HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.07.2021 900 King Street Draft Findings StatementDraft 1/7/2021
LEAD AGENCY FINDINGS STATEMENT
State Environmental Quality Review Act
This Findings Statement has been prepared in accordance with Article 8 of the
Environmental Conservation Law, the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA),
and its implementing regulations promulgated at 6 NYCRR Part 617.
Lead Agency: Board of Trustees, Village of Rye Brook (Village Board)
Address: Village Hall
938 King Street
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Name of Proposed Action: 900 King Street Redevelopment
SEQRA Classification: Type I Action
Summary of Proposed
Action: The Applicant proposes to redevelop the approximately 17.77-acre
property with an integrated age-restricted residential community that
includes independent living, assisted living, and age-restricted
residential townhouse units. The Project proposes 231 residential units,
including 126 independent living (IL) units, 20 townhouse units, and
85 assisted living (AL) units. The community is anticipated to be
owned and operated by a single entity that would offer the various units
for rent. Residency within the community is proposed to be restricted
to those 62 years old or older.
To facilitate the proposed redevelopment, the Applicant has
petitioned for a text amendment to the PUD zoning regulations to
allow additional density on the Site, as well as other changes. The
Applicant has also petitioned for a text amendment to Chapter 158
of the Village Code regarding the time periods during which
construction activities may occur.
Location: The Project Site is designated as 900 King Street within the Village
of Rye Brook, County of Westchester, New York (Tax Map Parcel
No. 129.68-1-13).
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
900 King Street Owner, LLC (the “Applicant”) proposes to construct an integrated, age-restricted
residential community (the “Proposed Project”) that would replace the existing, largely vacant,
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 2 of 71
office building and surface parking lot at 900 King Street (the “Project Site” or the “Site”) in the
Village of Rye Brook (the “Village”), New York. To effectuate its proposal, the Applicant has
petitioned the Village Board of Trustees (the “Lead Agency” or “Village Board”) to amend the Rye
Brook Zoning Code to include a section entitled, 900 King Street Planned Unit Development, as
Section 250-7(E)(6) (“Proposed Zoning”). The Applicant has also petitioned the Lead Agency to
amend Chapter 158 of the Village Code to allow construction activities to begin earlier than 8:00 a.m
at the discretion of the Village Board (“Proposed Local Law”). The Proposed Project, Proposed
Zoning and Proposed Local Law are together referred as the Proposed Action.
A description of the Proposed Action is presented below. While the descriptions below are based
on the actions as proposed by the Applicant, the Lead Agency has made modifications to the
Proposed Action and to certain Applicant-proposed mitigation measures, and has added additional
mitigation measures, in order to avoid or mitigate significant adverse impacts to the maximum
extent practicable through this Statement of Findings. These modifications were based on the
administrative record of the Applicant’s petition, including but not limited to the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”), the Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”),
and the comments from the public and agencies.
PROJECT SITE
The Project Site is located at 900 King Street in the Village and is approximately 17.77 acres. The
Site is bounded to the north by the Hutchinson River Parkway (the “Parkway”), to the east by the
Rye Brook Police Department (RBPD), Rye Brook Fire Department (RBFD), Village Hall, and
approximately 168 feet along King Street (NYS Rt. 120A), to the south by Arbor Drive, Harkness
Park, and the Blind Brook Middle School and High School, and to the west by The Arbors
townhouse community. Access to the Site is from Arbor Drive, which connects to King Street at
a signalized intersection. Arbor Drive is a private street, owned by The Arbors Homeowner’s
Association. The Project Site is the beneficiary of an easement, allowing the Project Site to access
an improved Arbor Drive. The Project Site, The Arbors, and Harkness Park are within the Village’s
Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district. The schools, municipal buildings, the Parkway,
and the area to the north are within residential zoning districts (e.g., R-15 and R-20).
PROPOSED ZONING
This section summarizes the zoning proposed by the Applicant to effectuate the redevelopment of
the Project Site. In response to comments from the public, Involved and Interested Agencies, and
Village officials, staff, and consultants, the Applicant modified the zoning proposed in its original
petition and DEIS with what is known as the “Revised Proposed Zoning” in the FEIS. The FEIS
evaluated the potential impacts of the Revised Proposed Zoning, which is summarized below.
The Revised Proposed Zoning would add a new site-specific section to the Rye Brook Zoning
Code as Section 250-7(E)(6), entitled 900 King Street Planned Unit Development. Specifically,
the Revised Proposed Zoning would include the following:
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 3 of 71
Permit only the “senior living facility” use on the Project Site, except as otherwise
allowed by the existing PUD zoning for other sites in the Village;
Establish site-specific density standards for the proposed “senior living facility”;
Establish site-specific setback and area requirements for the Project Site, including
a front-yard setback of 42 feet, a side yard setback of 84 feet, and a rear yard setback
of 30 feet;
Establish a maximum gross land coverage for the Project Site of 40 percent; and,
Increase the maximum permitted height of senior living facilities from 35 feet to
45 feet.
In response to comments, the Revised Proposed Zoning made the following changes from the
original zoning proposed in the DEIS:
The Applicant is no longer requesting that the Village change the minimum age for
residents of senior living facilities from 62 years old to 55 years old. The Applicant is now
proposing a 62-year and older community;
The site-specific density standard for the proposed “senior living facility” has been reduced
to match the corresponding decrease in the density of the Revised Proposed Project
(“Revised Proposed Project” is defined below); and,
The site-specific setback and area requirements have been modified to match the changes
to the revised project.
PROPOSED PROJECT
The Proposed Project includes construction of an integrated age-restricted residential community that
includes IL, AL, and age-restricted residential townhouse units. The Proposed Project would include
231 residential units, including 126 IL units, 20 townhouse units, and 85 AL units. The community is
anticipated to be owned and operated by a single entity that would offer the various units for rent.
Residency within the community is proposed to be restricted to those 62 years old or older—a change
from the DEIS, which proposed a community restricted to those 55 years old and older.
To construct the Proposed Project, the existing 215,000 sf office building and 5.3-acre surface
parking lot on the Project Site would be removed. Construction of the Proposed Project would occur
on the portions of the Project Site that have been previously disturbed by prior development. The
Proposed Project would not disturb the existing vegetation in the western portion of the Project Site,
between the Project Site and The Arbors.
As was the case with the zoning, the Applicant modified the project originally proposed in its petition
and analyzed in the DEIS. In the FEIS, this project was referred to as the “Revised Proposed Project.”
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 4 of 71
SEQRA allows for, and in principle encourages, applicants to modify projects in response to public
comment on the DEIS, so long as those modifications, and any potential environmental impacts
of those modifications, are described and analyzed in the FEIS, which they were. The principal
modifications from the original project include the following:
Raising the age restriction for residents of the Proposed Project from 55 years old
and older to 62 years old and older, consistent with the existing Site zoning;
Reducing the proposed gross square feet (gsf) of the Proposed Project by 99,098
square feet (sf), a 20 percent reduction in size, through:
- Reducing the number of proposed IL units by 24 units (15 percent) from 160 to
136;
- Reducing the average IL unit size by 100 sf, or 8 percent;
- Reducing the number of two- and three-bedroom IL units and increasing the
percentage of one-bedroom IL units, thereby reducing the total number of
bedrooms in the IL building by 22 percent;
- Reducing the size of the amenity and common spaces in the IL and AL
building; and,
- Reducing the number of townhouse units by 16.7 percent from 24 units to
20 units.
Increasing the setback of the IL building from Arbor Drive and from The Arbors,
as follows:
- Increasing the setback of the three-story portion of the IL building an
additional 31 feet from Arbor Drive, for a total setback of 147 feet, and an
additional 86 feet from The Arbors, for a total setback of 550 feet from the
property line with The Arbors; and
- Increasing the setback of the four-story portion of the IL building an
additional 30 feet from the Arbors, for a total setback of 494 feet from the
property line with The Arbors.
Reducing the height of the IL roof closest to The Arbors to reduce the potential for
visual impacts;
Increasing the setback of the townhouses from The Arbors;
Reconfiguring the interior layout of the proposed age-restricted townhouses to
relocate the master bedroom to the first floor to more clearly meet the needs of the
residents;
Reducing the amount of grading required during construction as well as reducing
the amount of fill material required to be imported to the Site by lowering the
elevation of the finished floor of the IL and AL building by 18 inches and by
reconfiguring the layout and reducing the number of townhouses; and
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 5 of 71
Expanding the on-Site pedestrian path system by 5,690 liner feet and providing an
enhanced landscape program, most notably along Arbor Drive. As a result of the
reduction in the size of the IL and AL building and the increased setback of that
building from Arbor Drive, the landscaped area was extended approximately 25
feet “deeper” in the Project Site providing additional screening of the IL building
from Arbor Drive.
As part of the FEIS, and at the request of the Lead Agency, the Applicant also developed a “Further
Reduced Alternative,” which is substantially similar to the Revised Proposed Project. The only
difference is that the Further Reduced Alternative included ten fewer IL units than the Revised
Proposed Project and, subsequently, an IL/AL building that is approximately 10,000 gsf smaller
than the Revised Proposed Project.
As described below, the Lead Agency finds that the Further Reduced Alternative minimizes
environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable consistent with social, economic
and other essential considerations. Therefore, this Statement of Findings describes the
program and impacts of this alternative, which is referred to as the “Further Reduced
Alternative” or the “Proposed Project.”
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. LAND USE, PUBLIC POLICY, AND ZONING
1. Impacts Identified
a. 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 currently permitted in the zoning code.
The area within ½-mile of the Project Site consists primarily of detached single-
family residential uses, with some exceptions, most notably adjacent to the Project
Site. Immediately to the south of the Project Site is the Blind Brook Middle School
and High School. The approximately 21-acre campus serves grades 6–12 and
includes a Middle School and High School building and gymnasium, multiple
baseball and football fields, a track, and various small ancillary buildings.
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 6 of 71
The Applicant proposes to construct an age-restricted residential campus on the
Project Site, defined by the Village zoning code as a “senior living facility.” The
proposed use is permitted within the existing PUD zoning district.
b. Zoning
The Project Site is located within the Village’s PUD zoning district. The Site is part
of a larger PUD, one of three within the Village, which was established between 1979
and 1981 when the Site was under the zoning jurisdiction of the Town of Rye and
prior to the establishment of the Village. The PUD, which includes the Project Site,
The Arbors, and Harkness Park, is reflected on the Rye Brook Zoning Map as a PUD
but, unlike other PUDs within the Village, there is no specific reference to the
regulatory requirements adopted in connection with this PUD. For example, for the
BelleFair PUD, the Rye Brook Zoning Map references a specific local law, which
established the PUD and set up the regulatory program, including permitted uses,
density, and bulk and area requirements.
The Village’s current PUD regulations allow residential, office, senior living, and
retail uses. As such, the Revised Proposed Zoning would not change the allowable
uses on the Project Site. Rather, the Proposed Zoning includes changes to the
allowable height and density of senior living facilities on the Project Site.
Specifically, the Proposed Zoning includes the following provisions:
Permit only the “senior living facility” use on the Project Site, except as
otherwise allowed by the existing PUD zoning for other sites in the Village;
Establish site-specific density standards for the proposed “senior living
facility”;
Establish site-specific setback and area requirements for the Project Site,
including a front-yard setback of 42 feet, a side yard setback of 84 feet, and
a rear yard setback of 30 feet;
Establish a maximum gross land coverage for the Project Site of 40 percent;
and,
Increase the maximum permitted height of senior living facilities from 35
feet to 45 feet.
The Further Reduced Alternative would be consistent with the relevant general
recommendations of the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the project
would:
Promote sustainable development; encourage a stable and enduring
economic base; provide for safety health and education; preserve the natural
cultural, recreational, and historic assets of the Village; enhance the design
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 7 of 71
of the built environment; and serve as an example of smart-growth
development.
Enhance the quality of life of Village residents, business, interest groups,
and future generations.
Promote diversity of housing choices.
Provided affordable dwelling units.
The Village’s Comprehensive Plan makes site-specific recommendations for the
Project Site. In summary, the Further Reduced Alternative would be consistent with
the site-specific recommendations of the Village’s Comprehensive Plan in the
following ways:
The Project would reposition a property that is improved with an office
building that has a long history of vacancy. The Further Reduced
Alternative would provide tax revenues to the Village and other taxing
jurisdictions without burdening the Blind Brook-Rye Union Free School
District.
The Revised Proposed Zoning would allow for four-story, age-restricted
housing buildings that are designed to avoid potential visual impacts and
would reduce parking requirements for AL units in recognition that these
facilities are low traffic generators.
2. Mitigation Provided
a. In response to comments from the Lead Agency and the community, and to
minimize the potential for adverse impacts, the Applicant reduced the size
and density of the Proposed Project from the project originally proposed.
Specifically, the Applicant reduced the size of the project by at least
99,0988 sf through reductions in the number of IL and Townhouse units,
reductions in the average IL unit size, reductions in the number of IL
bedrooms, and reductions in the size of the IL and AL building’s common
and amenity spaces. The Applicant also reduced the density of the project
through reductions in the number of IL units and townhouses. Specifically,
the Applicant reduced the number of proposed IL units by 34 units from
160 to 126 and reduced the number of townhouses by 4 units from 24 to 20
units. As shown in the following Table, as compared to other residential
communities in the Village, the Further Reduced Alternative is less dense
than The Atria, Rye Brook (both in terms of sf per acre and number of units
per acre) and less dense than the Doral Green PUD (in terms of square feet
per acre).
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 8 of 71
Table
Comparative Project Density
Development
Dwelling Units
per 5,000 sf
Dwelling Units
per Acre
Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Square feet
per Acre
Average Unit
Size (sf)
The Arbors 0.8 6.9 0.37 15,900 2,304
The Atria, Rye Brook 3.9 34.1 1.11 48,352 ukn
Doral Green 0.9 7.9 0.54 23,369 2,943
Sun Homes 0.4 3.6 0.28 12,109 3,364
Further Reduced
Alternative
0.95
(1.49)*
8.3
(13.0)* 0.45 19,466
±1,127 (IL)
2,072 (TH)
647 (AL)
PUD with Further
Reduced
Alternative
0.75
(0.92)*
6.5
(8.0)* 0.35 15,242 ±1,895
(±1,685)*
Note: * Includes dwelling units and AL units
b. In response to public comments and comments from the Lead Agency, and
to reduce the potential for adverse impacts, the Revised Proposed Zoning
includes two notable changes to the zoning originally proposed. First, the
Applicant no longer is requesting to lower the minimum age for residents
of senior living facilities from 62 years old to 55 years old. Second, the
Applicant has reduced the gross floor area and number of units permitted
by the Proposed Zoning. The Revised Proposed Zoning would only apply
to senior living facilities on the Project Site and would not change the
regulations governing any other use in the Village’s PUD, including
residential, office, conference center, or retail. The Revised Proposed
Zoning would not permit an increase in density for non-age-restricted
residential uses. Further, the Further Reduced Alternative tracks closely
with the requirements of the Revised Proposed Zoning. That is, the Revised
Proposed Zoning would not allow the development of a project on the
Project Site that is meaningfully different from the Further Reduced
Alternative in terms of the number of units proposed for the senior living
facility and each component thereof, the amount of impervious land
coverage, the height of the buildings, or the required yards. As discussed
above, the Revised Proposed Zoning does not fundamentally change the
nature of the uses that would be allowed on-Site from what is currently
allowed on-Site under the existing provisions of the Village Zoning Code.
3. Findings and Conditions
Specifically, the Village Board finds that:
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 9 of 71
a. The Lead Agency finds that the Further Reduced Alternative is consistent
with the land uses within the study area. That is, a senior living facility,
which is a residential use, is compatible with both the non-age-restricted
residential uses and the institutional uses adjacent to the Site.
b. The Lead Agency finds that the density permitted by the Revised Proposed
Zoning and included in the Further Reduced Alternative is consistent with
the other village residential developments and is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. In making these findings, the Lead Agency notes that
the appropriate density of age-restricted housing should be considered in
the context of the potential impacts of that housing as compared to market-
rate housing as the two types of housing have significantly different on- and
off-Site impacts. That is, age-restricted housing should be regulated
differently than traditional market-rate housing. The Lead Agency also
finds that the density of the Further Reduced Alternative is appropriate for
the Project Site. The Lead Agency bases this finding on the site-specific
environmental review of the Further Reduced Alternative and notes that
density should be calibrated not only based on the specific use proposed,
but also the location of that use.
c. With respect to off-Site zoning districts within the study area, the Lead
Agency finds that the Proposed Zoning would not adversely impact the
existing zoning districts within the study area. Specifically, the amendments
requested do not fundamentally change the nature of the uses allowed on-
Site and do not introduce any permanent adverse environmental impacts to
the community that would undermine the continued viability of the zoning
districts within the study area.
d. Consistent with the Village Board’s existing authority to establish site
specific PUD buffer standards, pursuant to Section 250-7E(2)(e)[1][d] of
the Zoning Code, the Revised Proposed Zoning explicitly states that Site
Plans in conformance with the site-specific yard requirements established
by the Revised Proposed Zoning shall also be deemed to have an adequate
PUD buffer. Pursuant to this authority, the Lead Agency finds that the
Further Reduced Alternative does have an adequate PUD buffer as the
proposed development complies with the yard requirements of the Revised
Proposed Zoning and those yard requirements provide a significant setback
from the existing residences at The Arbors, as well as adequate setbacks
from other adjacent and nearby uses such as the Hutchinson River Parkway,
Blind Brook Middle/High School and Village Hall.
e. The Proposed Zoning does not propose changes to the Village’s regulations
with regard to the provision of fair and affordable housing or adequate parks
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 10 of 71
and open space. As required by Section 209-3F of the Village Code, the
Further Reduced Alternative would include 15 affordable dwelling units, as
defined in Section 250-26.1D of the Village Code. These dwelling units
would be provided in both the townhouses and IL facility in proportion to the
total number, and type, of market-rate units.
f. Section 250-7E(2)(f) of the Village Code requires that 10 percent of a PUD
site be offered and dedicated to the Village for recreational use or a fee in lieu
of providing such land be paid to the Village. This provision of the Village
Code applies to a PUD site as a whole at the time that it is mapped as a PUD,
and not to individual lots within a PUD site, including the Project Site. At
that time the PUD was approved and mapped by the Town of Rye, Harkness
Park satisfied this requirement. As described in more detail below, the
Village retains its authority to require the provision of adequate recreational
facilities on the Project Site, or require payment of a fee in lieu, at such time
as the Site is redeveloped pursuant to its authority under Section 209-15 of
the Village Code.
g. The Lead Agency finds that the Revised Proposed Zoning is consistent with
the legislative intent of the PUD. Specifically, with respect to the purposes
of the PUD district as codified in §250-7E(1):
The Revised Proposed Zoning would not introduce any new uses to
the PUD zoning district. In addition, the Further Reduced
Alternative would remove a large commercial office building from
the Project Site, consistent with the legislative intent of providing
“limited commercial” uses within the PUD.
The Further Reduced Alternative would conserve natural resources
and preserve open space by focusing development within an area that
has been disturbed by prior development.
h. The Project Site is within the Village’s Scenic Roads Overlay District
(SROD). The SROD, codified in Section 250-7F of the Zoning Code, was
“established for the purpose of preserving the Village of Rye Brook’s
historic resources, stone walls, natural features and views from its
roadways…” The Lead Agency finds that the Further Reduced Alternative
would be consistent with the requirements of the SROD. Specifically, and
for the reasons set forth in the DEIS, the Further Reduced Alternative
would:
Include a setback of 330 feet from King Street, the street frontage
regulated by the SROD, which would be maintained in its current
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 11 of 71
condition, consisting of dense wooded vegetation, as part of a future
site plan approval;
Maintain the approximate location of the building signage along
King Street;
Not include above-ground utility equipment within 35 feet of King
Street;
Not include parking within the SROD vegetative buffer; and,
Not include earth moving within the SROD vegetative buffer.
i. The Lead Agency finds that the Further Reduced Alternative is consistent
with Westchester County’s (the “County”) various land use policies.
Specifically, the Further Reduced Alternative is consistent with the
County’s 1996 Patterns for Westchester plan by redeveloping an existing
built site with convenient access to transportation instead of developing a
greenfield; being consistent with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan;
providing affordable housing for seniors; and protecting of the character of
the Village.
j. The Lead Agency finds that the Further Reduced Alternative is also
consistent with Westchester 2025, a County-wide planning effort.
Specifically, the Further Reduced Alternative redevelops an existing built
site and preserves natural resources by not developing a greenfield. Finally,
the Lead Agency finds that the Further Reduced Alternative is consistent
with the Westchester County Greenway Compact Plan, which was adopted
by the Village. Specifically, as recommended by the Compact Plan, the
Further Reduced Alternative would not result in significant adverse impacts
to natural or cultural resources, is consistent with regional planning goals,
and would promote economic development.
k. The Village has adopted policies and zoning provisions that encourage the
development of Fair and Affordable Housing. As discussed above, the
Further Reduced Alternative is fully consistent with these policies and
would be compliant with all zoning regulations with respect to the provision
of affordable housing. Specifically, as required by Section 209-3F of the
Village Code, the Further Reduced Alternative would include 14 affordable
dwelling units, as defined in Section 250-26.1D of the Village Code. One
of these units would be within the Further Reduced Alternative’s
townhouses, which are proposed to be the same size. The balance of the
affordable units, 13 units, would be within the IL building. The same
proportion of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units would be made available
under the Village’s affordable housing program as are provided in the IL
building. The Lead Agency finds that the inclusion of affordable units at the
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 12 of 71
level proposed is consistent with the Village’s existing statutory
requirements as well as the Village’s policy to encourage the development
of Fair and Affordable Housing.
l. The Lead Agency finds that the Further Reduced Alternative would be
consistent with the relevant general recommendations of the Village’s
Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Further Reduced Alternative would:
Promote sustainable development, encourage a stable and enduring
economic base, provide for safety health and education, preserve the
natural cultural, recreational, and historic assets of the Village,
enhance the design of the built and natural environment, and serve
as an example of smart-growth development.
Enhance the quality of life of Village residents, business, interest
groups, and future generations.
Promote a diversity of housing choices.
Include 14 affordable dwelling units.
m. The Village’s Comprehensive Plan makes several site-specific
recommendations for the Project Site. The Lead Agency finds that the
Further Reduced Alternative is consistent with those recommendations as
summarized below:
The Further Reduced Alternative would reposition a property that is
improved with an office building with a long history of vacancy.
The Further Reduced Alternative would provide significant tax
revenues to the Village and other taxing jurisdictions, including the
BBRUFSD, while placing no additional burden on the BBRUFSD.
The Proposed Zoning would allow for four-story age-restricted
housing buildings that are carefully controlled to avoid potential
visual impacts and would reduce the parking requirements for AL
units in recognition that these facilities are extremely low traffic
generators.
n. The Comprehensive Plan also recommends that the Village “[a]djust the
density requirement for residential uses [within PUD districts] to a less
restrictive regulation that still maintains Rye Brook’s low-density
character.” The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Village’s single family
zoning districts as “low density,” allowing up to one unit per 5,000 s.f. of
lot area. Low- to medium-density is generally recognized as allowing two
units per 5,000 s.f. of lot area. Medium- to high-density is defined as
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 13 of 71
attached housing, regardless of the number of units per lot area. While the
Proposed Project includes attached housing, it proposes a density of less
than one unit per 5,000 s.f. of lot area (if the AL units are included in the
density, the figure increases to 1.49 units per 5,000 s.f. of lot area).
However, age-restricted housing is not a direct apples-to-apples comparison
to market rate housing when evaluating impacts. For example, an age-
restricted residential community tends to generate fewer vehicle trips than
a market-rate development. Thus, the Lead Agency finds that the Further
Reduced Alternative, inclusive of the reduction in density from the original
project, is consistent with this goal of the Comprehensive Plan to “maintain
Rye Brook’s low density character” and appropriately balances this goal
with the other goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the potential site-
specific environmental impacts of the Further Reduced Alternative.
B. Geology, Soils, and Topography
1. Impacts Identified
a. The overwhelming majority of the area within the proposed Limit of
Disturbance (“LOD”) for the Further Reduced Alternative is within areas
disturbed by the current office building and parking lot. By concentrating
development activity in areas previously disturbed by construction, the
Further Reduced Alternative avoids and minimizes impacts to mature
vegetation, native soils, and native topography to the maximum extent
practicable. For example, the soils proposed to be disturbed are classified
as “Urban Fill.” This classification is the consequence of prior disturbance
through mass grading and building construction. The majority of proposed
steep slopes disturbance occurs on human-made steep slopes, including
those around the existing stormwater basin on the Site’s eastern edge and
the vegetated slope towards the Site’s western edge.
b. As was the case with the original project, it is not anticipated that rock
blasting would be required to accommodate the construction of the
subsurface infiltration practices or subsurface parking areas with the Further
Reduced Alternative. Competent rock is not expected within 11 feet of the
bottom of the garage, which based upon the current design, would be the
lowest excavation. Bedrock height can be unpredictable but from the
accessible information, no blasting or rock crushing is anticipated during
construction. As rock blasting, rock crushing, rock chipping, and pile
driving are not anticipated during construction, on-site materials processing
will not be necessary.
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 14 of 71
c. The grading for the Proposed Project was designed to create a relatively
level Site. Age-restricted residential communities seek to provide
pedestrian paths and sidewalks with minimal slope so residents can easily
walk throughout the Site. The Proposed Project includes “raising” the
elevation of the eastern side of the Site to level the terrain. The proposed
grading also allows for underground parking, which in addition to reducing
the adverse visual impact of expansive surface parking lot, reduces the
amount of impervious cover on the Site and concomitant potential for
adverse stormwater impacts.
2. Mitigation Provided
To further reduce the potential for adverse environmental impacts, the Further
Reduced Alternative reduces the area of the Site within the LOD from 13.21 acres
with the original project to 12.54 acres. In addition, the area of existing steep slope
disturbance on the Site has been reduced from 0.97 acres in the original project to
0.95 acres with the Further Reduced Alternative.
To minimize the impacts of regrading the site, the finished floor elevation of the IL
and AL building and the underground parking garage, has been lowered by 18
inches, significantly reducing the amount of fill required for the Further Reduced
Alternative (±36,426 cubic yards) as compared to the original project (±51,600
cubic yards), resulting in a more “balanced” site in terms of cut and fill (±1,732
cubic yards net export for the Proposed Project compared to ±9,000 cubic yards of
import with the original project).
3. Findings and Conditions
Specifically, the Village Board finds that:
As with the original project, the Further Reduced Alternative would create certain
new areas of steep slope on the Project Site, most notably in areas around the access
ramps to the underground parking area. The Lead Agency finds that these areas of
steep slope are necessary to allow for a grading plan that accommodates the
underground parking, the need for a relatively flat pedestrian experience outside of
the buildings, and the need to meet the existing grades on Arbor Drive at the
driveway connections. Another small area of moderately steep slope would be
created within the landscaped area between the two driveways on Arbor Drive. This
area would provide visual screening of the buildings and Site from Arbor Drive.
The Lead Agency finds that that the grading plan avoids, minimizes, and mitigates
potential adverse impacts to topography to the maximum extent practicable.
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 15 of 71
C. Waters and Wetlands
1. Impacts Identified
Five wetlands meeting the three requirements for wetland identification were
located on the Project Site based on wetland investigations and delineations
performed in accordance with Federal and Village standards. The on-Site wetlands
and/or streams are created and sustained by untreated stormwater runoff from the
adjacent Hutchinson River Parkway (the “Parkway”) or by stormwater from
impervious surfaces conveyed from Village Hall, Rye Brook Police Department
(RBPD), and Rye Brook Fire Department (RBFD), and the Project Site. Even
though the wetlands have been classified as having a low ecological value,
dominated by a limited number of common plant species, and are stressed by
untreated stormwater runoff hydrology inputs of short duration, they do serve as
habitat and modification of surface water quality functions. The wetland and
watercourse buffers within the Project Site are currently encroached upon by on-
Site and off-Site developments, including parking lots, roads, buildings, and
manicured lawns.
As with the original project, the Further Reduced Alternative would not fill any
wetland or waterbody. The only activity that would occur within a wetland would
be the clearing and removal of debris within the existing stormwater basin (Wetland
D). The total area of wetland buffer proposed to be disturbed is 2.25 acres.
The hydrology inputs to Wetlands B, C, and E would remain unchanged with the
Further Reduced Alternative and the wetlands would continue to receive surface
water inputs exclusively from the Parkway or paved surfaces off-Site. Drainage
inputs to Wetland D (on-Site detention basin) from on-Site and off-Site sources
would similarly be retained, thereby sustaining the proposed revegetated and
enhanced wetland (e.g., stormwater basin).
The Further Reduced Alternative would reduce the drainage area to Wetland A by
approximately 0.218 acres (a smaller reduction than the 1.0 acre proposed by the
original project), resulting in a small, 3.92 percent, reduction in runoff volume for
the 1- or 2-year storm events (a smaller reduction than the 10–13 percent reduction
proposed with the original project).
2. Mitigation Provided
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 16 of 71
In response to public comments and to reduce potential impacts to wetland buffers
as well as to mitigate the overall impact of the Further Reduced Alternative, in the
Further Reduced Alternative, the total amount of construction proposed within 100
feet of on-Site wetlands has been reduced to 2.25 acres—a reduction of 0.33 acres
(13 percent) from the original project. The majority of this reduction is the result of
reducing the amount of regrading required within the buffer surrounding Wetland
A, the wetland with the greatest ecological value on the Project Site. This reduction
was achieved through the reduction in the number of townhouses proposed as well
as the re-orientation of the townhouses within the Site. Without implementation of
the landbank parking, the Further Reduced Alternative reduces the total amount of
additional impervious area proposed to be created within 100 feet of on-Site
wetlands to 0.173 acres (7,536 square feet) —a reduction of 0.003 acres (130.68
square feet) from the original project.
As was the case with the original project, the proposed SWPPP for the Further
Reduced Alternative includes the use of vegetated swales, subsurface infiltration
systems, reduction in overall site impervious cover, and improvements to the
existing detention basin to manage the Site’s stormwater. These measures will
improve Wetland D’s ability to provide “modification of water quality” and “storm
and floodwater storage” wetland functions and will result in a decrease in post-
construction runoff rates.
To mitigate the impact of the reduced drainage area to Wetland A, the Further
Reduced Alternative, without the landbank parking, would reduce the amount of
impervious surface on the Project Site by 0.71 acres from the current condition and
0.55 acres with the landbank parking. The Further Reduced Alternative’s
stormwater management system would also substantially reduce the influx of
sediment and other pollutants to Wetland A, thereby reducing water quality
stressors that can facilitate the spread of invasive species.
The Further Reduced Alternative includes 4.5 acres of wetland buffer mitigation—
two times the amount of wetland buffer being affected by construction of the
Further Reduced Alternative, consistent with the requirements of the Village’s
Wetland Ordinance. The Applicant has identified approximately 2.4 acres of area
on-Site that could serve as wetland buffer mitigation areas. The Applicant’s
wetland buffer mitigation plan for these areas, which would be formally submitted
to the Planning Board for review and approval of a wetland permit during the site
plan approval process, would include a mixture of the following elements:
Replanting select areas within wetland buffers that would be re-
graded with a diverse mix of woody and herbaceous hydrophytic
(i.e., wetland) vegetation;
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 17 of 71
Selectively planting areas within the wetland buffer that would not
be disturbed by the Further Reduced Alternative with native plants
to increase floristic diversity and wetland functions; and,
Removal of invasive species within select areas of the on-Site
wetland buffers.
The Applicant proposes that the other 2.1 acres of mitigation that is required be
located off-Site in areas identified by the Village’s Superintendent of Public Works
and approved by the Planning Board. It is noted that implementation of landbank
parking, whether in the area preliminarily identified by the Applicant, or other areas
identified during Site Plan review, would be within areas that would otherwise be
disturbed with the Further Reduced Alternative. That is, no new areas on the Project
Site within 100 feet of a wetland (or anywhere else on the Site) would be disturbed
as a result of constructing landbank parking.
3. Findings and Conditions
a. The Lead Agency finds that this small reduction in runoff volume would
have minimal indirect impacts to Wetland A, which would continue to
receive adequate surface and unchanged groundwater inputs considering its
depressional landscape position and small size.
b. The Lead Agency finds that the increase in impervious surfaces within the
wetland buffer as a result of the Further Reduced Alternative, with or
without the landbank parking, is not a significant adverse impact owing to
the relatively small amount of increase, as well as the fact that impervious
surfaces within the wetland buffers with the most ecological value are being
reduced from the existing condition. The Lead Agency further finds that the
0.71 acre reduction of impervious area within the Site as a whole without
the landbank parking, and 0.55 acre reduction with the landbank parking is
a beneficial impact of the Further Reduced Alternative without the landbank
parking.
c. The Lead Agency finds that the Further Reduced Alternative would not
adversely impact the ecological functions of the Site’s wetland buffers.
Both Wetlands A and D would realize a net decrease in the amount of
impervious surface within their 100-foot Village-regulated wetland buffers
from the current condition. Wetland A would have a 0.025 acre reduction
of impervious surface within its wetland buffer as a result of removing the
existing building and Wetland D would have a 0.151 acre reduction of
impervious surface within its buffer as a result of removing the existing
parking lot. The Lead Agency finds that this is a substantial benefit of the
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 18 of 71
Further Reduced Alternative, which will allow for additional infiltration of
runoff in the buffers and a reduction in surface water pollutants entering
these wetlands.
d. While the Buffers surrounding Wetlands B, C, and E would have slight
increases in impervious areas with the Further Reduced Alternative as
compared with the existing condition, the Lead Agency finds that these
impacts are insignificant for two reasons: (1) Wetlands B, C, and E are of
low ecological value, deriving their hydrology from the discharge of
drainage from the Parkway or other off-Site practices, and (2) the wetland
buffers are dominated by invasive species or manicured lawn and are
heavily disturbed by development. As such, in their current condition, they
provide little in the way of functional benefit to their associated wetlands.
e. With respect to compliance with Chapter 245 of the Village Code, the Lead
Agency finds that the Further Reduced Alternative, inclusive of the
reduction in wetland buffer area disturbance and the reduction in
impervious area within the wetland buffers, generally meets the criteria for
the issuance of a wetland buffer disturbance permit including the factors set
forth at Section 245-8(A) of the Village Code. The Lead Agency notes that
the Village’s Planning Board, consistent with the Village’s Wetland
Ordinance, will evaluate and make the final decision with regard to a
wetland permit in connection with a future site plan application.
f. The Further Reduced Alternative includes 4.5 acres of wetland buffer
mitigation—two times the amount of wetland buffer being affected by
construction of the Further Reduced Alternative, consistent with the
requirements of the Village’s Wetland Ordinance. The Applicant has
identified approximately 2.4 acres of area on-Site that could serve as
wetland buffer mitigation areas. The Applicant proposes that the other 2.1
acres of mitigation that is required be located off-Site in areas identified by
the Village’s Superintendent of Public Works and approved by the Planning
Board.
g. Chapter 245 of the Village Code recommends that projects be located and
designed to minimize impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers. The Lead
Agency finds that the Further Reduced Alternative meets that standard for
the reasons set forth below:
Wetland Buffer A—The area proposed to be disturbed within
Wetland Buffer A consists of manicured lawn, which provides
relatively low levels of wetland buffer functionality, as well as
impervious surface in the form of a portion of the existing building,
which provides no beneficial wetland buffer function. The Further
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 19 of 71
Reduced Alternative would remove the existing portion of the
building within the wetland buffer and replace it with porous surface
(e.g., lawn), which would improve the buffer function from its
current condition. The remainder of the disturbance proposed within
this wetland buffer area would consist of regrading existing areas of
manicured lawn, which would be returned to the same condition. As
such, there would be no change to the existing wetland buffer
function in this area. Importantly, the Further Reduced Alternative
avoids disturbing the wooded area of the wetland buffer, which
currently provides the highest level of ecological value to the
wetlands within the Project Site. Portions of the existing wooded
area of the Wetland Buffer that would not be disturbed would be
selectively planted with native species as part of the proposed
wetland buffer mitigation program.
Wetland Buffers B and C—Wetlands B and C are located primarily
off-Site, within the New York State Department of Transportation
(NYSDOT)-owned right-of-way for the Parkway. The on-Site area
within 100 feet of the wetlands is characterized primarily by
manicured lawn, which provides relatively low levels of wetland
buffer functionality, an asphalt parking lot, which provides no
beneficial wetland buffer function, and, in the northeastern most
corner of the buffer, an area of shrubs and trees. The Further Reduced
Alternative would limit disturbance primarily to the area of the buffer
that is manicured lawn or existing parking lot. Approximately ten
trees within the wetland buffer would be removed. Overall, the
amount of impervious area within 100 feet of Wetlands B and C after
construction of the Further Reduced Alternative would increase by
approximately 0.268 acres, or 11,674 sf, from the current condition
without the landbank parking, and 0.328 acres with the landbank
parking.
The Applicant and the Lead Agency considered an alternate
placement of the proposed IL and AL building that would “slide”
the building and access drive to the south, toward Arbor Drive. With
this alternative configuration, the amount of new construction and
grading within the buffer to Wetlands B and C would be less than
the Further Reduced Alternative. Given the comparatively low
ecological value of Wetlands B and C, as well as the relatively low
functionality of their wetland buffers, and the relative importance of
reducing the visual impacts of the Further Reduced Alternative from
Arbor Drive, the Lead Agency determined that the layout of the
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 20 of 71
Further Reduced Alternative (with the buildings further north)
appropriately balances the need to reduce visual impacts and reduce
adverse impacts to wetland buffers.
Wetland Buffer E—As with the original project, the disturbance to
Wetland Buffer E with the Further Reduced Alternative is solely
attributable to the construction of the secondary, emergency Site
access. The Applicant evaluated the potential for the emergency
access drive to be located in a different location that would have
fewer impacts to Wetland Buffer E. This alternative location,
however, would have required a steeper driveway connection and
the turning movements into and out of the Site from this driveway
would be more constrained than in the proposed location. For these
reasons, and after consultations with Village staff, the Lead Agency
determined that the proposed location of the emergency access was
the most appropriate.
Wetland/Stream Buffer D/S—Wetland D is a human-made settling
basin that was created to serve as the stormwater detention basin for
the existing 900 King Street improvements, as well as several off-Site
locations (e.g., Village Hall and RBFD firehouse). Off-site areas
within 100-feet of the stormwater basin include a portion of Village
Hall and the Rye Brook Police Department (RBPD) station, the
parking lot for the police station, and a portion of the building
associated with the cell tower on Village property. On-Site,
approximately 0.630 acres of the buffer around Wetland D and
Stream S—the stream that drains the stormwater basin—is improved
with the existing parking lot for 900 King Street. This area provides
no beneficial wetland buffer function. Other portions of the
wetland/stream buffer include areas of maintained lawn and areas of
woody vegetation. In order to comply with current stormwater
regulations, redevelopment of the Project Site requires the expansion
of the existing stormwater basin. (This is true even though the Further
Reduced Alternative Project is reducing the amount of impervious
surfaces on the Project Site from the current condition.) As such,
impacts to the wetland buffer associated with this expansion are not
avoidable. In addition, the stormwater basin and its surrounding area
is in relatively poor ecological health; it is dominated with invasive
species. Therefore, it is necessary to impact the area around the
stormwater basin to improve the current functionality of both the
basin and the buffer.
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 21 of 71
D. Stormwater Management
1. Impacts Identified
The Project Site generally slopes, and surface water runoff generally flows, from north to
south. An existing detention basin (also identified as Wetland D) is located along
the east side of the Project Site. This basin receives stormwater runoff from the
existing building and parking lot, as well as runoff from adjacent Village properties
to the east. Stormwater runoff exits the detention basin and is discharged to the
municipal drainage system below Arbor Drive, through Harkness Park, and then
along the Blind Brook High School driveway to King Street. There are two
easements onto the Project Site containing storm drain lines that drain into the
existing detention basin from Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD property. The Further
Reduced Alternative would result in a decrease in the amount of impervious area
on the Project Site from the current condition of 7.46 acres to 6.75 acres—a
decrease of 0.71 acres of impervious cover from the current condition and 0.3 acres
from the original project. With the implementation of the landbank parking, there
would be an additional 0.16 acres of impervious surface. In order to manage
stormwater runoff from the Further Reduced Alternative, the Applicant’s engineer
prepared a SWPPP in accordance with Chapter 9, Redevelopment Projects of the
New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual and Chapter 217,
Stormwater Management of the Village Code1. As with the original project, the
stormwater management system for the Further Reduced Alternative includes
standard stormwater practices, including vegetated swales, a subsurface infiltration
system, and improvements to the existing stormwater detention basin. To
accommodate an increase in the Site’s main drainage area as a result of proposed
Site grading and layout, the existing stormwater detention basin would be slightly
expanded. In addition to this slight expansion, the Further Reduced Alternative
would enhance the functionality of this basin area by removing overgrown and dead
vegetation, debris, etc.
Two Design Points (DP), which are the same as the existing condition DPs and the
same as were used in the original project, were designated on-Site and convey water
from the Site’s two Proposed Drainage Areas (PDAs). In general, PDA-1 includes the
developed portion of the Site, similar to the existing condition, and the same off-Site
1 The SWPPP in the FEIS was prepared based on an interim site plan (the “pFEIS Plan”) that had the same basic
layout, including the location of the driveways, townhouses, stormwater practices, and buildings; but that had more
impervious surfaces interior to the loop driveway. The Revised Proposed Project and Further Reduced Alternative,
inclusive of the landbank parking, have less impervious surface than the plan in the SWPPP, and those differences
are limited to the interior of the ring road around the IL and AL building. The stormwater practices, both the design
and location, would remain unchanged from the pFEIS Plan to the Further Reduced Alternative. Therefore, the
preliminary SWPPP presented in the FEIS accurately reflects the intended stormwater system for the Further Reduced
Alternative and may be slightly conservative as it accounted for more impervious surface than is currently proposed.
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 22 of 71
areas and “bypass.” PDA-2 would continue to include the western, undeveloped
portion of the Site.
As with the existing condition and the original project, stormwater from the
developed portion of the Site with the Further Reduced Alternative (i.e., PDA-1)
would flow through a piped network into the existing detention basin. However, an
underground infiltration system would be installed to promote infiltration and
improve water quality. The stormwater generated from off-Site locations that
passes through the Project Site would be accommodated with the Further Reduced
Alternative in the same manner as present.
As with the existing condition and the original project, with the Further Reduced
Alternative DP-2 would collect stormwater runoff from the western, undeveloped,
portion of the Project Site, shown as PDA-2. PDA-2 is approximately 0.2 acres
smaller than its corresponding Existing Drainage Area (EDA), EDA-2, due to slight
changes in the grade in the adjacent area.
The existing downstream drainage infrastructure accepting stormwater runoff from
the Site is composed of two separate systems. The first system conveys stormwater
runoff exiting the Site from the southeastern area where Stream S flows beneath
Arbor Drive via an existing 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), (DP-1). From
this point the system continues south underground through Harkness Park. As noted
above, the existing 24-inch RCP under Arbor Drive has a maximum capacity of
58.08 cfs. With the pFEIS Project analyzed as part of the preliminary SWPPP,
during periods of peak flows (e.g., the 50- and 100-year storms), the maximum flow
rate through the 24-inch RCP would be 44.22 cfs and 44.29 cfs, respectively, which
is a reduction from the current maximum flow rate.
2. Mitigation Provided
a. The Further Reduced Alternative utilizes a variety of practices to enhance
stormwater quality and reduce peak rates of runoff associated with the Further
Reduced Alternative. With the implementation of the SWPPP, runoff volumes
would be reduced in all the analyzed storms from the existing condition.
b. The Project Site does not currently have any known stormwater practices with
infiltration to provide water quality and runoff reduction. To further mitigate the
potential for stormwater impacts, the preliminary SWPPP for the includes practices
that enhance water quality and provide runoff reduction volume through
infiltration. Infiltration measures include the grasscrete paver emergency drive,
vegetated swales, and disconnected impervious areas throughout the Site. These
practices will result in additional infiltration that was not considered in the
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 23 of 71
SWPPP’s hydrologic model, resulting in a conservative analysis presented in the
SWPPP.
3. Findings and Conditions
Specifically, the Village Board finds that:
a. The existing RCP under Arbor Drive has the capacity to accommodate the
projected stormwater flow from the Further Reduced Alternative.
Therefore, the Lead Agency finds that the Further Reduced Alternative
would not have a significant adverse impact on downstream drainage
infrastructure.
b. As implementation of the SWPPP would provide water quantity and quality
enhancements that exceed the regulatory requirements, the Lead Agency
finds that stormwater runoff from the Further Reduced Alternative is not
anticipated to have a significant adverse impact to the Project Site or
downstream areas.
c. As demonstrated in the SWPPP, and as was the case with the original
project, the stormwater design of the Further Reduced Alternative would
result in a reduction in both the rate and volume of stormwater exiting the
Site for each modeled storm event when compared to the existing condition.
E. Vegetation and Wildlife
1. Impacts Identified
a. The Further Reduced Alternative would reduce the amount of impervious
surface on-Site by 0.71 acres without the landbank parking and 0.55 acres
with the landbank parking. Wooded areas of the Site would decrease by
0.63 acres with the Further Reduced Alternative, which is 0.22 acres less
than what was proposed in the original project. Finally, the Further Reduced
Alternative would increase lawn area by 1.34 acres, which is a slightly
larger increase than the 1.26 acres contemplated with the original project. If
the landbank parking were implemented, the lawn area would be increased
by 1.18 acres, slightly less than the original project. As with the original
project, much of the wooded area that would be disturbed with the Further
Reduced Alternative is located to the north of the stormwater basin in the
narrow area between the Site’s existing parking lot and Village Hall.
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 24 of 71
b. The Further Reduced Alternative would require the removal of
approximately 134 trees with 6 inches diameter breast height (dbh) or
greater; 77 of which have 10 inches dbh or greater. Four of these trees are
considered “significant” under the Village Code.
c. During the construction period there would be a temporary loss of habitat
for wildlife species that use mowed lawn as the dominant habitat.
Immediately adjacent to the Project Site is a similar habitat that would be
available to wildlife during construction. There would also be temporary
impacts of reduced on-Site shade and tree habitat associated with tree loss
during the construction period.
d. No state or federally listed endangered, threatened, special concern, rare, or
exploitably vulnerable species of plants or animals were identified on-Site
during site inspections nor are any known for the Project Site or vicinity
based on information from NYSDEC and the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPaC). Therefore, no impacts to listed species would occur from the Further
Reduced Alternative.
2. Mitigation Provided
a. Section 235-18 of the Village Code requires that native, non-invasive trees
with 2 to 2.5 inches dbh be planted on-Site to mitigate the removal of trees
with 10 inches dbh or greater. The number of trees required to be planted
is based on the size of the tree being removed. Based on the formula in the
Village Code, the Further Reduced Alternative would be required to plant
at least 87 native, non-invasive 2- to 2.5-inch dbh caliper trees on-Site. A
planting plan has been developed for the Further Reduced Alternative that
proposes to plant at least 438 new trees and 309 new shrubs. It is noted that
if the landbank parking is constructed, slightly fewer trees would be planted
in the rear of the IL building. However, the number of trees planted would
still be more than required by the Village’s Code to mitigate the impact of
the trees being removed.
b. The Further Reduced Alternative includes a wetland buffer mitigation plan
that includes the planting of wetland facultative tree species in the areas
surrounding the Site’s wetlands.
3. Findings and Conditions
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 25 of 71
Specifically, the Village Board finds that:
The Lead Agency finds that the change in habitat coverage would not be a
significant adverse impact owing to the relatively low quality of the existing
on-Site habitat and the overall decrease in impervious coverage on the Site.
The Lead Agency finds that this temporary loss in mowed lawn habitat is
not a significant adverse impact.
The new trees would be planted throughout the Site with ornamental trees
closer to the buildings and trees that would help restore habitat closer to the
edges of the Project Site. Trees added along the right-of-way that parallels
the Parkway would help control erosion in this steep slope area. Trees would
also be added along the Site’s Arbor Drive frontage for the full length of the
Project Site, except for the drive curb cuts, which would help obscure views
of the Further Reduced Alternative from Arbor Drive. All tree plantings in
areas of habitat and buffer zones shall be native species. New trees planted
after construction would be required to be monitored and maintained for
five years by a horticultural consultant and replaced as necessary due to
potential mortality during this monitoring period. With the implementation
of these measures, the Lead Agency finds that significant adverse impacts
to trees have been avoided and that the remaining impacts are mitigated to
the maximum extent practicable.
Wetland buffer planting zones and their preservation in a wooded
(unmowed) condition must be included in the restrictions provided on the
final Site Plan drawings. All plantings within the wetland buffer zones shall
be native species.
For existing on-Site trees proposed to remain during and after construction,
a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) must be developed during site plan approval
for review and approval by the Village. This plan would be designed and
implemented in accordance with the Village’s tree protection guidelines and
specifications. Specifically, this plan would identify trees designated for
protection and would include specifications for installation of protection
fencing, directives for root pruning, air-spading, tunneling, and use of root
curtains where applicable. With the implementation of the Village-
approved TPP, the Lead Agency finds that the Further Reduced Alternative
would not cause a significant adverse impact to existing trees proposed to
remain on-Site.
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 26 of 71
F. Visual Resources and Community Character
1. Impacts Identified
a. As with the original project, the Further Reduced Alternative would
transform the on-Site visual character from one dominated by a large
surface parking area and rectangular three-story office building to a
landscaped campus featuring several residential uses, building sizes, and
building types. The western portion of the developed area of the Site would
feature two-story townhouse units, which would be similar in visual impact
to the character of The Arbors townhouses located to the west of the Project
Site. The northern portion of the developed area of the Site would feature a
three- and four-story IL and AL building. The IL and AL building would be
three stories closest to Arbor Drive and rise to four stories approximately
283 feet from Arbor Drive. With the addition of the second vehicular
entrance, the average grade around the IL/AL building would be lowered
by approximately 3 inches as the grade in the area of the second garage
entrance would be lower to accommodate vehicles. Based on these
revisions, the weighted average roof height (i.e the height measured for
zoning compliance) would be 42.06 feet, and highest peak of the roof at the
center of the proposed IL building is proposed at 61.10 feet.
b. As with the original project, the Further Reduced Alternative would
increase the amount of open space on the Project Site. Specifically, with the
Further Reduced Alternative, 11.02 acres, or 62 percent of the Site would
be vegetated, an increase of 0.71 acres from the existing condition and 0.3
acre from the original project. (If the landbank parking were constructed,
10.86 acres would be vegetated, an increase of 0.55 acres from the existing
condition and 0.19 acre from the original project.)
c. As with the original project, the Further Reduced Alternative would
maintain the vegetative buffer that currently exists around the Site’s
perimeter. As a result, the interior of the Project Site would continue to be
visible from locations off-Site only through screening provided by existing
tree cover, with the exception of a short area along Arbor Drive.
2. Mitigation Provided
a. To mitigate the potential visual impact from Arbor Drive, the Further
Reduced Alternative increases the setback of the IL building from Arbor
Drive by 54 feet—for a total of 170 feet from Arbor Drive—and modifies
the configuration of the building “wings” closest to Arbor Drive. As a
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 27 of 71
result, the IL building with the Further Reduced Alternative will be
perceived as smaller from Arbor Drive than the original project.
b. The Further Reduced Alternative includes several changes from the original
project to further mitigate potential visual impacts. First, the size of the IL
and AL building has been reduced by at least 99,098 sf. In addition to the
change in visibility attributable to the reduction in building size, the reduced
size allows for the building to be set back further from Arbor Drive than in
the original project, further reducing potential visual impacts. Second, the
southernmost wings of the IL building have been “narrowed” in shape from
the original project and now present a significantly smaller profile as viewed
from Arbor Drive as compared to the original project. Third, the three-story
portion of the IL building has been set back an additional 24 feet from The
Arbors townhouses to the west as compared to the original project and the
four-story section of the IL building has been set back an additional 71 feet.
As a result, with the Further Reduced Alternative, the IL building is at least
488 feet from the property line with The Arbors. Finally, the height of the IL
building has been reduced from the original project. Specifically, the peak of
the roof of the four-story section of the IL building is approximately 10.5
feet lower than the original project. This is a result of a change to the shape
of the roof that lowered the peak of the roof 9 feet, combined with a smaller,
18-inch, lowering of the finished floor elevation of the IL building. The
reduction in height of the building and the increased setback from the Arbors
reduces the visual impact of the Further Reduced Alternative as compared to
the original project.
c. As with the original project, the Further Reduced Alternative would
increase open space on the Project Site from 10.3 acres to 11.02 acres
(10.86 acres if the landbank parking were constructed) and transform the
visual character of the Site from that of a large footprint rectangular
building and 5.3 acres of surface parking to one of a landscaped residential
campus.
3. Findings and Conditions
a. The Lead Agency finds that the Visual Character of the Further Reduced
Alternative would be consistent with the principles of good site design.
While the Further Reduced Alternative would contain more gross square
feet of building area than currently exists on the Site, it would reduce the
amount of impervious surfaces. The Lead Agency finds that the design and
placement of the buildings and parking would create a more human-scale
development than currently exists and is consistent with the desired
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 28 of 71
architectural character of the Village, as described in the Comprehensive
Plan.
b. The Lead Agency finds that in order to mitigate potential visual impacts
from the Further Reduced Alternative, a detailed landscaping plan shall be
incorporated into the final site plan. The Landscape Plan must dramatically
increase the tree and shrub cover on the Project Site through the planting of
no fewer than 438 new trees and 309 new shrubs. The Plan must include
extensive landscaping along the Site’s boundaries, including along Arbor
Drive and to the west of the proposed townhouses. All plantings within
habitat and buffer zones shall be native species.
e. The Lead Agency finds that the visibility of the Further Reduced Alternative
from off-site Vantage Points would not create an adverse impact. Specifically,
the buildings of the Further Reduced Alternative would only be visible from
the north, east, and west in leaf-off conditions through existing, and in some
cases, new, vegetation. During leaf-on conditions, visibility would be further
minimized.
f. With respect to the height of the buildings proposed, the Lead Agency finds
that the Further Reduced Alternative is consistent with the
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, and with many buildings
within the Village that are at least four stories in height, specifically The
Atria, Rye Brook (a three- and four-story IL building with 168 units on 4.92
acres) and the Hilton Westchester. The Lead Agency notes that the final
design of the IL/AL building’s roofscape, including the maximum height of
various roof elements, shall be reviewed during Site Plan review to ensure
that a building that otherwise meets the requirements of the zoning does not
include elements that adversely affect the intended “low-scale” character of
the Site’s zoning requirements. Similarly, the final roof design shall be
reviewed to ensure that the overall composition and proportions of the
building, including the roof elements, result in a visually- pleasing building.
Opportunities to further reduce the height of the building’s peak will be
explored during site plan review and balanced against the architectural
integrity of the proposed design.
g. With respect to building and site coverage, as with the original project, the
Further Reduced Alternative would increase building coverage on the Site
by no more than 0.67 acres from the current condition, but would decrease
the amount of surface parking and interior roadways by an even larger
amount (1.46 acres) from the current condition. (If the landbank parking
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 29 of 71
were implemented, this decrease in parking and roadways would be 1.3
acres.) As a result, the Further Reduced Alternative would result in a
decrease in gross land coverage on the Project Site from the existing
condition. The Lead Agency finds that the reduction in impervious site
coverage is a beneficial impact of the Further Reduced Alternative. The
Lead Agency finds that the relative amount of building and Site coverage
proposed is consistent with other properties in the Village, especially when
considering the Project Site’s location, its relative lack of visibility from
areas outside of the Site, and the reduction in total coverage from the Site’s
current condition.
G. Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts
1. Impacts Identified
a. The Further Reduced Alternative could be anticipated to add a population
of approximately 386 people to the Project Site, which is slightly less than
five percent of the Village’s 2016 population and 76 fewer people than the
original project as a result of the reduction in the number of IL and
Townhouse units. The potential impacts of this increase in population are
considered in Section H, “Community Facilities.”
b. The Project Site has a current assessed value of $13,000,000. The Further
Reduced Alternative would be expected to significantly increase the assessed
value of, and subsequently the property tax revenue generated by, the Project
Site. The Town’s Tax Assessor had estimated the Revised Proposed Project’s
assessed value at $48,000,000 and noted that the final assessed value would
be based on the final project that is constructed and operated. To estimate the
assessed value of the Further Reduced Alternative, the $48 million value was
reduced in proportion to the reduction in the project’s overall number of units
(i.e., 4.15 percent). As such, the Further Reduced Alternative is anticipated
to have an assessed value of $46,008,000, which is $33.008 million more
than the Site’s current assessed value. While the final assessed value of this
alternative may be slightly higher or slightly lower than this estimated
proportionate value, such minor variation would not materially affect the
potential for this alternative to have an adverse environmental impact.
2. Mitigation Provided
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 30 of 71
Based the estimated assessed value, the Project Site would generate approximately
$1.94 million per year in property taxes, approximately $1.40 million more than
the Site currently generates. Of this, approximately $392,479 would go to the
Village, an increase of $281,580, and approximately $1.36 million would go to the
BBRUFSD, an increase of $976,527 from the revenue generated by the Project Site.
3. Findings and Conditions
a. The Lead Agency understands that 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.
b. 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 Westchester
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. The Lead Agency understands that
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.
c. The Lead Agency finds that while the Further Reduced Alternative may
change the base proportions of the Village with respect to homestead and
non-homestead properties, this change would serve to lower the property
tax rate on homestead properties within the Village. 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 approximately $23,787,923. 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 Further Reduced Alternative.
d. The Lead Agency finds that the Further Reduced Alternative would
significantly increase the amount of property taxes generated by the Project
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 31 of 71
Site. While some level of additional Village services will be required, the
Lead Agency finds that the increased cost of providing these services would
be mitigated by the increase in property tax revenue received by the Village.
Specifically, as noted in Section H, “Community Facilities,” the Further
Reduced Alternative has the potential to generate approximately $85,063 in
additional annual costs to the Village. The Further Reduced Alternative
would increase the annual amount of property taxes generated by the Project
Site and paid to the Village by approximately $281,580 from the current
condition, resulting in an annual, recurring, revenue surplus to the Village
of approximately $196,517. In addition, the BBRUFSD would receive an
annual increase in tax revenue of approximately $976,527 with no increase
in costs. The Lead Agency finds that the Further Reduced Alternative would
result in a net fiscal surplus to the Project Site’s taxing entities and that the
increase in revenue outweighs the potential increase in costs or other
potential impacts of the Further Reduced Alternative.
H. Community Facilities
1. Impacts Identified
a. The Further Reduced Alternative may result in up to an additional
approximately $85,063 in annual Village expenditures, which would be
offset by an increase in annual property tax revenue from the Project Site of
approximately $281,580. Specifically, the Further Reduced Alternative may
increase Village costs as follows:
$4,183 in increased EMS costs, assuming EMS costs rise in direct
proportion to the increase in calls from the Further Reduced
Alternative. In addition, the Further Reduced Alternative shall be
required to implement several policies to reduce the number of EMS
calls, such as having a nurse on-Site 24 hours a day;
A de minimis increase in Fire Department spending as a result of the
few calls expected. For purposes of this analysis, it has been
assumed that costs would be an additional $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).
The Lead Agency bases this allocation on the following factors: the
need for an additional police officer is the result of several approved
and constructed projects within the Village, including the Further
Reduced Alternative; the Village budgeted for an additional police
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 32 of 71
officer in its 2019-2020 budget based on existing demands on the
police department with or without the Further Reduced Alternative;
and the project is a repurposing of an existing site, which previously
generated a police demand and is not completely a ‘net new’ demand,
as is the case for other ‘greenfield’ developments in the Village.
Senior Services. It is not anticipated that the Further Reduced
Alternative 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.
b. The original project proposed a Site-wide age restriction of 55 years old. A
residential community age restricted to those 55 years old and older is
unlikely to have any school age children (based on case-study research of
eight residential developments totaling 1,173 units of 55+ age restricted
housing, which had a total of three school-age children, and the querying of
The Atria Rye Brook and the King Street Rehab facility, which had no
school-age children). Nevertheless, a community restriction of 55 years old
may generate school age children. An age restriction of 62 years of age is
far less likely to generate school age children.
c. The Further Reduced Alternative would conservatively be anticipated to
add a population of 386 people to the Project Site. According to the New
York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP)
standards, the new population would create a need for approximately 1.25
acres of open space.
d. The Further Reduced Alternative could result in the generation of
approximately 230.25 tons of solid waste per year, approximately 40.62
tons less than the original project and approximately 225.43 tons less than
what would be generated with the full re-occupancy of the existing office
building.
e. 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 Village also provides a Senior Dial-A-Ride Transportation
service for its senior citizens via a 20-passenger bus for free for seniors who
can no longer drive or who need assistance (i.e. carrying grocery bags). On
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 33 of 71
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.
2. Mitigation Provided
a. The estimated annual property tax revenue from the Project Site would
equal approximately $281,580.
b. Physical and operational measures are proposed to be incorporated into the
Further Reduced Alternative in order to avoid, reduce, and mitigate the
potential for adverse impacts to the EMS service. The Further Reduced
Alternative proposes to implement the following to reduce the number of
non-emergency EMS calls:
A registered nurse shall be scheduled to be on-Site at all times, 24
hours a day, 7 days a week and shall be available to direct and triage
the response to medical issues for both IL and AL residents;
The Further Reduced Alternative would have an emergency response
system that allow residents to activate the system in one or more
ways and provides multiple stationary and mobile methods for
project staff to respond to its activation; and
The Further Reduced Alternative would institute operational policies
that require appropriately trained staff to triage residents, and if
medically appropriate, assist residents, including helping them get
up from a fall if appropriate, prior to calling EMS services.
c. The Further Reduced Alternative would contract with a private carting
company for refuse and recycling collection. The private carter may
ultimately dispose of the material at the Charles Point Resource Recovery
Plant, or another facility that is licensed to receive the waste. Refuse and
recycling would be picked up two to three times per week during daytime
hours. In order to avoid, reduce, and mitigate potential noise impacts from
the collection of solid waste, the contract with the private carter would
include a requirement that waste and recycling shall not be picked up earlier
than 6:00 AM, the time at which municipal refuse collection may begin.
Solid waste would be stored within the loading area in the rear of the IL and
AL building so as not to be visible from Arbor Drive, Village Hall, RBPD,
RBFD, or The Arbors due to intervening buildings.
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 34 of 71
d. To reduce the potential for the Further Reduced Alternative to increase
demand for the Village Senior Center’s services, it is proposed that the
Further Reduced Alternative would provide Project residents many of the
same services offered by the Rye Brook Senior Center, including on-Site
hot lunch, exercise programs, and enrichment classes. 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 Further Reduced Alternative
would provide transportation services for project residents, including
regular trips to local places of interest (such as grocery stores, shopping
centers, cultural institutions), and ad hoc transportation and programming
for special events. Trips to the Rye Brook Senior Center, if desired by
project residents, would also be provided to project residents.
3. Findings and Conditions
a. The Lead Agency finds that these potential increases in municipal costs
would be offset by an increase in annual property tax revenue from the
Project Site of approximately $281,580. Therefore, the Lead Agency finds
that the Further Reduced Alternative will not have an adverse fiscal impact
related to the provision of community services.
b. The Lead Agency finds that the Further Reduced Alternative shall implement
the following to reduce the number of non-emergency EMS calls:
A registered nurse shall be scheduled to be on-Site at all times, 24
hours a day, 7 days a week and shall be available to direct and triage
the response to medical issues for both IL and AL residents;
The Further Reduced Alternative shall have an emergency response
system that allow residents to activate the system in one or more
ways and provides multiple stationary and mobile methods for
project staff to respond to its activation;
For Senior Living Facilities, lift assistance by EMS for all resident
falls could result in an undue strain on the EMS system since not all
falls are serious and require a trip to the hospital. The Further
Reduced Alternative must institute operational policies that require
appropriately trained staff to triage residents, and if medically
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 35 of 71
appropriate, assist residents, including helping them get up from a
fall if appropriate, prior to calling EMS services. If a resident has hit
their head, is unsure of how they fell, or seems unsteady, the staff
will then call 911 at their discretion. The operator shall provide the
Village with a copy of the operational policies on this subject prior
to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy and the policies shall
be in place for the duration of the use.
c. Based on the nature of the Further Reduced Alternative as an age-restricted
residential community and to protect the health and welfare of existing and
future Village residents and staff, the Lead Agency finds it is appropriate to
construct a secondary means of access to the Project Site for use in
emergencies where the two entrances to the Project Site from Arbor Drive
are not otherwise available. After evaluating potential locations for this
access drive, the Lead Agency finds that it is most appropriate to locate the
drive in the northeastern portion of the Project Site and connect it to the
northern terminus of the existing parking lot behind the Village’s firehouse.
The driveway shall be a minimum of 24-feet wide and shall be secured at
both ends with a bollard and chain assembly. This drive shall only be used
in the case of emergencies and only authorized Site or Village personnel
would be allowed to unlock the chain. Further, it shall be the Applicant’s
responsibility to maintain this drive, including the portion on Village
property, inclusive of the provision of snow removal (snow removal and/or
storage for the entire Site will be addressed as part of Site Plan review). An
Access Easement over Village property will be necessary.
d. The Lead Agency notes that careful attention to the final interior site plan
and building design will be required. The Lead Agency notes the following
critical site plan and building design considerations that shall be evaluated
during the Site Plan review. Except as noted below, resolution of these
considerations would not affect the potential environmental impacts of the
Proposed Action:
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.
All elevators will be designed to fit a gurney to enable full EMS
operations on the second through fourth floors and in the garage.
The buildings’ roofs and entrance shall be designed to facilitate the
safe movement of emergency personnel as well as provide for
adequate interior and exterior emergency response communication.
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 36 of 71
e. Based on recommendation by the Village’s Emergency Services Task Force
(ESTF), the final site plan shall provide for the underground parking garage
to be serviced by two remote points of vehicular entry/exit. The Lead
Agency finds that the benefits of the second vehicular entrance with respect
to the safety of building occupants and emergency responders outweighs
the environmental impacts of this second entrance. Specifically, the Lead
Agency understands 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 and that these walls and
ramp would be readily visible from the Site’s main entrance. The
environmental impacts of this second entrance, inclusive of the impacts to
impervious coverage, have been included in the impacts described in this
Statement of Findings. During site plan review, opportunities for vegetative
screening of the retaining walls or architectural finishing of the retaining
walls shall be explored.
f. The Lead Agency finds that in order to further minimize the potential for
the Further Reduced Alternative to have any school age children residents,
it is appropriate for the facility to be age restricted to those 62 years old and
older, in accordance with the requirements of the US Fair Housing Act.
g. There are two requirements in the Village Code relating to the provision of
public parks and open space. The first requirement is specified in Section
209-14 of the Village Code, which states that site plans must, when required
by the approval authority, contain “a park or parks suitably located and
usable for passive or active recreational purposes.” If such a park or parks
cannot be located on-site, Section 209-15 requires that an applicant remit a
fee in lieu of providing the required open space. During Site Plan Review,
the Board of Trustees will determine whether the on-site open space areas
meet the requirements of Section 209-14 for a suitably located and usable
park for passive or active recreational purposes, or whether the Applicant
will be required to pay a fee in lieu of such parkland. Therefore, the Lead
Agency finds that the Further Reduced Alternative, whether it remits a fee
in lieu or is found during Site Plan review to provide adequate parks and
recreation areas on-Site, would not have an adverse impact on recreational
facilities within the Village.
The second requirement is specified in Section 250-7E(2)(f) of the Village
Code, which requires that 10 percent of a PUD site be offered and dedicated
to the Village for recreational use or a fee in lieu of providing such land be
paid to the Village. This provision of the Village Code applies to a PUD site
as a whole at the time that it is mapped a PUD, and not to individual lots
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 37 of 71
within a PUD site, including the Project Site. Therefore, the Lead Agency
finds that this requirement does not apply to the Further Reduced
Alternative.
h. The Lead Agency finds that the use of a private carter for solid waste
generated by the Site would not result in significant adverse impacts to the
Village’s sanitary collection and disposal system. In order to avoid, reduce,
and mitigate potential noise impacts from the collection of solid waste, the
Lead Agency finds that the contract with the private carter hired to service
the Further Reduced Alternative shall include a requirement that waste and
recycling shall not be picked up earlier than 6:00 AM, the time at which
municipal refuse collection may begin. Solid waste shall be stored within
the loading area in the rear of the IL and AL building so as not to be visible
from Arbor Drive, Village Hall, RBPD, RBFD, or The Arbors due to
intervening buildings.
To further mitigate potential impacts associated with solid waste, the Lead
Agency finds that during site plan review the Further Reduced Alternative
shall evaluate whether the Project Site could serve as a second pick-up
location for food-scrap recycling. The Lead Agency also finds that in order
to mitigate potential impacts associated with solid waste, the Further Reduced
Alternative shall develop a solid waste management plan during site plan
approval that meets the requirements of the Westchester County’s Source
Separation Law. This plan shall be submitted to the Commissioner of
Environmental Facilities of the County of Westchester as well as the
Village.
i. Based on input from the Village of Rye Brook’s Deputy Village Clerk/
Senior Coordinator, the Lead Agency finds that the Senior Center has the
capacity to accommodate additional seniors, such as those who may reside
in the Further Reduced Alternative. Additionally, the Lead Agency finds that
the Further Reduced Alternative, by providing many of the amenities offered
by the Village’s senior services to residents, would not be expected to
increase the number of seniors who make use of the Village’s senior
services and would not result in a significant adverse impact to the Village’s
senior programs.
I. Infrastructure and Utilities
1. Impacts Identified
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 38 of 71
a. 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 Further Reduced Alternative is estimated to generate a
water/sanitary demand of between 45,470 gallons per day (gpd) and 46,570
gpd, between 25,557 and 26,657 gpd more than if the existing office were
fully occupied, and between 9,130 and 10,230 gpd less than the original
project.
b. Sanitary wastewater is currently conveyed from the Site by an existing
privately owned 10-inch main that connects to an existing 8-inch Village-
owned main, which travels through The Arbors and connects to the County
sewer trunk line at Hillandale Road before being treated at the Blind Brook
Wastewater Treatment Plan (WWTP). Monitoring of the existing 8-inch
Village-owned main indicates that the line flows at approximately 9 percent
of its capacity on average and 21 percent of its capacity during periods of
peak flow. The Blind Brook Wastewater Treatment Plan (WWTP), the
WWTP to which the Project Site ultimately discharges, currently has 2
million gallons per day (mgd) excess capacity. Therefore, the WWTP would
be able to serve the Further Reduced Alternative’s increase of between
25,557 and 26,657 gpd. A letter received from the Westchester County
Department of Environmental Facilities (WCDEF), confirmed the ability of
the Blind Brook WWTP and the Blind Brook Trunk Sewer System to
accommodate the increased sewer flows from the project.
c. The Further Reduced Alternative would construct an 8-inch sanitary service
that would connect the IL and AL building to the existing 10-inch private
main. Separate connections for the townhouses would be made to the 8-inch
main. Based on analysis of the existing downstream sanitary sewer system
infrastructure, that infrastructure would have sufficient capacity to
accommodate the increased flow from the Further Reduced Alternative.
Specifically, the downstream sewer infrastructure has the capacity to handle
up to 0.960 cubic feet per second (cfs) of flow, which is well in excess of the
0.645 cfs of flow projected in the post-development condition.
d. The Further Reduced Alternative would require electricity and gas to power
building systems. Con Edison would continue to provide electric service to
the Site, which would be fed through an underground 13.2 kilovolt (kV)
service originating from Arbor Drive. This 13.2 kV service would be tapped
by the various buildings on the Project Site with pad-mounted utility
transformers at each building. As confirmed by Con Edison, the existing
transformer on the Project Site is adequate for the electric loads of the
Further Reduced Alternative. The Further Reduced Alternative would be
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 39 of 71
connected to the existing natural gas service along Arbor Drive and a
medium-pressure service main would run underground to provide service
to all buildings on the Site. Con Edison has stated that they can provide firm
gas to the Further Reduced Alternative and that two upgrades to Con
Edison’s gas system would be required: replacement of 945 feet of 4-inch
and 6-inch main with 12-inch main on Mohegan Lane and Latonia Road;
and, installation of a 12-inch tie on King Street from Arbor Drive to N.
Ridge Street. The cost of these improvements would be initially funded by
the Applicant, and refunded by Con Edison upon completion of the Further
Reduced Alternative. Based on Con Edison’s commitment letter, it is the
Village’s understanding that Con Edison will supply the Further Reduced
Alternative with firm natural gas service if the Applicant demonstrates
continued progress in completing the project even if construction is not
completed within two years despite Con Edison’s current temporary gas
moratorium in southern Westchester County. In the event that firm gas is
not available for the Further Reduced Alternative, the Applicant would
propose another energy source and the environmental impacts of using this
other energy source would be analyzed in accordance with SEQRA.
2. Mitigation Provided
The Further Reduced Alternative 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.
SWWC, in conjunction with Aquarion and WJWW, analyzed the potential impacts
to the water supply system as a result of the Further Reduced Alternative. The
analysis looked at both a “typical” flow rate (i.e., anticipated daily flows and peak
flows) and a flow rate under a condition where firefighting is occurring in the
vicinity. SWWC’s analysis indicated the need for two improvements to the water
system. The first improvement is the provision of additional interconnections with
WJWW, at Anderson Hill Road and Aquarion, at King Street. SWWC indicated
that it would perform those upgrades at no cost to the Applicant. The second
improvement was the installation of a meter on the 16-inch main at Anderson Hill
Road, which would bypass the existing 8-inch meter vault that experiences
significant head loss at times of peak flow. The cost associated with this new meter
and vault would be the responsibility of the Applicant. Upon completion of these
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 40 of 71
improvements, SWWC’s analysis indicates that the water system would operate a
residual pressure of 62 pounds per square inch (psi) during typical conditions and
32 psi under fire flow conditions, which are higher than the minimum standards of
35 psi and 20 psi, respectively.
3. Findings and Conditions
Specifically, the Village Board finds that:
a. The Lead Agency finds that the two improvements to the water supply
system shall be completed prior to occupancy of the Project Site’s new
buildings. The Lead Agency finds that with the implementation of these two
system improvements, the Further Reduced Alternative would not have an
adverse impact on water supply or delivery.
b. Given the available capacity, the Lead Agency finds that the Further
Reduced Alternative would not have an adverse impact on the Blind Brook
WWTP.
c. In order to minimize the potential for adverse impacts to the sanitary
wastewater system, the Lead Agency finds that the following measures shall
be incorporated into the Further Reduced Alternative:
Trash receptacles shall be provided by all toilets in order to reduce
the potential for non-flushable items to enter the sanitary sewer
system.
Grease traps shall be provided from proposed common kitchen areas
in the IL and AL building to prohibit unwanted greases from
entering the sewer system. The grease traps shall be maintained on
a regular basis to maintain their effectiveness.
c. Prior to the issuance of a permanent certificate of occupancy, the Applicant
shall either cause to undertake at its expense project-based mitigation that
would reduce the amount of inflow and infiltration into the sewer system in
an amount equal to at least 80,000 gpd, which is three times the increase in
sanitary flow generated by the Further Reduced Alternative, or, make a
monetary contribution to the Village in an amount of $100 per unit (IL, AL
and townhomes) or such amount as may be included in the Village fee
schedule at the time of payment, that would be spent by the Village to
reduce inflow and infiltration.
d. The Lead Agency finds that the Further Reduced Alternative would not
have an adverse impact on the provision of electricity service.
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 41 of 71
e. In order to reduce the amount of energy consumed by the Further Reduced
Alternative, which in turn would reduce the direct and indirect emission of
greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, that contribute to climate
change, the Lead Agency finds that the Further Reduced Alternative shall
incorporate energy-efficient features, including fixtures and HVAC and
mechanical systems.
f. The Lead Agency finds that the Further Reduced Alternative would not
have an adverse impact on the provision of natural gas provided Con Edison
completes the two system upgrades referenced above.
J. Traffic and Transportation
1. Impacts Identified
a. The Further Reduced Alternative would generate 49 vehicular trips during
the Weekday AM Peak Hour, 56 trips during the Weekday Midday Hour,
and 65 trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour. To reduce the potential for
adverse impacts as a result of Site-generated traffic, the Further Reduced
Alternative reduced the number of units from the originally proposed
project. Based on the reduction in units, the Further Reduced Alternative
would generate 21 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 24 fewer
trips during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 25 fewer trips during the
Weekday Peak PM Hour than the original project.
It is noted that, based on the existing conditions traffic counts that were
performed in 2017 and 2018, the existing office building is generating 34
existing trips during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 25 existing trips during
the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 21 existing trips during the Weekday
Peak PM Hour. As a result, the Further Reduced Alternative would generate
an increase from the current condition of 15 trips during the Weekday Peak
AM Hour, 31 trips during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 44 trips
during the Weekday Peak PM Hour.
The Applicant performed a Traffic Impact Study (TIS), based on a project
with more units than the Further Reduced Alternative, to determine the
potential impacts of the Further Reduced Alternative. As confirmed by the
Village’s Traffic Consultant, the TIS appropriately included several no-
build development projects, including the re-occupancy of the existing
office building, used an appropriate background growth rate for increases
in traffic volume not related to a specific no-build project, and applied the
appropriate trip generation rates to the Further Reduced Alternative’s
program. The TIS concluded that the Further Reduced Alternative would
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 42 of 71
not have a significant adverse impact on any study area intersection when
compared to the No Build condition. In fact, certain study area intersections
would see a beneficial change to LOS and/or average delays with the
Further Reduced Alternative when compared the No Build condition.
The TIS included in the DEIS and FEIS was conducted in accordance with
the Approved Scoping Document, which specified that the baseline for the
analysis should be re-occupancy of the existing approximately 200,000 sf
office building. The Village’s traffic consultant noted that including trips
associated with the full occupancy of the existing office building provided
a “fair assessment” because the building is “there and it could be
reoccupied.” Further, the Village’s traffic consultant noted that, “in the past
the re-occupancy of vacant buildings was included to account for the net
change in site traffic for redevelopment” (emphasis added). The Lead
Agency finds that the TIS’s methodology appropriately evaluated the
potential adverse impacts of the Further Reduced Alternative.
Based upon comments received during the DEIS review process from the
public and from NYSDOT, the Applicant provided a sensitivity analysis
based upon the current utilization of the office building. As shown in that
analysis, without the re-occupancy of the existing office building, the TIS
indicates that the Further Reduced Alternative would result in the following
impacts: the Glen Ridge Road westbound lane to King Street will maintain
a LOS “F” during the weekday morning peak hour, with an increase in delay
of 12.7 seconds; the Hutchinson River Parkway northbound on-off ramp
eastbound lane to King Street will maintain a LOS “F” during the weekday
afternoon peak hour, with an increase in delay of 12.1 seconds; and, the
Betsy Brown Road eastbound land will maintain a LOS “F” during the
weekday morning peak hour, with an increase in delay of 16.1 seconds.
b. The Further Reduced Alternative would provide 228 parking spaces, which
is 74 fewer spaces than the original project and slightly in excess of the
amount required by the Revised Proposed Zoning and the current PUD
zoning and the Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) guidelines of
the ITE. Based on Lead Agency and public comment concerning the
adequacy of the off-site parking included in the project and a concern that a
project of this nature with the Village will have greater parking demand than
a typical project, the Proposed Project will include “landbank” parking
spaces on the Project Site.
c. The Proposed Project would 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. Loading for the IL and AL building would continue to be
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 43 of 71
located on the north side of the IL building and would be screened from off-
Site view. The townhouses would be accessed from a single driveway off
the main driveway.
d. The Further Reduced Alternative includes two remote points of vehicular
entry/exit for the underground parking garage. One 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. The Village’s Emergency Services Task Force (ESTF)
recommended that the underground parking be serviced by two remote
points of vehicular entry/exit.
e. Pedestrian circulation with the Proposed Project will include a 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. These paths would include crosswalks at all
site roadways and would allow residents the opportunity to safely and
securely recreate throughout the landscaped Site.
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. Given the integration of this path
into the design and operation of the 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. To effectuate this change in responsibility, the
Applicant shall work with the BBRUFSD to properly amend the Project
Site’s deed. The internal Site sidewalk system would connect to the
southern end of this walking path at Arbor Drive. As part of the Proposed
Project, the Applicant would install standard crosswalk markings on Arbor
Drive at this location to better identify the crossing if such installation is
deemed feasible, safe, and effective by the Village during Site Plan review.
2. Mitigation Provided
a. Based on the analysis provided in the TIS, the Further Reduced Alternative
would not have a significant adverse impact on area roadways. Therefore,
no mitigation measures are required. However, the Applicant’s TIS noted
that signal retiming could be implemented at two King Street intersections
(i.e., Arbor Drive and the Blind Brook Middle School and High School) to
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 44 of 71
improve existing and future operating conditions, including queuing along
King Street as well as at the Middle and High School Driveway, if required
by NYSDOT. In addition, these two traffic signals could be expanded to
include adaptive traffic signal control technology to provide real time traffic
data to improve traffic flow and minimize delays at these two intersections.
b. 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.
c. Based on the recommendation of the ESTF, the Further Reduced
Alternative includes two remote points of entry/exit for the underground
garage.
3. Findings and Conditions
Specifically, the Village Board finds that:
a. The Lead Agency finds that the Further Reduced Alternative would not
have a significant adverse impact on the intersections within the Study Area
based on the TIS which used re-occupancy of the existing office building as
the no-build condition and based on the subsequent sensitivity analysis
which used the existing (pre-pandemic) utilization of the office building as
the no-build condition. The identified impacts are not significant adverse
impacts and, on balance, the benefits of the Further Reduced Alternative
outweigh those impacts. As described in the TIS and as offered by the
Applicant, in order to further reduce and mitigate potential impacts of the
project, as well as to mitigate current conditions on the area roadways, the
Lead Agency finds that the Applicant shall, at their own expense, diligently
pursue approval of, and implementation of, certain signal re-timings along
King Street, which the Lead Agency notes is under the control of the NYS
DOT. The signal re-timings would occur on King Street at Arbor Drive and
the Blind Brook Middle School and High School to improve existing and
future operating conditions, including queuing along King Street as well as
at the Middle and High School Driveway.
b. While these improvements are not required, the Lead Agency finds that the
signal retiming that could be implemented at two King Street intersections
would be beneficial and finds that, as part of the Further Reduced
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 45 of 71
Alternative, the Applicant shall, at their own expense, diligently pursue
their approval, and implementation.
c. The Lead Agency finds that the Further Reduced Alternative would not
require the expansion of Westchester County’s bus system, which system
does not directly serve the Project Site. The Further Reduced Alternative
may, depending on demand, provide a shuttle service to and from a local
train station (i.e., Port Chester or White Plains). The Lead Agency finds that
the potential for one to two shuttles per shift change would not have a
significant adverse impact on service at either train station.
d. The Lead Agency finds that the Further Reduced Alternative would not
result in a significant increase in pedestrian activity along Arbor Drive and
the additional traffic would not result in a decrease in pedestrian safety along
Arbor Drive. In making this finding, the Lead Agency notes that the Further
Reduced Alternative would represent a significant decrease in the number of
vehicular trips entering and exiting the Site as compared to the former office
use, decreasing the potential for conflict between vehicles and pedestrians on
Arbor Drive. The Lead Agency finds that, as offered by the Applicant and to
further avoid and mitigate potential adverse impacts, the Further Reduced
Alternative shall:
Stagger 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.
Install a crosswalk leading from Harkness Park to the existing Site
pedestrian path and easement area, if permission is granted from the
owner of Arbor Drive, and if the safety and utility of the crosswalk
can be determined during Site Plan review.
e. The Lead Agency finds that the parking ratios included in the Revised
Proposed Zoning, and the number of parking spaces included in the Further
Reduced Alternative, are adequate and would not result in a significant
adverse impact related to the off-street parking. Nevertheless, in order to
further reduce the potential for impacts related to parking, the Lead Agency
finds that any future site plan shall include landbank parking in an amount
and location to be determined during Site Plan review. In the event the
Further Reduced Alternative results in more parking demand than is
anticipated the Village may require the Applicant to construct the
landbanked parking area to accommodate the additional parking demand.
For the purposes of this environmental review, the Further Reduced
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 46 of 71
Alternative depicts 25 parking spaces in an area to the rear of the IL building
as a conceptual estimate of the amount and location of the proposed
landbank parking.
f. The Lead Agency finds that the design and location of the landbank parking
shall be determined during review of the approved Site Plan. Post-
construction parking monitoring, as described below, shall be required to
determine the necessity of constructing some or all of that parking. The
landbanked parking areas would be engineered and approved as part of an
eventual site plan approval, but would not be constructed with the rest of
the project. Rather, upon project stabilization, the Applicant would monitor
the utilization of the on-Site parking and provide annual reports to the
Village. The Village would determine, based on the monitoring and other
information, whether additional spaces are required to meet the actual
demand. If it is determined by the Village that additional spaces are
required, the Applicant would be required to construct some or all of the
landbanked parking.
g. The Lead Agency finds that the Further Reduced Alternative shall include
the second vehicular entrance to the underground garage in the area
illustrated in the FEIS. This Statement of Findings shall assume the second
entrance as part of the Project and is included in the Further Reduced
Alternative described herein.
K. Air Quality
1. Impacts Identified
a. This section presents the Lead Agency’s findings with respect to air
emissions generated by traffic traveling to and from the Site (i.e., mobile
sources), vehicles using the garage, and the operation of mechanical
equipment associated with the Further Reduced Alternative (i.e., stationary
sources). Air emissions generated during construction of the Further
Reduced Alternative is discussed in Section N, “Construction.”
b. The Further Reduced Alternative would not include significant sources of
sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone, or lead (lead in gasoline has been banned under
the Clean Air Act). Natural gas would be burned in the proposed heat and
hot water systems. The sulfur content of natural gas is negligible.
Furthermore, vehicular sources of SO2 and ozone are not significant;
therefore, no analysis was undertaken to estimate the future levels of SO2
from the HVAC system.
c. Potential impacts to sensitive receptors at ground levels and lower
elevations were evaluated using screening procedures outlined in the 2014
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 47 of 71
City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual2 to assess
the potential impacts to 8-hour and 1-hour average CO concentrations, as
well as 24-hour average PM10 concentrations.
d. Potential impacts to the 1-hour average NO2 concentrations, as well as
annual and 24-hour average PM2.5 concentrations, were evaluated using
EPA’s AERSCREEN model (version16216 EPA, 2016) as more stringent
NAAQS were promulgated subsequent to the development of the CEQR
guidance used to evaluate CO and PM10 . These analyses were based on a
project with slightly more units than the Further Reduced Alternative. The
analysis assumed that all emissions from the project would exhaust from a
single stack from the tallest portion of the four-story IL building—
combining emissions from the various proposed buildings into a single
stack. While the worst-case impacts at lower elevations and ground level
would occur with downwash, the analysis was performed both with and
without downwash. An additional AERSCREEN analysis was performed to
assess the potential impact from lower elevation exhaust stacks associated
with the two-story townhouses. This additional analysis combined
emissions associated with the HVAC systems associated with the two-story
townhouses (not including the HVAC systems associated with the AL and
IL buildings) within the slightly larger project from a single stack at a height
of 28 feet.
This analysis indicated that the emissions from the combined HVAC
systems for the entire development (including the townhouses, IL, and AL)
would not result in an exceedance of the NAAQS for NO2 and PM2.5.
Furthermore, the maximum projected NO2 and PM2.5 concentrations
associated with the combined development of the two-story townhouses
would be well below the NAAQS.
e. The IL and AL building may have one or more standby emergency
generators, the location of which would be determined during site plan
review.
f. The potential air quality effects of CO emissions that would result from
vehicles coming to and departing from the Project Site with the original
project was determined following the procedures outlined in the New York
State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) The Environmental Manual
(TEM) for the 12 intersections in the study area. The screening procedure
used the traffic analysis results for the 2025 analysis year as included in the
DEIS for the original project. Based on this analysis, none of the 12 study
2 New York City Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination, CEQR Technical Manual, Chapter 17,
section 322.1, March 2014.
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 48 of 71
area locations would require a detailed microscale air quality analysis;
therefore, traffic generated from the original project would not result in a
significant air quality impact.
g. Emissions from vehicles using the underground parking facility could
potentially affect ambient levels of CO and PM at adjacent receptors. An
analysis of the emissions from the outlet vents and their dispersion in the
environment was performed, calculating pollutant levels in the surrounding
area, using the methodology set forth in the CEQR Technical Manual.
Emissions from vehicles entering, parking, and exiting the garages were
estimated using the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) mobile source emission
model, as referenced in the CEQR Technical Manual. Background street
concentrations were added to the modeling results to obtain the total
ambient levels for CO and PM2.5.
The maximum predicted 1-hour and 8-hour average CO concentrations
modeled are 2.40 ppm and 1.57 ppm, respectively. These values include
predicted concentrations of 0.10 ppm and 0.07 ppm from emissions within
the parking facility and background levels of 2.30 ppm and 1.50 ppm. The
maximum predicted 1-hour and 8-hour average CO concentrations are
below the NAAQS.
The maximum predicted 24-hour and annual average PM2.5 concentrations
from the vehicles using the garage are of 22.4 µg/m3 and 7.1 µg/m3,
respectively. These values include predicted concentrations of 6.7 µg/m3 and
1.1 µg/m3, respectively, from emissions within the parking facility and
background levels of 15.7 µg/m3 and 6.0 µg/m3, respectively. The maximum
predicted 24-hour and annual average PM2.5 concentrations are below the
NAAQS.
The maximum predicted 24-hour and annual average PM2.5 concentrations
from the vehicles using the garage when combined with the maximum
stationary source concentrations are of 24.4 µg/m3 and 7.2 µg/m3,
respectively. The 24-hour value includes predicted concentrations of 6.7
µg/m3 and 2 µg/m3, from emissions within the parking facility and all
stationary sources, respectively, and a background level of 15.7 µg/m3.
Similarly, the annual value includes predicted concentrations of 1.1 µg/m3
and 0.1 µg/m3, from emissions within the parking facility and all stationary
sources, respectively, and a background level of 6.0 µg/m3. These values
are below the respective NAAQS; therefore, no significant adverse impacts
are predicted for CO or PM2.5 from the combined Project air emissions.
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 49 of 71
2. Mitigation Provided
a. In order to avoid and minimize potential adverse impacts from the
generators, the generators are proposed to be located on the west side of the
Project Site, facing the Parkway, to avoid the potential for disturbance to
uses to the east of the Site. Further, the generators are proposed to only be
used in emergencies or during testing, which testing shall only occur during
daytime hours during the week.
3. Findings and Conditions
a. The Lead Agency finds that it was appropriate to not analyze sulfur, ozone
and lead in the DEIS or FEIS as there was no identified potential for
significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the Proposed
Project related to these pollutants.
b. As there are no nearby sensitive receptors at building heights similar to or
greater than the proposed new buildings, the Lead Agency finds that
emissions sources of the size included in the Further Reduced Alternative
would not cause any exceedance of NO2 standards at elevated sensitive
receptor locations nearest to the Site.
b. The Lead Agency finds that the Further Reduced Alternative would not
have a significant adverse impact on CO or PM10 and it was appropriate that
no detailed assessment of these constituents was conducted.
c. Given that the Further Reduced Alternative would contain 22 percent less
floor area than the original project, the Lead Agency finds that the Further
Reduced Alternative would similarly not result in potential significant
adverse air quality impacts from stationary sources, such as the proposed
HVAC systems.
d. The emergency generators must be able to power medical equipment,
especially life-sustaining equipment, kitchen facilities, safety lighting and
alarms, and any other facilities critical to the operation of the IL and AL
facilities and critical to its residents. In order to avoid and minimize potential
adverse impacts from the generators, the Lead Agency finds that the
generators shall be located on the west side of the Project Site, facing the
Parkway, to avoid the potential for disturbance to uses to the east of the Site.
Further, the generators shall only be used in emergencies or during testing,
which testing shall only occur during daytime hours during the week.
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 50 of 71
e. Since the Further Reduced Alternative would generate fewer trips than the
original project, the Lead Agency finds that the Further Reduced Alternative
would similarly not be expected to result in a significant air quality impact.
f. The Lead Agency finds that the parking garage would not result in a
significant adverse impact from CO emissions or from PM2.5 emissions.
g. The Lead Agency finds that the combined Project sources of air emissions
would not result in a significant adverse impact from CO emissions or from
PM2.5 emissions.
L. Noise
1. Impacts Identified
a. This section presents the Lead Agency’s findings with respect to noise
generated by traffic traveling to and from the Site (i.e., mobile sources), and
the operation of mechanical equipment associated with the Further Reduced
Alternative (i.e., stationary sources). Noise generated during construction
of the Further Reduced Alternative is discussed in Section N,
“Construction.”
Consistent with NYSDEC guidance, the Lead Agency considers permanent
operations that would result in an increase of more than 6.0 dBA in ambient
Leq(1) noise levels at receptor sites and produce ambient noise levels of more
than 65 dBA at residences or 79 dBA at an industrial or commercial area would
be considered to be a significant adverse noise impact resulting from the
Further Reduced Alternative. The difference between existing noise levels
and noise levels with the original project indicate that the maximum
increase in Leq(1) noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors would be 1.6
dBA, which would be experienced at the intersection of Arbor Drive and
the Site driveway in the afternoon.
b. The Further Reduced Alternative is anticipated to have three to four
deliveries each day during the week, with one to two deliveries possible
during the weekend.
c. The IL and AL building may utilize an emergency backup generator or
generators.
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 51 of 71
2. Mitigation Provided
a. To mitigate the potential for adverse impacts, the Further Reduced
Alternative would limit deliveries during overnight hours to the maximum
extent practicable.
b. To avoid the potential for a significant adverse impact from the Further
Reduced Alternative’s mechanical systems, the systems will be designed to
avoid producing a combined 6.0 dBA or more increase at nearby receptors.
Further, at receptors where the existing noise level is less than 65 dBA
during the daytime hours, the Further Reduced Alternative’s mechanical
systems will be designed to avoid causing future noise levels to exceed 65
dBA.
3. Findings and Conditions
a. The Lead Agency notes that increases of in noise would be imperceptible
and would not result in a significant adverse impact. The Lead Agency notes
that noise level increases from project-generated mobile sources within
Harkness Park would be less than 1.6 dBA. The Lead Agency finds that
future noise levels at the Site driveway would remain below the NYSDEC’s
recommended level for residential uses of 65 dBA.
b. The Lead Agency finds that the number of anticipated deliveries and the
limitation on overnight deliveries would not result in a significant adverse
impact related to mobile source noise levels at existing receptors (e.g.,
Arbor Townhouses, Town and Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD) and at the
proposed AL and IL building.
c. The Lead Agency finds that given the proposed mitigation measures, the
mechanical systems are not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact.
d. While the Village Administrative Code Chapter 158, “Noise,” does not
specify a maximum allowable sound level for emergency generators, the
Lead Agency finds that, in order to avoid a significant adverse impact,
emergency power systems installed exterior to the building shall be
designed to avoid producing a combined 6.0 dBA or more increase at nearby
receptors using a combination of generator enclosures (Models with Level
1 or 2 sound enclosures shall be selected), noise barriers, and generator site
selection. To further mitigate the potential for adverse noise impacts from
emergency generators, the Lead Agency finds that generators shall be
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 52 of 71
placed on the west side of the Project Site facing the Parkway, which would
avoid direct line of sight from the generators to the surrounding sensitive
receptors, including the Arbors Condominiums, Village Hall, RBPD, and
RBFD. Further, generators shall comply with the provisions for emergency
standby backup generators at Section 250-4.1 of the Village Zoning Code.
M. Hazardous Materials
1. Impacts Identified
a. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted to identify
recognized environmental conditions (RECs) and other environmental
concerns associated with the Site resulting from past or current Site usage
and usage of neighboring properties. The Phase I ESA identified several
RECs.
In addition, the Phase I ESA noted de minimis conditions and other on-Site
environmental concerns: existing diesel generators, arsenic, and insecticide
associated with the historic arboretum on the Project Site, suspect asbestos-
containing material (ACM), potential lead-based paint (LBP), and electrical
and hydraulic equipment (including existing elevators and in-ground lift) that
may include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or mercury-containing
components.
To further assess the RECs and other environmental concerns identified in the
Phase I ESA, a Phase II ESA was prepared. The Phase II ESA included the
advancement of nine soil borings, installation of one groundwater monitoring well,
installation of three temporary soil vapor points, and the collection of soil,
groundwater, soil vapor, and ambient air samples for field-screening and laboratory
analysis.
The Phase II ESA concluded the following:
The analytical data from the soil, groundwater, and soil vapor
sampling indicated that there was no evidence of a release of
contamination associated with the RECs or de minimis condition
observations identified during the Phase I ESA. No evidence of
hazardous, non-hazardous, and/or petroleum-like releases (e.g.,
odors, staining, or elevated PID readings) were identified through
the soil, groundwater, and soil vapor sampling.
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 53 of 71
No concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), PCBs, or pesticides
were detected above their respective Part 375 Unrestricted Use Soil
Cleanup Objectives (UUSCO), Restricted Residential Use Soil
Cleanup Objectives (RRSCO), or Protection of Groundwater Soil
Cleanup Objectives (PGWSCO) in the soil samples from this
investigation.
Based on the Phase II field observations, the metals detected in soil
at levels above their respective Part 375 UUSCOs are likely
attributable to contaminants in the shallow fill layer observed at the
Site and/or background conditions, and not related to an on-Site
release or other source area.
No concentrations of VOCs or SVOCs were detected above their
respective New York State Ambient Water Quality Guidance
Values in the groundwater samples from this investigation.
No concentrations of VOCs were detected above their respective
New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) Air Guideline
Values in the soil vapor/ambient air samples from this investigation.
Evidence of an ongoing hydraulic oil condition was noted on the
concrete slab floor in the elevator machine room on the ground floor
of the building. Hydraulic oil and sorbent pads were noted on the
slab floor adjacent to elevator motors denoted “Car #1” and “Car
#2”. The findings from the soil sampling in the elevator machine
room suggest the condition has not affected subsurface soils.
2. Mitigation Provided
a. To avoid and mitigate the potential for adverse impacts, the Further
Reduced Alternative proposes to include the following mitigation measures:
Any soil or fill excavated as part of future Site redevelopment
activities should be managed in accordance with applicable
regulations. All material intended for off-Site disposal should be
tested in accordance with the requirements of the intended receiving
facility. Transportation of all soil leaving for off-Site disposal
should be in accordance with requirements covering licensing of
haulers and trucks, placarding, truck routes, manifesting, etc.
Excavation may reveal different or more significant soil
contamination in areas not tested as part of this investigation. If
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 54 of 71
discovered, such contamination could require further investigation
and/or remediation in accordance with applicable regulations.
While no evidence of USTs or other buried tanks was identified
during the geophysical survey or the sampling program, if any
storage tanks or contaminated soil are encountered during
redevelopment, such tanks should be registered with NYSDEC
and/or the Westchester County Department of Health (WCDOH), if
required, and closed and removed along with any contaminated soil
in accordance with applicable regulations.
If any USTs and/or petroleum contaminated soil are encountered
during the development activities, consideration should be given to
installing a vapor barrier below the proposed building foundation. A
membrane-type waterproofing product, if used as part of the
foundation construction, could also function as a vapor barrier.
The hydraulic oil condition noted in the elevator machine room
should be addressed, including cleaning the residual hydraulic oil
from the slab floor and properly draining the hydraulic oil reservoirs
from the faulty elevator motors until they are properly repaired
and/or removed. All oil-soaked materials and residual hydraulic oil
should be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations.
Prior to demolition, ACM surveys would be conducted throughout
the existing structure. ACM would be removed prior to demolition
by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor in accordance with
applicable regulatory requirements.
Demolition activities with the potential to disturb LBP would be
performed in accordance with the applicable Occupational Safety
and Health Administration regulation (OSHA 29 CFR 1926.62—
Lead Exposure in Construction).
The Applicant shall provide the Village with a copy of the pre-
demolition ACM/LBP surveys as well as provide progress reports
on any required pre-demolition abatement.
If dewatering is required, treatment and discharge of dewatering fluids
would be conducted in accordance with all applicable regulations and
guidance, including obtaining appropriate permits.
Appropriate erosion and sediment controls would be implemented in
accordance with NYSDEC SWPPP requirements.
A Materials Management Plan (MMP) would be prepared by the
Applicant prior to the start of excavation or ground disturbing
activities. The MMP would establish a protocol for the handling of site
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 55 of 71
soil and other subsurface materials encountered during the proposed
excavation work. The MPP would include measures for appropriate
soil handling, soil stockpile management, site controls to mitigate
sediment and dust, and would include contingency measures to address
potential unknown conditions (unknown tanks or contamination) in
accordance with all prevailing regulations. Specifically, the MMP will
include a plan for the contractor to monitor soil during all earthwork
activities for evidence of contamination (i.e., staining, odors, etc.). In
the event that areas of contamination are encountered, the MMP will
include an action response where soil disturbance will cease in the
affected area of the excavation, and an environmental consultant will
respond to the Site to properly address the contamination. Any
unknown contamination areas will be addressed in accordance with all
prevailing local, state, and federal regulations, including Spill
notification (if necessary), excavation, removal, stockpiling, and off-
site disposal of the contaminated soil, and performance documentation
(i.e., soil endpoint sampling) to confirm that the contamination area has
been properly removed.
3. Findings and Conditions
Specifically, the Village Board finds that:
a. The Lead Agency finds that with the implementation of the measures noted
above, no significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials would
be expected to occur as a result of the Further Reduced Alternative.
b. The Lead Agency finds that all interior building abatement (asbestos, lead-
based paint; older electrical equipment such as light fixtures, switches,
caulking that could contain mercury, PCBs, or other regulated materials),
as required, should be completed prior to any demolition activities including
but not limited to disturbing existing building walls and the existing slab.
c. The Lead Agency finds that demolition shall occur in accordance with
applicable regulations (OSHA, NYSDOL, etc.), and in accordance with any
demolition-related approvals from the Village.
d. The Lead Agency finds that a list of transporters and potential recycling /
disposal facilities that will accept demolition materials be provided to the
Village Building Department prior to the start of work.
e. The Lead Agency finds that the Applicant shall provide copies of agency
correspondences (NYSDOL, etc.) to the Village Building Department.
Copies of all abatement filings (e.g., New York State Department of Labor
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 56 of 71
for ACM) and memos describing abatement work completed shall be
furnished to the Village Building Department within 45 days after
completion.
f. The Lead Agency finds that the Applicant shall submit an inventory
(demolition materials / types, including abated materials; quantities
removed; off-site destinations and disposal/recycling documentation) to the
Village Building Department within 30 days of the completion of work.
g. The Lead Agency finds that as the Further Reduced Alternative would not
include hospital care or skilled nursing care, it would not generate
significant quantities of medical waste. To avoid and mitigate potential
impacts from medical waste, any medical or biological waste generated by
the Further Reduced Alternative shall be handled, stored, and disposed in
accordance with all applicable regulations, including those of the
NYSDOH.
N. Construction
1. Impacts Identified
a. Construction of the Further Reduced Alternative is anticipated to be
completed in approximately 30 months and is expected to occur in
approximately seven phases. Construction would begin with the installation
of silt fencing, disconnection of utilities, demolition of the existing Site
building, asphalt and tree removal, and expansion of the detention pond.
Once the building is demolished, road and Site utilities work would start,
the garage foundation would be constructed, and the northern wings of the
IL building would begin construction. Construction of the proposed
buildings would be separated into four phases with overlapping
construction times: first, the AL facility (construction would last
approximately 14 months); then, the IL center core (construction would last
approximately 23 months); then, the IL south wings (construction would
last approximately 14 months); and lastly, the townhouses (construction
would last approximately 14 months). The final phase is the Site restoration
phase, which would take place at the end of the building construction and
is expected to last approximately two months. The maximum number of
workers on-Site is expected to be 180 workers per day during construction
months 20 and 21, and that the maximum number of truck trips would be
140 weekly trips during construction month 21. The number of truck trips
includes the approximately 124 truck trips that would be required to remove
the excess excavated material.
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 57 of 71
b. Construction of the Further Reduced Alternative has the potential to result
in sediment deposition, rilling and erosion, and the potential for causing
turbidity within receiving waterbodies.
c. Construction of the Further Reduced Alternative would create daily
construction-related traffic to and from the Project Site, including
construction workers and the delivery of materials and equipment. The
numbers and types of vehicles would vary depending on the phase of
construction. Manpower for typical construction projects fluctuates over the
duration of the project in a bell-shaped curve. Beginning and ending months
have relatively low manpower and, during the middle of the schedule,
manpower peaks. Approximately 20–50 workers would be expected on-Site
during the first 10 months of construction. Months 11–16 would have 100–
120 workers on-Site. Months 17–27 would have approximately 150 workers
on-Site, with months 20 and 21 peaking at approximately 180 workers on-
Site. The Construction Manager for the Proposed Project, A.P.
Construction, Inc., estimates that at least 20 percent of the Site’s
construction workers would arrive by van, with two or three occupants per
van. This would be especially true for many of the specialized trades,
including plumbing, electrical, and interior finishers. These specialty trades
are most active during the latter portion of construction when the number of
on-Site workers peaks.
d. The Blind Brook Middle School and High School have a start time of 7:45
AM and a dismissal time of 2:40 PM. Dismissal occurs prior to the typical
end of the construction day. As such, the afternoon peak construction hour
would occur after the peak school dismissal traffic hour.
With respect to the morning, the peak school arrival time is assumed to be
between 7:00 AM and 7:45 AM. The Village’s Noise Code (Chapter 158)
restricts construction noise audible beyond the property line prior to 8:00
AM. Strict adherence to the Village’s existing noise code could create the
situation where, during times of predominantly exterior construction that is
not allowed to start prior to 8:00 AM, construction workers would be
arriving at the Project Site at the same time as the peak school arrival time.
e. Emissions from non-road construction equipment and on-road vehicles
have the potential to affect air quality. In addition, emissions from dust-
generating construction activities (i.e., truck loading and unloading
operations) also have the potential to affect air quality.
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 58 of 71
f. Potential temporary impacts on community noise levels during construction
of the Further Reduced Alternative could result from noise due to
construction equipment operation and from noise due to construction
vehicles and delivery vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site. Site
clearing and excavation activities would likely be the most substantial
construction noise sources. The Village’s Noise Code (Chapter 158) allows
construction noise audible beyond the property line from 8:00 AM to 6:00
PM or dusk (whichever is earlier) on weekdays, 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM on
Saturdays and does not allow hours of operation on Sundays and holidays.
g. Demolition would have the most potential to result in perceptible or damaging
vibrations at nearby sensitive uses. Vibrations from building erection and
finishing activities would be less than demolition activities and would not have
the potential to produce damaging or perceptible levels of vibration at
surrounding receptors.
2. Mitigation Provided
a. In order to avoid and minimize adverse impacts, the Applicant has proposed
that no asphalt outside of the existing building footprint shall be removed
until the entire building has been demolished and the footprint of the
demolished building has been stabilized.
b. To avoid an adverse impact from soil erosion, the Proposed Project shall
conform to the requirements of the appropriate NYSDEC State Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for Stormwater
Discharges Associated with Construction Activity Permit, the “New York
State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control,”
dated July 2016, and Chapter 118 “Erosion and Sediment Control” of the
Village Code. As such, the Further Reduced Alternative shall develop a
SWPPP, containing both temporary erosion control measures during
construction and post-construction stormwater management practices to
avoid flooding and water quality impacts in the long term.
c. The Applicant has proposed an amendment to Chapter 158 of the Village
Code that would allow the Village Board the discretion to grant a waiver
of the 8:00 AM start time by no more than 1 hour (i.e., allow a start time of
7:00 AM) in cases where the Village Board finds that such a waiver could
reduce potential traffic impacts at sensitive locations within the Village,
such as the Project Site. Additionally, there is potential to reduce the overall
time of site construction with an increase in the allowable work hours.
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 59 of 71
d. To avoid, minimize, and mitigate the impact of construction noise on nearby
receptors, the following measures are part of the Further Reduced
Alternative:
Erection of a noise barrier that is 12 feet tall along the perimeter of
the Project Site on Arbor Drive between the Main Site entrance and
the southern site boundary. The barrier will be constructed from
plywood, or a material of similar noise abatement properties, and
will be installed prior to the start of significant construction
activities during the time that the Blind Brook Middle School and
High School is in session during the normal school year;
Noisy construction equipment, such as cranes, concrete pumps,
concrete trucks, and delivery trucks, will be located away from, and
shielded from, sensitive receptors, such as the school, to the extent
practicable;
Construction equipment, including the mufflers on the equipment,
will be required to be properly maintained;
Electrification of construction equipment to the extent feasible and
practicable will be undertaken as soon in the construction process as
logistics allow;
The construction site will be configured to minimize back-up alarm
noise to the extent feasible and practicable;
Construction trucks will not be allowed to idle for longer than 3
minutes.
e. In addition to the noise barrier referenced along the perimeter of the Project
Site on Arbor Drive, during environmental review the Lead Agency
discussed the potential for a noise barrier to be erected on the east side of
the Site (Village Hall) and/or the west side of the Site (The Arbors) to
mitigate noise impacts during the construction phases when noise impacts
will be at their highest. The Lead Agency has determined that this
additional noise barrier is necessary to mitigate noise impacts.
f. The Applicant has proposed a vibration monitoring program at the Arbors
community and at the Tennessee Gas Pipeline during demolition of the
existing office building to ensure that vibration levels do not exceed the
thresholds that could potentially result in damage during construction.
3. Findings and Conditions
Specifically, the Village Board finds that:
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 60 of 71
a. The Lead Agency finds that in order to avoid and minimize potential
adverse impacts, during construction, the Site shall be fenced off to ensure
safety and the pedestrian path leading from the Village buildings to
Harkness Park and the Blind Brook High School shall be temporarily
closed. The Applicant shall be responsible for directing students and
pedestrians to the existing sidewalk along King Street, where they would
cross Arbor Drive at the existing signalized crosswalk, continue through the
park or along King Street.
b. The Lead Agency finds that in order to avoid and minimize potential adverse
impacts from construction of the Further Reduced Alternative, a detailed
Construction Management Plan (CMP) shall be prepared by the Applicant in
close coordination with Village staff and consultants, and shall be reviewed
and approved by the Board of Trustees as part of Site Plan approval and made
a condition thereof. The Village would, therefore, be able to enforce the
provisions of the CMP throughout the construction process. The CMP shall
provide for implementation of the SWPPP and ESCP, as well as the measures
to avoid impacts to traffic, air quality, and noise.
c. In order to minimize and mitigate potential adverse impacts related to
construction-period traffic, the Lead Agency finds that the following
measures shall be implemented:
All construction equipment, materials, deliveries, and worker
parking shall be accommodated on-Site. There shall be no
construction equipment, truck, material, or worker parking, queuing,
or staging permitted on Arbor Drive at any time.
The CMP shall include a plan that delineates areas of construction
worker parking, truck queuing and unloading, and material and
equipment staging.
d. Based on a quantitative analysis of the potential for construction related
trips to impact the area’s roadways, the Lead Agency finds that construction
traffic impacts would be less than the typical peak hours during the
operation of the original project. Therefore, the Lead Agency finds that
construction of the Further Reduced Alternative would not result in a
significant adverse impact to the area roadways.
e. Construction truck movements would be spread throughout the day and
would average 2–5 trucks per day. There would be three peak times of truck
activity, where the number of trucks accessing the Site would rise to
approximately 11–23 trucks per day. To reduce and mitigate potential
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 61 of 71
adverse cumulative impacts with school operations, the Lead Agency finds
that, to the extent possible, truck trips shall not coincide with the school’s
entry and exit hours. This requirement shall be included in the CMP.
Construction trucks would be expected to use one of the following routes to
access the Project Site:
I-684 Southbound to Manhattanville Road to Purchase Street to
Anderson Hill Road to King Street;
I-287 eastbound to Westchester Avenue and Anderson Hill Road to
King Street;
I-95 northbound to Boston Post Road (US Route 1) to King Street
or I-287 to Boston Post Road (US Route 1) to King Street; or,
I-95 southbound to Exit 2 to Delavan Avenue to North Main Street
(US Route 1) to King Street via Willet Avenue or Adee Street.
The Lead Agency finds that the use of these major area roadways for
construction trucks would not be expected to create a significant adverse
impact to the roadway network, as these roads typically carry heavy
vehicles.
The Lead Agency finds that in order to mitigate potential adverse impacts
to Arbor Drive from construction truck traffic to the maximum extent
practicable, the Applicant shall monitor the condition of Arbor Drive
throughout the construction period and make repairs to Arbor Drive during
the construction period as warranted and as appropriate. Upon completion
of construction on-Site, the Applicant shall restore Arbor Drive to a
reasonable and safe condition, including repaving.
Based on the analysis in the DEIS and FEIS, the Lead Agency finds that
there is no feasible alternative for constructing a temporary construction
entrance into the Project Site that does not utilize Arbor Drive, nor is a
temporary construction entrance necessary as construction of the Further
Reduced Alternative is not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact
on Arbor Drive.
f. The Lead Agency finds that due to the number of nearby residences, a
waiver of the 8:00 AM start time to allow an earlier construction start-time
would be disruptive to the nearby residences and such disruption at the early
hour of 7:00 AM outweighs the potential for conflicts between construction
traffic and school-related traffic; however, even without adoption of such a
measure, the Lead Agency would consider approval of the Further Reduced
Alternative as the potential impacts of construction traffic would be
minimized to the maximum extent practical consistent with other
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 62 of 71
environmental, social, and economic considerations, including the potential
impacts to nearby residents of an earlier construction start time.
g. The Lead Agency finds that in order to minimize potential adverse impacts
related to simultaneous construction activities at the Project Site and the
Middle/High School, applicable provisions of the CMP shall be discussed
with BBRUFSD officials prior to the commencement of construction to
minimize the potential impacts to students and teachers. The CMP shall
provide for continuous communication between the Applicant’s contractor
and the BBRUFSD regarding potential traffic along King Street and other
impacts.
h. The Lead Agency finds that the Applicant shall coordinate with the
BBRUFSD to avoid the most noise-intensive activities during critical
testing days/times (e.g., Advanced Placement, and other tests).
i. The Lead Agency finds that the Applicant shall Coordinate with the
BBRUFSD during the construction process and provide a 2-week look-
ahead construction schedule that would identify potentially noise-intensive
activities.
j. In order to avoid and minimize potential air quality impacts from
construction to the maximum extent practicable, the Lead Agency finds that
the following measures shall be incorporated into the Further Reduced
Alternative and shall be included in the CMP:
Minimizing the area of soil that is disturbed at any one time;
Minimizing the amount of time during which soils are exposed;
Installing truck mats or anti-tracking pads at egress points to clean
the trucks’ tires prior to leaving the Project Site;
Watering of exposed areas during dry periods without creating standing
or flowing of water;
Using drainage diversion methods (e.g., silt fences) to minimize soil
erosion during Site grading;
Covering stored materials with a tarp to reduce windborne dust;
Limiting on-Site construction vehicle speed to 5 mph;
Cleaning the asphalt parking lot and driveway, including the
construction entrance, and adjacent roadways (Arbor Drive and
King Street) used for access to the site;
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 63 of 71
On-site visual monitoring of dust conditions to identify potential
adverse air quality impacts from airborne dust and, potentially, the
need implement a Community Air Monitoring Plan (CAMP); and
Using truck covers/tarp rollers that cover fully loaded trucks and
keep debris and dust from being expelled from the truck along its
haul route.
The Lead Agency finds that with the implementation of these measures,
construction of the Further Reduced Alternative would not result in a
significant adverse off-Site impact from fugitive dust. In the event that
airborne dust from the Project Site creates an adverse impact to the
BBRUFSD, procedures set forth in the CMP would immediately alert the
on-Site construction manager and the Village so that appropriate measures
could be taken to ameliorate the potential temporary impact and, if
determined necessary by the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant,
initiate a CAMP.
k. The Lead Agency finds that the following measures shall be implemented
and required in the CMP to minimize emissions from construction vehicles
and equipment to the maximum extent practicable:
Ultra-low sulfur diesel would be utilized for all construction
equipment and vehicles;
All equipment would be properly maintained; and
Idling of construction or delivery vehicles or other equipment would
not be allowed when the equipment is not in active use.
Construction trucks would not be allowed to idle for longer than 3
minutes.
Use of Best Available Tailpipe (BAT) Reduction Technologies. The
CMP shall require that non-road diesel engines with a power rating
of 50 hp or greater and controlled truck fleets (i.e., truck fleets under
long-term contract with the project) including but not limited to
concrete mixing and pumping trucks would utilize BAT technology
for reducing diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions. Diesel
particulate filters (DPFs) have been identified as being the tailpipe
technology currently proven to have the highest reduction
capability. Construction contracts would specify that all diesel non-
road engines rated at 50 hp or greater would utilize DPFs, either
installed by the original equipment manufacturer or retrofitted.
Retrofitted DPFs must be verified by EPA or the California Air
Resources Board. Active DPFs or other technologies proven to
achieve an equivalent reduction may also be used.
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 64 of 71
The Lead Agency finds that implementation of the measures listed above
would avoid and minimize potential adverse impacts to air quality during
construction of the Further Reduced Alternative to the maximum extent
practicable. In addition, the Lead Agency finds that, should visual
inspection of actual emission and dust conditions during construction
warrant, a Community Air Monitoring Program (CAMP) shall be
implemented.
l. The Lead Agency finds that implementation of the above noted measures
(Item 2.d) to mitigate construction noise shall be a required component of
the Further Reduced Alternative and shall be documented in the CMP. In
addition, the Applicant shall erect a 12 foot noise barrier on the entire
perimeter of the Project site along the east side of the Site (Village Hall,
Police Department and Fire Department) and a 12 foot noise barrier on the
entire perimeter of the Project site along the west side of the Site (The
Arbors) to mitigate noise impacts during the construction phases when noise
impacts will be at their highest (approximately 12 dBA). The barrier should
be constructed from plywood, or a material of similar noise abatement
properties, and would be installed prior to the start of significant
construction activities. Details on all three noise barriers to be constructed
should be provided for review prior to mobilization. The noise barrier
should be maintained throughout the demolition and construction activities.
m. The Lead Agency finds that in-field noise level readings shall be provided
to the Village - if warranted based on site work activities - to confirm the
noise levels are not above the Applicant’s modeled noise levels. All idling
of vehicles shall be limited to 3 minutes per Westchester County Law.
n. The Lead Agency finds that the vibration monitoring program shall be
implemented at the Arbors community and at the Tennessee Gas Pipeline
during demolition and during the use of construction impact devices (such
as, jackhammers, pavement breakers, pile drivers, pneumatic tools, etc.) to
ensure that vibration levels do not exceed the thresholds that could
potentially result in damage to adjoining property, utilities (water, sewer,
gas, electric, fiber / cable), etc. Prior to starting demolition / construction
activities (i.e., during Village permit stage), a vibration monitoring plan
shall be prepared and shall include a listing of a Tennessee Gas Pipeline
contact, along with the contacts for all existing subsurface utilities at the site
and adjacent properties (water, sewer, gas, electric, fiber / cable). The
Applicant shall make a notification to each utility entity (Tennessee Gas
Pipeline and all others) prior to the start of demolition and construction
activities, and report to the Village Building Department on such
notifications and any feedback received.
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 65 of 71
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD NOISE IMPACTS
As discussed above, absent appropriate mitigation measures, construction of the Further Reduced
Alternative has the potential to result in significant adverse noise impacts to adjacent sensitive
receptors. However, with the implementation of the measures required by this Findings Statement,
the Lead Agency finds that, while construction noise will be noticeable at nearby receptors, it
would not create a significant adverse impact.
CONSTRUCTION WORKER PEAK ARRIVAL HOUR
As discussed above, strict adherence to the Village’s existing noise code could create the situation
where, during times of predominantly exterior construction that is not allowed to start prior to 8:00
AM, construction workers would be arriving at the Project Site at the same time as the peak school
arrival time. The Lead Agency finds that it is prudent to explore measures that could reduce the
potential for adverse impacts (significant or otherwise) related to school drop-off times in
particular. The Applicant has proposed that the Village allow for a waiver of the 8:00 AM start
time by no more than 1 hour (i.e., allow a start time of 7:00 AM) in cases where the Village Board
finds that such a waiver could reduce potential traffic impacts at sensitive locations within the
Village, such as the Project Site. As noted by the Village’s Traffic Consultant, permitting such a
waiver “makes sense” from a traffic perspective “because the volumes [on the area roadways] are
substantially lower before 7:00 AM.” The Lead Agency finds that due to the number of nearby
residences, a waiver of the 8:00 AM start time to allow an earlier construction start-time would be
disruptive to the nearby residences and such disruption at the early hour of 7:00 AM outweighs
the potential for conflicts between construction traffic and school-related traffic; however, even
without adoption of such a measure, the Lead Agency would consider approval of the Further
Reduced Alternative as the potential impacts of construction traffic would be minimized to the
maximum extent practical consistent with other environmental, social, and economic
considerations, including the potential impacts to nearby residents of an earlier construction start
time.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
Certain resources, both natural and human-made, would be expended in the construction and
operation of the Further Reduced Alternative. These resources include use of the land, building
materials, energy, and human effort (time and labor) required to develop, construct, and operate
the Further Reduced Alternative. These resources are considered irretrievably committed because
their reuse for some purpose other than the Further Reduced Alternative would be highly unlikely.
Given that the Project Site is already developed, the Lead Agency finds that the redevelopment of
this portion of the Site for the Further Reduced Alternative is not considered a significant or an
adverse impact. The actual building materials used in the construction of the Further Reduced
Alternative (e.g., wood, steel, concrete, and glass) and energy, in the form of gas, diesel, and
electricity, consumed during the construction and operation of the Further Reduced Alternative by
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 66 of 71
construction equipment and the various mechanical systems (heating, hot water, and air
conditioning) would be irretrievably committed to the Further Reduced Alternative. The Lead
Agency finds that none of these impacts are considered significant.
GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
The Further Reduced Alternative is being proposed to serve a current and existing need. Further,
the Further Reduced Alternative does not include the extension of any infrastructure into areas not
currently serviced. Finally, the increase in Village population would not be expected to create
significant new commercial development pressure in the region. Rather, the Further Reduced
Alternative would include a high level of on-Site amenities for Project residents, including meal
service, exercise and fitness options, and entertainment. Therefore, the Lead Agency finds that the
Revised Proposed Action, inclusive of the Revised Proposed Zoning and Further Reduced
Alternative, would not be expected to induce growth elsewhere in the Village or region.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
As noted in the sections above, the technical analyses included in the DEIS and FEIS, including
the Traffic Impact Study and the study of municipal services, includes the potential for cumulative
impacts from other developments in the study area. Specifically, the Lead Agency identified
relevant projects to be included in the cumulative impact analyses. Impacts related to speculative
projects or proposals, or projects or proposals that are not likely to significantly impact the same
resources as the Further Reduced Alternative, were not discussed in the DEIS or FEIS. Therefore,
these Findings, which are based on those technical analyses, also appropriately consider the
relevant cumulative impacts of the Further Reduced Alternative.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to the original project, the Revised Proposed Project, and the Further Reduced
Alternative, six different alternatives were described and analyzed in the DEIS and FEIS. The Lead
Agency has reviewed these alternatives.
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The “No Action” alternative would result in no changes to the Village’s Zoning Ordinance and no
redevelopment of the Project Site. This alternative assumed the existing office building would be
reoccupied. Based on the rental history of the existing office building, including the Applicant’s
previous attempts to rent the current building, and the trend of declining demand for stand-alone
office buildings in the region, the Lead Agency finds that re-use of the existing office building is
not likely to be economically viable.
Based on the analyses in the DEIS, the Lead Agency makes the following findings with respect to
the No Action alternative:
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 67 of 71
Reuse of the existing office building would result in continued occupancy of the legally
existing nonconforming structure;
The No Action alternative is inconsistent with the Village’s recently adopted
Comprehensive Plan;
Full occupancy of the existing office building, even if it were feasible, would result in
significantly more traffic and other environmental impacts than the Further Reduced
Alternative;
No modern stormwater practices would be installed to improve stormwater quality or
reduce stormwater quantity;
Total impervious land coverage would not be decreased;
The Site would continue to be visually dominated by an architecturally monolithic building
and 5.3-acres of surface parking and driveways;
A larger number of employees would be present on the Site, though the number of EMS
calls would likely be less than the Further Reduced Alternative.
The Lead Agency finds that this alternative is not preferable to the Further Reduced Alternative as
it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, is likely not economically viable, and would result
in a larger number of traffic trips than proposed.
RESIDENTIAL NON-AGE-RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE
EXISTING PUD REGULATIONS
In this alternative, 106 attached townhouses, each with approximately 1,480 sf of gross floor area
(and with a combined gross floor area of 159,900 sf) would be constructed on the Project Site,
together with a clubhouse, pool, and gazebo. Assuming the same average number of bedrooms per
unit as exists within The Arbors, this alternative would have 250 bedrooms. As such, the Site would
be required to have at least 285 parking spaces.
Based on the analyses in the DEIS, the Lead Agency finds that development under the existing
zoning would result in:
Slightly less site disturbance than the Further Reduced Alternative;
Similar visual character to the Arbors community;
Approximately 49 public-school-age children living on the Project Site;
Increased costs to the BBRUFSD of approximately $1.4 million per year; requiring an
average assessed value of approximately $707,000 per unit to generate enough tax revenue
to offset the costs;
Approximately the same number of vehicular trips as the Further Reduced Alternative;
Less excavation required than the Further Reduced Alternative, but the potential for similar
noise impacts during construction.
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 68 of 71
The Lead Agency finds that this alternative is not preferable to the Further Reduced Alternative
and that this alternative is less consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Further Reduced
Alternative would result in a diversification of the Village’s housing stock and would specifically
increase the housing options available to senior citizens, while this alternative would accomplish
neither goal.
SENIOR LIVING FACILITY UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING
This alternative develops the Project Site with IL units in accordance with the existing PUD
regulations. As stated above, the current PUD regulations permit six dwelling units per acre with
a maximum gsf of 9,000 sf per acre. As such, the only difference between this alternative and the
non-age-restricted as-of-right alternative is that the units in this alternative would be restricted to
residents aged at least 62 years. Therefore, the impacts of this alternative on the physical
environment are assumed to be identical to those of the non-age-restricted as-of-right alternative
and only non-physical environmental impacts are considered.
The Lead Agency finds that this alternative would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s
goal of encouraging senior housing, but inconsistent with the Plan’s goal of allowing increased
height for senior living facilities. This alternative would result in an increase in the number of EMS
calls from the current condition. However, the number of calls would be highly dependent on the
nature of the use proposed. Similarly, the assessed value of this alternative would be greater than
the current condition, but would be highly dependent on the nature of the product proposed.
The Lead Agency finds that this alternative is not preferable to the Further Reduced Alternative.
While development of a senior living facility under the existing zoning could potentially result in
fewer impacts in some environmental categories, it may not be consistent with other market
realities. The Lead Agency notes that the Further Reduced Alternative is based on a private
property owner’s assessment of current market realities. Further, depending on the nature of the
senior living facility proposed, this alternative could result in adverse impacts that would not be
offset by other beneficial impacts, such as a commensurate increase in property tax revenue.
Therefore, the Lead Agency finds that, based on the thorough environmental analysis of the
Further Reduced Alternative that concluded there would not be significant adverse impacts and
there would be beneficial fiscal impacts, construction and operation of the Further Reduced
Alternative is preferable to a hypothetical senior living facility that may, or may not, be developed
under the existing zoning.
REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
This alternative developed the Project Site with a senior living facility at a density greater than
permitted by the current PUD zoning, but less than the original project. Specifically, this alternative
included a 20 percent reduction in the unit count for each component as compared to the original
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 69 of 71
project resulting in an alternative with 128 IL units, 68 AL units, and 18 townhouse units. This
alternative included a total of 397,500 gsf.
As noted above, the Further Reduced Alternative includes 126 IL units, 85 AL units, and 20
townhouse units. The Further Reduced Alternative includes 345,902 gsf, a 22 percent reduction in
gsf from the original project.
This alternative would have more gross square feet than the Further Reduced Alternative and
slightly more vehicle trips. Because of the increase in gross square feet associated with this
alternative, the IL and AL building in this alternative would be more visually prominent than in
the Further Reduced Alternative. Specifically, as discussed in the DEIS, while the footprint of the
building was reduced, the front wings of the IL building facing Arbor Drive had to be increased to
four-stories.
The Lead Agency finds that this alternative is not preferable to the Further Reduced Alternative.
While the off-site impacts of this alternative (i.e., fiscal impacts, EMS calls, traffic) would be
similar, the design of the Further Reduced Alternative is more responsive to the community’s
concerns and is more visually appropriate than this alternative.
REDUCED SIZE PROJECT
This alternative redeveloped the Project Site with a senior living facility at the same density as the
original project, but with smaller building and unit sizes and no increase in the permitted height of
the proposed buildings (i.e., 35-feet maximum building height). The program for this alternative is
largely similar to the original project.
This alternative would require a zoning amendment similar to the Revised Proposed Zoning, only
without an increase in allowable height. The physical impacts of this alternative would be similar to
the original project. However, this alternative would require a much longer IL/AL building with a
third front wing. As the number of units would be similar to the original project, the number of EMS
calls, traffic trips, and fiscal impacts would be similar as well.
The Lead Agency finds that this alternative is not preferable to the Further Reduced Alternative.
This alternative would have more units (and therefore more traffic, EMS calls, etc.) than the Further
Reduced Alternative. In addition, the visual impact of this alternative is less desirable than the
Further Reduced Alternative. Finally, as noted above, the Further Reduced Alternative achieves a
22 percent reduction in gross floor area from the original project, while minimizing other impacts.
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 70 of 71
ORIGINAL PROJECT WITH A 62-YEAR OLD AGE RESTRICTION
This alternative would have developed the original project but would have restricted occupancy to
those at least 62 years old. The Lead Agency finds that this alternative is not preferable to the
Further Reduced Alternative, which incorporates the 62-year-old age requirement. The Further
Reduced Alternative reduces the number of units and square footage from the original project and
results in a more visually desirable project with fewer off-site impacts than the original project.
LEAD AGENCY DISCUSSION OF DECISION
As reflected in the foregoing, the Lead Agency has carefully considered the Further Reduced
Alternative, and has considered in detail the social, economic, fiscal, land use and other relevant
factors, as well as the reasonably anticipated environmental impacts of the Further Reduced
Alternative and measures to mitigate impacts. The Lead Agency has given particularly close
attention to issues that were the subject of extensive comment by the public, including density,
visual impacts, community character, community facilities (including the EMS), socioeconomics
(including fiscal implications), traffic, and construction impacts. These findings are the result of
the Lead Agency’s weighing and balancing of these and other relevant factors and considerations
as set forth above.
Certificate of Findings to Approve the Action:
Accordingly, having considered the DEIS and FEIS, the Village Board through this Findings
Statement, certifies that:
A. It has considered the relevant environmental impacts, facts and conclusions
disclosed in the DEIS and FEIS;
B. It has weighed and balanced the relevant environmental impacts with social,
economic and other considerations;
C. The requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 have been met; and
D. Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations from among
the reasonable alternatives available, the Further Reduced Alternative, as
modified by this Statement of Findings, avoids or minimizes adverse
environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable; and
E. Adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum
extent practicable by incorporating as conditions of any site plan approval within
the Project Site those relevant mitigation measures identified in the DEIS, FEIS
and this Statement of Findings.
900 King Street Redevelopment
Lead Agency's SEQRA Findings Statement
Page 71 of 71
Certified by the Village Board by Resolution adopted on _____________, 2021.
Village of Rye Brook
By:_______________________
Christopher Bradbury
Village Administrator/Clerk
Y:\Shared\Offices\NYR\Data\Documents\DOCS2\500\RyeBrook\900 King Street Findings Draft 1.docx