HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.18.2020 pFEIS Change Pages_Revised Proposed Project900 King Street Redevelopment
11/18/2020 1-10 DRAFT
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.”3
Table 1.4-6
Proposed Parking for the Revised Proposed Project
Use Original Project
Revised
Proposed Project
Revised
Proposed Zoning
Current
PUD Zoning1
Independent Living 179 136 136 1021
Assisted Living 60 52 43 641
Townhouse 61 50 50 602
Total 300 238 229 226
Notes:
1 “Senior Living Facility” defined in the PUD zoning district as those that provide a range of living
accommodations for people age 62 years old and older, requires 0.75 spaces per unit pursuant
to Section 250-7E(2)(g).
2 Calculated pursuant to Section 250-6G(1)(c)[3].
Entrance to the underground parking would be consolidated from two
entrances with the original project to one entrance in the Revised Proposed
Project. This entrance would be located in the rear of the building to minimize
impacts to visual resources and to reduce the grading required around the
sides of the proposed IL building.
It is noted that the Village’s Emergency Services Task Force (ESTF) has
recommended that the underground parking be serviced by two remote points
of vehicular entry/exit. The Applicant does not believe a second vehicular
entry/exit is necessary or required by the Building and Fire Codes. This issue
is discussed further in Section 2.10.1.5, “Emergency Service Site Design.”
1.4.3.3. Pedestrian Circulation
Pedestrian circulation with the Revised Proposed Project has been expanded
from the original project. In addition to the five-foot-wide sidewalk around
the IL and AL building and extension of the four-foot-wide paved walking
path along the Site’s eastern boundary, paved walking paths would be created
along the Site’s northern boundary and to the west of the proposed
townhouses (see Figure 1-18). These paths would include crosswalks at all
Site roadways and would allow residents the opportunity to safely and
securely recreate throughout the landscaped Site.
As with the original project, access to the walking path on the eastern side of
the Site would be provided to the public pursuant to an easement with the
BBRUFSD, which is currently responsible for its maintenance (see DEIS
Appendix B-3). Given the integration of this path into the design and
operation of the Revised Proposed Project, the Site’s owner/operator will
assume responsibility for maintaining this path on the Project Site and will
preserve public access to the path from the southern property line to the
intersection with the path to the Village Hall/Fire Department property. The
internal Site sidewalk system would connect to the southern end of this
3 Appendix M describes the potential for the Revised Proposed Project to incorporate landbanked parking.
Chapter 1: Revised Proposed Project
DRAFT 1-15 11/18/2020
the Revised Proposed Project, there is forecast to be excess demand of 720 AL beds, 319 memory
care beds, and 1,417 IL units.
1.6. FURTHER REDUCED DENSITY IMPACT COMPARISON
The Lead Agency requested that the Applicant describe and analyze the potential environmental
impacts of reducing the density of the Revised Proposed Project by an additional ten units in the
Independent Living use. Appendix M provides this description and a summary of the relevant
differences in potential environmental impacts from the Revised Proposed Project.
900 King Street Redevelopment
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.1
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.
1 The Lead Agency requested that the Applicant describe and analyze the potential environmental impacts
of reducing the density of the Revised Proposed Project by an additional ten units in the Independent
Living use. Appendix M provides this description and a summary of the relevant differences in potential
environmental impacts from the Revised Proposed Project.
11/18/2020
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-31
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.7 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. In correspondence with the Applicant and the Village, tThe
Town’s Tax Assessor has estimated the Revised Proposed Project’s assessed value at
$5548,000,000. 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.
As shown in Table 2.9-1, if the Revised Proposed Project is assessed at $5548,000,000,
the Project Site would be estimated to generate approximately $2.32 03 million per year
in property taxes, which is approximately $1.78 48 million more than the Site currently
7 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.
11/18/2020
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
2-32 DRAFT
generates. Of this, $469,187409,472 would go to the Village, which is an increase of
$358,288298,574 from the revenue currently generated, and $1,627,1501,420,058 would
go to the BBRUFSD, representing an increase of $1,242,551035,459 from the current
revenue generated by the Project Site.
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 $48,000,000
$55,000,000
$409,472
$469,187
$298,574
$358,288
BBRUFSD 29.584546 $13,000,000 $384,599 $48,000,000
$55,000,000
$1,420,058
$1,627,150
$1,035,459
$1,242,551
Westchester
County 3.174954 $13,000,000 $41,274 $48,000,000
$55,000,000
$152,398
$174,622
$111,123
$133,348
Town of Rye 0.140742 $13,000,000 $1,830 $48,000,000
$55,000,000
$6,756
$7,741
$4,926
$5,911
Blind Brook
Sewer 0.573843 $13,000,000 $7,460 $48,000,000
$55,000,000
$27,544
$31,561
$20,085
$24,101
Solid Waste 0.264324 $13,000,000 $3,436 $48,000,000
$55,000,000
$12,688
$14,538
$9,251
$11,102
Total 42.269082 $13,000,000 $549,498 $48,000,000
$55,000,000
$2,028,916
$2,324,800
$1,479,418
$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.
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
11/18/2020
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-33
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 $22,204,09323,787,923,
which is approximately 40.449.6 percent of the estimated assessed value of the Revised
Proposed Project as estimated by 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. Based on the Town Tax Assessor’s estimate of the
Revised Proposed Project’s assessed value, the Village would receive $358,288298,574
more in property taxes per year from the Project Site than it does at present. This would
create an annual surplus of $273,006213,292 for the Village after accounting for increases
in Village costs. The BBRUFSD would receive a substantial increase in tax revenue (i.e.,
$1.24 04 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
11/18/2020
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
2-34 DRAFT
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
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 $358,288298,574 to the Village of Rye
Brook) would more than cover this potential increase in the Village’s
municipal contribution to the EMS service (approximately $1,785).
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.8 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
8 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.
11/18/2020
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-37
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 approximately $107,500.11 However, the “fully loaded” cost of a
patrolman, including benefits, is approximately $225,750.12 As described in
Section 2.9, “Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts,” the Revised Proposed
Project is expected to result in an increase of approximately $358,288298,574
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
11 Correspondence from the RBPD indicated that there are 26 sworn officers. The fiscal year 2017 budget,
available on the Village’s website, lists the total salary by officer rank. The number of officers by rank
was estimated based on the total of 26 officers and assuming an increase in salary for each level of rank.
This yields a total of 16 patrolmen, 2 patrolmen/detectives, 6 sergeants, 1 lieutenant, and 1 chief.
12 Employee benefits are assumed to be 1.1 times the cost of the salary, the rate reflected in the 2017 Village
budget. Therefore, the “fully loaded” cost of an employee would be 2.1 times their salary.
11/18/2020
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-43
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
approximately $358,288298,574. 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.
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 2019-2020 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,”
based on the Town Tax Assessor’s estimate, the Revised Proposed Project would generate
$469,187409,472 in property taxes to the Village each year. This is a $358,288298,574
11/18/2020
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
2-44 DRAFT
annual increase from the taxes currently generated by the Site, resulting in an annual
surplus to the Village of $273,006213,292 after accounting for potential increased Village
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.
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
11/18/2020
Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis
2-52 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.
11/18/2020
900 King Street Redevelopment
DRAFT 2-53
Appendix M describes the potential to develop landbanked parking on the Project Site.
As described therein, the Applicant has identified areas on-Site that are not currently
designated for parking, but that could be converted to parking in the future if, based on
studies of actual parking usage, additional parking for the Project is required.
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
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
11/18/2020
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-57
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 Town of Rye Tax Assessor’s estimate
of the Revised Proposed Project’s assessed value, it is estimated that, upon project
stabilization, the project would annually generate approximately $1.78 48 million
more in tax revenue than the Project Site currently generates, including a $1.24
04 million annual increase in revenue to the BBRUFSD and $358,288298,574 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
$358,288298,574.
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY TAXES
Comment 66: Comments were received questioning the validity of the DEIS’ statement that in
the Future without the Proposed Project (the “No Build” condition) the assessed
value of the Project Site would continue to decline. The commenter notes that the
Applicant has stated, when commenting on another office building in the Village,
that it has a strong office market. (Snyder 007, Schlank 060)
Snyder 007 (#71): The DEIS states that in the future without the project (the "No Build"
condition), the assessed value would be expected to decline. In light of the applicant’s
own statement in the attached Applicant’s Article, that does not have to be the case. The
applicant has noted in the Applicant’s Article that Rye Brook has a strong office market
and that with marketing, re-occupancy of the existing office building has potential. It may
be that the applicant will have to perform upgrades to its building, like was done with The
Atrium building at Westchester Avenue. Again, it is respectfully submitted that this Board
should halt further review of the proposal in its current form and encourage the applicant
to pursue the No Action alternative.
11/18/2020
900 King Street Redevelopment
3-58 DRAFT
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 Town of Rye Tax Assessor
has estimated that the Revised Proposed Project would have an assessed value of
$5548,000,000. 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 this estimated assessed
value.
Comment 68: The Village’s Planning Consultant stated that, “The loss per year of tax revenue
was incorrectly calculated. The loss of $65,000 in revenue took place over 5 years,
not 1 year. The FEIS should provide the correct calculations.” (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#147): The loss per year of tax revenue was incorrectly calculated. The
loss of $65,000 in revenue took place over 5 years, not 1 year. The FEIS should provide
the correct calculations.
Response 68: This comment refers to the decrease in annual property tax revenue generated by
the Project Site since 2013. As stated in Section 9.2.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” of the
DEIS, “the property tax revenue generated by the Project Site has decreased by
11/18/2020
900 King Street Redevelopment
3-68 DRAFT
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 incentivizes a small
number of Village senior citizens that might not otherwise have wanted to move
to sell their houses to families with children, it would not be expected to adversely
affect the BBRUFSD. As discussed in Section 10.3.1, “Schools: Existing
Conditions,” of the DEIS, enrollment within BBRUFSD declined by 90
students—or 6 percent—between the 2014–2015 school year and the 2017–2018
school year. According to the BBRUFSD, enrollment is anticipated to continue
to decline slightly during the next few years. Therefore, even with the anticipated
increase in school-age children within the district as a result of the Kingfield
development, there would still be sufficient capacity to serve new students to the
district. With respect to the financial costs associated with potential new school
children, it is noted that the Revised Proposed Project would generate
approximately $1.24 04 million more per year in property tax revenue to the
BBRUFSD than the Site does currently. This would be enough to cover the costs
of 44 36 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
11/18/2020