant also notes that neither New York State, nor
the National Recreation and Park Association, the organization that published
data on which some of the New York State data is based, currently publish a
“target” for the amount of park space per capita.
4 The 2014–2019 Plan no longer publishes these guidelines and the 2009–2013 Plan edited the guidelines to
remove the targeted amount of open space per capita, focusing instead on guidelines and park development.