Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOT/Planning Board File i On a motion made by Trustee Klein and seconded by Trustee Heiser,the following resolution was adopted. RESOLUTION CONSIDERING APPROVAL OF A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK AND APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPLICATIONS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 259 NORTH RIDGE STREET WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees is in receipt of revised applications by Louis Larizza, contract vendee,for approval of a petition for a zoning map amendment to rezone property from the R-15 zoning district to the Fair and Affordable Housing(FAH)zoning district,3-lot subdivision application and site plan application for four(4)units of affordable housing on proposed Lot 1, located at 259 North Ridge Street,at the intersection of West Ridge Street and North Ridge Street, designated as Parcel ID 135.35-1-11 on the Town of Rye Tax Map and located in the R-15 Zoning District and the Scenic Roads Overlay District;and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees is the Approval Authority for the application pursuant to Village Code§250-6.1.E(2);and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has reviewed the following plans in addition to the application materials set forth in the memorandum from Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc., dated July 5,2019: 1. Engineer's Plans(Revised Site Plans for Lots 1, 2 and 3), prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C.,Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y: Sheet Number Sheet Title Dated 0 of 5 Cover Sheet and Drawing Schedule 8/27/18 rev.4/30/19 1 of 5 Site Plan, Grading/Layout 4/10/18 rev. 6/26/19 IA of 5 Lot I Grading/Layout 6/10/19 rev.6/26/19 2 of 5 Utility Plan 4/10/18 rev.6/26/19 3 of 5 Erosion Control Plan 4/10/18 rev. 6/26/19 4 of 5 Sight Distance Study 4/10/18 rev.4/10/19 4A of 5 Stopping Sight Distance Study 4/30/19 5 of 5 Details/Notes 2/21/18 rev. 1/25/19 1 of 1 Wetland Mitigation Plan 4/10/18 rev.6/26/19 2. Two Sets of Builder's Plans (Lot 1 Building IA and Building 1B), Lazz Development/Pawling Holdings, Port Chester,N.Y.: Sheet Number Sheet Title Dated I Elevations 4/27/18 2 Elevation Calculations, Fire Ladder Diagrams, and Site Section 1/23/18 3 Foundation Plan 4/27/18 4 First Floor Plans 4/27/18 5 Second Floor Plans 4/27/18 3. Planting Plan (Lot 1), prepared by Anthony Zaino, RLA, Westchester County Planning Department,dated 4/8/18,revised 12/13/18 4. Tree Preservation Plan (Lot 1), prepared by Anthony Zaino, RLA, Westchester County Planning Department,dated 1/29/19 5. Preliminary Subdivision Plat, prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C., Croton-on- Hudson,N.Y.,dated April 10,2018;and WHEREAS,the Board of Trustees previously determined the proposed action to be an Unlisted Action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA);and 141V74/6M9160 9//0//9 WHEREAS, the revised applications are in response to comments received by Village staff, consultants and the public concerning the previously proposed development of eight (8) units of affordable housing on proposed Lot 1 which was last considered on an agenda of the Board of Trustees on December 13,2016 for the purposes of a public hearing;and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees referred the original applications to the Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook in September 2015 and the Planning Board adopted an advisory Report and Recommendation in September 2016;and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees referred the revised applications to the Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook in November 2018 and the Planning Board adopted an advisory Report and Recommendation in March 2019;and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees referred the revised applications to the Westchester County Planning Board pursuant to the NYS General Municipal Law and the Westchester County Administrative Code and received a response from Westchester County Planning Board dated April 1, 2019;and WHEREAS,on July 10, 2019,the Board of Trustees opened a public hearing on the subject site plan and subdivision applications, at which time all persons interested were given an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said applications and the Board of Trustees closed the public hearing on August 27, 2019;and WHEREAS, on August 27, 2019, the Board of Trustees opened a public hearing on the proposed local law, at which time all persons interested were given an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said local law and the Board of Trustees closed the public hearing on August 27, 2019;and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has reviewed memoranda from the Village Planning Consultant and the Village Engineering Consultant;and WHEREAS, as set forth in Village Code §250-26.1(B), the purpose of the FAH District is to "provide flexible land use regulations,a streamlined permitting process and incentives to encourage the development of fair and affordable housing within the Village that will remain fair and affordable for at least 50 years as required pursuant to the Stipulation"and to"encourage a balanced demographic;"and WHEREAS, rezoning the property to the FAH District will benefit the Village by achieving the aforementioned objectives through the construction of affordable housing in buildings that have been designed to be generally consistent with the character of the neighborhood;and WHEREAS, pursuant to Village Code §250-26.1(17)(3)(b), the Applicant has requested that the Board of Trustees approve the following waivers from the applicable dimensional and bulk requirements of the FAH District to be applied to the subject property based on a May 15, 2019 and August 25,2019 Zoning Analysis by the Village Building& Fire Inspector: 1. §250-20.A., B., C., and DJ§2504.B: The proposed construction of two detached dwellings on a single lot regardless of the number of families is not a permitted principal use, not a permitted accessory use, not a use permitted at the discretion of the Village Board,and not a use permitted at the discretion of the Planning Board in either the R-15 zone or in the FAH zone. Therefore, a waiver from the limitation of one main building permit lot is required. 2. §250-20.G(D/250-7.F(6)(b): The minimum required front yard setback within the Scenic Roads Overlay District(SROD)is 60 feet. The proposed Lot 1 site plan indicates both 2-family FAH dwellings are proposed with a 30 foot front yard setback. Therefore a front yard setback waiver of 30 feet is required for both buildings. 1313/706M9160 9/10/19 3. §250-7.F(6)(c): The minimum required vegetative buffer along North Ridge Street within the SROD is 35 feet. Both 2-family FAH buildings are proposed to be setback 30 feet from the front property line. Therefore, an SROD vegetative buffer waiver of 5 feet will be required for both buildings. 4. §250-6.G(1)(d)(2): The minimum required front yard setback for unenclosed off-street parking is 25 feet. Both 2-family FAH buildings are proposed to be provided with a parking court encroaching to within 14.7 feet of the front lot line. Therefore a front yard unenclosed off-street parking setback waiver of 10.3 feet will be required for both FAH parking courts. 5. k250-20.I(1): The maximum allowable front height/setback ratio is .60. FAH Building IA is proposed with a front height/setback ratio of .88. Therefore a front height/setback ratio waiver of .28 is required for FAH Building IA. 6. $250-20.I(1): The maximum allowable front height/setback ratio is .60. FAH Building 1B is proposed with a front height/setback ratio of .82. Therefore a front height setback ratio waiver of .22 is required for FAH Building 1B. 7. §250-20.1(2): The maximum allowable side height/setback ratio is 1.60. FAH Building 1B is proposed with a side height/setback ratio of 2.2. Therefore a side height/setback ratio waiver of .60 is required for FAH Building 1 B. WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees is fully familiar with the subject property and has reviewed and considered the Planning Board's report and recommendation, all submittals by the Applicant, all memoranda issued by Village staff and consultants, and all comments from the public and governmental agencies. NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,that in accordance with Section 250-40(G) of the Village Code, the Village Board hereby waives the following notification requirements for the public hearing requirements for this Application: 1. The names of the property owners listed on the mailing and affidavit of mailing may differ from the actual property owners; 2. Only one individual may be listed on the mailing and affidavit of mailing even though more than one individual may be a property owner;and 3. The size of the lettering on the posted sign may be approximately 0.5" less than required by code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees hereby determines that the Project will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts based upon the information stated in the EAF and supplemental information,and hereby adopts the annexed Negative Declaration. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees hereby adopts the annexed local law amending the Zoning Map of the Village of Rye Brook to change the zoning designation of a portion of property located at 259 North Ridge Street and designated on the Town of Rye Tax Map as Section 135.35, Block 1, Lot 11, from the R-15 Zoning District to the FAH Zoning District, that portion being Lot I as shown on the Subdivision Plat, prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C., dated April 10, 2018, consisting of 56,909 square feet (1.30 acres), as described in the annexed local law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees hereby approves the FAH Zoning District,pursuant to Village Code §250-26.1(F)(3)(b),upon the following findings: 1. The waivers are consistent with the purpose and intent of the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code and Official Map; 141117416869160 9//0/19 2. The waivers will further fair and affordable housing within the Village by permitting the development of four(4) units of fair and affordable housing that are designed and intended to be consistent with the requirements of the 2009 Stipulation and Order of Settlement and Dismissal in the case of United States of America ex rel. Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York, Inc. v. Westchester County, New York, which requires Westchester County to implement a plan to provide 750 units of fair and affordable housing in eligible municipalities throughout the County; 3. The waivers will permit the construction of a two 2-family family residential buildings consisting of a total of four (4) units of fair and affordable housing pursuant to an architectural design and site layout that is generally consistent with the character of the North Ridge Street corridor and therefore, is in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the immediate area; 4. The waivers have been minimized the greatest extent practicable to mitigate any potential impacts upon the orderly development and quality of life for neighboring areas; 5. The waivers will permit the construction a housing-type that will add to the diversity of the Village's housing stock and which will contribute to economic development within the Village; 6. The site plan has been designed with the requested waivers to include appropriate screening, stormwater management facilities, landscaping and other site elements, such that the location, nature and height of the proposed building, location of parking and the nature and extent of landscaping on the site will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or substantially impair the value thereof; 7. As demonstrated by the adoption of a Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA, the waivers will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts;and 8. The requested waivers are the minimum necessary to maintain the economic viability of the affordable housing development proposal;and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees hereby finds that the Final Plat will not be substantively changed from the Preliminary Plat, Section 250-26.I.E(2)(b) of the Village Zoning Code permits an applicant seeking an FAH Zoning designation to proceed directly to review of a Final Subdivision Plat, a public hearing has been held on the Subdivision Plat, dated April 10, 2018, prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonoco, P.E., P.C., Croton-on-Hudson, NY, therefore the Village Board determines that no further public hearing is required on the Final Plat. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees hereby grants final subdivision approval for the application referenced herein which includes the Subdivision Plat, dated April 10, 2018, prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonoco, P.E., P.C., Croton-on-Hudson, NY, and the Mayor is authorized to sign such plat subject to the following conditions and modifications which must be satisfied prior to the signing of the Final Plat by the Mayor: 1. The Applicant shall prepare a Final Subdivision Plat in accordance with Section 219-32 of the Village of Rye Brook Subdivision Regulations, which shall include the Town of Rye tax lot designations for the subject lots, addition of a signature block for the Village Mayor, elimination of the word "Preliminary" and all other requirements of Section 219-32 of the Village Code. Upon obtaining a satisfactory review by the Village Engineer/Superintendent of Public Works, the Final Subdivision Plat shall be submitted for review and signature to the Westchester County Department of Health. The signature of the Department of Health shall be required prior to the signing of the Final Plat by the Mayor. 11I 1/7 4/6 96 9 1 6i 19/1CY19 2. The Applicant shall submit a statement signed by the Town of Rye Receiver of Taxes that all taxes due by the Applicant have been paid. 3. Based on the current and anticipated future need for park and recreational opportunities in the Village of Rye Brook, and the demands of the future population of the proposed residential development, the Board of Trustees hereby finds that additional recreation/parkland should be created as a condition of approval for the Application. The Board of Trustees further determines that a suitable park of adequate size cannot be properly and practically located within the subject property, nor has the Applicant offered recreation/parkland of suitable size and practical location to adequately address the need for additional recreation/parkland within the Village. Therefore, the Board of Trustees hereby requires that the Applicant shall pay a Recreation Fee in Lieu of Parkland in accordance with Section 219-26.A(4)of the Village Code for the two (2) new lots to be created as a result of this approval (i.e., no fee is required for Lot 2 which contains the existing single-family dwelling). Such fee shall be based on the Recreation Fee for residential subdivisions as set forth in the Village of Rye Brook License & Permit Fee Schedule. 4. Submission a maintenance agreement and easement pursuant to Sections 217-19 and 217- 21 of the Village Code for stormwater management facilities, for review of the Village Attorney as to form. Such agreement shall be recorded in the Westchester County Clerk's Office simultaneously with the filing of the plat and proof of recording shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 5. Once the Final Subdivision Plat has been endorsed by the Mayor, said plat must be filed in the Westchester County Clerk's Office within sixty-two (62) days. After said filing, two(2)copies of the Final Plat certified by Westchester County shall be submitted to the Village Building Department. 6. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the Final Plat shall be filed in the Westchester County Clerk's Office in accordance with the provisions of New York State Village Law and Chapter 219 of the Village of Rye Brook Code. 7. Conditional approval of the Final Subdivision Plat shall expire one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of the adoption of this resolution unless the conditions above have been certified as completed and the Final Plat has been submitted for endorsement by the Mayor,or unless a written request for an extension of Final Subdivision Plat Approval is granted. The Village Board may grant ninety (90) day extensions to said time period upon written request by the Applicant. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the Board of Trustees hereby approves the site plan application referenced herein,upon the following conditions: 1. Construction of renovations on Lot 2 and a new single family dwelling on Lot 3 are subject to additional review and approval of a Site Plan,Wetland Permit and/or Steep Slopes Permit from the Village Planning Board as per the Village Code requirements now in effect. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for Lot I and consistent with the recommendations of the Village's Traffic Consultant in a memorandum dated August 19, 2019, the Site Plan shall be revised to prohibit left turn movements out of the northerly site access drive to minimize potential concerns related to sight line considerations to the south. 3. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit,the Landscape Plan shall be revised to include additional trees in the rear yard. Such trees shall be of a species and location that meet the satisfaction of the Village Planning Consultant and Village Engineer/Superintendent of Public Works. 4. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for Lot 1, the Applicant shall submit a final SWPPP to the satisfaction of the Village Consulting Engineer. 131 W4/696916.1 9110119 5. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for Lot 1, the Applicant shall obtain all required permits and/or approvals from the appropriate agencies for the Project, including approval of a Wetland Permit and Steep Slopes Permit from the Village Planning Board. 6. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for Lot 1, the Applicant shall submit a Final Construction Logistics and Management Plan for review and approval by the Village Engineer/Superintendent of Public Works. 7. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for Lot 1, the Applicant shall submit plans, details and calculations for the proposed retaining walls to the satisfaction of the Village's Consulting Engineer. 8. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for Lot 1 and consistent with comments from Westchester County Department of Planning in a letter dated April 1,2019,the Applicant shall identify and implement inflow and infiltration (I&I) mitigation measures that will offset the projected increase in sewage flow by a ratio of one to one. Alternatively, the Applicant shall contribute $100 per dwelling unit toward a future inflow and infiltration study in the Village. 9. The Applicant shall submit appropriate Condominium or Homeowner's Association , documentation for review as to form by the Village Attorney, which shall include (1)all necessary common access and utility easements, (2) maintenance obligations for all stormwater facilities, including the infiltration basin and all pipes, swales and structures that convey stormwater through the Property, and (3) a requirement for all landscaping shown on the approved plans to be maintained in a vigorous growing condition for the duration of the use, including a requirement that all plants not so maintained shall be replaced with new plants of comparable size and quality at the beginning of the next immediately following growing season. 10.The entire stormwater system, including any detention basin, shall be maintained by Lou Larizza as the Applicant for a period of two (2) years starting from when the Homeowner's Association takes over responsibility of the project site. After this two(2) year period, the Homeowners Association shall have the stormwater system inspected annually by a qualified individual or firm,and shall submit a copy of an inspection report to the Superintendent of Public Works of the Village of Rye Brook. 11.All landscaping shown on this plan shall be maintained in a vigorous growing condition for the duration of the use. All plants not so maintained shall be replaced with new plants of comparable size and quality at the beginning of the next immediately following growing season. 12.The Applicant shall comply with all provisions of Village Code §250-26.1(G) through §250-26.1(L). 13.Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the Applicant shall submit a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants to the Program Administrator, as defined by Village Code §250- 26.1(D),or such other appropriate entity as determined by the Village Administrator, for approval in recordable form acceptable to the Village Attorney, which shall ensure that the AFFH Units shall remain subject to affordable housing regulations for the minimum fifty-year period set forth at Village Code §250-26.1(H). The Declaration of Restrictive Covenants shall state that the AFFH Unit shall be the primary residence of the resident household selected to occupy the unit. Upon approval by the Program Administrator,or such other appropriate entity as determined by the Village Administrator, the Declaration of Restrictive Covenant shall be recorded in the Land Records Division of the Office of the Clerk of the County of Westchester prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any AFFH Unit. 14.Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, to supplement the proposed stormwater management plan and further mitigate stormwater flows from the proposed project, the Applicant shall install an earthem berm along the rear property line and perform improvements to the storm drainage system in the public right of way of Eagles Bluff, I i/1741686916,1 9110119 subject to review and approval of the Village's Consulting Engineer, or as otherwise modified and approved by the Village's Consulting Engineer. 15.The AFFH Units constructed pursuant to this approval shall be sold or rented, and resold and re-rented only to qualifying income-eligible households for a period of 50 years. Resale and re-renting of the AFFH Units shall comply with the requirements set forth at Village Code §250-26.1(K) and §250-26.1(L), respectively. Such income-eligible households shall be solicited in accordance with the requirements, policies and protocols established in the Westchester County Fair and Affordable Housing Affirmative Marketing Plan, for so long as the Westchester County Fair and Affordable Housing Affirmative Marketing Plan remains in effect, so as to ensure outreach to racially and ethnically diverse households. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Final Plat shall not be signed by the Mayor and no building permit shall be issued until the Applicant has paid to the Village all applicable fees and professional review fees incurred in connection with review of this Application. TRUSTEE EPSTEIN NO TRUSTEE FISCHER AYE TRUSTEE HEISER AYE TRUSTEE KLEIN AYE MAYOR ROSENBERG AYE State of New York County of Westchester ss: Village of Rye Brook I hereby certify that this is the Resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook which was duly passed by said Board on August 27,2019 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the Village of Rye Brook, this loth day of September,2019 ^ Vi age Clerk 1 it 117416M9M 1 9/1 LV19 r BUILDING DEPARTMENT VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 KING STREET RYE BRooK,NY 10573 (914)939-0668 Phone (914)939-5801 Fax mizzogaebrook.org Memorandum To: Board of Trustees From: Michael J. I=o, Building & Fire Inspector 84__� Date: August 25, 2019 Re: 259 N. Ridge Street, Clarification of my Zoning Analysis dated 5/15/19 On May 15,2019,I prepared and distributed a zoning analysis of the proposed FAH and Market Rate residential development at the above captioned location.A copy of that zoning analysis is attached hereto for your convenience.At that time the application package was devoid of dimensioned Height/Setback Ratio elevation drawings needed to confirm compliance or non- compliance with the code. Since that time the applicant has provided the required elevation drawings which confirm items 6, 7, 8, and 9 of my 5/15/19 memo; 6. 4250-20.I.0).The maximum allowable front height setback ratio is .60.The applicant's zoning analysis provided on the Wetlands Mitigation sheet for FAH Building I and the revised height/setback ratio elevation drawings dated 7/8/19 confirm a resulting front height setback ratio of.88.Therefore a front height/setback ratio waiver of.28 is required for FAH Building IA. 7. 4250-20.I.0).The maximum allowable front height setback ratio is .60.The applicant's zoning analysis provided on the Wetlands Mitigation Plan for FAH Building I and the revised height/setback ratio elevation drawings dated 7/8/19 confirm a resulting front height setback ratio of.82.Therefore a front height/setback ratio waiver of.22 is required for FAH Building 1B. 8. 4250-20.I.(2).The maximum allowable side height setback ratio is 1.60.The applicant's zoning analysis chart for FAH Building I and the revised height/setback ratio elevation drawings dated 7/8/19 confirm compliance with the code. 9. 4250-20.I.(2). The maximum allowable side height setback ratio is 1.60.The applicant's zoning analysis chart for FAH Building 1 B and the revised height/setback ratio elevation drawings dated 7/8/19 confirm a resulting side height/setback ratio of 2.2. Therefore a.60 side height/setback ratio waiver of.60 is required for FAH Building 1B. BUILDING DEPARTMENT VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 K►tiG STREET RYE BROOK,NY 10573 (914)939-0668 Phone (914)939-5801 Fax mi/1_ �r_anebrook.ora Memorandum To: Board of Trustees From: Michael J. Izzo, Building&Fire Inspector CC: Ralph G. Mastromonaco,P.E. Rye Brook Planning Board Date: May 15,2019 Re: REVISED Zoning Analysis:259 North Ridge Street, Subdivision of Land& FAH Housing The applicant proposes to subdivide the lot into three(3)separate parcels; Lot 1. Lot 2,and Lot 3. He then proposes to re-zone Lot I from R-15 to the FAH Floating Zone and construct two detached 2-family FAH dwellings on Lot I; perform additions and alterations to the existing single family dwelling located on Lot 2;and construct a new zoning compliant market-rate single family dwelling on Lot 3. This analysis is based on materials received on May 3,2019 from the developer, Lau Development.on behalf of the current property owner, Dan Greto and include; • Letter to the Board of Trustees dated, May 2,2019.(Copy attached) • Construction Management Impacts and Logistics Plan North Ridge Street Development Narrative,dated February 28, 2019—Revised May 1, 2019. (Copy attached) • Ridge Street Development Plan Set prepared and sealed by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E. including: • Cover Sheet Last Revised,April 30, 2019. • Sheet I of 5, Site Plan Grading/Layout and Zoning Analysis Chart revised 2/28/19. • Sheet 2 of 5, Utility Plan revised 2/28/19. • Sheet 3 of 5, Erosion Control Plan revised 2/28/19. • Sheet 4 of 5, Sight Distance Study revised,4/10/19. • Sheet 4A of 5,Stopping Sight Distance Study dated, April 30, 2019. • Sheet 5 of 5, Details/Notes revised 1/25/19. • Planting Plan, prepared by the Westchester County Planning Department revised 12/13/18,sealed by Antonio Zaino, LLA. • Tree Preservation Plan, prepared by the Westchester County Planning Department dated January 29. 2019, sealed by Antonio Zaino, LLA. • Wetland Mitigation Plan,dated April 10, 2019. Lot 1 - FAH DWELLINGS IA and I& SITE IMPROVEMENTS R-15 Sinale Family Residential S.R.O.D.Zonine District 1. 4250-20.A.,B.,C.and D. Within the R-15 Zone,the proposed 2-family use is not a permitted principal use, not a permitted accessory use,not a use permitted at the discretion of the Village Board,and not a use permitted at the discretion of the Planning Board. However upon rezoning to the FAH District,the proposed use is a permitted principal use under§250-26.l.F.(I xb). 2. 4250-20.A.,B. C.and D./6250-4.11.The proposed construction of two detached dwellings on a single lot regardless of the number of families is not a permitted principal use, not a permitted accessory use, not a use permitted at the discretion of the Village Board,and not a use permitted at the discretion of the Planning Board in either the R-15 zone or in the FAH zone. Therefore the applicant would need to pursue one of the following options, a. The applicant would need a BOT waiver pursuant to§250-26.1.F.(3)(a)from the requirement in §2504.B. which permits only one main building per lot,except for nonresidential and multifamily where such uses are permitted,OR b. The BOT would need to pass a local law amending §250-26.1. clarifying that more than one main building per lot is permitted within the FAH zone. 3. 4250-20.G.(1)/250-7.F.(6)(b).The minimum required front yard setback within the S.R.O.D. is 60 feet. Both proposed 2-family FAH dwellings are proposed with a 30 foot front yard setback. Therefore a front yard setback waiver of 30 feet will be required for both building. 4. $250-7.F.(6)(c),The minimum required vegetative buffer along North Ridge Street within the S.R.O.D. is 35 feet. Both 2-family FAH buildings are proposed to be set 30 feet from the front property line.Therefore an S.R.O.D. vegetative buffer waiver of 5 feet will be required for both buildings. 5. 250-6.G.(1)(d)121. The minimum required front yard setback for any unenclosed off- street parking facility is 25 feet. Both 2-family FAH buildings are proposed to be provided with a parking court encroaching to within 14.7 feet of the front lot line. Therefore a front yard unenclosed off-street parking setback waiver of 10.3 feet will he required for both FAH parking courts. 6. 4250-20.I.0).The maximum allowable front height setback ratio is .60.The applicant's zoning analysis provided on the Wetlands Mitigation sheet for FAH Building I A indicates a resulting front height setback ratio of.88. However no elevation plans were provided for review. 7. &250-20.I.(1).The maximum allowable front height setback ratio is .60. The applicant's zoning analysis provided on the Wetlands Mitigation Plan for FAH Building 1 B indicates a resulting front height setback ratio of.82. However no elevation plans were provided for review. 8. 4250-20.I.(2).The maximum allowable side height setback ratio is 1.60.The applicant's zoning analysis chart for FAH Building 1 A indicates compliance with the code. However no elevation plans were provided for review. 9. 4250-20.1.(2). The maximum allowable side height setback ratio is 1.60. The applicant's zoning analysis chart for FAH Building I B indicates a resulting side height setback ratio of 2.2. However no elevation plans were provided for review. Lot 2 EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING R-15 Single Family Residential S.R.O.D.Zoning District 1. &250-20.g.(I)/250-7.F.(6)(b).The minimum required front yard setback within the S.R.O.D. is 60 feet. The proposed side addition will result in a front yard setback of 27.4 feet. The applicant must redesign the addition or seek relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals. 2. 4250-20.e.(1)/250-7.F.(6)(b). The minimum required vegetative buffer along North Ridge Street within the S.R.O.D. is 35 feet.The proposed side addition will result in a 27.4 foot vegetative buffer. The applicant must redesign the addition or seek relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals. RALPH G. MASTROMONACO, PE, P.C. Civil / Site / Environmentol Consuiting Engineers 13 Dove Court.Croton-on-Hudson,New York 1052C Tel (914)271-4762 Fax (914)271-28 D � wwwrgmpepC.Com 1`�L DL Mayor Paul S. Rosenberg And Members of the May 2. 2019 Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees __I I Village of Rye Brook h`�Y u 938 King Street. " ,^• r r � Rye Brook, NY 10573 ILLS _ `_ 1 Hand Delivered Re: 259 North Ridge Street F__a'IaTij-i�sitL� North Ridge Street Development0Rye Brook. NY LP- 3 1019 Dear Mr. Chairman and Members, RYA ,Enclosed please find four (4) sets of the following materials anpdf files oft e same: 1. Construction Management Impacts and Logistics Plan, North Ridge Street Development for Lazz Development dated February 28, 2019 revised May 2, 2019, 2. Full size sets of plans as follows: a. North Ridge Street Development, Cover Sheet last revised February 28, 2019, b. Site Plan, Grading / Layout, North Ridge Street Development dated April 10, 2018 revised February 28, 2019, sheet 1 of 5 sheets, c. Utility Plan, North Ridge Street Development dated April 10, 2018 last revised February 28. 2019, sheet 2 of 5 sheets. d. Erosion Control Plan, North Ridge Street Development dated April 10. 2018 last revised February 28, 2019, sheet 3 of 5 sheets, e. Sight Distance Study, North Ridge Street Development dated April 10, 2018 last revised February 28, 2019, sheet 4 of 5 sheets. f. Stopping Sight Distance Study, North Ridge Street Development dated April 10, 2018 last revised April 30, 2019, sheet 4A of 5 sheets g. Details/Notes, North Ridge Street Development dated February 21, 2018 revised January 25, 2019, sheet 5 of 5 sheets, h. Planting Plan, 259 North Ridge Street Rye Brook, NY last revised December 13, 2018 designed by Westchester County Planning Department. i. Tree Preservation Plan, 259 North Ridge Street Rye Brook, NY last revised January 29, 2019 designed by Westchester County Planning Department. j. Wetland Mitigation Plan, North Ridge Street Development revised February 28, 2019, We revised the Construction Management Impacts and Logistics Plan and the Sight Distance Study (sheet 4A above) since our last submission to the Village Planning Board. The Wetland Mitigation Plan is new and addresses the disturbance of a portion of the wetland buffer on Lot 3. We reviewed the Planning Board's Resolution "A Report And Recommendation To The Rye Brook Board Of Trustees On An Application By Lou Larizza For Approval Of Zoning Map Amendment, 3- Lot Subdivision And Site Plan For Affordable Housing On Property Located At 259 North Ridge Street Dated March 14. 2019". The Resolution was divided into ten (10) segments. We offer the following additional information for the Board of Trustees on the content of the ten (10) segments of the Planning Board Resolution as follows: North Ridge Street Development 1 Traffic and Site Access. Traffic VolumeNehicle Trips Response: On this project we are not constructing any new roads, merely 3 new driveways and it is not clear whether the AASHTO standards must apply here. The Planning Board asked us to provide data using 40 miles per hour as the design speed. At the 40 mph design speed, which is 10 mph over the posted speed limit, the specialized parameter noted as "Intersection Sight Distance" has minor shortcomings meeting the AASHTO standards for new road intersections at Driveway 1A (South), and Lot 3. It is difficult to equate a new road with a driveway as the latter has such a low volume of traffic. However, at the 40 mph design speed (which is a speeding violation) all of the "stopping sight distances" comply with AASHTO standards. In other words, any driver traveling at 40 mph would have adequate time to stop upon seeing another vehicle stopped in the roadway. Partial Conformance Table of Sight Distances for 40 Miles per Hour Exceeds Speed Limit INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE DRIVE SPEED REOUIRED ACTUAL SPEED REQUIRED ACTUAL 1A NORTH 445 445+ 40 305 305 1A SOUTH 4W* 375 40 305 305 1 B NORTH 445 445+ 40 305 305 113 SOUTH 400' 400 40 305 305 3 NORTH 445 335 40 305 305 3 SOUTH 400' 301.5 -t0 305 305 We provide additional sheets to show that the every driveway has sufficient stopping sight distance for vehicles at the posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour (see below). Again, at the posted 30 mph design speed, all intersection sight distances and stopping sight distances comply with AASHTO standards for new road intersections. Conformance Table of Sight Distances for 30 Miles per Hour I Posted Speed Limit INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE DRIVE SPEED REQUIRED ACTUAL SPEED REQUIRED ACTUAL 1A NORTH 30 335 335+ 30 200 200 1A SOUTH 30 335 335 30 200 200 1 B NORTH 30 335 335+ 30 200 200 113 SOUTH 30 335 335 30 200 200 3 NORTH 30 335 335 30 200 200 3 SOUTH 30 301.5' 301 5' 30 200 200 (") Uphill Grade, Distance Requirement reduced by 0.9 as per Code North Ridge Street Development Improvements to Intersection of North Ridge Street and West Ridge Drive - . Response: There are, currently, channelizing pavement marking -- improvements at West Ridge Drive. The applicant is not proposing any further improvements or reconstruction to ` the intersection. r Sight Distance. _ Response: As stated above, additional sight distance plans are provided for the posted 30 mph design speed. 2. Utilities. Response: The applicant is exploring the various utilities as most utilities are existing in North Ridge Street. 3. Stormwater Management. Response: The stormwater plan has been reviewed by the Village Consulting Engineer and further refinements may be required based upon a final version of the site plan as approved by the Village. i 4. Tree Preservation & Protection Plan and Planting Plan Response: The replacement plantings meet the requirements of Chapter 235 and the proposed plantings will not interfere with sight distance. 5. Wetland Buffer Disturbance Response: The Wetland Maintenance Area is to be purged of non-native and invasive vegetation and replanted to contain enhanced wetland plantings that will increase the function of the wetland as shown on the Wetland Mitigation Plan included herewith. 6. Steep Slopes i Response: The subdivision and Site Plan currently shows the minimal amount of alteration of land and topography that is necessary. 7. Visual Impacts & Scenic Road Overlay District Response: The views of the structures and the proposed walls from Eagles Bluff are mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. The view provided to the Planning Board was an accurate indication of the view from Eagles Bluff. 8. Construction Management Response: The construction of foundations, placement of fill, site work and construction of driveways have been added to the CML revised May 1, 2019. North Ridge Street Development 9. School-Aped Children Response: The Planning Board has agreed with our estimate of school aged children and that the number is a reduction from previous proposals. 10. Zoning Petition (R-15 to FAH) Response: The Planning Board has no objection to the rezoning of Lot 1 to FAH. III. RECOMMENDATIONS Response: The Planning Board recommended the Board of Trustees approval of the Zoning Petition, the 3-lot subdivision and the Lot 1 Site Plan applications. Accident History: From the Village of Rye Brook Police Department we obtained accident records along North Ridge Street. Our office went over all of the records for the period from July 2014 to March of 2019. NORTH RIDGE STREET DATA FROM APRIL 2016 TRAFFIC MEASUREMENTS In that time there was one (1) accident DAY NORTH BOUND SOUTHBOUND somewhat near the proposed site and 1 2207 3115 none along the frontage of the property. 2 3266 3324 3 3354 2671 The traffic count data from April 2016 4 2769 2154 suggests that in that study period there 5 2144 3054 were about 10 million cars that passed 6 3181 3117 the site. 7 3468 3092 TYPICAL TOTALS NB 1113 20389 20527 AVERAGE WEEKLY TRIPS 40916 ACCCIDENT REPORTS START DATE 7/8/2014 END DATE 3/22/2019 DAYS 1718 WEEKS 245.43 TOTAL CARS PASSING 10,041,955 #ACCIDENTS 1 We are requesting the Village Board approve the Zoning Petition, the 3-lot subdivision and the Lot 1 Site Plan applications as the review has been extensive and we have addressed all comments of the Village Planning Board and the Village consultants. The above information is submitted for the May 14, 2019 meeting of the Village Board. Sincerely, Ralph G. Mastromonaco. PE Cc: Lou Larizza, Messrs. Nowak and Bradbury Village of Rye Brook Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. RALPH G. MASTROMONACO, P,E., P.C. Civil /Site/Enviromnentol Cons,- -)g Engineers 13 Dove Court,Croton-on-Hudson,New York 10520 "el:(9I4)271-4762 Fox (914)2T-282G www.rgmpecc com EBUILDING p��LPROJECT: North Ridge Street Development259 North Ridge Street - 3 2019Rye Brook, New York RYE BROOK SCOPE: Construction Management Impacts and Logistics PlanEPARTMENT North Ridge Street Development FOR: Lazz Development, Lou Larizza 8 Hilltop Drive Port Chester, NY 10573 DATE: February 28, 2019 — Revised May 1, 2019 This report identifies the potential impacts of construction based on the work shown on the Site Plan. The relevant, anticipated impacts related to the construction phase are also identified in the FEAF (Full Environmental Assessment Form) for the project and include,- noise, work hours, periods of construction, potential impoundments, extent of excavation, description of drainage flows, air emissions, use of pesticides or herbicides, generation of solid waste. recycling or disposal of materials. Further, the detailed erosion and sedimentation plan also describes mitigation during construction. Other impacts that were requested to be examined are as follows: Traffic: The construction of the homes is intended to be modular. This type of construction will involve fewer workers than conventional house construction. The house structure is to be built off-site and trucked to the site. As can be seen from the included traffic counts, the workers who will be arriving by vehicle on site at 8:00 a.m. will not coincide with the peak hours on North Ridge Street. Increased demand for parking: Access to the site and parking will be provided on the site. There is no need to park vehicles off site. Construction traffic routing: Construction will be mitigated by having one crane on site for erection of the modular and delivering from off-site one modular unit at a time. The construction of the modular, attached houses will take about one week duration which is far less than standard construction. North Ridge Street Development Need for materials storage and staging areas: The need for materials storage and staging areas is minimal and mitigated by the very few materials needed to store on site due to the modular construction. The dwellings are prefabricated so there will be minimal storage of lumber or materials. All materials will be stored on site. Security and safety on the construction site: The developer must comply with all OSHA standards and the site will be secured each evening. Increased noise: Noise will be mitigated during construction by running only the machines necessary at any time. In general, noise generation would during the initial site grading which should last a few weeks. Since the construction is modular there will be no lengthy noise impacts. Vibration: Vibration associated with construction is not anticipated. Potential erosion and sedimentation: The potential for erosion and sedimentation is mitigated by the installation of the numerous erosion control measures prior to any soil disturbance or construction. The erosion control measures are inspected and repaired weekly. Potential for rock removal: Rock removal is not anticipated to have impacts as most of regrading will be achieved by placing fill. If any rock removal is required for a foundation it will be chipped with a small hammer rather than large heavy construction equipment. Peak hour traffic: Based on the traffic counts taken from April 13 through April 19, 2016 by ATI, Inc. for this project, the weekday morning peak traffic occurs in the northbound direction on North Ridge Street between 6 am and 8 am. For example, on Thursday, April 14, 2016, from 6 am to 8 am there were 727 cars headed northbound (325+402). On that day there were 402 vehicles in the hour of 7 am to 8 am. For the 8 am to 9 am period there were just 191 vehicles. Accordingly, the construction workers arrive at the site after 8 am during a period where the traffic is merely at an average rate for the day rather than a peak rate. In general, the number of trips into the site between 8 am and 9 am would be around 8 vehicles, representing only about 4% of the 8 am peak traffic on North Ridge Street. North Ridge Street Development Table: Sample Traffic Counts Thursday April 14, 2016 sw Thu Tree NP N8 SO 12 00 AM 3 4 0100 1 1 0200 1 0300 9 3 0400 25 20 0500 88 S7 0600 325 169 0700 18Z 233 0600 210 194 0900 150 138 1000 194 156 1100 147 178 12 00 PM 182 157 0100 201 213 0200 241 279 0300 205 296 0400 214 0600 321 2218 0600 1 21 187 174 0700 115 109 0800 67 84 09.00 b 66 1000 23 29 1100 10 15 Lam 0 0 0 0 3266 3115 Oft ak 0 0 6m i AM Pe 07 00 0700 Vol 402 233 PM Peak 1400 1600 Vd 241 321 Further, note that AM and PM peak traffic hours will not be effected as the workers pull in and park on site and not on any adjoining streets. North Ridge Street will not be used for staging, parking of constructions vehicles or the storage of equipment. Impacts to air quality: There are no anticipated impacts to air quality as the use of machinery is limited to standard construction backhoes and excavators of a scale commonly found working in the area. Importation and Placement of Fill: The project will require that fill materials be brought to the site. All fill materials will be tested for conformance to the NYS DEC soil standards. Trucking will take place during normal working hours. There is no need to stockpile the structural fill since the fill area can be reached by the importing trucks directly from North Ridge Street. Trucks will not back into the site but will perform turns on the site. Fill will be compacted using standard rollers whose noise generation is about the same as expected from the traffic noise from North Ridge Street. North Ridge Street Development Site Work: The site work would consist of; tree cutting, grubbing, filling, grading, and the installation of utilities, driveways and excavation for foundations. All of this work would take place during normal working hours. The erosion control plan will mitigate any potential problems with erosion during and after rainfall events. Noise from the site work would be minimal since there is no need for blasting or rock chipping. Post Construction of the Building Units: Once the modular units are installed the remaining building work will be internal to the structures. As such there should be no off site impacts. Work on the inside of the two-family buildings will take place during normal working hours. Again, there should be no adverse impacts to the neighborhood after the installation of the modular units. Conclusion: Any adverse conditions will be eliminated or mitigated by this construction management plan. The construction documents demonstrate compliance with Village Code requirements regarding construction, and identifies the specific best practices pertinent to the site and the development plan. Submitted By: Ralph G. Mastromonaco, PE RGM/mte Cc: Lou Larizza t BUILDING DEPARTMENT VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 KING STREET RYE BROOK,NY 10573 (914)939-0668 Phone (914)939-5801 Fax mizzo@xvebrook.org Memorandum To: Board of Trustees From: Michael J. Izzo,Building&Fire Inspector v� CC: Ralph G. Mastromonaco,P.E. Rye Brook Planning Board Date: October 19,2018 Re: REVISED Zoning Analysis:259 North Ridge Street,Subdivision of Land&FAH Housing The applicant proposes to subdivide the lot into three(3)separate parcels;Lot 1,Lot 2, and Lot 3. He then proposes to re-zone Lot 1 from R-15 to the FAH Floating Zone and construct two detached 2-family FAH dwellings on Lot 1;perform additions and alterations to the existing single family dwelling located on Lot 2; and construct a new zoning compliant market-rate single family dwelling on Lot 3. This analysis is based on materials received from the developer,Lazz Development, on behalf of the current property owner,Dan Greto and include; • Application for Subdivision of Land,dated 9/4/18. • Application for Site Plan Approval,dated 9/4/18. • Exterior Building Permit Application for Lot 1 Building IA for a detached 2-family FAH dwelling, revised 9/28/18. • Exterior Building Permit Application for Lot 1 Building I for a detached 2-family FAH dwelling,revised 9/28/18. • Exterior Building Permit Application for Lot 2 for an addition&alterations to the existing single family dwelling,revised 9/28/18. • Exterior Building Permit Application for Lot 3 for the construction of a market-rate single family dwelling,revised 9/28/18. • North Ridge Street Development Affordable Housing plan set,cover sheet and pages 1 of 5 through 5 of 5,revised 9/27/18,prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco,P.E., P.C. Consulting Engineers,and sealed by Ralph George Mastromonaco, P.E. • Preliminary Subdivision Platt,North Ridge Street Development plan,page 1 of 1,dated April 10,2018,also prepared&sealed by Mr.Mastromonaco. • Fire Access Plan,North Ridge Street Development,dated August 28,2018, also prepared &sealed by Mr.Mastromonaco. • North Ridge Street Development Building IA,plan set pages 1 through 5,dated 4/27/18. There is no indication of the design professional and the plans are not sealed or signed. • North Ridge Street Development Building 1B,plan set pages 1 through 5,dated 4/27/18. There is no indication of the design professional and the plans are not sealed or signed. 1 Lot 1 -FAH DWELLINGS 1A and 1B& SITE IMPROVEMENTS R-15 Single Family Residential S.R.O.D.Zoning District 1. 4250-20.A.,B.,C.and D.Within the R-15 Zone,the proposed 2-family use is not a permitted principal use,not a permitted accessory use,not a use permitted at the discretion of the Village Board,and not a use permitted at the discretion of the Planning Board.However upon rezoning to the FAH District,the proposed use is a permitted principal use under§250-26.1.F.(I)(b). 2. 4250-20.A.,B.,C.and D./4250-4.B.The proposed construction of two detached dwellings on a single lot regardless of the number of families is not a permitted principal use, not a permitted accessory use, not a use permitted at the discretion of the Village Board,and not a use permitted at the discretion of the Planning Board in either the R-15 zone or in the FAH zone. Therefore the applicant would need to pursue one of the following options; a. The applicant would need a BOT waiver pursuant to §250-26.1.F.(3)(a)from the requirement in §250-4.B.which permits only one main building per lot,except for nonresidential and multifamily where such uses are permitted, OR b. The BOT would need to pass a local law amending§250-26.1. clarifying that more than one main building per lot is permitted within the FAH zone. 3. 4250-20.G.(1)/250-7.F.(6)(b).The minimum required front yard setback within the S.R.O.D. is 60 feet. Both proposed 2-family FAH dwellings are proposed with a 30 foot front yard setback. Therefore a front yard setback waiver of 30 feet will be required for both building. 4. 4250-7.F.(6)(c).The minimum required vegetative buffer along North Ridge Street within the S.R.O.D. is 35 feet. Both 2-family FAH buildings are proposed to be set 30 feet from the front property line. Therefore an S.R.O.D.vegetative buffer waiver of 5 feet will be required for both buildings. 5. 250-6.G.(1)(d)121.The minimum required front yard setback for any unenclosed off- street parking facility is 25 feet. Both 2-family FAH buildings are proposed to be provided with a parking court encroaching to within 14.7 feet of the front lot line. Therefore a front yard unenclosed off-street parking setback waiver of 10.3 feet will be required for both FAH parking courts. 6. 4250-20.I.0).The maximum allowable front height setback ratio is .60.The proposed construction of FAH Building I will result in a front height setback ratio of.88. Therefore a front height setback ratio waiver of.28 will be required for FAH Building IA. 7. 6250-20.I.(1).The maximum allowable front height setback ratio is .60.The proposed construction of FAH Building 1 B will result in a front height setback ratio of.82. Therefore a front height setback ratio waiver of.22 will be required for FAH Building 1B. 8. 4250-20.I.(2).The maximum allowable side height setback ratio is 1.60. The proposed construction of FAH Building 1 B will result in a side height setback ratio of 2.20. Therefore a side height setback ratio waiver of.60 will be required for FAH Building 1 B. 2 Lot 2 EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING R-15 Single Family Residential S.R.O.D.Zoning District 1. 4250-20.g.(1)/250-7.F.(6)(b).The minimum required front yard setback within the S.R.O.D. is 60 feet.The proposed side addition will result in a front yard setback of 27.4 feet.The applicant must redesign the addition or seek relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals. 2. 4250-20.g.(1)/250-7.F.(6)(b). The minimum required vegetative buffer along North Ridge Street within the S.R.O.D. is 35 feet.The proposed side addition will result in a 27.4 foot vegetative buffer. The applicant must redesign the addition or seek relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals. 3 RALPH G. MASTROMONACO, PE, P.C, Civil /Site/Environmental Consulting Engineers 13 Dove Court,Croton-on-Hudson,New York 10520 Tel:(914)271-4762 Fax:(914)271-2820 www.rgmpepc.com Michael Izzo, October 29, 2018 Building Inspector Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street, Rye Brook, NY 10573 o Via Email Re: 259 North Ridge Street North Ridge Street Development OCT 3 0 2018 Rye Brook, NY VILLAGE BUILDINOF C) BROOK aRTr�ENT Dear Michael, Anthony Zaino, Assistant Commissioner of the Westchester County Planning Department, in an email dated October 23, 2018 that stated you need additional materials from our office. As requested in that email, enclosed please find the following additional materials in digital format: 1. Short Environmental Assessment Form for North Ridge Street Development dated April 11, 2018, 2. North Ridge Street Development Stormwater Report dated April 12, 2018, 3. Preliminary Subdivision Plat dated April 10, 2018, 4. 259 North Ridge Street Tree Inventory and Planting Plan dated April 8, 2018 by Anthony Zaino, LA. Comment: Cover letter stating this application is a continuation of the original submittal and is a revised plan in response to Village Planning Board and public comments, and this application is to request the rezoning of lot#1 to FAH. Response: The above materials #1-4, are in addition to other materials already submitted and is a continuation of the original application which has been revised in response to the Village Planning Board and public comments. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of Lot#1 to Fair and Affordable Housing (FAH). Because of the comments of the Village Planning Board and the public, the scope of the application is significantly reduced. The project originally proposed eight (8) units of affordable housing which is now reduced to four (4) units in two (2) two-family houses. This reduction in scope greatly reduces traffic from the original development. Comment: Revise EAF to reflect new plan Response: The Short Environmental Assessment Form, included herein, for North Ridge Street Development dated April 11, 2018 reflects the current proposal. Ralph G.Mastromonaco,PE PC Consulting Engineers North Ridge Street Development Comment: Electronic version of the preliminary plat Response: The Preliminary Subdivision Plat dated April 10, 2018 is provided herewith. Comment: Stormwater calculations Response: The North Ridge Street Development Stormwater Report dated April 12, 2018 provided herewith and contains all calculations. In addition, the plans show the appropriate storm water computations. Comment: Revised traffic analysis, or letter stating the revised plan will have a lower impact on traffic. Response: The reduction in the scope reduces traffic from the original proposal. The Traffic Assessment dated May 4, 2016 was based upon eight (8) units of affordable housing. The current proposal is four (4) units of affordable housing basically halving predicted traffic to 3 and 4 trips in the AM and PM peak hour. (See Attached Worksheet) Comment: Analysis of school aged children Response: With the smaller scope of the project, there will be less school aged children than the original proposal. Using the same multipliers used by the consultants in earlier reports, we estimate 2 school aged children would be generated from the 4 affordable housing units and 1 students from the existing single family home, and 1 student from the new single family home, for a total of 4 students. Comment: Tree inventory and Landscape plan (attached) Response: The tree inventory and Planting Plan dated April 8, 2018 are attached herein, identified as item #4 in the list of materials in this submission. This submission is in addition to earlier materials submitted to the Village and is a continuation of the original application which has been revised in response to the Village Planning Board and public comments. Please call if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Ralph G. Mastromonaco, PE RGM/mte Cc: Lou Larizza w/o enclosure Anthony Zaino w/o enclosure Michael Nowak Chris Bradbury Ralph G.Mastromonaco,PE PC Consulting Engineers North Ridge Street Development Attachment: North Ridge Street Development: Traffic Generation Worksheets Proposed Land Use ITE Code Number ITE Rate AM Peak Hour of Units In Out Total 0.2 0.8 Low Rise Apartment 221 4 0.51 0 2 2 0.25 0.75 New Single Family House 210 1 1 0 1 1 Total New Trips 3 Current Single Family House 210 0.25 0.75 1 1 0 1 1 Total Trips from Development 4 Proposed Land Use ITE Code Number ITE Rate PM Peak Hour of U nits In Out Total 0.64 0.36 Low Rise Apartment 221 4 0.62 2 1 3 0.63 0.37 New Single Family House 210 1 1 1 0 1 Total New Trips 4 Current Single Family House 210 0.63 0.37 1 1 1 0 1 Total Trips from Development S Ralph G.Mastromonaco,PE PC Consulting Engineers Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 - Project Information Instructions for Completing Part 1-Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding,are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item,please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information. Complete all items in Part 1. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the lead agency;attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item. Part 1 -Project and Sponsor Information Name of Action or Project: North Ridge Street Development Project Location(describe,and attach a location map): 259 North Ridge Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 Brief Description of Proposed Action: Project is to subdivide a 3.96 acre parcel into three (3) lots and the construction of two (2)two-family affordable dwellings on Lot 1, refurbish the existing dwelling on Lot 2 and a new single-family dwellling on Lot 3 of the proposed subdivision. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telephone: Louis Larizza, Lazz Development E-Mail: Address: 8 Hilltop Drive City/PO: State: Zip Code: Port Chester NY 10573 1.Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan, local law,ordinance, NO YES administrative rule,or regulation? If Yes,attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that ❑ may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no,continue to question 2. 2. Does the proposed action require a permit,approval or funding from any other governmental Agency? NO YES If Yes, list agency(s)name and permit or approval: Westchester County Department of Health: subdivision and utility approval ❑ 3.a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? 3.96 acres b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? > 1 acres c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? 3.96 acres 4. Check all land uses that occur on,adjoining and near the proposed action. ❑Urban ❑Rural(non-agriculture) ❑Industrial [—]Commercial ®Residential(suburban) ❑Forest ❑Agriculture El Aquatic ❑Other(specify): ❑Parkland Page 1 of 3 5. Is the proposed action, NO YES N/A a.A permitted use under the zoning regulations? ❑ ❑ ❑ b.Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? ❑ X❑ ❑ 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural NO YES landscape? ❑ X❑ 7. Is the site of the proposed action located in,or does it adjoin,a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES If Yes,identify: ❑ ❑ 8. a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? NO YES b.Are public transportation service(s)available at or near the site of the proposed action? El ❑❑ X❑ c.Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near site of the proposed action? ❑ X❑ 9.Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO YES If the proposed action will exceed requirements,describe design features and technologies: El FRI 10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? NO YES If No,describe method for providing potable water: ❑ X❑ 11.Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES If No,describe method for providing wastewater treatment: ❑ ❑ 12. a.Does the site contain a structure that is listed on either the State or National Register of Historic NO YES Places? ❑ ❑ b.Is the proposed action located in an archeological sensitive area? ❑ ❑ 13.a.Does any portion of the site of the proposed action,or lands adjoining the proposed action,contain NO YES wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal,state or local agency? ❑ ❑ b.Would the proposed action physically alter,or encroach into,any existing wetland or waterbody? ❑ ❑ If Yes,identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: 14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on,or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply: ❑Shoreline ❑Forest ❑Agricultural/grasslands ❑Early mid-successional ❑ Wetland ❑Urban [R2 Suburban 15.Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal,or associated habitats, listed NO YES by the State or Federal government as threatened or endangered? X❑ ❑ 16.Is the project site located in the 100 year flood plain? NO YES X 17.Will the proposed action create storm water discharge,either from point or non-point sources? NO YES If Yes, ❑ ❑ a.Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties?. X❑NO YES b.Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems(runoff and storm drains)? If Yes,briefly describe: ❑NO ®YES Page 2 of 3 18.Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that result in the impoundment of NO YES water or other liquids(e.g.retention pond,waste lagoon,dam)? If Yes,explain purpose and size: ❑ ❑ 19.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed NO YES solid waste management facility? If Yes,describe: ❑X ❑ 20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation(ongoing or NO YES completed)for hazardous waste? If Yes,describe: x❑ I AFFIRM THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsorname: Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C. Date: April 11, 2018 Signature: PRINT FORM Page 3 of 3 RALPH G. MASTROMONACO, P,E„ P,C. Civil/Site/Environmental Consulting Engineers www.rgmpepc.com 13 Dove Court,Croton-on-Hudson,New York 10520 Tel:(914)271-4762 Fax:(914)271-2820 PROJECT: NORTH RIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT Subdivision and Site Plan for Affordable Housing SCOPE: STORMWATER REPORT DATE: April 12, 2018 INTRODUCTION: The 3.96 acre site is proposed for development of one new single family home and 4 affordable townhomes and a single family home. As the total disturbance is under 1 acre the project does not require NYS DEC post-construction stormwater treatment, however, treatment by infiltration is proved to enhance environmental conditions in the area. Figure: Site Location and Zoning wA& I.AL o _ s� a ,M. rk _ I." i North Ridge Street Stormwater Report RGM PE PC METHODOLOGY: The Rye Brook Stormwater rules call for the capture of the 25 year storm over the impervious areas. To effectuate that requirement we modeled the approximately 11,648 square feet of impervious area (CN=100) as tributary to the infiltration basin which also provides stormwater detention. For the new Single Family Home we modeled approximately 5050 square feet of impervious area and captured the 25 year storm. In each case the storage system captured the 25 year storm runoff such that there was no overflow. The printout of the computer model is attached. Figure: Aerial Photograph Showing Property Boundaries P .. F W 4j ir i •kA> North Ridge Street Stormwater Report RGM PE PC Figure: Site Plan — Townhouse Units P, MPp LPN ZNE�P \ 5t0"E ✓\\ \ nVE ,IR^Mf St `CN Rw. 58- s2�' \ �\ obiu,.uv rK - gc 10 �o SB r r � o o. , n \ b i � DI \• R • \ \ b LIMIT IN fit• TAIL C ISTURB \`A�. yy� �`•\• \ .�\ 59 ACF WN `\.•ARf ` "q ,CCfss At T \ F}\,� V T L\ Rr0 T r?e r A \ T \ Note: Infiltration Basin is designed in accordance with Rye Brook Stormwater Code (25 year storm) and the 24 hour duration storm. Table: Summary of Stormwater Infiltration System Stormwater Inflow Outflow Exfiltrated Required System (cfs) (cfs) (cubic feet) (cubic feet) Townhouses (4) 1.64 0 6229 6213 Single Family (1) 0.63 0 2700 2693 North Ridge Street Stormwater Report RGM PE PC Figure: Single Family Lot Showing Drywells / T 3 2 , 3 O s . re ' GO AL L 3 ' ISTU ANCE 0.30 CRES g LLS DIS N. 11 LIMIT LINE saW 6 T \` 06 f Z \ J �Se % ➢r as s* m zs.o Z l 7 72 ¢ROPOSED 1 f 1' 7Ib HOuSE 1' 1 1 FF 79.0 i 8F ,70.0 � GAR GE \ o a \\\ A 76.0 yF\ 0 �A \ J � + 77.5 �'tiov J p n1 \\ S'II�LWq 1 EL�76.5 �r 8 1 OF WOODEN POST SL.LWAY EL63.6 _1 AD PIPE PIPE RAILING FENBING, E gplC CURBING 84.4 -WAY INKRT CEAID _r S iDNEWORIf AND MRTM 1� ` STREET Wv — � N_O RIDGE - �' UP ARPRO% `HATER MAIN.i_ Note: Drywells are proposed based on atypical residential building. Final building permit plans may dictate minor changes to this stormwater system. North Ridge Street Stormwater Report RGM PE PC Table: Rainfall Values; 24 Hour- 25 year Storm Used Northeast Regional Climate Center Extreme Precipitation estimates(inches) Point Estimates Smoothed Data series Partial duration series State New York Location Lon(dd) -73.683 Lat(dd) 41.024 Elev(feet) 0 MEAN PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES Freq(yr) 5-min 10-min 15-min 30-min 60-min 120-min 3-hr 6-hr 12-hr 24-hr 1 0.34 0.51 0.64 0.84 1.04 1.3 1.5 1.86 2.3 2.85 2 0.4 0.62 0.77 1.02 1.28 1.6 1.84 2.28 2.8 3.45 5 0.47 0.74 0.93 1.24 1.59 2 2.31 2.86 3.52 4.31 10 0.53 0.84 1.06 1.44 1.87 2.38 2.75 3.41 4.19 5.11 25 0.62 0.99 1.26 1.74 2.32 2.98 3.47 4.31 5.28 6.4 50 0.71 1.14 1.46 2.04 2.74 3.55 4.13 5.13 6.27 7.6 100 0.8 1.3 1.68 2.37 3.24 4.22 4.92 6.11 7.47 9.02 MAINTENANCE: All stormwater systems shall be inspected annually. In the event that silt buildup of more than 1 foot is noted in any system, the system shall be cleaned and returned to original design conditions. NOTES: This project is below the threshold where it would require post-construction treatment as required by the Village of Rye Brook, the NYS DEC and the NYS General Permit for Stormwater. However, we have included post construction treatment to fully mitigate any environmental impacts. Infiltration rates were taken in the field and lower values in this report as a conservative approach. Since the project is less than 1 acre a NYSDEC Notice of Intent is not required. CONCLUSION: The hydrologic details of the proposed storm water system are indicated in the enclosed Hydrocad printout. Further detail is shown on the Site Plans for the project. The proposed infiltration treatment system and the proposed storm detention system will mitigate the impacts of the development as to quality and quantity of storm water. Submitted by.- Ralph G. Mastromonaco, PE NORTH RIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT RYE BROOK, NEW YORK HYDROLOGIC MODEL 1 4 2-2 FAMILY OMES SINGLE FAM Y HOME hA DETENTI6N BASIN 2 rJ I i OVERFLOW �i �DRYWELLS OVERFLOW � 6 3 EXFI LTRATED EXFILTRATED Subca Reach on Link Routing Diagram for Laz_Greto_IMPERVIOUS Prepared by Microsoft, Printed 4/15/2018 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 0 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC North Ridge Laz_Greto_IMPERVIOUS Type ///24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/15/2018 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Summary for Subcatchment 1: 2 - 2 FAMILY HOMES Runoff = 1.64 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.143 af, Depth= 6.40" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Area (sf) CN Description 11,648 100.00 TOWNHOMES 11,648 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: 2 - 2 FAMILY HOMES Hydrograph — Runoff 5 Runoff=1.64 cfs @ 12.09 hrs Type III 24-hr 4 C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Runoff Area=11,648 sf N u Runoff Volume=0.143 of 3 3 Runoff Depth=6.40" ° Tc=6.0 min ur 2 CN=100.00 1.64 cfs 12.09 hrs 1 0 10 11 12 13 14 Time (hours) North Ridge Laz_Greto_IMPERVIOUS Type Ill 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/15/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Summary for Subcatchment 4: SINGLE FAMILY HOME Runoff = 0.63 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.062 af, Depth= 6.40" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Area (sf) CN Description 5,050 100.00 5,050 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 4: SINGLE FAMILY HOME Hydrograph 0.7 0.63 cfs 12.14 hrs — Runoff 0.65 -- 0.6 Runoff=0.63 cfs @42.14 hrs ---- -- 0.55 Type III 24-hr ---- 0.5 C-25 Rainfall=6.40"- ----- _--- ._ 0.45 Runoff Area=5,050 sf - - -----__-_ 0.4 Runo_ff_Volume=0.062 of _ ___ 3 0.35 Runoff_Depth=C.40----- -------- __ 0 0.3 Tc=10.0 min 0.25 - --------- - 0.2 ----------- - - ------ ------ 0.15 - ---------Y--- ---- - -- --- ------ ------r 0.1 ----- -------- -- ------ ----- ------ -- 0.05 -- 0 10 11 12 13 14 Time (hours) North Ridge Laz_Greto_IMPERVIOUS Type Ill 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/15/2018 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 0.267 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.40" for C-25 event Inflow = 1.64 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.143 of Outflow = 0.10 cfs @ 13.71 hrs, Volume= 0.143 af, Atten= 94%, Lag= 97.70 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Secondary= 0.10 cfs @ 13.71 hrs, Volume= 0.143 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 85.19'@ 13.71 hrs Surf.Area= 1,387 sf Storage= 3,486 cf Plug-Flow detention time=447.75 min calculated for 0.143 of(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=447.67 min ( 1,173.12 - 725.44 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 79.00' 4,717 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)-isted below(Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 79.00 94 0 0 80.00 94 94 94 82.00 449 543 637 84.00 986 1,435 2,072 86.00 1,659 2,645 4,717 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 85.20' 1.5' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #2 Secondary 79.00' 3.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 20.00' Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=79.00' (Free Discharge) t1=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.10 cfs @ 13.71 hrs HW=85.19' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.10 cfs) North Ridge Laz_Greto_IMPERVIOUS Type ///24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/15/2018 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 5 Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Hydrograph — Inflow 5 Inflow Area=0.267 ac — Outflow Inflow=1.64 cfs @ 12.09 hrs — Primary Outflow=0.10 cfs @ 13.71 hrs — Secondary 4 Primary=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs Secondary=0.10 cfs @ 13.71 hrs Peak Elev=85.19' Storage=3,486 cf 3 3 0 U. 2 1.64 cfs 12.09 hrs 1 0.10 cfs 13.71 hrs 0 10 11 12 13 14 Time (hours) North Ridge Laz_Greto_IMPERVIOUS Type /// 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/15/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Summary for Pond DW: DRYWELLS Inflow Area = 0.116 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.40" for C-25 event Inflow = 0.63 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.062 of Outflow = 0.08 cfs @ 12.81 hrs, Volume= 0.062 af, Atten= 87%, Lag= 40.48 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Secondary= 0.08 cfs @ 12.81 hrs, Volume= 0.062 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 103.79' @ 12.81 hrs Surf.Area= 0.005 ac Storage= 0.024 of Plug-Flow detention time= 133.37 min calculated for 0.062 of(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 133.32 min ( 862.48 - 729.15 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 98.50' 0.030 of 9.25'D x 6.50'H Vertical Cone/Cylinderx 3 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Secondary 98.50' 5.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Wetted area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 20.00' #2 Primary 104.00' 6.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=98.50' (Free Discharge) L2=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.08 cfs @ 12.81 hrs HW=103.79' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.08 cfs) North Ridge Laz_Greto_IMPERVIOUS Type /// 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/15/2018 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 @ 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 7 Pond DW: DRYWELLS Hydrograph 0. 0.63 cfs 12.14 hrs 0.65 — Inflow Inflow Area=0.116 ac — Outflow 0.6 @ —Inflow=0.63 cfs 12.14 hrs Primary 0.55 Outflow=0.08 cfs @ 12.81 hrs — Secondary 0.5 Primary=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs 0.45 Secondary=0.08 cfs @ 12.81 hrs N Peak Elev=103.79' 0.4 Storage=0.024 of 3 0.35 0 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.08 cfs 12.81 hrs 0.1 0.05 0 10 11 12 13 14 Time (hours) North Ridge Laz_Greto_IMPERVIOUS Type 111 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/15/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 G 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 Summary for Link 2: OVERFLOW Inflow Area = 0.267 ac.100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.00" for C-25 event Inflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.00 min Primary outflow = Inflow. Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link 2: OVERFLOW Hydrograph 1 — Inflow Inflow Area=0.267 ac — Primary Inflow=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs Primary=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs 4- 4- 0 U- 0- 10 11 12 13 14 Time (hours) North Ridge Laz_Greto_IMPERVIOUS Type 111 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/15/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Summary for Link 3: EXFILTRATED Inflow = 0.10 cfs @ 13.71 hrs, Volume= 0.143 of Primary = 0.10 cfs @ 13.71 hrs, Volume= 0.143 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.00 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link 3: EXFILTRATED Hydrograph 0.11 0.10 cfs @ 13.71 hrs ow 0.1 — Primary Inflow=0.10 cfs @ 13.71 hrs 0.09 primary=0.10 cfs @ 13.71 hrs 0.08 H 0.07 w 0.06 0 0.05 U- 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 10 11 12 13 14 Time (hours) North Ridge Laz_Greto_IMPERVIOUS Type /// 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/15/2018 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 Summary for Link 5: OVERFLOW Inflow Area = 0.116 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.00" for C-25 event Inflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.00 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link 5: OVERFLOW Hydrograph 1 — Inflow Inflow Area=0.116 ac — Primary Inflow=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs Primary=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs y w v 3 0 ir 0 10 11 12 13 14 Time (hours) North Ridge Laz_GretoIMPERVIOUS Type /// 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by_Microsoft Printed 4/15/2018 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 Summary for Link 6: EXFILTRATED Inflow = 0.08 cfs @ 12.81 hrs, Volume= 0.062 of Primary = 0.08 cfs @ 12.81 hrs, Volume= 0.062 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.00 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link 6: EXFILTRATED Hydrograph 0.08 cfs 12.81 hrs — Inflow 0.08 — Primary Inflow=0.08 cfs @ 12.81 hrs 0.07 Primary=0.08 cfs @ 12.81 hrs 0.06 0.05 0 0.04 LL 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 10 11 12 13 14 Time (hours) "A •\ •F , i VICNTY MAP Joa �f LOT �(�1 ..e �'►. LOT a } V �I IRL RALPa G.WSiROMJH4CA.PE.PC __ iTi _ �' a oew Cart ova�w.wn�r "- ....,.... _---------->__ .•... .._.._.•n PRELIMRVARY SUBDIVISION PLAT N012TI-1 RIDGE STREET ,., DEVELOPMENT VLLAGE OF RYE BROOK wE5TCl-ESTER CO. .NY Ia.nw P>."'�•.+......vm. �` �c APRIL 10, 20 18 SffT I O 1 56CM -V,,i+-I- •ruA �a �Xwc u r e r r row t - s. a \� . TREE INVENTORY REMOVAL PLAN e - � �A� 3!Y rvpRN PIDGE STeEEr ® BROOK NEW vOeK rrv�>o ��i �w�. r4C� .� T r oo // no7_��--ter-� 6 RALPH G. MASTROMONACO, P,E„ P,C, Civil /Site /Environmental Consulting Engineers 13 Dove Court,Croton-on-Hudson,New York 10520 Tel:(914)271-4762 Fax:(914)271-2820 www.rgmpepc.com Michael Izzo, REVISE September 28, 2018 Building Inspector PLANS SEP 2 8 2018 Village of Rye Brook DATED: 938 King Street, Rye Brook, NY 10573 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Hand Deliver i Re: 259 North Ridge Street North Ridge Street Development Rye Brook, NY Dear Michael, As requested, enclosed please find the following Draft information for your review: 1. Five Exterior Full Building Permit Applications revised September 25, 2018. One each for Building(s) 1-A, 1-B, Lot 2 and Lot 3 and a new application for Combination Lot 1 containing calculations for both Buildings combined. 2. One (1) set of the Plans as follows: a. North Ridge Street Development, Cover Sheet last revised September 27, 2018 b. Site Plan, Grading / Layout, North Ridge Street Development revised September 27, 2018, sheet 1 of 5 sheets, c. Utility Plan, North Ridge Street Development dated April 10, 2018, sheet 2 of 5 sheets, d. Erosion Control Plan, North Ridge Street Development dated April 10, 2018, sheet 3 of 5 sheets, e. Sight Distance Study, North Ridge Street Development dated April 10, 2018, sheet 4 of 5 sheets, f. Details/Notes, North Ridge Street Development dated April 10, 2018, sheet 5 of 5 sheets, We received your emailed comments dated September 19, 2018 and offer the following information: Comment 1: Every applications lists the Architect of Record as the Late Clark Neuringer. Lazz must retain the services of a new architect to represent the project and include his name and contact information on the applications. Response: We have removed Mr. Neuringer's name from the application forms. Our firm is providing the calculations. Comment 2: None of the bulk calculation pages of the Building Permit Applications are signed by the Architect of Record as required. Response: The attached forms are signed by this firm as we are providing the calculations on the forms. Comment 3: Every Building Permit Application has incorrect calculations for allowable and proposed total impervious coverage, and no information for front yard impervious coverage. Response: The Impervious Coverage Ratios Residential Districts (Sheets) are revised and the calculations are provided. Ralph G Mastromonaco, PE PC Consulting engineer Nbrth Ridge Street Development Comment 4: Every Building Permit Application has incorrect calculations for allowable Gross Floor Area (GFA), and insufficient information for proposed GFA. Response: The Bulk Regulations sheets are revised. Comment 5: Every Building Permit Application is devoid of calculations for Front and Side Height Setback Ratios. Response: We have included the Setback Ratios. Comment 6: The Building Permit Application for Lot 2, the existing dwelling, has incorrect side yard setback information, and misrepresents the proposed scope of work as the site plan calls for a new building addition and new parking court. Response: The setback information was correct in question #7 on the form. We added the 27' front yard to the Site Plan, however, it is existing nonconforming. There are no , setbacks required for the parking area. -7, — , (,� �)(CA -4� Z S S�3 Comment 7: The site plan is devoid of existing and proposed front and side yard setback information for the existing dwelling, the proposed addition, and for the proposed parking court. Response: See # 6 above as this comment also refers to Lot 2. Comment 8: The Zoning Analysis chart on the site plan shows total impervious coverage in percentage rather than square footage as required by code, and must contain the actual calculations for all bulk requirements. (<, >, COMPLIES, are not acceptable) Response: The Zoning Analysis chart on the site plan has been revised. Comment 9: The applications indicate the FAH buildings as 2 story /24' in height. My review indicates the buildings are three stories given the existing grade. Please provide additional information regarding existing grade and building height. Response: The Village Code defines a "Story" as follows: STORY That portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor next above or, if there is no floor above it, then the space between the floor and the ceiling next above it. A basement will be deemed a story if the finished ceiling is five feet or more above the mean level of the natural grade around the building. [Amended 12-13-2005 by L.L. No. 24-2005] The first floor elevations of the two-family residences are 103.8 (Bldg. 1-A) and 103.5 (Bldg. 1-B) respectively. This would make the basement finished ceiling about one- foot lower or 102.8 (Bldg. 1-A) and 102.5 (Bldg. 1-B). .'ph G Mastromonaco, PE PC Consulting Engineers North Ridge Street Development The mean level of the grade around the building was taken by averaging the grade at the four corners of the buildings. The average grade worked out to be 100' (Bldg. 1- A) and 100.5' (Bldg. 1-B). BLDG 1-A BLDG 1-B 94 94 Corner Elevation 102 102 Corner Elevation 102 103 Corner Elevation 102 103 Corner Elevation 100 100.5 Average Elevation The basement finished ceiling is 2.8' above average elevation (102.8'-100' = 2.8) for Bldg. 1-A. The basement finished ceiling is 2' above average elevation (102.5-100.5' = 2) for Bldg. 1-B. Therefore, the basement finished ceiling is not five feet or more above mean level of grade around the building and should not be considered a "Story". Lot 1 FAH Lot: During our phone conversation, you stated that you were seeking a legal determination of whether the Zoning requirements for two buildings on one lot are cumulative or per building. Therefore, we provided a new application form (Combination Bldgs. 1-A and 1-B) that contains calculations for both buildings on the single lot combined. As you can see from the calculations, the bulk and area requirements comply with the code for both buildings combined. The only deviation from code dimensional requirement for the development pursuant to FAH District Section 250-26.1 F. 3 (b) is the Front Yard setback of 30'. The calculations show compliance with the code in all other respects. We are requesting your review and acceptance of the DRAFT revised forms after which we will provide the required number of signed and notarized copies. Please call if you have questions or require additional information. Si rely, Ralph G. Mastromonaco, PE RGM/mte Cc: Lou Larizza Ralph G Mastromonaco, PE PC Consulting Engineers Mike Izzo From: Mike Izzo Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 4:06 PM To: 'Mark ten Eicken' Cc: 'P. E. Ralph G. Mastromonaco'; Lou Larizza; Christopher Bradbury Subject: RE: 259 North Ridge Street Mark, I've completed my preliminary review of the submitted materials and offer the following comments; 1. Every applications lists the Architect of Record as the Late Clark Neuringer.Lazz must retain the services of a new architect to represent the project and include his name and contact information on the applications. 2. None of the bulk calculation pages of the Building Permit Applications are signed by the Architect of Record as required. S. Every Building Permit Application has incorrect calculations for allowable and proposed total impervious coverage,and no information for front yard impervious coverage. 4. Every Building Permit Application has incorrect calculations for allowable Gross Floor Area(GFA),and insufficient information for proposed GFA. 5. Every Building Permit Application is devoid of calculations for Front and Side Height Setback Ratios. 6. The Building Permit Application for Lot 2,the existing dwelling,has incorrect side yard setback information, and misrepresents the proposed scope of work as the site plan calls for a new building addition and new parking court. 7. The site plan is devoid of existing and proposed front and side yard setback information for the existing dwelling,the proposed addition,and for the proposed parking court. 8. The Zoning Analysis chart on the site plan shows total impervious coverage in percentage rather than square footage as required by code,and must contain the actual calculations for all bulk requirements. (<, >, COMPLIES,are not acceptable) 9. The applications indicate the FAH buildings as 2 story/ 24'in height.My review indicates the buildings are three stories given the existing grade. Please provide additional information regarding existing grade and building height. Please arrange for the necessary revisions and re-submit the materials to the Building Department for further review. Thank you. Michael J. Izzo Building&Fire Inspector Village of Rye Brook,NY Phone—(914)939-0668 Fax—(914)939-5801 mizzo@ryebrook.org —Original Message— From:Mark ten Eicken [mailto:mark@rgmpepc.com] Sent:Wednesday,September 19, 2018 11:51 AM To:Mike Izzo <MIzzo@ryebrook.org> Cc: 'P. E. Ralph G. Mastromonaco'<hardycross@aol.com>;Lou Larizza<loulazz@aol.com> Subject: 259 North Ridge Street Hi Mike, 1 Lou Larizza told Ralph that he met with you. Let us know if we can answer any questions you may have. Mark Mark ten Eicken Tech Coordinator RALPH G.MASTROMONACO, PE PC Consulting Engineers 13 Dove Court Croton-on-Hudson,NY 10520 Office: 914 271 4762 Fax: 914 271 2820 CIVIL/ SITE/ ENVIRONMENTAL / HYDROLOGY z I • A Building Permit Check List & Zoning Analysis Address: M •'�.�5'Fi S-t- . L D i - ( SBL: 13-s •3-$ - L l Zone: 2- I 5-Use: 2-Z Const. Type: Other: 2 o c ti. -t. Sew Submittal Date: a ( 1 l I S' Revisions Submittal Dates: Applicant:__ 'AW L1,.�l 94D C�t N! j S / �.4z-L �j�-V Nature of Work: Z 2 S-ey r.A •9 —1?,o1 r-15 C e-N-644 Reviews: ZBA:j 11N 1 n 2n+ PB: BP: Other: NEED OK (T, ( ) FEES: Filing: BP: C/O: Legalization: (vJ ( ) APP.: Date Stamped: Properly Signed: SBL Verified: Other: (� ( ) Scenic Roads: Steep Slopes: Wetlands: Storm Water Review: Street Opening: ENVIRO.: Long: Short: Fees: N/A: ( ) (v'f SITE PLAN: Topo: Site Protection: S/W Mgmt.: Tree Plan: Other: (✓j ( ) SURVEY: Dated: Current: Archival: Sealed: �, - (✓f ( ) PLANS: Date Stamped: Sealed: Copies: (✓ , ( ) License: Workers Comp: Liability: Coml (J� ( ) Code 753#: 1 l 11', (� ( ) HIGH-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL: Plans: Permit: (� ( ) LOW-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL: Plans: Permit: (� ( ) FIRE ALARM/SMOKE DETECTORS: Plans: Permit i-- I �' l3fL-62o 9--k (� ( ) PLUMBING: Plans: Permit: Nat. Gas: LP (� ( ) FIRE SUPPRESSION: Plans: Permit: N/A: 2010 NY State ECCC: N/A: Other: 1 (� ( ) Final Survey: Final Topo. RAPE Sign-off Letter Z l ( ) ( ) BP DENIAL LETTER: C/O DENIAL LETTER: (� O Other: 13 O i - (4ARB mtg. date: approval: notes: 4 �,,���o ( )ZBA mtg. date: approval: notes: (Jf PB mtg. date: approval: notes: ' REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED NOTES Area: t!�7- k l?�2 by( &OF 4 Cz Ol-t_ Circle: l.O p (00 Q j Frontage: TS' Front: ZO Front: o O' -D•!}. + Z S�1•f. 5 3 a w ai. �, Ttr: . Sides: (S Afo ► '� t pl., Rear: 410 Main Cov: 161. t O 3' O�t _ Accs.Cov: Ft. H/Sb: • G Sd. H/Sb: ( G o GFA: -03,ti ;i 5 IT. Tot. 1 ,is Z Ft. Imp: y&,-°(o Parking: -L 0 p4c Height/Stories: Z, Oh, notes: E0 Z.CD- Zo. A 3 L•' - 0S t&jcfL �. ►�tvt- ,1,!) N t - F 6 5 16 L - S vC _iF1 S 10 -A-Z� S _ -2o. A Lo&FL VA( A•-JC1 n. o t �J �a� "�3����„a VN 1�- Building Permit Check List & Zoning Analysis Address: 7_.5�_q N qb S r., S<, oT - Z SBL: i 3S.3S- L — l l • 1 Zone: "_� C S Use: Z Const.Type: ___S!�T3 Other: 5-2o> Submittal Date: l ( S Revisions Submittal Dates: Applicant: :�)A W Lt 0 4, Po Cb r r-- ZI-A7,1- Nature of Work: r>-;�� ( D c.' Z A L,—14--f1�A1?D� F-x t ST1'c-J \\ Sc t-FL .tom L (.5F- L�(,( -0 — ?OSS((3c- -'FAR. �t�y Reviews: ZBA: J UN 1 0 2015 PB: BP: Other: �NEED OK FEES: Filing: BP: C/O: Legalization: (� ( ) APP.: Date Stamped: Properly Signed: SBL Verified: Other: (Jf ( ) Scenic Roads: Steep Slopes: Wetlands: Storm Water Review: Street Opening: (� ( ) ENVIRO.: Long: Short: Fees: N/A: ( ) (✓�SITE PLAN: Topo: Site Protection: S/W Mgmt.: Tree Plan: Other: (� ( ) SURVEY: Dated: Current: Archival: Sealed: Unacceptable: PLANS:Date=Stamped: Sealed: Copies: - Incomplete: - - - N/A:- Others License: Workers Comp: Liability: Comp. Waiver: Other: (� ( ) Code 753#: Dated: N/A: (� ( ) HIGH-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL: Plans: Permit: N/A: Other: (� ( ) LOW-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL: Plans: Permit: N/A: Other: (-� O FIRE ALARM/SMOKE DETECTORS: Plans: Permit: N/A: Other: Hr ( ) PLUMBING: Plans: Permit: Nat. Gas: LP Gas: N/A/: Other: FIRE SUPPRESSION: Plans: Permit: N/A: Other: (� O 2010 NY State ECCC: N/A: Other: (� ( ) Final Survey: Final Topo: RA/PE Sign-off Letter: As-Built Plans: Other: O O BP DENIAL LETTER: C/O DENIAL LETTER: Other: ( ) ( ) Other: (-,fARB mtg. date: approval: notes: ( ZBA mtg. date: approval: notes: (✓�PB mtg. date: approval: notes: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED NOTES Area: 1K,FL 13 Z 6't b kS f(°AT, 0�Z_ Circle: C o D Frontage: Front: Front: 6 0 23 - otc, 0-xdS - Nor-) -e-a_, F. Sides: 02. Rear: y 3 ZS 0�r_ Main Cov: L(o fo t(c C(L Accs.Cov: Ft.H/Sb: . &o Sd. WSb: ( . Go GFA: 'T, zD3 Zzt Tot. t 3c310 Ft. Imp: 3S°/o Parking: 7- Hei t/Stories: ° z notes: Residential Building Permit Fee Work Sheet Permit#: Date Issued: SBL: Zone: Address: Property Owner& Contact Info: Job Description: For all new dwellings and for additions measuring 800 sq. ft. or more made to existing dwellings, the following fee schedule shall apply: (plus any alteration fees) Total Sq. Ft. (excluding basements) x $220.00 x $15.00/$1,000.00 Basement Sq. Ft. x $65.00 x $15.001$1,000.00 New Construction Sq.Ft. • New Construction Cost • Buildine Permit Fee Basement= sq. ft. x $65.00 = $ x$15.00/$1,000.00= $ 1 s`Fl.= sq. ft. x $220.00=$ x$15.00/$1,000.00=$ 2°d Fl. = sq. ft. x $220.00=$ x$15.00/$1,000.00=$ Attic= sq. ft. x $220.00=$ x$15.00/$1,000.00=$+ Total Sq.Ft. = sq. ft. Total Cost=$ Total B.P. Fee=$ Total Amount Paid=$- Total Amount Due=$ Date: Signed: Building Permit Check List & Zoning Analysis Address: Z 7 )� , :::W c-b�r2_ S 7 LO T - 3 SBL: t 3S,3.S l _ 1 • Z Zone: 2- t 5�_ Use: Z 1 O Const.Type: _S� Other: Submittal Date: (o t t l Revisions Submittal Dates: Applicant: AX,3 L t { 6 Lz-j t x.3L,S Z /-A 7 Z Nature of Work: S t t-) < L fL 11. �-acl-LLr►-i W A�''i c � Reviews: ZBA: J UN 10 2015 PB: BP: Other: NEED OK (V) ( ) FEES: Filing: BP: C/O: Legalization: (V� ( ) APP.: Date Stamped: Properly Signed: SBL Verified: Other: (� ( ) Scenic Roads: Steep Slopes: Wetlands: Storm Water Review: Street Opening: (..� ( ) ENVIRO.: Long: Short: Fees: N/A: ( ) ( ) SITE PLAN: Topo: Site Protection: S/W Mgmt.: Tree Plan: Other: (� ( ) SURVEY: Dated: Current: Archival: Sealed: Unacceptable: ( ( ) PLANS:Date Stamped: Sealed: Copies: Incomplete: — N/A: Other:- (� ( ) License: Workers Comp: Liability: Comp. Waiver: Other: (� ( ) Code 753#: Dated: N/A: (� O HIGH-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL: Plans: Permit: N/A: Other: (� ( ) LOW-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL: Plans: Permit: N/A: Other: (� O FIRE ALARM /SMOKE DETECTORS: Plans: Permit: N/A: Other: (� ( ) PLUMBING: Plans: Permit: Nat. Gas: LP Gas: N/A/: Other: (� ( ) FIRE SUPPRESSION: Plans: Permit: N/A: Other: 2010 NY State ECCC: N/A: Other: (� ( ) Final Survey: Final Topo: RAPE Sign-off Letter: As-Built Plans: Other: O O BP DENIAL LETTER: C/O DENIAL LETTER: Other: ( ) ( ) Other: (4ARB mtg. date: approval: notes: ( )ZBA mtg. date: approval: notes: (4'PB mtg. date: approval: notes: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED NOTES Area: tS{ - IT Z164G. (oZ, 5L (_ otz Circle: loo - loo ({z Frontage: Z 5 Front: Front: (a _ G G Ch- Sides: ?P ty� Rear: Main Cov: 16 Jp �'/� _ OHL, Accs.Cov: Ft. H/Sb: Sd. H/Sb: GFA: i!p, (v t Z Z4 0 t! Tot. l(o Zzi' Ft. Imp: 3S Parking: 7- -tom qi Height/Stories:3o notes: Residential Building Permit Fee Work Sheet Permit#: Date Issued: SBL: Zone: Address: Property Owner& Contact Info: Job Description: For all new dwellings and for additions measuring 800 sq. ft. or more made to existing dwellings, the following fee schedule shall apply: (plus any alteration fees) Total Sq. Ft. (excluding basements)x $220.00 x $15.00/$1,000.00 Basement Sq. Ft. x $65.00 x $15.00/$1,000.00 New Construction Sq. Ft. • New Construction Cost • Buildine Permit Fee Basement= sq. ft. x $65.00 = $ x$15.00/$1,000.00= $ I"Fl.= sq. ft. x $220.00=$ x$15.00/$1,000.00=$ 2°d Fl.= sq. ft. x $220.00=$ x$15.00/$1,000.00=$ Attic= sq. ft. x $220.00=$ x$15.00/$1,000.00=$+ Total Sq.Ft. = sq. ft. Total Cost=$ Total B.P.Fee=$ Total Amount Paid=$- Total Amount Due=$ Date: Signed: BUIQENT RYE OK FRD f �/ L F _---1 938 KINGNY 10573 18 2015(914) 9-5801 OF R`(BROOK DEPARTMENT FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: BOT Approval Date: PB Approval Date: BOT Disapproval Date: PB Disapproval Date: Attach Resolution Hereto: BOT[ I PB[ I ZBA[ ] Chairman: SUBDIVISION FEE: DATE PAID: ENVIRONMENTAL FEE: DATE PAID: OTHER: FEE SCHEDULE: Preliminary Platt Application: 4.9UU.Uu + :ii650.0, / Additional Lot. (application fees are non-refundable) Final Platt: / Recreation: Residential =$10,000.UU/acre + 4,2,000.00/dwelling unit. Commercial = $10,000.00/acre +$2,000.0 /2,000 sq. ft. APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND Application dated, &r !2;,I 1 s is hereby made to the Village of Rye Brook for a Subdivision of Land,Lot Merger,or other land use function in accordance with§20 and all other applicable sections of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook,as per detailed statement described below. iiiiii;;#########;;;i#####� 1. Property Address: '_�5q &4-XI n AJJQeSh_j& r SBL: /3S ,35-1 Jkone: 2. Property Owner:--Doi) Address: /U email: 3. Applicant: _eQ Address: emai I:�c lL L-Q Z:&e,0l.CM'el.: / 7 1 4. Professional Engineer: �1� _" Q� A- 7(1Z. Address: /� /, ✓� _CR11I� ,l.l'UUa7U11 � ops m /7"�7�-a��� 5. Licensed Land Surveyor: 142(t sue(/ LAS Y Address: c?/ ela,r r_�J� lb emai"OPaC' Tel.: 6. Subdivision Name/Identifying Title: O t) t 1 ZZG- 7. Abutting Streets: Xo�h I ',A cpp &r kt [�fZ.�f ie'dY T)f f 8. Does property connect directly into channel lines as established by the Westchester County Commissioner of Public Works? '�ANO ( )YES: 9. Is lot within 500 feet of the Municipal Boundary? NO ( )YES: (ifyes list all adjacent Municipalities below): 10. Size of Existing Lot: 11. Size(s)of Proposed Lots : Jnjf/, , 12. Are proposed road centerlines staked? VYES O NO(if no,indicate anticipated date of staking) REVISED 8/14/15 13. Has the proposed lot(s)been staked? O YES NO(if no indicate anticipated date of staking) 14. Number of Proposed Dwelling Units: 8-.-AEA S I N S L E F-A—A . - -tC�'t A L- 15. Estimated Cost of Construction:$ Additional Information required to be submitted: a. Proof of ownership of the subject parcel(s). b. Certificate of Title Company covering all interests, liens,judgements,objections to title if any. C. Formal offers of cession to the Village of all streets&park areas not to remain private. d. Written agreement authorizing entry onto the property(s)by Village employees&officials. e. Any list of waivers requested by the applicant. f. Engineers estimated cost of construction of all streets,buildings,and site improvements. g. Final Subdivision plat and final subdivision plans. h. Proof of Approval by NY State DOT and/or Westchester County DOT for any proposed State or County street/intersection. i. Proof of Approval by Westchester County DPW for drainage lines if connecting directly into County established channel lines. j. Proof of Approval from the appropriate Utility Company for all proposed utilities&equipment. k. Proof of Approval from Westchester County DPW Division of Stream Control, if applicable. 1. Properly completed Environmental Impact Statement.(available on the NYS DEC website) in. Any additional information as requested by the Village of Rye Brook. ****************************************************************************************** Please note that this application must include the notarized signature(s) of the legal owner(s) of the above-mentioned property, in the space provided below. Any application not bearing the legal property owner's notarized signature(s)shall be deemed null and void, and will be returned to the applicant. STATE OF NEW YORK,COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) as: L4-a-(ZZ A ,being duly sworn,deposes and states that he/she is the applicant above named, (print name of individual signing as the applicant) and further states that (s)he is the legal owner of the property to which this application pertains, or that (s)he is the 0 t.l A tines for the legal owner and is duly authorized to make and file this application. (indicate drchitect,contractor,agent,attorney,etc.) That all statements contained herein are true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, and that any work performed,or use conducted at the above captioned property will be in conformance with the details as set forth and contained in this application and in any accompanying approved plans and specifications,as well as in accordance with the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention &Building Code,the Code of the Village of Rye Brook and all other applicable laws,ordinances and regulations. Sworn to before me thisS Sworn to before me this /of day of , 20�� day of , 20 J c� STEVEN 0.FEINSTEIN Notary Public,State of New York No.4864761 otary bli Qualified in W No Pu i X 1 Commission Expires S' ture f Pr rty Owner Sign e o p ' ant 1< o�, \st1�Rl rilI At zz Print NamARtIlIM a Of New York Print Name of Applicant o.01 ME6160063 Ouallfled In Westchester County REVISED 8/14/15 Commission Expires January 29.20�. 1 ! y BUII. DE MENT D �� � �� EOFR K `/ G ET RYE BR NY 10573 SEA - 4 �015 )9 -0668 39-5801 w'ww'. e r FOR OFFTCE USE ONLY: BOT Approval Date: PB Approval Date: _ BOT Disapproval Date: PB Disapproval Date: Attach Resolution Hereto: BOT[ ] PB[ ] ZBA[ 1 Chairman: SITE PLAN FEE: DATE PAID: ENVIRONMENTAL FEE: .� DATE PAID: OTHER: *********************************************************************************************************** PRELIMINARY FOR LOT 1 OF NORTH RIDGE STREET SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL Submission of this application does not assure placement on any Planning Board Agenda.The Applicant will be notified of such placement. This application references but is not limited to the following sections of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook;§250 ZONING,§209 SITE PLAN REVIEW, §235 TREES,§107 DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS,§224 SWIMMING POOLS, §121 EXCAVATION&TOPSOIL REMOVAL,§118 EROSION&SEDIMENT CONTROL,§213 STEEP SLOPES PROTECTION,§219 SUBDIVISION OF LAND, §250-40 NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.Applicants and their Design Professionals are strongly advised to review the above mentioned code sections online at,www.ryebrook.org prior to completing and/or submitting this application. APPLICATION FEE SCHEDULE: / Residential Dwellings- $325,plus$200 per additional dwelling unit. Non-Residential Buildings - $475 plus $30 per parking space. Planned Unit Development-$575 per acre PUD Amendment- $300 Site Plan Amendment- $575 Wetlands&Watercourse- $1,150 V Consultant Review(Escrow)Fee: Minimum fee$250-maximum fee$2,500,to be determined by the Village Engineer. Application fees are non-refundable. The applicant's Escrov+•Account must have a positive balance at till times prior to ant Consultant. 4m nx r,nr Pillq,c rci Escroit and Site Plat Fees must be paid on separate checks made payable to the Village of Rve Brook. *********************************************************************************************************** 1. Site Address: 259 North Ridge Street Parcel ID#: 135.35-1-11 Zone: R-15 2. Property Owner: Dan Greto Address: 209 Central Avenue Rye, NY 10580 E-Mail: Tel.#: 914-447-4444 Other: 3. Applicant: Lou Larizza Address: 8 Hilltop Avenue Port Chester, NY 10573 E-Mail: Tel.#: 914-879-7905 Other. 4. Design Professional: Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C. Address: 13 Dove Court Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 E-Mail: Tel.#: 914-271-4762 Other. 5. Designate to whom correspondence is to be sent: Applicant, Lou Larizza Note:If applicant is a"Contract Vendee",please attach a copy of the contract summary with financial and confidential terms deleted. REVISED 8/10/15 •l , 6. Street which property abuts: North Ridge Street at West Ridge Drive 7. Does property connect directly into State or County highway? (X)NO ( )YES: 8. Is site within 500 feet of Village Boundary?(X)NO ( )YES if yes note all bordering municipalities: 9. Total area of site: 60,417 SF , 1.3 Acres Area of site activity: 36,000 SF 10. Site coverage: 23% (Impervious coverage) %; Building coverage: 10% % 11. Existing building size: N/A New/additional building size: 2 Buildings of 3,200 SF Each 12. Existing parking spaces: 0 New parking spaces: 24 13. Nature of proposed activity: To construct eight units of affordable housing in two buildings with parking area. ****************************************************************************************** Please note that this application must include the notarized signature(s) of the legal owner(s) of the above-mentioned property, in the space provided below. Any application not bearing the legal property owner's notarized signature(s) shall be deemed null and void, and will be returned to the applicant. STATE OF NEW YORK,COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) as: ,being duly sworn,deposes and states that he/she is the applicant above named, (print name of individual signing as the applicant) and further states that (s)he is the legal owner of the property to which this application pertains, or that (s)he is the for the legal owner and is duly authorized to make and file this application. (indicate architect,contractor,agent,attorney,etc.) That all statements contained herein are true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, and that any work performed, or use conducted at the above captioned property will be in conformance with the details as set forth and contained in this application and in any accompanying approved plans and specifications,as well as in accordance with the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention &Building Code,the Code of the Village of Rye Brook and all other applicable laws,ordinances and regulations. Sworn to before me this Sworn to before me this day of , 20 day of , 20 Notary Public Notar Pu lic Siignat�ure�of Property Owner t of pI icant Prmt Name of Pro erty Owner Print Name o Ap REVISED 8110/15 r ;_P�� BUIL 6 MENT VI E OF RY OK 938 KING ET RYE BROOK,NY 10573 SEP (914)9 FAX(914)939-5801 ?Qfs :l f Yebwokor2 C 13Lic ti-. VI/cjRK.,� . ****************************************************************************************************** FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: BOT Approval Date: PB Approval Date: BOT Disapproval Date: PB Disapproval Date: Attach Resolution Hereto: BOT[ ] PB[ ] ZBA[ J Chairman: SITE PLAN FEE: DATE PAID: ENVIRONMENTAL FEE: DATE PAID: OTHER: *********************************************************************************************************** PRELIMINARY FOR LOT 2 OF NORTH RIDGE STREET SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL Submission of this application does not assure placement on any Planning Board Agenda.The Applicant will be notified of such placement. This application references but is not limited to the following sections of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook;§250 ZONING,§209 SITE PLAN REVIEW, §235 TREES, §107 DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS, §224 SWIMMING POOLS,§121 EXCAVATION&TOPSOIL REMOVAL,§118 EROSION&SEDIMENT CONTROL,§213 STEEP SLOPES PROTECTION,§219 SUBDIVISION OF LAND, §250-40 NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.Applicants and their Design Professionals are strongly advised to review the above mentioned code sections online at,www.ryebrook.org prior to completing and/or submitting this application. APPLICATION FEE SCHEDULE: Residential Dwellings- $325,plus$200 per additional dwelling unit. Non-Residential Buildings - $475 plus $30 per parking space. Planned Unit Development-$575 per acre PUD Amendment- $300 Site Plan Amendment- $575 Wetlands&Watercourse- $1,150 Consultant Review(Escrow)Fee: Minimum fee$250-maximum fee$2,500,to be determined by the Village Engineer. Application fees are non-retundahle. The applicant's Escrow Account must have a positive balance at all times prior to am Consultant,Attorney,or Village review. Escrow Fees and Site Plan Fees must he paid on separate checks made pcn ahle to the Village of Rye Brook. Subdivision Lot#2 1. Site Address: 259 North Ridge Street Parcel ID#: 135.35-1-11 Zone: R-15 2. Property Owner: Dan Greto Address: 209 Central Avenue Rye, NY 10580 E-Mail: Tel. #: 914-447-4444 Other: 3. Applicant. Lou Larizza Address: 8 Hilltop Avenue Port Chester, NY 10573 E-Mail: Tel.#: 914-879-7905 Other: 4. Design Professional: Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C. Address: 13 Dove Court Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 E-Mail: Tel.#: 914-271-4762 Other: 5. Designate to whom correspondence is to be sent: Applicant, Lou Larizza :Vote:If applicant is a"Contract Vendee".please attach a copy of the contract summary with financial and confidential terms deleted. REVISED 8/10/15 y f • 6. Street which property abuts: North Ridge Street at West Ridge Drive 7. Does property connect directly into State or County highway? (X)NO ( )YES: 8. Is site within 500 feet of Village Boundary?(�NO ( )YES If yes note all bordering municipalities: 9. Total area of site: 49,663 SF(1.14 Acres) Area of site activity: 4,000 SF 10. Site coverage: 10% (Impervious coverage) %; Building coverage: 4% % 11. Existing building size: 2,200 SF New/additional building size: Renovate existing dwelling 12. Existing parking spaces: 2 New parking spaces: 2 13. Nature of proposed activity: To renovate an existing single family dwelling Please note that this application must include the notarized signature(s) of the legal owner(s) of the above-mentioned property, in the space provided below. Any application not bearing the legal property owner's notarized signature(s) shall be deemed null and void, and will be returned to the applicant. STATE OF NEW YORK,COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) as: ,being duly sworn,deposes and states that he/she is the applicant above named, (print name of individual signing as the applicant) and further states that (s)he is the legal owner of the property to which this application pertains, or that (s)he is the for the legal owner and is duly authorized to make and file this application. (indicate architect,contractor,agent,attomey,etc.) That all statements contained herein are true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, and that any work performed,or use conducted at the above captioned property will be in conformance with the details as set forth and contained in this application and in any accompanying approved plans and specifications,as well as in accordance with the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention &Building Code,the Code of the Village of Rye Brook and all other applicable laws,ordinances and regulations. Sworn to before me this Sworn to before me this day of , 20 day of , 20 Notary Public Notary Public Signature of Property Owner Signature of Applicant Print Name of Property Owner Print Name of Applicant REVISED 8/10/15 BUI;TREET DEPARTMENT VIE OF RYE BROOK SEP , J 938 KING RYE BROOK,NY 10573 0� (914)939-0668 FAX(914) 39-5801 w��'�. - ebrook.om !n'��.�, V v S FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: BOT Approval Date: PB Approval Date: BOT Disapproval Date: PB Disapproval Date: Attach Resolution Hereto: BOT[ ] PB[ ] ZBA[ ] Chairman: SITE PLAN FEE: DATE PAID: ENVIRONMENTAL FEE: DATE PAID: OTHER: *********************************************************************************************************** PRELIMINARY FOR LOT 3 OF NORTH RIDGE STREET SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL Submission of this application does not assure placement on any Planning Board Agenda.The Applicant will be notified of such placement. This application references but is not limited to the following sections of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook;§250 ZONING,§209 SITE PLAN REVIEW, §235 TREES, §107 DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS,§224 SWIMMING POOLS,§121 EXCAVATION&TOPSOIL REMOVAL,§118 EROSION&SEDIMENT CONTROL,§213 STEEP SLOPES PROTECTION,§219 SUBDIVISION OF LAND, §250-40 NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.Applicants and their Design Professionals are strongly advised to review the above mentioned code sections online at,www.Liebrook.org prior to completing and/or submitting this application. APPLICATION FEE SCREDULE: Residential Dwellings- $325,plus$200 per additional dwelling unit. Non-Residential Buildings - $475 plus $30 per parking space. Planned Unit Development-$575 per acre PUD Amendment- $300 Site Plan Amendment- $575 Wetlands&Watercourse- $1,150 Consultant Review(Escrow)Fee: Minimum fee$250-maximum fee$2,500,to be determined by the Village Engineer. Application fees are non-refundable.The applicant's Escrow Account must have a positive balance at all times prior to any Consultant,Attorney,or Village review. F_scrox Fees and Site Plan Fees must be paid on separate checks made parable to the Village of Rve Brook. *********************************************************************************************************** Subdivision Lot#3 1. Site Address: 259 North Ridge Street Parcel ID#: 135.35-1-11 Zone: R-15 2. Property Owner: Dan Greto Address: 209 Central Avenue Rye, NY 10580 E-Mail: Tel.#: 914-447-4444 Other: 3. Applicant: Lou Larizza Address: 8 Hilltop Avenue Port Chester, NY 10573 E-Mail: Tel.#: 914-879-7905 Other: 4. Design Professional: Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C. Address: 13 Dove Court Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 E-Mail: Tel.#: 914-271-4762 Other: 5. Designate to whom correspondence is to be sent: Applicant, Lou Larizza Note:If applicant is a"Contract Vendee",please attach a copy of the contract summary with financial and confidential terms deleted. REVISED 8/10/15 1 6. Street which property abuts: North Ridge Street at West Ridge Drive 7. Does property connect directly into State or County highway? (X)NO ( ) YES: 8. Is site within 500 feet of Village Boundary?(X)NO O YES If yes note all bordering municipalities: 9. Total area of site: 62,566 SF (1.43 Acres) Area of site activity: 4,000 SF 10. Site coverage: 7% (Impervious coverage) %; Building coverage: 49/6 11. Existing building size: N/A New/additional building size: 3,500 SF 12. Existing parking spaces: 0 New parking spaces: 2 13. Nature of proposed activity: To construct a new single family dwelling ****************************************************************************************** Please note that this application must include the notarized signature(s) of the legal owner(s) of the above-mentioned property, in the space provided below. Any application not bearing the legal property owner's notarized signature(s)shall be deemed null and void, and will be returned to the applicant. STATE OF NEW YORK,COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) as: ,being duly sworn, deposes and states that he/she is the applicant above named, (print name of individual signing as the applicant) and further states that (s)he is the legal owner of the property to which this application pertains, or that (s)he is the for the legal owner and is duly authorized to make and file this application. (indicate architect,contractor,agent,attorney,etc.) That all statements contained herein are true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, and that any work performed, or use conducted at the above captioned property will be in conformance with the details as set forth and contained in this application and in any accompanying approved plans and specifications,as well as in accordance with the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention & Building Code,the Code of the Village of Rye Brook and all other applicable laws,ordinances and regulations. Sworn to before me this Sworn to before me this day of , 20 day of 120 Notary Public Notary Public Signature of Property Owner Signature of Applicant Print Name of Property Owner Print Name of Applicant REVISED 8/10/15 Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 - Project and Setting Instructions for Completing Part 1 Part 1 is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item,please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information;indicate whether missing information does not exist, or is not reasonably available to the sponsor;and,when possible,generally describe work or studies which would be necessary to update or fully develop that information. Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A&B. In Sections C,D&E,most items contain an initial question that must be answered either"Yes"or"No". If the answer to the initial question is"Yes",complete the sub-questions that follow. If the answer to the initial question is"No",proceed to the next question. Section F allows the project sponsor to identify and attach any additional information. Section G requires the name and signature of the project sponsor to verify that the information contained in Part lis accurate and complete. A.Project and Sponsor Information. Name of Action or Project: North Ridge Street Subdivision Project Location(describe,and attach a general location map): 259 North Ridge Street,Rye Brook,NY 10573 Brief Description of Proposed Action(include purpose or need): Project is to subdivisde a 3.96 acre property in the R-15 zoning district and the Scenic Road Overlay District into three lots. Lot#1 is proposed for eight(8)units of Fair and Affordable Housing in two(2)buildings. Lot#2 contains an existing single family dwelling that is to be refurbished. Lot#3 is proposed for a new single family dwelling. Name of Applicant/Sponsor: Telephone: 914-879-7905 Lou Larizza,Contract Vendee E-Mail: Address: 8 Hilltop Drive City/PO: Port Chester State: New York Zip Code: 10573 Project Contact(if not same as sponsor;give name and title/role): Telephone: E-Mail: Address: City/PO: State: Zip Code: Property Owner (if not same as sponsor): Telephone: 914-967-5892 Daniel I Greto E-Mail: Address: 209 Central Avenue City/PO: Rye State: New York Zip Code:10580 Page 1 of 13 B.Government Approvals B.Government Approvals,Funding,or Sponsorship. ("Funding"includes grants,loans,tax relief,and any other forms of financial assistance.) Government Entity if Yes:identify Agency and Approval(s) Application Date Required (Actual or projected) a.City Council,Town Board, OYes❑No Zoning Map Amendment September 25,2015 or Village Board of Trustees Subdivision Approval b.City,Town or Village OYes❑No Review and recommendation to Village Board September 25,2015 Planning Board or Commission of Trustees c.City Council,Town or ❑Yes❑No Village Zoning Board of Appeals d.Other local agencies ❑YesONo e.County agencies OYes❑No WCDH Subdivision Plat Approval County Road Permit f.Regional agencies ❑YesONo g. State agencies ❑YesONo h.Federal agencies ❑YesONo i. Coastal Resources. i. Is the project site within a Coastal Area,or the waterfront area of a Designated Inland Waterway? ❑YesONO ii. Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program? ❑YesONo iii. Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area? ❑YesONo C.Planning and Zoning C.I.Planning and zoning actions. Will administrative or legislative adoption,or amendment of a plan,local law,ordinance,rule or regulation be the ❑YesONo only approval(s)which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed? • If Yes,complete sections C,F and G. • If No,proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part 1 C.2.Adopted land use plans. a.Do any municipally-adopted (city,town,village or county)comprehensive land use plan(s)include the site OYes❑No where the proposed action would be located? If Yes,does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action ❑YesONo would be located? b.Is the site of the proposed action within any local or regional special planning district(for example: Greenway ❑YesONo Brownfield Opportunity Area(BOA);designated State or Federal heritage area;watershed management plan; or other?) If Yes,identify the plan(s): c. Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan, ❑YesONo or an adopted municipal farmland protection plan? If Yes,identify the plan(s): Page 2 of 13 CA Zoning a. Is the site of the proposed action located in a municipality with an adopted zoning law or ordinance. O Yes❑No If Yes,what is the zoning classification(s)including any applicable overlay district? R-1.5 zoning district and the Scenic Road Overlay District b. Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit? O YesO No c.Is a zoning change requested as part of the proposed action? O YesE:]No If Yes, i.What is the proposed new zoning for the site? Lot#1 to be rezoned from the R-15 District to the Fair and Affordable Housing District(FAH) CA.Existing community services. a.In what school district is the project site located? Blind Brook Scholl District b.What police or other public protection forces serve the project site? Vtlliaa nf Rve Ftrnok c.Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site? Village of Rye Brook d.What parks serve the project site? Rich Manor Park Pine Rodoa Park Crawford Pnrk D. Project Details D.1. Proposed and Potential Development a.What is the general nature of the proposed action(e.g.,residential,industrial,commercial,recreational;if mixed,include all components)? Residential b.a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? -i qft acres b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? I 7r acres c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? -A 96 acres c.Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or use? ❑YesO No i.If Yes,what is the approximate percentage of the proposed expansion and identify the units(e.g.,acres,miles,housing units, square feet)? % Units: d.Is the proposed action a subdivision,or does it include a subdivision? OYes ONo If Yes, i. Purpose or type of subdivision?(e.g.,residential,industrial,commercial;if mixed,specify types) Residential ii. Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed? OYes ONo iii.Number of lots proposed? 3 iv.Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes? Minimum , , ACMS Maximum I d Arrac e.Will proposed action be constructed in multiple phases? ❑YcsONo i. If No,anticipated period of construction: & months H. If Yes: • Total number of phases anticipated • Anticipated commencement date of phase 1 (including demolition) month year • Anticipated completion date of final phase month wear • Generally describe connections or relationships among phases,including any contingencies where progress of one phase may determine timing or duration of future phases: Page 3 of 13 f.Does the pioject include new residential uses? V t'cs❑No If Yes,'show numbers of units proposed. One Family Two Family Three Family Multiple Family four or more Initial Phase 10 At completion of all phases 10 g.Does the proposed action include new non-residential construction(including expansions)? ❑l'cs0 No If Yes, i.Total number of structures ii.Dimensions(in feet)of largest proposed structure: height; width; and length iii. Approximate extent of building space to be heated or cooled: square feet h.Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any ❑Yes2No liquids,such as creation of a water supply,reservoir,pond,lake,waste lagoon or other storage? If Yes, i.Purpose of the impoundment: U.If a water impoundment,the principal source of the water: ❑ Ground water❑Surface water streams[]Other specify: id.If other than water,identify the type of impounded/contained liquids and their source. iv. Approximate size of the proposed impoundment. Volume: million gallons;surface area: acres v.Dimensions of the proposed dam or impounding structure: height; length W. Construction method/materials for the proposed dam or impounding structure(e.g.,earth fill,rock,wood,concrete): D.2. Project Operations a.Does the proposed action include any excavation,mining,or dredging,during construction,operations,or both? ❑Yes No (Not including general site preparation,grading or installation of utilities or foundations where all excavated materials will remain onsite) If Yes: i.What is the purpose of the excavation or dredging? ii.How much material(including rock,earth,sediments,etc.)is proposed to be removed from the site? • Volume(specify tons or cubic yards): • Over what duration of time? iii.Describe nature and characteristics of materials to be excavated or dredged,and plans to use,manage or dispose of them. iv.Will there be onsite dewatering or processing of excavated materials? ❑Yes❑No If yes,describe. v.What is the total area to be dredged or excavated? acres W.What is the maximum area to be worked at any one time? acres vii.What would be the maximum depth of excavation or dredging? feet viii.Will the excavation require blasting? ❑Yes❑No ix. Summarize site reclamation goals and plan: b.Would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of,increase or decrease in size of,or encroachment ❑YesONo into any existing wetland,waterbody,shoreline,beach or adjacent area? If Yes: i. Identify the wetland or waterbody which would be affected(by name,water index number,wetland map number or geographic description): Page 4 of 13 ii.,Describe how the proposed action would affect that waterbody or wetland,e.g.excavation,fill,placement of structures,or alteration of channels,banks and shorelines. Indicate extent of activities,alterations and additions in square feet or acres: iii.Will proposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments? ❑Yes❑No If Yes,describe: iv.Will proposed action cause or result in the destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation? ❑Yes❑No If Yes: • acres of aquatic vegetation proposed to be removed: • expected acreage of aquatic vegetation remaining after project completion: • purpose of proposed removal(e.g.beach clearing,invasive species control,boat access): • proposed method of plant removal: • if chemical/herbicide treatment will be used,specify product(s): v. Describe any proposed reclamation/mitigation following disturbance: c.Will the proposed action use,or create a new demand for water? ®Yes ONo If Yes: i.Total anticipated water usageldemand per day: t 1 an gallons/day U.Will the proposed action obtain water from an existing public water supply? ❑Yes❑No If Yes: • Name of district or service area: United Water Westchester • Does the existing public water supply have capacity to serve the proposal? 0 Yes❑No • Is the project site in the existing district? 0 Yes❑No • Is expansion of the district needed? ❑YesO No • Do existing lines serve the project site? 0 Yes❑No iii.Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to supply the project? ❑Yes ONo If Yes: • Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: • Source(s)of supply for the district: iv.Is a new water supply district or service area proposed to be formed to serve the project site? ❑ YesONo If,Yes: • Applicant/sponsor for new district: • Date application submitted or anticipated: • Proposed source(s)of supply for new district: v. If a public water supply will not be used,describe plans to provide water supply for the project: vi.If water supply will be from wells(public or private),maximum pumping capacity: gallons/minute. d.Will the proposed action generate liquid wastes? OYes❑No If Yes: i. Total anticipated liquid waste generation per day: 1.00o gallons/day ii.Nature of liquid wastes to be generated(e.g.,sanitary wastewater,industrial;if combination,describe all components and approximate volumes or proportions of each): Sanitary watewater iii.Will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities? OYes[]No If Yes: • Name of wastewater treatment plant to be used: Blind Brook Wastewater Treatment Plant • Name of district: Mind Elmo4 Sewer District • Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project? OYes❑No • Is the project site in the existing district? OYes❑No • Is expansion of the district needed? ❑YesONo Page 5 of 13 • Do existing sewer lines serve the project site? OYes❑No • Wili line extension within an existing district be necessary to serve the project? ❑Yes❑No If Yes: • Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: iv.Will a new wastewater(sewage)treatment district be formed to serve the project site? ❑YesONo If Yes: • Applicant/sponsor for new district: • Date application submitted or anticipated: • What is the receiving water for the wastewater discharge? v. If public facilities will not be used,describe plans to provide wastewater treatment for the project,including specifying proposed receiving water(name and classification if surface discharge,or describe subsurface disposal plans): vi.Describe any plans or designs to capture,recycle or reuse liquid waste: e.Will the proposed action disturb more than one acre and create stormwater runoff,either from new point ❑YesONo sources(i.e.ditches,pipes,swales,curbs,gutters or other concentrated flows of stormwater)or non-point source(i.e.sheet flow)during construction or post construction? If Yes: i. How much impervious surface will the project create in relation to total size of project parcel? Square feet or acres(impervious surface) Square feet or acres(parcel size) ii. Describe types of new point sources. iii. Where will the stormwater runoff be directed(i.e.on-site stormwater management facility/structures,adjacent properties, groundwater,on-site surface water or off-site surface waters)? • If to surface waters, identify receiving water bodies or wetlands: • Will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties? ❑Yes❑No iv. Does proposed plan minimize impervious surfaces,use pervious materials or collect and re-use stormwater? ❑Yes❑No f. Does the proposed action include,or will it use on-site,one or more sources of air emissions,including fuel ❑YesONo combustion,waste incineration,or other processes or operations? I I'Yes,identify: i.Mobile sources during project operations(e.g.,heavy equipment,fleet or delivery vehicles) ii. Stationary sources during construction(e.g.,power generation,structural heating,batch plant,crushers) iii. Stationary sources during operations(e.g.,process emissions,large boilers,electric generation) g.Will any air emission sources named in D.2.f(above),require a NY State Air Registration,Air Facility Permit, ❑YesONo or Federal Clean Air Act Title IV or Title V Permit? If Yes: i. Is the project site located in an Air quality non-attainment area? (Area routinely or periodically fails to meet ❑Yes❑No ambient air quality standards for all or some parts of the year) ii. In addition to emissions as calculated in the application,the project will generate: • Tons/year(short tons)of Carbon Dioxide(CO2) • Tons/year(short tons)of Nitrous Oxide(N20) • Tons/year(short tons)of Perfluorocarbons(PFCs) • Tons/year(short tons)of Sulfur Hexafluoride(SF6) • Tons/year(short tons)of Carbon Dioxide equivalent of Hydroflourocarbons(IFCs) • Tons/year(short tons)of Hazardous Air Pollutants(AAPs) Page 6 of 13 h.,Will the proposed action generate or emit methane(including,but not limited to,sewage treatment plants, ❑Yes®No landfills,composting facilities)? If Yes: i.Estimate methane generation in tons/year(metric): ii.Describe any methane capture,control or elimination measures included in project design(e.g.,combustion to generate heat or electricity,flaring): i.Will the proposed action result in the release of air pollutants from open-air operations or processes,such as ❑Yes®No quarry or landfill operations? If Yes:Describe operations and nature of emissions(e.g.,diesel exhaust,rock particulates/dust): j.Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial ❑Yeso No new demand for transportation facilities or services? If Yes: i.When is the peak traffic expected(Check all that apply): ❑Morning ❑Evening ❑Weekend ❑Randomly between hours of to ii.For commercial activities only,projected number of semi-trailer truck tripstday: iii.Parking spaces: Existing Proposed Net increase/decrease iv.Does the proposed action include any shared use parking? ❑Yes❑No v. If the proposed action includes any modification of existing roads,creation of new roads or change in existing access,describe: vi. Are public/private transportation service(s)or facilities available within'/Z mile of the proposed site? []Yes[]No vii Will the proposed action include access to public transportation or accommodations for use of hybrid,electric ❑Yes❑No or other alternative fueled vehicles? viii.Will the proposed action include plans for pedestrian or bicycle accommodations for connections to existing []Yes[-]No pedestrian or bicycle routes? k.Will the proposed action(for commercial or industrial projects only)generate new or additional demand ❑Yes®No for energy? If Yes: i.Estimate annual electricity demand during operation of the proposed action: ii. Anticipated sources/suppliers of electricity for the project(e.g.,on-site combustion,on-site renewable,via grid/local utility,or other): iii.Will the proposed action require a new,or an upgrade to,an existing substation? ❑Yes❑No 1.Hours of operation. Answer all items which apply. L During Construction: ii. During Operations: • Monday-Friday: R AM-3 PM • Monday-Friday: Not Applirahi • Saturday: s AM-3 PM • Saturday: • Sunday: None • Sunday: • Holidays: None • Holidays: Page 7 of 13 m,Will the'proposed action produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction, ❑Yes 0 No operation,or both? If yes: i. Provide details including sources,time of day and duration: ii. Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen? ❑Yes❑No Describe: n..Will the proposed action have outdoor lighting? ❑Yes 0No If yes: i.Describe source(s),location(s),height of fixture(s),direction/aim,and proximity to nearest occupied structures: ii. Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen? ❑Yes❑No Describe: o. Does the proposed action have the potential to produce odors for more than one hour per day? ❑Yes 0No If Yes,describe possible sources,potential frequency and duration of odor emissions,and proximity to nearest occupied structures: p.Will the proposed action include any bulk storage of petroleum(combined capacity of over 1,100 gallons) ❑Yes 0No or chemical products 185 gallons in above ground storage or any amount in underground storage? If Yes: L Product(s)to be stored ii.Volume(s) per unit time (e.g.,month,year) iii. Generally describe proposed storage facilities: q.Will the proposed action(commercial,industrial and recreational projects only)use pesticides(i.e.,herbicides, ❑Yes 0No insecticides)during construction or operation? If Yes: i. Describe proposed treatment(s). ii.Will the proposed action use Integrated Pest Management Practices? ❑ Yes ❑No r.Will the proposed action(commercial or industrial projects only)involve or require the management or disposal ❑ Yes 0No of solid waste(excluding hazardous materials)? If Yes: i.Describe any solid waste(s)to be generated during construction or operation of the facility: • Construction: tons per (unit of time) • Operation: tons per (unit of time) ii.Describe any proposals for on-site minimization,recycling or reuse of materials to avoid disposal as solid waste: • Construction: • Operation: iii. Proposed disposal methods/facilities for solid waste generated on-site: • Construction: • Operation: Page 8 of 13 s.4Does the proposed action include construction or modification of a solid waste management facility? ❑Yes® No If Yes: i. Type of management or handling of waste proposed for the site(e.g.,recycling or transfer station,composting,landfill,or other disposal activities): ii. Anticipated rate of disposal/processing: • Tons/month,if transfer or other non-combustion/thermal treatment,or • Tons/hour,if combustion or thermal treatment iii.If landfill,anticipated site life: years t.Will proposed action at the site involve the commercial generation,treatment,storage,or disposal of hazardous []Yes No waste? If Yes: i.Name(s)of all hazardous wastes or constituents to be generated,handled or managed at facility: ii.Generally describe processes or activities involving hazardous wastes or constituents: iii.Specify amount to be handled or generated tons/month iv.Describe any proposals for on-site minimization,recycling or reuse of hazardous constituents: v.Will any hazardous wastes be disposed at an existing offsite hazardous waste facility? ❑Yes❑No If Yes:provide name and location of facility: If No:describe proposed management of any hazardous wastes which will not be sent to a hazardous waste facility: E.Site and Setting of Proposed Action EA.Land uses on and surrounding the project site a.Existing land uses. i. Check all uses that occur on,adjoining and near the project site. ❑ Urban ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial 0 Residential(suburban) ❑ Rural(non-farm) ❑ Forest ❑ Agriculture ❑ Aquatic ❑ Other(specify): ii. If mix of uses,generally describe: b.Land uses and covertypes on the project site. Land use or Current Acreage After Change Covertype Acreage Project Completion (Acres+/-) • Roads,buildings,and other paved or impervious surfaces 0.10 0.75 0.65 • Forested 2.59 1.70 0.69 • Meadows,grasslands or brushlands(non- agricultural,including abandoned agricultural) • Agricultural (includes active orchards,field,greenhouse etc.) • Surface water features (lakes,ponds,streams,rivers,etc.) • Wetlands(freshwater or tidal) 1.17 1.17 0 • Non-vegetated(bare rock,earth or fill) • Other Describe: Residential landamping 0.10 0.34 0.24 Page 9 of 13 c,Is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation? ❑YesE]No i.If Yes:explain: d.Are there any facilities serving children,the elderly,people with disabilities(e.g.,schools,hospitals,licensed ❑YesONo day care centers,or group homes)within 1500 feet of the project site? If Yes, i.Identify Facilities: e.Does the project site contain an existing dam? ❑YesONo If Yes: i. Dimensions of the dam and impoundment: • Dam height: feet • Dam length: feet • Surface area: acres • Volume impounded: gallons OR acre-feet ii. Dam's existing hazard classification: W.Provide date and summarize results of last inspection: f.Has the project site ever been used as a municipal,commercial or industrial solid waste management facility, ❑YesONo or does the project site adjoin property which is now,or was at one time,used as a solid waste management facility? If Yes: i.Has the facility been formally closed? []Yes[] No • If yes,cite sources/documentation: ii.Describe the location of the project site relative to the boundaries of the solid waste management facility: W.Describe any development constraints due to the prior solid waste activities: g.Have hazardous wastes been generated,treated and/or disposed of at the site,or does the project site adjoin ❑YesO No property which is now or was at one time used to commercially treat,store and/or dispose of hazardous waste? If Yes: i.Describe waste(s)handled and waste management activities,including approximate time when activities occurred: h. Potential contamination history. Has there been a reported spill at the proposed project site,or have any ❑YcsO No remedial actions been conducted at or adjacent to the proposed site? If Yes: i.Is any portion of the site listed on the NYSDEC Spills Incidents database or Environmental Site ❑Yes❑No Remediation database? Check all that apply: ❑ Yes—Spills Incidents database Provide DEC ID number(s): ❑ Yes—Environmental Site Remediation database Provide DEC ID number(s): ❑ Neither database ii. If site has been subject of RCRA corrective activities,describe control measures: W.Is the project within 2000 feet of any site in the NYSDEC Environmental Site Remediation database? ❑YesONo If yes,provide DEC ID number(s): iv.If yes to(i),(ii)or(iii)above,describe current status of site(s): Page 10 of 13 ;v. Is the project site subject to an institutional control limiting property uses? ❑Yes❑No • If yes,DEC site ID number: • Describe the type of institutional control(e.g.,deed restriction or easement): • Describe any use limitations: • Describe any engineering controls: • Will the project affect the institutional or engineering controls in place? ❑Yes❑No • Explain: E.2. Natural Resources On or Near Project Site a.What is the average depth to bedrock on the project site? o-s- feet b.Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site? ®Yes❑No If Yes,what proportion of the site is comprised of bedrock outcroppings? % c.Predominant soil type(s)present on project site: Urban l and-Chadtan Cnmplax 1�0 d.What is the average depth to the water table on the project site? Average: 0 feet e.Drainage status of project site soils:0 Well Drained: _A01e of site 0 Moderately Well Drained: _30%of site 0 Poorly Drained _M%of site f.Approximate proportion of proposed action site with slopes: 0 0-10%: _752%of site 0 10-15%: —je%of site 0 15%or greater: ---s_%of site g.Are there any unique geologic features on the project site? ❑YesONo If Yes,describe: h.Surface water features. i.Does any portion of the project site contain wetlands or other waterbodies(including streams,rivers, OYes❑No ponds or lakes)? ii. Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site? ❑Yes®No If Yes to either i or ii,continue. If No,skip to E.2.i. iii. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies within or adjoining the project site regulated by any federal, ®Yes❑No state or local agency? iv. For each identified regulated wetland and waterbody on the project site,provide the following information: • Streams: Name Classification • Lakes or Ponds: Name Classification • Wetlands: Name villAaP�u8tpd wPnAnr1 Approximate Size 1 17 Acres • Wetland No.(if regulated by DEC) v. Are any of the above water bodies listed in the most recent compilation of NYS water quality-impaired ❑Yes 0No waterbodies? If yes,name of impaired water body/bodies and basis for listing as impaired: i.Is the project site in a designated Floodway? ❑YesONo j.Is the project site in the 100 year Floodplain? ❑Yes❑7 No k.Is the project site in the 500 year Floodplain? ❑YesONo 1.Is the project site located over,or immediately adjoining,a primary,principal or sole source aquifer? ❑Yes2No If Yes: i.Name of aquifer: Page l 1 of 13 rn. Identify the predominant wildlife species that occupy or use the project site: n.Does the project site contain a designated significant natural community? ❑Ycs®No If Yes: i. Describe the habitat/community(composition,function,and basis for designation): ii. Source(s)of description or evaluation: W.Extent of community/habitat: • Currently: acres • Following completion of project as proposed: acres • Gain or loss(indicate+or-): acres o.Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by the federal government or NYS as ❑YesONo endangered or threatened,or does it contain any areas identified as habitat for an endangered or threatened species? p. Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare,or as a species of YesONo special concern? q.Is the project site or adjoining area currently used for hunting,trapping,fishing or shell fishing? ❑YesONo If yes,give a brief description of how the proposed action may affect that use: E.3. Designated Public Resources On or Near Project Site a.Is the project site,or any portion of it,located in a designated agricultural district certified pursuant to ❑Yes®No Agriculture and Markets Law,Article 25-AA,Section 303 and 304? If Yes, provide county plus district name/number: b.Are agricultural lands consisting of highly productive soils present? ❑Yes®No i.If Yes:acreage(s)on project site? ii. Source(s)of soil rating(s): c. Does the project site contain all or part of,or is it substantially contiguous to,a registered National ❑YesONo Natural Landmark? If Yes: i. Nature of the natural landmark: ❑Biological Community ❑ Geological Feature ii.Provide brief description of landmark,including values behind designation and approximate size/extent: d.Is the project site located in or does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Area? ❑YesONo If Yes: i. CEA name: ii.Basis for designation: iii.Designating agency and date: Page 12 of 13 e.Does the project site contain,or is it substantially contiguous to,a building,archaeological site,or district ❑YesONo which is listed on,or has been nominated by the NYS Board of Historic Preservation for inclusion on,the State or National Register of Historic Places? If Yes: i.Nature of historic/archaeological resource: ❑Archaeological Site ❑Historic Building or District ii.Name: iii.Brief description of attributes on which listing is based: f.Is the project site,or any portion of it,located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for ❑YesQNo archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO)archaeological site inventory? g.Have additional archaeological or historic site(s)or resources been identified on the project site? ❑YesQNo If Yes: i.Describe possible resource(s): ii. Basis for identification: h.Is the project site within fives miles of any officially designated and publicly accessible federal,state,or local ❑Yes®No scenic or aesthetic resource? If Yes: i.Identify resource: ii.Nature of,or basis for,designation(e.g.,established highway overlook,state or local park,state historic trail or scenic byway, etc.): iii.Distance between project and resource: miles. i. Is the project site located within a designated river corridor under the Wild,Scenic and Recreational Rivers ❑Yes®No Program 6 NYCRR 666? If Yes: i. Identify the name of the river and its designation: ii.Is the activity consistent with development restrictions contained in 6NYCRR Part 666? ❑Yes❑No F.Additional Information Attach any additional information which may be needed to clarify your project. If you have identified any adverse impacts which could be associated with your proposal,please describe those impacts plus any measures which you propose to avoid or minimize them. G. Verification I certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name Lou Larizza Date January 7.2016 Signature Title PRINT FORM Page 13 of 13 EAF Mapper Summary Report Thursday, January 14, 2016 2:02 PM Disclaimer: The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist i-- �j� 1Z��_ --) {` I project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental t-- 135.27138 assessment form EAF 3S.2fi< rdfi=T a 135.27 1,34. (EAF).Not all questions asked in the EAF are 1 1.35.2-7,-1.11135.27 1 18 r 1 75_27=1=57 answered by the EAF Mapper.Additional information on any EAF 1 5.26 1 53-�15.27 1 Y� f _ 135.27 1;33 ,- -_ a 135 2 7-1. 9 question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks. Although t 135.27-1-29 �- - 135.2¢i•625 }- _� �__-- 27-1 0 -'� / _ the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to I 35.2 T't`2135.2v-1-!9135.27=1=20135.27-1;32T-"�135•.2 7-1-28 DEC,you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order _I 135.26-1-551 -�� 135 pl i:g 1gg 27_1_41 135.27-1-30.1t tit to obtain data not provided by the Mapper.Digital data is not fr_t•611t35.27-1-3 ' `135.27 131 :•,135;271 2? substitute for agency determinations. 1 7-1 21_ S J �35 27-1-4 7 135.27 1_d2, 135.27.1 2S,r�' - 135.26.1.60 j--__,ti_ t--•--i 135.27 1-•f313S.�.24 '1 135.251-55�3.S.2&1.7115.27- 271 46 Montreal `�d3S.2T-t-23135.2T-1�63 t7trar:a -7 135.2 7-1-34` "A - 135-2 6-145g9i 35.2 6 1•i�2 `� `*- 27-1-45 , 135.35.1-36, -- - 135.354t 2b._ 135.35-1.35}� I H1>ntsxii►r Lr.qu 13S.3s-1A7 45 35-1-1 , y_, r � 5.35-t-23' 1 35-1 3,� Toronto 10 1135341 26 �Q 3S t.22`' �,Conc«e [ � �_ -�4---1 `� 5'.34 1-32 135.35=1,-9 .35 1 21 I�t33'13 - ------{ f1 35 Detr«t t+y Boston 1 Alba 1 333k4-'1-33 8 35 35-120• / / 13S�3S•1vt �oridrnc t 35.35-1-30 " 135 35 t_60�`- levdand w e, Q 31 1-31135.35.1 i' S*9 :r � O{? q r �' 135.35.1'T Intkxm0/ M+o� CorR AFt3 Esli t'r:1 AN'seacez; sh"l- tE. �35.34 1-37 j tt �-- r3fetl T n n 135.341_d8 i JN 35 35.1-2 �� Tr 1. + i o7$11 i� - PtthvAh" o rdeo 5 intermap. i Harrittwrg r• ri �V t "'•.�__�135.35 1 CO" ij r,d >D A t tttei.Q l mbus rcrofr+e�r orp.NRCM. :. 135'3S1-SS 13S.3S162 �i35.351 4 '�' s.a tte ser�pr(v�iuTMtyl t, r$r,g..washing/o�����=apan,t,1ETI,EsriChina B.i.i [Coastal or Waterfront Area] No B.i.ii [Local Waterfront Revitalization Area] No C.2.b. [Special Planning District] Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook. E.1.h [DEC Spills or Remediation Site- Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Potential Contamination History] Workbook. E.1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Listed] Workbook. E.1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Environmental Site Remediation Database] Workbook. EA.h.iii [Within 2,000'of DEC Remediation No Site] E.2.g [Unique Geologic Features] No E.2.h.i [Surface Water Features] No E.2.h.ii [Surface Water Features] Yes E.2.h.iii [Surface Water Features] Yes-Digital mapping information on local and federal wetlands and waterbodies is known to be incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook. E.2.h.v [Impaired Water Bodies] No E.2.i. [Floodway] No E.2.j. [100 Year Floodplain] No E.2.k. [500 Year Floodplain] No E.2.1. [Aquifers] No E.2.n. [Natural Communities] No E.2.o. [Endangered or Threatened Species] No E.2.p. [Rare Plants or Animals] No Full Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report l w E.3.a. [Agricultural District] No E.3.c. [National Natural Landmark] No E.3.d [Critical Environmental Area] No E.3.e. [National Register of Historic Places] Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook. E.U. [Archeological Sites] No E.3.i. [Designated River Corridor] No Full Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report 2 D ECE-HE D Short Environmental Assessment Form � ' � � Part 1 -Project Information Instructions for Completing VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Part 1-Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding,are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item,please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information. Complete all items in Part 1. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the lead agency;attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item. Part 1-Project and Sponsor Information Lou Larizza Name of Action or Project: North Ridge Street Subdivision for Lou Lariva Project Location(describe,and attach a location map): 259 North Ridge Street,Rye Brook,NY 10573 Brief Description of Proposed Action: Project is to subdivide a 3.96 acre property in the R-15 Zoning District and the Scenic Road Overlay District into three lots. No construction is proposed at this time. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telephone: 914-879-7905 Lou Lariva,Contract Vendee E-Mail: Address: 8 Hilltop Drive City/PO: State: Zip Code: Port Chester NY 10573 1.Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan,local law,ordinance, NO YES administrative rule,or regulation? If Yes,attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that R1 may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no,continue to question 2. 2. Does the proposed action require a permit,approval or funding from any other governmental Agency? NO YES If Yes,list agency(s)name and permit or approval: Westchester County Department of Health:Plat Approval El ❑✓ 3.a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? 3.96 acres b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? 0.75 acres c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? 3.96 acres 4. Check all land uses that occur on,adjoining and near the proposed action. ❑Urban ❑Rural(non-agriculture) ❑Industrial ❑Commercial ®Residential(suburban) ❑Forest ❑Agriculture ❑Aquatic ❑Other(specify): ❑Parkland Page 1 of 3 i , 5. Is the proposed action, NO YES N/A a.A permitted use under the zoning regulations? ❑ P-1 ❑ b.Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? ❑ ❑✓ ❑ 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural NO YES landscape? ❑ ❑✓ 7. Is the site of the proposed action located in,or does it adjoin,a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES If Yes,identify: 21 ❑ 8. a.Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? NO YES R1 ❑ b.Are public transportation service(s)available at or near the site of the proposed action? ❑ ❑ c.Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near site of the proposed action? ❑ ❑ 9.Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO YES If the proposed action will exceed requirements,describe design features and technologies: ❑ ❑ 10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? NO YES If No,describe method for providing potable water: ❑ a 11.Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES If No,describe method for providing wastewater treatment: ✓❑ 12. a.Does the site contain a structure that is listed on either the State or National Register of Historic NO YES Places? ❑✓ ❑ b.Is the proposed action located in an archeological sensitive area? ❑ 13.a.Does any portion of the site of the proposed action,or lands adjoining the proposed action,contain NO YES wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal,state or local agency? El R] b.Would the proposed action physically alter,or encroach into,any existing wetland or waterbody? Fv] ❑ If Yes,identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: 14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on,or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply: ❑Shoreline ❑Forest ❑Agricultural/grasslands ❑Early mid-successional ❑ Wetland ❑Urban 0 Suburban 15.Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal,or associated habitats,listed NO YES by the State or Federal government as threatened or endangered? RI ❑ 16.Is the project site located in the 100 year flood plain? NO YES 17.Will the proposed action create storm water discharge,either from point or non-point sources? NO YES If Yes, ❑ a.Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? NO YES. Q✓ b.Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems(runoff and storm drains)? If Yes,briefly describe: ❑NO AYES Thera are existing storm drains in North Ridge Street Storm water will he confined to the site in the event of any construction. Page 2 of 3 �.t (sue t' :'J'.. ,_. - : - a. •� . r � ., .�ir""'. i _,i"`•"31.7'•i S_ i:F r' j _. _, t 18.Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that result in the impoundment of NO YES water or other liquids(e.g.retention pond,waste lagoon,dam)? If Yes,explain purpose and size: 19.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed NO YES solid waste management facility? If Yes,describe: 21 ❑ 20.Has the site of the proposed aotiort'itzn adjoining property bmtthe subject of remediation(ongoing or NO YES completed)for hazardous waste? If Yes,describe: a ❑ I AFFIRM THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor name: 41 Date: July 28,2015 Signature: PRINT FORM Page 3 of 3 i rt jA lf� .!�', f: S >• ��fit S'.�1. .M1 9` :7'Sj : i 622 STILES AVENUE MAMARONECK, NEW YORK 10543 TEL 914-698-8207 FAX 914-698-8208 chnarch@yahoo.com Clark NeuringerArchitect CONNECTICUT DELAWARE FLORIDA MARYLAND NEW YORK May 12, 2015 D IECIEME ID - 1 The Honorable Paul S. Rosenberg, Mayor; JUN 2015 Members of the Board of Trustees VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Village of Rye Brook BUILDING DEPARTMENT Village Hall 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 RE: Petition of Pawling Holdings, LLC to rezone Town of Rye tax lot Section 135.35; Block 1; Lot 11 from zoning district 1-7 to Fair and Affordable Housing District("FAH") Dear Mayor Rosenberg and Members of the Board of Trustees, We represent PAWLING HOLDINGS/ LAZZ DEVELOPMENT, LLC, the petitioner in connection with their property located at 259 North ridge Street, Rye Brook, NY (Section 135.35; Block 1; Lot 11). On behalf of the petitioner and in accordance with Section 250-26.1 of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook, we respectfully make this petition regarding the proposed development. The parcel is composed of one lot located within in the R15 zoning district. The lot is 3.96 acres (172,647.17 s.f.) in area and contains one single family residence structure. The lot is proposed to be sub- divided into three lots, with two improved with a proposed single family residence on each and the third lot, improved with proposed two 2-story structures containing 4 dwelling units each for a total of eight (8) new AFFH residential dwelling units. The uses surrounding the parcel are predominantly low scale, low density residential. Neighborhood shopping is available to the south along South Ridge Street which has several shopping centers of different sizes. The proposed AFFH parcel's topography is steeply sloped and we propose the construction of three terraced retaining walls to mitigate the present land contours. The site will be served by public sanitary sewer located in North Ridge Street and public water also located within the street. Natural gas and electricity is available to the site via existing Con Ed facilities within North Ridge Street. The Honorable Paul S. Rosenberg, Mayor; Members of the Board of Trustees May 12, 2015 Page 2 The proposed 259 North Ridge Street Residences development is proposed as for-sale, condominium homes comprised of eight(8) fair and affordable dwellings on 1.38 acres. The eight (8) units will be located within two 2-story multi-family residential buildings. The housing units will be made up of eight (8) two-bedroom condominium units and the residential community will have a homeowners association (HOA). Off-street parking will be provided on site and will consist of 24 parking spaces, which allows for two (2) spaces for each two-bedroom residential unit and one (1) space for visitors. The buildings will be 2 stories in height and will be designed in a traditional vernacular consistent with the prevalent architecture of the neighborhood. Rezoning one parcel of the three lot sub-division as proposed, from the R15 District to a Fair and Affordable Housing District will conform to the intent of the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees to provide an additional eight(8) units of affordable housing within the village. By permitting flexible use regulations and a streamlined permitting process, rezoning this parcel will further the goals of the Westchester County Fair and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan in order to provide a more balanced demographic within the village of Rye Brook. In order to construct the 259 North Ridge Street Residences affordable housing development and to maintain the economic viability of the development proposal, modifications or waivers are being requested from the R15 Zoning District. The modification or waiver being requested from the R15 zoning district is as follows: 1 —a use variance is required for a multi-family dwelling within an R15 zoning district. The 259 North Ridge Street Residences affordable housing development is consistent with the purpose and intent of the village of Rye Brook zoning code and Official Map in that the development will allow for a more equitable distribution of affordable housing within the village and will compliment the existing zoning established by the current code. The proposed development will be furthering affordable housing in the village by virtue of the fact that the eight(8) multi-unit condominium development will be 100% affordable. The location of the proposed residential buildings is appropriate for the orderly development of the area in that the development will be of low density, low scale, comprising an overall proposed residential development of the parcel of 1 dwelling unit per 7,552 s.f. of lot area. Impact to the orderly development and the quality of life for the neighboring areas should improve by rezoning this property to permit a small, low density multi-family residential development. The addition of eight families at the location of the proposed site should have a positive effect on the advancement of economic development within the immediate neighborhood specifically, and the village as a whole, in general. The impact of the modifications or waivers requested will be lessened by the significant landscaping proposed that will screen the proposed development as well as for the neighboring properties. The proposed architecture of the residential structures will be traditional in style so as to be in harmony with adjacent residential buildings. All the surrounding properties are developed and therefore the proposed development will not discourage future development or substantially impair the value of adjacent lands or buildings. The proposed development will have little or no impact on the environment. The modifications or waivers requested are the minimum necessary to maintain the economic viability of the development in that the entire project is to be an affordable housing development with eight residential units. Prior to the enactment of the Fair and Affordable Housing District, we received comments concerning our original development plan. Based on comments received, the plan has been further fine tuned and modified in order to respond to various comments and recommendations. The Honorable Paul S. Rosenberg, Mayor; Members of the Board of Trustees May 12, 2015 Page 3 As stated within sec. 260-26.1.E.(1), we respectfully ask that a Pre-submission sketch plan conference be scheduled in anticipation of our formal submission of a Petition to your honorable Board. Thank you very much for your consideration of our petition. Very truly yours, CLARK NEURINGER ARCHITECT 04 Clark H. Neuringer, R.A.; NCARB CC: Mr. Louis Larizza CHN/nc I I 622 STILES AVENUE MAMARONECK, NEW YORK 10543 TEL 914-698-8207 FAX 914-698-8208 chnarch@yahoo.com Clark WuringerArchitect CONNECTICUT DELAWARE FLORIDA MARYLAND NEW YORK May 15, 2015 The Honorable Paul S. Rosenberg, Mayor; Members of the Board of Trustees Village of Rye Brook Village Hall 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 RE: Petition of Pawling Holdings, LLC to rezone Town of Rye tax lot Section 135.35; Block 1; Lot 11 from zoning district R-15 to Fair and Affordable Housing District("FAH") Dear Mayor Rosenberg and Members of the Board of Trustees, We represent PAWLING HOLDINGS/LAZZ DEVELOPMENT, LLC, the petitioner in connection with their property located at 259 North ridge Street, Rye Brook, NY(Section 135.35; Block 1; Lot 11). On behalf of the petitioner and in accordance with Section 250-26.1 of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook, we respectfully make this petition regarding the proposed development. The parcel is composed of one lot located within in the R15 zoning district. The lot is 3.96 acres (172,647.17 s.f.) in area and contains one single family residence structure. The lot is proposed to be sub- divided into three lots, with two improved with a proposed single family residence on each conforming to the underlying R15 zoning controls and the third lot, improved with proposed two 2-story structures containing 4 dwelling units each for a total of eight(8) new AFFH residential dwelling units, conforming to FAH zoning requirements. Multi-family housing is a permitted use within the FAH overlay zone as per sec. 250- 26.1 F(1)(c). The uses surrounding the parcel are predominantly low scale, low density residential. Neighborhood shopping is available to the south along South Ridge Street which has several shopping centers of different sizes. The proposed AFFH parcel's topography is steeply sloped and we propose the construction of three terraced retaining walls to mitigate the present land contours. The site will be served by public sanitary sewer located in North Ridge Street and public water also located within the street. Natural gas and electricity is available to the site via existing Con Ed facilities within North Ridge Street. The Honorable Paul S. Rosenberg, Mayor; Members of the Board of Trustees May 15, 2015 Page 2 The proposed 259 North Ridge Street Residences development is proposed as for-sale, condominium homes comprised of eight(8)fair and affordable dwellings on 1.38 acres. The eight (8) units will be located within two 2-story multi-family residential buildings. The housing units will be made up of eight(8)two-bedroom condominium units and the residential community will have a homeowners association (HOA). Off-street parking will be provided on site and will consist of 24 parking spaces, which allows for two(2) spaces for each two-bedroom residential unit and one (1)space for visitors. The buildings will be 2 stories in height and will be designed in a traditional vernacular consistent with the prevalent architecture of the neighborhood. Rezoning one parcel of the three lot sub-division as proposed,from the R15 District to a Fair and Affordable Housing District will conform to the intent of the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees to provide an additional eight(8) units of affordable housing within the village. By permitting flexible use regulations and a streamlined permitting process, rezoning this parcel will further the goals of the Westchester County Fair and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan in order to provide a more balanced demographic within the village of Rye Brook. In order to construct the 259 North Ridge Street Residences affordable housing development and to maintain the economic viability of the development proposal, modifications or waivers are being requested from the R15 Zoning District. The 259 North Ridge Street Residences affordable housing development is consistent with the purpose and intent of the village of Rye Brook zoning code and Official Map in that the development will allow for a more equitable distribution of affordable housing within the village and will compliment the existing zoning established by the current code. The proposed development will be furthering affordable housing in the village by virtue of the fact that the eight(8) multi-unit condominium development will be 100% affordable. The location of the proposed residential buildings is appropriate for the orderly development of the area in that the development will be of low density, low scale, comprising an overall proposed residential development of the parcel of 1 dwelling unit per 7,552 s.f. of lot area. Impact to the orderly development and the quality of life for the neighboring areas should improve by rezoning this property to permit a small, low density multi-family residential development. The addition of eight families at the location of the proposed site should have a positive effect on the advancement of economic development within the immediate neighborhood specifically, and the village as a whole, in general.The impact of the modifications or waivers requested will be lessened by the significant landscaping proposed that will screen the proposed development as well as for the neighboring properties. The proposed architecture of the residential structures will be traditional in style so as to be in harmony with adjacent residential buildings. All the surrounding properties are developed and therefore the proposed development will not discourage future development or substantially impair the value of adjacent lands or buildings. The proposed development will have little or no impact on the environment. The modifications or waivers requested are the minimum necessary to maintain the economic viability of the development in that the entire project is to be an affordable housing development with eight residential units. Prior to the enactment of the Fair and Affordable Housing District,we received comments concerning our original development plan. Based on comments received, the plan has been further fine tuned and modified in order to respond to various comments and recommendations. Attached as part of this communication to you and the Board is a sketch plan prepared by our consulting site engineer, Ralph Mastromonaco, P.E. This preliminary site plan contains a zoning table for each of the three proposed lots; the number of AFFH dwelling units (8)on one of the sub-divided parcels; a location map indicating adjacent streets, rights of way, adjacent properties, etc; easements;topography; wetland boundary delineations; steep slopes;, all as per the requirements of sec. 250-26.1.E(1)(b). RALPH G. MASTROMONACO, P.E., P.C. Civil /Site / Environmental Consulting Engineers www.rgmpepc.com 13 Dove Court,Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520 Tel: (914) 271-4762 Fax: (914) 271-2820 :U61 VIETo: Michael Nowak Village of Rye Brook, NY R82015 From: Ralph G. Mastromonaco, PEVIL►AR tE BBUILD \� ROOKFHRT�ivPEN1� Re: Lou Larizza / North Ridge Street Subdivision Rye Brook, NY Date: August 14, 2015 1 am aware that the Village Code asks for a SWPPP as part of a subdivision application. In this case, we are merely subdividing one (1) lot into three (3) lots with no construction proposed. We do not need roads for this project and all utilities are in the street along the front. A SWPPP is required by your code prior to any construction on any of these lots since the disturbance will be over 400 square feet. Your subdivision code does not require that applications show proposed houses or grading, hence we feel the SWPPP may not be required. Accordingly, we would like you to waive the SWPPP application requirement until construction is actually proposed on any lot. Ralph G. Mastromonaco, PE Cc: Lou Larizza RALPH G. MASTROMONACO, P.E., P.C. Civil /Site / Environmental Consulting Engineers www.rgmpepc.com 13 Dove Court,Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520 Tel: (914) 271-4762 Fax: (914) 271-2820 DMip To: Michael Nowak ��1�"'`' Village of Rye Brook, NY AUG 18 2015 From: Ralph G. Mastromonaco, PE VILLAGE OF RyE BRGOK BUILGlNG DE P,^iR T MENT Re: Lou Larizza / North Ridge Street Subdivision Rye Brook, NY Date: August 14, 2015 1 am aware that the Village Code asks for a SWPPP as part of a subdivision application. In this case, we are merely subdividing one (1) lot into three (3) lots with no construction proposed. We do not need roads for this project and all utilities are in the street along the front. A SWPPP is required by your code prior to any construction on any of these lots since the disturbance will be over 400 square feet. Your subdivision code does not require that applications show proposed houses or grading, hence we feel the SWPPP may not be required. Accordingly, we would like you to waive the SWPPP application requirement until construction is actually proposed on any lot. Ralph G. Mastromonaco, PE Cc: Lou Larizza Christopher Bradbury From: Christopher Bradbury Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:48 PM To: Ichnarch@yahoo.com' Cc: Mike Izzo; 'Nowak, Michal (mnowak@ryebrook.org)';Jennifer Gray Ogray@kblaw.com); Butler, Philip A. (pbutler@kblaw.com); Sarah Bledsoe; loulazz@aol.com Subject: Message re Larizza Project Dear Clark- As per our discussion, it is recommended that you submit the following to make the September 8 Village Board meeting to refer to Planning Board: • Subdivision Application-Village Board is final approval authority(submitted already). • Any supporting environmental review documents necessary to make a SEQRA determination on the subdivision, including information regarding the wetland delineation, grading plans, stormwater management plan,traffic generation, number of school children to be generated by the project,etc. (submit what you have before this Friday to get on 9/8 Village Board agenda - any additional docs can be sent prior to the October PB meeting). • Petition to Rezone to AFFH-Village Board is final approval authority(submitted already). • One Site Plan Application for the AFFH lot-Village Board is final approval authority. (submit before Friday to get on 9/8 Village Board agenda). • Two Site Plan Applications-one for each of the market rates homes(Planning Board is final approval authority. Can be sent now as informational for the Village Board OR just submit to the Planning Board before October). • Wetlands application (and possibly a Steep Slopes application)—Can be submitted prior to October Planning Board meeting—PB is final approval authority. If your goal is to have this item on the September 8 Village Board agenda for referral to the Planning Board,we will need these documents before Friday(or when we arrive to work on Friday). It is very important that all documents be sent to us electronically as well as in print. Chris Bradbury Philip A Butler Associate KEANEMBEANEPC. ATTORNEYS AT LAW MUhi+*dCCW' 1AW}inn.$ingdffC.iM11 tin:�ie_ 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1500 White Plains, NY 10601 1 Michal Nowak From: Michal Nowak Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 3:05 PM To: Lou Lazz (loulazz@aol.com); 'hardycross@aol.com'; 'Bradbury, Chris (cbradbury@ryebrook.org)' Cc: Jennifer Gray Ogray@kblaw.com) Subject: Review of materials submitted Importance: High Hi Lou and Ralph, I have reviewed the materials submitted and the application is incomplete as it stands. Below are the items which are lacking and are required for the application to be deemed complete. In order for this application to be deemed complete the Village will need the following items bV 12:00pm on Friday October 30th NECESSARY ITEMS TO DEEM APPLICATION COMPLETE 1.) Not Submitted: A current topographic survey! You have topography shown on the site plans, but we need the actual document from the surveyor with topography and his stamp. We need One original and 10 copies and a pdf of such. 2.) Submitted Preliminary grading plans—Some plans show grading while others do not really show such. Lots 2 and lots 3 really do not show much regrading however there are significant grade changes, especially in Lot 3. Please revise such to show at least the preliminary grades and resubmit revised plans 10 copies and a pdf. 3.) Not Proposed Elevations: We need these elevations for all 3 plans and lots including buildings, parking lots, walls, etc.These are not to be picture elevations but rather architectural elevations with proper dimensions and scaling from multiple facets. Need 10 copies of such and PDF Other items needed 2 more copies of the stormwater preliminary report and 2 more copies of the color North Ridge Site Development plan .Michae 1.Nowak Superintendent of Public Works Village Engineer ISA Arborist Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook,NY 10573 P: 914-939-0753 x 2965 F: 914-939-5801 "Yaffic Va%& —9 Pie P wd6eat of tftio ViE&W" mom Michal Nowak From: Michal Nowak Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 3:10 PM To: Lou Lazz (loulazz@aol.com); 'hardycross@aol.com'; 'Bradbury, Chris (cbradbury@ryebrook.org)';Jennifer Gray (jgray@kblaw.com); 'Izzo, Michael (mizzo@ryebrook.org)' Subject: 259 North Ridge Street - Status update Lou I reviewed the submitted material that came in on October 29, 2015 and the additional materials submitted on October 30, 2015. After consultation with the Village Attorney and reviewing the materials submitted this matter is NOT able to be placed on any upcoming agenda because the following items are still lacking: 1.) Topographic Survey:A current topographic survey! You submitted a topographic map on Friday October 30, 2015, however this survey is not CURRENT as required by the resolution. Your submitted survey is 14 years old. You are retaining a surveyor to redo the survey you mentioned but that will take some time. Due to the Unique nature of the property a waiver of this survey would not be recommended by the Village Of Rye Brook and as a result we need the plan upfront. 2.) Proposed Elevations:You have emailed numerous renderings. These renderings do not allow the building inspector nor the Planning Board to determine critical zoning data such as height setbacks, zoning compliance and bulk standards. It is important to understand RENDERINGS are photo illustrations which cannot be scaled, while ELEVATIONS are architectural details that are to scale and dimensioned. We spoke verbally about this. Both the Building Dept and Planning Board need to understand what the bulk regulations are and need this information to make informed decisions about the project. I know you ran around to get this information and I thank you for that, but it is extremely important we have ALL the material as per the resolution upfront. Afkf d 1. ✓Vomuak Superintendent of Public Works Village Engineer ISA Arborist Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook,NY 10573 P: 914-939-0753 x 2965 F: 914-939-5801 "`Jab&Wanft.i —Jfw fteaztffeat of t&ii Vdtage" Stephen Corry Effler 274 North Ridge Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 914-305-1649 Sceffler(a►),optonline.net November 7, 2016 ?016 Rye Brook Village Board 938 King Street Rye Brook,NY 10573 Re: Improper Development of 259 North Ridge Street. Lady and Gentlemen: A group of residents, including myself, are accumulating funds with which to hire an attorney to oppose this development. We request more time to do so and for the attorney to review the matter and possibly to hire one or more experts. Please adjourn this matter well into December or January. It appears to me, and many others, that there has been a sudden acceleration of the processing of this matter. After giving the developer all the adjournments that he wanted, the board does not seem to want to grant the same courtesy to residents. This is not sitting well with residents. Although I understand that the Board has the authority to grant zoning changes, variances and other exceptions, I am baffled as to why this project has not been rejected already. The developer wants to put an apartment building with parking lot into a one family residential neighborhood on a site with steep slopes and wetlands located on a dangerous curve. This application requires multiple variances and exceptions to the existing codes. Since we are no longer on the Federal Government's list of uncooperative municipalities, why is this even being considered? Very truly yours, tephen C. Effler Stephen Corry Effler Attorney at Law 274 North Ridge Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 914-305-1649 Seeffler@optonline.net Rye Brook Planning Board King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 December 10, 2015 Re: Development of 259 North Ridge Street Ladies and Gentlemen: The Southeast corner of our lot is across North Ridge Street from the Northeast corner of 259 North Ridge Street for a distance of about 20 yards. Since we are way less than 250 feet from that land, we believe that we should have received notice of any meeting concerning it. Other neighbors also did not receive notices. We also believe that the sign concerning the meeting was not posted sufficiently far in advance. Based on the dangerous curve on North Ridge Street at this location, the character of the neighborhood and the defective paperwork and procedures that we have seen so far on the development we are vigorously opposed to this project. Also, please put us on the list of people to be notified by e-mail. My wife's e-mail is dcl6ll@optonline.net. Although, I understand that e-mail notice was also not done. Very truly yours, /. - J ,&�� Stephen Corry Effler Deborah V. Carroll a Donald A Cassone 258N Ridge St Rye Brook,NY 10573 ?Yecember 11, 2016 - Hon. Paul S. Rosenberg 33 Mayor of the Village of Rye Brook and Members of the Village Board Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook,NY 10573 Hon. Robert Goodman Chairman of the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board and Members of the Planning Board Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook,NY 10573 Re: 259 North Ridge Street Project Dear Mayor Rosenberg, Chairman Goodman, and Members of the Village Board and Planning Board: I reside at 258 N Ridge St, which is in close proximity to the proposed 3-lot subdivision at 259 North Ridge Street. While I do not oppose affordable housing, I strongly oppose the way this Project is currently designed. Isolating the affordable housing in a large building on its own separate lot, together with a commercial-style 14-space parking lot and unattractive privacy fencing and landscaping, is completely out of character with the pattern of development in our established single-family residential neighborhood. This proposed layout defeats the very purpose of affordable housing, which is to integrate such units into the community so that they do not stand out from the market-rate homes. The Project also presents serious traffic and safety concerns along this"Scenic Road." This is already a dangerous stretch of North Ridge Street as cars speed by on their way to the highway. The Project will additionally cause impacts to wetland buffers, as the entire Lot 3 structure would be in the buffer. I am also not aware that a viable stormwater management plan has been submitted and reviewed by the Village. Nor does the Village have realistic visual renderings to show what this Project will really look like if and when built, including the totally out of character asphalt parking lot. There are many open design and technical issues that must be further studied and resolved. I respectfully request that the Village Board and Planning Board require the applicant to come up with a more appropriate layout for this site, which takes into account the sensitive environmental features along this scenic road, and all Village Code and other legal requirements. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Donald A Cassone f , • On a motion made by Trustee Heiser and seconded by Trustee Rednick,the following resolution was adopted. RESOLUTION REFERRING A PETITION FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT,APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY AT 259 NORTH RIDGE STREET TO THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD FOR REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees is in receipt of an application by Louis Larizza, contract vendee,for approval of a petition for a zoning map amendment to rezone property from the R-15 zoning district to the Fair and Affordable Housing(FAH)zoning district,3-lot subdivision application and site plan application for eight (8) units of affordable housing located at 259 North Ridge Street, at the intersection of West Ridge Street and North Ridge Street, designated as Parcel ID 135.35-1-11 on the Town of Rye Tax Map and located in the R-15 Zoning District and the Scenic Roads Overlay District; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees is the Approval Authority for the application pursuant to Village Code§250-6.1.E(2);and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees determines the proposed action to be an Unlisted Action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees hereby refers the petition for a zoning map amendment to rezone property from the R-15 zoning district to the Fair and Affordable Housing (FAH) zoning district, 3-lot subdivision application and site plan application for eight(8)units of affordable housing to the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board for review and a report and recommendation on the condition that the following materials and information are submitted in complete form for review by the Planning Board no later than October 1,2015 for the October 8, 2015 Planning Board meeting, or if the Applicant is unable to submit prior to that date hen no later than October 29,2015 for the November 12,2015 Planning Board meeting: T 1. Current Topographical Survey; 2. Preliminary Grading Plan; —A-'1A410 e 3. Draft Stormwater Management Plan; — y.Ef �S 4. Wetland Delineation and Report with Functional Analysis; y 5. Individual Site Plans for each Proposed Lot;and Y�f • 6 Proposed Elevations. 11/0 BE IT FURTH R RESOLVED,�,� .r-pis' ��,�ir�t, that a Board of Trustees directs that, pu"suanto General Municipal Law §239-m and Westchester County Administrative Code§277.61,the application shall be referred to Westchester County Department of Planning for comment no less than 30 days prior to the public hearing concerning the application. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees directs that, pursuant to SEQRA, Notice of Intent to Declare Lead Agency shall be circulated to all Involved Agencies. TRUSTEE EPSTEIN AYE TRUSTEE HEISER AYE TRUSTEE KLEIN AYE TRUSTEE REDNICK AYE MAYOR ROSENBERG AYE 1 State of New York County of Westchester ss: Village of Rye Brook I hereby certify that this is the Resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook which was duly passed by said Board on September 24,2015. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the Village of Rye Brook,this 25th Day of September,2015 Village��� � ���i_ � _ ; S � On a motion made by Trustee Heiser and seconded by Trustee Rednick,the following resolution was adopted. RESOLUTION REFERRING A PETITION FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT,APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY AT 259 NORTH RIDGE STREET TO THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD FOR REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees is in receipt of an application by Louis Larizza, contract vendee,for approval of a petition for a zoning map amendment to rezone property from the R-15 zoning district to the Fair and Affordable Housing(FAH)zoning district,3-lot subdivision application and site plan application for eight (8) units of affordable housing located at 259 North Ridge Street, at the intersection of West Ridge Street and North Ridge Street, designated as Parcel ID 135.35-1-11 on the Town of Rye Tax Map and located in the R-15 Zoning District and the Scenic Roads Overlay District; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees is the Approval Authority for the application pursuant to Village Code§250-6.1.E(2);and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees determines the proposed action to be an Unlisted Action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees hereby refers the petition for a zoning map amendment to rezone property from the R-15 zoning district to the Fair and Affordable Housing (FAH) zoning district, 3-lot subdivision application and site plan application for eight(8)units of affordable housing to the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board for review and a report and recommendation on the condition that the following materials and information are submitted in complete form for review by the Planning Board no later than October 1, 2015 for the October 8, 2015 Planning Board meeting, or if the Applicant is unable to submit prior to that date then no later than October 29,2015 for the November 12,2015 Planning Board meeting: 1. Current Topographical Survey; 2. Preliminary Grading Plan; 3. Draft Stormwater Management Plan; 4. Wetland Delineation and Report with Functional Analysis; 5. Individual Site Plans for each Proposed Lot;and 6. Proposed Elevations. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees directs that, pursuant to General Municipal Law §239-m and Westchester County Administrative Code§277.61,the application shall be referred to Westchester County Department of Planning for comment no less than 30 days prior to the public hearing concerning the application. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees directs that, pursuant to SEQRA, Notice of Intent to Declare Lead Agency shall be circulated to all Involved Agencies. TRUSTEE EPSTEIN AYE TRUSTEE HEISER AYE TRUSTEE KLEIN AYE TRUSTEE REDNICK AYE MAYOR ROSENBERG AYE State of New York County of Westchester ss: Village of Rye Brook I hereby certify that this is the Resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook which was duly passed by said Board on September 24,2015. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the Village of Rye Brook,this 25th Day of September,2015 0j ��� Village Merk I July 14, 2016 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON THE ZONING PETITION, SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPLICATION AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 259 NORTH RIDGE STREET BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook adopts the attached Report and Recommendation to the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees on the Zoning Petition, Subdivision and Site Plan application for 259 North Ridge Street and requests the Secretary to the Planning Board forward a copy of the Report to the Board of Trustees and the Village Administrator. APPROVED AT THE JM' 14, 2016 MEETING AT THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD BY A VOTE OF ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Ayes: Nays: APPROVING THE REFERRAL RESOLUTION Ayes: Nays: Excused: Accurso, Goodman, Grzan, Morlino, Richman, Schoen, Tartaglia PLANNING BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON THE ZONING PETITION, SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPLICATION AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 259 NORTH RIDGE STREET I. PROJECT OVERVIEW On September 24, 2015,Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees (`BOT'� referred a Zoning Petition, Subdivision and Site Plan Application to the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board ("Planning Board' for submission of a Report and Recommendation. The BOT is the Approval Authority for the Zoning Petition, Subdivision and Site Plan Application for proposed Lot 1 pursuant to Village Code §250-6.1.E(2). The Planning Board is the Approval Authority for the Site Plans for Lots 2 and 3,Wetlands and Steep Slopes Permits. The application was made by Louis Larizza, contract vendee, for approval of a petition for a zoning map amendment to rezone property from the R-15 zoning district to the Fair and Affordable Housing (FAH) zoning district, 3-lot subdivision application and site plan application for eight (8) units of affordable housing located at 259 North Ridge Street, at the intersection of West Ridge Street and North Ridge Street, designated as Parcel ID 135.35-1-11 on the Town of Rye Tax Map and located in the R-15 Zoning District and the Scenic Roads Overlay District. II. PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION Upon receipt of the application materials required by the BOT's referral resolution of September 24, 2015, the Planning Board reviewed the application at its January 14, 2016, May 26, 2016 (special meeting), and July 14, 2016 meetings. Although not scheduled for a public hearing, the Planning Board entertained public comment at its May 26, 2016 and July 14, 2016 meetings. The applicant requested adjournments from the Planning Board's February 11, 2016, March 10, 2016, April 14, 2016 and June 9, 2016 meetings, but convened meetings with Village staff and consultants several times during those intervening months between appearances before the Planning Board. The Village Planning and Traffic Consultant, F.P. Clark Associates, provided Memoranda to the Planning Board dated January 11, 2016, May 25, 2016,May 26, 2016 (site access) and July 5, 2016 (site access). The Village Engineering Consultant, Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, provided Memoranda to the Planning Board dated December 23, 2015, May 4, 2016,May 23, 2016 and July 7, 2016. After discussion and consideration of the comments set forth in the various memoranda as well as comments raised during Planning Board meetings, the Planning Board recommends and notes the following. -2- 1. Site Access. Based on review of the available sight distances for the driveways servicing Lots 1, 2 and 3, the Village's Traffic Engineering Consultant's opinion is that the proposed driveway for the proposed multifamily development on Lot 1 is inadequate for vehicles exiting the driveway looking south on North Ridge Street. The sight distances for the existing driveway on Lot 2 is also inadequate looking southward. It is the opinion of the Village's consultant that the improvements recommended by the traffic engineer from Westchester County Department of Public Works and Transportation who reviewed the applicant's proposed plans (signage and brush trimming) are inadequate to overcome the deficient sight distance. While the proposed driveway on Lot 1 meets the stopping sight distance standard (SSD), the criteria followed by NYSDOT and AASHTO for driveways for multifamily developments is the intersection sight distance standard (ISD). The proposed driveway on Lot 1 does not meet the ISD standard looking southward. The Planning Board notes that Village staff reports that although North Ridge Street is currently owned by and is under the jurisdiction of the County it is anticipated that ownership and jurisdiction will be transferred to the Village within the next several months. The Planning Board continues to recommend that the Applicant explore alternative site designs that will satisfy the ISD standard for Lot 1. 2. Traffic. The Applicant's traffic study which was reviewed by the Village's Traffic Engineering Consultant, indicates that the proposed development of the three Lots will result in an increase in traffic of 0.79 and 1.03 percent for the weekday morning and weekday afternoon peak hours, respectively. The consensus of the Planning Board is that this is not a significant increase in traffic volumes. 3. Parking. To reduce the size of the parking area at the rear of the proposed buildings on Lot 1, the Planning Board recommended to the Applicant that some parking be provided in garages in the basements of the buildings. The Applicant has not revised the plans to respond to this recommendation, so the Planning Board recommends that the BOT pursue this suggestion with the Applicant. 4. Stormwater. The Village's Engineering Consultant, DRE, reported in its May 23, 2016 and July 7, 2016 Memoranda that full design drawings for the proposed stormwater management system have not yet been submitted for review. While it is unknown whether the details of such proposed stormwater management system are adequate, DRE reports that "the appropriate stormwater design concept has been conceived for this project and is capable of fulfilling all Village and NYSDEC design requirements." Typically, the Planning Board requires the Applicant to submit detailed stormwater management plans for review prior to issuing a recommendation or approval. Here, the Applicant has requested deferral of complete design drawing until later in the review process. While cognizant of the cost and funding sensitivities of an affordable housing project, the Planning Board recommends that complete design drawings be submitted for review prior to the BOT's decision. -3- Alternatively, a decision may be subject to satisfactory administrative review of the complete design drawings, but the Applicant will be required to return to the Board for an amendment of the Site Plan and/or Subdivision if any site or lot line changes are required as a result of the final design. 5. Landscape and Tree Preservation & Protection Plans. A large number of trees are proposed to be removed from Lot 1 to accommodate the proposed development. However, the Landscape Plan provides the requisite number of replacement trees as per Chapter 235 of the Village Code. Also,the Landscape Plan provides a significant amount of vegetative screening at the front and rear of Lot 1 to mitigate views of the tiered retaining wall in the rear and views of the buildings from North Ridge Street. The Planning Board recommends that the BOT require a 5-year landscape maintenance bond to ensure the viability of the landscape plantings, including but not limited to the plantings that will screen views of the proposed development from the rear of the property. 6. Wetland Buffer Disturbance. The applicant submitted a Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment which indicates that the on-site wetland is too small to provide adequate habitat for wetland dependent plant and animal species, and does not provide habitat for threatened or endangered species. These conclusions are supported by the EAF Mapper Summary Report. However, the wetland reportedly functions at a high level to protect downstream waters from siltation and sedimentation. 7. Steep Slopes. Much of the proposed development will occur on steep slopes. The proposed retaining walls function to limit disturbance to steep slopes on proposed Lot 1. The Planning Board recommends that every effort be taken to minimize steep slope disturbance to the maximum extent practicable, including pursuing a site plan that locates some of the parking spaces in garages under the buildings. 8. Lighting. In a memorandum to the Planning Board dated June 29, 2016, the Applicant proposed to reduce the height of the proposed site lighting fixtures to 12 feet and utilize shielded, residential-type lighting similarly to those used at the Applicant's development at 525 Ellendale Avenue. The plans should be revised to indicate these changes. 9. Visual Impacts. The view of the proposed buildings on Lot 1 from North Ridge Street will generally be in character with the surrounding area. The footprints of the buildings are similar to surrounding homes and the first floor of the buildings will be set below the elevation of the roadway. Views of the site from the rear of the property will be mitigated with landscape screening and the proposed retaining wall in the rear of the parking area will be tiered with plantings located on each tier to break up the massing of the wall. It is important that the landscape plantings on and surrounding the wall maintained in a vigorous growing condition. 10. Construction Management Plan. North Ridge Street should not be used for staging, parking of construction vehicles or storage of equipment during construction on any of the proposed lots. The Applicant should submit a detailed construction -4- management plan in narrative and plan form outlining a proposed logistic plan for construction, such as staging locations for the modular units, traffic control, length of construction, times of construction, as partially set forth in the Applicant's June 29,2016 memorandum to the Planning Board. 11. ESTF. Further review by the Emergency Services Task Force is awaiting submission of a revised plan from the applicant showing certain turning radii for fire truck maneuvers. 12. School Children. Reports provided by the Applicant and reviewed by the Village's Planning Consultant provide that 3-7 school-age children may be expected to enter the local public schools from the ten new residences proposed. 13. Zoning Petition (R-15 to FAH). The Applicant requests the rezoning of proposed Lot 1 from the R-15 District to the Fair and Affordable Housing (FAH) District. Several waivers from the dimensional requirements of the FAH district are also requested pursuant to the FAH regulations. By approving the rezoning, more dwelling units than would otherwise be permitted under the existing zoning would be permitted on Lot 1. However, it should be noted that proposed Lot 1 is almost four times larger than the minimum lot size for the existing zoning district. A large part of the site is constrained for development purposes due to wetlands and steep slopes and would remain open space. The proposed building height and design are compatible and consistent with the existing single family homes in the surrounding area. The Planning Board generally favors the construction of affordable housing at this site,but there are site planning issues that need to be resolved before it is known whether the proposed lot lines and site plans will remain as proposed. Provided the site access safety issues outlined above can be resolved, the Planning Board recommends that the BOT rezone a portion of the property to the FAH District. III. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS After discussion and consideration of the comments provided by Village Staff and the Village's Planning and Traffic Consultant, the Planning Board recommends that a portion of the site should be rezoned to the FAH District, but cannot recommend approval of the existing site plan and subdivision plat as proposed. The Planning Board favors the construction of affordable housing at this location, but it is the Planning Board's opinion that the applicant must revise the plans to address the comments set forth above, including, most critically, the safety concerns articulated in the Village Traffic Consultant's Memoranda regarding the sight distance for proposed Lot 1. Dated: Rye Brook,New York July 14, 2016 -5- APPROVED AT THE JULY 14, 2016 MEETING AT THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD BY A VOTE OF ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Ayes: Nays: Accurso, Goodman, Grzan, Morlino, Richman, Schoen, Tartaglia -6- September 8, 2016 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON THE ZONING PETITION, SUBDIVI ITE PLAN APPLICATION r LPIanning TED A 259 NORTREET BE IT RESOLVE , that thed of age of Rye Brook adopts the attached Report and Reco ge of Rye Brook Board of Trustees on the Zoning Petition, Subdivision and Site Plan application for 259 North Ridge Street and requests the Secretary to the Planning Board forward a copy of the Report to the Board of Trustees and the Village Administrator. APPROVED AT THE SEPTEMBER 8, 2016 MEETING XI'THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD BY A VOTE OF ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Ayes: Nays: APPROVING THE REFERRAL RESOLUTION Ayes: Nays: Excused: Accurso, Goodman, Grzan, Morlino, Richman, Schoen, Tartaglia 131317415704900 916116 PLANNING BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON THE ZONING PETITION, SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPLICATION AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 259 NORTH RIDGE STREET I. PROJECT OVERVIEW On September 24, 2015, Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees (`BOT") referred a Zoning Petition, Subdivision and Site Plan Application to the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board ("Planning Board") for submission of a Report and Recommendation. The BOT is the Approval Authority for the Zoning Petition, Subdivision and Site Plan Application for proposed Lot 1 pursuant to Village Code §250-6.1.E(2). The Planning Board is the Approval Authority for the Site Plans for Lots 2 and 3, Wetlands and Steep Slopes Permits. The application was made by Louis Larizza, contract vendee, for approval of a petition for a zoning map amendment to rezone property from the R-15 zoning district to the Fair and Affordable Housing (FAH) zoning district, 3-lot subdivision application and site plan application for eight (8) units of affordable housing located at 259 North Ridge Street, at the intersection of West Ridge Street and North Ridge Street, designated as Parcel ID 135.35-1-11 on the Town of Rye Tax Map and located in the R-15 Zoning District and the Scenic Roads Overlay District. II. PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION Upon receipt of the application materials required by the BOT's referral resolution of September 24, 2015, the Planning Board reviewed the application at its January 14, 2016, May 26, 2016 (special meeting), July 14, 2016 and September 8, 2016 meetings. Although not scheduled for a public hearing, the Planning Board entertained public comment at its May 26, 2016 and July 14, 2016 meetings. The applicant requested adjournments from the Planning Board's February 11, 2016, March 10, 2016, April 14, 2016 and June 9, 2016 meetings, but convened meetings with Village staff and consultants several times during those intervening months between appearances before the Planning Board, including a meeting most recently on August 2, 2016 to primarily discuss site access issues for Lot 1. The Village Planning and Traffic Consultant, F.P. Clark Associates, provided Memoranda to the Planning Board dated January 11, 2016, May 25, 2016, May 26, 2016 (site access),July 5, 2016 (site access), August 18, 2016 (site access), August 23, 2016 (site access), and August 26, 2016 (site access). The Village Engineering Consultant, Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, provided Memoranda to the Planning Board dated December 23, 2015, May 4, 2016, May 23, 2016 and July 7, 2016. 1313/74/57049Ov2 916116 i After discussion and consideration of the comments set forth in the various memoranda as well as comments raised during Planning Board meetings, the Planning Board recommends and notes the following: 1. Site Access. Based on review of the available sight distances for the driveways servicing Lots 1, 2 and 3, the Village's Traffic Engineering Consultant's opinion at this time based on the August 19, 2016 Site Plan, is that the proposed driveway for the proposed multifamily development on Lot 1 does not provide sufficient site distance for vehicles exiting the driveway looking south on North Ridge Street. The sight distance for the existing driveway on Lot 2 is also inadequate looking southward. While the proposed driveway on Lot 1 meets the stopping sight distance standard (SSD), the criteria followed by NYSDOT and AASHTO for driveways for multifamily developments is the intersection sight distance standard (ISD). The proposed driveway on Lot 1 does not meet the ISD standard looking southward. The required ISD is 455 feet and the Applicant's August 19, 2016 Site Plan provides 400 feet based on a proposed increase in the elevation of the driveway to 106.2 feet. Without the increase in elevation,the proposed ISD is 385 feet Village staff has reported that although North Ridge Street is currently owned by and is under the jurisdiction of the County it is anticipated that ownership and jurisdiction will be transferred to the Village within the next several months. The Planning Board recommends that the Applicant continue to explore alternative site designs that will satisfy the ISD standard for Lot 1. The Applicant should explore relocating the proposed drive further south along the available frontage, or demonstrate why that option is not viable,if that is the opinion of the Applicant. 2. Traffic. The Applicant's traffic study, which was reviewed by the Village's Traffic Engineering Consultant, indicates that the proposed development of the three Lots will result in an increase in traffic of 0.79 and 1.03 percent for the weekday morning and weekday afternoon peak hours, respectively. The consensus of the Planning Board is that this is not a significant increase in traffic volumes. 3. Parking. To reduce the size of the parking area at the rear of the proposed buildings on Lot 1, the Planning Board recommended to the Applicant that some parking be provided in garages in the basements of the buildings. The Applicant has not revised the plans to respond to this recommendation, so the Planning Board recommends that the BOT pursue this suggestion with the Applicant. 4. Stormwater. The Village's Engineering Consultant, DRE, reported in its May 23, 2016 and July 7, 2016 Memoranda that full design drawings for the proposed stormwater management system have not yet been submitted for review. While it is unknown whether the details of such proposed stormwater management system are adequate, DRE reports that "the appropriate stormwater design concept has been conceived for this project and is capable of fulfilling all Village and NYSDEC design 131317415704900 916116 N requirements." Typically, the Planning Board requires the Applicant to submit detailed stormwater management plans for review prior to issuing a recommendation or approval. Here, the Applicant has requested deferral of complete design drawing until later in the review process. While cognizant of the cost and funding sensitivities of an affordable housing project, the Planning Board recommends that complete design drawings be submitted for review prior to the BOT's decision. Alternatively, a decision may be subject to satisfactory administrative review of the complete design drawings, but the Applicant would be required to return to the Board for an amendment of the Site Plan and/or Subdivision if any site or lot line changes are required as a result of the final design. 5. Landscape and Tree Preservation & Protection Plans. A large number of trees are proposed to be removed from Lot 1 to accommodate the proposed development. However, the Landscape Plan provides the requisite number of replacement trees as per Chapter 235 of the Village Code. Also,the Landscape Plan provides a significant amount of vegetative screening at the front and rear of Lot 1 to mitigate views of the tiered retaining wall in the rear and views of the buildings from North Ridge Street. The Planning Board recommends that the BOT require a 5-year landscape maintenance bond to ensure the viability of the landscape plantings, including but not limited to the plantings that will screen views of the proposed development from the rear of the property. 6. Wetland Buffer Disturbance. The applicant submitted a Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment which indicates that the on-site wetland is too small to provide adequate habitat for wetland dependent plant and animal species, and does not provide habitat for threatened or endangered species. These conclusions are supported by the EAF Mapper Summary Report. However, the wetland reportedly functions at a high level to protect downstream waters from siltation and sedimentation. 7. Steep Slopes. Much of the proposed development will occur on steep slopes. The proposed retaining walls function to limit disturbance to steep slopes on proposed Lot 1. The Planning Board recommends that every effort be taken to minimise steep slope disturbance to the maximum extent practicable,including pursuing a site plan that locates some of the parking spaces in garages under the buildings. 8. Lighting. In a memorandum to the Planning Board dated June 29, 2016, the Applicant proposed to reduce the height of the proposed site lighting fixtures to 12 feet and utilize shielded, residential-type lighting similarly to those used at the Applicant's development at 525 Ellendale Avenue. The plans should be revised to indicate these changes. 01 Visual Impacts. The view of the proposed buildings on Lot 1 from North Ridge Street will generally be in character with the surrounding are a footprints of the buildings are similar to surrounding homes and the first floo buildings will be set below the elevation of the roadway. Views of the site from the rear of the property will be mitigated with landscape screening and the proposed retaining wall in the rear of the parking area will be tiered with plantings located on each tier to 13131741570490v2 916116 break up the massing of the wall. It is important that the landscape plantings on and surrounding the wall maintained in a vigorous growing condition. 10. Construction Management Plan. North Ridge Street should not be used for staging, parking of construction vehicles or storage of equipment during construction on any of the proposed lots. The Applicant should submit a detailed construction management plan in narrative and plan form outlining a proposed logistic plan for construction, such as staging locations for the modular units, traffic control, length of construction, times of construction, as partially set forth in the Applicant's June 29,2016 memorandum to the Planning Board. 11. ESTE Further review by the Emergency Services Task Force is awaiting submission of a revised plan from the applicant showing certain turning radii for fire truck maneuvers. 12. School Children. Reports provided by the Applicant and reviewed by the Village's Planning Consultant provide that 3-7 school-age children may be expected to enter the local public schools from the ten new residences proposed. 13. Zoning Petition (R-15 to FAH). The Applicant requests the rezoning of proposed Lot 1 from the R-15 District to the Fair and Affordable Housing (FAH) District. Several waivers from the dimensional requirements of the FAH district are also requested pursuant to the FAH regulations. By approving the rezoning, more dwelling units than would otherwise be permitted under the existing zoning would be permitted on Lot 1. However, it should be noted that proposed Lot 1 is almost four times larger than the minimum lot size for the existing zoning district. A large part of the site is constrained for deve�lo ment purposes due to wetlands and steep slopes and would remain open space. f1'he proposed building height and design are com atible and consistent with the existing single family homes in the surrounding areal. the Planning Board generally favors the construction of affordable housing at this site,but there are site planning issues that need to be resolved before it is known whether the proposed lot lines and site plans will remain as proposed. Provided the site access safety issues outlined above can be resolved, the Planning Board recommends that the BOT rezone a portion of the property to the FAH District. III. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS After discussion and consideration of the comments provided by Village Staff and the Village's Planning and Traffic Consultant, the Plannin Board recommends that a portion of the site should be rezoned to the FAH Distric but cannot recommend approval of the existing site plan and subdivision plat as proposed. The Planning Boar�favo�rse�� construction of affordable housing at this location, but it is the Planning Board's opinion that the applicant must address the comments set forth above, including, most critically, the safety concerns articulated in the Village Traffic Consultant's Memoranda regarding the sight distance for proposed Lot 1. 1313174/5704900 916116 Dated: Rye Brook, New York September 8, 2016 APPROVED AT THE SEPTEMBER 8, 2016 MEETING AT THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD BY A VOTE OF ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Ayes: Nays: .lccurso, Goodman, Grzan, Morlino, Richman, Schoen, Tartaglia 13131741570490v2 916116 1 July 14, 2016 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON THE ZONING PETITION, SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPLICATION AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 259 NORTH RIDGE STREET BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook adopts the attached Report and Recommendation to the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees on the Zoning Petition, Subdivision and Site Plan application for 259 North Ridge Street and requests the Secretary to the Planning Board forward a copy of the Report to the Board of Trustees and the Village Administrator. \PPROVED AT THE J ULY 14, 2016 ME>:TING AT THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD BY A VOTE OF ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Ayes: Nays: APPROVING THE REFERRAL RESOLUTION Ayes: Nays: Excused: Accurso, Goodman, Grzan, Morlino, Richman, Schoen, Tartaglia r PLANNING BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON THE ZONING PETITION, SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPLICATION AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 259 NORTH RIDGE STREET I. PROJECT OVERVIEW On September 24, 2015, Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees CTOT'� referred a Zoning Petition, Subdivision and Site Plan Application to the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board ("Planning Board's for submission of a Report and Recommendation. The BOT is the Approval Authority for the Zoning Petition, Subdivision and Site Plan Application for proposed Lot 1 pursuant to Village Code §250-6.1.E(2). The Planning Board is the Approval Authority for the Site Plans for Lots 2 and 3,Wetlands and Steep Slopes Permits. The application was made by Louis Larizza, contract vendee, for approval of a petition for a zoning map amendment to rezone property from the R-15 zoning district to the Fair and Affordable Housing (FAH) zoning district, 3-lot subdivision application and site plan application for eight (8) units of affordable housing located at 259 North Ridge Street, at the intersection of West Ridge Street and North Ridge Street, designated as Parcel ID 135.35-1-11 on the Town of Rye Tax Map and located in the R-15 Zoning District and the Scenic Roads Overlay District. II. PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION Upon receipt of the application materials required by the BOT's referral resolution of September 24, 2015, the Planning Board reviewed the application at its January 14, 2016, May 26, 2016 (special meeting), and July 14, 2016 meetings. Although not scheduled for a public hearing, the Planning Board entertained public comment at its May 26, 2016 and July 14, 2016 meetings. The applicant requested adjournments from the Planning Board's February 11, 2016, March 10, 2016, April 14, 2016 and June 9, 2016 meetings, but convened meetings with Village staff and consultants several times during those intervening months between appearances before the Planning Board. The Village Planning and Traffic Consultant, F.P. Clark Associates, provided Memoranda to the Planning Board dated January 11, 2016,May 25, 2016, May 26, 2016 (site access) and July 5, 2016 (site access). The Village Engineering Consultant, Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, provided Memoranda to the Planning Board dated December 23, 2015, May 4, 2016,May 23, 2016 and July 7, 2016. After discussion and consideration of the comments set forth in the various memoranda as well as comments raised during Planning Board meetings, the Planning Board recommends and notes the following: -2- 1. Site Access. Based on review of the available sight distances for the driveways servicing Lots 1, 2 and 3, the Village's Traffic Engineering Consultant's opinion is that the proposed driveway for the proposed multifamily development on Lot 1 is inadequate for vehicles exiting the driveway looking south on North Ridge Street. The sight distances for the existing driveway on Lot 2 is also inadequate looking southward. It is the opinion of the Village's consultant that the improvements recommended by the traffic engineer from Westchester County Department of Public Works and Transportation who reviewed the applicant's proposed plans (signage and brush trimming) are inadequate to overcome the deficient sight distance. While the proposed driveway on Lot 1 meets the stopping sight distance standard (SSD), the criteria followed by NYSDOT and AASHTO for driveways for multifamily developments is the intersection sight distance standard (ISD). The proposed driveway on Lot 1 does not meet the ISD standard looking southward. The Planning Board notes that Village staff reports that although North Ridge Street is currently owned by and is under the jurisdiction of the County it is anticipated that ownership and jurisdiction will be transferred to the Village within the next several months. The Planning Board continues to recommend that the Applicant explore alternative site designs that will satisfy the ISD standard for Lot 1. 2. Traffic. The Applicant's traffic study which was reviewed by the Village's Traffic Engineering Consultant, indicates that the proposed development of the three Lots will result in an increase in traffic of 0.79 and 1.03 percent for the weekday morning and weekday afternoon peak hours, respectively. The consensus of the Planning Board is that this is not a significant increase in traffic volumes. 3. Parking. To reduce the size of the parking area at the rear of the proposed buildings on Lot 1, the Planning Board recommended to the Applicant that some parking be provided in garages in the basements of the buildings. The Applicant has not revised the plans to respond to this recommendation, so the Planning Board recommends that the BOT pursue this suggestion with the Applicant. 4. Stormwater. The Village's Engineering Consultant, DRE, reported in its May 23, 2016 and July 7, 2016 Memoranda that full design drawings for the proposed stormwater management system have not yet been submitted for review. While it is unknown whether the details of such proposed stormwater management system are adequate, DRE reports that "the appropriate stormwater design concept has been conceived for this project and is capable of fulfilling all Village and NYSDEC design requirements." Typically, the Planning Board requires the Applicant to submit detailed stormwater management plans for review prior to issuing a recommendation or approval. Here, the Applicant has requested deferral of complete design drawing until later in the review process. While cognizant of the cost and funding sensitivities of an affordable housing project, the Planning Board recommends that complete design drawings be submitted for review prior to the BOT's decision. -3- Alternatively, a decision may be subject to satisfactory administrative review of the complete design drawings, but the Applicant will be required to return to the Board for an amendment of the Site Plan and/or Subdivision if any site or lot line changes are required as a result of the final design. 5. Landscape and Tree Preservation & Protection Plans. A large number of trees are proposed to be removed from Lot 1 to accommodate the proposed development. However, the Landscape Plan provides the requisite number of replacement trees as per Chapter 235 of the Village Code. Also,the Landscape Plan provides a significant amount of vegetative screening at the front and rear of Lot 1 to mitigate views of the tiered retaining wall in the rear and views of the buildings from North Ridge Street. The Planning Board recommends that the BOT require a 5-year landscape maintenance bond to ensure the viability of the landscape plantings, including but not limited to the plantings that will screen views of the proposed development from the rear of the property. 6. Wetland Buffer Disturbance. The applicant submitted a Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment which indicates that the on-site wetland is too small to provide adequate habitat for wetland dependent plant and animal species, and does not provide habitat for threatened or endangered species. These conclusions are supported by the EAF Mapper Summary Report. However, the wetland reportedly functions at a high level to protect downstream waters from siltation and sedimentation. 7. Steep Slopes. Much of the proposed development will occur on steep slopes. The proposed retaining walls function to limit disturbance to steep slopes on proposed Lot 1. The Planning Board recommends that every effort be taken to minimize steep slope disturbance to the maximum extent practicable, including pursuing a site plan that locates some of the parking spaces in garages under the buildings. 8. Lighting. In a memorandum to the Planning Board dated June 29, 2016, the Applicant proposed to reduce the height of the proposed site lighting fixtures to 12 feet and utilize shielded, residential-type lighting similarly to those used at the Applicant's development at 525 Ellendale Avenue. The plans should be revised to indicate these changes. 9. Visual Impacts. The view of the proposed buildings on Lot 1 from North Ridge Street will generally be in character with the surrounding area. The footprints of the buildings are similar to surrounding homes and the first floor of the buildings will be set below the elevation of the roadway. Views of the site from the rear of the property will be mitigated with landscape screening and the proposed retaining wall in the rear of the parking area will be tiered with plantings located on each tier to break up the massing of the wall. It is important that the landscape plantings on and surrounding the wall maintained in a vigorous growing condition. 10. Construction Management Plan. North Ridge Street should not be used for staging, parking of construction vehicles or storage of equipment during construction on any of the proposed lots. The Applicant should submit a detailed construction -4- management plan in narrative and plan form outlining a proposed logistic plan for construction, such as staging locations for the modular units, traffic control, length of construction, times of construction, as partially set forth in the Applicant's June 29,2016 memorandum to the Planning Board. 11. ESTE Further review by the Emergency Services Task Force is awaiting submission of a revised plan from the applicant showing certain turning radii for fire truck maneuvers. 12. School Children. Reports provided by the Applicant and reviewed by the Village's Planning Consultant provide that 3-7 school-age children may be expected to enter the local public schools from the ten new residences proposed. 13. Zoning Petition (R-15 to FAH). The Applicant requests the rezoning of proposed Lot 1 from the R-15 District to the Fair and Affordable Housing (FAH) District. Several waivers from the dimensional requirements of the FAH district are also requested pursuant to the FAH regulations. By approving the rezoning, more dwelling units than would otherwise be permitted under the existing zoning would be permitted on Lot 1. However, it should be noted that proposed Lot 1 is almost four times larger than the minimum lot size for the existing zoning district. A large part of the site is constrained for development purposes due to wetlands and steep slopes and would remain open space. The proposed building height and design are compatible and consistent with the existing single family homes in the surrounding area. The Planning Board generally favors the construction of affordable housing at this site,but there are site planning issues that need to be resolved before it is known whether the proposed lot lines and site plans will remain as proposed. Provided the site access safety issues outlined above can be resolved, the Planning Board recommends that the BOT rezone a portion of the property to the FAH District. III. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS After discussion and consideration of the comments provided by Village Staff and the Village's Planning and Traffic Consultant, the Planning Board recommends that a portion of the site should be rezoned to the FAH District, but cannot recommend approval of the existing site plan and subdivision plat as proposed. The Planning Board favors the construction of affordable housing at this location, but it is the Planning Board's opinion that the applicant must revise the plans to address the comments set forth above, including, most critically, the safety concerns articulated in the Village Traffic Consultant's Memoranda regarding the sight distance for proposed Lot 1. Dated: Rye Brook,New York July 14, 2016 -5- APPROVED AT THE JULY 14, 2016 MEETING AT THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD BY A VOTE OF ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Ayes: Nays: Accurso, Goodman, Grzan, Morlino, Richman, Schoen,Tartaglia -6- . 1 1 �yE BRCS� W c coc.Yu 04i l7 /�. 1982'�� VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MAYOR 938 King Street, Rye Brook, N.Y. 10573 ADMINISTRATOR Paul S. Rosenberg (914) 939-1121 Fax (914) 939-0242 Christopher J. Bradbury www.ryebrook.org TRUSTEES Susan R. Epstein David M. Heiser Jason A. Klein Jeffrey B. Rednick March 18, 2016 To: Village of Rye Brook Planning Board Attn: Robert I. Goodman, Chairman 938 King Street Rye Brook, N.Y. 10573 Subject: Notification of Intent to Declare Lead Agency Pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617 Dear Sir: The Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees hereby notifies you that it is reviewing a subdivision application, a zoning petition and a site plan application submitted by Pawling Holdings and Louis Larizza on behalf of the property owner, Daniel Greto, to subdivide the 3.96-acre property known as 259 North Ridge Street, Section 135.35, Block 1, Lot 11 on the Town of Rye Tax Map, located at the intersection of West Ridge Drive and North Ridge Street, into three lots and amend the Village Zoning Map to add one of the lots into the FAH District to construct eight units of Fair and Affordable Housing on one lot and two market-rate single family dwellings on the other two lots in the R-15 District, which will require an approval from your agency. The Village Board of Trustees hereby declares its intent to be the Lead Agency for the review of the action under SEQRA. Enclosed is a Lead Agency Selection Reply Form for your use. Pursuant to SEQRA, the Village Board of Trustees will automatically become the Lead Agency unless you submit a written objection to the Board of Trustees within 30 calendar days of the mailing of this notification. Very truly yours, Paul S. Rosenberg, Mayor and the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees 259 NORTH RIDGE STREET— SUBDIVISION, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, AND SITE PLAN VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK, NEW YORK LEAD AGENCY SELECTION REPLY FORM The (specify agency) examined the Lead Agency notification form and the accompanying documentation for a subdivision, zoning map amendment, and a site plan for fair and affordable homes at 259 King Street, and: (Check A or B) ❑ A. Does not want to be the Lead Agency for this action. ❑ B. Wants to be the Lead Agency for this action. Additional comments or concerns(attach additional pages if necessary): Reviewed by: Signature Name Title Date WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE MAILING DATE OF THE NOTIFICATION, PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO: Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Village of Rye Brook 93 8 King Street Rye Brook, New York 10573 Phone: (914) 939-1121 FAX: (914) 939-0242 r' E j 3,.L.. ._n jij rw � �,. (... _ :•iit rn, ��,.�.... .,jai j,,, 'i �jj 'aN ���� - J h� i s) ;,i!�ii� 1t11 `[i lift`. it1 1 ;1i;iif I t 1t 9 i,All linl�i_it s �s. 1-1-is !linl r�ih 1,• �!��!3..i, ni d ! ! ni {�°�'�. -•�� �j•, y;� `�\\\ �`-\.�`� fir' ,�\i 't Ste' j. �1��• .`��.•\k�\ �, \i� ` \ \ ` m�'•v'B > fir}; \�., 'Y `; � I� >; �`' Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I -Project and Setting Instructions for Completing Part 1 Part 1 is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item,please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information; indicate whether missing information does not exist, or is not reasonably available to the sponsor;and,when possible,generally describe work or studies which would be necessary to update or fully develop that information. Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A&B. In Sections C,D&E,most items contain an initial question that must be answered either"Yes"or"No". If the answer to the initial question is"Yes",complete the sub-questions that follow. If the answer to the initial question is"No",proceed to the next question. Section F allows the project sponsor to identify and attach any additional information. Section G requires the name and signature of the project sponsor to verify that the information contained in Part Iis accurate and complete. A.Project and Sponsor Information. Name of Action or Project: North Ridge Street Subdivision Project Location(describe,and attach a general location map): 259 North Ridge Street,Rye Brook,NY 10573 Brief Description of Proposed Action(include purpose or need): Project is to subdivisde a 3.96 acre property in the R-15 zoning district and the Scenic Road Overlay District into three lots. Lot#1 is proposed for eight(8)units of Fair and Affordable Housing in two(2)buildings. - Lot#2 contains an existing single family dwelling that is to be refurbished. Lot#3 is proposed for a new single family dwelling. JAN 1 3 2016 i Name of Applicant/Sponsor: Telephone: 914-879-7905 Lou Larizza,Contract Vendee E-Mail: Address: 8 Hilltop Drive City/PO: port Chester State: New York Zip Code: 10573 Project Contact(if not same as sponsor;give name and title/role): Telephone: E-Mail: Address: City/PO: State: Zip Code: Property Owner (if not same as sponsor): Telephone: 914-967-5892 Daniel J.Greto E-Mail: Address: 209 Central Avenue _7_ City/PO: Rye State: New York Zip Code:10580 Page 1 of 13 B.Government Approvals B.Government Approvals,Funding,or Sponsorship. ("Funding"includes grants,loans,tax relief,and any other forms of financial assistance.) Government Entity If Yes: Identify Agency and Approval(s) Application Date Required (Actual or projected) a.City Council,Town Board, ®Yes❑No Zoning Map Amendment September 25,2015 or Village Board of Trustees Subdivision Approval b.City,Town or Village ®Yes❑No Review and recommendation to Village Board September 25,2015 Planning Board or Commission of Trustees c.City Council,Town or ❑Yes❑No Village Zoning Board of Appeals d.Other local agencies ❑Yes[Z]No e.County agencies ®Yes❑No WCDH Subdivision Plat Approval County Road Permit f.Regional agencies ❑YesONo g.State agencies ❑Yes®NO h.Federal agencies ❑Yesolo i. Coastal Resources. i. Is the project site within a Coastal Area,or the waterfront area of a Designated Inland Waterway? ❑Yes®No ii. Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program? ❑Yes®No iii. Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area? ❑Yes®No C.Planning and Zoning C.1.Planning and zoning actions. Will administrative or legislative adoption,or amendment of a plan,local law,ordinance,rule or regulation be the ❑Yes®No only approval(s)which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed? • If Yes,complete sections C,F and G. • If No,proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part 1 C.2.Adopted land use plans. a.Do any municipally-adopted (city,town,village or county)comprehensive land use plan(s)include the site ®Yes❑No where the proposed action would be located? If Yes,does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action ❑Yes®No would be located? b.Is the site of the proposed action within loc regional special planning district(for example: Greenway ❑Yes®No Brownfield Opportunity Area(BOA);designate State or Federal heritage area;watershed management plan; or other?) If Yes,identify the plan(s): c. Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan, ❑Yes®No or an adopted municipal farmland protection plan? If Yes,identify the plan(s): Page 2 of 13 C.3. Zoning a. Is the site of the proposed action located in a municipality with an adopted zoning law or ordinance. ®Yes❑No If Yes,what is the zoning classification(s)including any applicable overlay district? R-15 zoning district and the Scenic Road Overlay District b. Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit? ®Yes❑No c.Is a zoning change requested as part of the proposed action? ®Yes❑No If Yes, i. What is the proposed new zoning for the site? Lot#1 to be rezoned from the R-15 District to the Fair and Affordable Housing District(FAH) CA.Existing community services. a.In what school district is the project site located? Blind Brook Scholl District b.What police or other public protection forces serve the project site? Village of Rye Brook c.Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site? Village of Rye Brook d.What parks serve the project site? Rich Manor Park,Pine Ridge Park, Crawford Park D.Project Details D.1.Proposed and Potential Development a.What is the general nature of the proposed action(e.g.,residential,industrial,commercial,recreational;if mixed,include all components)? Residential b.a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? 3.96 acres b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? 1_75 acres c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? 3.96 acres c.Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or use? ❑Yes®No i. If Yes,what is the approximate percentage of the proposed expansion and identify the units(e.g.,acres,miles,housing units, square feet)? % Units: d.Is the proposed action a subdivision,or does it include a subdivision? ®Yes❑No If Yes, i. Purpose or type of subdivision?(e.g.,residential,industrial,commercial;if mixed,specify types) Residential ii. Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed? ❑Yes Olo iii. Number of lots proposed? iv. Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes? Minimum 1.1 Acres Maximum 1.4 Acres e.Will proposed action be constructed in multiple phases? ❑Yes®No i. If No,anticipated period of construction: 6 months ii. If Yes: • Total number of phases anticipated • Anticipated commencement date of phase 1 (including demolition) month year • Anticipated completion date of final phase month wear • Generally describe connections or relationships among phases,including any contingencies where progress of one phase may determine timing or duration of future phases: Page 3 of 13 f.Does the project include new residential uses? ®Yes❑No If Yes,show numbers of units proposed. One Family Two Family Three Family Multiple Family four or more Initial Phase 10 At completion of all phases 10 g.Does the proposed action include new non-residential construction(including expansions)? ❑Yes®No If Yes, i.Total number of structures ii. Dimensions(in feet)of largest proposed structure: height; width; and length iii. Approximate extent of building space to be heated or cooled: square feet h.Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any ❑Yes®No liquids,such as creation of a water supply,reservoir,pond,lake,waste lagoon or other storage? If Yes, i. Purpose of the impoundment: ii. If a water impoundment,the principal source of the water: El Ground water❑Surface water streams❑Other specify: iii. If other than water,identify the type of impounded/contained liquids and their source. iv. Approximate size of the proposed impoundment. Volume: million gallons;surface area: acres v. Dimensions of the proposed dam or impounding structure: height; length vi. Construction method/materials for the proposed dam or impounding structure(e.g.,earth fill,rock,wood,concrete): D.2. Project Operations a.Does the proposed action include any excavation,mining,or dredging,during construction,operations,or both? ❑Yes®No (Not including general site preparation,grading or installation of utilities or foundations where all excavated materials will remain onsite) If Yes: i.What is the purpose of the excavation or dredging? ii. How much material(including rock,earth,sediments,etc.)is proposed to be removed from the site? • Volume(specify tons or cubic yards): • Over what duration of time? iii. Describe nature and characteristics of materials to be excavated or dredged,and plans to use,manage or dispose of them. iv. Will there be onsite dewatering or processing of excavated materials? LJYesLJNo If yes,describe. v. What is the total area to be dredged or excavated? acres vi. What is the maximum area to be worked at any one time? acres vii. What would be the maximum depth of excavation or dredging? feet viii. Will the excavation require blasting? []Yes❑No ix. Summarize site reclamation goals and plan: b.Would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of,increase or decrease in size of,or encroachment ❑Yes®No into any existing wetland,waterbody,shoreline,beach or adjacent area? If Yes: i. Identify the wetland or waterbody which would be affected(by name,water index number,wetland map number or geographic description): Page 4 of 13 ii. Describe how the proposed action would affect that waterbody or wetland,e.g.excavation,fill,placement of structures,or alteration of channels,banks and shorelines. Indicate extent of activities,alterations and additions in square feet or acres: iii. Will proposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments? ❑Yes❑No If Yes,describe: iv. Will proposed action cause or result in the destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation? ❑Yes❑No If Yes: • acres of aquatic vegetation proposed to be removed: • expected acreage of aquatic vegetation remaining after project completion: • purpose of proposed removal(e.g.beach clearing,invasive species control,boat access): • proposed method of plant removal: • if chemical/herbicide treatment will be used,specify product(s): v. Describe any proposed reclamation/mitigation following disturbance: c.Will the proposed action use,or create a new demand for water? ®Yes❑No If Yes: i. Total anticipated water usage/demand per day: 1,000 gallons/day ii. Will the proposed action obtain water from an existing public water supply? ❑Yes❑No If Yes: • Name of district or service area: United Water Westchester • Does the existing public water supply have capacity to serve the proposal? ®Yes❑No • Is the project site in the existing district? ®Yes❑No • Is expansion of the district needed? ❑Yes®No • Do existing lines serve the project site? ®Yes❑No iii. Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to supply the project? ❑Yes0l,io If Yes: • Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: • Source(s)of supply for the district: iv. Is a new water supply district or service area proposed to be formed to serve the project site? ❑Yes®No If,Yes: • Applicant/sponsor for new district: • Date application submitted or anticipated: • Proposed source(s)of supply for new district: v. If a public water supply will not be used,describe plans to provide water supply for the project: vi.If water supply will be from wells(public or private),maximum pumping capacity: gallons/minute. d.Will the proposed action generate liquid wastes? ®Yes❑No If Yes: i. Total anticipated liquid waste generation per day: 1,000 gallons/day ii. Nature of liquid wastes to be generated(e.g.,sanitary wastewater,industrial; if combination,describe all components and approximate volumes or proportions of each): Sanitary watewater iii. Will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities? ®Yes❑No If Yes: • Name of wastewater treatment plant to be used: Blind Brook Wastewater Treatment Plant • Name of district: Blind Brook Sewer District • Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project? ®Yes❑No • Is the project site in the existing district? ®Yes❑No • Is expansion of the district needed? ❑YesONo Page 5 of 13 •. Do existing sewer lines serve the project site? ®Yes❑No • Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to serve the project? ❑Yes❑No If Yes: • Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: iv. Will a new wastewater(sewage)treatment district be formed to serve the project site? ❑Yes®No If Yes: • Applicant/sponsor for new district: • Date application submitted or anticipated: • What is the receiving water for the wastewater discharge? v. If public facilities will not be used,describe plans to provide wastewater treatment for the project, including specifying proposed receiving water(name and classification if surface discharge,or describe subsurface disposal plans): vi. Describe any plans or designs to capture,recycle or reuse liquid waste: e.Will the proposed action disturb more than one acre and create stormwater runoff,either from new point ❑Yes®No sources(i.e.ditches,pipes,swales,curbs,gutters or other concentrated flows of stormwater)or non-point source(i.e.sheet flow)during construction or post construction? If Yes: i. How much impervious surface will the project create in relation to total size of project parcel? Square feet or acres(impervious surface) Square feet or acres(parcel size) ii. Describe types of new point sources. iii. Where will the stormwater runoff be directed(i.e.on-site stormwater management facility/structures,adjacent properties, groundwater,on-site surface water or off-site surface waters)? • If to surface waters,identify receiving water bodies or wetlands: • Will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties? ❑Yes❑No iv. Does proposed plan minimize impervious surfaces,use pervious materials or collect and re-use stormwater? ❑Yes❑No f. Does the proposed action include,or will it use on-site,one or more sources of air emissions,including fuel ❑Yes®No combustion,waste incineration,or other processes or operations? If Yes,identify: i.M obile sources during project operations(e.g.,heavy equipment,fleet or delivery vehicles) ii. Stationary sources during construction(e.g.,power generation,structural heating,batch plant,crushers) iii. Stationary sources during operations(e.g.,process emissions, large boilers,electric generation) g.Will any air emission sources named in D.2.f(above),require a NY State Air Registration,Air Facility Permit, ❑Yes®No or Federal Clean Air Act Title IV or Title V Permit? If Yes: i. Is the project site located in an Air quality non-attainment area? (Area routinely or periodically fails to meet ❑Yes❑No ambient air quality standards for all or some parts of the year) ii. In addition to emissions as calculated in the application,the project will generate: • Tons/year(short tons)of Carbon Dioxide(CO2) • Tons/year(short tons)of Nitrous Oxide(N20) • Tons/year(short tons)of Perfluorocarbons(PFCs) • Tons/year(short tons)of Sulfur Hexafluoride(SF6) • Tons/year(short tons)of Carbon Dioxide equivalent of Hydroflourocarbons(HFCs) • Tons/year(short tons)of Hazardous Air Pollutants(HAPs) Page 6 of 13 h.Will the proposed action generate or emit methane(including,but not limited to,sewage treatment plants, ❑Yes®No landfills,composting facilities)? If Yes: i. Estimate methane generation in tons/year(metric): ii.Describe any methane capture,control or elimination measures included in project design(e.g.,combustion to generate heat or electricity,flaring): L Will the proposed action result in the release of air pollutants from open-air operations or processes,such as ❑Yes®No quarry or landfill operations? If Yes:Describe operations and nature of emissions(e.g.,diesel exhaust,rock particulates/dust): j.Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial ❑Yes®No new demand for transportation facilities or services? If Yes: i. When is the peak traffic expected(Check all that apply): ❑Morning ❑Evening ❑Weekend ❑Randomly between hours of to ii. For commercial activities only,projected number of semi-trailer truck trips/day: iii. Parking spaces: Existing Proposed Net increase/decrease iv. Does the proposed action include any shared use parking? ❑Yes❑No v. If the proposed action includes any modification of existing roads,creation of new roads or change in existing access,describe: vi. Are public/private transportation service(s)or facilities available within %mile of the proposed site? ❑Yes❑No vii Will the proposed action include access to public transportation or accommodations for use of hybrid,electric ❑Yes❑No or other alternative fueled vehicles? viii.Will the proposed action include plans for pedestrian or bicycle accommodations for connections to existing ❑Yes❑No pedestrian or bicycle routes? k.Will the proposed action(for commercial or industrial projects only)generate new or additional demand ❑Yes®No for energy? If Yes: i. Estimate annual electricity demand during operation of the proposed action: ii. Anticipated sources/suppliers of electricity for the project(e.g.,on-site combustion,on-site renewable,via grid/local utility,or other): iii. Will the proposed action require a new,or an upgrade to,an existing substation? ❑Yes❑No 1.Hours of operation. Answer all items which apply. i. During Construction: ii. During Operations: • Monday-Friday: 8 AM-3 PM • Monday-Friday: Not Applicable • Saturday: 8 AM-3 PM • Saturday: • Sunday: NnnP • Sunday: • Holidays: NnnP • Holidays: Page 7 of 13 m.Will the proposed action produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction, ❑Yes ONo operation,or both? If yes: i. Provide details including sources,time of day and duration: ii. Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen? ❑Yes❑No Describe: n.. Will the proposed action have outdoor lighting? ❑YesONo If yes: i. Describe source(s),location(s),height of fixture(s),direction/aim,and proximity to nearest occupied structures: ii. Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen? ❑Yes❑No Describe: o. Does the proposed action have the potential to produce odors for more than one hour per day? ❑Yes ONo If Yes,describe possible sources,potential frequency and duration of odor emissions,and proximity to nearest occupied structures: p.Will the proposed action include any bulk storage of petroleum(combined capacity of over 1,100 gallons) 0Yes0No or chemical products 185 gallons in above ground storage or any amount in underground storage? If Yes: i. Product(s)to be stored H. Volume(s) per unit time (e.g.,month,year) iii. Generally describe proposed storage facilities: q.Will the proposed action(commercial,industrial and recreational projects only)use pesticides(i.e.,herbicides, ❑Yes ONo insecticides)during construction or operation? If Yes: i. Describe proposed treatment(s): ii. Will the proposed action use Integrated Pest Management Practices? ❑ Yes ❑No r.Will the proposed action(commercial or industrial projects only)involve or require the management or disposal ❑ Yes ONo of solid waste(excluding hazardous materials)? If Yes: i. Describe any solid waste(s)to be generated during construction or operation of the facility: • Construction: tons per (unit of time) • Operation : tons per (unit of time) ii. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization,recycling or reuse of materials to avoid disposal as solid waste: • Construction: • Operation: iii. Proposed disposal methods/facilities for solid waste generated on-site: • Construction: • Operation: Page 8 of 13 s.Doles the proposed action include construction or modification of a solid waste management facility? ❑Yes® No If Yes: i. Type of management or handling of waste proposed for the site(e.g.,recycling or transfer station,composting,landfill,or other disposal activities): H. Anticipated rate of disposal/processing: • Tons/month,if transfer or other non-combustion/thermal treatment,or • Tons/hour,if combustion or thermal treatment iii. If landfill,anticipated site life: years t.Will proposed action at the site involve the commercial generation,treatment,storage,or disposal of hazardous ❑Yes®No waste? If Yes: i.Name(s)of all hazardous wastes or constituents to be generated,handled or managed at facility: ii. Generally describe processes or activities involving hazardous wastes or constituents: iii. Specify amount to be handled or generated tons/month iv. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization,recycling or reuse of hazardous constituents: v. Will any hazardous wastes be disposed at an existing offsite hazardous waste facility? Yes No If Yes:provide name and location of facility: If No:describe proposed management of any hazardous wastes which will not be sent to a hazardous waste facility: E.Site and Setting of Proposed Action E.1.Land uses on and surrounding the project site a.Existing land uses. i. Check all uses that occur on,adjoining and near the project site. ❑ Urban ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ® Residential(suburban) ❑ Rural(non-farm) ❑ Forest ❑ Agriculture ❑ Aquatic ❑ Other(specify): ii. if mix of uses,generally describe: b.Land uses and covertypes on the project site. Land use or Current Acreage After Change Covertype Acreage Project Completion (Acres+/-) • Roads,buildings,and other paved or impervious surfaces 0.10 0.75 0.65 • Forested 2.59 1.70 0.89 • Meadows,grasslands or brushlands(non- agricultural,including abandoned agricultural) • Agricultural (includes active orchards,field,greenhouse etc.) • Surface water features (lakes,ponds,streams,rivers,etc.) • Wetlands(freshwater or tidal) 1.17 1.17 0 • Non-vegetated(bare rock,earth or fill) • Other Describe: Residential landscaping 0.10 0.34 0.24 Page 9 of 13 c.Is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation? ❑Yes❑✓ No i. If Yes:explain: d.Are there any facilities serving children,the elderly,people with disabilities(e.g.,schools,hospitals,licensed ❑Yes®No day care centers,or group homes)within 1500 feet of the project site? If Yes, i. Identify Facilities: e.Does the project site contain an existing dam? ❑Yes®No If Yes: i. Dimensions of the dam and impoundment: • Dam height: feet • Dam length: feet • Surface area: acres • Volume impounded: gallons OR acre-feet ii. Dam's existing hazard classification: iii. Provide date and summarize results of last inspection: f.Has the project site ever been used as a municipal,commercial or industrial solid waste management facility, ❑Yes®No or does the project site adjoin property which is now,or was at one time,used as a solid waste management facility? If Yes: i. Has the facility been formally closed? ❑Yes❑ No • If yes,cite sources/documentation: ii. Describe the location of the project site relative to the boundaries of the solid waste management facility: W. Describe any development constraints due to the prior solid waste activities: g.Have hazardous wastes been generated,treated and/or disposed of at the site,or does the project site adjoin ❑Yes®No property which is now or was at one time used to commercially treat,store and/or dispose of hazardous waste? If Yes: i. Describe waste(s)handled and waste management activities,including approximate time when activities occurred: h. Potential contamination history. Has there been a reported spill at the proposed project site,or have any ❑Yes® No remedial actions been conducted at or adjacent to the proposed site? If Yes: i. Is any portion of the site listed on the NYSDEC Spills Incidents database or Environmental Site ❑Yes❑No Remediation database? Check all that apply: ❑ Yes—Spills Incidents database Provide DEC ID number(s): ❑ Yes—Environmental Site Remediation database Provide DEC ID number(s): ❑ Neither database ii. If site has been subject of RCRA corrective activities,describe control measures: W. Is the project within 2000 feet of any site in the NYSDEC Environmental Site Remediation database? ❑Yes®No If yes,provide DEC ID number(s): iv. If yes to(i),(ii)or(iii)above,describe current status of site(s): Page 10 of 13 V. IS the project site subject to an institutional control limiting property uses? ❑Yes❑No • If yes,DEC site ID number: • Describe the type of institutional control(e.g.,deed restriction or easement): • Describe any use limitations: • Describe any engineering controls: • Will the project affect the institutional or engineering controls in place? ❑Yes❑No • Explain: E.2. Natural Resources On or Near Project Site a.What is the average depth to bedrock on the project site? 0-6-feet b.Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site? ®Yes❑No If Yes,what proportion of the site is comprised of bedrock outcroppings? % c.Predominant soil type(s)present on project site: Urban Land-Charlton Complex 100 % d.What is the average depth to the water table on the project site? Average: m, feet e.Drainage status of project site soils:® Well Drained: 40%of site ® Moderately Well Drained: __30%of site ® Poorly Drained _30%of site f.Approximate proportion of proposed action site with slopes: ® 0-10%: 7.52%o of site ® 10-15%: __Ie%of site ® 15%or greater: 5 %of site g.Are there any unique geologic features on the project site? El Yes[Z]No If Yes,describe: h.Surface water features. i. Does any portion of the project site contain wetlands or other waterbodies(including streams,rivers, ®Yes❑No ponds or lakes)? ii. Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site? ❑Yes®No If Yes to either i or ii,continue. If No,skip to E.2.i. iii. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies within or adjoining the project site regulated by any federal, ®Yes❑No state or local agency? iv. For each identified regulated wetland and waterbody on the project site,provide the following information: • Streams: Name Classification • Lakes or Ponds: Name Classification • Wetlands: Name village regulated wetland Approximate Size 1.17 Acres • Wetland No.(if regulated by DEC) v. Are any of the above water bodies listed in the most recent compilation of NYS water quality-impaired El Yes Dlo waterbodies? If yes,name of impaired water body/bodies and basis for listing as impaired: i.Is the project site in a designated Floodway? ❑Yes®No j.Is the project site in the 100 year Floodplain? ❑YesO to k.Is the project site in the 500 year Floodplain? ❑Yes Z,4o 1.Is the project site located over,or immediately adjoining,a primary,principal or sole source aquifer? ❑Yes®No If Yes: i.Name of aquifer: Page 11 of 13 in. Identify the predominant wildlife species that occupy or use the project site: n.Does the project site contain a designated significant natural community? ❑Yes®No If Yes: i. Describe the habitat/community(composition,function,and basis for designation): H. Source(s)of description or evaluation: iii. Extent of community/habitat: • Currently: acres • Following completion of project as proposed: acres • Gain or loss(indicate+or-): acres o.Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by the federal government or NYS as ❑Yes®No endangered or threatened,or does it contain any areas identified as habitat for an endangered or threatened species? p. Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare,or as a species of Yes[Z]No special concern? q.Is the project site or adjoining area currently used for hunting,trapping,fishing or shell fishing? ❑Yes®No If yes,give a brief description of how the proposed action may affect that use: E.3. Designated Public Resources On or Near Project Site a.Is the project site,or any portion of it,located in a designated agricultural district certified pursuant to ❑Yes[Z]No Agriculture and Markets Law,Article 25-AA,Section 303 and 304? If Yes, provide county plus district name/number: b.Are agricultural lands consisting of highly productive soils present? ❑Yes®No i. If Yes:acreage(s)on project site? ii. Source(s)of soil rating(s): c. Does the project site contain all or part of,or is it substantially contiguous to,a registered National ❑YesONo Natural Landmark? If Yes: i. Nature of the natural landmark: ❑Biological Community ❑ Geological Feature ii. Provide brief description of landmark,including values behind designation and approximate size/extent: d.Is the project site located in or does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Area? ❑Yes®No If Yes: i. CEA name: ii. Basis for designation: W. Designating agency and date: Page 12 of 13 e.Doss the project site contain,or is it substantially contiguous to,a building,archaeological site,or district ❑Yes®No which is listed on,or has been nominated by the NYS Board of Historic Preservation for inclusion on,the State or National Register of Historic Places? If Yes: i. Nature of historic/archaeological resource: El Archaeological Site ❑Historic Building or District ii.Name: iii. Brief description of attributes on which listing is based: f.Is the project site,or any portion of it,located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for ❑Yes®No archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO)archaeological site inventory? g.Have additional archaeological or historic site(s)or resources been identified on the project site? ❑Yesolo If Yes: i.Describe possible resource(s): ii. Basis for identification: h.Is the project site within fives miles of any officially designated and publicly accessible federal,state,or local ❑Yes®No scenic or aesthetic resource? If Yes: i. Identify resource: ii.Nature of,or basis for,designation(e.g.,established highway overlook,state or local park,state historic trail or scenic byway, etc.): iii. Distance between project and resource: miles. i. Is the project site located within a designated river corridor under the Wild,Scenic and Recreational Rivers ❑Yes®No Program 6 NYCRR 666? If Yes: i. Identify the name of the river and its designation: ii. Is the activity consistent with development restrictions contained in 6NYCRR Part 666? ❑Yes❑No F.Additional Information Attach any additional information which may be needed to clarify your project. If you have identified any adverse impacts which could be associated with your proposal,please describe those impacts plus any measures which you propose to avoid or minimize them. G. Verification I certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name Lou Larizza Date January 7,2016 Signature Title PRINT FORM Page 13 of 13 EAF Mapper Summary Report Thursday, January 14, 2016 2:02 PM Disclaimer: The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist r I , ti project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental 135-26'•1'63 ��-� _ '�135.27 1�8 assessment form(EAF).Not all questions asked in the EAF are 35.26-f-,46--r I 13527-1-18 135.27-1:34,, I �- 4�",J I 11�35.2�-1-11 135.27=1'-57 _ answered by the EAF Mapper.Additional information on any EAF 13526 1`-53-�3527-1-tom _ 1.35.27-1;33 r-,-_� - g g r _ question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks. Although 1 135.26_-1-621 {�- 135.27-1"19 1 5.27-1, 0 -; 135.2T"1-29 the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to ; 2T-1=7� ��`�-' 135•.27-1-28- I I I r_� 135 217-1-9135.27y1;20-135.27-1,32 r DEC,you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order 135.26-1-55 j ��31.35.Z7�1=8�-135 27_141 i 135.27-1-30A to obtain data not provided by the Mapper.Digital data is not a + __ !,A 1'` 7-1_21 } '1 135.2 7- 31 .135 27 1 27 substitute for agency determinations. �3 :2.6-_7-fill 4 ' r a 135.27-1-42•;, 1�35,27-1-2i 35.27-1-4 ,7-1-4T ;-- :..r 135 26-1-60 135.27-1-24 1.35,26-1-5.61 5.26-1-71i 5.27-1- 7-1-46-'K_. / '~ t1tlM:r )Montreal ,135.27-1;23135.27-1- - T �� r----� �-_- �135.2 7�"'I ' y am' 135 26-1-59135.26-1-72 5.27-1-45 � 135:35-1-36, ~- ' 135;35�Y-24... 136.35-1-35 135.341 7 135.35-1-'1 ^t!%� 135.35-1-11 v 5.35-1;-23�, 135.35-1'-34 Taantc 1135.34,1 26 5•34-1 > > f t t t �'� Rxhe;yr (,onrr,,-d [� ,.354-22 � 1 / 35.35-1;38 t - -�1�5.34-1'32 135.35=1.r9 .35-1 2.1 �,. �f. Yp� fir` 11 �u Detroit buffalo atr�any' 6o`"r°" 135C34-1 3 --- t r135.35-1-2��y ti 135 35 1'=61 P�aridencr 1135!34-1-33 �135.35-1= �1 5.35-1-20• /' I S C►eveland ' y ! •.A35.35-1-30 �135.354--60.1 tia d 135.34-1-31 t iS,` D, m� U _ 135.3 -1-1 ` E' 3 r j-- 135.35-1- tgrrlap ma Corp 3t1{ �sn �cvices ri + E. �35.34-1�47 1 L1 I ti ' �r �rJrtETI.E j 31�co?f011 tt Fitt�bur'ti T e ° S.Intermsc, r135 35-1-2 / x1+ , u > 9 +fnmstwr u., 135.341_4$__L- cs 9 � ;P 135.35,1 Oij9 d 'tV'a ylndis��,i~? Str£�#Tile¢,�_' rna�mg+t F crp..NRCAN, R!V f --� ,.i nilru t , 1?5:341=55 135.341 52 135.35-1-4 otinllirs,.s the. 13<er. urrth 45 Wachington_,��7�$F'Hn,tAETI,Esri China B.i.i [Coastal or Waterfront Area] No B.iJi [Local Waterfront Revitalization Area] No C.2.b. [Special Planning District] Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook.-cxan.•t G SA. E.1.h [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Potential Contamination History] Workbook. E.1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site- Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Listed] Workbook. E.1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Environmental Site Remediation Database] Workbook. E.1.h.iii [Within 2,000'of DEC Remediation No Site] E.2.g [Unique Geologic Features] No E.2.h.i [Surface Water Features] No E.2.h.ii [Surface Water Features] Yes E.2.h.iii [Surface Water Features] Yes- Digital mapping information on local and federal wetlands and waterbodies is known to be incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook. E.2.h.v[Impaired Water Bodies] No E.2.i. [Floodway] No E.2.j. [100 Year Floodplain] No E.2.k. [500 Year Floodplain] No E.2.1. [Aquifers] No E.2.n. [Natural Communities] No E.2.o. [Endangered or Threatened Species] No JA+^� 2016 E.2.p. [Rare Plants or Animals] No Full Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report 1 F.3.:j. [F:gricultural District] No E.3.c. [National Natural Landmark] No E.3.d [Critical Environmental Area] No E.3.e. [National Register of Historic Places] Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook. E.3.f. [Archeological Sites] No E.3.i. [Designated River Corridor] No Full Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report , Printed: 03/04/2016 Page: 1 ACCIDENTS FOUND MATCHING CRITERIA ENTERED Accident No. Date Location of Accident RB-00026-16 02/11/2016 N RIDGE ST & westchester ave RYE BROOK WESTCHESTER RB-00078-15 03/20/2015 N RIDGE ST & Betsy Brown rd RYE BROOK WESTCHESTER. RB-00086-15 04/08/2015 N RIDGE ST & LONGLEDGE DR RYE BROOK WESTCHESTER RB-00106-15 05/01/2015 N RIDGE ST & HUTCHINSON RIVER PKWY EXIT 27S RYE BROOK WESTCHESTER RB-00108-15 05/08/2015 N RIDGE ST & KING ST RYE BROOK WESTCHESTER RB-00126-15 05/31/2015 472 N RIDGE ST & HUTCHINSON RIVER PARKWAY EXIT RYE BROOK WESTCHESTER RB-00160-15 07/14/2015 N RIDGE ST & betsy brown rd RYE BROOK WESTCHESTER RB-00199-15 08/26/2015 N RIDGE ST & HUTCHINSON RIVER PARKWAY RYE BROOK WESTCHESTER RB-00203-15 09/01/2015 95 N RIDGE ST DRIVEWAY & NEUTON AVE RYE BROOK WESTCHESTER RB-00208-15 09/04/2015 N RIDGE ST & maywood ave RYE BROOK WESTCHESTER RB-00216-15 09/16/2015 N RIDGE ST & ROCKINGHORSE TRAIL RYE BROOK WESTCHESTER RB-00273-15 11/29/2015 N RIDGE ST & Betsy Brown Rd RYE BROOK WESTCHESTER Total Records Matching Criteria: 12 Report Received from Lt. Eugene Matthews of the Rye Brook Police Department on March 4, 2016 BUILDING DEPARTMENT VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 KING STREET RYE BROOK,NY 10573 (914)939-0668 Phone (914)939-5801 Fax mizzo a rvebrook.ore Memorandum To: Board of Trustees Planning Board From: Michael J. Izzo, Building& Fire Inspector CC: Lazz Development Date: 10/5/16 Re: 259 North Ridge Street, Emergency Services Task Force Review The following analysis is based on the latest plans provided by the applicant and include; • FIRE TRUCK ACCESS STUDY,dated, September 23,2016, Sheet 1 of 1,prepared &sealed by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E. • SITE DISTANCE STUDY/INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS,dated,October 4, 2016, prepared&sealed by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E. • Plan set;NORTH RIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT, ELEVATION BUILDING 1, revised 4/20/16,received by the Building Department on 9/8/16, pages 1 through 7, and page S1, prepared by Clark Neuringer Architect.The plans are not sealed. • Plan set;NORTH RIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT, ELEVATION BUILDING 2, revised 4/20/16,received by the Building Department on 9/8/16,pages I through 7, prepared by Clark Neuringer Architect. The plans are not sealed. 1. There is insufficient emergency access to the buildings from the rear,and no emergency access from the front or from either side of either building. a. Parking spaces 8&9 should be converted to a single cross-hatched fire lane. b. Access should be provided from the driveway to the front building walkway. c. A 44 inch wide staircase restricted to emergency use only should be provided in the front from Ridge Street, in line with and adjoining the interior courtyard center walkway. 2. 1-he Residential Code of NY State,(RCNYS)§R322.1 requires compliance with Chapter 11 of the Building Code of NY State(BCNYS)for accessibility as required for Group R-3 occupancies where there are four or more dwelling units in a single structure.The proposed plan calls for two,4 dwelling unit structures, however the plans contain no provisions for ADA parking,access,or anything else. 3. The sight distance study indicates improvements to West Ridge Drive creating a sharper turn traveling south on Ridge Street and turning right on to West Ridge Drive. The plan must show compliance with the fire apparatus minimum required turning radius at this location. Rosemarie D'Ascoli From: Marilyn Timpone Mohamed <MTMohamed@fpclark.com> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 3:23 PM To: Rosemarie D'Ascoli; Michal Nowak Cc: rig lawyer@hotmail.com;Jennifer Gray Subject: FW: Sight Distance Plan - North Ridge Street Development - Received August, 24, 2016 All: I received the following review regarding the most recent revised Sight Distance Plan for 259 N. Ridge Street received today by our office and stamped 'received" by the Bldg Dept on 8/24/16. 1 will forward the email to the applicant team today. Regards, Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed, ASLA, AICP Senior Associate/Planning/Environmental FREDERICK P.CLARK ASSOCIATES PLANNING TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye,New York 10580 Voice 914 967-6540 Fax 914 967-6615 mtmohamedCcDfocl ark.com From: Garrett S. Bolella Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 12:35 PM To: Marilyn Timpone Mohamed Cc: Michael Galante Subject: Sight Distance Plan - North Ridge Street Development- Received August, 24, 2016 Marilyn Based on a review of the Sight Distance Plan (dated August 19,2016) and prepared by Ralph G.Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C. for the North Ridge Street Development and received by the Village on August 24,2016, it was determined that the profile representing the required Intersection Sight Distance(ISD),"Sight Distance 2,"formerly provided on the Sight Distance Plan (also dated August 19, 2016)was removed. Previously Sight Profile 2, indicated that 445 feet ISD was required for vehicles making a left-turn from a STOP at the Site driveway; however,it was noted in Clark Associates August 191h review memorandum that the required ISD should be based on the 85t, percentile speed,which is actually 41 miles per hour on this section of North Ridge Street and would therefore result in a required ISD of 455 feet. No further changes impacting the Traffic review were found on the Sight Distance Study plan received August 24. -Garrett Garrett S. Bolella, P.E. Associate/Transportation i Rosemarie D'Ascoli From: Michal Nowak Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 9:18 AM To: Rosemarie D'Ascoli Subject: FW: 259 north ridge street, Please file away, and upload this for the next PB meeting -----Original Message----- From: Marilyn Timpone Mohamed [ ailtn:MTMohamed@fpclark.com] Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 3:56 PM To: clark neuringer Cc: Christopher Bradbury; lou larizza; Michal Nowak Subject: RE: 259 north ridge street, Clark: We are reviewing the items submitted so far to provide planning comments. As you must be aware, you already received traffic and site access comments from us regarding the revised site plan in our November 3, 2016 memorandum to the Trustees. Regarding the revised site plan, we need a revised EAF, revised site plan application and revised supporting documents, analysis and information that is specific to the revised site plan to continue the review. However, before that happens, we have preliminary comments related to provision of a revised site plan that responds more directly to the comments from the Board members and the public: 1. Although the number of buildings and the unit density on the site is reduced in the revised site plan, the size of the single building on the site has been increased by adding the fifth unit. Comments regarding the original site plan indicated that the original buildings were considered to be too large and out of character with the neighborhood. We recommend considering a reduction in the number of units proposed or breaking up the units into two smaller buildings. 2. The site is located on the North Ridge Street Scenic Road, which raises concerns regarding the location of the 13-car parking area and the trash storage location in the front yard of the lot only 25 feet from the property line. While the new site plan reduces impacts to the topography of the site and visual impacts to neighbors adjacent to the rear of Lot 1, it increases impacts to the Scenic Road and neighbors to the west of the site. We continue to recommend revising the building plans to include garages in the basements of the units. It may mean adding 1 to 2 feet of width to each of the units; though it seems to us that may not be necessary if the entry and stair hall on the basement level are redesigned or eliminated. As has been pointed out by the Planning Board, and at least one of the Trustees, this would allow a reduction in the amount of surface parking proposed. At the proposed 40-foot unit length, with an open basement plan, it would be possible to park two cars in tandem in the basement, if a resident desired. This would potentially eliminate the need for 10 surface parking spaces. 1 3. Following on Comment 2, we recommend reconsidering the location of any remaining surface parking by perhaps breaking it up into two smaller parking areas, perhaps located on either side of the building, which could be moved further north on the site. The parking spaces could be located directly adjacent to and perpendicular to an extended driveway servicing the garages at the rear of the building(s). That type of parking area of two, three or four cars is visually more like parking in a parking court on a single family lot than the 13-car lot proposed, and would locate the parking areas further away from the Scenic Road. And from a quick sketch and grading analysis, we believe it could be done without creating additional topography and visual impacts down-slope to the east. Regards, Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed, ASLA, AICP Senior Associate/Planning/Environmental FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES PLANNING TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 Voice 914 967-6540 Fax 914 967-6615 mtmohamed@fpclark.com -----Original Message----- From: clark neuringer [mailto:chnarch@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 11:36 AM To: Marilyn Timpone Mohamed Cc: cbradbury@ryebrook.org; lou larizza Subject: —159 north ridge street, Marilyn, As we stated at our November 8th presentation to the Board of Trustees, we have completed all work relating to our amended site plan application. To date, we have not received any comments regarding additional submission requirements, if any. We are of course awaiting final comments from Dolph Rotfeld regarding our completed storm water design and we trust that all his comments will be forthcoming quickly and well in advance of the December 13th BOT meeting so that we have adequate time to respond, as may be required. Should FPC have any comments, we would appreciate them as soon as possible so that we may have adequate time to respond to them prior to the meeting. Thank you for your continued assistance in making this important residential development a successful reality. Sincerely, Clark Neuringer, R.A; NCARB for Lazz Development LLC Sent by an iArchitect 2 AFFIDAVIT OF SIGN POSTING IN THE MATTER OF 259 NORTH RIDGE STREET, RYE BROOK, NY 10573 BEFORE THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING COMMISSION I, LOUIS I.ARIZZA, POSTED A SIGN ON FEBRUARY 27, 2019 ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 259 NORTH RIDGE STREET, RYE BROOK, NY 10573 NOTICING THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING ON MARCH 14, 2019, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGN POSTIN REQUIREMENTS OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK, NY BY: L IS I.ARIZZA THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER Personally appeared before me this 13T" day of March, 2019 the above-named Louis Larizza, known to me to be the person who executed this instrument, and who acknowledged to me that he/she did so for the purposes and consideration set forth in it. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE this 13th day of March, 2019. STEVEN D. FEINSTEIN Notary Public,State of No.4864761 i NOTARY PUBLIC Qualified in Westchesm County b ^ �sion Expires MY TERM EXPIRES Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C. M E M O TO: CHRISTOPHER BRADBURY VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR FROM: Dolph Rotfeld, P.E. SUBJECT: North Ridge Street Residential Development SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPLICATION DATE: December 13, 2016 With regard to the above mentioned project, this office has received and reviewed the foliowing: 1 . Memo prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C., dated December 8, 2016; 2. Stormwater Report prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C., dated December 8, 2016; 3. Plans prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C., dated December 7, 2016. As per the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code, Chapter 209, "Site Plan Review", and in review of the materials listed above please see below for issue(s) that will need further response. Numbering of items below maintains numbering from this office's previous memo (dated December 6, 2016) and the numbering from the applicant's engineer's memo referenced above: 1. DIRE continues to be of the opinion that the disturbance area will likely exceed the 1 acre threshold, requiring coverage under the NYSDEC General Permit for Stormwater discharges. This is evident by the grading plan and silt fence placement line. 2. Applicant's engineer's response is acceptable. 3. Applicant's engineer's response is acceptable. 4. Applicant's engineer's response is acceptable. 5. Applicant's engineer's response is acceptable. 6. Applicant's engineer's response is acceptable. 7. Applicant's engineer's response is acceptable. Rye Brook Site Plan Review - North Ridge Street Residential Development December 13, 2016 Page 2 of 3 8. It is understood that exfiltration is not required for the stormtech detention galleries, and was not utilized in the design, however, for the drywells serving the proposed house on Lot 3, this rate must be verified with percolation testing in the field. This is necessary in order to verify the disturbance required for the proposed drywells, if more are required, there will also be a greater disturbance area. 9. The drywell details do not show individual overflows as stated, please clarify. One 6" overflow is shown, in addition this should be provided with a rip-rap outfall. 10.DRE continues to recommend that the piped discharge and headwall from the proposed detention galleries be extended down the slope and discharge much closer to the wetlands; the anticipated 1 .6 cfs discharge can result in erosion. 11_A cross-section must also be provided through the water quality system and must extend to include the tiered retaining walls. Existing and proposed grades must be shown on the cross-sections with stormwater system invert elevations. 12.The Applicant's engineer has stated that a Homeowner's Association will be responsible for maintaining the stormwater system including the monitoring of the filter cartridges, the cleaning of sumps and sediment traps, and watching for the accumulation of material in the Stormtech units. Please provide an operation and maintenance manual with schedule. 13.A discharge manhole for the sanitary sewer forcemain must be provided on the applicant's property (Lot 1), not in the public right of way. The Building Inspector will review the proposed sanitary sewer connection for the appropriate pipe material to be used. 14.A discharge manhole for the sanitary sewer forcemain must be provided on the applicant's property (Lot 3) with the sanitary sewer service lateral continuing as a gravity connection to the Village's sanitary sewer system. Invert elevations, pipe sizes, material and slopes must be provided. The discharge manhole must not be installed in the public right of way. 15.Applicant's engineer's response is acceptable. 16.A photometric plan must be provided demonstrating that adequate lighting will be provided in common driveway and parking areas, as well as along pedestrian paths. The photometric plan must also demonstrate that lighting intensities along property lines will not exceed one (1) foot-candle. Rye Brook Site Plan Review— North Ridge Street Residential Development December 13, 2016 Page 3 of 3 As stated in previous memos by this office, the following must be addressed: It should be noted that no structural plans, details or calculations were submitted (or reviewed) for the retaining wall design as part of this application. Prior to the issuance of any permits the following must be provided for review: c Cross-sections through the proposed tiered retaining wall which show existing and proposed grades, depths of wall footings, etc. c All retaining wall design calculations and plans must be signed and sealed by a licensed New York State professional engineer. o Subgrade bearing capacity requirements must be specified on the plans. Backfill and compaction requirements must be included on the plans. o The completed installation must be certified by a licensed New York State professional engineer to be in conformance with the approved plans and must include test results certified by a NYS certified testing lab including but not limited to: • Subgrade bearing capacity • Backfill gradation • Compaction Vehicular protection along the top of the wall (i.e. guiderail). Traffic-related elements of the site plan were not part of the review by this office. Plans have not been reviewed by this office for zoning compliance. Once revised plans have been received this office will be pleased to continue its review. RALPH G. MASTROMONACO, P.E., P.C. Civil /Site / Environmental l Consulting Engineers 13 Dove Court, Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520 Tel: (914) 271-4762 Fax: (914) 271-2820 www.rgmpepc.com Anthony Oliveri, P. E. December 8, 2016 Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C. 200 White Plains Road# 3 Tarrytown, NY 10591-5833 RECEIVED Re: 259 North Ridge Street Rye Brook, NY DEC — I Dear Anthony, DOIPH ROVELD ENGINEERING Enclosed please find the following information: / I� 1. North Ridge Street Development Stormwater Report dated December 8, 2016, 2. Plans as follows: a. North Ridge Street Development, Cover Sheet last revised December 7, 2016 b. Grading Plan, North Ridge Street Development dated December 7, 2016, sheet 1 of 8 sheets, c. Utility Plan; North Ridge Street Development dated December 7, 2016, sheet 2 of 8 sheets. d. Erosion Control Plan, North Ridge Street Development dated December 7, 2016, sheet 3 of 8 sheets, e. Details/Notes, North Ridge Street Development dated December 7, 2016, sheet 4 of 8 sheets, f. Details/Profiles/Notes, North Ridge Street Development dated December 7, 2016, sheet 5 of 8 sheets, g. Fire Truck Access Study, North Ridge Street Development dated December 7, 2016, sheet 6 of 8 sheets, h. Sight Distance Study/Intersection Improvements, North Ridge Street Development dated December 7, 2016, sheet 7 of 8 sheets, i. Fire Truck Access Study at Intersection of North Ridge Street and West Ridge Street, North Ridge Street Development dated December 7, 2016, sheet 8 of 8 sheets, We received comments from your office dated December 6, 2016 and offer the following information: MIM North Ridge Street Comment 1: A computation for the area of disturbance proposed is not on the plan, however we understand that 0.98 acres is proposed to be disturbed. The limit of disturbance line seems impractical in some areas and does not include or extend to the proposed silt fencing. The area can and will likely as shown exceed the 1 acre threshold, requiring coverage under the NYSDEC General Permit for Stormwater discharges. As noted previously, the NYSDEC General Permit requires providing for Runoff Reduction Volume (RRv) as well as other criteria in the design. Response 1: The site is designed to minimize disturbance to less than 1 acre. There is no possibility that the disturbance will be over 1 acre. Comment 2: The impervious areas listed under the existing and proposed conditions seem incorrect in that the offsite impervious areas do not seem to be included. Response 2: The off-site impervious areas are now included in the computations. Since these are present in both the existing and the proposed case, there is no effect on the conclusion of the computations, namely, that there is no increase in peak flow. Comment 3: Details must be provided for both the CS1 and CS2 control structures including internal baffles, panels, orifices, weirs, etc. Response 3: The new sheet shows the control structures in detail. Comment 4: Details of the proposed Stormtech chambers must include 12" of stone below and around the units as modelled in the HydroCAD report. Response 4: The standard details now reflect this modification. Comment 5: The HydroCAD report lists 16 Stormtech 740 chambers while the plan seems to ! show only 15. Response 5: The volume of the 1611' chamber is made up by the volume in the control structure which is part of the storage system. Comment 6: The water Quality gallery is modelled in the report with a "user defined outlet" set at 0.02 cfs_ This flow must be documented or justified in some way as the plan depicts a 6" outlet pipe which is not reflected in the model. Presumably this pipe would flow full when the limiting flow of the filters is exceeded. Response 6: There is no 6" bypass around the filters. When the level in the water quality chambers exceeds the designed water quality volume the weir passes any excess flows. Please note that there is no NYS DEC requirement for post- construction water quality treatment for this project and the storm systems will provide benefits over and above the rules. I North Ridge Street Comment 7: The HydroCAD report models the overflow weir in "CS1" control structure as part of the water quality basin while other orifices are modeled as part of the CS1 structure; presumably the weir should also be modeled within the CS1 unit and routed appropriately. Response 7: The overflow weir is shown on the new detail sheet as being at the outlet of the WQ storage system which is precisely where the hydraulic model shows it. Our model configuration allows the water quality system to be designed at an elevation independent of the upstream control structure. The suggested configuration in comment 7 would require the water quality system and the control structure to be at the same elevation, which is a confining restriction. Comment 8: An exfiltration value of 5"/hr was utilized for the drywells serving the proposed house on Lot 3; this rate must be verified with percolation testing in the field. Response 8: The exfiltration rate ( aka 12 minlinch ) is an average rate and was estimated from preliminary field tests and our field inspections of the subsoil on site by hand excavation. The entire storm system does not need this exfiltration component to meet the goals of maintaining peak flows to current conditions. However, the final, design rate of exfiltration would be performed during the building permit process for that single house. If the rate is slower than 12 minutes per inch then more drywells would be added to the system. Comment 9: The HydroCAD model utilizes three 6" overflow devices from the proposed drywells on Lot 3, it is unclear how that is achieved; a detail must be provided. iResponse 9: Each drywell has its own overflow that would be used in extremely rare instances. The detailed plans show the overflow which is a standard feature on drywells. Comment 10: The piped discharge and headwall from the proposed detention galleries is terminated at a high point of the slope, this should be extended down the slope and discharge much closer to the wetlands; this will prevent erosion of the steep slope area. Response 10: The system discharges after a velocity dissipater into a small channel at the top of a rock cliff. This was designed to minimize disturbance of the wetland buffer and the rocky nature of the slope will limit erosion. In 90% of all storms there would only be a tiny, 0.02 cubic feet per second flow from this j pipe which is not enough flow to cause erosion. In the 100 year storm (a frequency of occurring once in 100 years) —there would be only 1.6 cubic feet per second, again indicating a low probability of erosion. Comment 11: Cross-sections must be provided through both the water quality system and the detention system and must extend to include the tiered retaining walls. Existing and proposed grades must be shown on the cross-sections with stormwater system invert elevations. Response 12: This profile is shown on the revised plans. North Ridge Street Comment 12: It is unclear who will be responsible for maintaining the stormwater system including the monitoring of the filter cartridges, the cleaning of sumps and sediment traps, and watching for the accumulation of material in the Stormtech units. Please indicate who will be responsible for system upkeep and provide an operation and maintenance manual with schedule. Response 12: The project will have a Homeowner's Association to handle these maintenance tasks. Comment 13: A discharge manhole for the sanitary sewer force main must be provided on the applicant's property(Lot 1) with the sanitary sewer service lateral continuing as a gravity connection to the Village's sanitary sewer system. Invert elevations, pipe sizes, material and slopes must be provided. Response 13: Plans are revised to address the connections. Comment 14: The full extent of Lot 3's proposed sanitary sewer service lateral must be provided on the plans with invert elevations. j Response 14: Plans are revised to address the connection. Comment 15: The memo by Mr. Neuringer states that retaining wall heights have been reduced, "with one tier." However, the plan shows two tiers. Please clarify. Response 15: There are two walls with a middle flat area—Mr. Neuringer was referring to one terrace, not tier. Comment 16: A photometric plan must be provided demonstrating that adequate lighting will be provided in common driveway and parking areas, as well as along pedestrian paths. The photometric plan must also demonstrate that lighting intensities along property lines will not exceed one (1) foot-candle. Response 16: The walkway lights are now changed to short bollards. The attached illumination plan indicates that there is no way lighting could advance to the property line with any adverse brightness. I I i . North Ridge Street Additional comment: I As stated in previous memos by this office, the following must be addressed: It should be noted that no structural plans, details or calculations were submitted (or reviewed) for the retaining wall design as part of this application. Prior to the issuance of any permits the following must be provided for review: • Cross-sections through the proposed tiered retaining wall which show existing and proposed grades, depths of wall footings. etc. All retaining wall design calculations and plans must be signed and sealed by a licensed New York State professional engineer. • Subgrade bearing capacity requirements must be specified on the plans. • Backfill and compaction requirements must be included on the plans. • The completed installation must be certified by a licensed New York State professional engineer to be in conformance with the approved plans and must include test results certified by a NYS certified testing lab including but not limited to: • Subgrade bearing capacity Backfill gradation • Compaction • Vehicular protection along the top of the wall (i.e. guiderail). Response to additional comment: A guiderail has been added to the plans in selected areas. The other "additional comments" are essentially structural issues that are resolved at the building permit phase rather than the zoning and site planning phase. We expect that the wall system will require its own building permit and the issues of bearing capacity of the soil would be addressed at that time. The above materials are transmitted in the hope of obtaining a positive response. Sincerely, Ralph G. Mastromonaco, PE RGWmte 1 attach Cc: Lou Larizza WlEnclosures Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C. M E M QD TO: VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN ROBERT GOODMAN FROM: Dolph Rotfeld, P.E. SUBJECT: North Ridge Street Residential Development SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPLICATION DATE: May 23, 2016 With regard to the above mentioned project, this office has received and reviewed the following: 1. Memo prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C. Consulting Engineers, dated May 16, 2016; 2. Preliminary Storm System Layout Plan prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C. Consulting Engineers, dated May 16, 2016. In review of the above listed materials with regards to the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code, Chapter 209, "Site Plan Review" and the memo that was previously issued by this office for this application (dated May 4, 2016), full design drawings have not yet been submitted. The applicant has requested that the submission of complete design drawings be deferred to a later stage as the project progresses. Although full and completed design drawings for the stormwater system have not been submitted or reviewed for this application it is the opinion of this office that a viable stormwater solution may exist for this site. Furthermore, based on the stormwater modeling that has been prepared by the applicant's design engineer, it is the opinion of this office that the appropriate stormwater design concept has been conceived for this project and is capable of fulfilling all Village and NYSDEC design re uir C: M. Nowak C. Bradbury �r Beane M. M. Mohamed M. Izzo r- �� \, � Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C. M E M O TO: VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN ROBERT GOODMAN FROM: Dolph Rotfeld, P.E. SUBJECT: North Ridge Street Residential Development SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPLICATION DATE: July 7, 2016 With regard to the above mentioned project, this office has received and reviewed the following: 1. Memo prepared by Clark Neuringer, R.A., dated June 29, 2016; 2. Site Plan and Signage and Disturbance Plan prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C. Consulting Engineers, dated June 27, 2016; 3. Memo prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C. Consulting Engineers, dated May 16, 2016; 4. Preliminary Storm System Layout Plan prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C. Consulting Engineers, dated May 16, 2016; With regards to Item 1 b from the memo prepared by Mr. Neuringer this office would like to reiterate the following from its memo dated May 23, 2016 (emphasis added): In review of the above listed materials with regards to the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code, Chapter 209, "Site Plan Review" and the memo that was previously issued by this office for this application (dated May 4, 2016), full design drawings have not yet been submitted. The applicant has requested that the submission of complete design drawings be deferred to a later stage as the project progresses. Although full and completed design drawings for the stormwater system have not been submitted or reviewed for this application it is the opinion of this office that a viable stormwater solution may exist for this site. Furthermore, based on the stormwater modeling that has been prepared by the applicant's design engineer, it is the opinion of this office that the appropriate stormwater design concept has been conceived for this project and is capable of fulfilling all Village and NYSDEC design requirements. The still-unresolved comments from the May 4, 2016 memo referenced above are provided below: Rye Brook Site Plan Review— North Ridge Street Residential Development July 7, 2016 Page 2 of 3 1. As required by the NYSDEC General Permit the design of the stormwater system must meet the criteria for providing the required Runoff Reduction Volume (RRv). The stormwater report must discuss how this requirement is achieved. 2. The stormwater report must show how flow is regulated from the water quality chambers at the water quality flow rate required by the cartridges. A detail must be included for the unlabeled structure between the water quality chambers and the cartridge chamber. 3. The stormwater report must show how the stormwater system provides Channel Protection Volume (Cpv) in that 24 hour extended detention of the post- developed 1-year, 24-hour storm event is achieved. 4. The plans must show how access is provided to the subsurface stormwater chambers. Details must be provided. 5. Details must be provided for both the CS1 and CS2 structures including internal baffles, panels, orifices, weirs, etc. 6. Pipe sizes, types and slopes must be provided on the plans. 7. It is unclear if the hash lines shown among the Water Quality system, the detention system and the control structures are intended to be pipe connections. Please label all piped connections. 8. It must be shown how pretreatment (25% of the Water Quality Volume) is provided prior to entry to an infiltration system as required by the Stormwater Design Manual. In review of the most recent material submitted, the following additional items must be addressed: 9. It should be noted that no structural plans, details or calculations were submitted (or reviewed) for the retaining wall design as part of this application. The following must be provided for review: o Cross-sections through the proposed tiered retaining wall which show existing and proposed grades, depths of wall footings, etc. o All retaining wall design calculations and plans must be signed and sealed by a licensed New York State professional engineer. o Subgrade bearing capacity requirements must be specified on the plans. o Backfill and compaction requirements must be included on the plans. Rye Brook Site Plan Review— North Ridge Street Residential Development July 7, 2016 Page 3of3 9. (continued) o The completed installation must be certified by a licensed New York State professional engineer to be in conformance with the approved plans and must include test results certified by a NYS certified testing lab including but not limited to: • Subgrade bearing capacity • Backfill gradation • Compaction o Vehicular protection along the top of the wall (i.e. guiderail). Plans have not been reviewed by this office for zoning compliance. Once revised plans have been received this office will be pleased to continue its review. C: M. Nowak C. Bradbury E. Beane M. Mohamed M. Izzo Y Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C. M E M O TO: VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN ROBERT GOODMAN FROM: Dolph Rotfeld, P.E. SUBJECT: North Ridge Street Residential Development SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPLICATION DATE: December 23, 2015 With regard to the above mentioned project, this office has received and reviewed the following: 1. Preliminary Stormwater Report prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C. Consulting Engineers, dated October 19, 2015; 2. Plans prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C. Consulting Engineers, dated October 27, 2015 (Lot 3) and October 28, 2015 (North Ridge Street Development, Lot 2 and Fair Affordable Housing); 3. Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment prepared by Tim Miller Associates, Inc., dated October 26, 2015. It is understood that the plans and reports that have been submitted are "preliminary" and in some cases conceptual. Therefore, it is recommended that subsequent applications include more detail as per the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code, Chapter 209, "Site Plan Review". Please see below for issue(s) pertaining to the conceptual plans submitted: 1. A copy of the survey of existing conditions must be submitted with site topography. 2. A proposed subdivision plan must be provided. 3. Runoff calculations must utilize the newly-NYSDEC-adopted "Extreme Precipitation" rainfall depths compiled by Northeast Regional Climate Center (NRCC) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS): 1 iLL.)J //Pre'-IJJ.U6bA Ui i iCli.ctu u, . 4. A pretreatment device for water quality and maintenance must be provided immediately upstream of any piped connection to infiltration units. Please include installation and material details. At a minimum the device must include a sump and a hooded outlet. Rye Brook Site Plan Review— North Ridge Street Residential Development December 23, 2015 Page 2 of 2 5. Since an infiltration practice is proposed percolation tests must be performed. The tests must be done in conformance with "Stormwater Management, Westchester County, NY, Best Management Practices Manual Series", or other accepted method. Notification must be made to this office for inspection. Test logs must be submitted for review demonstrating conformance with methodology used (24 hour soak, uniform percolation rates, proper depth). The locations of the percolation tests must be shown on the plan. Per Westchester County BMP, percolation tests must be performed at a depth of 6" below the bottom of each proposed infiltration practice. Percolation tests must be performed even if no percolation volume is considered. 6. Wherever infiltration practices are proposed test pits must be performed to confirm soil type and to determine the elevation of ledge rock and groundwater conditions (minimum 2 feet below infiltration practices). Test pit locations must be shown on the plan. If the minimum 2 foot separation is not possible, alternative methods to infiltration must be considered. Notification must be made to this office for inspection. 7. An erosion control plan must be provided. Erosion control details must also be provided. 8. A tree removal plan must be submitted with a list of trees to be removed. 9. The proposed area of disturbance must be delineated and quantified on the plan. 10.A sight distance plan must be submitted for each driveway entrance. Plans have not been reviewed by this office for zoning compliance. C: M. Nowak C. Bradbury E. Beane M. Mohamed M. Izzo Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C. M E M O TO: VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN ROBERT GOODMAN FROM: Dolph Rotfeld, P.E. SUBJECT: North Ridge Street Residential Development SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPLICATION DATE: May 4, 2016 With regard to the above mentioned project, this office has received and reviewed the following: 1. Memo prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C. Consulting Engineers, dated May 2, 2016; 2. Preliminary Storm System Layout Plan prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C. Consulting Engineers, dated April 29, 2016; 3. Erosion Control Plan prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C. Consulting Engineers, dated April 29, 2016; 4. HydroCAD Summary prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C. Consulting Engineers, dated April 29, 2016. In review of the above listed materials with regards to the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code, Chapter 209, "Site Plan Review" our comments are as follows but are not limited to: 1. As required by the NYSDEC General Permit the design of the stormwater system must meet the criteria for providing the required Runoff Reduction Volume (RRv). The stormwater report must discuss how this requirement is achieved. 2. The stormwater report must show how flow is regulated from the water quality chambers at the water quality flow rate required by the cartridges. A detail must be included for the unlabeled structure between the water quality chambers and the cartridge chamber. 3. The stormwater report must show how the stormwater system provides Channel Protection Volume (Cpv) in that 24 hour extended detention of the post- developed 1-year, 24-hour storm event is achieved. 4. The plans must show how access is provided to the subsurface stormwater chambers. Details must be provided. 5. Details must be provided for both the CS1 and CS2 structures including internal baffles, panels, orifices, weirs, etc. } i Rye Brook Site Plan Review— North Ridge Street Residential Development May 4, 2016 Page 2 of 2 6. Pipe sizes, types and slopes must be provided on the plans. 7. It is unclear if the hash lines shown among the Water Quality system, the detention system and the control structures are intended to be pipe connections. Please label all piped connections. 8. It must be shown how pretreatment (25% of the Water Quality Volume) is provided prior to entry to an infiltration system as required by the Stormwater Design Manual. Plans have not been reviewed by this office for zoning compliance. C: M. Nowak C. Bradbury E. Beane M. Mohamed M. Izzo FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATIOV,ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE,NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,CONNECTICUT DAVID H. STOLMAN MEMORANDUM PRESIDENT MICHAEL A. GALANTE To: Honorable Mayor and the Village Board of Trustees EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT Date: November 3, 2016 35o THEO.FREMD AVE. RYE,NEW YORK 10580 914 967-6540 Subject: Response to Board of Trustees Site Access Comments and FAX:914 967-6615 Preliminary Review of Sketch Plan — North Ridge Street CONNECTICUT Development — Subdivision, Zoning Petition and Site Plan 203 255.3100 Application, Rye Brook, New York. HUDSON VALLEY 845 297-6056 LONG ISLAND Response to Site Access Comments 516 364-4544 www.fpQark.com Based on a review of the former site plan prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E. dated October 4, 2016, the average grade of the proposed driveway from email©fpclark.com North Ridge Street to the multi-family development parking area was found to be approximately -10.4 percent (downgrade from North Ridge Street into site); however, the steepest slope of the driveway was found to be approximately -15.4 percent. As per the Village Zoning Code the maximum driveway gradient to the building site (parking area) should not exceed +/-10 percent. Sketch Plan Review As requested, we have reviewed the most recent modified site plan also prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., dated October 25, 2016, which has been reduced in terms of overall density from eight units to five units with respect to the development of Lot 1. As part of the reduction in overall density of the development, the driveway access to the parking area has been considerably shortened. This results in an excessively steep driveway gradient. As per the Village Zoning Code the maximum driveway gradient to the building site (parking lot) shall not exceed 10 percent. The modified site plan proposes driveway gradients of up to -14.2 percent, and is in excess of 10 percent for a significant length of the driveway. In the interest of safety, the Applicant should consider modifying the proposed driveway in order to reduce the maximum gradient to 10 percent or less for its entirety. Proposed Sidewalk and Crosswalk The Applicant proposes the installation of a crosswalk immediately south of the proposed multi-family driveway to provide pedestrian access from the proposed FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION,ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE,NEW YOFK FAIRFIELD,:ONNECTICUT development to the existing sidewalk located along the westerly side of North Ridge Street. The Applicant also proposes a crosswalk traffic signal be installed adjacent to the crosswalk, facing in the direction of the northbound travel lane. Based on the modified site plan, it is unclear if this is the only type of crosswalk control proposed by the Applicant. Based on our review of the proposed location of the crosswalk on North Ridge Street, a review of the traffic volumes, the 85th percentile speed of motorists traveling on this roadway and the anticipated very low number of pedestrians that may cross at this crosswalk location, it is our recommendation that the crosswalk not be installed, as proposed by the Applicant. However, it is also our recommendation that as part of any long-term planning for North Ridge Street, a sidewalk be considered along the easterly side of the road from at least the site frontage to the intersection of Meadowlark Road and Windingwood Road North. This new sidewalk would connect to the existing crosswalks located at this intersection. It will require a new crosswalk either across North Ridge Street at the southerly side of the intersection or across Meadowlark Road, which is the easterly side of this intersection. Michael A. Galante Executive Vice President Garrett S. Bolella, P.E. Associate/Transportation cc: Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Robert I. Goodman, Chairman, and the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board Michal Nowak, Village Engineer/Superintendent of Public Works Jennifer L. Gray, Esq., Village Attorney Clark Neuringer, R.A. for the Applicant Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E. jldocs21500Uye bro*538.630.259 north ridge street.subdivision and site plan.pb traffic memo 113 16.docm 2 stChester Referral Review ov 'om Pursuant to Section 239 L,M and h of the General Municipal Law and �j Section 277.61 of the County Administrative Code Robert P.Astorino County Executive County Planning Board October 31, 2016 Christopher Bradbury,Village Administrator Rye Brook Village Hall 938 King Street Rye Brook,NY 10573-1226 Subject: Referral File No. RYB 16-002B—North Ridge Street Subdivision Zoning Map Amendment, Subdivision and Site Plan Dear Mr. Bradbury: The Westchester County Planning Board has received a package of additional supporting materials for the above referenced proposal to subdivide a 3.96-acre property located at 259 North Ridge Street into three parcels. One parcel would retain an existing single-family home which would be renovated; a second parcel would be developed with a new single-family home. Both of these lots would retain their existing R-15 zoning designations. For the third lot, the applicant is seeking an amendment to the Village Zoning Map to rezone the property to the FAH District so as to permit the construction of eight units of affordable affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) in two buildings on this lot. It is our understanding that a site plan approval would also be required for this action. We have reviewed this matter under the provisions of Section 239 L, M and N of the General Municipal Law and Section 277.61 of the County Administrative Code and we offer the following comments: 1. Affirmatively furthering fair housing(AFFH). We are supportive of the proposed application as it will bring eight additional affordable AFFH units to the Village. This aspect of the application is consistent with the County Planning Board's long-range planning policies set forth in Westchester 2025—Context for County and Municipal Planning and Policies to Guide County Planning, adopted by the Board on May 6, 2008, amended January 5, 2010, and its recommended strategies set forth in Patterns for Westchester: The Land and the People, adopted December 5, 1995, which calls for increasing the range of housing types in Westchester County. We recommend that the Village require that the affordable AFFH units meet all requirements of the Housing Settlement Agreement. 2. Sewage flows. The proposed development will increase sewage flows from this site into the existing infrastructure and will add to the volume requiring treatment at a water resource recovery facility operated by Westchester County. As a matter of County Department of Environmental Facilities' policy, the Village should require the applicant to identify mitigation measures that will offset the projected increase in flow. The best means to do so is through the reduction of inflow and infiltration (I&I) at a ratio of three for one for the proposed single family house and at a ratio of one for one for the 132 hlichaolian Office Building 118 Martine Avenue White Plains,Now Fork 10G01 Telephone- (91 1)995 1 100 website. westchestergov com Referral File No.RYB 16-002B—North Ridge Street; Zoning Amendment,Subdivision,Site Plan October 31,2016 Page 2 affordable AFFH units. 3. Recycling. We recommend the Village request the applicant to verify that sufficient space will be available to store recyclables under the recently expanded County recycling program which now includes plastics numbered 1 through 7. 4. Green building technology. We encourage the applicant to include as much green building technology as possible into the proposed development as well as bicycle storage area for residents. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. Respectfully, WESTCHESTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD By: Edward Buroughs, AICP Commissioner EEB LH October 13, 2016 APPROVED (4-2) RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING STEEP SLOPES AND WETLANDS PERMITS FOR LOT 1 OF 259 NORTH RIDGE STREET VILLAGE OF RVE BROOK PLANNING BOARD WHEREAS, Pawling Holdings, LLC and Louis Larizza, contract vendee submitted a site plan application and zoning change petition to construct eight units of Fair and Affordable Housing on Lot 1 of the subdivision of the property located at 259 North Ridge Street situated at the intersection of West Ridge Drive and North Ridge Street in the R-15 District and the North Ridge Street Scenic Road Overlay District, Section 135.35, Block 1, Lot 1 I on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook shall hold a public hearing on November 10, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. in Village Hall, 938 King Street, Rye Brook, New York to consider the above-referenced application provided the Applicant submits a full set of revised plans reflecting the site plan changes made to provide intersection sight distance for the driveway on Lot 1 by October 28, 2016; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Applicant is hereby directed to comply with Section 250-40 of the Village Code regarding notification of the public hearing. On a motion by Mrs. Schoen, seconded by Mr. Morlino, Mr. Nowak, Superintendent of Public Works, called the roll: MR. ACCURSO Voting No MR. GRZAN Voting No MR. MORLINO Voting Yes MR. RICHMAN Voting Yes MRS. SCHOEN Voting Yes MR. TARTAGLIA Voting Absent CHAIRMAN GOODMAN Voting Yes V FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION,ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE,NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,CONNECTICUT DAVID H. STOLMAN AICP,PP PRESIDENT MEMORANDUM MICHAEL A.GALANTE EXECUTIVE To: Paul S. Rosenberg, Mayor, and the VICE PRESIDENT g� y 35o THEO.FREMDAVE. Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook RYE, NEW YORK 10580 914 967-6540 Date: December 8, 2016 FAX:914 967.6615 CONNECTICUT Subject: 259 North Ridge Street— 203 255.3100 Subdivision, Zoning Petition and Site Plan Application HUDSON VALLEY 845 297-6056 LONG ISLAND As requested, we reviewed substantially revised site plans and additional information 516 364-4544 submitted in support of a three-lot subdivision, and a site plan and petition to re-zone www.fpciark.com Lot 1 of the subdivision into the FAH District, submitted by Pawling Holdings, LLC and email@fpclark.com Louis Larizza, contract vendee, on behalf of the property owner, Daniel Greto. The original site plan application for Lot 1 sought to construct eight Fair and Affordable Housing (AFFH) units. The revised development plan reduces the number of housing units to five AFFH units. The subdivision remains unchanged, and, in addition to Lot 1, still includes two lots (Lot 2 and Lot 3) for two single-family market-rate homes. The property is situated at the intersection of West Ridge Drive and North Ridge Street within the R-15 District and the North Ridge Street Scenic Road Overlay District, Section 135.35, Block 1, Lot 11 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map. Property Description The 3.96-acre (172,620 square-foot) property is partially developed with a one-story single-family home, driveway and curb cut, and a terrace at the back of the home in the rear yard. Behind the home, the lot slopes very steeply to the northeast from the elevation of North Ridge Street down to approximately the elevation of the rear yards of homes along Eagles Bluff and Rock Ridge Drive. The site drains down-slope to wetlands located in the woodlands below the existing home and from there into a pipe within a drainage easement across one of the properties on Eagles Bluff. Outside the landscaped area around the existing home, the lot is naturally wooded, with watercourses and wetlands mostly located in areas of lower elevation on the lot. Project Description The Applicant's revised proposal is for a three-lot subdivision to create two single- FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION,ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE,NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,C04NECTICUT family building lots (Lot 2 and Lot 3) that would remain in the R-15 District, and a third building lot (Lot 1), which would be re-zoned into the Fair and Affordable (FAH) District for development of five AFFH, attached, single-family homes located in a single building, and surface parking for 13 vehicles. The application also includes a zoning petition for the affordable housing lot (Lot 1), and at this time, a revised site plan application for Lot 1. The revised Lot 1 site plan requires approval of wetlands and steep slopes permits by the Planning Board. Review We reviewed the revised application, the zoning petition, the preliminary subdivision plat, revised site plans, new correspondence, analyses and supporting materials submitted by the Applicant that include the following items: 1. Full Environmental Assessment Form dated January 7, 2016, revised November 23, 2016 2. Full Environmental Assessment Form dated January 7, 2016 3. Revised Full Environmental Assessment Form dated December , 2016 4. Application for Subdivision Approval 5. Petition to the Board of Trustees to Re-Zone New Lot 1 into the FAH District from Pawling Holdings, LLC, prepared by Clark Neuringer, R.A., Mamaroneck, N.Y., dated May 15, 2015 6. Application for Site Plan Approval for Lot 1, revised November 23, 2016 7. Application for Site Plan Approval for Lot 1 8. Site Plan Submittal Review Checklist for Lot 1 9. Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment prepared by Tim Miller Associates, Inc., Cold Spring, N.Y., dated October 26, 2015 10. Storm Water Report, prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C., Croton-on- Hudson, N.Y., dated November 2, 2016 11. Preliminary Storm Water Report, prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C., Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y., dated October 19, 2015 12. Report Memorandum regarding the estimated number of school children generated by development on Lot 1 prepared by RH Consulting, White Plains, N.Y., dated March 16, 2016 13. Traffic Generation Estimates Report and Accident Data, prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C., Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y., dated March 4, 2016 14. Tree Inventory and Mapping for Entire Property prepared by Paul D. Muscariello, Certified Arborist, dated February 2, 2016 15. Tree Inventory and Removal Plan, prepared by Anthony Zaino, RLA, Westchester County Planning Department, dated April 20, 2016 2 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION,ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE,NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,C04NECTICUT 16. Energy and Zoning Memorandum for Lot 1, prepared by Clark Neuringer, R.A., Mamaroneck, N.Y., dated April 8, 2016 17. Lighting Plan for Lot 1, prepared by RAB Lighting, Northvale, N.J., dated March 4, 2016 18. Response Letter to James Natarelli, P.E., DIRE from Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C., Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y., dated May 16, 2016 19. Letter to the Board of Trustees from Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C., Croton-on- Hudson, N.Y., dated September 16, 2015 20. Review Memorandum to the Village Administrator from Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C., White Plains, N.Y., dated December 6, 2016 21, Review Memorandum to the Planning Board from Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C., White Plains, N.Y., dated May 4, 2016 22. Review Memorandum to the Planning Board from Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C., White Plains, N.Y., dated May 23, 2016 23. Memorandum to Frederick P. Clark Associates (Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed) from Clark Neuringer, R.A., Mamaroneck, N.Y., dated December 2, 2016 24. Memorandum to the Board of Trustees from Clark Neuringer, R.A., Mamaroneck, N.Y., dated October 25, 2016 25. Front and Rear Perspective Renderings of the 5-unit Lot 1 Building received 12/2/16 26, `Topographical Survey of Property," prepared by Link Land Surveyors, P.C., Mahopac, N.Y., dated January 15, 2016 27. "Preliminary Plat,"prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C., Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y., dated July 27, 2015 28. "Fire Truck—Enter Site," prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C., Croton-on- Hudson, N.Y., no date 29. Landscape Plan, prepared by Anthony Zaino, RLA, Westchester County Planning Department, dated November 7, 2016 30. Landscape Plan, prepared by Anthony Zaino, RLA, Westchester County Planning Department, dated April 21, 2016 31. Tree Inventory and Removal Plan, prepared by Anthony Zaino, RLA, Westchester County Planning Department, dated November 16, 2016 32. Engineer's Plans (Original Lot 1 Site Plan), prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C.. Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Sheet Number Sheet Title Dated 1 of 1 Site Plan Fair Affordable Housing 10/27/2015 1 of 1 Sight Lines 4/7/2016 1 of 1 Fire Truck Back Out South 4/7/2016 1 of 1 Fire Truck Back Out North 4/7/2016 1 of 1 Fire Truck in from North 4/7/2016 1 of 1 Fire Truck in from South 4/7/2016 3 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION,ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE,NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,C04NECTICUT 33. Engineer's Plans (Revised Lot 1 Site Plan), prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C., Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Sheet Number Sheet Title Dated 1 of 8 Alternate Grading Plan North Ridge Street Development 11/4/16 34. Architect's Plans (Original Lot 1 Buildings and Site Plan, prepared by Clark Neuringer Architect, Mamaroneck, N.Y.: Sheet Number Sheet Title Dated 1 Front Elevation Buildings land 2 11/11/15 rev. 2/25/16 2 Rear Elevation Buildings 1 and 2 2/3/16 rev. 2/18/16 3 Left Elevation Buildings 1 and 2 2/3/16 rev. 2/18/16 4 Right Elevation Buildings 1 and 2 2/3/16 rev. 2/18/16 5 Foundation—Buildings 1 and 2 2/3/16 rev. 2/18/16 6 First Floor—Buildings 1 and 2 2/3/16 rev. 2/18/16 7 Second Floor—Buildings 1 and 2 2/3116 rev. 2/18/16 S1 Cross Section through Site 3/11/16 S1 Cross Section through Site (with Landscape) 3/11/16 S2 Elevations Buildings 1 and 2 3/24/16 35. Architect's Plans (Revised Lot 1 Building and Site Plan), prepared by Clark Neuringer Architect, Mamaroneck, N.Y.: Sheet Number Sheet Title Dated 1 Elevations 11/1/16 2 Elevations 11/1/16 3 Elevation Calculations, Fire Ladder Diagrams, Site Section 11/3/16 4 Foundation Plan 11/1/16 5 First Floor Building Plan 11/1/16 7 Second Floor Building Plan 11/1/16 S1 Cross Section through Site 3/11/16 S1 Cross Section through Site 4 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION,ENVIRONMENT AND DBELOPMENT RYE,NEW YORK FAIRFIELD.CONNECTICUT Please note that our review is limited to planning, zoning and environmental issues. We have the following comments regarding the applications.- 1. Additional Information Needed. A tree preservation and protection plan that complies with the requirements of Chapter 235 of the Village Code should be provided for the revised site plan for Lot 1. 2. SEQRA Review. An environmental review pursuant to SEQRA is required for the revised Lot 1 site plan as part of the combined action of the site plan, subdivision, and map amendment to re-zone proposed Lot 1 into the FAH District. All the information and analyses provided for the original site plan should be updated as necessary for the revised site plan. 3. Alteration of Land and Topography. The revised site plan for Lot 1 would be located on the steep slopes, and will be required to comply with the Village Code regulations regarding steep slopes for approval of a Steep Slopes Work Permit. We continue to recommend that the design of the revised site plan for Lot 1 should ensure that the plan causes the least disturbance practicable to regulated slopes and the vegetation on these slopes, the creation of the least amount of new steep slopes, and utilization of large retaining walls. 4. Revised Site Plan. The revised Lot 1 site plan reduces disturbance of steep slopes compared to the original site plan. However, we continue to recommend revising the building plans to reduce visual impacts and site disturbance even further by include garages in the basements of the units. It may mean adding 1 to 2 feet of width to each of the units; though it seems to us that may not be necessary if the entry and stair hall on the basement level are redesigned or eliminated. As has been pointed out by the Planning Board, and at least one of the Trustees, this would allow a reduction in the amount of surface parking proposed. At the proposed 40-foot unit length, with an open basement plan, it would be possible to park two cars in tandem in the basement, if a resident desired. This would potentially eliminate the need for 10 surface parking spaces. After including garages to house 10 of the required parking spaces, we recommend reconsidering the location of any remaining surface parking by perhaps breaking it up into two smaller parking areas, perhaps located on either side of the building, which could be moved further north on the site. The parking spaces could be located directly adjacent to and perpendicular to an extended driveway servicing the garages at the rear of the building(s). That type of parking area of two, three or four cars is visually more like parking in a parking court on a single-family lot than the proposed 13-car lot, and would locate the parking areas further away from the Scenic Road. From a quick sketch and grading analysis, we believe it could be done without creating additional topography and visual impacts down-slope to the east. 5 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION,ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE,NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,C04NECTICUT 5. Soils. Based on the information provided in the EAF, soils on the property should not present issues related to construction. However, the EAF indicates that the average depth to bedrock on the site is 0 to 6 feet, and the survey indicates the presence of rock outcrops on the proposed Lot 1. The Applicant should clarify if blasting or other methods of rock removal will be necessary during construction. If rock removal will be required, the construction management plan should include discussion regarding the potential impacts of rock removal and the mitigation measures for the impacts related to noise, air quality and vibration and compliance with the Rye Brook Village Code and best management practices regarding blasting and/or rock removal. 6. Transportation. Recently submitted traffic data and sight distance information was reviewed by our traffic engineers who provided comments in a separate memorandum to the Board of Trustees dated November 3, 2016. This memorandum includes comments regarding the revised Lot 1 site plan. 7. Increase in Energy Use. Development of the three new lots will increase the demand for local energy resources. The April 8, 2016 memorandum from the Applicant's architect states that the original two-building development on Lot 1 would be constructed in conformance with the requirements of the current New York State Energy Code. All appliances would be Energy Star rated, low-energy demand LED fixtures for night lighting, and the heating systems would be high efficiency gas-fired boilers. The Applicant should clarify if this would be true for development of the revised Lot-1 site plan. 8. Land Use and Zoning. The Proposed Action includes a zone change for Lot 1 from the R-15 District to the Fair and Affordable Housing (FAH) District. The FAH District regulations allow the Board of Trustees to waive the underlying dimensional requirements of the R-15 District to develop the revised site plan of five AFFH residential units, which is more units than would otherwise be allowed on Lot 1, in the interest of encouraging the development of affordable homes in the Village. Though an increased density is allowed on the lot, it should be noted that Lot 1 will be 4 times the size of a 15,000 square-foot minimum-sized lot in the R-15 district. All three new lots will be located within the Street Scenic Road Overlay District (SROD), which includes special regulations to help protect the scenic qualities of North Ridge Street that include increased front yard setbacks and 35-foot vegetative buffers along the street frontage. Though the FAH District regulations would allow the Trustees to alter required setbacks to allow increased density, the revised site plan raises concerns regarding the location of the 13-car parking area and the trash storage location in the front yard of the lot only 25 feet from the front property line and the Scenic Road. While the new site plan reduces impacts to the topography of the site and visual impacts to neighbors adjacent to the rear of Lot 1, it increases impacts to the Scenic Road and neighbors to the west of the site. We recommend 6 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION,ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE,NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,CONNECTICUT further revision of the site plan to eliminate or reduce impacts to the scenic road and the neighbors to the west of the site. 9. Community Character. The Applicant provided an estimate of the number of schoolchildren that would be generated by development of the originally-proposed eight AFFH units and two single-family homes after subdivision of the existing lot. The Applicant should provide updated analysis of the number of school children that would be generated by the five-unit development of the revised Lot 1 site plan and the single-family homes on the two market-rate lots. Although the number of buildings and the unit density on Lot 1 is reduced in the revised site plan, the size of the single building on Lot 1 was increased by adding the fifth unit. Comments regarding the original Lot 1 site plan indicated that the original buildings were considered to be too large and out of character with the neighborhood. We recommend considering a reduction in the number of units proposed or breaking up the units into two smaller buildings. The Rye Brook Emergency Services Task Force will review the revised Lot 1 site plan with regard to emergency services capacity and access to the new residences. 10. Visual Impacts. Night lighting of the common parking area of the revised Lot 1 site plan may be a source of visual impacts to residences surrounding the lot. To eliminate excessive glare to residences downhill, especially in the winter when deciduous trees are leafless, we recommend use of shielded, residential-type light LED fixtures mounted no higher than 12 feet from the ground for night-lighting on the site. 11. Construction. The location and terrain of Lot 1 raise concerns regarding the impacts that may arise during construction. The applicant should expand the construction task schedule provided into a draft construction management and logistics plan. This plan should identify and estimate the impacts of construction on Lot 1 of the revised site plan, and explain how the impacts, such as increased traffic, increased demand for parking, construction traffic routing, need for materials storage and staging areas, impacts to air quality, security and safety on the construction site, increased noise, vibration, potential erosion and sedimentation, potential for rock removal or blasting, etc. will be eliminated or mitigated by the construction management plan, demonstrate compliance with Village Code requirements regarding construction, and identify by specific best practices to be implemented. We look forward to discussion with the Board of Trustees. 7 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION,ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE,NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,COVNECTICUT Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed, ASLA, AICP Senior Associate/Planning/Environment cc: Robert I. Goodman and the Village Planning Board Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Michal Nowak, Village Engineer/Superintendent of Public Works Jennifer L. Gray, Esq., Village Attorney Clark Neuringer, R.A. for the Applicant Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E. J:000S215001Rye Brook1538.630.259 North Ridge Street.Subdivision and Site PIan.Memo5.mtm.docm 8 V FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE, NEW YORK FAIRFIELD, CONNECTICUT DAVID H. STOLMAN MEMORANDUM AICP,PP PRESIDENT MICHAEL A. GALANTE To: Robert I. Goodman, Chairman, and the EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT Planning g Board of the Village of Rye Brook 35o THEO.FREMD AVE. Date: July 5, 2016 RYE,NEW YORK io58o 914 967-6540 FAX:914 967-6615 Subject: Response to Westchester County Department of Public CONNECTICUT Works Assessment of Site Access and Applicant's 203 255-3100 Updated Site Plan —North Ridge Street Development, Rye 845 297-6056 VALLEY Brook, New York 45 97 LONG ISLAND 516 364-4544 County Access Review www.fpctark.com As requested, we have reviewed the Westchester County Department of email@fpciark.com Public Works and Transportation, Traffic Engineering Division's assessment of roadway conditions at the proposed location of the driveway to the North Ridge Street Development. It should be noted that while the property frontage road (North Ridge Street) is currently under the jurisdiction of the County, its ownership will be transferred to the Village of Rye Brook within the next few months. In their assessment, the Department of Public Works references sight lines which are graphically illustrated on a Site Plan prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C. Consulting Engineers, dated April 7, 2016. The Site Plan indicates an Intersection Sight Distance (ISD) of 365 feet is available to the north along North Ridge Street from the proposed location of the multi-family access drive and 310 feet is available to the south along the roadway. It should be noted that the Speed Study conducted by the Applicant's Traffic Consultant actually indicates an 851h percentile speed of 41 miles per hour northbound and 40 miles per hour southbound; which would result in both Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) and ISD requirements slightly different than what was reported in the assessment provided by the Department of Public Works. Furthermore, SSD calculations should account for the grade of North Ridge Street, since it is not a level roadway. Finally, the northbound 851h percentile of motorists on North Ridge Street affects the ISD requirements for the proposed multi-family access drive for FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE, NEW YORK FAIRFIELD. CONNECTICUT both left and right turning movements. Based on the 851h percentile speeds provided by the Applicant, the ISD requirements for a left turn from a STOP should increase to 455 feet and 395 feet for a right turn from a STOP. Our previously provided and now updated Tables 1 and 2 provide the SSD requirements along North Ridge Street to, and the ISD requirements along North Ridge Street from the proposed location of the multi- family access drive, respectively, based on information provided for the Applicant. Given that the available sight distance exceeds the required SSD along North Ridge Street to the proposed location of the multi-family access drive, but does not meet the ISD requirements for the 851h percentile speed of 41 miles per hour northbound, the Department of Public Works suggests the installation of intersection warning signs with driveway sub-panels (W-3-2-C and W5-16X) provided in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) be installed in both directions on North Ridge Street, approximately 205 feet in advance of the proposed driveway. An excerpt from the MUTCD has been attached which provides a description ofwarning sign W3-2 which is typically utilized as an advanced traffic control sign and therefore, may not be appropriate in this circumstance. Warning sign W5-16X could not be found within the manual. Alternatively, an excerpt from the MUTCD is attached which provides a description of intersection warning sign W2-2, that could be utilized with a driveway subpanel/placard. The degree with which warning signs with driveway sub-panels/placards may help to reduce the northbound and southbound vehicles speeds on North Ridge Street is uncertain. Furthermore, even if the 851h percentile speed of vehicles on North Ridge Street were to be reduced to 35 miles per hour northbound, an ISD of 390 feet would still be required for a driver to make a left turn from a STOP from the proposed location of the multi-family access drive, which remains greater than the required ISD available (as indicated on the Site plan provided by the Applicant). Our opinion remains that motorist's making a left turn from the proposed multi-family access driveway would have limited sightlines to the left along North Ridge Street and as a result could be at risk of pulling-out in front of oncoming traffic. Regarding the intersection of North Ridge Street at West Ridge Drive, we are in agreement that the existing STOP sign should be mounted higher, that brush surrounding the sign should be cleared in order to make it more visible, and that the existing STOP bar should be relocated several feet further back and reoriented. Our conclusions remain largely the same from our Site Access Review memorandum dated May 26, 2016. We believe that there may not be adequate SSD provided along the FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE, NEW YORK FAIRFIELD, CONNECTICUT southbound travel lane of North Ridge Street to the location of the existing single family home/driveway to 259 North Ridge Street. Therefore, the Applicant's Consultant should conduct a detailed survey of North Ridge Street along the entire frontage of the site, develop profiles and plans of the roadway, which graphically illustrate the required and available SSD and indicate where the clear sightlines must be placed on the plan to determine if it is feasible to remove vegetation, or regrade land adjacent to the road or other means to meet these requirements The ISD available to the left (assuming significant clearing of all vegetation along the site frontage and possible regrading) along North Ridge Street from the location of proposed driveway to the multi-family development could be adequate based on the posted speed; however, it is inadequate based on the required 85th percentile speed of motorists traveling on this roadway. Therefore, the proposed location for site access to the multi- family development does not meet the criteria looking to the south on North Ridge Street. The estimated ISD available to the left is approximately 363 feet based on our field measurements. However, the required ISD for left turn movement from this driveway is 455 feet. Therefore, this driveway location clearly does not meet the criteria to provide the required ISD. In either case the Applicant must provide more detailed profiles and plans of these sightlines before we can make a final conclusion and recommendation to the Village. Applicant's Updated Site Plan The Applicant has submitted an updated site plan, dated June 27, 2016. This plan is the Applicant's recommendation to address concerns regarding intersection and stopping sight distance limitations. It is their recommendation to construct a northbound separate right turn lane to slow traffic down vehicles and improve overall safety. This deceleration lane would shift a northbound vehicle for a right turn into the site into this separate lane. After a careful review of this concept, which was recommended to slow traffic down, in our opinion, will not address the continuing concern regarding the observed speed. The raised center median will become a object to be hit during the evening and rainy conditions. Further. It could actually negatively impact sight lines for residents exiting the site since a right turning vehicle will potentially block sight lines so that the exiting motorist may not see the northbound vehicle in the northbound travel lane. A second concern is a parked vehicle or one stopped school bus using this right lane. Our findings are that this new lane will not reduce speed of northbound motorists and could actually result in confusion, a center of the road unexpected barrier and will not FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE, NEW YORK FAIRFIELD, CONNECTICUT improve sight lines. This is not a traffic calming measure appropriate to reduce speed, but a unexpected lane separation. The Applicant should continue to explore options to provide the needed sight lines for the current speeds. One option, although cost prohibited, would be to realign North Ridge Street to reduce the curve and increase sight lines. Findings Our opinion remains that the site has significant limitations to provide adequate ISD for a multi-family residential development driveway and will not meet criteria typically followed by the NYSDOT and the Village based on the 85th percentile speed of motorists traveling on the North Ridge Street (and not the posted speed limit) and may not even meet the criteria necessary if vehicle speeds on road were to be reduced through the provision of intersection warning signs with driveway subpanels/placards as suggested by the Westchester County Department of Public Works. Our recommendation remains that the Applicant further investigates different locations along the site frontage to meet the standards noted above. The Applicant must provide more detailed profiles and plans of sightlines that meet NYSDOT and Village requirements before we can make a final conclusion and recommendation to the Village. Michael A. Galante Executive Vice President Garrett S. Bolella, P.E. Associate/Transportation Attachment cc: Honorable Mayor and the Village Board of Trustees Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Michal Nowak, Village Engineer/Superintendent of Public Works Jennifer L. Gray, Esq., Village Attorney Clark Neuringer, R.A. for the Applicant Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E. g:\538.630 north ridge street development\word\nrsl6-004.docx:td Table 1 Updated STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE(SSD)ANALYSIS—NORTH RIDGE STREET North Ridge Street Development Rye Brook,Connecticut NORTHBOUND TRAVEL LANE SOUTHBOUND TRAVEL LANE Distance Required by Distance Required by AASHTO Feet AASHTO Feet Estimated 85th Percentile Speed Estimated 85th Percentile Speed Distance 41 MPH Distance 40 MPH Available I Grade Available Grade LOCATIONA (Feet) 0% +3% +6% +9% (Feet) 0 -3% -6% -9% To Proposed Multi-Family Access Drive 360 315 300 290 280 500+ 305 315 335 355 To 259 North Ridge Street Driveway 325 315 300 290 280 305 305 315 335 355 To Proposed Lot 3 Driveway 320 315 300 290 280 380 305 315 335 355 Sources: 1. Speed Study conducted by the Applicant's Consultant. 2. - Field measurements conducted by Frederick P. Clark Associates,Inc.,on Monday,May 23,2016. 3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets"2011 Edition,Chapter 3 —4. Notes: 1. The height of the driver's eye was assumed to be 3.5 feet. 2. The height of the object was assumed to be 2 feet. 3. The SSD required was rounded up to the next highest 5-foot increment to be conservative. A design exception is not required if the SSD measured in the field meets the computed value, and, if due to rounding does not achieve the value. 4. Grade adjustments should be provided to account for gravitational forces. The gradient utilized should be based on the longitudinal gradient at the site of brake application. 5. The posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour on North Ridge Street. 6. The 85t" percentile speed was found to be 41 miles per hour northbound and 40 miles per hour southbound along the North Ridge Street Development site frontage. Conclusions: 1. There is adequate SSD (based on the 85ti'percentile speed of vehicles) provided along the northbound travel lane of North Ridge Street to the proposed location of the Multi-Family Development access drive, the existing driveway at 259 North Ridge Street and the proposed driveway of Lot 3. 2. There is adequate SSD provided along the southbound travel lane of North Ridge Street to the proposed location of the Multi-Family Development access drive and the proposed driveway of Lot 3. 3. There may not be adequate SSD provided along the southbound travel lane of North Ridge Street to the proposed location of the existing driveway to 259 North Ridge Street. The Applicant's Consultant should conduct a survey of North Ridge Street along and in the vicinity of the North Ridge Street Development property frontage and create a profile and plan of the roadway which graphically illustrates that stopping sight distance and clear sight lines can be obtained. Frederick P. Clark Associates,Inc. G:\538.630 North Ridge Street Deve1opment\Word\nrs16-001.gsb-Revised.doc: 6/29/16 1 Table 2 Updated INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE(ISD)ANALYSIS North Ridge Street Development Rye Brook,Connecticut LEFT TURN FROM STOP RIGHT TURN FROM STOP Estimated Estimated Distance Distance Required(Feet) Distance Distance Required(Feet) Available Available Feet AASHTO Guidelines Feet AASHTO Guidelines Posted Measured Posted Measured Speed Speed Speed Speed INTERSECTION Left Right 30 MPH 41 MPH Left 30 MPH 41 MPH Proposed Multi-Family Access Drive 363 500+ 335 455 363 290 395 at North Ride Street Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets"2011 Edition,Chapter 9. Notes: North Ridge Street is a two-lane roadway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour in the vicinity of the site. The measured speed of vehicles (85`h percentile speed)was obtained from a Speed Study conducted by the Applicant's Consultant from Wednesday,April 13 to Thursday,April 21,2016. The 85`h percentile speed was found to be 41 miles per hour northbound and 40 miles per hour southbound along the North Ridge Street Development site frontage. • The ISD requirements are for passenger cars. Required ISD values were rounded up to the nearest 5 feet,to be conservative. Available ISD values were obtained by Frederick P.Clark Associates,Inc.in the field utilizing a measuring wheel. Clark Associates assumed a fair amount of vegetation would be clear from the site frontage in the determination of available ISD. Available ISD was measured based on the location of the driver's eye offset 10 feet from the roadway shoulder line. Applicant should provide profile and plan view of ISD analysis. Conclusion: 1. The ISD available to right (assuming the removal of vehicles parked within the right-of-way) along North Ridge Street from the location of the proposed driveway to the multi-family development is adequate based on the posted and measured speed of vehicles. 2. The ISD available to left (assuming the clearing of all vegetation along the site frontage and possible re-grading) along North Ridge Street from the location of the proposed driveway to the multi-family development is adequate based on the posted speed;however,inadequate based on the speed of vehicles on the roadway. Frederick P.Clark Associates,Inc. g:\538.630 north ridge street deve1opment\word\nrs16-002.gsh-revised.docx 629/2016 WESTCHESTER COUNTY DPW ASSESSMENT Garrett S. Bolella From: Michael Galante Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 8:35 PM To: Garrett S. Bolella Subject: Fw: Assessment of North Ridge Street and West Ridge Drive - Signalization Need Attachments: N Ridge @ W Ridge Recommendations.pdf We need to review below for next week. Mike Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T From: Christopher Bradbury <CBradbury@ryebrook.org> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:12:15 -0400 To: VRB Bot/Admin/Counsel<BOT@ryebrook.org>; Planning Board<PB@ryebrook.org>; Mike Izzo<MIzzo@ryebrook.org>; Michal Nowak<MNowak@ryebrook.org>; Jennifer Gray<jgray@kblaw.com>; Marilyn Timpone Mohamed<MTMohamed@fpc lark.com>; Michael Galante<MGalante@fpclark.com>; Ed Beane<ebeane@kblaw.com>; Rosemarie D'Ascoli<RDascoli@ryebrook.org>; Alex Frank<AFrank@ryebrook.org> Subject: FW: Assessment of North Ridge Street and West Ridge Drive - Signalization Need FYI From: Drummond, Norma [mailto:nvvl@westchestergov.com] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 2:56 PM To: Christopher Bradbury Cc: Zaino, Anthony; loulazz@aol.com; Housing at MJMRealty Subject: FW: Assessment of North Ridge Street and West Ridge Drive - Signalization Need Chris—based on the discussion at the last Rye Brook PB meeting on 259 North Ridge Street and the May 26`h memo about site distance,we asked the County's traffic engineer to review the plans and nearby intersections as well as traffic accident records for the area. Below is his analysis and recommendation for improvements to meet the needs of the proposed development. Please forward this to the appropriate staff in the Village and to the PB for their review and information. I am copying the applicant on this e-mail. As always, if we can be of any further assistance, please let me know. Norma Drummond I Deputy Commissioner of Planningl Westchester County I Rm 414. 148 Martine Ave I White Plains, NY 106011 914.995.2427 Let us send you emergency information: sign up at www.westchestergov.com/cens From: Roseman, Kevin Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 2:48 PM To: Drummond, Norma Cc: Zaino, Anthony Subject: Assessment of North Ridge Street and West Ridge Drive - Signalization Need Norma, 1 As requested, the Traffic Engineering Division of the Westchester County Department of Public Works and Transportation has conducted an evaluation of the conditions at the proposed multifamily development on North Ridge Street and at the nearby intersection of North Ridge Street and West Ridge Drive in the Village of Rye Brook. This evaluation was conducted to determine if there were any safety concerns at the proposed driveway or adjacent intersection, including but not limited to potential signalization of the adjacent intersection. �,� r Sight distance at the(proposed development drive"is 6�feet to the north and C fe6t to the south. Traffic data provided by Ralph G. asM tromonaco Consulting Engineers indicated an 85"' percentile speed of(40 MPH on Nort Ridge Street. Since the posted speed limit is 30 MPH, the Village should consider increased enforcement if conditions warrant. Stopping sight distance required at 30 MPH is 200 feet and at 40 MPH it is 305 feet. Intersection sight distance requirements at 30 MPH are 335 feet to the north and 290 feet to the south but at 40 MPH these increase to 445 feet to the north and 385 feet to the south. Given that the proposed sight distance exceeds the stopping sight distance but is below the intersection sight distance requirements at the 851h percentile speed of 40 MPH, it is suggested intersection warning signs with a driveway sub- panels(MUTCD#s W-3-2C and WS-16X) be installed in both directions on North Ridge Street, approximately 305 feet in advance of the proposed driveway. In addition, any shrubs/brush that impinges on the sight triangle for the proposed driveway,either on the development property or within the roadway right-of-way should be trimmed/cut. Regarding the intersection of North Ridge Street with West Ridge Drive, the existing stop sign should be mounted higher, at the required 7'distance from the bottom of the sign and the roadway,with the brush surrounding the sign trimmed to make it more visible. In addition,the existing stop bar should be relocated several feet further back and reoriented to increase sight distance to the north(see attached). In order for a traffic signal to be installed it must meet one of the nine Warrants for Traffic Signalization as contained in the Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. These warrants create a rather high bar that intersections must meet as unwarranted traffic signals can cause far more harm than good. Based on a field evaluation and review of the North Ridge Street volume&speed data, none of the nine Warrants for a Traffic Signal are expected to be satisfied. Conditions in the future,with the proposed development's trip generation(5 AM peak hour and 6 PM peak hour trips)or background growth will not materially change conditions and thus do not require signalization. It should be noted that as part of this examination, MV-104A Collision Reports that are regularly provided to this office by the Rye Brook Police Department,were reviewed. During the last three years, not a single motor vehicle collision was reported for the intersection of North Ridge Street and West Ridge Drive. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you. Kevin Roseman Traffic Engineer / CRB& AAB PM Westchester County Dept. of Public Works and Transportation 148 Martine Avenue, Suite 400B White Plains, NY 10601 kmr5@westchestergov.com (914)995-4084 - Voice (914)995-2558 - Fax 2 x u � • m x r r • .t i 1: 1 f # l,� k t t • 4- -- , N _ r • _. '4 n � i i i I� 1 1 f I MUTCD 2009 Edition Page 117 Figure 2C-4. Vertical Grade Signs and Plaques 8% USE LOW 2UL101,1Cd qo�o NEXT 9/e GRADE GEAR LU GRADE 7 MILES 7 MILES W7-1 W7-1a W7-2P W7-2bP W7-3P W7-3aP W7-3bP -RUNAWAY TRUCK RUNAWAY TRUCK RAMP ESCAPE TRUCK RAMP MILE RAMP W7-4 W7-4b W7-4c HILL BLOCKS VIEW SAND GRAVEL PAVED W7-4dP W7-4eP W7-4fP W7-6 Option: 03 A SAND(W7-40),GRAVEL(W7-4eP),or PAVED(W7-4fP)supplemental plaque(see Figure 2C-4)may be used to describe the ramp surface. State and local highway agencies may develop appropriate word message signs for the specific situation. Section 2C.18 HILL.BLOCKS VIEW Sign (W7-6) Option: 01 A HILL BLOCKS VIEW(W7-6)sign(see Figure 2C-4)may be used in advance of a crest vertical curve to advise road users to reduce speed as they approach and traverse the hill as only limited stopping sight distance is available. Guidance: 02 When a HILL BLOCKS VIEW sign is used, it should be supplemented by an Advisory Speed(W13-1P)plaque indicating the recommended speed for traveling over the hillcrest based on available stopping sight distance. Section 2C.19 ROAD NARROWS Sign (W5-1) Guidance: 01 Except as provided in Paragraph 2,a ROAD NARROWS(W5-1)sign(see Figure 2C-5)should be used in advance of a transition on two-lane roads where the pavement width is reduced abruptly to a width such that vehicles traveling in opposite directions cannot simultaneously travel through the narrow portion of the roadway without reducing speed. Option: 02 The ROAD NARROWS(W5-1)sign may be omitted on low-volume local streets that have speed limits of 30 mph or less. 03 Additional emphasis may be provided by the use of object markers and delineators(see Sections 2B.63 through 213.65 and Chapter 3F). The Advisory Speed(W13-lP)plaque(see Section 2C.08)may be used to indicate the recommended speed. December 2009 Sect.2C.17 to 2C.19 Page 118 2009 Edition Figure 2C-5. Miscellaneous Warning Signs ROAD \ NARROW ONE LANE , NARROWS BRIDGE BRIDGE 1 < < > < < W5-1 W5-2 W5-3 W6-1 W6-2 W12-1 12_6" DEAD NO 1114FT4 END OUTLET ' DEAD END -►J N OUTLET�► W12-2 W12-2a W14-1 W14-1a W14-2 W14-2a FREEWAY ENDS EXPRESSWAY ENDS 1 MILE 1 MILE W 19-1 W 19-2 FREEWAY EXPRESSWAY ALL TRAFFIC ENDS ENDS MUST EXIT W 19-3 W 19-4 W 19-5 Section 2C.20 NARROW BRIDGE Sign (WS-2) Guidance: 01 A NARROW BRIDGE(W5-2)sign(see Figure 2C-5)should be used in advance of any bridge or culvert having a two-way roadway clearance width of 16 to 18 feet,or any bridge or culvert having a roadway clearance less than the width of the approach travel lanes. 02 Additional emphasis should be provided by the use of object markers,delineators,and/or pavement markings. Option: 03 A NARROW BRIDGE sign may be used in advance of a bridge or culvert on which the approach shoulders are narrowed or eliminated. Section 2C.21 ONE LANE BRIDGE Sign(W5-3) Guidance: 01 A ONE LANE BRIDGE(W5-3)sign(see Figure 2C-5)should be used on two-way roadways in advance of any bridge or culvert: A. Having a clear roadway width of less than 16 feet, or B. Having a clear roadway width of less than 18 feet when commercial vehicles constitute a high proportion of the traffic, or C. Having a clear roadway width of l8 feet or less where the sight distance is limited on the approach to the structure. 02 Additional emphasis should be provided by the use of object markers,delineators,and/or pavement markings. Sect.2C.20 to 2C.21 December 2009 2009 Edition Page 121 Figure 2C-6. Roadway and Weather Condition and Advance Traffic Control Signs and Plaques BE \ PREPARED TO STOP W3-1 W3-2 W3-3 W3-4 RAMP DRAW RAMP METERED METER !BUMP D I P BRIDGE AHEAD FLASHING W3-6 W3-7 W3-8 W8-1 W8-2 SOFT PAVEMENT SHOULDER ENDS WHEN STEEL EXCESS WET ICE DECK OIL W8-3 W8-4 W8-5 W8-5P W8-5aP W8-5bP W8-5cP \ W NO \ LOOSE ROUGH LOW UNEVEN CENTER ICESRBEFORE GRAVE SHOULDER ROAD LANES LINE ROAD W8-7 W8-8 W8-9 W8-11 W8-12 W8-13 FEET 5 GROOVED METAL \ _4- PAVEMENT W815 BRIDGE W816 W8-17 DECK ROAD � -3- / FALLEN j MAY -2 RocKs NZ FLOOD �� - - SHOULDER DROP-OFF W8-14 W8-15P W8-15P W8-17P W8-18 W8-19 NEW GUSTY FOG NO TRAFFIC WINDS AREA SHOULDER SHOULDER SPEED PATTERN AREA ENDS HUMP AHEAD W8-21 W8-22 W8-23 W8-25 W17-1 W23-2 Dcccmber2009 Sect 2C29 2009 Edition Page 123 Section 2C.33 Warning Signs and Plaques for Motorc3clists (NNS-15. W845P.and NNS-16) Support: 01 The signs and plaques described in this Section are intended to give motorcyclists advance notice of surface conditions that might adversely affect their ability to maintain control of their motorcycle under wet or dry conditions. The use of some of the advance surface condition warning signs described in Section 2C.32,such as Slippery When Wet,LOOSE GRAVEL,or ROUGH ROAD,can also be helpful to motorcyclists if those conditions exist. Option: 02 If a portion of a street or highway features a roadway pavement surface that is grooved or textured instead of smooth,such as a grooved skid resistance treatment for a horizontal curve or a brick pavement surface,a GROOVED PAVEMENT(W8-I5)sign(see Figure 2C-6)may be used to provide advance warning of this condition to motorcyclists,bicyclists,and other road users. Alternate legends such as TEXTURED PAVEMENT or BRICK PAVEMENT may also be used on the W8-15 sign. 03 If a bridge or a portion of a bridge includes a metal or grated surface,a METAL BRIDGE DECK(W8-16) sign(see Figure 2C-6)may be used to provide advance warning of this condition to motorcyclists,bicyclists,and other road users. 04 A Motorcycle(W8-15P)plaque(see Figure 2C-6)may be mounted below or above a W8-15 or W8-16 sign if the warning is intended to be directed primarily to motorcyclists. Section 2C.34 NO CENTER LINE Sign W8-12) Option: of The NO CENTER LINE(W8-12)sign(see Figure 2C-6)may be used to warn of a roadway without center line pavement markings. Section 2C.35 Weather Condition Signs(W8-18,W8-19, W8-21. and W8-22) Option: 01 The ROAD MAY FLOOD(W8-18)sign(see Figure 2C-6)may be used to warn road users that a section of roadway is subject to frequent flooding. A Depth Gauge(W8-19)sign(see Figure 2C-6)may also be installed within a roadway section that frequently floods. Standard: 02 If used,the Depth Gauge sign shall be in addition to the ROAD MAY FLOOD sign and shall indicate the depth of the water at the deepest point on the roadway. Option: 03 The GUSTY WINDS AREA(W8-21)sign(see Figure 2C-6)may be used to warn road users that wind gusts frequently occur along a section of highway that are strong enough to impact the stability of trucks,recreational vehicles,and other vehicles with high centers of gravity. A NEXT XX MILES(W7-3a)supplemental plaque may be mounted below the W8-21 sign to inform road users of the length of roadway that frequently experiences strong wind gusts. 04 The FOG AREA(W8-22)sign(see Figure 2C-6)may be used to warn road users that foggy conditions frequently reduce visibility along a section of highway. A NEXT XX MILES(W7-3a)supplemental plaque may be mounted below the W8-22 sign to inform road users of the length of roadway that frequently experiences foggy conditions. Section 2C.36 Advance Traffic Control Signs(W3-1,W3-2,W3-3,W3-4) Standard: of The Advance Traffic Control symbol signs(see Figure 2C-6)include the Stop Ahead(W3-1),Yield Ahead(W3-2),and Signal Ahead(W3-3)signs. These signs shall be installed on an approach to a primary traffic control device that is not visible for a sufficient distance to permit the road user to respond to the device(see Table 2C-4). The visibility criteria for a traffic control signal shall be based on having a continuous view of at least two signal faces for the distance specified in Table 4D-2. Support: 02 Figure 2A-4 shows the typical placement of an Advance Traffic Control sign. 03 Permanent obstructions causing the limited visibility might include roadway alignment or structures. Intermittent obstructions might include foliage or parked vehicles. December 2009 Sect.2C.33 to 2C.36 Page 124 2009 Edition Guidance: 04 Where intermittent obstructions occur, engineering judgment should determine the treatment to be implemented. Option: 05 An Advance Traffic Control sign may be used for additional emphasis of the primary traffic control device, even when the visibility distance to the device is satisfactory. os An advance street name plaque(see Section 2C.58) may be installed above or below an Advance Traffic Control sign. 07 A warning beacon may be used with an Advance Traffic Control sign. 08 A BE PREPARED TO STOP(W3-4)sign(see Figure 2C-6)may be used to warn of stopped traffic caused by a traffic control signal or in advance of a section of roadway that regularly experiences traffic congestion. Standard: 09 When a BE PREPARED TO STOP sign is used in advance of a traffic control signal,it shall be used in addition to a Signal Ahead sign and shall be placed downstream from the Signal Ahead(W3-3)sign. Option: 10 The BE PREPARED TO STOP sign may be supplemented with a warning beacon(see Section 4L.03). Guidance: 11 When the warning beacon is interconnected with a traffic control signal or queue detection system, the BE PREPARED TO STOP sign should be supplemented with a WHEN FLASHING(W16-13P)plaque (see Figure 2C-12). Support: 12 Section 2C.40 contains information regarding the use of a NO MERGE AREA(W4-5P)supplemental plaque in conjunction with a Yield Ahead sign. Section 2C.37 Advance Ramp Control Signal Signs (W3-7 and W3-8) Option: 01 A RAMP METER AHEAD(W3 7)sign(see Figure 2C-6)may be used to warn road users that a freeway entrance ramp is metered and that they will encounter a ramp control signal(see Chapter 41). Guidance: 02 When the ramp control signals are operated only during certain periods of the day,a RAMP METERED WHEN FLASHING(W3-8)sign(see Figure 2C-6)should be installed in advance of the ramp control signal near the entrance to the ramp,or on the arterial on the approach to the ramp, to alert road users to the presence and operation of ramp meters. Standard: 03 The RAMP METERED WHEN FLASHING sign shall be supplemented with a warning beacon (see Section 4L.03)that flashes when the ramp control signal is in operation. Section 2C.38 Reduced Speed Limit Ahead Signs(W3-5.W - a) Guidance: 01 A Reduced Speed Limit Ahead(W3-5 or W3-5a)sign (see Figure 2C-7)should be used to inform road users of a Figure 2C-7. Reduced Speed reduced speed zone where the speed limit is being reduced Limit Ahead Signs by more than 10 mph,or where engineering judgment indicates the need for advance notice to comply with the posted speed limit ahead. Standard: SPEED 45 MPH 02 If used,Reduced Speed Limit Ahead signs shall be LIMIT SPEED ZONE followed by a Speed Limit(R2-1)sign installed at the \ beginning of the zone where the speed limit applies. 45 ` AHEAD 03 The speed limit displayed on the Reduced Speed Limit Ahead sign shall be identical to the speed limit displayed on the subsequent Speed Limit sign. W3-5 W3-5a Sect.2C.36 to 2C.38 December 2009 2009 Edition Page 127 Support: 04 Section 213.23 contains information regarding a regulatory sign that can also be used for lane drops at grade-separated interchanges. Section 2C.44 Two-Way Traffic Sign (VV6-3) Guidance: 01 A Two-Way Traffic(W6-3)sign(see Figure 2C-8)should be used to warn road users of a transition from a multi-lane divided section of roadway to a two-lane, two-way section of roadway. 02 A Two-Way Traffic(W6-3)sign with an AHEAD(W16-9P)plaque(see Figure 2C-12)should be used to warn road users of a transition from a one-way street to a two-lane, two-way section of roadway(see Figure 2B-14). Option: 03 The Two-Way Traffic sign may be used at intervals along a two-lane,two-way roadway and may be used to supplement the Divided Highway(Road)Ends(W6-2)sign discussed in Section 2C.23. Section 2C.45 NO PASSING ON Sign(W14-3) Standard: 01 The NO PASSING ZONE(W14-3)sign(see Figure 2C-8)shall be a pennant-shaped isosceles triangle with its longer axis horizontal and pointing to the right. When used,the NO PASSING ZONE sign shall be installed on the left side of the roadway at the beginning of no-passing zones identified by pavement markings or DO NOT PASS signs or both(see Sections 211.28 and 3B.02). Section 2C.46 Intersection Warning Signs(W2-1 through W2-8) Option: o1 - A Cross Road(W2-1)symbol,Side Road(W2-2 or W2-3)symbol-,T-Symbol (W24),or Y-Symbol (W2-5) sign(see Figure 2C-9)may be used in advance of an intersection to indicate the presence of an intersection and the possibility of turning or entering traffic. Figure 2C-9. Intersection Warning Signs and Plaques <*> < > < > *IX W 1-7 W2-1 W2-2 W2-3 W2-4 <> W2-6 TRAFFIC ROUNDABOUT OR ! CIRCLE W16-17P W16-12P W2-5 (optional) (optional) W2-7L W2-7R ONCOMING ONCOMING TRAFFIC TRAFFIC HA� MAY HAVE CROSS TRAFFIC TRAFFIC FROM DER aNcaMINO rRAFFlE EXTENDED EXTENDED DOES NOT STOP Dots Nor Stop DOES NOi 5'CP GREEN GREEN W\2--8 W44P W4-4aP W4-4bP W25-1 W25-2 December 2009 Sect.2C.43 to 2G46 i i , i i i i i i i I i , I i i COUNTY REQUIREMENTS � 7 w x • 7; s qp + '\ 2 4 N �. �J S 1 f•1 , `~ d „o� . � a • • � J 3 c m t of a��i0, wo cc RC rn u 'o c'c m o ' o --1 m • c m m - y tom U tow Q 0 w s xC6 F Q it LU o m INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT B.A.# Applicant: C.R.# Road Name: Initial sighting of ` target A (3'-6" high) (rum 10' distance is measured target B (3'-6" high). to edge of travel lane `` \ or painted stop line. / Distance Y � (To Left) — Al / Collision Point \ Collision Point Distance X A2 (To Right) Minimum Acceptable Sight Distances Crossing Maneuver Left Turn Maneuver Right Turn Maneuver Design Speed Sight Distance (ft.) Sight Distance (ft.) Sight Distance (Mph) Left/Right Left/Right Left 25 240 280 . 240 30 290 _ _ 335 290 35 335 390 335 40 385 445 385 45 43.0 500 430 50 480 555 480 17 55 530 610 530 Source:AASHTO(2001)A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets Please provide the following information: The speed limit on the main road at this point is mph. Distance X = ft. Distance Y = ft. Westchester County Department of Publi,'JUorks � _ Fonn I 2003-1 A . FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION, ENVIROt,MENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE, NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,CONNECTICUT DAVID H. STOLMAN MEMORANDUM AiCP.PP PRESIDENT MICHAEL A. GALANTE To: Robert I. Goodman, Chairman, and the EXECUTIVE Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook VICE PRESIDENT 9 9 Y 350 THEW. ioVE. Date. August 23, 2016 RYE, NEW YORK ORK 1o58a 914 967-6540 FAX:914 967.6615 Subject: Intersection Sight Distance Review — North Ridge Street CONNECTICUT Development — Subdivision, Zoning Petition and Site Plan 203 255.3100 HUDSON VALLEY _Application, Rye Brook, New York. 845 297-6056 LONG ISLAND Continuation of Intersection Sight Distance Review 516 364-4544 www.fpciark.com As requested, we recently reviewed the Sight Distance Plan prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E. dated August 12, 2016, which graphically illustrates sight lines email@fpclark.com from the proposed multi-family residential development driveway on plan and profile views of North Ridge Street along the Site frontage. We also received an additional Sight Distance Plan prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E. dated August 19, 2016, which was not included in our most recent review memorandum. The following comments address the most recent submission by Ralph G. Mastromonaco P.E. The August 191h Site Plan provides Intersection Sight Distance (ISD) to the left along North Ridge Street from the proposed location of the multi-family driveway for two scenarios, Sight Profile 3 and Sight Profile 4. Of the two ISD scenarios, Sight Profile 3 provided in blue on the August 191h Plan appears to be identical to Sight Profile 3 provided in red on the August 121h Plan. Both profiles indicate an ISD of 385 feet is available based on the driver's eye being located 10 feet back from the edge of pavement on North Ridge Street and 3.5 feet above the driveway at a proposed elevation of 105.5 feet. Both ISD profiles correctly assume that the height of an object on North Ridge Street (considered to be an oncoming vehicle) will be 3.5 feet above the pavement. From the August 191h Site Plan, it appears that the proposed elevation of the multi- family residential driveway has been increased to 106.2 feet in Sight Profile 4 (provided in red) to achieve an ISD of 400 feet to the left along North Ridge Street from the driveway, based on the driver's eye being located 10 feet back from the edge of pavement and 3.5 feet above the driveway. The available ISD provided in Sight Profile 4 is greater than that provided in by Sight Profile 3; however, is still 1 5REDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANi.,'N,, TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE,NEW Y6'v FAIRFIELD,CONNECTICUT inadequate based on the standards discussed in our ISD review memorandum dated August 191h Therefore, our findings remain the same, the Site has significant limitations to provision of adequate ISD for a multi-family residential development driveway and as proposed will not meet criteria typically followed by the NYSDOT and the Village based on the 851n percentile speed of motorists traveling on North Ridge Street. Our recommendation remains that the Applicant further investigates different locations along the Site frontage to meet the standards noted above. The Applicant must also provide a SSD analysis for the southbound North Ridge Street approach to the existing/proposed driveway at 259 North Ridge Street that is consistent with NYSDOT and Village requirements before we can make a final conclusion and recommendation to the Village. A detailed summary of these findings can be found in the ISD review memorandum prepared by Clark Associates dated August 19, 2016. Michael A. Galante Executive Vice President Garrett S. Bolella, P.E. Associate/Transportation cc: Honorable Mayor and the Village Board of Trustees Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Michal Nowak, Village Engineer/Superintendent of Public Works Jennifer L. Gray, Esq., Village Attorney Clark Neuringer, R.A. for the Applicant Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E. g:638.630 north ridge street developmentlwordlnrsl6-006.gsb.docx: 8/23/16 2 IL f FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE, NEW YORK FAIRFIELD, CONNECTICUT DAVID H.STOLMAN MEMORANDUM AICP,VP PRESIDENT MICHAEL A.GALANTE To: Robert I. Goodman, Chairman, and the EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT Planning g y Board of the Village of Rye Brook 35o THEO.FREMD AVE. RYE,NEW YORK 10580 Date: August 18, 2016 914 967.6540 FAX:014 967-6615 Subject: Intersection Sight Distance Review — North Ridge Street CONNECTICUT Development — Subdivision, Zoning Petition and Site Plan 55 z 203 -3100 203 55 VALLEY Application, Rye Brook, New York. HUD845 297-6056 LONG ISLAND Intersection Sight Distance Review 516 364-4544 www.fpctark.com As requested, we have reviewed the Sight Distance Plan prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E. dated August 12, 2016, which graphically illustrates sight lines email@fpclark.com from the proposed multi-family residential development driveway on plan and profile views of North Ridge Street along the Site frontage. As previously discussed the Site for the proposed residential development is located on the inside of a horizontal curve on North Ridge Street and is further complicated by the vertical alignment of the roadway at this location. The Applicant's Consultant provided the Intersection Sight Distance (ISD) for two scenarios. Sight Profile 1, as it is referred to on the Sight Distance Plan, assumes that the driver's eye is 3.50 feet above the roadway surface at the proposed location of the driveway and that the object to be seen (an oncoming vehicle) is 4,25 feet above the roadway surface of North Ridge Street. While the assumed height of the driver's eye is appropriate based on criteria set forth and followed by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and published in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Handbook "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" the assumed object height (considered the oncoming vehicle) is not consistent with typical criteria. This object height is based on a vehicle height of 4.35 feet, which represents the 15th percentile of vehicle heights in the current passenger car population less an allowance of 10in (Refer to AASHTO Handbook 9-31 Intersections). It should be noted that this allowance represents a near-maximum value for the portion of a passenger car height that needs to be visible for another driver to recognize it as an object (an oncoming vehicle). Therefore, the AASHTO handbook recommends the assumption that the object to be seen (an oncoming vehicle) is 3.50 feet (4.35 feet less 10 in.) above the surface of the intersecting road (North Ridge Street). 1 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE,NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,CONNECTICUT Furthermore, as stated in the AASHTO Handbook, the use of an object height equal to the driver eye height makes ISD reciprocal. In other words, if the driver exiting the Site driveway can see a vehicle approaching from the south (to the left) on North Ridge Street, then the driver headed northbound on North Ridge Street can see the vehicle at the Site driveway. In conclusion, Sight Profile 1, provided on the Site Plan and based on an object height of 4.25 feet, is not consistent with industry standards and should not be used or applied in this analysis. Further, the Westchester County Department of Public Works also uses the object (oncoming vehicle) height of 3.50 feet. The Applicant's Traffic consultant provided the available ISD for a second scenario, Sight Profile 3, as it is referred to on the Sight Distance Plan, which is based on the correct assumption that both the driver's eye and the object height (an oncoming vehicle) are 3.50 feet above the roadway surface. Sight Profile 3 indicates that an ISD of 385 feet is available to the left from the proposed location of the multi-family residential development driveway. It is assumed that the ISD required is shown on the Site Plan as Sight Profile 2, which indicates that 445 feet ISD is required for vehicles making a left-turn from a STOP at the Site driveway. It should be noted that the required ISD should be based on the 85Lh percentile speed, which is actually 41 miles per hour on this section of North Ridge Street and would therefore result in a required ISD of 455 feet. Table 9-6 "Design Intersection Sight Distance —Case B1, Left Turn from Stop" of the AASHTO Handbook should be interpolated to determine the required ISD. Our opinion remains that the proposed location of the Site access drive does not provide adequate ISD for a multi-family residential development driveway and will not meet criteria typically followed by the NYSDOT and the Village based on the 851h percentile speed of motorists traveling on North Ridge Street (and not the posted speed limit). Our recommendation remains that the Applicant further investigates different locations along the Site frontage to meet the standards noted above. After review of the North Ridge Street profile provided by the Applicant, it appears there are several alternative locations for the proposed multi-family residential development driveway along North Ridge Street that the Applicant's consultant has yet to, and should consider, which could safely accommodate the Site driveway. For example, adequate ISD could potentially be achieved by shifting the multi-family residential development driveway between 60 to 100 feet south along the Site frontage. This has the potential to result in a sight line to the left which is not limited by the vertical curvature of the roadway; however, it should be noted that to accommodate this shift additional vegetation will have to be cleared along the site frontage which is not currently indicate on the Site Plan. As previously stated in Clark Associates memorandum to the Planning Board on May 26, 2016 another alternative that has yet to, and should be considered, is the relocation of the proposed multi-family driveway to the southerly property boundary. This could be achieved by essentially by mirroring the proposed Site Plan. The Applicant's consultant should provide two supplementary Sight Distance Plans that graphically illustrate the ISD available, one to the left on North Ridge Street from a Site Driveway relocated between 60 to 100 feet south of the currently FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE, NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,CONNECTICUT proposed location, and the other showing a Site driveway relocated along the southerly property boundary for review. Stopping Sight Distance Now that the Applicant's Traffic Consultant has completed a detailed survey of North Ridge Street along the entire frontage of the Site and developed profiles of the roadway; they should proceed by graphically illustrating the required and available Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) along the southbound travel lane of North Ridge Street to the location of the existing driveway at 259 North Ridge Street. The assumed height of the driver's eye should be 3.50 feet and the assumed height of the object should be 2.0 feet based on criteria set forth and followed NYSDOT and AASHTO. Since the southbound approach to 259 North Ridge Street is on a downgrade, the grade should be taken into account in the estimation of the required SSD. Findings The Site has significant limitations to provision of adequate ISD for a multi-family residential development driveway and as proposed will not meet criteria typically followed by the NYSDOT and the Village based on the 851h percentile speed of motorists traveling on North Ridge Street. Our recommendation remains that the Applicant further investigates different locations along the Site frontage to meet the standards noted above. The Applicant must also provide a SSD analysis for the southbound North Ridge Street approach to the existing/proposed driveway at 259 North Ridge Street that is consistent with NYSDOT and Village requirements before we can make a final conclusion and recommendation to the Village. Michael A. Galante Executive Vice President Garrett S. Bolella, P.E. Associate/Transportation CC" Honorable Mayor and the Village Board of Trustees Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Michal Nowak, Village Engineer/Superintendent of Public Works Jennifer L. Gray, Esq., Village Attorney Clark Neuringer, R.A. for the Applicant Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E. g:638.630 north ridge street developmentlwordlnrsl6-005.gsb.docx: 8/18/16 3 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION,ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE,NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,CONNECTICUT DAVID H. STOLMAN MEMORANDUM AIEP,F>P —— PRESIDENT MICHAEL A. GALANTE To: Honorable Mayor and the Village Board of Trustees EXECUTIVE VICE PRES;"ENT Date: October 7, 2016 35o THEO.FREMD AVE. RYE,NEW YORK 10580 914 967-6540 Subject: Revised Sight Distance Plan with West Ridge Street FAX:914 967-6615 Intersection Improvements and Emergency Vehicle Access CONNECTICUT Study —North Ridge Street Development —Subdivision, Zoning 203 255-3100 Petition and Site Plan Application, Rye Brook, New York HUDSON VALLEY 845 297-6056 Sight Distance Review LONG ISLAND 516 364-4544 As requested, we reviewed the most recent Sight Distance Plan prepared by Ralph www.fpciark.com G. Mastromonaco, P.E., dated October 4, 2016, which also includes improvements email@fpciark.com to the intersection of West Ridge Street at North Ridge Street, and the Fire Truck Access Study at North Ridge and West Ridge dated October 6, 2016. It is Clark Associates opinion that the Applicant has addressed the majority of issues regarding the adequate provision of sight lines from the proposed driveway to the multi-family development. It should be noted that the Applicant is also willing to make significant safety improvements to the intersection of West Ridge Street at North Ridge Street, at their expense, which would not only benefit the development of the Site, but all roadway users. Since the previous Clark Associates' review memorandum dated September 7, the September 15 Planning Board meeting, and a meeting between the Village and the Applicant on September 20, 2016, the Applicant has revised the Sight Distance Plan, as requested, to improve sightlines by: Shifting the proposed location of the multi-family driveway as close to the northerly property boundary as feasible; Raising the elevation of the driveway to 107.0 feet to increase the height of the driver's eye above North Ridge Street, extending sightlines to the south; Proposing to re-grade the shoulder of the northbound travel lane along the entire site frontage to grant driver's exiting the proposed multi-family development a clear sightline along the inside radius of the horizontal curve of North Ridge Street. A driver will be able to identify a northbound vehicle FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION,ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE,NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,CONNECTICUT (object height of 3.5 feet) on North Ridge Street at 465 south of the re-located driveway looking over the property frontage. Relocating the existing guiderail opposite West Ridge Street 10 feet from the edge of the roadway along the property frontage, so that it does not obstruct driver's sightline to the south and over the property. Clearing the property frontage of foliage, shrubbery and overgrowth will significantly improve sightlines for drivers traversing this curve from both directions along North Ridge Street. Providing a retaining wall along the Right-of-Way line of North Ridge Street to accommodate the relocation of the existing guiderail. Realigning the intersection of West Ridge Street at North Ridge Street to improve driver's sightlines along North Ridge Street from the STOP bar on West Ridge Street and also slow the speeds of northbound vehicles on North Ridge Street. The Village may also consider providing a Westchester County Department of Public Works (WCDPW) driveway warning sign (W2-2) approximately 305 feet south of the proposed location of the multi-family access drive alert drivers traveling northbound on North Ridge Street. As a supplement to the driveway warning sign a WCDPW Radar Speed Display Sign could be provided approximately 200 feet south of the proposed driveway to reduce excessive vehicle speeds along North Ridge Street. It is Clark Associates opinion that the Applicant's revisions to the Site Plan maximize the sightline to the left from the proposed location of the multi-family driveway, resulting in much safer conditions for vehicles exiting the site and traveling northbound on North Ridge Street. Fire Truck Access Study Clark Associates also reviewed the Fire Truck Access Study prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., dated September 23, 2016, which provides fire truck turning templates for a standard design vehicle entering the proposed multi-family development from both the northbound and southbound directions on North Ridge Street and exiting the proposed development to both the north and south on North Ridge Street. The plans indicate that the throat of the proposed driveway will accommodate fire trucks entering and exiting the Site. The fire truck templates graphically illustrate the emergency vehicle exiting the site head first; however, the fire truck is not graphically illustrated turning around within the Site. There remains a concern that a fire truck may not be able to perform a turning maneuver to exit the Site head first as it is depicted on the turning templates. Furthermore, there is some concern that even smaller emergency vehicles and/or sanitation/waste disposal vehicles may have difficulty performing FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION,ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE,NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,CONNUTICUT turning maneuvers within the Site. The Applicant should graphically illustrate ideal turning maneuvers for emergency and other large vehicles, and should consider if necessary, redesigning the layout of the parking lot. Michael A. Galante Executive Vice President Garrett S. Bolella, P.E. Associate/Transportation cc: Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook Michal Nowak, Village Engineer/Superintendent of Public Works Jennifer L. Gray, Esq., Village Attorney Clark Neuringer, R.A. for the Applicant Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E. j:Idocs2150OVye brooM538.630.259 north ridge street.subdivision and site ptan.traffic memo 10 7 16.docm 3 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE,NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,CONNECTICUT DAVID H. STOLMAN MEMORANDUM AicP,PP PRESIDENT MICHAEL A.GALANTE To: Robert I. Goodman, Chairman, and the EXECUTIVE PlanningBoard of the Village of Rye Brook VICE PRESIDENT g y 350 THEW. 10VE. Date. September 7, 2016 RYE,NEW YORK ORK io58o 924 967-6540 FAX:934 967.6615 Subject: In Response to Sight Distance Adequacy — North Ridge Street CONNECTICUT Development — Subdivision, Zoning Petition and Site Plan 55 2 203 -3100 203 55 VALLEY Application, Rye Brook, New York. HUD845 297.6056 LONG ISLAND Continuation of Intersection Sight Distance Review s16 364-4544 www.fpclark.com As requested, we recently reviewed the memorandum regarding Sight Distance Adequacy prepared by Kevin M. Roseman, Traffic Engineer with the Westchester email@fpclark.com County Department of Public Works, dated September 6, 2016, which discusses the latest Sight Distance Plan prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., dated August 19, 2016. Clark Associates is in agreement that while the available Intersection Sight Distance (ISD) looking to the south (left) from the proposed driveway to the multi-family residential development exceeds the required County ISD of 335 feet, it is less than the required based on the operational (85'h percentile) speed of vehicles, found to be 41 miles per hour on this roadway. It should be noted that County ISD evaluations are based on the posted speed limit of the roadway (30 miles per hour) when there is no operational (851h percentile) speed data available. In this particular circumstance, Mr. Mastromonaco provided the 851h percentile speed data for North Ridge Street along the Site frontage at the request of Clark Associates; therefore, it is the data utilized by Clark Associates in the analysis and determination of the required (safe) Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) and ISD along North Ridge Street. This methodology is also utilized by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) in the determination of required sight distances. The section of North Ridge Street along the Site frontage is not typical of the roadway. The existing horizontal alignment of North Ridge Street along the Site frontage warrants "Reverse Curve" (southbound) and "Curve" (northbound) horizontal alignment warning signs with advisory speed plaques for 25 miles per hour along the roadway in addition to Chevron horizontal alignment large arrows to slow and guide motorists. These types of warning signs are typically warranted 1 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION,ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE,NEW YORP FAIRFIELD,COINNECTICUT based on the differential between the recorded speeds (the operational or 851h —percentile speed) of vehicles on North Ridge Street and the recommended (advisory) speed of vehicles based on the geometry (alignment or curvature) of the roadway. Clark Associates is in agreement that the vertical curvature of North Ridge Street along the Site frontage places constraints on access to the property. However, while the currently proposed location of the driveway to the multi-family residential development may have been optimized to provide maximum ISD, it is our opinion that the proposed location of the driveway to this development is not optimally placed. We are in agreement with the Westchester DPW that other, potentially more optimal locations exist; however, we are in disagreement that they cannot be utilized due to environmental constraints. It is our opinion that the Applicant has yet to consider other potential driveway locations which may be more suitable; as they may be able to meet ISD requirements for the operational (8511 percentile) speed of vehicles on the roadway. It is not Clark Associates intention to deny access to the property; however, as the Village's traffic consultant, it is Clark Associates responsibility to ensure the safe provision of vehicular access, specifically, to a County roadway whose ownership is anticipated to be transferred to the Village in the near future. If an alternative access location for the proposed Site that meets NYSDOT and industry standard safety requirements based on the prevailing speed of vehicles on North Ridge Street exists and does not necessitate the need for mitigation along the roadway (for example, radar speed display signs) then the Applicant should evaluate its feasibility. The Applicant should explore all feasible vehicular access locations along the entire Site frontage, prior to the recommendation of off-site mitigation. Michael A. Galante Executive Vice President Garrett S. Bolella, P.E. Associate/Transportation cc: Honorable Mayor and the Village Board of Trustees Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Michal Nowak, Village Engineer/Superintendent of Public Works Jennifer L. Gray, Esq., Village Attorney Clark Neuringer, R.A. for the Applicant Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E. j:Idocs0500 rye brooM538.630.259 north ridge street.subdivision and site ptan.pb traffic memo 9 7 16.docm 9f7/16 2 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE, NEW YORK FAIRFIELD, CONNECTICUT DAVID H. STOLMAN AICP,PP PRESIDENT MEMORANDUM MICHAEL A.GALA EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT To: Robert I. Goodman, Chairman, and the 35o THEO.FREMDA Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook RYE,NEW YORK io 914 967-6540 Date: January 11, 2016 FAX:914 967-661S CONNECTICUT Subject: 259 North Ridge Street— 203 255-3100 Subdivision, Zoning Petition and Site Plan .-applications HUDSON VALLEY 845 297-6056 , LONG ISLAND I We reviewed a three-lot subdivision application, three site plan applications 5i6 364 IS: and a petition to re-zone the proposed Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision into www.fpcIa&c the FAH District submitted by Pawling Holdings, LLC and Louis Larizza, emall®fpda&Com contract vendee, on behalf of the property owner, Daniel Greto, for approval to construct eight units of Fair and Affordable Housing on Lot 1, and one market-rate single-family dwelling on each of the other two new lots (Lot 2 and Lot 3) on property situated at the intersection of West Ridge Drive and North Ridge Street, in the R-15 District and the North Ridge Street Scenic Road Overlay District, Section 135.35, Block 1, Lot 11 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map. Property Description The 3.96-acre (172,620 square-foot) property is partially developed with a one-story single-family home, driveway and curb cut, and a terrace at the back of the home in the rear yard. Behind the home, the lot slopes very steeply to the north east from the elevation of North Ridge Street down to approximately the elevation of the rear yards of homes along Eagles Bluff and Rock Ridge Drive. The site drains down-slope to wetlands located in the woodlands below the existing home and from there into a pipe within a drainage easement across one of the properties on Eagles Bluff. Outside the landscaped area around the home, the lot is naturally wooded, with water courses and wetlands mostly located in areas of lower elevation on the lot. Project Description The Applicant proposes a three-lot subdivision to create two single-family building lots (Lot 2 and Lot 3)that would remain in the R-15 District, and a FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION,ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE, NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,CONNECTICUT third building lot (Lot 1), which would be re-zoned into the Fair and Affordable (FAH) District for development of eight attached, AFFH, single-family homes located in two buildings, and surface parking. The Applicant also submitted a zoning petition for the affordable housing lot (Lot 1), and site plan applications for all three lots. All of the site plans would require approval of wetlands and steep slopes permits. The Board of Trustees, approval authority for the subdivision, zoning petition and the affordable housing lot site plan wants to be Lead Agency for the SEQRA review of the subdivision, zone change and Lot 1 site plan. The Planning Board, an Involved Agency of the SEQRA review is the approval authority for the two market-rate single-family home site plans, and the wetlands and steep slopes permits for all three lots. The subdivision application, and the zoning petition and site plan application for Lot 1 were referred to the Planning Board for a report and recommendations regarding the project on September 24, 2015. Review We reviewed the applications, a zoning petition, preliminary subdivision plat, site plans, correspondence, analyses and supporting materials submitted by the Applicant that include the following items: 1. Short Environmental Assessment Form 2. Subdivision Application 3. Petition to the Board of Trustees to Re-Zone New Lot 1 into the FAH District from Pawling Holdings, LLC, prepared by Clark Neuringer, R.A., Mamaroneck, N.Y., dated May 15, 2015 4. Site Plan Application for new Lot 1 5. Site Plan Applications for new Lots 2 and 3 6. Site Plan Submittal Review Checklists for each site plan application 7. Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment prepared by Tim Miller Associates, Inc., Cold Spring,N.Y., dated October 26, 2015 8. Preliminary Storm Water Report,prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C., Croton-on-Hudson,N.Y., dated October 19, 2015 9. to the Board of Trustees from Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C., Letter Croton-on-Hudson,N.Y., dated September 16, 2015 10."Survey of Property,"prepared by Link Land Surveyors, P.C., Mahopac,N.Y., dated November 20, 2015 11."Preliminary Plat," prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C., Croton-on- Hudson,N.Y., dated July 27, 2015 2 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE, NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,CONNECTICUT 12.Engineer's Plans,prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C., Croton-on- Hudson,N.Y.: Sheet Number Sheet Title Dated 1 of 1 Site Plan Fair Affordable Housing 10/27/2015 1 of 1 Site Plan Lot 2 10/27/2015 1 of 1 Site Plan Lot#3 10/27/2015 13.Architect's Plans, prepared by Clark Neuringer Architect, Mamaroneck,N.Y.: Sheet Number Sheet Title Dated 1 Elevation Building 1 11/11/15 1 Elevation Building 2 11/11/15 1 Elevation Lot#2 11/11/15 1 Elevation Lot#3 11/11/15 Please note that our review is limited to planning, zoning and environmental issues. We have the following comments regarding the applications: 1. Completion of the Applications. The following items, necessary for review of the subdivision, re-zoning of Lot 1, and the FAH and market-rate homes site plans, should be provided by the Applicant: a. A Full EAF and the NYSDEC Mapper Summary Sheet that is generated when the Full EAF is filled out online at the DEC website for verification of the information provided; b. a recent topographic survey of the existing lot; c. a tree survey of the property that complies with the requirements of Chapter 235 of the Village Code; d. a tree survey, and preservation and protection plan for each new lot that complies with the requirements of Chapter 235 of the Village Code; e. analysis regarding the estimated number of school children that would be generated by the development of the three lots; f. analysis of the estimated vehicular traffic that would be generated by development of the three lots; g. sight line analyses for new driveways proposed; h. exterior lighting plan for the affordable housing lot with photometric analysis; i. all elevations of all buildings proposed; j. all floor and basement plans of all buildings proposed; 3 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE, NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,CONNECTICUT k. landscape plans for all three lots; 2. SEQRA Review. An environmental review pursuant to SEQRA is required for the combined action of the subdivision and map amendment to re-zone proposed Lot 1 of the subdivision into the FAH District. The Board of Trustees classified the combined action of the petition and applications as an Unlisted Action, and will circulate a Notice of Intent to be Lead Agency for the review, when the Full EAF is submitted. We believe there may be potential impacts from the proposed project related to the following topics: a. alteration of the land and topography(disturbance of steep slopes); b. soils; c. vegetation and wildlife habitat; d. flooding(stormwater run-off, altered drainage patterns); e. wetlands and water resources; f. transportation (increase in traffic); g. increase in energy use; h. land use, and zoning (zone change for Lot 1 and impacts to the Scenic Road Overlay District); i. community character (including community services and schools, architecture and scale); j. visual impacts related to night lighting(Lot 1 common parking area); and k. construction (increased traffic, impacts to air quality, increased noise, potential erosion and sedimentation,potential for rock removal or blasting, etc.) Review of the subdivision application, the rezoning petition and the site plan applications by the Planning and Village Boards requires information and analysis regarding the topic areas listed above that is adequate for the Lead Agency to make a determination of the significance of any potential impacts uncovered by the SEQRA review. 3. Subdivision Application and Zoning Petition. Review of the proposed three-lot subdivision of the property, the zoning petition and the Lot 1 site plan will require submission of some of the additional information listed in Item 1 of this memorandum. 4. Lot 2 and Lot 3 Site Plan Applications. Review of the two single-family site plan applications will require submission of some of the additional information listed in Item 1 of this memorandum when the site plan applications are pursued by the Applicant. 4 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE, NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,CONNECTICUT 5. Wetlands. Much of the proposed development on the new lots would be located in the wetland buffers of the streams on the property. All three site plans would be required to comply with the regulations in the Village Code,regarding wetlands and wetland buffers for approval of a Wetlands Permit. Loss of wetlands, disturbance of streams, or loss or disturbance of functional buffers from new impervious surfaces and construction should be avoided or minimized to the greatest extent practicable, and if unavoidable, should be mitigated by revision to the site plans or the addition of mitigation measures. 6. Steep Slopes. Much of the development on all three lots would take place on the steep slopes located on the property, and would be required to comply with the regulations regarding steep slopes of the Village Code for approval of a Steep Slopes Work Permit. We recommend that all three site plans be reviewed to ensure that each plan causes the least disturbance practicable to regulated slopes and each plan creates the least amount of new steep slopes or the necessity to utilize large retaining walls. We look forward to discussion with the Planning Board. Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed, ASLA, AICP Senior Associate/Planning/Environment cc: Honorable Mayor and the Village Board of Trustees Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Michal Nowak, Village Engineer/Superintendent of Public Works Jennifer L. Gray, Esq., Village Attorney Clark Neuringer, R.A. for the Applicant Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E. J.•IDOCS215001Rye Brook1538.630.259North Ridge Street Subdivision and Site Plan.PB memo.mtm.docvn 5 y FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION,ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE.NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,CONNECTICUT DAVID H.STOLMAN MEMORANDUM AICP,PP PRESIDENT MICHAEL A-GALANTE To: Robert I. Goodman, Chairman, and the EXECUTIVE Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook VICE PRESIDENT 35o THEO.FREMD AVE. Date: May 26, 2016 RYE,NEW YORK 10590 914 967-6540 FAX-914 967-6615 Subject: Site Access Review — 259 North Ridge Street — CONNECTICUT Subdivision, Zoning Petition and Site Plan Application, 203 255-3100 Rye Brook, New York HUDSON VALLEY 845 297-6056 As requested, we reviewed the Site Plan prepared by Ralph G. LONG ISLAND Mastromonaco, P.E. and a memorandum dated May 4, 2016, summarizing 516 364-4544 results of a traffic counting program, speed analysis along North Ridge www.fpctark.com Street and estimates for site traffic generation. emaitCsfpctark.com In reference to the table provided in the memorandum noted above, the revised information is provided below: CURRENT 85Tu TRAFFIC NEW PERCENTILE WEEKDAY VOLUME SITE SPEED P PEAK HOURS NB SB TRAFFIC NB SB T-0 0 - --406---- - 5 41--- - 4:00 to 5:00 P.M. 241 341 6 41 40 Based on the adjusted current traffic volumes identified on North Ridge Street the increase in traffic due to the proposed development represents an increase in traffic of 0.79 and 1.03 percent for the weekday morning and weekday afternoon peak hours, respectively. Site Access Intersection and Stopping Sight Distance Analysis The Site for the proposed residential development is located on the inside of a horizontal curve of North Ridge Street and is complicated by the vertical alignment of this roadway. In order to provide adequate sight distance of any kind significant clearing of Lots 2 and 3 will be needed to obtain adequate sight distance, if at all. It may also involve regrading and r FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION,ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE,NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,CONNECTICUT removal of the existing guiderail, which further limits sightlines along this section of roadway. It may require removal of the existing home. We understand the Applicant is continuing to analyze intersection and stopping sight distance for the proposed driveways at our request. Based on discussions with the Applicant's Consulting Engineer we noted that for a single-family residential home the criteria set forth and followed by New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and published in AASHTO Handbook, is to use stopping sight distance (SSD). However, intersection sight distance (ISD) is needed for the multi-family development. This represents two different types of criteria and analyses to determine if adequate sight distance is available for each of these driveways. For the single-family residential unit a SSD analysis is appropriate and based on the 85t' percentile speed of motorists traveling on North Ridge Street. SSD represents appropriate distance for motorists traveling both northbound and southbound along the site's frontage to have the ability to observe the driver pulling out of the driveway, react and stop in the travel lane without hitting the exiting vehicle. This criteria is based on the height above grade of the driver's eye at 3.5 feet in the approaching vehicle to an object at the driveway frontage within the travel lane (northbound or southbound) at a height of 2.0 feet. Further, in analyzing SSD the grade of North Ridge Street is part of the analysis. We do not have this specific information; therefore, cannot provide exact measurements. The Applicant must provide detailed profiles of this section of North Ridge Street and indicate actual SSD measurements and how it meets the criteria. An analysis— of SSD was ltr-maces&-d—tive "for only comparison purposes), the existing driveway to 259 North Ridge Street and the proposed third driveway. The results of the analysis indicate the following preliminary conclusions for the Applicant and the Village to consider as this analysis moves forward and the Applicant provides additional information (see Table 1). 1. There is adequate SSD (based on the 85t' percentile speed of vehicles) provided along the northbound travel lane of North Ridge Street to the proposed location of the multi-family development access drive, the existing driveway at 259 North Ridge Street and the proposed driveway for Lot 3. 2. There is adequate SSD provided along the southbound travel lane of North Ridge Street to the proposed location of the multi-family development access drive and the proposed driveway to Lot 3. 2 r FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION,ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE,NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,CONNECTICUT 3. There may not be adequate SSD provided along the southbound travel lane of North Ridge Street to the location of the existing driveway to 259 North Ridge Street. Therefore, the Applicant's Consultant should conduct a detailed survey of North Ridge Street along the entire frontage of the site, develop profiles and plans of the roadway, which graphically illustrate the required and available SSD and indicate where the clear sightlines must be placed on the plan to determine if it is feasible to remove vegetation, or regrade land adjacent to the road or other means to meet these requirements. Note that SSD for the multi-family driveway is only provided for comparison purposes and it is our opinion that intersection sight distance (ISD) should be provided for driveway for more than one residential unit. Table 2 provides an analysis for ISD for the multi-family access drive at the proposed location. The findings of this analysis for ISD include the following: 1. The ISD available to the right (assuming the removal of vehicles parked within the right-of-way) along North Ridge Street from the location of the proposed driveway to the multi-family development is adequate based on the posted and measured speed of vehicles. 2. The ISD available to the left (assuming significant clearing of all vegetation along e site frontage and possib Tgra along Street fi-om the - location of proposed driveway to the multi-family development could be adequate based on the posted speed; however, it is inadequate based on the required 85`h percentile speed of motorists traveling on this roadway. Therefore, the proposed location for site access to the multi-family development does meet the criteria looking to the north toward the Hutchinson River Parkway; however, does not meet the criteria looking to the south on North Ridge Street. The estimated available ISD from this location to the right is over 500 feet. The estimated ISD to the left is approximately 363 feet based on our field measurements. However, the required ISD for left turn movement from this driveway is 455 feet and 385 feet for a right turn movement from this driveway. Therefore, this driveway location clearly does not meet the criteria to provide the required ISD. In each case the Applicant must provide more detailed profiles and plans of these sightlines before we can make a final conclusion and recommendation to the Village. 3 r FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION,ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE, NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,CONNECTICUT Multi-Family Access Drive—Alternate Site Access Drive Locations Options for other driveway locations were investigated for possible access to the multi- family development. One option is to place the driveway onto North Ridge Street at the southerly end of the multi-family development. This would require a significant clearing of Lots 2 and 3 to obtain at least 455 feet of sight distance. This would also involve removing the existing single-family home located on Lot 2. Second option was to place the multi-family development at the same location as the existing home on Lot 2. However, this analysis indicated an ISD to the south of only 400 feet which would not meet the requirements. A third option was to place the multi-family development driveway on Lot 3. In this case it would require the same significant clearing of Lots 3 and 2 and removal of the house to obtain the 455 feet needed looking to the north. Additional data is needed to the south in order to offer a conclusion if adequate ISD is available. In either case significant clearing is necessary on Lots 2 and 3 if the multi-family development access drive was to be relocated. Findings It is our opinion that the site has significant limitations to provide adequate ISD for a multi-family residential development driveway and will not meet the criteria necessary unless the Applicant further investigates different locations along the site frontage to meet the standards noted above. These standards are based on criteria followed by the DOT and the Vi 'age and-- e 85th percentile speed o rotorists traveling on the road and not the posted speed limit. Michael A. Galante Executive Vice President Attachment cc: Honorable Mayor and the Village Board of Trustees Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Michal Nowak, Village Engineer/Superintendent of Public Works Jennifer L. Gray, Esq., Village Attorney Clark Neuringer, R.A. for the Applicant Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E. g:\538.630 north ridge street development\word\nrsl6-003.mag.docx:td 4 Table 1 STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE(SSD)ANALYSIS—NORTH RIDGE STREET North Ridge Street Development Rye Brook,Connecticut NORTHBOUND TRAVEL LANE SOUTHBOUND TRAVEL LANE Distance Required by Distance Required by AASHTO Feet AASHTO Feet Estimated 85th Percentile Speed Estimated 85th Percentile Speed Distance 40.0 MPH Distance 41.0 MPH Available Grade Available Grade LOCATION Feet 0% +3% +6% +9% Feet 0 -3% -6% -9% To Proposed Multi-Family Access Drive 360 305 290 280 270 500+ 315 330 350 370 To 259 North Ridge Street Driveway 325 305 290 280 270 305 315 330 350 370 To Proposed Lot 3 Driveway 320 305 290 280 270 380 315 330 350 370 Sources: 1. Speed Study conducted by the Applicant's Consultant. 2. Field measurements conducted by Frederick P.Clark Associates,Inc.,on Monday,May 23,2016. 3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets"2011 Edition,Chapter 3—4. Notes: 1. The height of the driver's eye was assumed to be 3.5 feet. 2. The height of the object was assumed to be 2 feet. 3. The SSD required was rounded up to the next highest 5-foot increment to be conservative. A design exception is not required if the SSD measured in the field meets the computed value, and, if due to rounding does not achieve the value. 4. Grade adjustments should be provided to account for gravitational forces. The gradient utilized should be based on the longitudinal gradient at the site of brake application. 5. The posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour on North Ridge Street. 6. The 85 h percentile speed was found to be 40 miles per hour northbound and 41 miles per hour southbound along the North Ridge Street Development site frontage. Conclusions: 1. There is adequate SSD (based on the 85'h percentile speed of vehicles) provided along the northbound travel lane of North Ridge Street to the proposed location of the Multi-Family Development access drive, the existing driveway at 259 North Ridge Street and the proposed driveway of Lot 3. 2. There is adequate SSD provided along the southbound travel lane of North Ridge Street to the proposed location of the Multi-Family Development access drive and the proposed driveway of Lot 3. 3. There may not be adequate SSD provided along the southbound travel lane of North Ridge Street to the proposed location of the existing driveway to 259 North Ridge Street. The Applicant's Consultant should conduct a survey of North Ridge Street along and in the vicinity of the North Ridge Street Development property frontage and create a profile and plan of the roadway which graphically illustrates that stopping sight distance and clear sight lines can be obtained. Frederick P.Clark Associates,Inc. G:\538.630 North Ridge Street Development\Word\nrsl6-OOI.gsb.doc: 5/25/16 1 d Table 2 INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE(ISD)ANALYSIS North Ridge Street Development Rye Brook,Connecticut LEFT TURN FROM STOP RIGHT TURN FROM STOP Estimated Estimated Distance Distance Required Feet Distance Distance Required(Feet) Available Available Feet AASHTO Guidelines Feet AASHTO Guidelines Posted Measured Posted Measured Speed Speed Speed Speed INTERSECTION Left Right 30 MPH 41 MPH Left 30 MPH 40 MPH Proposed Multi-Family Access Drive 363 500+ 335 455 363 290 385 at North Ridge Street Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets"2011 Edition,Chapter 9. Notes: North Ridge Street is a two-lane roadway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour in the vicinity of the site. The measured speed of vehicles(851h percentile speed)was obtained from a Speed Study conducted by the Applicant's Consultant from Wednesday,April 13 to Thursday,April 21,2016. The 85`h percentile speed was found to be 40 miles per hour northbound and 41 miles per hour southbound along the North Ridge Street Development site frontage. The ISD requirements are for passenger cars. Required ISD values were rounded up to the nearest 5 feet,to be conservative. Available ISD values were obtained by Frederick P.Clark Associates,Inc. in the field utilizing a measuring wheel. Clark Associates assumed a fair amount of vegetation would be clear from the site frontage in the determination of available ISD. Available ISD was measured based on the location of the driver's eye offset 10 feet from the roadway shoulder line. Applicant should provide profile and plan view of ISD analysis. Conclusion: 1. The ISD available to right (assuming the removal of vehicles parked within the right-of-way) along North Ridge Street from the location of the proposed driveway to the multi-family development is adequate based on the posted and measured speed of vehicles. 2. The ISD available to left (assuming the clearing of all vegetation along the site frontage and possible re-grading) along North Ridge Street from the location of the proposed driveway to the multi-family development is adequate based on the posted speed;however,inadequate based on the speed of vehicles on the roadway. Frederick P.Clark Associates,Inc. gA538.630 north ridge street development\word\nrsl6.002.gsb.docx 5/25/2016 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION,EVVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE,NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,CONNECTICUT DAVID H.STOLMAN MCP,PP PRESIDENT MEMORANDUM MICHAEL A.GALANTE EXECUTIVE To: Robert I. Goodman, Chairman, and the VICE PRESIDENT Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook 35o THEO.FREMD AVE. RYE,NEW YORK io58o 914 967-6540 Date: May 25, 2016 FAX:914 967-6615 CONNECTICUT Subject: 259 North Ridge Street— Zo3 255-3100 Subdivision, Zoning Petition and Site Plan Application HUDSON VALLEY 845 297-6056 LONG ISLAND We reviewed additional information and plans for a three-lot subdivision 5i6 364-4544 application, a site plan application, and a petition to re-zone the proposed Lot www.fpciark.com 1 of the subdivision into the FAH District submitted by Pawling Holdings, email@fpda&com LLC and Louis Larizza, contract vendee, on behalf of the property owner, Daniel Greto, for approval to construct eight units of Fair and Affordable Housing on Lot 1 and subdivide for single-family dwellings on each of the other two new lots (Lot 2 and Lot 3) on property situated at the intersection of West Ridge Drive and North Ridge Street, in the R-15 District and the North Ridge Street Scenic Road Overlay District, Section 135.35, Block 1, Lot 11 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map. Property Description The 3.96-acre (172,620 square-foot) property is partially developed with a one-story single-family home, driveway and curb cut, and a terrace at the back of the home in the rear yard. Behind the home, the lot slopes very steeply to the north east from the elevation of North Ridge Street down to approximately the elevation of the rear yards of homes along Eagles Bluff and Rock Ridge Drive. The site drains down-slope to wetlands located in the woodlands below the existing home and from there into a pipe within a drainage easement across one of the properties on Eagles Bluff. Outside the landscaped area around the existing home, the lot is naturally wooded, with water courses and wetlands mostly located in areas of lower elevation on the lot. Project Description The Applicant proposes a three-lot subdivision to create two single-family FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION,ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE,NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,C04NECTICUT building lots (Lot 2 and Lot 3)that would remain in the R-15 District, and a third building lot (Lot 1), which would be re-zoned into the Fair and Affordable (FAH) District for development of eight attached, AFFH, single-family homes located in two buildings, and surface parking. The Applicant also submitted a zoning petition for the affordable housing lot (Lot 1), and is pursuing the site plan application for this lot. The site plan application would require approval of wetlands and steep slopes permits. The Board of Trustees, approval authority for the subdivision, zoning petition and the affordable housing lot site plan wants to be Lead Agency for the SEQRA review of the subdivision, zone change and Lot 1 site plan. The Planning Board, an Involved Agency of the SEQRA review will be the approval authority for the two market-rate single-family home site plans, and the wetlands and steep slopes permits for all three lots. The subdivision application, and the zoning petition and site plan application for Lot 1 were referred to the Planning Board for a report and recommendations regarding the project on September 24, 2015. Review We reviewed the applications, a zoning petition, preliminary subdivision plat, site plans, correspondence, analyses and supporting materials submitted by the Applicant that include the following items: 1. Full Environmental Assessment Form dated January 7, 2016 2. Application for Subdivision Approval 3. Petition to the Board of Trustees to Re-Zone New Lot 1 into the FAH District from Pawling Holdings,LLC, prepared by Clark Neuringer, R.A., Mamaroneck, N.Y., dated May 15, 2015 4. Application for Site Plan Approval for Lot 1 5. Site Plan Submittal Review Checklist for Lot 1 6. Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment prepared by Tim Miller Associates, Inc., Cold Spring,N.Y., dated October 26, 2015 7. Preliminary Storm Water Report,prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco,P.E., P.C., Croton-on-Hudson,N.Y., dated October 19, 2015 8. Report Memorandum regarding the estimated number of school children generated by development on Lot 1 prepared by RH Consulting, White Plains, N.Y., dated March 16, 2016 9. Traffic Generation Estimates Report and Accident Data,prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C., Croton-on-Hudson,N.Y., dated March 4, 2016 2 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION,ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE,NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,C04NECTICUT 10.Tree Inventory and Mapping for Entire Property prepared by Paul D. Muscariello, Certified Arborist, dated February 2, 2016 11.Tree Inventory and Removal Plan,prepared by Anthony Zaino, RLA, Westchester County Planning Department, dated April 20, 2016 12.Energy and Zoning Memorandum for Lot 1,prepared by Clark Neuringer, R.A., Mamaroneck,N.Y., dated April 8, 2016 13.Lighting Plan for Lot 1,prepared by RAB Lighting,Northvale,N.J., dated March 4, 2016 14.Response Letter to James Natarelli, P.E., DRE from Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C., Croton-on-Hudson,N.Y., dated May 16, 2016 15.Letter to the Board of Trustees from Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C., Croton-on-Hudson,N.Y., dated September 16, 2015 16.Review Memorandum to the Planning Board from Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C.,White Plains,N.Y., dated May 4, 2016 17.Review Memorandum to the Planning Board from Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C.,White Plains,N.Y., dated May 23, 2016 18."Topographical Survey of Property,"prepared by Link Land Surveyors,P.C., Mahopac,N.Y., dated January 15, 2016 19."Preliminary Plat,"prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C., Croton-on- Hudson,N.Y., dated July 27, 2015 20."Fire Truck—Enter Site,"prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C., Croton-on-Hudson,N.Y.,no date 21.Landscape Plan,prepared by Anthony Zaino, RLA,Westchester County Planning Department, dated April 21, 2016 22.Engineer's Plans, prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco,P.E., P.C., Croton-on- Hudson,N.Y.: Sheet Number Sheet Title Dated 1 of 1 Site Plan Fair Affordable Housing 10/27/2015 1 of 1 Sight Lines 4/7/2016 1 of 1 Fire Truck Back Out South 4/7/2016 1 of 1 Fire Truck Back Out North 4/7/2016 1 of 1 Fire Truck in from North 4/7/2016 1 of 1 Fire Truck in from South 4/7/2016 23.Architect's Plans, prepared by Clark Neuringer Architect, Mamaroneck, N.Y.: Sheet Number Sheet Title Dated 1 Front Elevation Buildings land 2 11/11/15 rev. 2/25/16 2 Rear Elevation Buildings 1 and 2 2/3/16 rev. 2/18/16 3 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION,ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE,NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,C04NECTICUT 3 Left Elevation Buildings 1 and 2 2/3/16 rev. 2/18/16 4 Right Elevation Buildings 1 and 2 2/3/16 rev. 2/18/16 5 Foundation—Buildings 1 and 2 2/3/16 rev. 2/18/16 6 First Floor—Buildings 1 and 2 2/3/16 rev. 2/18/16 7 Second Floor—Buildings 1 and 2 2/3/16 rev. 2/18/16 S1 Cross Section through Site 3/11/16 S 1 Cross Section through Site (with Landscape) 3/11/16 S2 Elevations Buildings 1 and 2 3/24/16 Please note that our review is limited to planning, zoning and environmental issues. We have the following comments regarding the applications: 1. Additional Information Needed. The following items, necessary for review of the subdivision, re-zoning of Lot 1, and the FAH site plan, should be provided by the Applicant: a. a tree preservation and protection plan for Lot 1 that complies with the requirements of Chapter 235 of the Village Code; and b. an updated storm water management plan for Lot 1. 2. SEQRA Review. An environmental review pursuant to SEQRA is required for the combined action of the subdivision, map amendment to re-zone proposed Lot 1 into the FAH District and the Lot 1 site plan. The Board of Trustees circulated the Notice of Intent to be Lead Agency on March 18, 2016. 3. Alteration of Land and Topography. Much of the development on each of the three new lots would take place on the steep slopes located on the property, and would be required to comply with the regulations regarding steep slopes of the Village Code for approval of a Steep Slopes Work Permit. We recommend that the site plan for Lot 1 should be designed to ensure that the plan causes the least disturbance practicable to regulated slopes and the vegetation on these slopes, and the creation of the least amount of new steep slopes, or the necessity to utilize large retaining walls. 4. Soils. Based on the information provided in the EAF, the soils on the property should not present issues related to construction. However, the EAF indicates that the average depth to bedrock on the site is 0 to 6 feet, and the survey indicates the presence of rock outcrops on the proposed Lot 1. The Applicant should clarify if blasting or other methods of rock removal will be necessary during construction. If rock removal will be required, the construction management plan should include 4 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION,ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE,NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,C04NECTICUT discussion regarding the potential impacts of rock removal and the mitigation measures for the impacts related to noise, air quality and vibration and compliance with the Rye Brook Village Code and best management practices regarding blasting and/or rock removal. 5. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat. The Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment prepared by Tim Miller Associates indicates that the wetland present on the property is too small to provide adequate cover or unique habitat for wetland dependent plant and animal species, and does not provide habitat for any threatened or endangered species. The EAF Mapper Summary Report data corroborates these conclusions. 6. Flooding. The property contains drainage ways and streams that carry storm water run-off from higher elevations through the property to the wetlands on lower elevations of the site, and off-site, subsurface infrastructure that conveys water storm water downstream. The storm water management plan for each building lot should be designed to prevent downstream flooding while minimizing alteration of the existing drainage patterns entering the site wetlands. 7. Wetlands and Water Resources.Much of the proposed development on the three new lots would be located in the wetland buffers of the wetland, streams and drainage ways on the property. The Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment prepared by Tim Miller Associates indicates that the down-slope wetland currently functions at a high level to protect downstream waters from siltation and sedimentation owing to its ability to trap silt and sediment. The density of the current vegetation provides uptake of nutrients from urban storm water run-off. The high functioning of the wetland should be protected and preserved during, and after construction on the property by thoughtful design of the site and the storm water management system. The site plans for all three lots will be required to comply with the regulations in the Village Code regarding wetlands and wetland buffers for approval of Wetlands Permits. Loss or disturbance of wetlands, disturbance of streams, or loss or disturbance of functional buffers protecting the wetlands should be avoided or minimized to the greatest extent practicable. If disturbance or loss is unavoidable, the loss should be mitigated by modification of the site plans or the addition of appropriate mitigation measures. 8. Transportation. Recently submitted traffic data and sight distance information is being reviewed by our traffic engineers who will provide comments in a separate memorandum to the Planning Board. 5 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION,ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE,NEW YORK FAIRFIELD.C04NECTICUT 9. Increase in Energy Use. Development of the three new lots will increase the demand for local energy resources. However, the project is development of housing, which is generally not a high demand energy use, within an established infrastructure of available energy. The April 8, 2016 memorandum from the Applicant's architect states that the two buildings proposed on Lot 1 will be constructed in conformance with the requirements of the current New York State Energy Code. All appliances will be Energy Star rated, low—energy demand LED fixtures will be installed for night lighting, and the heating systems will be high efficiency gas-fired boilers. 10.Land Use and Zoning. The Proposed Action includes a zone change for Lot 1 from the R-15 District to the Fair and Affordable Housing (FAH) District with regulations allowing the Board of Trustees to waive the underlying dimensional requirements of the R-15 District to develop eight AFFH residential units, which is more units than would otherwise be allowed on Lot 1. However, Lot 1 will be 4 times the size of a 15,000 square-foot minimum-size lot. The affordable housing site plan has four AFFH units in each of two buildings with footprints, building heights and building design that are similar to and compatible with the single-family homes in the area. All three lots will be located within the North Ridge Street Scenic Road Overlay District (SROD), which includes special regulations to help protect the scenic qualities of North Ridge Street that include increased front yard setbacks and 35-foot vegetative buffers along the street frontage. 11.Community Character. The Applicant provided an estimate of the number of schoolchildren that would be generated by development of eight AFFH units and two single-family homes after subdivision of the existing lot. Using data regarding the specific number of students per household to be expected in the Blind Brook School district, multipliers from comparable developments, and assuming that all children from the development will go to public school, the analyses appropriately indicate that three to seven additional school-age children may be expected to enter the local public schools from the ten new residences proposed. The Rye Brook Emergency Services Task Force will review the application with regard to emergency services capacity and access to the new residences. As discussed in Comment 10, the affordable housing site plan includes two buildings with footprints,building heights and building designs that are similar to and compatible with the sizes,heights and building design of single-family homes in the area. 6 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,TRANSPORTATION,ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE,NEW YORK FAIRFIELD.C04NECTICUT 12.Visual Impacts.Night lighting of the common parking area on Lot I may be a source of visual impacts to residences surrounding the lot. The current lighting plan utilizes LED floodlights mounted on 15-foot high poles to light rear-yard walkways and the parking area,which may cause excessive glare to residences downhill, especially in the winter when deciduous trees are leafless. We recommend use of shielded, residential- type light LED fixtures mounted no higher than 12 feet from the ground rather than the security floodlights proposed. 13.Construction. The location and terrain of Lot 1 raise concerns regarding the impacts that may arise during construction. The applicant should expand the construction task schedule provided into a draft construction management and logistics plan. This plan should identify and estimate the impacts of construction on Lot I and explain how these impacts, such as increased traffic, increased demand for parking, construction traffic routing,need for materials storage and staging areas, impacts to air quality, security and safety on the construction site, increased noise, vibration, potential erosion and sedimentation, potential for rock removal or blasting, etc. will be eliminated or mitigated by the construction management plan, compliance with Village Code requirements regarding construction, and by specific best practices to be implemented. We look forward to discussion with the Planning Board. Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed,ASLA, AICP Senior Associate/Planning/Environment cc: Honorable Mayor and the Village Board of Trustees Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Michal Nowak, Village Engineer/Superintendent of Public Works Jennifer L. Gray, Esq., Village Attorney Clark Neuringer, R.A. for the Applicant Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E. J.ID0CS215001Rye Brook1538.630.259 North Ridge Street.Subdivision and Site P1an.Memo3.mtm.docm 7 i 622 STILES AVENUE MAMARONECK NEW YORK 10543 TEL 914 698 8207 FAX 914 698 8208 chnarch@yahoo.com Clark NeuringerArchitect MEMORANDUM DATE: December 12, 2016 FROM: Clark Neuringer, R.A.; NCARB TO: Marilyn Timpone Mohamed, AICP FPC Assoc., Inc. RE: 259 North Ridge Street/ Lazz Development As per our recent conversation of last week, you requested that we update our analysis of the proposed development as a result of the substantial modification that we have made to our original proposal. You requested that we provide as much quantifiable analysis as possible and we have worked with various consultants to obtain information in order to do so. We have also, as you requested, not limit our analysis to comparing the 8 unit versus reduced 5 unit scheme, but rather, provide you with data on a stand-alone basis. We have endeavored to do so and have included some significant data with respect to Village of Rye Brook Code requirements and constraints and have noted significant reductions in what is permitted / allowed compared to what is being proposed (5 unit scheme). I trust this information and data will be helpful to you regarding your preparation of relevant analysis of our reduced proposal. Please note the following: Traffic Generation: Original traffic generation estimates, 8 unit proposal - AM Peak Hour: In - 1 Out- 3 Total- 4 PM Peak Hour: In - 3 Out- 2 Total- 5 Current traffic generation estimates, 5 unit proposal- AM Peak Hour: In - 1 Out- 2 Total- 3 PM Peak Hour: In - 2 Out- 1 Total- 3 Reductions from 8 unit to 5 unit proposal: AM Peak Hour: 25% less PM Peak Hour: 40% less (Source: Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C. 05/04/16 and 12/06/16) MEMORANDUM December 12, 2016 Page 2 School Children: Original estimate, based on proposed 8 unit development- 3 to 7 public school students (pss) Current estimate, based on proposed 5 unit development- 2.6 to 5 pss Reductions from 8 unit to 5 unit proposal: 13% to 28% less (Source: Richard Hyman , 03/16/16 and 12/06/16) Building Coverage of Site: Area of proposed building footprint (5 units): 3,152 s.f Area of Site, Lot 1: 60,417 s.f Permitted coverage, R15 Zone District: 16% or 9,666 s.f. Proposed coverage: 5.2% or 3,152 s.f Reduction from permitted to proposed: 67% Impervious Coverage: Area of Site, Lot 1: 60,417 s.f. Permitted Maximum Impervious Coverage: 15,751 s.f. Proposed Impervious Coverage (5 unit scheme)11,681 s.f. Reduction from permitted to proposed: 25.8% Permitted Maximum Impervious Coverage, Front Yard, R15 Zone District: 35% Proposed Maximum Impervious Coverage, Front Yard, R15 Zone District: 24% Reduction from permitted to proposed: 31.7% Maximum Gross Floor Area: Area of Site, Lot 1: 60,417 s.f. R15 Zone District, Permitted GFA: 8,435 s.f. Proposed GFA (5 unit scheme) 6,304 s.f. Reduction from permitted to proposed: 25.2% We should note that, in response to concerns raised by the BOT, there have been notable reductions made comparing our original development proposal and our modified scheme. Some key reduction aspects are: 1- Total number of residential units reduced 37%, from 8 to 5 attached homes. 2- Number of buildings reduced 50% from 2 buildings to 1 building. 3- Number of parking spaces reduced 41%from 22 to 14 spaces. 4- Linear footage of retaining walls reduced 44% 5- Linear footage of driveway reduced 73% MEMORANDUM December 12, 2016 Page 3 Regarding other site development aspects related to your continuing reviews, we refer you to our June 29, 2016 memo to the Planning Board in which we commented on many issues related to the ongoing SEQRA review. Although the proposed site development plan in question at the time represented two structures of 4 units each, many of the items we commented on then are still relevant regarding our current modified proposal of one structure of 5 units. Some of those items we addressed that will not significantly change are: 1- Rock removal: As previously stated and based on current information, we do not have intention of removing significant rock from the site. 2- Wetlands: We will be appearing in front of the Planning Board to further review and discuss issues related to the wetland buffer and steep slopes. There will be no activity at all within designated and mapped wetlands. 3- Site Lighting: We have previously addressed concerns raised and are specifying a residential type light fixture with downward light distribution and with the heads mounted on shorter poles. 4- Construction: We previously stated that under no circumstances will North Ridge Street be utilized for any aspect of construction staging. We further described sequence of operations with respect to delivery and installation of the off-site pre- fabricated modular units and their erection upon delivery to the site. Such activities will take place completely on-site. The nature of the proposed modified 5 unit development proposal is such that the parking area will provide a perfect staging and construction area for the location of the crane and related equipment. 5- Energy: We previously noted that the proposed structure will be constructed in conformance with energy code requirements of NYS; will be equipped with state of the art highly efficient gas fired condensing boiler(s); and will use Energy Star equipment/ appliances. Respectfully, Clark Neuringer, R.A.; NCARB for Lazz Development, LLZ cc: Mayor and Board of Trustees Christopher Bradbury Michael Izzo Michael Nowak Jennifer Gray, Esq. Steve Feinstein, Esq. Ralph Mastromonaco, P.E. Lou Larizza a 622 STILES AVENUE MAMARONECK NFW YORK 10543 TEL 914 698 8207 FAX 914 698 8208 chnarch@yahoo.com Clark NeuringerArchitect MEMORANDUM DATE: December 2, 2016 FROM: Clark Neuringer. R.A.; NCARB . TO: Marilyn Timpone Mohamed FPC Assoc. RE 259 North Ridge Street. Rye Brook Attached is a revised site plan application and revised EAF, both dated November 23. 2016, as per your request in your email of November 181h We would like to offer response to the three comments as contained in your email to us. Please note the following: 1 — Our proposed development of Lot 1 for Fair and Affordable Housing is predicated on crafting a feasible scheme with respect to the environment and basic development economics. As noted in your email, we have indeed reduced the number of buildings and unit density. We have also reduced — significantly — every other aspect of the proposed site development as compared to our original submission. The 37% reduction in number of units proposed —from 8 to 5 — is substantial and further reductions would not be economically feasible. We cannot craft a economically viable project involving the total site with less than 5 FAH units and two single family market rate units as shown on our submitted modified site plan. Similarly, it would not be feasible for us to construct two smaller buildings for a number of reasons, including our determination that the overall site plan would not work and it would also be economically infeasible with only 5 units. As we mentioned during our November 18" presentation of the BOT, the proposed single building containing 5 FAH units is only approximately 6 feet longer than the existing house on the property. Although currently one story, that house is proposed to be renovated into a 2 '/2 story house compatible with many single family houses in the area. We do not believe our proposed 5 unit building will in any way be out of character with the neighborhood. Our understanding of the FAH zoning code law passed by the village does not at all limit creation of such units to one and two family homes. The law specifically permits creation of multi-family dwellings. Our proposal of a 5 unit building complies with appropriate sections of the zoning code and no variances are required. Simply stated, we believe the FAH zoning code provision contemplates a building structure exactly of the type we have designed. We also believe that our design of the building creating the appearance of one large single family home is wholly appropriate with respect to overall surrounding homes. Our building design is not a series of individual attached townhomes. MEMORANDUM December 2. 2016 Page 2 2 —As we described during our November 18`_ presentation, our entire proposed site plan development will be situated lower than the existing street bed of North Ridge Street. We believe this fact alone will substantially reduce possible visual impact along North Ridge Street. The building structure will appear to be noticeably less than 2 112 stories tall from the street and the parking area will essentially not be noticeable, being located lower than the street and visually shielded with significant planting buffers. As you've noted, our modified site plan certainly reduces significantly topographical impacts of the site and visual impacts to all neighbors adjacent to the rear of Lot 1, and there are no increased impacts to residential neighbors to the north of Lot 1. Our modified site plan delineates extensive use of fencing and landscaping to eliminate visual contact with the small parking area and effectively eliminating any spill light from autos entering or leaving the site. As mentioned. we believe there are no increased visual impacts to North Ridge Street and any that might have been of concern have been noticeably reduced. Conceivably, we can shift the location of the modified site plan location of the building and parking areas further east, away from North Ridge Street, thereby increasing the front yard distance. But that would only bring the proposed development deeper into the site, closer to steep slopes, requiring greater retaining wall construction and closer to residential neighbors adjacent to the rear of Lot 1. We believe the tradeoffs involved, especially with the proposed site development being notably lower than North Ridge Street firmly support our proposed plan development location as shown on our modified site plan. With respect to the suggestion — again — of incorporating garages within the basements of the individual units, we have fully explored this prior suggestion and determined it is simply not feasible. We prepared drawings to illustrate our conclusion demonstrating that the unit widths would not permit viable garages. As to the suggestion of increasing the widths of the units, aside from the overall notable increased in costs that would be a result of a significant increase in overall square footage of the units, it would increase the length of the new structure by approximately 15 feet from what we have currently proposed. We are fairly sure such a proposal would not be well received. With respect to the suggestion of eliminating the interconnecting stair between the walk-out basements and the first residential floor. we would not propose creation of what we think would be sub-standard residential living units, forcing homeowners to walk from their lower level garage outdoors, from the rear of their unit, around the building, up a full level to get to their front door. We don't think this would be considered viable as part of a market rate development and we do not believe it should be considered as part of a middle income development. It is not appropriate residential design. As to the suggestion of the concept of tandem parking in a basement garage, that would eliminate all possible use of walk-out basement areas for storage or future recreation space. The units proposed have no usable attic space or basement space other than what we've shown. To contemplate a 2 bedroom residential unit without the possibility of any storage would not be acceptable to us or to the market. 3 — As we understand the suggestion relating to our proposed 13 car parking area. creating smaller parking lots in conjunction with suggested garages would have the inevitable impact of creating additional impermeable surface further east into the Lot 1 property than what we have reduced our scheme to. We do not believe that would be advisable or readily accepted. If the smaller suggested parking areas were not accessed by a rear driveway and were accessed directly from North Ridge Street, there would be a severe reduction of critical sight line distances along North Ridge Street. The traffic consultant to the village was very concerned about a possible 20 foot reduction in site line distance. MEMORANDUM December 2, 2016 Page 3 Entering the site from any point other than what we show on our proposed site plan would increase that deficiency to potentially in excess of 100 feet. We do not believe that would be accepted. There is reference to a suggestion to make the parking area similar to a small parking court for a single family lot. But our proposed building, although designed to look like a large single family home is a structure incorporating 5 individual residential units and within a single building. It would be inefficient use of the land to have one single building and multiple parking areas on either side, all accessed from a single driveway located at the northern edge of the property to maximize sight line distances, thereby increasing notably impervious surface areas. We want to reiterate that all aspects and possible impacts of our modified site plan represent a significant reduction to what was contained within our original scheme. With respect to analysis and discussions of impacts. FPC Assoc. issued final memos to the Planning Board indicating many areas of acceptance and positive aspects of our original proposal. Our modified proposal is less in every respect. Impacts — if any - are noticeably reduced. As such. we believe the modified site plan is rational and highly responsive to comments made by the BOT. We have worked very hard to completely redo our proposed development design and produced the modified scheme in approximately 45 days, including all drawings and analysis. We completed our storm water design and had it submitted to the village consulting engineer. Comments between them and our site engineer have been ongoing and we fully expect resolution of all related storm water issues shortly. At that time, we will have a full and complete application in front of the BOT. We are therefore looking forward to further discussion with the Board at the forthcoming December 181h BOTY meeting. We are also looking forward to discussions with the Planning Board regarding Steep Slopes and Wetland Buffer matters at the December 8" meeting. Respectfully, Clark Neuringer, R.A.: NCARB for Lazz Development. LLC cc: Chris Bradbury Michael Nowack Lou Larizza Print Page 1 of 2 Subject: RE: 259 north ridge street From: Marilyn Timpone Mohamed (MTMohamed@fpclark.com) To: chnarch@yahoo.com: Cc: cbradbury@ryebrook.org, loulazz@aol.com, MNowak@ryebrook.org; Date: Friday, November 18, 2016 155 PM Clark: We are reviewing the items submitted so far to provide planning comments. As you must be aware, you already received traffic and site access comments from us regarding the revised site plan in our November 3, 2016 memorandum to the Trustees. Regarding the revised site plan, we need a revised EAF, revised site plan application and revised supporting documents, analysis and information that is specific to the revised site plan to continue the review. However, before that happens, we have preliminary comments related to provision of a revised site plan that responds more directly to the comments from the Board members and the public: 1. Although the number of buildings and the unit density on the site is reduced in the revised site plan, the size of the single building on the site has been increased by adding the fifth unit. Comments regarding the original site plan indicated that the original buildings were considered to be too large and out of character with the neighborhood. We recommend considering a reduction in the number of units proposed or breaking up the units into two smaller buildings. 2. The site is located on the North Ridge Street Scenic Road, which raises concerns regarding the location of the 13-car parking area and the trash storage location in the front yard of the lot only 25 feet from the property line. While the new site plan reduces impacts to the topography of the site and visual impacts to neighbors adjacent to the rear of Lot 1, it increases impacts to the Scenic Road and neighbors to the west of the site. We continue to recommend revising the building plans to include garages in the basements of the units. It may mean adding 1 to 2 feet of width to each of the units; though it seems to us that may not be necessary if the entry and stair hall on the basement level are redesigned or eliminated. As has been pointed out by the Planning Board, and at least one of the Trustees,this would allow a reduction in the amount of surface parking proposed. At the proposed 40-foot unit length, with an open basement plan, it would be possible to park two cars in tandem in the basement, if a resident desired. This would potentially eliminate the need for 10 surface parking spaces. 3. Following on Comment 2, we recommend reconsidering the location of any remaining surface parking by perhaps breaking it up into two smaller parking areas, perhaps located on either side of the building, which could be moved further north on the site. The parking spaces could be located directly adjacent to and perpendicular to an extended driveway servicing the garages at the rear of the building (s). That type of parking area of two, three or four cars is visually more like parking in a parking court on a single family lot than the 13-car lot proposed, and would locate the parking areas further away from the Scenic Road. And from a quick sketch and grading analysis, we believe it could be done without creating additional topography and visual impacts down-slope to the east. https:Hmg.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=bgdOm23n31 ndg Print Page 2 of 2 Regards, Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed, ASLA, AICP Senior Associate/Planning/Environmental FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES PLANNING TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye,New York 10580 Voice 914 967-6540 Fax 914 967-6615 mtmohamed@fpclark.com -----Original Message----- From: clark neuringer [mailto:chnarch@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday,November 16, 2016 11:36 AM To: Marilyn Timpone Mohamed Cc: cbradbury@ryebrook.org; lou larizza Subject: 259 north ridge street, Marilyn, As we stated at our November 8th presentation to the Board of Trustees, we have completed all work relating to our amended site plan application. To date, we have not received any comments regarding additional submission requirements, if any. We are of course awaiting final comments from Dolph Rotfeld regarding our completed storm water design and we trust that all his comments will be forthcoming quickly and well in advance of the December 13th BOT meeting so that we have adequate time to respond, as may be required. Should FPC have any comments, we would appreciate them as soon as possible so that we may have adequate time to respond to them prior to the meeting. Thank you for your continued assistance in making this important residential development a successful reality. Sincerely, Clark Neuringer, R.A; NCARB for Lazz Development LLC Sent by an iArchitect https:Hmg.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=bgdOm23n3l ndg BUILDING DEPARTMENT VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 KING STREET RYE BROOK,NY 10573 (914)939-0668 FAX(914)939-5801 w ww.n ebrook.orLy FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: BOT Approval Date: PB Approval Date: BOT Disapproval Date: PB Disapproval Date: Attach Resolution Hereto: ROT[ J PB( J ZRA[ J Chairman: SITE PLAN FEE: DATE PAID: ENVIRONMENTAL FEE: DATE PAID: OTHER: PRELIMINARY FOR LOT 1 OF NORTH RIDGE STREET SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL Submission of this application does not assure placement on any Planning Board Agenda.The Applicant will be notified of such placement This application references but is not limited to the following sections of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook;§250 ZONING.§209 SITE PLAN REVIEW,§235 TREES, §107 DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS,§224 SWIMMING POOLS,§121 EXCAVATION&TOPSOIL REMOVAL,§1 18 EROSION& SEDIMENT CONTROL,§213 STEEP SLOPES PROTECTION,§219 SUBDIVISION OF LAND, §250-40 NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.Applicants and their Design Professionals are strongly ad%ised to reviev,the above mentioned code sections online at. tiv�s.r4rbrook.ora prior to completing andior submitting this application. APPLICATION FEE SCHEDULE: Residential Dwellings- S325,plus S200 per additional dwelling unit. Non-Residential Buildings - $475 plus S30 per parking space. Planned Unit Development-$575 per acre PUD Amendment- 5300 Site Plan Amendment- S575 Wetlands& Watercourse- S1,150 Consultant Review(Escrow)Fee: Minimum fee$250-maximum fee$2,500,to be determined by the Village Engineer. •ipplic union/its urenun-r•rpmdtrhl.'. 77rc rtpplic•unt's F..�cru,r.-0t c Hunt mtest hove a pn.cuire halancr ut<rll tine%s prior to miv i<rncuhnnf..-lttorne�.rn {7/hr,�r reviety. F.scroH Fecs and Site Plan Fees must be paid on svparatc checks inside pavable ro the hilkrize of Rve Brook. ff#f##ffff###f#ff###f#f####################f###########################################*################### LOT 1, FAH - REVISED NOVEMBER 23, 2016 1. Site Address: 259 North Ridge Street ParcelID#: 135-35-1-11 Zone: R-15 2. Property Owner: Dan Greto Address: 209 Central Avenue Rye, NY 10580 E-Mail: Tel. #: 914-447-4444 Other: 3. Applicant: Lou Larizza Address: 8 Hilltop Avenue Port Chester, NY 10573 E-Mail: Tel.#: 914-879-7905 Other: 4. Design Professional: Ralph G_ Mastromonaco, P_E., P.C. Address: 13 Dove Court Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 E-Mail: Tel.#: 914-271-4762 Other: 5. Designate to whom correspondence is to be sent: Applicant, Lou Larizza Lute: It applicant is a"Contract Vcridec-,picasc at(ach a ck-py of the contract stunniary\kith tirtancial and confidential lernls deletelt. REVISED 8/10/15 6. Street which property abuts: North Ridge Street at West Ridge Drive 7. Does property connect directly into State or County highway? (X)NO ( )YES: 8. Is site within 500 feet of Village Boundary?(X)NO ( )YES if yes note all bordering municipalities: 9. Total area of site: 60,417 SF , 1,3 Acres Area of site activity: 30290 SF 10. Site coverage: 23% (Impervious coverage) %; Building coverage: 5 I.I. Existing building size: N/A New/additional building size: 3150 S.F. 12. Existing parking spaces: 0 New parking spaces: 13 13. Nature of proposed activity: To construct five (5) units of Fair and Affordable Housing Please note that this application must include the notarized signature(s) of the legal owner(s) of the above-mentioned property, in the space provided below. Any application not bearing the legal property owner's notarized signature(s) shall be deemed null and void, and will be returned to the applicant. STATE OF NEW YORK,COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) as: (print name of individual signing as the applicant) being duly sworn,deposes and states that he/she is the applicant above named, and further states that (s)he is the legal owner of the property to which this application pertains, or that (s)he is the (indicate architect,contractor,agent,attorney.etc.) for the legal owner and is duly authorized to make and file this application. That all statements contained herein are true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, and that any work performed,or use conducted at the above captioned property will be in conformance with the details as set forth and contained in this application and in any accompanying approved plans and specifications,as well as in accordance with the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention &Building Code,the Code of the Village of Rye Brook and all other applicable laws,ordinances and regulations. Sworn to before me this Sworn to before me this day of , 20 day of , 20 Notary Public Notary Public Signature of Property Owner Signature of Applicant Print Name of Property Owner Print Name of Applicant RE\ISED B/10/15 Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I-Project and Setting Instructions for Completing Part 1 Part 1 is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review,and may be subject to fiuther verification. Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item,please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information;indicate whether missing information does not exist, or is not reasonably available to the sponsor;and,when possible,generally describe work or studies which would be necessary to update or fully develop that information. Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A&B. In Sections C,D&E.most items contain an initial question that must be answered either"Yes"or"No". If the answer to the initial question is"Yes",complete the sub-questions that follow. If the answer to the initial question is"No",proceed to the next question. Section F allows the project sponsor to identify and attach any additional information. Section G requires the name and signature of the project sponsor to verify that the information contained in Part I is accurate and complete. A.Project and Sponsor Information. Name of Action or Project: North Ridge Street Subdivision Project Location(describe,and attach a general location map): 259 North Ridge Street,Rye Brook,NY 10573 Brief Description of Proposed Action(include purpose or need): Project is to subdivide a 3.96 acre property in the R-15 zoning district and the Scenic Road Overlay District into three(3)lots. Lot#1 is proposed for five(5)units of Fair and Affordable Housing. Lot#2 contains an existing single family dwelling that is to be refurbished. Lot#3 is proposed for a new single family dwelling. Name of Applicant/Sponsor: Lou Larizza,Contract Vendee Telephone: 914 879-7905 E-Mail: Address: 8 Hiltop Drive City/PO: port Chester State: New York Zip Code: 10573 Project Contact(if not same as sponsor;give name and title/role): Telephone: Address: E-Mail: City/PO: State: Zip Code: Property Owner (if not same as sponsor): Daniel J.Greto Telephone: 914-067s892 Address: E-Mail: 209 Central Avenue City/PO: Rye State: New York Zip Code: 10580 Page 1 of 13 B.Government Approvals B.Government Approvals,Funding,or Sponsorship. ("Funding"includes grants,loans,tax relief,and anv other forms of financial assistance.) Government Entity If Yes: Identify Agency and Approval(s) Application Date Required (Actual or projected) a.City Council,Town Board, OYes❑No Zoning Map Amendment September 25,2015 or Village Board of Trustees Subdivision Approval b.City,Town or Village ®Yes❑No Review and recommendation to Village Board September 25.2015 Planning Board or Commission of Trustees c.City Council,Town or ❑Yes❑No Village Zoning Board of Appeals d.Other local agencies ❑YesONo e.County agencies ®Yes❑No WCDH Subdivision Plat Approval County Road Permit f.Regional agencies ❑Yes®No g.State agencies ❑YesONo h.Federal agencies ❑YesONo i. Coastal Resources. i. Is the project site within a Coastal Area,or the waterfront area of a Designated Inland Waterway? ❑YesONo ii. Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program? ❑YesONo iii. Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area? ❑YesONo C.Planning and Zoning C.l.Planning and zoning actions. Will administrative or legislative adoption,or amendment of a plan,local law,ordinance,rule or regulation be the ❑YesONo only approval(s)which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed? • If Yes,complete sections C,F and G. • If No,proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part 1 C.2.Adopted land use plans. a.Do any municipally-adopted (city,town,village or county)comprehensive land use plan(s)include the site OYes❑No where the proposed action would be located? If Yes,does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action ❑YesONo would be located? b. Is the site of the proposed action within any local or regional special planning district(for example: Greenway ❑YesONo Brownfield Opportunity Area(BOA);designated State or Federal heritage area;watershed management plan; or other?) If Yes,identify the plan(s): c. Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan, ❑YesONo or an adopted municipal farmland protection plan? If Yes.identify the plan(s): Page 2 of 13 C.3. Zoning a. Is the site of the proposed action located in a municipality with an adopted zoning law or ordinance. 0 Yes❑No If Yes,what is the zoning classification(s)including any applicable overlay district? R-15 zoning district and the Scenic Road Overlay District b. Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit? 0Yes❑No c.Is a zoning change requested as part of the proposed action? 0 Yes❑No If Yes, i. What is the proposed new zoning for the site? Lot#1 to be rezoned from the R-15 District to the Fair and Affordable Housing District(FAH) CA.Existing community,services. a. In what school district is the project site located? Blind Brook Scholl District b.What police or other public protection forces serve the project site'? Village of Rye Brook c. Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site? Village of Rye Brook d.What parks serve the project site? Rich Manor Park,Pine Ridge Park, Crawford Park D.Project Details D.I.Proposed and Potential Development a.What is the general nature of the proposed action(e.g..residential.industrial,commercial,recreational; if mixed,include all components)? Residential b.a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? 3.96 acres b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? 1.25 acres c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? 3.96 acres c. Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or use? ❑YesO No i. If Yes,what is the approximate percentage of the proposed expansion and identify the units(e.g.,acres,miles,housing units, square feet)? % Units: d. Is the proposed action a subdivision,or does it include a subdivision? OYes❑No If Yes, i. Purpose or type of subdivision?(e.g.,residential, industrial,commercial;if mixed.specify types) Residential ii. Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed? ❑Yes ONo iii.Number of lots proposed? 3 iv. Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes? Minimum 1.1 Acres Maximum 1.a Acres e.Will proposed action be constructed in multiple phases? ❑YesONo i. If No,anticipated period of construction: 6 months ii. If Yes: • Total number of phases anticipated • Anticipated commencement date of phase 1 (including demolition) month year • Anticipated completion date of final phase month _year • Generally describe connections or relationships among phases,including any contingencies where progress of one phase may determine timing or duration of future phases: Page 3 of 13 f.Does the project include new residential uses? OYes❑No If Yes,show numbers of units proposed. One Family Two Family Three Family Multiple Family four or more Initial Phase 10 At completion of all phases 10 g.Does the proposed action include new non-residential construction(including expansions)? ❑YesONo If Yes, i.Total number of structures ii. Dimensions(in feet)of largest proposed structure: height; width; and length id. Approximate extent of building space to be heated or cooled: square feet h.Does the proposed action include constriction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any ❑YesONo liquids,such as creation of a water supply,reservoir,pond, lake,waste lagoon or other storage? If Yes, i. Purpose of the impoundment: ii. If a water impoundment,the principal source of the water: ❑Ground water❑Surface water streams[]Other specify: iii. if other than water,identify the type of impounded/contained liquids and their source. iv.Approximate size of the proposed impoundment. Volume: million gallons;surface area: acres v. Dimensions of the proposed dam or impounding structure: height; length vi. Construction method/materials for the proposed dam or impounding structure(e.g.,earth fill,rock,wood,concrete): D.2. Project Operations a. Does the proposed action include any excavation,mining,or dredging,during construction,operations,or both? ❑YesRJNo (Not including general site preparation,grading or installation of utilities or foundations where all excavated materials will remain onsite) If Yes: i.What is the purpose of the excavation or dredging? ii. How much material(including rock,earth,sediments,etc.)is proposed to be removed from the site? • Volume(specify tons or cubic yards): • Over what duration of time? iii. Describe nature and characteristics of materials to be excavated or dredged,and plans to use,manage or dispose of them. iv. Will there be onsite dewatering or processing of excavated materials? Yes No If yes,describe. V. What is the total area to be dredged or excavated? acres vi. What is the maximum area to be worked at any one time? acres vii. What would be the maximum depth of excavation or dredging? feet viii. Will the excavation require blasting? ❑Yes❑No ix. Stunmarize site reclamation goals and plan: b.Would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of,increase or decrease in size of,or encroachment ❑YeseNo into any existing wetland,waterbody,shoreline,beach or adjacent area? If Yes: i. Identify the wetland or waterbody which would be affected(by name,water index number,wetland map number or geographic description): Page 4 of 13 ii. Describe how the proposed action would affect that waterbody or wetland,e.g.excavation,fill,placement of structures,or alteration of channels,banks and shorelines. Indicate extent of activities,alterations and additions in square feet or acres: iii. Will proposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments? ❑Yes❑No If Yes,describe: iv. Will proposed action cause or result in the destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation? ❑Yes❑No If Yes: • acres of aquatic vegetation proposed to be removed: • expected acreage of aquatic vegetation remaining after project completion: • purpose of proposed removal(e.g.beach clearing•invasive species control,boat access): • proposed method of plant removal: • if chemical/herbicide treatment will be used,specify product(s): v.Describe any proposed reclamation/mitigation following disturbance: c.Will the proposed action use,or create a new demand for water? ®Yes❑No If Yes: i. Total anticipated water usage/demand per day: 000 gallons/day ii. Will the proposed action obtain water from an existing public water supply? ❑Yes❑No If Yes: • Name of district or service area: united water Westchester • Does the existing public water supply have capacity to serve the proposal? 0 Yes❑No • Is the project site in the existing district? 0 Yes❑No • Is expansion of the district needed? ❑YesO No • Do existing lines serve the project site? 0 Yes❑No iii. Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to supply the project? ❑Yes ONo If Yes: • Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: • Source(s)of supply for the district: iv. Is a new water supply district or service area proposed to be formed to serve the project site? ❑ YesONo If,Yes: • Applicant/sponsor for new district: • Date application submitted or anticipated: • Proposed source(s)of supply for new district: v. If a public water supply will not be used,describe plans to provide water supply for the project: vi. If water supply will be from wells(public or private),maximum pumping capacity: gallons/minute. d. Will the proposed action generate liquid wastes? OYes❑No If Yes: i. Total anticipated liquid waste generation per day: 1.000 gallons/day H. Nature of liquid wastes to be generated(e.g.,sanitary wastewater.industrial: if combination,describe all components and approximate volumes or proportions of each): Sanitary watewater iii. Will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities? OYes❑No If Yes: • Name of wastewater treatment plant to be used: Blind Brook wastewater Treatment Plant • Name of district: Bind Brook Sewer District • Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project? OYes❑No • Is the project site in the existing district? OYes❑No • Is expansion of the district needed? ❑YesONo Page 5 of 13 • Do existing sewer lines serve the project site? OYes❑No • Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to serve the project? ❑Yes❑No If Yes: • Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: iv. Will a new wastewater(sewage)treatment district be formed to serve the project site? ❑YesONo If Yes: • Applicant/sponsor for new district: • Date application submitted or anticipated: • What is the receiving water for the wastewater discharge? v. If public facilities will not be used,describe plans to provide wastewater treatment for the project,including specifying proposed receiving water(name and classification if surface discharge,or describe subsurface disposal plans): vi.Describe any plans or designs to capture,recycle or reuse liquid waste: e. Will the proposed action disturb more than one acre and create stormwater runoff,either from new point ❑YesONo sources(i.e.ditches,pipes,swales,curbs,gutters or other concentrated flows of stormwater)or non-point source(i.e.sheet flow)during construction or post construction? If Yes: i. How much impervious surface will the project create in relation to total size of project parcel? Square feet or acres(impervious surface) Square feet or acres(parcel size) ii. Describe types of new point sources. iii. Where will the stormwater runoff be directed(i.e.on-site stormwater management facility/structures,adjacent properties, groundwater,on-site surface water or off-site surface waters)? • If to surface waters,identify receiving water bodies or wetlands: • Will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties? ❑Yes[]No iv. Does proposed plan minimize impervious surfaces,use pervious materials or collect and re-use stormwater? ❑)'cs❑No £ Does the proposed action include,or will it use on-site,one or more sources of air emissions,including fuel ❑YesONo combustion,waste incineration,or other processes or operations? If Yes,identify: i.Mobile sources during project operations(e.g.,heavy equipment,fleet or delivery vehicles) ii. Stationary sources during construction(e.g.,power generation,structural heating,batch plant,crushers) iii. Stationary sources during operations(e.g.,process emissions,large boilers,electric generation) g. Will any air emission sources named in D.2.f(above),require a NY State Air Registration,Air Facility Permit, ❑YesONo or Federal Clean Air Act Title IV or Title V Permit? If Yes: i. Is the project site located in an Air quality non-attainment area? (Area routinely or periodically fails to meet ❑Yes❑No ambient air quality standards for all or some parts of the year) ii. In addition to emissions as calculated in the application,the project will generate: • Tons/year(short tons)of Carbon Dioxide(CO2) • Tons/year(short tons)of Nitrous Oxide(N,O) • Tons/year(short tons)of Perfluorocarbons(PFCs) • Tons/year(short tons)of Sulfur Hexafluoride(SF6) • Tons/year(short tons)of Carbon Dioxide equivalent of Hydroflourocarbons(HFCs) • Tons/year(short tons)of Hazardous Air Pollutants(HAPs) Page 6 of 13 h.Will the proposed action generate or emit methane(including,but not limited to,sewage treatment plants, E1YesRNo landfills,composting facilities)? If Yes: i. Estimate methane generation in tons/year(metric): ii.Describe any methane capture,control or elimination measures included in project design(e.g.,combustion to generate heat or electricity,flaring): i.Will the proposed action result in the release of air pollutants from open-air operations or processes,such as ❑Yes®No quarry or landfill operations? If Yes:Describe operations and nature of emissions(e.g.,diesel exhaust,rock particulates/dust): j.Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial ❑Yes®No new demand for transportation facilities or services? If Yes: i. When is the peak traffic expected(Check all that apply): ❑Morning ❑Evening ❑Weekend ❑Randomly between hours of to ii. For commercial activities only,projected number of semi-trailer truck trips/day: iii. Parking spaces: Existing Proposed Net increase/decrease iv. Does the proposed action include any shared use parking? ❑Yes❑No v. If the proposed action includes any modification of existing roads,creation of new roads or change in existing access,describe: vi. Are public/private transportation service(s)or facilities available within %2 mile of the proposed site? ❑Yes❑No vii Will the proposed action include access to public transportation or accommodations for use of hybrid,electric ❑Yes❑No or other alternative fueled vehicles? viii.Will the proposed action include plans for pedestrian or bicycle accommodations for connections to existing ❑Yes❑No pedestrian or bicycle routes? k.Will the proposed action(for commercial or industrial projects only)generate new or additional demand ❑Yes®No for energy? If Yes: i. Estimate annual electricity demand during operation of the proposed action: ii. Anticipated sources/suppliers of electricity for the project(e.g.,on-site combustion,on-site renewable,via grid/local utility,or other): iii. Will the proposed action require a new,or an upgrade to,an existing substation? ❑Yes❑No 1.Hours of operation. Answer all items which apply. i. During Construction: ii. During Operations: • Monday-Friday: a AM-3 PM • Monday-Friday: Not Appicable • Saturday: a AM_3 PM • Saturday: • Sunday: None • Sunday: • Holidays: Nona • Holidays: Page 7 of 13 m.Will the proposed action produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction, ❑Yes ONo operation,or both? If yes: i. Provide details including sources,time of day and duration: ii. Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen? Yes No Describe: n.. Will the proposed action have outdoor lighting? ❑YesONo If yes: i. Describe source(s),location(s),height of fixture(s),direction/aim.and proximity to nearest occupied structures: ii. Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen? 0 Yes No Describe: o. Does the proposed action have the potential to produce odors for more than one hour per day? ❑Yes ONo If Yes,describe possible sources,potential frequency and duration of odor emissions,and proximity to nearest occupied structures: p. Will the proposed action include any bulk storage of petroleum(combined capacity of over 1.100 gallons) ❑Yes 0No or chemical products 185 gallons in above ground storage or any amount in underground storage? If Yes: i. Product(s)to be stored ii. Volume(s) per unit time (e.g..month,year) iii. Generally describe proposed storage facilities: q. Will the proposed action(commercial,industrial and recreational projects only)use pesticides(i.e.,herbicides, =Yes 0No insecticides)during constriction or operation? If Yes: i.Describe proposed treatment(s): ii. Will the proposed action use Integrated Pest Management Practices? ❑ Yes ❑No r. Will the proposed action(commercial or industrial projects only)involve or require the management or disposal ❑ Yes ONo of solid waste(excluding hazardous materials)? If Yes: i.Describe any solid waste(s)to be generated during construction or operation of the facility: • Construction: tons per (unit of time) • Operation: tons per (unit of time) ii. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization,recycling or reuse of materials to avoid disposal as solid waste: • Construction: • Operation: iii. Proposed disposal methods/facilities for solid waste generated on-site: • Construction: • Operation: Page 8 of 13 s.Does the proposed action include construction or modification of a solid waste management facility? Yes 0 No If Yes: i. Type of management or handling of waste proposed for the site(e.g.,recycling or transfer station,composting,landfill,or other disposal activities): ii. Anticipated rate of disposal/processing: • Tons/month,if transfer or other non-combustion/thermal treatment.or • Tons/hour,if combustion or thermal treatment iii. If landfill,anticipated site life: yew t.Will proposed action at the site involve the commercial generation,treatment,storage,or disposal of hazardous ❑YeseNo waste? If Yes: i. Name(s)of all hazardous wastes or constituents to be generated handled or managed at facility: ii. Generally describe processes or activities involving hazardous wastes or constituents: iii.Specify amount to be handled or generated tons/month iv. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization,recycling or reuse of hazardous constituents: v. Will any hazardous wastes be disposed at an existing offsite hazardous waste facility? Yes No If Yes:provide name and location of facility: If No:describe proposed management of any hazardous wastes which will not be sent to a hazardous waste facility: E.Site and Setting of Proposed Action E.1.Land uses on and surrounding the project site a. Existing land uses. i. Check all uses that occur on,adjoining and near the project site. ❑ Urban ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial 0 Residential(suburban) ❑ Rural(non-farm) ❑ Forest ❑ Agriculture ❑ Aquatic ❑ Other(specify): ii. if mix of uses,generally describe: b.Land uses and covertypes on the project site. Land use or Current Acreage After Change Covertype Acreage Project Completion (Acres+/-) • Roads,buildings,and other paved or impervious surfaces 0.10 0.75 0.65 • Forested 2.59 1.70 0.89 • Meadows,grasslands or brushlands(non- agricultural,including abandoned agricultural) • Agricultural includes active orchards,field,greenhouse etc.) • Surface water features (lakes,ponds.streams,rivers,etc.) • Wetlands(freshwater or tidal) 1.17 1.17 0 • Non-vegetated(bare rock,earth or fill) • Other Describe: Residential landscaping 0.10 0.34 0.24 Page 9 of 13 c.Is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation? El YesEl No i. If Yes:explain: d.Are there any facilities serving children,the elderly,people with disabilities(e.g.,schools,hospitals,licensed ❑YesONo day care centers,or group homes)within 1500 feet of the project site? If Yes, i. Identify Facilities: e. Does the project site contain an existing dam? ❑YesONo If Yes: i. Dimensions of the dam and impoundment: • Dam height: feet • Dam length: feet • Surface area: acres • Volume impounded: gallons OR acre-feet ii. Dam's existing hazard classification: iii. Provide date and summarize results of last inspection: f.Has the project site ever been used as a municipal,commercial or industrial solid waste management facility, ❑YesONo or does the project site adjoin property which is now,or was at one time,used as a solid waste management facility? If Yes: i. Has the facility been formally closed? ❑Yes❑ No • If yes,cite sources/documentation: ii. Describe the location of the project site relative to the boundaries of the solid waste management facility: iii. Describe any development constraints due to the prior solid waste activities: g.Have hazardous wastes been generated,treated and/or disposed of at the site,or does the project site adjoin ❑YesONo property which is now or was at one time used to commercially treat,store and/or dispose of hazardous waste? If Yes: i. Describe waste(s)handled and waste management activities,including approximate time when activities occurred: h. Potential contamination history. Has there been a reported spill at the proposed project site,or have any ❑Yes® No remedial actions been conducted at or adjacent to the proposed site? If Yes: i. Is any portion of the site listed on the NYSDEC Spills Incidents database or Environmental Site ❑Yes❑No Remediation database? Check all that apply: ❑ Yes—Spills Incidents database Provide DEC ID number(s): ❑ Yes—Environmental Site Remediation database Provide DEC ID number(s): ❑ Neither database ii. If site has been subject of RCRA corrective activities,describe control measures: iii. Is the project within 2000 feet of any site in the NYSDEC Environmental Site Remediation database? ❑YesONo If yes,provide DEC ID number(s): iv. If yes to(i),(ii)or(iii)above,describe current status of site(s): Page 10 of 13 v. Is the project site subject to an institutional control limiting property uses? Yes No • If yes,DEC site ID number: • Describe the type of institutional control(e.g.,deed restriction or easement): • Describe any use limitations: • Describe any engineering controls: • Will the project affect the institutional or engineering controls in place? ❑Yes❑No • Explain:` E.2. Natural Resources On or Near Project Site a.What is the average depth to bedrock on the project site? o.a-feet b.Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site? ®Yes❑No If Yes,what proportion of the site is comprised of bedrock outcroppings? 1 % c.Predominant soil type(s)present on project site: Urban Land-Charlton Complex 100 % d.What is the average depth to the water table on the project site? Average: 0-6- feet e.Drainage status of project site soils:2 Well Drained: %of site ® Moderately Well Drained: _ o%of site ® Poorly Drained 30%of site f.Approximate proportion of proposed action site with slopes: ® 0-10%: __Z52%of site ® 10-15%: _2Q_%of site ® 15%or greater: ___L%of site g.Are there any unique geologic features on the project site? Yes No If Yes,describe: h. Surface water features. i. Does any portion of the project site contain wetlands or other waterbodies(including streams,rivers, ®Yes❑No ponds or lakes)? ii. Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site? ❑YesONo If Yes to either i or ii,continue. If No,skip to E.2.i. iii. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies within or adjoining the project site regulated by any federal, OYes❑No state or local agency? iv. For each identified regulated wetland and waterbody on the project site,provide the following information: • Streams: Name Classification Lakes or Ponds: Name Classification • Wetlands: Name Vilage regulated wetland Approximate Size 1.17 Acres • Wetland No.(if regulated by DEC) v. Are any of the above water bodies listed in the most recent compilation of NYS water quality-impaired ❑Yes ONo waterbodies? If yes,name of impaired water body/bodies and basis for listing as impaired: i.Is the project site in a designated Floodway? ❑Yes ONo j.Is the project site in the 100 year Floodplain? []Yes ONo k. Is the project site in the 500 year Floodplain? []Yes ONo 1. Is the project site located over,or immediately adjoining,a primary,principal or sole source aquifer? ❑Yes ONo If Yes: i. Name of aquifer: Page 11 of 13 in. Identify the predominant wildlife species that occupy or use the project site: n.Does the project site contain a designated significant natural community? U Yes kdNo If Yes: i. Describe the habitat/community(composition,function,and basis for designation): ii. Source(s)of description or evaluation: iii. Extent of community/habitat: • Currently: acres • Following completion of project as proposed: acres • Gain or loss(indicate+or-): acres o.Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by the federal government or NYS as ❑Yes®No endangered or threatened,or does it contain any areas identified as habitat for an endangered or threatened species? p. Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare,or as a species of L1YesJ3No special concern? q. Is the project site or adjoining area currently used for hunting,trapping,fishing or shell fishing? ❑Yes®No If yes,give a brief description of how the proposed action may affect that use: E.3. Designated Public Resources On or:Near Project Site a. Is the project site,or any portion of it, located in a designated agricultural district certified pursuant to ❑Yes®No Agriculture and Markets Law,Article 25-AA,Section 303 and 304? If Yes, provide county plus district name/number: b.Are agricultural lands consisting of highly productive soils present? ❑Yes No i. If Yes:acreage(s)on project site? ii. Source(s)of soil rating(s): c. Does the project site contain all or part of,or is it substantially contiguous to,a registered National ❑Yes®No Natural Landmark? If Yes: i. Nature of the natural landmark: ❑Biological Community ❑ Geological Feature ii. Provide brief description of landmark,including values behind designation and approximate size/extent: d.Is the project site located in or does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Area? ❑Yes®No If Yes: i. CEA name: ii. Basis for designation: iii. Designating agency and date: Page 12 of 13 e.Does the project site contain,or is it substantially contiguous to,a building,archaeological site,or district El YesO No which is listed on,or has been nominated by the NYS Board of Historic Preservation for inclusion on,the State or National Register of Historic Places? If Yes: i. Nature of historic/archaeological resource: El Archaeological Site ❑Historic Building or District ii. Name: iii. Brief description of attributes on which listing is based: f.Is the project site,or any portion of it,located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for ❑YesONo archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO)archaeological site inventory? g.Have additional archaeological or historic site(s)or resources been identified on the project site? ❑YesONo If Yes: i. Describe possible resource(s): ii. Basis for identification: h.Is the project site within fives miles of any officially designated and publicly accessible federal,state,or local ❑YesONo scenic or aesthetic resource? If Yes: i. Identify resource: ii. Nature of,or basis for,designation(e.g.,established highway overlook,state or local park,state historic trail or scenic byway, etc.): iii. Distance between project and resource: miles. i. Is the project site located within a designated river corridor Under the Wild.Scenic and Recreational Rivers Yes No Program 6 NYCRR 666? If Yes: i. Identify the name of the river and its designation: ii. Is the activity consistent with development restrictions contained in 6NYCRR Part 666? ❑Yes❑No F.Additional Information Attach any additional information which may be needed to clarify your project. If you have identified any adverse impacts which could be associated with your proposal,please describe those impacts plus any measures which you propose to avoid or minimize them. G. Verification I certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name Lou Larizza Date January 7,2016,Revised November 23,2016 Signature Title PRINT FORM Page 13 of 13 622 STILES AVENUE MAMARONECK NEW YORK 10543 TEL 914 698 8207 FAX 914 698 8208 chnarch@yohoo.com Clark NeuringerArchitect MEMORANDUM DATE- August 29, 2016 FROM: Clark Neuringer, R.A.; NCARB TO: Robert Goodman, Chairman and the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board RE: North Ridge Street Development; Zoning Petition; Subdivision; and Site Plan Application Since our last appearance before the Planning Board on July 141h and based on comments and requests we received at that time, we have worked diligently with our consultant, Ralph Mastromonaco, P.E. and traffic engineers from the County regarding the issue of intersection site distance review. Various updated and revised drawings have been prepared by Mr. Mastromonaco and submitted to the Board's consultant, FP Clark Assoc. for continuing review and comment. Thus far, there has been significant back and forth between the parties. It appears that as of this date, FP Clark Assoc. continues to indicate certain concerns relating to specific distance measurements. As such, we are presumably at a standstill and we believe we ought to move this aspect of the project forward. Attached is the August 29, 2016 memorandum from Mr. Mastromonaco to FP Clark Assoc. specifically addressing the left turn sight distance issue. We believe the memo factually states the case in a concise format and we see no reason to reiterate what is presented therein. We do have some comments that we hope might assist in moving this project forward. North Ridge Street is a county road with a posted speed limit of, generally, 30 miles per hour. It should be noted that the posted speed limit on either side of the proposed driveway is 25 miles per hour. From the beginning, we i<.new our proposed site plan would work with respect to sight distances because our analysis was based on posted limits. As stated within the attached memo, that is the criteria used by the county for its evaluation and permitting. We are not aware of any statutory requirements from the Village of Rye Brook requiring analysis and design review with respect to intersection sight distances incorporating higher than posted legal speed limits. We assume current limits on North Ridge Street was instituted by the Village of Rye Brook for safety reasons and we further assume that exceeding posted limits could possibly create unsafe driving conditions. Memorandum August 29, 2016 Page 2 Our reviews and analysis demonstrate that intersection sight distances are well within published recommended standards and in fact, provide an almost 40% margin of error over the posted 25 mph limit in the immediate area of the proposed driveway. As such, we believe we have met and exceeded all reasonable recommended standards regarding intersection sight distances related to the proposed site plan. In the interests of possibly increasing further safety for that portion of North Ridge Street, we would encourage further evaluation regarding the possibility of adding additional notification and alert measures as suggested by Mr. Mastromonaco, such as flashing lights, signs, or other means to further alert drivers. Enforcement of the posted speed limit would also contribute substantially to increased safety along North ridge Street and we would encourage the Village to seriously consider instituting such enforcement. Over many months. we have worked closely with the Board, its consultants and village staff in refining our development proposal. We believe we have addressed every issue identified and responded in a positive manner. We appreciate all the efforts and comments by the Board and related consultants to assist in moving this important residential development proposal forward. At this time, we believe it appropriate to consider all that has been accomplished and submitted to date in context of the Board preparing a referral to the Board of Trustees. We look forward to further discussing these matters with the Board at our forthcoming September 8, 2016 scheduled appearance before the Planning Board. slIectuI Clark Neuringer, R. ., NCARB for Lazz Development / Pawling Holdings LLC cc: Honorable Mayor Rosenberg and Board of Trustees Christopher Bradbury Michael Nowak Jennifer Gray, Esq. Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed Lou Larizza Ralph Mastromonaco RALPH G. MASTROMONACO, P.E., P.C. Civil/Site / Environmental Consulting Engineers www.rgmpepc.com 13 Dove Court, Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520 Tel: (914) 271-4762 Fax: (914) 271-2820 To: Michael Galante FP Clark Associates From: Ralph G. Mastromonaco, PE Re: North Ridge Street Development Intersection Sight Distance Review Date: August 29, 2016 The left turn intersection sight distance at North Ridge Street has been the subject of some discussion for this project. North Ridge Street is a County road. Please note that we originally placed the project's driveway intersection with North Ridge Street at the location where we met the County's written rules on intersection sight distance. County Roads: Fact: We measure 385 feet of intersection sight distance looking left. Fact: The posted speed limit is 25 mph based on signage on both sides of the proposed driveway (these are posted yellow horizontal alignment warning signs). Fact: The County requires that we use the posted speed limit for their permit (see attached). Fact: The County's required Intersection Sight Distance is 280 feet. Fact: The project exceeds the County's minimum sight distance requirement by 105 feet. AASHTO Guides: Fact: AASHTO guidelines hope for approximately 445 to 455 feet for this project based on the one- day measured 85th percentile speed of 40 to 41 mph—but only 280 feet for the posted speed of 25 mph. Fact: Although the current traffic manual guidelines use 3.5 feet for object and eye to determine intersection sight distance, the NYS DOT Policy and Standards (1998 which has not updated this value) uses 4.25 feet for the object which then shows we have 400 feet of intersection sight distance. Using this standard we would have some 120 feet more than required by NYS DOT for the 25 mph speed limit. Fact: FYI: Up till 1994 AASHTO used an object height of 4.25 feet as well, which would have also yielded a 400 foot intersection sight distance. Fact: We can find no requirement in the AASHTO guides that mandates the 851" percentile speed for design of driveway intersections. General: Fact: The Village has no requirement for Intersection Sight distance. Fact: The 385 foot intersection sight distance would be equivalent to a 35 mph design speed. Conclusion: While the project meets current County standards, to maximize the safety in this case, flashing lights, signs or other means to alert drivers to the intersection should be studied. r 1i I Ralph G. Mastromonaco, PE Attachs Westchester County DPW Intersection Sight Distance Requirement form TE2003-1 INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT B.A.# Applicant: C.R.# Road Name: B Initial sighting of_ target A (S-6" high) from 10' distance is measured target B (3'-6" high). to edge of travel lane \ \ or painted stop line. \iD, / Distance Y / (To Left) Al / - - - - - / Collision Point \ Collision Point -Distance X \ A2 (To Right) Minimum Acceptable Sight Distances Crossing Maneuver Left Turn Maneuver Right Turn Maneuver Design Speed Sight Distance (ft.) Sight Distance (ft.) Sight Distance (Mph) Left/Right Left/Right Left 25 240 280 , 240 30 290 335 290 35 335 390 335 40 385 445 385 45 430 500 430 50 480 555 480 55 530 610 530 Source:AASHTO(2001)A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets Please provide the following information: The speed limit on the main road at this point is mph. Distance X = ft. Distance Y = ft. FWestchester County Department of Publi,'Norks Forn TE 2003-1 622 STILES AVENUE MAMARONECK NEW YORK 10543 TEL 914 698 8207 FAX 914 698 8208 chnarch@yahoo.com Clark NeuringerArchitect MEMORANDUM DATE: June 29, 20167 FROM: Clark Neuringer, R.A.; NCARB TO: Robert Goodman, Chairman Village of Rye Brook Planning Board RE: 259 North Ridge Street Zoning Petition; Subdivision; and Site Plan Application Per the May 25, 2016 memorandum from Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed of F. P. Clark Assoc., Inc., several items were identified as requiring additional information. Please note the following comments and responses: Item 1 a - Tree preservation / protection plan: We have indicated the extent of disturbances on the recent drawing by Ralph Mastromonaco, separately submitted, and would further note that there is to be no equipment of any sort or work performed outside of the indicated boundary. All trees outside the perimeter shown will therefore be preserved as is. Trees located within the boundary area shown have been identified and categorized as to their status as part of prior submitted documents. Item 1 b - Updated storm water management plan: Ralph Mastromonaco has had ongoing conversations, submissions, reviews regarding our proposed storm water management plan with the office of Dolph Rotfeld. We have been advised that current work with respect to storm water issues as shown on current drawings has been deemed to be acceptable by Rotfeld's office as far as the current design to date. We understand that the management plan is not yet 100% complete, but we cannot complete the plan until such time as the proposed site plan layout is accepted since any change to the site plan would require significant changes to the storm water management design and the myriad of calculations that is an essential component of the design. Item 4 - Rock removal: At this time, we have no intention of removing significant rock from the site, based on what we know now and because we will be substantially filling the rear portion of the building site (Lot#1) in the proposed parking area. Item 7 - Wetlands: Our prior submissions have indicated that we have proposed mitigation measures with respect to various plantings as a result of certain unavoidable activities within certain limited portions of the wetlands buffer area. MEMORANDUM June 29, 2016 Page 2 Drawings were submitted as produced by Anthony Zaino, L. A. of the Westchester County Planning Department indicating extent of proposed mitigation measures. Item 8 - Transportation: We have reviewed the May 26, 2016 memorandum from Michael Galante of F. P. Clark Assoc., Inc. regarding his commentary and opinions related to existing conditions of North Ridge Street and the impacts of those conditions on the proposed development of Lot #1. Since North Ridge Street is a County road, and since the conditions of concern as expressed by the Planning Board are existing, we submitted the memorandum to the Westchester County Planning Department for their review and comment. It is our understanding that their traffic experts / engineers reviewed the memo and existing conditions and generated commentary in response to the Galante memorandum. In addition, Ralph Mastromonaco has proposed several traffic calming initiatives at key locations along relevant portions of North Ridge and those are shown on his current drawing which has been submitted. We anticipate further discussion with respect to the status of the existing conditions and the positive impact that can be anticipated by use of dedicated traffic calming methodologies. Item 12 - Site lighting: We agree that the site light fixtures as shown on our previously submitted drawings might cause excessive glare to downhill residences. We propose to reduce the height of site fixtures to 12 feet and to utilize the same or similar site fixtures as are currenyl installed in our recently completed 4 unit development on Ellendale Avenue. Those fixtues were deemed to be acceptable during the submission and review process of that project. Item 13 - Construction: As previously stated, we do not plan on having any equipment placed. or stored at any point along North Riadge Street. We do not plan on having any modular boxes delivered and stored at any location along North Ridge Street. The bulk of the modular boxes will be stored at the United Hospital site. We will bring two boxes to the site for installation and those will be temporarily placed on site in the area that will ultimately becoame the access road to the rear parking area. The crane will never be on North Ridge Street during placement of the boxes because the crane cannot be more than 5 to 10 feet from the building foundation. Our foundations will be approximately 40 feet from North Ridge Street so that at all times, the crane will be fully on site. There will be no equipment on the street. We look forward to further discussions with the Planning Board. Respectfully, Clark Neuringer, R.A.; NCARB on behalf of Lazz Development LLC / Pawing Holdings LLC CC: Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Michael Nowak, Village Engineer Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Attorney Ralph Mastromonaco, P.E. Lou Larizza October 22, 2015 Points to Ponder 1. Application for Subdivision of Land, dated 08/18/15: a. Para. 15-e: Is there a list of waivers? b. Para. 15-i: Is there Proof of Approval by Westchester County for Drainage lines if connecting directly into County established channel lines? c. Para. 15-K: Is there Proof of Approval from Westchester County DPW Division of Stream Control? d. Para. 15-I: 1 there a Properly completed Environmental Impact Statement? 2. Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1: a. Para. 2: Lists only the Westchester Department of Health for Plat Approval. Westchester County also requires a permit or approval from the Westchester County Planning Department and a Westchester County DPW Stream Permit. b. Para. 5: We question the "simple" "YES" response to the two questions regarding the proposed action permitted under the zoning regulations and the comprehensive plan. Until such time as all of the permits, approvals, etc. are in hand from the County, the Watershed Committee, etc., this is an erroneous response. c. Para. 11: The question about will the proposed action connect to existing waste water utilities was answered "YES". Unless the developer intends to pump sewage up-hill to the sanitary sewer pipe on North Ridge Street, there is no way they can connect to the sanitary sewer system. d. Para. 13: Sub. b: The developer actually acknowledges that the site contains a wetlands! They answer "NO" to the question in Sub. b that the proposed action will alter or encroach into any existing wetland... That is simply not correct. e. Par a 14: Asked to identify the typical habitat types, and asked to check all that apply, they simply checked off "Suburban". They did not check "Wetland" even though they agree in Para. 13, Sub. a that it is a wetlands. f. Para 17 Sub a: addressing the issue of storm water discharge, the developer checked off "NO" to the question "Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties" Without significantly altering the pitch/slope of the existing wetlands storm water discharge would most certainly flow to adjacent properties. g. Para 17 Sub b: The developer answered "YES" to the question asking will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems. Again, the only way storm water run-off that has been altered by paved driveways and parking spaces as well as grass lawns can be directed to the large storm culvert that runs under the Kamin property is if the developer alters the drainage properties of the wetlands. h. Para 17 Sub b: Further, their application states: "There are existing storm drains in North Ridge Street." Unless the developer plans to pump storm water discharges up-hill there is no other available connection to the storm drain system. i. Para 17 Sub b: Further, applicant states: "Storm water will be confined to the site in the event of any construction". Since the site is a principal route for storm water discharge draining from the hill west and north of North Ridge Street as well as the east side of North Ridge Street and the proposed subdivision itself, it would appear highly unlikely that they could confine storm water drainage to the site in the event of any construction. And — even if it became possible, what would they do with that accumulated storm water after the storm had passed? j. Ralph G. Mastromonaco's August 14, 2015 letter to Mr. Nowak at the Village states: "In this case we are merely subdividing one (1) lot into three (3) lots with no construction proposed". (!) And: "...all utilities are in the street along the front." First of all, if no construction is proposed why does he even talk about utilities? And why this elaborate effort that already includes building, paving, and parking on the lot. Also, clearly, water, gas, and electricity are available on North Ridge Street — but access to the sanitary sewer system is not available on North Ridge Street unless the developer pumps it up hill. k. His letter goes on to say that the "...subdivision code does not require that applications show proposed housing or grading." This is confusing since they DO provide that information and it would seem that they DO need to provide the SWPPP. I. Somewhat confusing since the Application for Subdivision Approval is dated July 28, 2015, signed and dated September 18, 2015, but received by the Building Department on September 16, 2015, Para. 25 requires Proof of approval by Westchester County DPW of drainage lines if connecting directly into channel lines..." What are "channel lines"? And has such proof already been obtained and provided to the Village? m. Similarly, have they obtained Proof of approval by the appropriate Utilities Companies and/or of special districts having jurisdiction of the proposed location of underground utilities and equipment? n. The Short Environmental Assessment Form asks the following: i. Will the project result in a large physical change to the project site... They answered "NO". That is patently not correct. The project will significantly alter the wetland. Storm water drainage will encroach upon neighbors, and, if permitted, catastrophic failure of pumped sanitary sewage could be a disaster. ii. They answered "NO" to the question abut will there be a major change to any unique or unusual land form... By their own admission that there is a wetlands, the project will result in a major change to that wetland. iii. The significant change in run-off, both in quality and quantity into the wetland — which is regarded as part of the headwaters of Blind Brook — could have a large effect on an existing body of water. This could require further investigation by at least the Watershed Advisory Committee, WAC 3, as well as a detailed investigation concerning compliance with the Village ordinance Chapter 245: Wetlands and Watercourses. iv. They answered "NO" to the question will the project significantly effect (sic) drainage flow on adjacent sites. Given the obvious topographical features of the proposed subdivisions and their neighbors, this is clearly not correct. v. They answered "NO" to the question will the project have a major effect on visual character of the community... We beg to disagree. The visual impact to all of the abutting neighbors will be significantly and adversely affected. vi. Similarly, they answered "NO" to the question will the project have a major negative effect (sic) on the character of the community or neighborhood. Again, we beg to differ. It will clearly and significantly have a major negative affect on the character of our community. One brief example: We will not be able to avoid the impact of a large number of paved parking spaces so close to our neighborhood. And the possibility of related noise and air pollutuion. vii. Finally, they answered "NO" to the question "Is there public controversy concerning the project. This hardly bears comment. Of course there is controversy. o. The County requires an Application for Permit to do Work within Channel Lines or within 100 feet Therefrom. Can we please request an explanation of that Channel Lines are and how they might apply to this application. p. The plat provided contains incorrect information. Eagles Bluff plot 12 was long ago sold by Dr. Marshall. The most current buyer is Craig and Kami Katz. In addition, the location of the swimming pool on that property has been significantly moved in recent years. The 100 foot buffer shown on the plat is wrong. q. The Village has a "Steep Slopes" ordinance. Not able to understand the markings on the plat, we asked the Village Engineer, Mr. Nowak if he could examine the plat and if he could recognize the steep hillside pitch(s) and tell us if he thought the project might violate the Village Steep Slope regulation. He replied: "It is not a matter of violating steep slopes, the project will need a "Permit' by the village to perform work within a steep slopes. Over a certain steepness and area of disturbance, the Village Boards grant permission to do work. The project will requires I think 2 low retaining walls to be built on the slopes behind your house and landscaping installed to screen such walls, therefore there will be disturbance. Yet the project is intimately related to wetland issues, changes to watercourses, etc. Two low retaining walls and landscaping installed to hide them will significantly alter the flow of storm water discharge into and through the property. r. I am not sure where this very important subject belongs in our opposition to the application, however, and where ever, it clearly is important and belongs on the table: If, for the sake of the argument, the value of the eight (?) abutting properties and their buildings averages $1.25 million, we are advised by licensed real estate brokers that the values, once this construction is in place, will probably decrease by 25 to 30%! That is a loss of tax revenue to the Town and the County of some $3 million! A very, very significant loss to our governing bodies. A loss that the proposed construction will not come close to evening out. Raymond L. Watkins 20 Eagles Bluff Rye Brook, NY 10573 10/24/15 1 PlanningWestchester County Planning Board Submission Cover Form for Westchester County Planning Application/Action Name: Pawling Holdings Zoning Petition, Subdivision, Site Plan Board comments due by: November 8, 2016 Address: 259 North Ridge Street Municipality: Rye Brook, New York Local Case Number: Zip code of location of the action: 10573 Local Meeting Date: November 8, 2016 Section: 135.35 Block: 1 Lot: 11 PUblic Hearing: ■ Yes ❑ No Referring Agency: Type of Action SEQR Action ❑ Planning Board or Commission ❑ Zoning Board of Appeals ■ New ■ EAF ❑ Draft EIS ❑ Positive ■ City or Common Council/Town Board/ ❑ Expansion ❑ Lead Agency ❑ Final EIS Declaration Village Board of Trustees ❑Modification ❑ Draft Scope ❑ Findings ❑ Negative Declaration Brief description of application or proposed action: Application for approval of a three-lot subdivision, a petition to rezone one of the new lots from the R-15 District into the Fair and Affordable Housing District, and a site plan application for 8 AFFH residential townhouse units with parking, and Wetlands and Steep Slopes Work Permits. Actions below only if proposing 5,000 square feet or more of new Type Of Action Please check appropriate box or renovated floor area or 10,000 square feet or more of land disturbance. Use"notification only"form for actions below this threshold. ❑ Comprehensive Plan (Adoption or Amendment) ❑ Special Use Permit or Use Variance ■ Zoning Ordinance or Map(Adoption or Amendment) ■ Site Plan ❑ Official Map Affecting property within 500 feet of. ❑ Moratorium ❑ Subdivision (Only when a new street will connect 0 A municipal boundary; directly into a state or county road or a new drainage line 0 The boundary of an existing or proposed state or will connect directly into a county drainage channel) county park or any other state/county recreation area; • The right-of-way of any existing or proposed state or county road; • An existing or proposed county drainage channel line; • The boundary of state or county-owned land on which a public building/institution is located; The boundary of a farm located in an agricultural district. Contact Information Local Contact Name: Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed Department/Agency: Frederick P. Clark Associates, Consulting Planners, Rye Brook Phone Number: 914 967-6540 Email Address: mtmohamed(a)fpclark.com Please provide notice at least 10 days prior to any hearing (30 days in advance for site plans) with supporting documentation (including an EAF)and return address to: Municipal Referrals Westchester County Department of Planning 432 Michaelian Office Building White Plains,NY 10601 Prepared by Westchester County Department of Planning-January 2004 If We' Achester g V WM Robert P.Astorino County Executive Westchester County Department of Public Works and Transportation Thomas J.Lauro,PE Acting Commissioner September G,2016 Robert Goodman, Chair Village of Rye Brook Planning Board 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 RE: 259 North Ridge Street Development Application Sight Distance Adequacy Dear Mr. Goodman: The Westchester County Department of Public\t orks Division of Traffic Engineering has reviewed the latest Sight Distance Plan prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco,PE,dated August 19,2016, as well as the Memorandum prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates,Inc. dated August 23,2016. As indicated on the Plan and Memorandum,adjustments to the drn ewac clevadon will result in an intersection sight distance of 400 feet when looking south (i.e. left) onto North Ridge Street. \\ ide this distance is less than the desired distance of 445 feet, based on the observed 40 DIPI 1851h percentile speed,it exceeds the required Intersection Sight Distance at 30 NIPH of 335 feet. In addition it exceeds the Safe Stopping Sight Distance at 40 AfPFI of 303 feet. As the proposed 8 unit development is a low traffic generator and the proposed driveway location has been optimized to produce the greatest sight distance other potentially more optimal locations cannot be utilized because of environmental constraints),it is our recommendation that the driveway access be approved so as to not dent access to the property. Since the Safe Stopping Sight Distance is significantly exceeded,approval of the proposed drip ewa) is not a safety concern. To mitigate the less than optimal sight distance,it is recommended that an INTERSECTION WARNING sign with a DRIVEWAY sub-panel be installed approximately 305 feet in advance of the proposed driveway,in each direction. Should the Village wish that the development proposal employ measures to reduce the incidence of motorist exceeding the posted 30 NIPFI speed limit,a flashing driver feedback speed display sign can be installed see below. The operation of the radar speed display signs can be configured as follows the below thresholds are programmable however • at 30 mph and below, the sign will display the .chicle's speed only • at 31 mph and below 35 mph, the%chicle speed is displayed FLASI LING • at 33 mph and below 40 mph, the vehicle speed is displayed FLASI LING and the Yellow LED Flashers activate • at 40 mph and above, the vehicle speed is display ed FLASHING,alternating with the SLO\\'DO\t'N message,along with the Yellow LED Flashers • 50 mph is the maximum speed that the unit will display(only SLO\t DO\VN will FLASI I Westchester County Department of Public Works and Transportation Division of Traffic Cngmeermg (91 1)995 2555(phone) 118 Martine.Avenue,Suite 10013 (91 1)995 2558(fax) White Plains.M 10601 www.westchostergov com dpw North Ridge Street-Sight Distance Adequact Nt'c ' ITEM 680 94 POWER SERVICE CONNECTION 8"YELLOW SIGNAL 12" 24•'x30" SPEED LIMIT SIGN 30 30"x42" YOUR RADAR SPEED _ SPEED 18' DISPLAY SIGN ■ POLE HEIGHT 8"YELLOW 12" SIGNAL T BREAKAWAY T TRANSFORMER J BASE M M I ITEM 680.5001 41111 FND TYPE J-2 /� 6'-6" DEPTH 2'-6" DIA scu.E RADAR SPEED DISPLAY SI WESPCHESTER COUNIY DETAIL-FOR LSE 04 DEPARTNaN T OF PUBLIC W EsrCIUsTER COMrn'ROADS I WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION' Please do not hesitate to contact me at 995 4084 if you have ant questions. Ven tnih )ours, h nc�h AI. Roseman Traffic Engineer Attachment cc: Norma Drummond-AICDoP Anthony Zaino -XXICDoP l I \t\Rf)RD ', Rxdr,,i,R)c Brook ARo,dabk It,.,r,,y.. W, ocom ster Referral Review gov Pursuant to Section 239 L,M and N of the General Municipal Law and Section 277.61 of the County Administrative Code Robert P.Astorino County Executive County Planning Board March 30, 2016 Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Rye Brook Village Hall 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573-1226 Subject: Referral File No. RYB 16-002—North Ridge Street Subdivision Zoning Map Amendment, Subdivision and Site Plan Lead Agency Dear Mr. Bradbury: The Westchester County Planning Board has received a notice of intent to be Lead Agency, pursuant to the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), for the above referenced proposal to subdivide a 3,96-acre property located at 259 North Ridge Street into three parcels. One parcel would retain an existing single-family home which would be renovated, while a second parcel would be developed with a new single-family home. Both of these lots would retain their existing R-15 zoning designations. For the third lot, the applicant is seeking an amendment to the Village Zoning Map to rezone the property to the FAH District so as to permit the construction of eight units of affordable affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) in two buildings on this lot. It is our understanding that a site plan approval would also be required for this action. We respectfully request that we be sent additional information on this proposal as it moves through the review process. We have no objection to the Rye Brook Board of Trustees assuming Lead Agency status for this review. At this time, we offer the following comments under the provisions of Section 239 L, M and N of the General Municipal Law and Section 277.61 of the County Administrative Code: Affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH). We are supportive of the proposed application as it will bring eight additional affordable AFFH units to the Village. This aspect of the application is consistent with the County Planning Board's long-range planning policies set forth in Westchester 2025—Context for County and Municipal Planning and Policies to Guide County Planning, adopted by the Board on May 6, 2008, amended January 5, 2010, and its recommended strategies set forth in Patterns for Westchester: The Land and the People, adopted December 5, 1995, which calls for increasing the range of housing types in Westchester County. We recommend that the Village require that the affordable AFFH units meet all requirements of the Housing Settlement Agreement. 432 Michaelian Office Building 148 Martine Avenue White Plains,New fork 10601 'telephone: (914)995 1400 Website: westchestergov.com Referral File No. RYB 16-002—North Ridge Street; Zoning Amendment,Subdivision,Site Plan Lead Agency March 30, 2016 Page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. Respectfully, WESTCHESTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Edward Buroughs, AICP Commissioner EEB LH �l )ester Referral Review govmm Pursuant to Section 239 L,M and N of the General Municipal Law and Section 277.61 of the County Administrative Code Rebert P. Ast.;r;= County Executive County Planning Board May 16, 2016 Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Rye Brook Village Hall 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573-1226 Subject: Referral File No. RYB 16-003B—Rye Ridge Park, Site Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Bradbury: The Westchester County Planning Board has received site plans (dated revised March 31, 2016) for the above referenced site plan amendment application to modify the design of a passive park for the Village of Rye Brook which is associated with the previously approved Bowman Avenue residential development. The park is now proposed to include a dog run, walkways, benches, emergency boat launch area and additional parking for the Rye Ridge Plaza. We have reviewed this matter under the provisions of Section 239 L, M and N of the General Municipal Law and Section 277.61 of the County Administrative Code and we offer the following comments: 1. County stream control permit. The site abuts Blind Brook, which is designated a County stream channel in this location. The Westchester County Department of Public Works and Transportation (WC DPWT) must be listed as an Involved Agency under SEQR because a County Stream Control Permit is required. The applicant must contact WC DPWT for this review. A Stream Control Permit application is attached. 2. Flood hazard area. The proposed park is located within a flood hazard area. Specific attention should be given to placing any structure, particularly within the regulated floodway, that may directly block storm flows, create a blockage by capturing floating debris or potentially cause damage downstream from structures on the site that become dislodged and carried downstream by floodwaters. FEMA has many guidance materials on how to manage floodplains and review plans with respect to a floodplain ordinance (http://www.fema.gov floodplain-management), and the Association of State Floodplain Managers has a toolkit for No Adverse Impact Toolkit that may also be of use (http: www.floods.or index.asp?menulD 460). 3. Concerns with dog run. The proposed dog run is within or will drain to a floodplain and nearby waterbody. Best management practices to minimize pet waste from entering the waterbody should be made a condition of approval. The Village may wish to require pet waste bag holders, waste containers 432 Michaelian Office Building 148 Martine Avenue White Plains,New York 10601 'Telephone: (914)995.4400 Website: westchestergov.com Referral File No. RYB 16-003B—Rye Ridge Park Site Plan Amendment May 16, 2016 Page 2 and appropriate signage as part of the park design. In addition, the potential for bare soils exists which could also result in erosion problems within the dog park and eroded soils entering the waterbody. We recommend the Village require an operation and maintenance plan be prepared to address, at a minimum, these two topics. The Village may also want to consider eh establishment of an escrow account or other financial means to ensure continuing proper maintenance of the dog park. The American Kennel Club has a guidance document with examples of creating, operating and maintaining dog parks in various communities. It can be downloaded at http: /images.akc.org_/j df/GLEGOI.pdf. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. Respectfully, WESTCHESTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD yy' Edward Buroughs, AICP Commissioner EEB LH cc: Jeffrey A. Dean,Senior Engineer(Civil), County Department of Public Works and Transportation Michael Dispenza,Contract Administrator,County Department of Public Works and Transportation ' Permit No. Stream COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION 148 MARTINE AVENUE WHITE PLAINS,NEW YORK 10601 APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DO WORK WITHIN CHANNEL LINES OR WITHIN 100 FEET THEREFROM (To Be Executed in Triplicate) TO: Jay T.Pisco,P.E. Commissioner,Public Works and Transportation Application is hereby made for a permit,under Chapter 241,Article III of the Westchester County Administrative Code,to carry out the following described project within channel lines or within 100 feet therefrom. 1. Applicant (Owner or Agent) 2. Address (Business or Residence) Zip Code Telephone 3. Owner Deed recorded in Liber Page 4. Tax Lots) Tax Block(s) Sheet No.(s) 5. Name and Location of Stream (Stream) (Municipality) 6. Location of Stream feet downstream from (Highway) 7. Proposed project and extent 8. Work To Be Started To Be Completed 9. Water Elevations(F.E.M.A.Flood Insurance) 10 Yr. 100 Yr. 10. Applicant attaches herewith THREE copies of the plans showing location of work,distances to nearest highway crossings, and details of design stamped by a Professional Engineer or Registered Architect. Applicant will famish additional data when required by the Commissioner. 11. List all approvals,certifications or permits required by Federal,State or Local Agencies: . Westchester County Department of Public Works and Transportation Witness: (Applicant's Signature) Approval and consent to grant the permit requested by this applicant is hereby given by the duly authorized municipal representative. NOTE: Application must be signed by municipality prior to submission. Signature and Title Municipality Date r, � THE PERMIT IS ISSUED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TERMS,AGREEMENTS,COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS 1) The term"Commissioner"shall mean the Commissioner of Public Works and Transportation of the County of Westchester or his authorized representative. 2) The term"Permittee"shall mean the applicant obtaining the permit,or his or its duly authorized agents or representatives. 3) The Commissioner,by issuing the permit,assumes no liability or responsibility on his part or on the part of the County of Westchester of any kind or nature for this sufficiency of the design or the operations covered by the Permit. 4) The Permittee assumes all risks in the operations covered by the permit and shall be solely responsible and answerable in damages for all accidents or injuries to persons or property. 5) The Permittee shall indemnify and save harmless the County of Westchester and the Commissioner of Public Works and Transportation from any and all claims,suits,losses,damage to property or injury to persons of whatsoever kind and nature, whether direct or indirect,arising out of the Permittee's operations under the permit,and the Permittee agrees to reimburse the County of Westchester and the Commissioner of Public Works and Transportation for all expenses,costs of judgments to which they may be put arising from such operation. 6) No changes in the plans or in the nature and extent of the work shall be made without the Commissioner's written consent. The project shall be subject at all times to inspection by the Commissioner. 7) The Permittee agrees that,during the performance of the work,the Permittee will not cause or allow in any way or manner any unreasonable interference with the free flow of the stream,and that the Permittee will not place,store or dump any materials,equipment or debris in or about the stream or channel in any way which may cause interference with the free flow of water. 8) The Permittee,upon completion of the work,shall cause to be removed from within the channel lines and within 100 feet therefrom all equipment,surplus materials,debris and structures not shown on the approved plans. 9) Within 30 days after completion,the Permittee shall certify that the work has been completed in accordance with the permit and the approved plans and that all unauthorized channel obstructions have been removed. 10) Final inspection of all work authorized by the permit will be made by the Commissioner to determine that the work has been performed in compliance with the permit. 11) Completed work shall be diligently maintained by the owner of the land to prevent any danger of obstruction of the stream, water course,easement or right-of-way bounded by channel lines by reason of erosion or the collapse or other impairment of the completed work. 12) The permit shall be subject to all applicable zoning regulations of the municipality within which the land to which the permit applies is located,to Workmen's Compensation Law,Disability Benefits Law and to all other regulations thereof applying to the construction of buildings and other structures. Every building permit or certificate of occupancy issued by any municipality shall be subject to the limitations and requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Westchester County Stream Control Law,with respect to any work covered by such permit or certificate. In event of any conflict,the more restrictive provision shall prevail. 13) The Commissioner reserves the right to revoke or cancel the permit at any time should the Permittee fail to comply with any of the terms,agreements,covenants and conditions of the permit. 14) The permit does not give any property rights,either in real property or material,or any exclusive privileges. It does not authorize any injury to public or private property,any invasion of property rights,any occupation of riparian or County property,or any infringement of State or local laws or regulations. Local and State permits and consents must be obtained when necessary. 15) The work must be completed on or before the stated completion date and shall be under the direction of a licensed professional engineer or licensed architect until it is completed. 16) The Permit is not in force and effect until the executed acceptance form is received by the Commissioner. 17) SPECIAL CONDITIONS for this Permit are set forth on the attached sheet. 18) The application,the Special conditions and the following approved plans are part of the permit: 3 � RH Consultiny, 297 Knollwood Road,White Plains,NY 10607 (914)997-7200 Fax: (914)997-7201 e-mail: pwmrhyman@verizon.net Richard Hyman,AICP March 16, 2016 TO: Paulding Holdings LLC FROM: Richard Hyman RE: 259 N. Ridge Street Development The proposed development for 259 N. Ridge Street includes 8 two-bedroom affordable townhouses for sale ($200,000-$215,000) and 2 four-bedroom market rate single family houses ($750,000-$1,000,000) in the Blind Brook School District. In order to estimate the number of public school students (pss) to be generated by the proposed development, there are two methodologies that can be utilized. First is the use of generic multipliers developed by extensive research covering large areas. Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research has developed multipliers of school age children(sac) and public school age children (psac) by housing type and sales price.* Utilizing the data for New York for two-bedroom affordable townhouses, the multiplier is 0.14 sac per townhouse; for four-bedroom single family houses, the multiplier is 1.05 sac per house (See Table 1). Applying the Blind Brook public school enrollment rate of 92% produces a multiplier of 0.13 psac per two-bedroom affordable townhouse and 0.97 psac per four-bedroom market rate single-family house (See Table 2). This yields a total estimate of 2.98 (say 3) public school children. The second methodology is to utilize data from comparable developments. Cottage Landing Phase II was built in 2012 in the City of Rye and the Rye City Central School District. It includes 10 one-bedroom and 12 two-bedroom affordable sales townhouse. There are no pss *Residential Demographic Multiplier—Estimates of Occupants of New Housing. Paulding Holdings LLC March 16, 2016 Page 2 living in the one-bedroom townhouses and 4 pss living in the 12 two-bedroom townhouses which is a multiplier of 0.33 pss per townhouse. Comstock Heights was built in 2014 in the Village of Briarcliff Manor and the Briarcliff Manor Union Free School District. It includes 14 two-bedroom affordable sales townhouses. There are currently 5 sac living in the two-bedroom townhouses, which is a multiplier of 0.36 sac per unit. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that all school aged children go to the public schools. I previously did a study of new single family market rate houses built in the Town of Yorktown during a four year period. The four-bedroom houses yielded 0.77 pss per house. Applying the multiplier of 0.36 from a comparable two-bedroom townhouse development (which is higher than the Blind Brook adjusted Rutgers multiplier) yields an estimate of 2.88 public school students from the townhouses. To be conservative applying the Blind Brook adjusted Rutgers study multiplier of 0.97 to the two market rate single family houses (which is higher than the Yorktown study) yields an estimate of 1.94 public school students from the houses. In total, it is estimated that the proposed development at 259 N. Ridge Street will generate 4.82 (say 5) public school students. The U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) 2008-20012 for the Blind Brook School District had about 2,298 occupied housing units which yields about 0.65 public school students per occupied housing unit based on a total enrollment of about 1,500 students. Applying this multiplier to the 10 total units proposed in the 259 N. Ridge Street development yields 6.5 (say 7)public school students. The range of estimates is from 3 to 7 public school children to be generated by the development proposed at 259 N. Ridge Street. Paulding Holdings LLC March 16, 2016 Page 3 Table 1 New York School Age Children (Public School Only,) Multiplier for School Aged Total School Type of Unit No.of Units Children Per Unit Aged Children Single Family Attached 2-BR 8 0.11 0.88 Value More Than$194,500 Single Family Detached 4-BR 2 0.87 1.74 Value More Than$329,500 Total Public School Aged Children 2.62 Source: Rutgers Center for Urban Policy Research. Table 2 New York All School Age Children (Adjusted Public School Children Based on Blind Brook School District) Multiplier for School Aged Total School Type of Unit No. of Units Children Per Unit* Aged Children Single Family Attached 2-13R 8 0.14 x 0.92 = 0.13 1.04 Value More Than$194,500 Single Family Detached 4-13R 2 1.05 x 0.92=0.97 1.94 Value More Than$329,500 Total Public School Aged Children 2.98 *Based on Blind Brook School District public school enrollment of 92%. Source: Rutgers Center for Urban Policy Research. s -W E?r Referral Review jevc 71 Pursuant to Section 239 L,M and N of the General Municipal Law and Section 277.61 of the County Administrative Code Robert F.Astorino County Executive County Planning Board March 30, 2016 Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Rye Brook Village Hall 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573-1226 Subject: Referral File No. RYB 16-002—North Ridge Street Subdivision Zoning Map Amendment, Subdivision and Site Plan Lead Agency Dear Mr. Bradbury: The Westchester County Planning Board has received a notice of intent to be Lead Agency, pursuant to the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), for the above referenced proposal to subdivide a 3.96-acre property located at 259 North Ridge Street into three parcels. One parcel would retain an existing single-family home which would be renovated, while a second parcel would be developed with a new single-family home. Both of these lots would retain their existing R-15 zoning designations. For the third lot, the applicant is seeking an amendment to the Village Zoning Map to rezone the property to the FAH District so as to permit the construction of eight units of affordable affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) in two buildings on this lot. It is our understanding that a site plan approval would also be required for this action. We respectfully request that we be sent additional information on this proposal as it moves through the review process. We have no objection to the Rye Brook Board of Trustees assuming Lead Agency status for this review. At this time, we offer the following comments under the provisions of Section 239 L, M and N of the General Municipal Law and Section 277.61 of the County Administrative Code: Affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH). We are supportive of the proposed application as it will bring eight additional affordable AFFH units to the Village. This aspect of the application is consistent with the County Planning Board's long-range planning policies set forth in Westchester 2025—Context for County and Municipal Planning and Policies to Guide County Planning, adopted by the Board on May 6, 2008, amended January 5, 2010, and its recommended strategies set forth in Patterns for Westchester: The Land and the People, adopted December 5, 1995, which calls for increasing the range of housing types in Westchester County. We recommend that the Village require that the affordable AFFH units meet all requirements of the Housing Settlement Agreement. 432 Michaelian Office Building 148 Martine Avenue White Plains, New York 10601 relephone: (914)995 1400 Website: westchestergov.com Referral File No. RYB 16-002—North Ridge Street; Zoning Amendment,Subdivision, Site Plan Lead Agency March 30, 2016 Page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. Respectfully, WESTCHESTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD g'Cow.' Edward Buroughs, AICP Commissioner EEB.LH RH Consulting 297 Knollwood Road,White Plains,NY 10607 (914)997-7200 Fax: (914)997-7201 e-mail: pwmrhyman@verizon.net Richard Hyman,AICP February 24,2016 TO: Pawling Holdings LLC FROM: Richard Hyman RE: 259 N. Ridge Street Development The proposed development for 259 N. Ridge Street includes 8 two-bedroom affordable townhouses for sale and 2 four-bedroom market rate single family houses in the Blind Brook School District. In order to estimate the number of public school students (pss) to be generated by the proposed development,there are two methodologies that can be utilized. First is the use of generic multipliers developed by extensive research covering large areas. Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research has developed multipliers of school age children (sac) by housing type and sales price. For two-bedroom affordable townhouses, the multiplier is 0.25 sac per townhouse. For four-bedroom single family houses, the multiplier is 1.05 sac per house. The second methodology is to utilize data from comparable developments. Cottage Landing Phase II was built in 2012 in the City of Rye and the Rye City Central School District. It includes 10 one-bedroom and 12 two-bedroom affordable sales townhouse. There are no pss living in the one-bedroom townhouses and 4 pss living in the 12 two-bedroom townhouses which is a multiplier of 0.36 pss per townhouse. Comstock Heights was built in 2014 in the Village of Briarcliff Manor and the Briarcliff Manor Union Free School District. It includes 14 two-bedroom affordable sales townhouses. There are currently 5 sac living in the two-bedroom townhouses, which is a multiplier of 0.36 sac per unit. Pawling Holdings LLC February 24, 2016 Page 2 For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that all school aged children go to the public schools. I previously did a study of new single family market rate houses built in the Town of Yorktown during a four year period. The four-bedroom houses yielded 0.77 pss per house. Applying the multiplier of 0.36 from the comparable two-bedroom townhouse development yields an estimate of 2.88 public school students. To be conservative applying the higher multiplier of 1.05 to the two market rate single family houses yields 2.10 public school students. In total, it is estimated that the proposed development at 259 N. Ridge Street will generate 5 public school students. North Ridge Street Stormwater Report April 14, 2016 ALTERNATE WITHOUT EXFILTRATION 2 ROUTING DIAGRAM EXIST DP1 TOWNHOMES Design Point 1 ��/VVQ\\ ( (5 Existing Flow BASIN REMAINING NEW HOUSE 1 �B Cartridge Filters Control Structure cs a Outlet DRYWELL S 4 OFF ITE � 1 as JCT � FIN DETENTION BASIN JUNCTION PROP DP1 Design Point 1 Proposed Flow RALPH G. MASTROMONACO, PE, PC Consulting Engineers Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Subcat Reach on Link Routing Diagram for laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Prepared by Microsoft. Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 C 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type/1/ 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Summary for Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Runoff = 12.59 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 61,157 cf, Depth= 2.78" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Area (sf) CN Description 264,390 58.20 EXISTING 264,390 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Runoff = 5.83 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 18,402 cf, Depth= 5.39" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Area (so CN Description 40,997 82.00 TOWNHOMES 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Runoff = 9.92 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 47,880 cf, Depth= 2.89" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Area (so CN Description 198,806 59.30 REMAINING AREA 198,806 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type/1/ 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Summary for Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Runoff = 2.77 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,585 cf, Depth= 4.07" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Area (sf) CN Description 25,307 70.30 NEW HOUSE WS 25,307 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Pond CS: CS Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.81" for A-100 event Inflow = 5.42 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 9,607 cf Outflow = 5.42 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 9,607 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 2.84 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,115 cf Secondary= 2.58 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,492 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 80.87'@ 12.09 hrs Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 79.95' CS1_Primary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.341 0.751 1.175 1.255 1.328 1.359 1.398 1.438 1.458 #2 Secondary 79.95' CS1_Secondary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.140 0.210 0.268 0.668 1.510 1.946 2.848 3.754 4.207 #3 Primary 79.30' 7.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Primary OutFlow Max=2.84 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=80.87' (Free Discharge) �--3=Orif1:'C- 1=CS1Primary_ratings(Custom Controls 1.39 cfs) e/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.46 cfs @ 5.45 fps) $econdary OutFlow Max=2.57 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=80.87' (Free Discharge) 2=CS1_Secondary_ratings(Custom Controls 2.57 cfs) Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type /// 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCAD(D 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.38" for A-100 event Inflow = 2.84 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,115 cf Outflow = 1.39 cfs @ 12.46 hrs, Volume= 8,116 cf, Aften= 51%, Lag= 22.5 min Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Primary = 1.39 cfs @ 12.46 hrs, Volume= 8,116 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 79.31'@ 12.46 hrs Surf.Area= 1,656 sf Storage= 3,347 cf Plug-Flow detention time=78.2 min calculated for 8,114 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=78.2 min ( 849.3-771.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 96.10' 2,172 cf 30.00'W x 80.76'L x 3.50'H Field A 8,480 cf Overall- 3,049 cf Embedded= 5,431 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 96.60' 3,049 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 66 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 6 rows #3 116.10' 9,000 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below(Recalc) #46 76.10' 1,505 cf 20.50'W x 80.76'L x 3.50'H Field B 5,795 cf Overall-2,033 cf Embedded= 3,762 cf x 40.0% Voids #56 76.60' 2,033 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 44 Inside#4 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 4 rows 17,759 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 116.10 900 0 0 126.10 900 9,000 9,000 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 76.10' 3.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 76.10' 0.01 cfs Exfiltration X 0.00 at all elevations #3 Primary 78.30' 0.50' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Qiscarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=76.10' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.41 cfs @ 12.46 hrs HW=79.31' (Free Discharge) �__3=S 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.42 cfs @ 8.46 fps) harp-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 0.99 cfs @ 3.29 fps) Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type /// 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Pond DW: DRYWELL Inflow Area = 25,307 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.07" for A-100 event Inflow = 2.77 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,585 cf Outflow = 2.75 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 8,585 cf, Atten= 1%, Lag= 0.6 min Discarded = 0.20 cfs @ 11.51 hrs, Volume= 5,871 cf Primary = 2.55 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 2,714 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 62.96'@ 12.10 hrs Surf.Area= 101 sf Storage= 1,001 cf Plug-Flow detention time=25.6 min calculated for 8,583 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=25.6 min ( 852.7 -827.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 53.00' 1,005 cf 8.00'D x 10.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinderx 2 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 62.00' 12.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 53.00' 0.20 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations Discarded OutFlow Max=0.20 cfs @ 11.51 hrs HW=53.10' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.20 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=2.57 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=62.95' (Free Discharge) L1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 2.57 cfs @ 3.33 fps) Summary for Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.39" for A-100 event Inflow = 5.83 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 18,402 cf Outflow = 5.57 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 18,175 cf, Atten= 4%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 5.42 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 9,607 cf Secondary= 0.15 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,567 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 83.69'@ 12.09 hrs Surf.Area= 1,859 sf Storage= 3,990 cf Plug-Flow detention time=230.6 min calculated for 18,175 cf(99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 222.9 min ( 1,023.4-800.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 80.00' 1,679 cf 25.25'W x 73.641 x 3.50'H Field A 6,508 cf Overall-2,311 cf Embedded=4,197 cf x 40.0%Voids #2A 80.50' 2,311 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 50 Inside#1 Effective Size=44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows 3,990 cf Total Available Storage Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type Ill 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 82.50' 18.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate X 0.00 C= 0.600 #2 Primary 83.00' 3.00' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #3 Secondary 80.00' Special & User-Defined Head (feet) 0.00 10.00 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.400 Primary OutFlow Max=5.41 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=83.69' (Free Discharge) �__2=Sharp-C 1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) rested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 5.41 cfs @ 2.72 fps) tScondary OutFlow Max=0.15 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=83.69' (Free Discharge) 3=Special & User-Defined(Custom Controls 0.15 cfs) Summary for Link 4: OFFSITE Inflow Area = 224,113 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.71" for A-100 event Inflow = 10.97 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 50,594 cf Primary = 10.97 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 50,594 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link FIN: PROP DP1 Inflow Area = 265,110 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 3.11" for A-100 event Inflow = 12.29 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 68,769 cf Primary = 12.29 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 68,769 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link JCT: JUNCTION Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 5.32" for A-100 event Inflow = 2.98 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 18,175 cf Primary = 2.98 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 18,175 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type/1/ 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Summary for Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Runoff = 10.89 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 53,507 cf, Depth= 2.43" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.00" Area (sf) CN Description 264,390 58.20 EXISTING 264,390 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Runoff = 5.34 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 16,796 cf, Depth= 4.92" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.00" Area (so CN Description 40,997 82.00 TOWNHOMES 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Runoff = 8.62 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 42,001 cf, Depth= 2.54" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.00" Area (so CN Description 198,806 59.30 REMAINING AREA 198,806 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type /// 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 Summary for Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Runoff = 2.49 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 7,697 cf, Depth= 3.65" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.00" Area (sf) CN Description 25,307 70.30 NEW HOUSE WS 25,307 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Pond CS: CS Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.44" for B-50 event Inflow = 5.14 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,348 cf Outflow = 5.14 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,348 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 2.83 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 7,118 cf Secondary= 2.32 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,230 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 80.86'@ 12.09 hrs Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 79.95' CS1_Primary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.341 0.751 1.175 1.255 1.328 1.359 1.398 1.438 1.458 #2 Secondary 79.95' CS1_Secondary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.140 0.210 0.268 0.668 1.510 1.946 2.848 3.754 4.207 #3 Primary 79.30' 7.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Primary OutFlow Max=2.82 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=80.86' (Free Discharge) 1=CS1_Primary_ratings(Custom Controls 1.37 cfs) 13=0 rifice/G rate (Orifice Controls 1.45 cfs @ 5.43 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=2.31 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=80.86' (Free Discharge) L2=CS1_Secondary_ratings(Custom Controls 2.31 cfs) Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type /// 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.08" for B-50 event Inflow = 2.83 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 7,118 cf Outflow = 1.12 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 7,118 cf, Atten= 60%, Lag= 25.0 min Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Primary = 1.12 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 7,118 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 79.03'@ 12.50 hrs Surf.Area= 1,656 sf Storage= 3,160 cf Plug-Flow detention time=82.4 min calculated for 7,116 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 82.5 min ( 852.5 -770.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 96.10' 2,172 cf 30.00'W x 80.76'L x 3.50'H Field A 8,480 cf Overall- 3,049 cf Embedded= 5,431 cf x 40.0%Voids #2A 96.60' 3,049 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 66 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 6 rows #3 116.10' 9,000 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below(Recalc) #46 76.10' 1,505 cf 20.50'W x 80.761 x 3.50'H Field B 5,795 cf Overall-2,033 cf Embedded= 3,762 cf x 40.0%Voids #513 76.60' 2,033 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 44 Inside#4 Effective Size=44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 4 rows 17,759 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 116.10 900 0 0 126.10 900 9,000 9,000 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 76.10' 3.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 76.10' 0.01 cfs Exfiltration X 0.00 at all elevations #3 Primary 78.30' 0.50' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Qiscarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=76.10' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.12 cfs @ 12.50 hrs HW=79.03' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.40 cfs @ 8.07 fps) L3=Sharp-C rested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 0.72 cfs @ 2.80 fps) Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type /// 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 Summary for Pond DW: DRYWELL Inflow Area = 25,307 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.65" for B-50 event Inflow = 2.49 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 7,697 cf Outflow = 2.47 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 7,697 cf, Atten= 1%, Lag= 0.6 min Discarded = 0.20 cfs @ 11.59 hrs, Volume= 5,507 cf Primary = 2.27 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 2,191 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 62.86'@ 12.10 hrs Surf.Area= 101 sf Storage= 991 cf Plug-Flow detention time=26.3 min calculated for 7,696 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=26.3 min ( 856.5- 830.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 53.00' 1,005 cf 8.00'D x 10.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinderx 2 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 62.00' 12.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 53.00' 0.20 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations Qtrded OutFlow Max=0.20 cfs @ 11.59 hrs HW=53.10' (Free Discharge) Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.20 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=2.27 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=62.86' (Free Discharge) t1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 2.27 cfs @ 3.16 fps) Summary for Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.92" for B-50 event Inflow = 5.34 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 16,796 cf Outflow = 5.29 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 16,692 cf, Atten= 1%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 5.14 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,348 cf Secondary= 0.15 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,344 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 83.67'@ 12.09 hrs Surf.Area= 1,859 sf Storage= 3,990 cf Plug-Flow detention time=240.0 min calculated for 16,692 cf(99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=236.1 min ( 1,039.1 - 803.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 80.00' 1,679 cf 25.25'W x 73.64'L x 3.50'H Field A 6,508 cf Overall-2,311 cf Embedded= 4,197 cf x 40.0%Voids #2A 80.50' 2,311 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 50 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows 3,990 cf Total Available Storage Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type /// 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 82.50' 18.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate X 0.00 C= 0.600 #2 Primary 83.00' 3.00' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #3 Secondary 80.00' Special & User-Defined Head (feet) 0.00 10.00 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.400 Primary OutFlow Max=5.12 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=83.67' (Free Discharge) �__2=S 1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) harp-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 5.12 cfs @ 2.67 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.15 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=83.67' (Free Discharge) L3=Special & User-Defined(Custom Controls 0.15 cfs) Summary for Link 4: OFFSITE Inflow Area = 224,113 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.37" for B-50 event Inflow = 9.54 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 44,192 cf Primary = 9.54 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 44,192 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link FIN: PROP DPI Inflow Area = 265,110 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.76" for B-50 event Inflow = 10.41 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 60,884 cf Primary = 10.41 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 60,884 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link JCT: JUNCTION Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 4.89" for B-50 event Inflow = 2.68 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 16,692 cf Primary = 2.68 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 16,692 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type /// 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12 Summary for Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Runoff = 7.68 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 39,066 cf, Depth= 1.77" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Area (sf) CN Description 264,390 58.20 EXISTING 264,390 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Runoff = 4.36 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 13,622 cf, Depth= 3.99" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 82.00 TOWNHOMES 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Runoff = 6.14 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 30,872 cf, Depth= 1.86" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Area (sf) CN Description 198,806 59.30 REMAINING AREA 198,806 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Y Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type /// 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13 Summary for Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Runoff = 1.92 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 5,975 cf, Depth= 2.83" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Area (sf) CN Description 25,307 70.30 NEW HOUSE WS 25,307 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Pond CS: CS Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.64" for C-25 event Inflow = 3.73 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 5,611 cf Outflow = 3.73 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 5,611 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 2.69 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 5,169 cf Secondary= 1.02 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 441 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 80.80'@ 12.09 hrs Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 79.95' CS1_Primary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.341 0.751 1.175 1.255 1.328 1.359 1.398 1.438 1.458 #2 Secondary 79.95' CS1_Secondary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.140 0.210 0.268 0.668 1.510 1.946 2.848 3.754 4.207 #3 Primary 79.30' 7.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Primary OutFlow Max=2.69 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=80.80' (Free Discharge) 1=CS1Primary_ratings(Custom Controls 1.28 cfs) L3=Orifl:-Ce/G rate (Orifice Controls 1.41 cfs @ 5.29 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.94 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=80.80' (Free Discharge) 'L2=CS1_Secondary_ratings(Custom Controls 0.94 cfs) Larizza North Ridge (no perc) Iaz_greto_model_MIN_fuII_no_perc Type H/ 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.51" for C-25 event Inflow = 2.69 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 5,169 cf Outflow = 0.48 cfs @ 12.67 hrs, Volume= 5,169 cf, Atten= 82%, Lag= 34.7 min Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Primary = 0.48 cfs @ 12.67 hrs, Volume= 5,169 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 78.49'@ 12.67 hrs Surf.Area= 1,656 sf Storage= 2,688 cf Plug-Flow detention time=93.1 min calculated for 5,168 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=93.2 min ( 860.6 -767.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 96.10' 2,172 cf 30.00'W x 80.761 x 3.50'H Field A 8,480 cf Overall- 3,049 cf Embedded = 5,431 cf x 40.0%Voids #2A 96.60' 3,049 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 66 Inside#1 Effective Size=44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 6 rows #3 116.10' 9,000 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below(Recalc) #413 76.10' 1,505 cf 20.50'W x 80.761 x 3.50'H Field B 5,795 cf Overall- 2,033 cf Embedded= 3,762 cf x 40.0% Voids #56 76.60' 2,033 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 44 Inside#4 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 4 rows 17,759 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 116.10 900 0 0 126.10 900 9,000 9,000 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 76.10' 3.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 76.10' 0.01 cfs Exfiltration X 0.00 at all elevations #3 Primary 78.30' 0.50' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) scarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=76.10' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.48 cfs @ 12.67 hrs HW=78.49' (Free Discharge) �__3=S 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.36 cfs @ 7.25 fps) harp-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 0.13 cfs @ 1.43 fps) Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type /// 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 15 Summary for Pond DW: DRYWELL Inflow Area = 25,307 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.83" for C-25 event Inflow = 1.92 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 5,975 cf Outflow = 1.74 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 5,975 cf, Atten= 10%, Lag= 2.6 min Discarded = 0.20 cfs @ 11.66 hrs, Volume= 4,735 cf Primary = 1.54 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 1,240 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 62.66'@ 12.13 hrs Surf.Area= 101 sf Storage= 972 cf Plug-Flow detention time=27.3 min calculated for 5,975 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=27.3 min ( 864.8 - 837.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 53.00' 1,005 cf 8.00'D x 10.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinderx 2 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 62.00' 12.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 53.00' 0.20 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations Discarded OutFlow Max=0.20 cfs @ 11.66 hrs HW=53.10' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.20 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.52 cfs @ 12.13 hrs HW=62.66' (Free Discharge) L1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.52 cfs @ 2.76 fps) Summary for Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.99" for C-25 event Inflow = 4.36 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 13,622 cf Outflow = 3.87 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 13,473 cf, Atten= 11%, Lag= 0.5 min Primary = 3.73 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 5,611 cf Secondary= 0.14 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 7,863 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 83.54'@ 12.09 hrs Surf.Area= 1,859 sf Storage= 3,990 cf Plug-Flow detention time=283.1 min calculated for 13,470 cf(99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=276.7 min ( 1,085.6 -808.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 80.00' 1,679 cf 25.25'W x 73.64'L x 3.50'H Field A 6,508 cf Overall-2,311 cf Embedded= 4,197 cf x 40.0%Voids #2A 80.50' 2,311 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 50 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows 3,990 cf Total Available Storage Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type/1/ 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16 Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 82.50' 18.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate X 0.00 C= 0.600 #2 Primary 83.00' 3.00' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #3 Secondary 80.00' Special & User-Defined Head (feet) 0.00 10.00 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.400 Primary OutFlow Max=3.62 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=83.53' (Free Discharge) 11=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 2=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 3.62 cfs @ 2.37 fps) $econdary OutFlow Max=0.14 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=83.53' (Free Discharge) 3=Special & User-Defined(Custom Controls 0.14 cfs) Summary for Link 4: OFFSITE Inflow Area = 224,113 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.72" for C-25 event Inflow = 6.82 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 32,111 cf Primary = 6.82 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 32,111 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link FIN: PROP DP1 Inflow Area = 265,110 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.06" for C-25 event Inflow = 7.42 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 45,585 cf Primary = 7.42 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 45,585 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link JCT: JUNCTION Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 3.94" for C-25 event Inflow = 1.29 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 13,473 cf Primary = 1.29 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 13,473 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type/1/ 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 17 Summary for Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Runoff = 4.79 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 26,038 cf, Depth= 1.18" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Area (so CN Description 264,390 58.20 EXISTING 264,390 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Runoff = 3.39 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 10,519 cf, Depth= 3.08" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 82.00 TOWNHOMES 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Runoff = 3.90 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 20,778 cf, Depth= 1.25" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Area (so CN Description 198,806 59.30 REMAINING AREA 198,806 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type Ill 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 18 Summary for Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Runoff = 1.38 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 4,345 cf, Depth= 2.06" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Area (sf) CN Description 25,307 70.30 NEW HOUSE WS 25,307 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Pond CS: CS Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.92" for D-10 event Inflow = 1.86 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 3,147 cf Outflow = 1.86 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 3,147 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 1.69 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 3,036 cf Secondary= 0.17 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 112 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 80.42'@ 12.20 hrs Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 79.95' CS1_Primary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.341 0.751 1.175 1.255 1.328 1.359 1.398 1.438 1.458 #2 Secondary 79.95' CS1_Secondary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.140 0.210 0.268 0.668 1.510 1.946 2.848 3.754 4.207 #3 Primary 79.30' 7.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Primary OutFlow Max=1.69 cfs @ 12.20 hrs HW=80.42' (Free Discharge) 1=CS1_Primary_ratings(Custom Controls 0.52 cfs) L3=Orifice/G rate (Orifice Controls 1.17 cfs @ 4.38 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.17 cfs @ 12.20 hrs HW=80.42' (Free Discharge) t-2=CS1_Secondary_ratings(Custom Controls 0.17 cfs) Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type /// 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 19 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 40.997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.89" for D-10 event Inflow = 1.69 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 3,036 cf Outflow = 0.27 cfs @ 12.88 hrs, Volume= 3,036 cf, Atten= 84%. Lag= 40.7 min Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs. Volume= 0 cf Primary = 0.27 cfs @ 12.88 hrs, Volume= 3,036 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/ 2 Peak Elev= 77.50'@ 12.88 hrs Surf.Area= 1,656 sf Storage= 1,524 cf Plug-Flow detention time=73.4 min calculated for 3,035 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 73.4 min ( 842.0 - 768.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 96.10' 2,172 cf 30.00'W x 80.761 x 3.50'H Field A 8.480 cf Overall - 3,049 cf Embedded = 5,431 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 96.60' 3,049 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 66 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 6 rows #3 116.10' 9,000 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below(Recalc) #413 76.10' 1,505 cf 20.50'W x 80.761 x 3.50'H Field B 5,795 cf Overall - 2,033 cf Embedded = 3,762 cf x 40.0% Voids #513 76.60' 2,033 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 44 Inside#4 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 4 rows 17,759 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 116.10 900 0 0 126.10 900 9.000 9,000 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 76.10' 3.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 76.10' 0.01 cfs Exfiltration X 0.00 at all elevations #3 Primary 78.30' 0.50' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=76.10' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.27 cfs @ 12.88 hrs HW=77.50' (Free Discharge) �1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.27 cfs @ 5.43 fps) 3=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type /// 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCADS 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 20 Summary for Pond DW: DRYWELL Inflow Area = 25,307 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.06" for D-10 event Inflow = 1.38 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 4,345 cf Outflow = 0.71 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 4,345 cf, Atten= 49%, Lag= 10.3 min Discarded = 0.20 cfs @ 11.75 hrs, Volume= 3,938 cf Primary = 0.51 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 407 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 62.35'@ 12.26 hrs Surf.Area= 101 sf Storage= 940 cf Plug-Flow detention time=28.8 min calculated for 4,344 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 28.8 min ( 875.7 - 846.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 53.00' 1,005 cf 8.00'D x 10.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinderx 2 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 62.00' 12.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 53.00' 0.20 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations Discarded OutFlow Max=0.20 cfs @ 11.75 hrs HW=53.11' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.20 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.50 cfs @ 12.26 hrs HW=62.35' (Free Discharge) L1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.50 cfs @ 2.02 fps) Summary for Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.08" for D-10 event Inflow = 3.39 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 10,519 cf Outflow = 1.99 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 10,464 cf, Atten=41%, Lag= 6.8 min Primary = 1.86 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 3,147 cf Secondary= 0.13 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 7,317 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 83.33'@ 12.20 hrs Surf.Area= 1,859 sf Storage= 3,866 cf Plug-Flow detention time=335.0 min calculated for 10,464 cf(99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=331.7 min ( 1,148.0- 816.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 80.00' 1,679 cf 25.25'W x 73.641 x 3.50'H Field A 6,508 cf Overall- 2,311 cf Embedded= 4,197 cf x 40.0%Voids #2A 80.50' 2,311 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 50 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows 3,990 cf Total Available Storage Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type /// 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 21 Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 82.50' 18.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate X 0.00 C= 0.600 #2 Primary 83.00' 3.00' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #3 Secondary 80.00' Special & User-Defined Head (feet) 0.00 10.00 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.400 Primary OutFlow Max=1.85 cfs @ 12.20 hrs HW=83.33' (Free Discharge) T__2=Sharp-Crested 1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 1.85 cfs @ 1.89 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.13 cfs @ 12.20 hrs HW=83.33' (Free Discharge) 3=Special & User-Defined(Custom Controls 0.13 cfs) Summary for Link 4: OFFSITE Inflow Area = 224,113 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.13" for D-10 event Inflow = 4.33 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 21,185 cf Primary = 4.33 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 21,185 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link FIN: PROP DP1 Inflow Area = 265,110 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.43" for D-10 event Inflow = 4.76 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 31,650 cf Primary = 4.76 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 31,650 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link JCT: JUNCTION Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 3.06" for D-10 event Inflow = 0.45 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 10,464 cf Primary = 0.45 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 10,464 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type /// 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 22 Summary for Subcatchment 1: EXIST DPI Runoff = 3.50 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 20,183 cf, Depth= 0.92" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description 264,390 58.20 EXISTING 264,390 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Runoff = 2.91 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 9,006 cf, Depth= 2.64" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 82.00 TOWNHOMES 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Runoff = 2.89 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 16,218 cf, Depth= 0.98" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description 198,806 59.30 REMAINING AREA 198,806 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type 111 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 23 Summary for Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Runoff = 1.12 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,575 cf, Depth= 1.70" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description 25,307 70.30 NEW HOUSE WS 25,307 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Pond CS: CS Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.57" for E-5 event Inflow = 1.07 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 1,940 cf Outflow = 1.07 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 1,940 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 1.02 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 1,920 cf Secondary= 0.05 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 20 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 80.08'@ 12.32 hrs Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 79.95' CS1_Primary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.341 0.751 1.175 1.255 1.328 1.359 1.398 1.438 1.458 #2 Secondary 79.95' CS1_Secondary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.140 0.210 0.268 0.668 1.510 1.946 2.848 3.754 4.207 #3 Primary 79.30' 7.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Primary OutFlow Max=1.02 cfs @ 12.32 hrs HW=80.08' (Free Discharge) �--3=0rifice/G 1=CS1Primary_ratings(Custom Controls 0.12 cfs) rate (Orifice Controls 0.90 cfs @ 3.37 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.05 cfs @ 12.32 hrs HW=80.08' (Free Discharge) 2=CS1_Secondary_ratings(Custom Controls 0.05 cfs) Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type /// 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 24 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.56" for E-5 event Inflow = 1.02 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 1,920 cf Outflow = 0.21 cfs @ 12.92 hrs, Volume= 1,920 cf, Atten= 80%, Lag= 35.6 min Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Primary = 0.21 cfs @ 12.92 hrs, Volume= 1,920 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 77.00'@ 12.92 hrs Surf.Area= 1,656 sf Storage= 872 cf Plug-Flow detention time=55.3 min calculated for 1,920 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=55.2 min ( 827.6 -772.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 96.10' 2,172 cf 30.00'W x 80.761 x 3.50'H Field A 8,480 cf Overall- 3,049 cf Embedded= 5,431 cf x 40.0%Voids #2A 96.60' 3,049 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 66 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 6 rows #3 116.10' 9,000 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below(Recalc) #41B 76.10' 1,505 cf 20.50'W x 80.761 x 3.50'H Field B 5,795 cf Overall-2,033 cf Embedded= 3,762 cf x 40.0%Voids #56 76.60' 2,033 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 44 Inside#4 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 4 rows 17,759 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 116.10 900 0 0 126.10 900 9,000 9,000 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 76.10' 3.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 76.10' 0.01 cfs Exfiltration X 0.00 at all elevations #3 Primary 78.30' 0.50' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Qiscarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=76.10' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.21 cfs @ 12.92 hrs HW=77.00' (Free Discharge) �__3=Sharp-C 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.21 cfs @ 4.24 fps) rested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type 111 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 25 Summary for Pond DW: DRYWELL Inflow Area = 25,307 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.70" for E-5 event Inflow = 1.12 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,575 cf Outflow = 0.32 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 3,575 cf, Atten= 72%, Lag= 23.8 min Discarded = 0.20 cfs @ 11.81 hrs, Volume= 3,529 cf Primary = 0.12 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 46 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 62.16'@ 12.49 hrs Surf.Area= 101 sf Storage= 921 cf Plug-Flow detention time=29.6 min calculated for 3,575 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=29.6 min ( 882.3 - 852.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 53.00' 1,005 cf 8.00'D x 10.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinderx 2 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 62.00' 12.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 53.00' 0.20 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations Discarded OutFlow Max=0.20 cfs @ 11.81 hrs HW=53.10' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.20 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.11 cfs @ 12.49 hrs HW=62.16' (Free Discharge) L1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.11 cfs @ 1.35 fps) Summary for Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.64" for E-5 event Inflow = 2.91 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 9,006 cf Outflow = 1.19 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 8,956 cf, Atten= 59%, Lag= 14.0 min Primary = 1.07 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 1,940 cf Secondary= 0.13 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 7,017 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 83.23'@ 12.32 hrs Surf.Area= 1,859 sf Storage= 3,788 cf Plug-Flow detention time=375.4 min calculated for 8,954 cf(99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=372.2 min ( 1,192.9 - 820.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 80.00' 1,679 cf 25.25'W x 73.64'L x 3.50'H Field A 6,508 cf Overall- 2,311 cf Embedded= 4,197 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 80.50' 2,311 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 50 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows 3,990 cf Total Available Storage Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type /// 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCADS 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 26 Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 82.50' 18.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate X 0.00 C= 0.600 #2 Primary 83.00' 3.00' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #3 Secondary 80.00' Special & User-Defined Head (feet) 0.00 10.00 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.400 Primary OutFlow Max=1.05 cfs @ 12.32 hrs HW=83.23' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) L2=Sharp-C rested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 1.05 cfs @ 1.56 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.13 cfs @ 12.32 hrs HW=83.23' (Free Discharge) 3=Special & User-Defined(Custom Controls 0.13 cfs) Summary for Link 4: OFFSITE Inflow Area = 224,113 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.87" for E-5 event Inflow = 2.89 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 16,264 cf Primary = 2.89 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 16,264 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link FIN: PROP DPI Inflow Area = 265,110 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.14" for E-5 event Inflow = 3.20 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 25,220 cf Primary = 3.20 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 25,220 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link JCT: JUNCTION Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.62" for E-5 event Inflow = 0.33 cfs @ 12.88 hrs, Volume= 8,956 cf Primary = 0.33 cfs @ 12.88 hrs, Volume= 8,956 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type /// 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 27 Summary for Subcatchment 1: EXIST DPI Runoff = 1.38 cfs @ 12.43 hrs, Volume= 10,148 cf, Depth= 0.46" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Area (sf) CN Description 264,390 58.20 EXISTING 264,390 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Runoff = 1.97 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 6,090 cf, Depth= 1.78" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 82.00 TOWNHOMES 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Runoff = 1.20 cfs @ 12.40 hrs, Volume= 8,339 cf, Depth= 0.50" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Area (sf) CN Description 198,806 59.30 REMAINING AREA 198,806 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type 111 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 28 Summary for Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Runoff = 0.65 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 2,161 cf, Depth= 1.02" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Area (sf) CN Description 25,307 70.30 NEW HOUSE WS 25,307 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Pond CS: CS Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.00" for F-2 event Inflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Secondary= 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 79.30'@ 0.00 hrs Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 79.95' CS1_Primary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.341 0.751 1.175 1.255 1.328 1.359 1.398 1.438 1.458 #2 Secondary 79.95' CS1_Secondary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.140 0.210 0.268 0.668 1.510 1.946 2.848 3.754 4.207 #3 Primary 79.30' 7.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=79.30' (Free Discharge) �l=CS1-Primary_ratings ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=79.30' (Free Discharge) 2=CS1_Secondary_ratings( Controls 0.00 cfs) Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type I// 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 29 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.00" for F-2 event Inflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 76.10'@ 0.00 hrs Surf.Area= 1,656 sf Storage= 0 cf Plug-Flow detention time=(not calculated: initial storage exceeds outflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=(not calculated: no inflow) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 96.10' 2,172 cf 30.00'W x 80.76'L x 3.50'H Field A 8,480 cf Overall- 3,049 cf Embedded= 5,431 cf x 40.0%Voids #2A 96.60' 3,049 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 66 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 6 rows #3 116.10' 9,000 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below(Recalc) #46 76.10' 1,505 cf 20.50'W x 80.76'L x 3.50'H Field B 5,795 cf Overall- 2,033 cf Embedded= 3,762 cf x 40.0%Voids #513 76.60' 2,033 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 44 Inside#4 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 4 rows 17,759 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 116.10 900 0 0 126.10 900 9,000 9,000 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 76.10' 3.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 76.10' 0.01 cfs Exfiltration X 0.00 at all elevations #3 Primary 78.30' 0.50' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Drded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=76.10' (Free Discharge) tExfiltration ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=76.10' (Free Discharge) �__3=S 1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) harp-Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type /// 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 30 Summary for Pond DW: DRYWELL Inflow Area = 25,307 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.02" for F-2 event Inflow = 0.65 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 2,161 cf Outflow = 0.20 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 2,161 cf, Atten= 69%, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded = 0.20 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 2,161 cf Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 56.63'@ 12.49 hrs Surf.Area= 101 sf Storage= 365 cf Plug-Flow detention time=9.4 min calculated for 2,160 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=9.4 min ( 877.7- 868.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 53.00' 1,005 cf 8.00'D x 10.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinderx 2 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 62.00' 12.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 53.00' 0.20 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations Discarded OutFlow Max=0.20 cfs @ 11.97 hrs HW=53.11' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.20 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=53.00' (Free Discharge) L1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.78" for F-2 event Inflow = 1.97 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 6,090 cf Outflow = 0.11 cfs @ 14.59 hrs, Volume= 6,052 cf, Atten= 94%, Lag= 149.8 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Secondary= 0.11 cfs @ 14.59 hrs, Volume= 6,052 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 82.80'@ 14.59 hrs Surf.Area= 1,859 sf Storage= 3,463 cf Plug-Flow detention time=483.2 min calculated for 6,052 cf(99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=479.4 min ( 1,311.3- 832.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 80.00' 1,679 cf 25.25'W x 73.64'L x 3.50'H Field A 6,508 cf Overall-2,311 cf Embedded=4,197 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 80.50' 2,311 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 50 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows 3,990 cf Total Available Storage Larizza North Ridge (no perc) laz_greto_model_MIN_full_no_perc Type 111 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/14/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 31 Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 82.50' 18.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate X 0.00 C= 0.600 #2 Primary 83.00' 3.00' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #3 Secondary 80.00' Special & User-Defined Head (feet) 0.00 10.00 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.400 Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=80.00' (Free Discharge) �__2=Sharp-C 1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) rested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.11 cfs @ 14.59 hrs HW=82.80' (Free Discharge) L3=Special & User-Defined(Custom Controls 0.11 cfs) Summary for Link 4: OFFSITE Inflow Area = 224,113 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.45" for F-2 event Inflow = 1.20 cfs @ 12.40 hrs, Volume= 8,339 cf Primary = 1.20 cfs @ 12.40 hrs, Volume= 8,339 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link FIN: PROP DP1 Inflow Area = 265,110 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.65" for F-2 event Inflow = 1.29 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume= 14,391 cf Primary = 1.29 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume= 14,391 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow. Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link JCT: JUNCTION Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.77" for F-2 event Inflow = 0.11 cfs @ 14.59 hrs, Volume= 6,052 cf Primary = 0.11 cfs @ 14.59 hrs, Volume= 6,052 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs K EAN EMB EAN EPC. ■445 Haan I on Avenue ATTORNEYS AT LAW White Plains,NY 10601 Phone 914.946.4777 Fax 914.946.6868 MEMORANDUM ■Mid-Hudson Office 200 Wcstagc Business Center Fishkill,NY 12524 Phone 845.896.0120 TO: Village of Rye Brook Planning Board FROM: Jennifer L. Gray RE: Larizza- 259 North Ridge Street DATE: January 8, 2016 Applications have been submitted by Lou Larizza (the "Applicant's for a three lot subdivision,development of multifamily affordable housing and two market rate houses at property located at 259 North Ridge Street. He is also seeking to rezone the multifamily lot from R-15 to the FAH zoning district. The Applicant's development proposal involves several different applications, some of which are under the approval authority of the Board of Trustees and some of which are under the Planning Board's approval authority. The purpose of this memorandum is to make clear (or attempt to make clear) which applications fall under which Board's approval authority and also touch upon review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA'�. Board of Trustees Approval Authority 1. Petition for Rezoning of Property from R-15 to FAH District 2. 3-Lot Subdivision 3. Site Plan for Multifamily Affordable Housing (Lot 1) Planning Board Approval Authority 1. Site Plan for Market Rate Single Family Dwelling (Lot 2) 2. Site Plan for Market Rate Single Family Dwelling (Lot 3) 3. Wetlands Permit (Lots 1, 2 and 3) 4. Steep Slopes Permit (Lots 1, 2 and 3) In September 2015, the Board of Trustees referred to the Planning Board each of the three applications under the BOT's jurisdiction (Petition for Rezoning; Subdivision; Lot 1 Site Plan) for the Planning Board's report and recommendation, subject to the Applicant's submission of certain materials and information prior to being placed on the Planning Board's agenda. The Board of Trustees also directed the circulation of its Notice of Intent to Declare Lead Agency pursuant to SEQRA. 13131741558994v1 118116 WWW.KBLAW.COM y, KEANEFZBEANEPC. _erJEVS A LAW In the meantime,the Applicant submitted Site Plan Applications for proposed Lots 2 and 3 which are under the Planning Board's jurisdiction. The Planning Board's January 14th agenda includes the BOT's referral of the applications under its jurisdiction, as well as the Lot 2 and Lot 3 Site Plan Applications,Wetland Permit Application and Steep Slopes Permit Application under the Planning Board's jurisdiction. With respect to the review of the applications from a procedural perspective,I note the following for your consideration: 1. When adopting its report and recommendations to the BOT, as an Involved Agency under SEQRA the Planning Board will include recommendations to the BOT related to the BOT's environmental review as Lead Agency. a. In order to perform a proper SEQRA review, the impacts of the build out of each of the three proposed lots must be reviewed. b. The Applicant has the option of pursuing review of its Lot 2 and Lot 3 Site Plan Applications by the Planning Board, concurrently with the BOT and Planning Board's review of the Rezoning, Subdivision and Lot 1 Site Plan Applications. However, any approval of Site Plans for the individual lots cannot occur unless and until (1) the BOT completes its SEQRA review, and (2) the BOT approves the 3-lot subdivision. Alternatively, the Applicant may wish to wait to pursue review of the individual Site Plan Applications unless and until these two events occur. 2. After the Planning Board adopts its Report and Recommendation,the BOT can set a public hearing on the Rezoning Petition, Subdivision, and Lot 1 Site Plan Applications. 3. When the BOT completes its SEQRA review and if it approves the Subdivision Application, the Planning Board may make final determinations on the Lot 2 and Lot 3 Site Plan Applications, as well as the Wetland Permit and Steep Slope Permit Applications for all the lots. If you have any questions or concerns,please do not hesitate to contact me prior to the Planning Board meeting. 13131741558994v1 118116 -2- RALPH G. MASTROMONACO, P.E., P.C. Civil /site / Environmental Consulting Engineers 13 Dove Court,Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520 Tel: (914) 271-4762 Fax: (914) 271-2820 www.rgmpepc.com To: James Natarelli, PE From: Ralph G. Mastromonaco, PE Re: Larizza— North Ridge Street Development Village of Rye Brook, NY Date: May 16, 2016 We are working to move this project through the Planning Board. I have responded as best as I can to your letter of May 4 since your Comments were based on the General Permit requirements which are not relevant to such a small project. As far as I can tell this project does not require post-construction treatment since it is fully single family and disturbs less than 5 acres. It does require an erosion control plan. Consequently, we do not expect to adhere to every performance criteria in the NYS Storm Water Design Manual that you have outlined. I have made a good-faith effort to provide water quality treatment (which is not required by DEC) and detention according to standard practices. (Ref: Gen. Perm.Appendix B,Tables 1 and 2) If you do not agree, then I will consult with the DEC on this matter. Comment 1. As required by the NYSDEC General Permit the design of the storm water system must meet the criteria for providing the required Runoff Reduction Volume (RRv). The storm water report must discuss how this requirement is achieved. Response 1: The DEC makes exception for RRv when there is no practical alternate to the full Wq volume. Currently, we can find no way to reduce the runoff on site so we will seek the exception. If the exception is not agreed then we will provide rain barrels. I would hope that you will place this matter on hold until a later date. Comment 2. The storm water report must show how flow is regulated from the water quality chambers at the water quality flow rate required by the cartridges. A detail must be included for the unlabeled structure between the water quality chambers and the cartridge chamber. Response 2: The 3 cartridges have a total capacity of 0.15 cfs (up to .2 cfs) and this is shown in the HydroCad report acting as a control for the flow from the WQ system. The unlabeled structure is a simply a catch basin having a 3 foot internal weir at elevation 86.0 to allow water to bypass the WQ chambers when the WQ chamber is filled. This same CB has a 3" diameter low invert at 82.0 to allow flow to the cartridges. The details will all be on the final plans. The 3" orifice into the cartridge chamber has a larger capacity than the 3 cartridges so the orifice does not control flow -the cartridges control the flow. North Ridge Street— Rye Brook, NY Comment 3. The storm water report must show how the storm water system provides Channel Protection Volume (Cpv) in that 24 hour extended detention of the post- developed 1-year, 24- hour storm event is achieved. Response 3: The WQ chambers will hold as much of the CPv as DEC requires for a 3" outlet. I sent to you the opinion of DEC recently. Comment 4. The plans must show how access is provided to the subsurface storm water chambers. Details must be provided. Response 4: The plans will show access points at each end of each chamber line. Comment 5. Details must be provided for both the CS1 and CS2 structures including internal baffles, panels, orifices, weirs, etc. Response 5: The final plans would show these details. Comment 6. Pipe sizes, types and slopes must be provided on the plans. Response 6: The final plans would show these details. Comment 7. It is unclear if the hash lines shown among the Water Quality system, the detention system and the control structures are intended to be pipe connections. Please label all piped connections. Response 7: The hash lines are indication of rock outcrops. The attached drawing includes more detailed information. Comment 8. It must be shown how pretreatment (25% of the Water Quality Volume) is provided prior to entry to an infiltration system as required by the Stormwater Design Manual. Response 8: The DEC permits hydro dynamic separators (HDS) in place of the 25% Water Quality Volume and if treatment is required on the final plans then we will provide the HDS at the inlet to the WQ system. Please note that we would like to discuss this matter further since some of the features of the current plan are in excess of the requirements, however, I hope that the current plan is sufficient for the purposes of the Planning Board's review since all of our storm features are underground, out of view, and solvable during final approvals. Q +J 2V;z r zl�7 ± : §\r0- § U q©zm - I }f \>°/ e20 , k/uj 0 0 //Q tL E ,§ E )q &\a\ °(/ _ , } }`\ §j§ }[; uj !0 4! ,I z R A] ' | %44 � § 1 WI )!, ! • � | � R6� , � 2 | I =! $�� �!•� � |h� o | ! ] ➢ § 2 q | � | �k�' ( � a d�I MINN \Ij - (' oDi o ¥ � \ Oo o ® 'y , _ui 2 [ y ) } , ! _ § Go •, :; uEgo 2co o o ; Z a « \> . �< \ Af I r @ ¥ > � ) '0�» ' m ( / 0 ) � o ( RALPH G. MASTROMONACO, P.E., P.C. Civil /Site / Environmental Consulting Engineers www.rgmpepc.com 13 Dove Court,Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520 Tel: (914) 271-4762 Fax: (914) 271-2820 To: James Natarelli, PE Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, PC From: Ralph G. Mastromonaco, PE Re: Larizza/North Ridge Street Development Village of Rye Brook, NY Date: May 2, 2016 To expedite the application, I have responded in full to each comment in your email of April 18, 2016 which outlined the need for certain additional information. Please review the attached materials. 1. Runoff calculations must utilize the newly-NYSDEC-adopted "Extreme Precipitation" rainfall depths compiled by Northeast Regional Climate Center(NRCC) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). http://precip.eas.cornell.edu/ Response: The entire Model was run using the mid confidence numbers for the North Ridge Street Area for all storms 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100 year frequencies. The results and Hydrocad Printout are attached. In sum,the system mitigates all storms and provide treatment of the WQ volume (see Summaries below). 2. Invert elevations must be provided for all components of the stormwater system. Please include the actual layout of the proposed detention and water quality system units. Please also include pipe sizes and types. Response: The attached drawing shows the system layout. 3. Deep test hole data must be provided in the areas of the water quality and detention systems with depths to groundwater and/or ledge rock. Response: Two test holes were hand-dug in the area to 3 feet when rock was encountered. The area is too difficult to enter with an excavator. In any case,the rock elevation would be around 77 feet and the proposed grade above would be 88 feet. The base of the chamber systems would be at about 79.5, 2 feet or more above the rock surface. The locations and depths of the test holes are shown on the plan attached. 4. In addition to the model that provides pre and post stormwater flows for the entire future 3-lot site, please also provide a model that shows pre and post stormwater flows for the site of the townhomes only. Response: The model was run only for the Townhouses and the results area attached with the Hydrocad printout. In sum,the main piping system and controlling orifices and weirs would need to be slightly altered for an arrangement that did not look at the entire site but the storage system would be the same. James Natarelli, PE North Ridge Street Development 5. Please provide an erosion control plan with details. Response: A preliminary Erosion Control plan is attached. 6. Please delineate the limit of disturbance on the plan and quantify the area. Response: The erosion control plan indicates the limits of disturbance of about 1.8 acres. If the Board ultimately requires mitigation plantings within the wetland buffer the disturbance line could change. 7. A pretreatment device for water quality and maintenance must be provided immediately upstream of any piped connection to infiltration units. At a minimum the device must include a sump and a hooded outlet. Please include installation and material details. Response: We now show a hooded invert at the main inlet to the WQ system. Summary Results of Each Hydrologic Model Full Site Storm Existing Peak No After Storage in Storage in Total Flow Mitigation Development WQ Detention Storage (yr) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (c.f.) (c.f.) (c.f.) 100 18.05 18.89 17.58 3476 4568 8044 50 12.94 14.02 12.67 3370 3989 7359 25 8.93 10.28 8.78 3262 3053 6315 10 5.09 6.6 4.96 3104 2006 5110 5 3.04 4.54 3.03 2915 1227 4142 2 1.3 2.68 1.3 2700 325 3025 Townhouses Only Storm Existing Peak No After Storage in Storage in Total Flow Mitigation Development WQ Detention Storage (yr) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (c.f.) (c.f.) (c.f.) 100 4.14 7.15 3.23 3460 5550 9010 50 2.98 5.8 2.43 3353 4895 8248 25 2.06 4.65 1.76 3247 4044 7291 10 1.17 3.42 0.93 3091 2484 5575 5 0.69 2.67 0.35 2920 1450 4370 2 0.26 1.88 0.24 2701 332 3033 (Plan attachments) V ° �W N ] FR Y W O lzZ F w :r 'Opt, 0 .� 1 0�� rQNW m00 m Q Cl O N W �No0 t p wo. IL �u & �_ �rQ—i LL O aa��> ga � - a a�=W �R IYI—O 4Wa w x o o0( I3 s ao aO > c o C �3C3 a;.a u ' fi 3� Baia_a€ = die sdi o i o� ' q §ya;ttBa �3 e `rco ii g� � Lie i i aiaai�aiE i$+,= � Mill. a� es.' 6 t��yY �¢� eE i E $ k e 2 t.4 LL yy6�:g 2:gMEy� 83epee�eae og.e Qa� Ytfill 3Yd Y41Y(Y >> o? _ kk 0 9sy p m oe b> _ a W42o o. W v� V l^l''yam m UWU V ob 02m m 1y 0 Fo0 Fo pi; WJn F ryNi a�0 <m e< obm 1 o 1JJ 2n pP wowo W o uz rc u VQ io ij '. g�.•.., <E>> um?o 0O o"" omm off, o m122 0 z 2 in mo ' amp UWo �m �mN o♦ 2 `2 U m S U 0 <8 ' n .oz ig I h f�i ;!t Q Q W aCY OUs U)O N �0 ON a 'zW5A � Wu _ O W a a- 0 @ y n o 0 NY 7 0 N N i 1 O g W t7A In H T Q W O > a z Z in °soo � 3 s`sew5: 'iiI��SF $GA r !rc q�s z:= §tsaa$ a�i •3 Ile ' x=� ^a 3 Y �,. ;i $' si'!i aN z E. Y f.d Y`^ @' e= !� i z Y. HI esill� _ >� u5] gtri i�4! O. 0 hg a . eF pply tp � as b = g$ F@•a EQ Y e: # 4 : �y 1�, i^ �� m= z + `tY� Yaa z 8+� •M3 9e 4 YW $ 7e �a"cs a Y$Y� ��, i . Y$�b gg,; E; � $trp�i �Ip� o $�� $ � � @i� �:�� �ma e$j �p� e a�$w 3i ` Y b-, ;vyo as' a3' A 3 �, w f : w e` a•@ Myx 3; �r g H a'3: i! b3E=bb 3,r� ""VS g ��„ b3je, pp�¢ �.d 4 V P �'a „YE Apz. W 6l ae ¢�• b �b -. Mf 5101§1 � a bs $ �¢ a 5b w 5ba �d�E F �:wi9�'sEy j�YF 1w 1 d: 5 .9 §: . : .H .Y F ¢ ei Pill rJ1-I a pWA Z i i U � u a i ! f i w • ,, e a P 9f 94 i�9 ft i° Eo z U W U a Q z N O r iA DA p Hij i S6 i rl�L - S�E �rF•i$I�i N 4 •- I1 $$[@@ i$1 J • r �{ Mill 91 B EEE ;; 1a8 North Ridge Street Stormwater Report APRIL 29, 2016 ROUTING DIAGRAM � 0 EXIST DP1 TOWNHOMES Cartridge Filters Outlet Design Point1 OExisting Flow O Design Point 1 OExisting Flow 1 O rj Q BASIN � REMAINING NEW HOUca SE CS � Control Structure S \ WZDRYWELL , t OFFSITE � 1 4� aJCT � FIN a DETENTION BASIN JUNCTION PROP DP1 Design Point 1 Proposed Flow RALPH G. MASTROMONACO, PE, PC❑Consulting Engineers❑Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Subcat Reach Routing Diagram for Laz_NRIDGE_rev Prepared by Microsoft, Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Summary for Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Runoff = 18.05 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 85,814 cf, Depth= 3.89" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Area (sf) CN Description 264,390 58.20 EXISTING 264,390 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Hydrograph 20 _ 18.05 cfs Runoff 18 16- Type III 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" 14= Runoff Area=264,390 sf 12 Runoff Volume=85,814 cf Runoff Depth=3.89" c 10 Tc=21.0 min M 8 CN=58.20 6 4 2 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type /// 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Summary for Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Runoff = 7.32 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 23,344 cf, Depth= 6.83" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 82.00 TOWNHOMES 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Hydrograph 8-- 7.32 cfs ImRunoff 7 - Type III 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" 6 Runoff Area=40,997 sf 5 Runoff Volume=23,344 cf w Runoff Depth=6.83" c 4- Tc=6.0 min 3 _ CN=82.00 2 1 0= 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type /// 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Summary for Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Runoff = 14.09 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 66,769 cf, Depth= 4.03" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Area (sf) CN Description 198,806 59.30 REMAINING AREA 198,806 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Hydrograph 14.09 cfs Runoff 14 Type III 24-hr 12 A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Runoff Area=198,806 sf w 10- Runoff Volume=66,769 cf Runoff Depth=4.03" c 8- Tc=21.0 min 6 CN=59.30 4 2 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Runoff = 3.67 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 11,366 cf, Depth= 5.39" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Area (sf) CN Description 25,307 70.30 NEW HOUSE WS 25,307 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Hydrograph Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" 4:- 3.67 cfs Runoff Area=25,307 sf Runoff Volume=11,366 cf w Runoff Depth=5.39" c 3 Tc=6.0 min ILL CN=70.30 2- 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type/1/ 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Summary for Pond CS: CS Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.29" for A-100 event Inflow = 6.89 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 14,665 cf Outflow = 6.89 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 14,665 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 1.87 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 9,467 cf Secondary= 5.02 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 5,197 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 83.84'@ 12.11 hrs Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 82.80' CS1_Primary_ratings Head (feet) 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.325 0.711 1.116 1.244 1.327 1.349 1.393 1.435 1.454 #2 Secondary 83.00' CS1_Secondary_ratings Head (feet) 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.156 0.250 0.326 0.679 1.511 1.956 2.853 3.757 4.211 Primary OutFlow Max=1.87 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=83.84' (Free Discharge) L1=CS1_Primary_ratings(Custom Controls 1.87 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=5.01 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=83.84' (Free Discharge) L2=CS1_Secondary_ratings(Custom Controls 5.01 cfs) Pond CS: CS Hydrograph 6.89 cfs Inflow 7 - �Outflow Inflow Area=40,997 sf Primary 6 5. cfs Peak Elev=83.84' �Secondary 02 5- w 4 3 0 LL 3- 1 fs 2- 1 - 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type /// 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.77" for A-100 event Inflow = 1.87 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 9,467 cf Outflow = 0.65 cfs @ 12.74 hrs, Volume= 9,467 cf, Atten= 65%, Lag= 37.8 min Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Primary = 0.65 cfs @ 12.74 hrs, Volume= 9,467 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 81.94'@ 12.74 hrs Surf.Area= 2,636 sf Storage=4,568 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 145.5 min calculated for 9,465 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 145.7 min ( 920.4 - 774.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 B 79.40' 2,361 cf 30.00'W x 87.88'L x 3.50'H Field B 9,227 cf Overall - 3,325 cf Embedded= 5,903 cf x 40.0% Voids #26 79.90' 3,325 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 72 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 6 rows 5,686 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 79.40' 3.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 79.40' 0.01 cfs Exfiltration X 0.00 at all elevations #3 Primary 81.60' 0.50' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=79.40' (Free Discharge) t-2=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.65 cfs @ 12.74 hrs HW=81.94' (Free Discharge) �11=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.37 cfs @ 7.48 fps) 3=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 0.28 cfs @ 1.90 fps) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Hydrograph Inflow �Outflow 5 Inflow Area=40,997 sf Discarded Peak Elev=81.94' �Primary 4 Storage=4,568 cf U 3 3 0 �- 1 .87 cfs 2 1 0.65 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type /// 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Summary for Pond DW: DRYWELL Inflow Area = 25,307 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.39" for A-100 event Inflow = 3.67 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 11,366 cf Outflow = 3.64 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 11,366 cf, Atten= 1%, Lag= 0.6 min Discarded = 0.40 cfs @ 11.63 hrs, Volume= 8,094 cf Primary = 3.24 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 3,272 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 62.95'@ 12.10 hrs Surf.Area= 101 sf Storage= 1,000 cf Plug-Flow detention time=8.2 min calculated for 11,364 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=8.2 min ( 827.2 - 819.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 53.00' 1,005 cf 8.00'D x 10.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinderx 2 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 62.00' 12.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 53.00' 0.40 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations #3 Primary 60.00' 4.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.40 cfs @ 11.63 hrs HW=53.11' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.40 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=3.26 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=62.95' (Free Discharge) t:3=0 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 2.56 cfs @ 3.32 fps) rifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.70 cfs @ 8.03 fps) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 Pond DW: DRYWELL Hydrograph Inflow am Outflow 5 Inflow Area=25,307 sf �Discarded Peak Elev=62.95' �Primary 4 3.64 cfs Storage=1,000 cf U) 3.24 cfs w 3 3 - 0 2-- 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type /// 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 Summary for Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.83" for A-100 event Inflow = 7.32 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 23,344 cf Outflow = 7.09 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 22,959 cf, Atten= 3%, Lag= 1.2 min Primary = 6.89 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 14,665 cf Secondary= 0.20 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 8,294 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 86.82'@ 12.11 hrs Surf.Area= 1,859 sf Storage= 3,476 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 117.3 min calculated for 22,954 cf(98% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 107.4 min ( 901.2 - 793.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 84.00' 1,679 cf 25.25'W x 73.64'L x 3.50'H Field A 6,508 cf Overall - 2,311 cf Embedded= 4,197 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 84.50' 2,311 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 50 Inside #1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows 3,990 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 86.00' 3.00' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #2 Secondary 84.00' Special & User-Defined Head (feet) 0.00 0.50 2.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.200 Primary OutFlow Max=6.88 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=86.82' (Free Discharge) L1=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 6.88 cfs @ 2.96 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.20 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=86.82' (Free Discharge) 2=Special & User-Defined(Custom Controls 0.20 cfs) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12 Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Hydrograph 8 ®Inflow 6.89 cfs Outflow 7 Inflow Area=40,997 sf �Primary 6 Peak Elev=86.82' �Secondary Storage=3,476 cf 5- 4- 0 3 2 1 0.20 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13 Summary for Link 4: OFFSITE Inflow Area = 224,113 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.75" for A-100 event Inflow = 15.32 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 70,042 cf Primary = 15.32 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 70,042 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 4: OFFSITE Hydrograph 16 15.32 cfs m Inflow 14 Inflow Area=224,113 sf m Primary 12 10 0 8.. U. 6 4 2 0- 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type/1/ 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 Summary for Link FIN: PROP DP1 Inflow Area = 265,110 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.21" for A-100 event Inflow = 17.58 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 93,000 cf Primary = 17.58 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 93,000 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link FIN: PROP DP1 Hydrograph 17.58 cfs m Inflow 18 �Primary 16 Inflow Area=265,110 Sf 14 N 12 3 10- - 8 . 6 4 2-- 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 15 Summary for Link JCT: JUNCTION Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 6.72" for A-100 event Inflow = 5.49 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 22,959 cf Primary = 5.49 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 22,959 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link JCT: JUNCTION Hydrograph 6 5.49 cfs m Inflow m Primary 5. Inflow Area=40,997 sf 4- N r.. 3 3 0 2 1 - 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type /// 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16 Summary for Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Runoff = 12.94 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 62,717 cf, Depth= 2.85" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.60" Area (sf) CN Description 264,390 58.20 EXISTING 264,390 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Hydrograph 14 12.94 cfs Runoff 13- 12- Type III 24-hr 11 - B-50 Rainfall=7.60" 10 Runoff Area=264,390 sf 9 - Runoff Volume=62,717 cf 8.. Runoff Depth=2.85" c 7 Tc=21.0 min 6 - - CN=58.20 5 4 3 - 2 1 = 0. . . . . . . .. . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 17 Summary for Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Runoff = 5.93 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 18,725 cf, Depth= 5.48" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.60" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 82.00 TOWNHOMES 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Hydrograph 5.93 cfs ImRunoff 6 Type III 24-hr 5 B-50 Rainfall=7.60" Runoff Area=40,997 sf 4 Runoff Volume=18,725 cf Runoff Depth=5.48" 0 3 Tc=6.0 min CN=82.00 2- 0 - 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type/1/ 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 18 Summary for Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Runoff = 10.19 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 49,078 cf, Depth= 2.96" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.60" Area (sf) CN Description 198,806 59.30 REMAINING AREA 198,806 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Hydrograph 11 10.19 cfs Runoff 10- Type III 24-hr 9 B-50 Rainfall=7.60" 8 Runoff Area=198,806 sf 7- Runoff Volume=49,078 cf 6 Runoff Depth=2.96" c 5_ Tc=21.0 min u_ 4_ CN=59.30 3 2- 0- 1 . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type/1/ 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 19 Summary for Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Runoff = 2.83 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,764 cf, Depth= 4.16" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.60" Area (sf) CN Description 25,307 70.30 NEW HOUSE WS 25,307 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Hydrograph Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.60" 4 Runoff Area=25,307 sf 2.83 cfs Runoff Volume=8,764 cf 3 Runoff Depth=4.16" ° v_ Tc=6.0 min 2 CN=70.30 1-� 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type/1/ 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 20 Summary for Pond CS: CS Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.15" for B-50 event Inflow = 5.49 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 10,764 cf Outflow = 5.49 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 10,764 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 1.81 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 7,324 cf Secondary= 3.68 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 3,440 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 83.81'@ 12.11 hrs Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 82.80' CS1_Primary_ratings Head (feet) 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.325 0.711 1.116 1.244 1.327 1.349 1.393 1.435 1.454 #2 Secondary 83.00' CS1_Secondary_ratings Head (feet) 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.156 0.250 0.326 0.679 1.511 1.956 2.853 3.757 4.211 Primary OutFlow Max=1.81 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=83.81' (Free Discharge) t1=CS1_Primary_ratings(Custom Controls 1.81 cfs) Secondary Outflow Max=3.68 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=83.81' (Free Discharge) t2=CS1_Secondary_ratings(Custom Controls 3.68 cfs) Pond CS: CS Hydrograph 6 - 5.49 cfs Inflow 5 Inflow Area=40,997 sf Outflow �Primary Peak Elev=83.81' �Secondary 4- 3.68 cfs 3 3 0 1. fs 2 - 0- 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type /// 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 21 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.14" for B-50 event Inflow = 1.81 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 7,324 cf Outflow = 0.34 cfs @ 13.15 hrs, Volume= 7,324 cf, Atten= 81%, Lag= 62.6 min Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Primary = 0.34 cfs @ 13.15 hrs, Volume= 7,324 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 81.59'@ 13.15 hrs Surf.Area= 2,636 sf Storage= 3,989 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 153.2 min calculated for 7,324 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 153.2 min ( 924.4 - 771.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 B 79.40' 2,361 cf 30.00'W x 87.88'L x 3.50'H Field B 9,227 cf Overall - 3,325 cf Embedded= 5,903 cf x 40.0% Voids #26 79.90' 3,325 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 72 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 6 rows 5,686 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 79.40' 3.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 79.40' 0.01 cfs Exfiltration X 0.00 at all elevations #3 Primary 81.60' 0.50' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=79.40' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.34 cfs @ 13.15 hrs HW=81.59' (Free Discharge) �__3=Sharp-C 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.34 cfs @ 6.92 fps) rested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type /// 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 22 Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Hydrograph �Inflow Outflow 5 Inflow Area=40,997 sf Discarded Peak Elev=81.59' �Primary 4 Storage=3,989 cf U) w 3 3 0 1 .81 cfs 2 1 - t 0.34 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type/1/ 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 23 Summary for Pond DW: DRYWELL Inflow Area = 25,307 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.16" for B-50 event Inflow = 2.83 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,764 cf Outflow = 2.80 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 8,764 cf, Atten= 1%, Lag= 0.9 min Discarded = 0.40 cfs @ 11.69 hrs, Volume= 6,766 cf Primary = 2.40 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1,998 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 62.72'@ 12.10 hrs Surf.Area= 101 sf Storage= 977 cf Plug-Flow detention time=8.4 min calculated for 8,763 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=8.4 min ( 834.9 - 826.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 53.00' 1,005 cf 8.00'D x 10.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinderx 2 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 62.00' 12.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 53.00' 0.40 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations #3 Primary 60.00' 4.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.40 cfs @ 11.69 hrs HW=53.11' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.40 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=2.39 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=62.71' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.72 cfs @ 2.87 fps) L3=Orifi ce/G rate (Orifice Controls 0.67 cfs @ 7.68 fps) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 24 Pond DW: DRYWELL Hydrograph Inflow =- Outflow 5 Inflow Area=25,307 sf �Discarded Peak Elev=62.72' �Primary 41 Storage=977 cf N v- 2.80 cfs c 3 2.40 cfs U. 2 1 0.40 0- 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type /// 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 25 Summary for Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.48" for B-50 event Inflow = 5.93 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 18,725 cf Outflow = 5.68 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 18,341 cf, Atten= 4%, Lag= 1.4 min Primary = 5.49 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 10,764 cf Secondary= 0.19 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 7,577 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 86.70'@ 12.11 hrs Surf.Area= 1,859 sf Storage= 3,370 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 135.2 min calculated for 18,337 cf(98% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 123.0 min ( 923.0 - 800.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 84.00' 1,679 cf 25.25'W x 73.64'L x 3.50'H Field A 6,508 cf Overall - 2,311 cf Embedded= 4,197 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 84.50' 2,311 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 50 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows 3,990 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 86.00' 3.00' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #2 Secondary 84.00' Special & User-Defined Head (feet) 0.00 0.50 2.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.200 Primary OutFlow Max=5.49 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=86.70' (Free Discharge) L1=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 5.49 cfs @ 2.74 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.19 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=86.70' (Free Discharge) 2=Special & User-Defined(Custom Controls 0.19 cfs) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type/1/ 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 26 Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Hydrograph �r� Inflow 6 5.49 cfs �Outflow Inflow Area=40,997 sf Primary 5 Peak Elev=86.70' �Secondary Storage=3,370 cf 4 0 3 FL 2 1 0.19 cfs 0-4101111111111 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 27 Summary for Link 4: OFFSITE Inflow Area = 224,113 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.73" for B-50 event Inflow = 11.08 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 51,076 cf Primary = 11.08 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 51,076 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 4: OFFSITE Hydrograph 12 11.08 cfs m Inflow 11 m Primary 10- Inflow Area=224,113 sf 9- ,. 8 T 7 . 3 6- 0 F 5 4.. 3 2-- 1 0 , 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type /// 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 28 Summary for Link FIN: PROP DP1 Inflow Area = 265,110 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.14" for B-50 event Inflow = 12.67 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 69,417 cf Primary = 12.67 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 69,417 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link FIN: PROP DP1 Hydrograph 14 12.67 cfs �Inflow 13 m Primary 12 Inflow Area=265,110 sf 11 10 9 8 3 7_ 0 6- 5 4 3 2 1 0 j . . . . . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type/1/ 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 29 Summary for Link JCT: JUNCTION Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 5.37" for B-50 event Inflow = 4.10 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 18,341 cf Primary = 4.10 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 18,341 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link JCT: JUNCTION Hydrograph m Inflow m Primary 5 Inflow Area=40,997 Sf 4.10 cfs 4 N V 3 3- 0 U. 2 - 1 0- lb 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 30 Summary for Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Runoff = 8.93 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 44,692 cf, Depth= 2.03" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Area (sf) CN Description 264,390 58.20 EXISTING 264,390 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Hydrograph 9- 8.93 cfs m Runoff 8 Type III 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" 7 Runoff Area=264,390 sf w 6 Runoff Volume=44,692 cf 5- 3 Runoff Depth=2.03" c Tc=21.0 min E 4 CN=58.20 3 2 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type/1/24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 31 Summary for Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Runoff = 4.75 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 14,884 cf, Depth= 4.36" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 82.00 TOWNHOMES 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Hydrograph Runoff 5 -14.75 cfs Type III 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" 4 Runoff Area=40,997 sf Runoff Volume=14,884 cf 3 3 Runoff Depth=4.36" c Tc=6.0 min U- CN=82.00 2 1 0- . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type/1/ 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 32 Summary for Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Runoff = 7.10 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 35,214 cf, Depth= 2.13" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Area (sf) CN Description 198,806 59.30 REMAINING AREA 198,806 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Hydrograph 7.10 cfs m Runoff 7 . Type III 24-hr 6- C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Runoff Area=198,806 sf 5 Runoff Volume=35,214 cf Runoff Depth=2.13" 3 4 Tc=21.0 min 0 U. 3 CN=59.30 2- 1 - 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type/1/ 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 33 Summary for Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Runoff = 2.14 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 6,654 cf, Depth= 3.16" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Area (sf) CN Description 25,307 70.30 NEW HOUSE WS 25,307 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Hydrograph Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" 4 Runoff Area=25,307 sf Runoff Volume=6,654 cf 3 3- Runoff Depth=3.16" U. 2.14 cfs Tc=6.0 m i n 2_ CN=70.30 1- 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type/1/ 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 34 Summary for Pond CS: CS Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.22" for C-25 event Inflow = 4.32 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 7,588 cf Outflow = 4.32 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 7,588 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 1.74 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 5,468 cf Secondary= 2.58 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 2,120 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 83.77'@ 12.11 hrs Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 82.80' CS1_Primary_ratings Head (feet) 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.325 0.711 1.116 1.244 1.327 1.349 1.393 1.435 1.454 #2 Secondary 83.00' CS1_Secondary_ratings Head (feet) 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.156 0.250 0.326 0.679 1.511 1.956 2.853 3.757 4.211 Primary OutFlow Max=1.73 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=83.77' (Free Discharge) L1=CS1_Primary_ratings(Custom Controls 1.73 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=2.58 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=83.77' (Free Discharge) L2=CS1_Secondary_ratings(Custom Controls 2.58 cfs) Pond CS: CS Hydrograph �Inflow Outflow 5 4.32 cfs Inflow Area=40,997 sf Primary Peak Elev=83.77' Secondary 4 3 3- 2.58 cfs 0 1.7 cfs 2-- 0- 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 35 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.60" for C-25 event Inflow = 1.74 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 5,468 cf Outflow = 0.30 cfs @ 13.08 hrs, Volume= 5,468 cf, Atten= 83%, Lag= 58.2 min Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Primary = 0.30 cfs @ 13.08 hrs, Volume= 5,468 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 81.09'@ 13.08 hrs Surf.Area= 2,636 sf Storage= 3,053 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 134.1 min calculated for 5,468 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 134.1 min ( 901.2 - 767.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 B 79.40' 2,361 cf 30.00'W x 87.88'L x 3.50'H Field B 9,227 cf Overall - 3,325 cf Embedded= 5,903 cf x 40.0% Voids #26 79.90' 3,325 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 72 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 6 rows 5,686 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 79.40' 3.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 79.40' 0.01 cfs Exfiltration X 0.00 at all elevations #3 Primary 81.60' 0.50' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=79.40' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.30 cfs @ 13.08 hrs HW=81.09' (Free Discharge) �__3=Sharp-C 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.30 cfs @ 6.03 fps) rested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type/1/ 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 36 Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Hydrograph Inflow am Outflow 5-- Inflow Area=40,997 sf Discarded Peak Elev=81.09' Primary 4- Storage=3,053 cf 3 3 . 0 FL 1.74 cfs 2- 1 0.30 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type Ill 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 37 Summary for Pond DW: DRYWELL Inflow Area = 25,307 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.16" for C-25 event Inflow = 2.14 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 6,654 cf Outflow = 1.60 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 6,654 cf, Atten= 25%, Lag= 4.5 min Discarded = 0.40 cfs @ 11.77 hrs, Volume= 5,627 cf Primary = 1.20 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 1,028 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 62.38'@ 12.16 hrs Surf.Area= 101 sf Storage= 943 cf Plug-Flow detention time=8.7 min calculated for 6,653 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=8.7 min ( 843.1 - 834.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 53.00' 1,005 cf 8.00'D x 10.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinderx 2 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 62.00' 12.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 53.00' 0.40 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations #3 Primary 60.00' 4.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.40 cfs @ 11.77 hrs HW=53.11' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.40 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.17 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=62.37' (Free Discharge) Ll=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.55 cfs @ 2.07 fps) 3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.62 cfs @ 7.15 fps) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type/1/ 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 38 Pond DW: DRYWELL Hydrograph �Inflow Outflow 5 Inflow Area=25,307 sf �Discarded Peak Elev=62.38' �Primary _ 4 Storage=943 cf U) V 3 3 ° 2.14 cfs v_ 2 1.60 cfs 1.20 cfs 1 0.40 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type/1/24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 39 Summary for Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.36" for C-25 event Inflow = 4.75 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 14,884 cf Outflow = 4.50 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 14,502 cf, Atten= 5%, Lag= 1.6 min Primary = 4.32 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 7,588 cf Secondary= 0.18 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 6,913 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 86.59'@ 12.11 hrs Surf.Area= 1,859 sf Storage= 3,262 cf Plug-Flow detention time=157.1 min calculated for 14,499 cf(97% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 142.2 min ( 948.6 - 806.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 84.00' 1,679 cf 25.25'W x 73.64'L x 3.50'H Field A 6,508 cf Overall - 2,311 cf Embedded=4,197 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 84.50' 2,311 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 50 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows 3,990 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 86.00' 3.00' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #2 Secondary 84.00' Special & User-Defined Head (feet) 0.00 0.50 2.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.200 Primary OutFlow Max=4.31 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=86.59' (Free Discharge) L1=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 4.31 cfs @ 2.52 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.18 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=86.59' (Free Discharge) L2=Special & User-Defined(Custom Controls 0.18 cfs) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type/1/ 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 40 Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Hydrograph n 7r% rfe 5 Inflow 4.32 cfs Inflow Area=40,997 sf Outflow Primary Primary 4 Peak Elev=86.59' Secondary Storage=3,262 cf U) 3 3 0 2 1 0.18 cfs 0. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type/1/ 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 41 Summary for Link 4: OFFSITE Inflow Area = 224,113 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.94" for C-25 event Inflow = 7.72 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 36,242 cf Primary = 7.72 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 36,242 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 4: OFFSITE Hydrograph 8 - 7.72 cfs �Inflow 7 Inflow Area=224,113 sf m Primary 6_. w � 5- 0 4 iz 3- 2-- 1- 0 . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type/1/24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 42 Summary for Link FIN: PROP DP1 Inflow Area = 265,110 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.30" for C-25 event Inflow = 8.78 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 50,743 cf Primary = 8.78 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 50,743 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link FIN: PROP DP1 Hydrograph 8.78 cfs �Inflow 9 m Primary 8_ Inflow Area=265,110 sf 7 . 3 5 0 U 4 - 3 2 1 - 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 43 Summary for Link JCT: JUNCTION Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 4.24" for C-25 event Inflow = 2.95 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 14,501 cf Primary = 2.95 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 14,501 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link JCT: JUNCTION Hydrograph m Inflow m Primary 5- Inflow Area=40,997 Sf 4 2.95 cfs 3 3 _ 0 U- 2 1 - 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 44 Summary for Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Runoff = 5.09 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 27,389 cf, Depth= 1.24" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Area (sf) CN Description 264,390 58.20 EXISTING 264,390 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Hydrograph 5.09 cfs Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" 4 Runoff Area=264,390 sf Runoff Volume=27,389 cf 3 Runoff Depth=1.24" 3 Tc=21.0 min 0 u_ C N=58.20 2 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type Ill 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 45 Summary for Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Runoff = 3.50 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 10,856 cf, Depth= 3.18" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 82.00 TOWNHOMES 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Hydrograph Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" 4 3.50 cfs Runoff Area=40,997 sf Runoff Volume=10,856 cf Runoff Depth=3.18" 3 3 _ o Tc=6.0 min - CN=82.00 2 1- 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 46 Summary for Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Runoff = 4.13 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 21,829 cf, Depth= 1.32" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Area (sf) CN Description 198,806 59.30 REMAINING AREA 198,806 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Hydrograph Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr 4.13 cfs D-10 Rainfall=5.11" 4 Runoff Area=198,806 sf Runoff Volume=21,829 cf 3 Runoff Depth=1.32" 3 Tc=21.0 min 0 CN=59.30 2 1-- 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type ///24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 47 Summary for Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Runoff = 1.44 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 4,519 cf, Depth= 2.14" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Area (sf) CN Description 25,307 70.30 NEW HOUSE WS 25,307 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Hydrograph Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" 4 Runoff Area=25,307 sf Runoff Volume=4,519 cf 3 Runoff Depth=2.14" ° Tc=6.0 min v_ 2 1.44 cfs CN=70.30 1 - 0 . . . . . .), �; IiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiIIII. . . . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_N RI DG E_rev Type 111 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 48 Summary for Pond CS: CS Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.27" for D-10 event Inflow = 2.88 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 4,353 cf Outflow = 2.88 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 4,353 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 1.63 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 3,513 cf Secondary= 1.25 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 840 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 83.71'@ 12.13 hrs Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 82.80' CS1_Primary_ratings Head (feet) 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.325 0.711 1.116 1.244 1.327 1.349 1.393 1.435 1.454 #2 Secondary 83.00' CS1_Secondary_ratings Head (feet) 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.156 0.250 0.326 0.679 1.511 1.956 2.853 3.757 4.211 Primary OutFlow Max=1.63 cfs @ 12.13 hrs HW=83.71' (Free Discharge) L1=CS1_Primary_ratings(Custom Controls 1.63 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=1.25 cfs @ 12.13 hrs HW=83.71' (Free Discharge) L2=CS1_Secondary_ratings(Custom Controls 1.25 cfs) Pond CS: CS Hydrograph �Inflow Outflow 5- Inflow Area=40,997 sf =Primary Peak Elev=83.71' Secondary 4_ o 2.88 cfs 3 3 0 U. 2 1.25 cfs 1 0 il 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 49 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.03" for D-10 event Inflow = 1.63 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 3,513 cf Outflow = 0.24 cfs @ 12.96 hrs, Volume= 3,513 cf, Atten= 85%, Lag=49.4 min Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Primary = 0.24 cfs @ 12.96 hrs, Volume= 3,513 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 80.58'@ 12.96 hrs Surf.Area= 2,636 sf Storage= 2,006 cf Plug-Flow detention time=108.2 min calculated for 3,513 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 108.5 min ( 870.5 - 762.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 B 79.40' 2,361 cf 30.00'W x 87.88'L x 3.50'H Field B 9,227 cf Overall - 3,325 cf Embedded= 5,903 cf x 40.0% Voids #213 79.90' 3,325 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 72 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 6 rows 5,686 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 79.40' 3.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 79.40' 0.01 cfs Exfiltration X 0.00 at all elevations #3 Primary 81.60' 0.50' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=79.40' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.24 cfs @ 12.96 hrs HW=80.58' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.24 cfs @ 4.95 fps) L3=Sharp-C rested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 50 Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Hydrograph Inflow 5- Inflow Area=40,997 sf =Outflow Discarded Peak Elev=80.58' �Primary 4 Storage=2,006 cf N V ..r 3 3... 0 U. 2 1.63 cfs� 1 0.24 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 51 Summary for Pond DW: DRYWELL Inflow Area = 25,307 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.14" for D-10 event Inflow = 1.44 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 4,519 cf Outflow = 0.61 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 4,519 cf, Atten= 57%, Lag= 14.9 min Discarded = 0.40 cfs @ 11.89 hrs, Volume= 4,382 cf Primary = 0.21 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 137 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.0048.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 60.43'@ 12.34 hrs Surf.Area= 101 sf Storage= 746 cf Plug-Flow detention time=8.9 min calculated for 4,518 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=8.9 min ( 854.6 - 845.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 53.00' 1,005 cf 8.00'D x 10.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinderx 2 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 62.00' 12.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 53.00' 0.40 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations #3 Primary 60.00' 4.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.40 cfs @ 11.89 hrs HW=53.10' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.40 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.21 cfs @ 12.34 hrs HW=60.42' (Free Discharge) �__3=0 1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) rifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.21 cfs @ 2.45 fps) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type Ill 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 52 Pond DW: DRYWELL Hydrograph �Inflow 5 Inflow Area=25,307 sf am Outflow �Discarded Peak Elev=60.43' �Primary 4 Storage=746 cf N V 3 3 0 U- 2 1.44 cfs 1 s 0 0.21 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 53 Summary for Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.18" for D-10 event Inflow = 3.50 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 10,856 cf Outflow = 3.05 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 10,475 cf, Atten= 13%, Lag= 2.7 min Primary = 2.88 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 4,353 cf Secondary= 0.17 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 6,121 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 86.45'@ 12.13 hrs Surf.Area= 1,859 sf Storage= 3,104 cf Plug-Flow detention time=194.7 min calculated for 10,475 cf(96% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 174.6 min ( 990.0 - 815.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 84.00' 1,679 cf 25.25'W x 73.64'L x 3.50'H Field A 6,508 cf Overall - 2,311 cf Embedded= 4,197 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 84.50' 2,311 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 50 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows 3,990 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 86.00' 3.00' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #2 Secondary 84.00' Special & User-Defined Head (feet) 0.00 0.50 2.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.200 Primary OutFlow Max=2.87 cfs @ 12.13 hrs HW=86.45' (Free Discharge) L1=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 2.87 cfs @ 2.19 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.17 cfs @ 12.13 hrs HW=86.45' (Free Discharge) 2=Special & User-Defined(Custom Controls 0.17 cfs) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 54 Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Hydrograph 3.50 cfs Inflow 2.88 cfs Inflow Area=40,997 sf �Outflow �Primary 3 Peak Elev=86.45' �Secondary Storage=3,104 cf 3 2 0 1 0.17 cfs ,6,".. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type /// 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 55 Summary for Link 4: OFFSITE Inflow Area = 224,113 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.18" for D-10 event Inflow = 4.35 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 21,966 cf Primary = 4.35 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 21,966 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 4: OFFSITE Hydrograph �Inflow Primary 5 4.35 cfs Inflow Area=224,113 sf 4- N w V 3 3-. 0 U. 2 - 0- 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 56 Summary for Link FIN: PROP DP1 Inflow Area = 265,110 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.47" for D-10 event Inflow = 4.96 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 32,441 cf Primary = 4.96 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 32,441 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link FIN: PROP DPI Hydrograph m Inflow 4.96 cfs m Primary 5 Inflow Area=265,110 sf 4 JT U 3 3 0 U- 2 1 - 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 57 Summary for Link JCT: JUNCTION Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 3.07" for D-10 event Inflow = 1.55 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 10,475 cf Primary = 1.55 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 10,475 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link JCT: JUNCTION Hydrograph m Inflow Primary 5- Inflow Area=40,997 Sf 4 N V 3 3 . 0 2 1.55 cfs 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type/1/ 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 58 Summary for Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Runoff = 3.04 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 18,092 cf, Depth= 0.82" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Area (sf) CN Description 264,390 58.20 EXISTING 264,390 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Hydrograph Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" 4 Runoff Area=264,390 sf 3.04 cfs Runoff Volume=18,092 cf Runoff Depth=0.82" 3 3 Tc=21.0 min 0 CN=58.20 2-- 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type/1/ 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 59 Summary for Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Runoff = 2.73 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,439 cf, Depth= 2.47" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 82.00 TOWNHOMES 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Hydrograph Im Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" 4 Runoff Area=40,997 sf Runoff Volume=8,439 cf 3 3 2.73 cfs Runoff Depth=2.47" U- Tc=6.0 min 2- CN=82.00 1 0 wool 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type /// 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 60 Summary for Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Runoff = 2.53 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 14,585 cf, Depth= 0.88" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Area (so CN Description 198,806 59.30 REMAINING AREA 198,806 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Hydrograph Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" 4 Runoff Area=198,806 sf Runoff Volume=14,585 cf 3 Runoff Depth=0.88" 3 2.53 cfs Runoff m i n 0 U- CN=59.30 2 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type /// 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 61 Summary for Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Runoff = 1.03 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,293 cf, Depth= 1.56" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Area (sf) CN Description 25,307 70.30 NEW HOUSE WS 25,307 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Hydrograph Runoff 5.. Type III 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" 4 Runoff Area=25,307 sf Runoff Volume=3,293 cf 3 3 Runoff Depth=1.56" ° Tc=6.0 min v_ 2-1. CN=70.30 1.03 cfs 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type/1/ 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 62 Summary for Pond CS: CS Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.72" for E-5 event Inflow = 1.50 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 2,470 cf Outflow = 1.50 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 2,470 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 1.22 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 2,186 cf Secondary= 0.27 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 284 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 83.46'@ 12.20 hrs Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 82.80' CS1_Primary_ratings Head (feet) 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.325 0.711 1.116 1.244 1.327 1.349 1.393 1.435 1.454 #2 Secondary 83.00' CS1_Secondary_ratings Head (feet) 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.156 0.250 0.326 0.679 1.511 1.956 2.853 3.757 4.211 Primary OutFlow Max=1.22 cfs @ 12.20 hrs HW=83.46' (Free Discharge) L1=CS1_Primary_ratings(Custom Controls 1.22 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.27 cfs @ 12.20 hrs HW=83.46' (Free Discharge) L2=CS1_Secondary_ratings(Custom Controls 0.27 cfs) Pond CS: CS Hydrograph In =Outflow 5- Inflow Area=40,997 sf Primary Peak Elev=83.46' �Secondary 4 3 3 0 U 2 1.22 cfs 1 0.27 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 63 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.64" for E-5 event Inflow = 1.22 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 2,186 cf Outflow = 0.20 cfs @ 12.88 hrs, Volume= 2,186 cf, Atten= 84%, Lag=41.1 min Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Primary = 0.20 cfs @ 12.88 hrs, Volume= 2,186 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 80.22'@ 12.88 hrs Surf.Area= 2,636 sf Storage= 1,227 cf Plug-Flow detention time=86.3 min calculated for 2,185 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=86.6 min ( 846.1 - 759.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 B 79.40' 2,361 cf 30.00'W x 87.88'L x 3.50'H Field B 9,227 cf Overall - 3,325 cf Embedded= 5,903 cf x 40.0% Voids #26 79.90' 3,325 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 72 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 6 rows 5,686 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 79.40' 3.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 79.40' 0.01 cfs Exfiltration X 0.00 at all elevations #3 Primary 81.60' 0.50' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=79.40' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.20 cfs @ 12.88 hrs HW=80.22' (Free Discharge) �__3=Sharp-C 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.20 cfs @ 4.01 fps) rested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type /// 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 64 Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Hydrograph �Inflow Outflow 5 Inflow Area=40,997 sf Discarded Peak Elev=80.22' �Primary 4 Storage=1,227 cf N v.. V 3 3 0 U- 2- 1.22 cfs 1 0.20 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 65 Summary for Pond DW: DRYWELL Inflow Area = 25,307 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.56" for E-5 event Inflow = 1.03 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,293 cf Outflow = 0.40 cfs @ 11.98 hrs, Volume= 3,293 cf, Atten= 61%, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded = 0.40 cfs @ 11.98 hrs, Volume= 3,293 cf Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 57.11'@ 12.39 hrs Surf.Area= 101 sf Storage= 414 cf Plug-Flow detention time=4.8 min calculated for 3,292 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=4.8 min ( 860.0 - 855.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 53.00' 1,005 cf 8.00'D x 10.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinderx 2 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 62.00' 12.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 53.00' 0.40 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations #3 Primary 60.00' 4.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.40 cfs @ 11.98 hrs HW=53.11' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.40 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=53.00' (Free Discharge) �__3=Orifi 1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) ce/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type/1/ 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 66 Pond DW: DRYWELL Hydrograph Inflow Outflow 51, Inflow Area=25,307 sf Discarded Peak Elev=57.11' �Primary 4 Storage=414 cf 3 3.. 0 U- 2 1.03 cfs 1 0.40 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type/1/ 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 67 Summary for Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.47" for E-5 event Inflow = 2.73 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,439 cf Outflow = 1.65 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 8,059 cf, Atten= 39%, Lag= 6.4 min Primary = 1.50 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 2,470 cf Secondary= 0.15 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 5,589 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 86.29'@ 12.20 hrs Surf.Area= 1,859 sf Storage= 2,915 cf Plug-Flow detention time=232.0 min calculated for 8,057 cf(95% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=207.2 min ( 1,029.8 - 822.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 84.00' 1,679 cf 25.25'W x 73.64'L x 3.50'H Field A 6,508 cf Overall - 2,311 cf Embedded= 4,197 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 84.50' 2,311 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 50 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows 3,990 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 86.00' 3.00' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #2 Secondary 84.00' Special & User-Defined Head (feet) 0.00 0.50 2.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.200 Primary OutFlow Max=1.49 cfs @ 12.20 hrs HW=86.29' (Free Discharge) L1=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 1.49 cfs @ 1.76 fps) te2 Secondary OutFlow Max=0.15 cfs @ 12.20 hrs HW=86.29' (Free Discharge) =Special & User-Defined(Custom Controls 0.15 cfs) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 11124-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 68 Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Hydrograph 3 2.73 cfs �Inflow Outflow Inflow Area=40,997 sf •Primary Peak Elev=86.29' �Secondary 2 Storage=2,915 cf N 1.50 cfs 3 0 U. 1 1 "Man 0.15 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type/1/ 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 69 Summary for Link 4: OFFSITE Inflow Area = 224,113 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.78" for E-5 event Inflow = 2.53 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 14,585 cf Primary = 2.53 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 14,585 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 4: OFFSITE Hydrograph �Inflow Primary 5 Inflow Area=224,113 sf 4 Vl w V 3 31 2.53 cfs 0 FL 2 - 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type /// 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 70 Summary for Link FIN: PROP DP1 Inflow Area = 265,110 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.02" for E-5 event Inflow = 3.03 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 22,644 cf Primary = 3.03 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 22,644 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link FIN: PROP DP1 Hydrograph m Inflow �Primary 5 Inflow Area=265,110 Sf 4 3.03 cfs 3 3 . 0 2- 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type/1/ 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 71 Summary for Link JCT: JUNCTION Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.36" for E-5 event Inflow = 0.53 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 8,059 cf Primary = 0.53 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 8,059 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link JCT: JUNCTION Hydrograph m Inflow m Primary 5 Inflow Area=40,997 sf 4 - t/! w V 3 3 . _o LL 2 1 - 0.53 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 11124-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 72 Summary for Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Runoff = 1.30 cfs @ 12.44 hrs, Volume= 9,714 cf, Depth= 0.44" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Area (sf) CN Description 264,390 58.20 EXISTING 264,390 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Hydrograph Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" 4 Runoff Area=264,390 sf Runoff Volume=9,714 cf 3 3 Runoff Depth=0.44" U- Tc=21.0 min 2 CN=58.20 1.30 cfs 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 73 Summary for Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Runoff = 1.92 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 5,949 cf, Depth= 1.74" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 82.00 TOWNHOMES 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Hydrograph Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" 4 Runoff Area=40,997 sf Runoff Volume=5,949 cf 3 3 Runoff Depth=1.74" U- 1.92 cfs Tc=6.0 min 2 CN=82.00 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 74 Summary for Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Runoff = 1.13 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume= 7,996 cf, Depth= 0.48" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Area (sf) CN Description * 198,806 59.30 REMAINING AREA 198,806 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Hydrograph Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" 4 Runoff Area=198,806 sf Runoff Volume=7,996 cf 3 3 Runoff Depth=0.48" U. Tc=21.0 m i n 2 CN=59.30 1.13 cfs 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 75 Summary for Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Runoff = 0.62 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 2,095 cf, Depth= 0.99" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Area (sf) CN Description 25,307 70.30 NEW HOUSE WS 25,307 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Hydrograph �Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" 4 Runoff Area=25,307 sf Runoff Volume=2,095 cf 3 3 Runoff Depth=0.99" ° Tc=6.0 min 2 CN=70.30 1 0.62 cfs 0-, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type /// 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 76 Summary for Pond CS: CS Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.19" for F-2 event Inflow = 0.39 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 645 cf Outflow = 0.39 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 645 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 0.36 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 634 cf Secondary= 0.03 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 11 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 83.04'@ 12.47 hrs Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 82.80' CS1_Primary_ratings Head (feet) 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.325 0.711 1.116 1.244 1.327 1.349 1.393 1.435 1.454 #2 Secondary 83.00' CS1_Secondary_ratings Head (feet) 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.156 0.250 0.326 0.679 1.511 1.956 2.853 3.757 4.211 Primary OutFlow Max=0.36 cfs @ 12.47 hrs HW=83.04' (Free Discharge) L1=CS1_Primary_ratings(Custom Controls 0.36 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 12.47 hrs HW=83.04' (Free Discharge) L2=CS1_Secondary_ratings(Custom Controls 0.03 cfs) Pond CS: CS Hydrograph Inflow Outflow 5 Inflow Area=40,997 sf =Primary Peak Elev=83.04' Secondary 4 U 3 3 0 ILL 1 0.03 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 77 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.19" for F-2 event Inflow = 0.36 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 634 cf Outflow = 0.10 cfs @ 12.95 hrs, Volume= 634 cf, Atten= 72%, Lag= 28.7 min Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Primary = 0.10 cfs @ 12.95 hrs, Volume= 634 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 79.71'@ 12.95 hrs Surf.Area= 2,636 sf Storage= 325 cf Plug-Flow detention time=74.6 min calculated for 634 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=74.6 min ( 841.5 - 766.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 B 79.40' 2,361 cf 30.00'W x 87.88'L x 3.50'H Field B 9,227 cf Overall - 3,325 cf Embedded= 5,903 cf x 40.0% Voids #26 79.90' 3,325 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 72 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 6 rows 5,686 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 79.40' 3.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 79.40' 0.01 cfs Exfiltration X 0.00 at all elevations #3 Primary 81.60' 0.50' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=79.40' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.10 cfs @ 12.95 hrs HW=79.71' (Free Discharge) T__3=Sharp-Crested 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.10 cfs @ 2.06 fps) Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type /// 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 78 Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Hydrograph Inflow 5- Inflow Area=40,997 sf =Outflow Discarded Peak Elev=79.71' �Primary 4 Storage=325 cf 3 3 0 U. 2 1 0. 0.10 cfs 0- 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 79 Summary for Pond DW: DRYWELL Inflow Area = 25,307 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.99" for F-2 event Inflow = 0.62 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 2,095 cf Outflow = 0.40 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 2,095 cf, Atten= 36%, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded = 0.40 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 2,095 cf Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 53.94'@ 12.21 hrs Surf.Area= 101 sf Storage= 95 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 1.1 min calculated for 2,095 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1.1 min ( 870.3 - 869.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 53.00' 1,005 cf 8.00'D x 10.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinderx 2 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 62.00' 12.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 53.00' 0.40 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations #3 Primary 60.00' 4.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.40 cfs @ 12.04 hrs HW=53.12' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.40 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=53.00' (Free Discharge) tl=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type /// 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 80 Pond DW: DRYWELL Hydrograph Inflow aw Outflow 5 Inflow Area=25,307 sf Discarded Peak Elev=53.94' �Primary 4 - Storage=95 cf N w V ..r 3 3 0 2- 1 0.40 cfs 0 . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 81 Summary for Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.74" for F-2 event Inflow = 1.92 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 5,949 cf Outflow = 0.53 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 5,571 cf, Atten= 73%, Lag= 23.0 min Primary = 0.39 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 645 cf Secondary= 0.14 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 4,926 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 86.12'@ 12.47 hrs Surf.Area= 1,859 sf Storage= 2,700 cf Plug-Flow detention time=297.9 min calculated for 5,570 cf(94% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=264.6 min ( 1,097.2 -832.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 84.00' 1,679 cf 25.25'W x 73.64'L x 3.50'H Field A 6,508 cf Overall - 2,311 cf Embedded= 4,197 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 84.50' 2,311 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 50 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows 3,990 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 86.00' 3.00' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #2 Secondary 84.00' Special & User-Defined Head (feet) 0.00 0.50 2.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.200 Primary OutFlow Max=0.38 cfs @ 12.47 hrs HW=86.12' (Free Discharge) 't-1=S ha rp-C rested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 0.38 cfs @ 1.11 fps) te2 Secondary OutFlow Max=0.14 cfs @ 12.47 hrs HW=86.12' (Free Discharge) =Special & User-Defined(Custom Controls 0.14 cfs) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 82 Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Hydrograph 2 1.92 cfs �Inflow Inflow Area=40,997 sf �Outflow�primary Peak Elev=86.12' �Secondary Storage=2,700 cf 0 1 0.53 cfs 0.39 cfs 0.14 cfs 0 . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type /// 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 83 Summary for Link 4: OFFSITE Inflow Area = 224,113 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.43" for F-2 event Inflow = 1.13 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume= 7,996 cf Primary = 1.13 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume= 7,996 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 4: OFFSITE Hydrograph m Inflow m Primary 5 Inflow Area=224,113 sf 4- T w 3 3 0 U. 2.. 1.13 cfs 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 84 Summary for Link FIN: PROP DP1 Inflow Area = 265,110 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.61" for F-2 event Inflow = 1.30 cfs @ 12.46 hrs, Volume= 13,567 cf Primary = 1.30 cfs @ 12.46 hrs, Volume= 13,567 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link FIN: PROP DP1 Hydrograph �Inflow m Primary 5- Inflow Area=265,110 Sf _ 4 N w V 3 3 0 U. 2 1.30 cfs 1 0- 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) Larizza no perc new Rain Laz_NRIDGE_rev Type 111 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 4/29/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pape 85 Summary for Link JCT: JUNCTION Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.63" for F-2 event Inflow = 0.23 cfs @ 12.92 hrs, Volume= 5,571 cf Primary = 0.23 cfs @ 12.92 hrs, Volume= 5,571 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link JCT: JUNCTION Hydrograph m Inflow Primary 5 Inflow Area=40,997 Sf 4 N V 3 3 . 0 U. 2 1 0.23 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street Stormwater Report APRI L 29, 2016 ROUTING DIAGRAM 1 2 Townhouses Only EXISTING TOWNHOMES Q Q BASIN\ CB CS S 1L DESIGN POINT E DETENTION BASIN RALPH G. MASTROMONACO, PE, PC Consulting Engineers Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 S u b C)It Reach On Link Routing Diagram for LAZ_TOWNHOUSE_DP Prepared by Microsoft, Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Laz-Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type/1/ 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Summary for Subcatchment 1: EXISTING Runoff = 4.14 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.280 af, Depth> 3.57" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 58 EXISTING 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: EXISTING Hydrograph Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr 4.14 cfs A-100 Rainfall=9.02" 4 Runoff Area=40,997 sf Runoff Volume=0.280 of 3 3- Runoff Depth>3.57" ° Tc=6.0 min u_ 2-_ CN=58 1 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type 111 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Summary for Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Runoff = 7.15 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.506 af, Depth> 6.45" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 82 TOWNHOMES 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Hydrograph 8 7.15 cfs Runoff 7 Type III 24-hr 6 A-100 Rainfall=9.02" _ Runoff Area=40,997 sf 5 Runoff Volume=0.506 of 3 4 Runoff Depth>6.45" UL° 3 Tc=6.0 min CN=82 2 1 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE-DP Type/1/ 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Summary for Pond CS: CS Inflow Area = 0.941 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.29" for A-100 event Inflow = 6.65 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.337 of Outflow = 6.65 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.337 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 3.93 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.278 of Secondary= 2.72 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.059 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 84.92'@ 12.11 hrs Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 82.80' CS1_Primary_ratings Head (feet) 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.325 0.711 1.116 1.244 1.327 1.349 1.393 1.435 1.454 #2 Secondary 83.00' CS1_Secondary_ratings X 0.05 Head (feet) 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.156 0.250 0.326 0.679 1.511 1.956 2.853 3.757 4.211 Primary OutFlow Max=3.87 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=84.89' (Free Discharge) L1=CS1_Primary_ratings(Custom Controls 3.87 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=2.64 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=84.89' (Free Discharge) L2=CS1_Secondary_ratings(Custom Controls 2.64 cfs) Pond CS: CS Hydrograph 7 6.65 cfs Inflow 6 Inflow Area=0.941 ac �Outflow �Prilnary Peak Elev=84.92' Secondary 5- 3.93 cfs 4- 3 3 2.72 cfs 2 1 0 5 6 7 8 9 loll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE_DP Type/1/ 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 0.941 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.54" for A-100 event Inflow = 3.93 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.278 of Outflow = 1.53 cfs @ 12.52 hrs, Volume= 0.269 af, Atten= 61%, Lag= 24.7 min Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Primary = 1.53 cfs @ 12.52 hrs, Volume= 0.269 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 82.77'@ 12.52 hrs Surf.Area= 2,636 sf Storage= 5,550 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 116.1 min calculated for 0.269 of(97% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 108.7 min ( 874.1 - 765.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 B 79.40' 2,361 cf 30.00'W x 87.88'L x 3.50'H Field B 9,227 cf Overall - 3,325 cf Embedded= 5,903 cf x 40.0% Voids #26 79.90' 3,325 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 72 Inside#1 Effective Size=44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 6 rows 5,686 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 79.40' 3.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 79.40' 0.01 cfs Exfiltration X 0.00 at all elevations #3 Primary 81.60' 0.5' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs HW=79.40' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.52 cfs @ 12.52 hrs HW=82.77' (Free Discharge) T__3=Sharp-Crested 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.43 cfs @ 8.67 fps) Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 1.10 cfs @ 3.53 fps) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE_DP Type 111 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Hydrograph �Inflow �Outflow 5 Inflow Area=0.941 ac �Discarded 3.93 cfs Peak Elev=82.77' �Primary 4 Storage=5,550 cf U 3 3 0 U- 2 1.53 cfs 1 0.00 cfs 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz -Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE-DP Type 111 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Summary for Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Inflow Area = 0.941 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 6.45" for A-100 event Inflow = 7.15 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.506 of Outflow = 6.85 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.449 af, Atten= 4%, Lag= 1.2 min Primary = 6.65 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.337 of Secondary= 0.20 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.112 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 86.80'@ 12.11 hrs Surf.Area= 1,859 sf Storage= 3,460 cf Plug-Flow detention time=64.9 min calculated for 0.447 of(88% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=29.2 min ( 792.6 - 763.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 A 84.00' 1,679 cf 25.25'W x 73.64'L x 3.50'H Field A 6,508 cf Overall - 2,311 cf Embedded= 4,197 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 84.50' 2,311 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 50 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows 3,990 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 86.00' 3.0' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #2 Secondary 84.00' Special & User-Defined Head (feet) 0.00 0.50 2.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.200 Primary OutFlow Max=6.51 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=86.79' (Free Discharge) L1=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 6.51 cfs @ 2.90 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.20 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=86.79' (Free Discharge) L2=Special & User-Defined(Custom Controls 0.20 cfs) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type/1/ 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Hydrograph $ c r Inflow 7 6.65 cfs Outflow Inflow Area=0.941 ac Primary 6 Peak Elev=86.80' �Secondary _ 5 Storage=3,460 cf y V 3 4 _o U- 3 2 1 0.20 cfs 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz -Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type 111 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=9.02" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Summary for Link 1 L: DESIGN POINT Inflow Area = 0.941 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 5.62" for A-100 event Inflow = 3.23 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.441 of Primary = 3.23 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.441 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link 1 L: DESIGN POINT Hydrograph 3.23 Cfs m Llnfw 3 Inflow Area=0.941 ac Primary) 2 0 U- 1 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type/1/ 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 Summary for Subcatchment 1: EXISTING Runoff = 2.98 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.203 af, Depth> 2.59" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.60" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 58 EXISTING 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: EXISTING Hydrograph Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.60" 4 Runoff Area=40,997 sf 2.98 cfs unoff Volume=0.203 of 3 3 Runoff Depth>2.59" U. Tc=6.0 min 2- CN=58 1 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type /// 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 Summary for Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Runoff = 5.80 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.405 af, Depth> 5.17" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.60" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 82 TOWNHOMES 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Hydrograph 6- 5.80 cfs Runoff Type III 24-hr 5 B-50 Rainfall=7.60" Runoff Area=40,997 sf 4 Runoff Volume=0.405 of 3 3 Runoff Depth>5.17" ° Tc=6.0 min u. 2 CN=82 1 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz -Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE-DP Type 111 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12 Summary for Pond CS: CS Inflow Area = 0.941 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.15" for B-50 event Inflow = 5.30 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.247 of Outflow = 5.30 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.247 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 3.32 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.209 of Secondary= 1.98 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.038 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 84.60'@ 12.11 hrs Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 82.80' CS1_Primary_ratings Head (feet) 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.325 0.711 1.116 1.244 1.327 1.349 1.393 1.435 1.454 #2 Secondary 83.00' CS1_Secondary_ratings X 0.05 Head (feet) 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.156 0.250 0.326 0.679 1.511 1.956 2.853 3.757 4.211 Primary OutFlow Max=3.25 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=84.57' (Free Discharge) L1=CS1_Primary_ratings(Custom Controls 3.25 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=1.91 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=84.57' (Free Discharge) L2=CS1_Secondary_ratings(Custom Controls 1.91 cfs) Pond CS: CS Hydrograph 5.30 cfs �Inflow �Outflow 5 Inflow Area=0.941 ac �Primary Peak Elev=84.60' Secondary 4 cil 3.32 cfs 3 3 U- 1.98 cfs 2 1 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz -Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE_DP Type /// 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 0.941 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.67" for B-50 event Inflow = 3.32 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.209 of Outflow = 0.93 cfs @ 12.60 hrs, Volume= 0.205 af, Atten= 72%, Lag= 29.1 min Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Primary = 0.93 cfs @ 12.60 hrs, Volume= 0.205 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 82.17'@ 12.60 hrs Surf.Area= 2,636 sf Storage=4,895 cf Plug-Flow detention time=132.9 min calculated for 0.205 of(98% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 128.3 min ( 891.7 - 763.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 B 79.40' 2,361 cf 30.00'W x 87.88'L x 3.50'H Field B 9,227 cf Overall - 3,325 cf Embedded= 5,903 cf x 40.0% Voids #26 79.90' 3,325 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 72 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 6 rows 5,686 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 79.40' 3.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 79.40' 0.01 cfs Exfiltration X 0.00 at all elevations #3 Primary 81.60' 0.5' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs HW=79.40' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.93 cfs @ 12.60 hrs HW=82.17' (Free Discharge) T__3=Sharp-Crested 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.38 cfs @ 7.83 fps) Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 0.54 cfs @ 2.47 fps) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type/1/ 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Hydrograph �Inflow �Outflow 5 Inflow Area=0.941 ac Discarded Peak Elev=82.17' �Primary 4 Storage=4,895 cf 3.32 cfs w 3 3 0 U- 2 0.93 cfs 1 0.00 cfs 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE-DP Type 11124-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 15 Summary for Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Inflow Area = 0.941 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 5.17" for B-50 event Inflow = 5.80 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.405 of Outflow = 5.48 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.351 af, Atten= 5%, Lag= 1.4 min Primary = 5.30 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.247 of Secondary= 0.19 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.104 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 86.68'@ 12.11 hrs Surf.Area= 1,859 sf Storage= 3,353 cf Plug-Flow detention time=74.7 min calculated for 0.351 of(87% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=34.2 min ( 802.8 - 768.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 A 84.00' 1,679 cf 25.25'W x 73.64'L x 3.50'H Field A 6,508 cf Overall - 2,311 cf Embedded= 4,197 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 84.50' 2,311 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 50 Inside #1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows 3,990 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 86.00' 3.0' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #2 Secondary 84.00' Special & User-Defined Head (feet) 0.00 0.50 2.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.200 Primary OutFlow Max=5.16 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=86.67' (Free Discharge) L1=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 5.16 cfs @ 2.68 fps) te2 Secondary OutFlow Max=0.19 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=86.67' (Free Discharge) =Special & User-Defined(Custom Controls 0.19 cfs) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type 111 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16 Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Hydrograph Inflow 6 5.30 cfs �Outflow in low Area=0.941 ac �Primary 5- - Peak Elev=86.68' �Secondary 4 Storage=3,353 cf U 0 3 U. 2 1 0.19 cfs 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz-Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type /// 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 17 Summary for Link 1L: DESIGN POINT Inflow Area = 0.941 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 4.42" for B-50 event Inflow = 2.43 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.347 of Primary = 2.43 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.347 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link 1 L: DESIGN POINT Hydrograph 2.43 cfs tm Inflow Primary Inflow Area=0.941 ac 2- w 3 0 1 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE_DP Type/1/ 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 18 Summary for Subcatchment 1: EXISTING Runoff = 2.06 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.144 af, Depth> 1.83" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 58 EXISTING 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: EXISTING Hydrograph Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" 4 Runoff Area=40,997 sf Runoff Volume=0.144 of 3 3 Runoff Depth>1.83" LL 2.06 cfs Tc=6.0 min 2 CN=58 1 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type/1/ 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 19 Summary for Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Runoff = 4.65 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.321 af, Depth> 4.10" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 82 TOWNHOMES 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Hydrograph Runoff 5 4.65 cfs Type III 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" 4 Runoff Area=40,997 sf Runoff Volume=0.321 of 3 3 Runoff Depth>4.10" Tc=6.0 min 2 CN=82 1 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE_DP Type 111 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 20 Summary for Pond CS: CS Inflow Area = 0.941 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.22" for C-25 event Inflow = 4.17 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.174 of Outflow = 4.17 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.174 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 2.80 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.152 of Secondary= 1.37 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.022 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 84.33'@ 12.12 hrs Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 82.80' CS1_Primary_ratings Head (feet) 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.325 0.711 1.116 1.244 1.327 1.349 1.393 1.435 1.454 #2 Secondary 83.00' CS1_Secondary_ratings X 0.05 Head (feet) 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.156 0.250 0.326 0.679 1.511 1.956 2.853 3.757 4.211 Primary OutFlow Max=2.75 cfs @ 12.12 hrs HW=84.30' (Free Discharge) L1=CS1_Primary_ratings(Custom Controls 2.75 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=1.30 cfs @ 12.12 hrs HW=84.30' (Free Discharge) L2=CS1_Secondary_ratings(Custom Controls 1.30 cfs) Pond CS: CS Hydrograph �Inflow �Outflow 5 Inflow Area=0.941 ac �Primary 4.17 cfs Peak Elev=84.33' Secondary 4 w 3 . 2.80 cfs 3 0 LL 2- 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE_DP Type ///24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 21 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 0.941 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.94" for C-25 event Inflow = 2.80 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.152 of Outflow = 0.35 cfs @ 12.97 hrs, Volume= 0.150 af, Atten= 88%, Lag= 51.1 min Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Primary = 0.35 cfs @ 12.97 hrs, Volume= 0.150 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 81.62'@ 12.97 hrs Surf.Area= 2,636 sf Storage=4,044 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 146.7 min calculated for 0.149 of(98% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 144.0 min ( 905.2 - 761.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 B 79.40' 2,361 cf 30.00'W x 87.88'L x 3.50'H Field B 9,227 cf Overall - 3,325 cf Embedded= 5,903 cf x 40.0% Voids #213 79.90' 3,325 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 72 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 6 rows 5,686 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 79.40' 3.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 79.40' 0.01 cfs Exfiltration X 0.00 at all elevations #3 Primary 81.60' 0.5' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs HW=79.40' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.35 cfs @ 12.97 hrs HW=81.62' (Free Discharge) �__3=S 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.34 cfs @ 6.97 fps) harp-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 0.01 cfs @ 0.50 fps) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type Ill 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 22 Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Hydrograph �Inflow Outflow 5- Inflow Area=0.941 ac •Discarded Peak Elev=81 .62' �Primary 4- 4 Storage=4,044 cf 3 2.80 cfs 3 0 2 1 0.35 cfs 0.00 cfs 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz- Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE-DP Type/1/ 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 23 Summary for Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Inflow Area = 0.941 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 4.10" for C-25 event Inflow = 4.65 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.321 of Outflow = 4.35 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.270 af, Atten= 7%, Lag= 1.6 min Primary = 4.17 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.174 of Secondary= 0.18 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.096 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 86.58'@ 12.12 hrs Surf.Area= 1,859 sf Storage= 3,247 cf Plug-Flow detention time=87.0 min calculated for 0.270 of(84% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=41.5 min ( 815.7 - 774.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 84.00' 1,679 cf 25.25'W x 73.641 x 3.50'H Field A 6,508 cf Overall - 2,311 cf Embedded= 4,197 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 84.50' 2,311 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 50 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows 3,990 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 86.00' 3.0' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #2 Secondary 84.00' Special & User-Defined Head (feet) 0.00 0.50 2.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.200 Primary OutFlow Max=4.05 cfs @ 12.12 hrs HW=86.57' (Free Discharge) L1=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 4.05 cfs @ 2.47 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.18 cfs @ 12.12 hrs HW=86.57' (Free Discharge) 2=Special & User-Defined(Custom Controls 0.18 cfs) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type 111 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 24 Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Hydrograph 5 4 FS r`fc �Inflow 4.17 cfs Outflow IOW Area=0.941 ac �Primary 4 Peak Elev=86.58' Secondary Storage=3,247 cf U 3 3 0 u- 2 1 0.18 cfs 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz -Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type 111 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 25 Summary for Link 1 L: DESIGN POINT Inflow Area = 0.941 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 3.42" for C-25 event Inflow = 1.76 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.268 of Primary = 1.76 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.268 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link 1 L: DESIGN POINT Hydrograph 1.76 cfs I tmI nflowPrimary Inflow Area=0.941 ac w 3 1 0 LL 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz-Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type 111 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 26 Summary for Subcatchment 1: EXISTING Runoff = 1.17 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.087 af, Depth> 1.11" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.1 1" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 58 EXISTING 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: EXISTING Hydrograph Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" 4 Runoff Area=40,997 sf Runoff Volume=0.087 of 3 3 Runoff Depth>1.11" ° Tc=6.0 m i n U. 2 CN=58 1.17 cfs 1 INN 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz-Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type 111 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 27 Summary for Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Runoff = 3.42 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.233 af, Depth> 2.98" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 82 TOWNHOMES 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Hydrograph Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" 4 3.42 cfs Runoff Area=40,997 sf Runoff Volume=0.233 of 3 3- Runoff Depth>2.98" ° Tc=6.0 min 2 _ CN=82 1 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz-Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE-DP Type 111 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 28 Summary for Pond CS: CS Inflow Area = 0.941 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.28" for D-10 event Inflow = 2.77 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.100 of Outflow = 2.77 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.100 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 2.17 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.093 of Secondary= 0.61 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.007 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 84.00'@ 12.14 hrs Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 82.80' CS1_Primary_ratings Head (feet) 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.325 0.711 1.116 1.244 1.327 1.349 1.393 1.435 1.454 #2 Secondary 83.00' CS1_Secondary_ratings X 0.05 Head (feet) 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.156 0.250 0.326 0.679 1.511 1.956 2.853 3.757 4.211 Primary OutFlow Max=2.15 cfs @ 12.14 hrs HW=83.99' (Free Discharge) t-1=CS1_Primary_ratings(Custom Controls 2.15 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.59 cfs @ 12.14 hrs HW=83.99' (Free Discharge) t--2=CS1_Secondary_ratings(Custom Controls 0.59 cfs) Pond CS: CS Hydrograph �Inflow �Outflow 5-- Inflow Area=0.941 ac Primary Peak Elev=84.00' Secondary 4 T 2.77 cfs 33 2.17 cfs U- 2-- 1 - 0.61 cfs 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE_DP Type /// 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 29 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 0.941 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.19" for D-10 event Inflow = 2.17 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.093 of Outflow = 0.27 cfs @ 12.89 hrs, Volume= 0.092 af, Atten= 88%, Lag= 44.8 min Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Primary = 0.27 cfs @ 12.89 hrs, Volume= 0.092 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 80.81'@ 12.89 hrs Surf.Area= 2,636 sf Storage= 2,484 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 114.6 min calculated for 0.092 of(99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 113.3 min ( 871.7 - 758.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 B 79.40' 2,361 cf 30.00'W x 87.88'L x 3.50'H Field B 9,227 cf Overall - 3,325 cf Embedded= 5,903 cf x 40.0% Voids #26 79.90' 3,325 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 72 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 6 rows 5,686 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 79.40' 3.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 79.40' 0.01 cfs Exfiltration X 0.00 at all elevations #3 Primary 81.60' 0.5' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs HW=79.40' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.27 cfs @ 12.89 hrs HW=80.81' (Free Discharge) �__3=Sharp-Crested 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.27 cfs @ 5.46 fps) Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type 111 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 30 Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Hydrograph �Inflow �Outflow 5 Inflow Area=0.941 ac Discarded Peak Elev=80.81' .�Primary 4- - Storage=2,484 cf U 3 3 2.17 cfs U. 2 1 0.27 cfs 0.00 cfs ma- 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz -Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE-DP Type Ill 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 31 Summary for Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Inflow Area = 0.941 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.98" for D-10 event Inflow = 3.42 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.233 of Outflow = 2.94 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.187 af, Atten= 14%, Lag= 3.2 min Primary = 2.77 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.100 of Secondary= 0.17 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.087 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 86.44'@ 12.14 hrs Surf.Area= 1,859 sf Storage= 3,091 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 108.4 min calculated for 0.187 of(80% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=56.7 min ( 838.4 - 781.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 84.00' 1,679 cf 25.25'W x 73.64'L x 3.50'H Field A 6,508 cf Overall - 2,311 cf Embedded= 4,197 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 84.50' 2,311 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 50 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows 3,990 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 86.00' 3.0' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #2 Secondary 84.00' Special & User-Defined Head (feet) 0.00 0.50 2.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.200 Primary OutFlow Max=2.74 cfs @ 12.14 hrs HW=86.44' (Free Discharge) L1=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 2.74 cfs @ 2.16 fps) te2 Secondary OutFlow Max=0.17 cfs @ 12.14 hrs HW=86.44' (Free Discharge) =Special & User-Defined(Custom Controls 0.17 cfs) Laz- Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type 111 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 32 Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Hydrograph 3.42 cfs Inflow Outflow 3 2.77 cfs low Area=0.941 ac �Primary Peak Elev=86.44' Secondary - Storage=3,091 cf 2 3 0 U- 1- 0.17 cfs 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz -Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type 111 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.11" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 33 Summary for Link 1 L: DESIGN POINT Inflow Area = 0.941 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.38" for D-10 event Inflow = 0.93 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.186 of Primary = 0.93 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.186 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link 1 L: DESIGN POINT Hydrograph 1 0.93 cfs m Inflow Inflow Area=0.941 ac m Primary w 3 0 U. 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz-Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type/1/ 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 34 Summary for Subcatchment 1: EXISTING Runoff = 0.69 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.057 af, Depth> 0.72" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 58 EXISTING 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: EXISTING Hydrograph Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" 4 Runoff Area=40,997 sf Runoff Volume=0.057 of 3 3 Runoff Depth>0.72" ° Tc=6.0 min 2 CN=58 1 0.69 cfs 0 , 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz- Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type /// 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 35 Summary for Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Runoff = 2.67 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.181 af, Depth> 2.31" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 82 TOWNHOMES 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Hydrograph Im Runoff 5- Type III 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" 4 Runoff Area=40,997 sf Runoff Volume=0.181 of 3 31 2.67 cfs Runoff Depth>2.31" ° Tc=6.0 min u_ 2 CN=82 1 0 - 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz- Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE-DP Type/1/ 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 36 Summary for Pond CS: CS Inflow Area = 0.941 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.72" for E-5 event Inflow = 1.53 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.057 of Outflow = 1.53 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.057 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 1.50 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.056 of Secondary= 0.03 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 83.65'@ 12.21 hrs Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 82.80' CS1_Primary_ratings Head (feet) 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.325 0.711 1.116 1.244 1.327 1.349 1.393 1.435 1.454 #2 Secondary 83.00' CS1_Secondary_ratings X 0.05 Head (feet) 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.156 0.250 0.326 0.679 1.511 1.956 2.853 3.757 4.211 Primary OutFlow Max=1.44 cfs @ 12.21 hrs HW=83.61' (Free Discharge) L1=CS1_Primary_ratings(Custom Controls 1.44 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 12.20 hrs HW=83.63' (Free Discharge) L2=CS1-Second ary_ratings(Custom Controls 0.03 cfs) Pond CS: CS Hydrograph �Inflow �Outflow 5 Inflow Area=0.941 ac Primary Peak Elev=83.65' Secondary 4 3 3 - 0 2 1 1.50 cfs 1 - 0.03 cfs 0 , 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE_DP Type /// 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 37 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 0.941 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.72" for E-5 event Inflow = 1.50 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.056 of Outflow = 0.21 cfs @ 12.84 hrs, Volume= 0.055 af, Atten= 86%, Lag= 37.7 min Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Primary = 0.21 cfs @ 12.84 hrs, Volume= 0.055 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 80.32'@ 12.84 hrs Surf.Area= 2,636 sf Storage= 1,450 cf Plug-Flow detention time=87.3 min calculated for 0.055 of(99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=85.7 min ( 843.2 - 757.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 B 79.40' 2,361 cf 30.00'W x 87.88'L x 3.50'H Field B 9,227 cf Overall - 3,325 cf Embedded = 5,903 cf x 40.0% Voids #213 79.90' 3,325 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 72 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 6 rows 5,686 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 79.40' 3.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 79.40' 0.01 cfs Exfiltration X 0.00 at all elevations #3 Primary 81.60' 0.5' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs HW=79.40' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.21 cfs @ 12.84 hrs HW=80.32' (Free Discharge) �__1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.21 cfs @ 4.30 fps) 3=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type/1/ 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 38 Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Hydrograph �Inflow 5- Inflow Area=0.941 ac _Outflow Discarded Peak Elev=80.32' �Primary _ 4 Storage=1 ,450 cf -- U 3 3 0 U- 2 1 .50 cfs 1 0.00 cfs 0.21 cfs 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz-Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE-DP Type 111 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 39 Summary for Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Inflow Area = 0.941 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.31" for E-5 event Inflow = 2.67 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.181 of Outflow = 1.68 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.138 af, Atten= 37%, Lag= 7.2 min Primary = 1.53 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.057 of Secondary= 0.15 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.081 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 86.29'@ 12.21 hrs Surf.Area= 1,859 sf Storage= 2,920 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 133.6 min calculated for 0.137 of(76% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=75.5 min ( 863.1 - 787.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 84.00' 1,679 cf 25.25'W x 73.64'L x 3.50'H Field A 6,508 cf Overall - 2,311 cf Embedded = 4,197 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 84.50' 2,311 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 50 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows 3,990 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 86.00' 3.0' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #2 Secondary 84.00' Special & User-Defined Head (feet) 0.00 0.50 2.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.200 Primary OutFlow Max=1.48 cfs @ 12.21 hrs HW=86.29' (Free Discharge) L1=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 1.48 cfs @ 1.75 fps) te2 Secondary OutFlow Max=0.15 cfs @ 12.21 hrs HW=86.29' (Free Discharge) =Special & User-Defined(Custom Controls 0.15 cfs) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type 111 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 40 Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Hydrograph 2.67 cfs Inflow Outflow Inflow Area=0.941 ac Primary Peak Elev=86.29' Secondary 2 Storage=2,920 cf 4- 1 .53 cfs 0 U- 1 0.15 cfs 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type 111 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.31" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 41 Summary for Link 1 L: DESIGN POINT Inflow Area = 0.941 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.75" for E-5 event Inflow = 0.35 cfs @ 12.55 hrs, Volume= 0.137 of Primary = 0.35 cfs @ 12.55 hrs, Volume= 0.137 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link 1 L: DESIGN POINT Hydrograph 0.35 cfs m Inflow 0.35 _ �Primary Inflow Area=0.941 ac 0.3 0.25 w 3 0.2- 0 u- 0.15- 0.1 0.05-- 0- 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz-Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type 111 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 42 Summary for Subcatchment 1: EXISTING Runoff = 0.26 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.030 af, Depth> 0.38" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 58 EXISTING 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: EXISTING Hydrograph Runoff 5- Type III 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" 4 Runoff Area=40,997 sf Runoff Volume=0.030 of 3 3 Runoff Depth>0.38" ° Tc=6.0 min 2 CN=58 0.26 cfs 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz-Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type 11124-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 43 Summary for Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Runoff = 1.88 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.127 af, Depth> 1.62" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 82 TOWNHOMES 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Hydrograph Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" 4 Runoff Area=40,997 sf Runoff Volume=0.127 of 3 3 Runoff Depth>1.62" 1.88 cfs Tc=6.0 min 2- CN=82 1 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE_DP Type 111 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 44 Summary for Pond CS: CS Inflow Area = 0.941 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.19" for F-2 event Inflow = 0.39 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 0.015 of Outflow = 0.39 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 0.015 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 0.39 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 0.015 of Secondary= 0.00 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 83.05'@ 12.47 hrs Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 82.80' CS1_Primary_ratings Head (feet) 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.325 0.711 1.116 1.244 1.327 1.349 1.393 1.435 1.454 #2 Secondary 83.00' CS1_Secondary_ratings X 0.05 Head (feet) 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.156 0.250 0.326 0.679 1.511 1.956 2.853 3.757 4.211 Primary OutFlow Max=0.38 cfs @ 12.47 hrs HW=83.04' (Free Discharge) L1=CS1_Primary_ratings(Custom Controls 0.38 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 12.47 hrs HW=83.04' (Free Discharge) L2=CS1_Secondary_ratings(Custom Controls 0.00 cfs) Pond CS: CS Hydrograph Inflow �Outflow 5 Inflow Area=0.941 ac Primary Peak Elev=83.05' Secondary _ 4 N V 3 3 0 U_ 2 1 0.39 cfs 0.00 cfs 0- 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz- Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE_DP Type 111 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 45 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 0.941 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.19" for F-2 event Inflow = 0.39 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 0.015 of Outflow = 0.10 cfs @ 12.94 hrs, Volume= 0.014 af, Atten= 73%, Lag= 28.2 min Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Primary = 0.10 cfs @ 12.94 hrs, Volume= 0.014 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 79.71'@ 12.94 hrs Surf.Area= 2,636 sf Storage= 332 cf Plug-Flow detention time=58.9 min calculated for 0.014 of(97% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=58.0 min ( 824.6 - 766.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 B 79.40' 2,361 cf 30.00'W x 87.88'L x 3.50'H Field B 9,227 cf Overall - 3,325 cf Embedded= 5,903 cf x 40.0% Voids #26 79.90' 3,325 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 72 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 6 rows 5,686 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 79.40' 3.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 79.40' 0.01 cfs Exfiltration X 0.00 at all elevations #3 Primary 81.60' 0.5' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs HW=79.40' (Free Discharge) t-2=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.10 cfs @ 12.94 hrs HW=79.71' (Free Discharge) 11=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.10 cfs @ 2.10 fps) 3=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type 111 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 46 Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Hydrograph �Inflow Outflow 5 Inflow Area=0.941 ac Discarded Peak Elev=79.71' �Primary 4- - Storage=332 cf 4- w U 3 3 0 FL 2 1 0.00 cfs 0.10 cfs 0- 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz-Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE-DP Type /// 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 47 Summary for Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Inflow Area = 0.941 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.62" for F-2 event Inflow = 1.88 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.127 of Outflow = 0.53 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 0.088 af, Atten= 72%, Lag= 22.8 min Primary = 0.39 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 0.015 of Secondary= 0.14 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 0.074 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 86.12'@ 12.47 hrs Surf.Area= 1,859 sf Storage= 2,701 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 181.9 min calculated for 0.088 of(70% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 114.0 min ( 909.8 - 795.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 84.00' 1,679 cf 25.25'W x 73.64'L x 3.50'H Field A 6,508 cf Overall - 2,311 cf Embedded= 4,197 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 84.50' 2,311 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 50 Inside#1 Effective Size=44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows 3,990 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 86.00' 3.0' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #2 Secondary 84.00' Special & User-Defined Head (feet) 0.00 0.50 2.82 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.200 Primary OutFlow Max=0.37 cfs @ 12.47 hrs HW=86.11' (Free Discharge) t1=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 0.37 cfs @ 1.10 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.14 cfs @ 12.47 hrs HW=86.11' (Free Discharge) T-2=Special & User-Defined(Custom Controls 0.14 cfs) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type 111 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10 00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 48 Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Hydrograph 2 1.88 cfs Inflow �Outflow Inflow Area=0.941 ac Primary Peak Elev=86.12' �Secondary Storage=2,701 cf 3 1 0 U- 0.53 cfs 0.39 cfs 0.14 cfs 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Laz - Townhouses LAZ_TOWNHOUSE—DP Type 111 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 5/1/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n M16359 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 49 Summary for Link 1 L: DESIGN POINT Inflow Area = 0.941 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.12" for F-2 event Inflow = 0.24 cfs @ 12.92 hrs, Volume= 0.088 of Primary = 0.24 cfs @ 12.92 hrs, Volume= 0.088 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link 1 L: DESIGN POINT Hydrograph 0.26 0.24 cfs Inflow 0.24 �Primary 0.22-= Inflow Area=0.941 ac 0.2 0.18 w 0.16 0.14 _0 0.12 U. 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 . 0.02 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) WETLAND DELINEATION AND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT Proposed Residential Development North Ridge Street Village of Rye Brook Westchester County New York Prepared for: Lou Larizza Prepared By: Steve Marino, PWS Tim Miller Associates, Inc. 10 North Street Cold Spring, New York 10516 (845) 265-4400 October 26, 2015 Introduction The contract vendee of the property at North Ridge Street in the Village of Rye Brook is proposing a residential subdivision with an affordable housing component. Town-regulated wetlands have been identified on the site; none of the wetlands are within the proposed construction envelope. Size of the overall parcel is 3.96 acres. Steve Marino, PWS of Tim Miller Associates delineated the wetland in April of 2015. This report will also address the functions of the wetland as it currently exists, potential impacts of the proposal and consider some potential mitigation measures. Existing Conditions The site is the location of a single family residence in a suburban area (See Figure 1). The undeveloped portion of the site is downslope of the residence and is currently vegetated (see attached photos 1 through 6). The vegetation in the upland areas and within the delineated wetlands is second growth forest. This is the only remaining large parcel in the neighborhood. The site drains from west to east, within the Blind Brook watershed. There is no direct surface connection to the Blind Brook or its tributaries. Wetlands on site were delineated on April 16, 2015, in conformance with the Village of Rye Brook Code. A total of 56 flags were set on the site. The wetland includes the lower portions of the site, east of the existing dwelling and North Ridge Street. Total area of the wetland is 50,965 square feet (1.17 acres). The subject wetland is predominantly a forested wetland, with open areas where fallen trees have opened the canopy and allowed for denser herbaceous and shrub layers. This wetland does not appear on either the DEC or Federal NWI mapping (Figures 2 and 3). Vegetation in the wetland as delineated is dominated by a number of locally common species. Trees are predominantly red maple (Acer rubrum) green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and cottonwood (Populus deltoides). Spicebush (Lindera benzoin) is the dominant shrub, and skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus) is the dominant herbaceous plant, with soft rush (Juncus effusus), purple-leafed willow herb (Epilobium coloratum), tussock sedge (Carex stricta), fringed sedge (Carex crinita), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea) and common reed (Phragmites australis) as lesser herbaceous plants. Upland vegetation is dominated by sugar maple (Acer saccharum), with occasional white oak (Quercus alba) and black cherry (Prunus serotina). The shrub layer is almost entirely the invasive and non-native morrow honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii), multifloral rose (Rosa multiflora), winged euonymus (Euonymus alatus) and barberry (Berberis thunbergii). There is a substantial patch of Japanese holly (Ilex crenata) along the transition between the wetland and upland in the southern part of the site, near flags 8 through 12. These appear to have been planted at some time in the past and are thriving as a dense buffer between the property to the south and the wetland. The NRCS Westchester County Soil Survey shows the site as having Urban Chatfield-Charlton and Charlton soil complexes, which typically are upland soils with a stony substrate (Figure 4). No hydric soils are indicated on the available mapping. A copy of the detailed NRCS soils report is attached. A closer examination of the site revealed hydric soils within the central part Larizza Rye Brook Wetland Assessment Page 2 of the site, with Munsell 2.5Y3/1 soils within the central part of the flagged wetland area, and 10YR4/2 soils with 10YR4/6 mottling along the upper edges of the wetland. These are both hydric soils. The upland soils on the site are 10YR4/4. Hydrology to the site is provided by overland runoff from the surrounding residential neighborhood. A pipe network captures runoff and discharges it to the western end of the site through a 12" diameter pipe. At this topogpraphic low spot the runoff from the adjacent residences to the north and south, including the existing dwelling on the property, drain to this wetland as shallow lateral flow. Overflow leaves the site via an existing headwall structure through a 36" pipe. Wetland Functional Evaluation As seen on the attached aerial photo, the subject wetland is an island of undeveloped land in a suburban setting. As such it represents important open space and aesthetic value for the immediate neighbors. However, from a functional standpoint its relative small size and location in such a developed area limits some of the functions associated with wetlands. The wetland does provide important stormwater benefits, including water quality and quantity control. The depressional area allows for the slowing and filtering of stormwater runoff, and the dense vegetation provides uptake of nutrients from the urban runoff. The input from roads does carry a significant amount of sand with it, and the initial flow into the site has high velocity and is entering off a slope so that erosion is an issue at the western end. In terms of wetlands serving to protect downstream waters from siltation and sedimentation, this wetland functions at a high level Regarding vegetation and wildlife, the wetland is limited by its size and location in a suburban setting. At 1.17 acres, the wetland is too small to provide adequate cover or unique habitat for most wetland dependent species, and doe snot provide habitat for any known threatened or endangered species. Common suburban species were observed, including mourning dove. American robin, downy woodpecker and eastern gray squirrel. It is likely that green frogs and American toads live in and adjacent to the wetland in this landscape context. The observed vegetation in the wetland is a mix of native and non-native species. The wetland hydrology is on the dry side of the wetland scale, and does not provide the annual hydroperiod for the development of unique or unusual wetland plant species. A small number of species (less than 10) dominate the wetland vegetation and adjacent areas. As noted above, however, the density of vegetation is such that the wetland does provide significant filtering of stormwater runoff. Current Proposal as Reviewed The owner of the property proposes to construct eight units of fair affordable housing, one new residential dwelling and renovate the existing single family dwelling. All of the new units will front on North Ridge Street. A driveway access to rear parking for the affordable units will be constructed off of North Ridge Street at the north end of the site. There will be no direct impact to the site wetlands. Activities are proposed within the 100 foot buffer, but these will be minimized with the use of retaining walls. None of the affordable units Larizza Rye Brook Wetland Assessment Page 3 are in the wetland buffer; on the north part of the site only the parking will be in the regulated area. The single family residence will be within the buffer, which extends up to the adjacent property line. This encroachment is necessary to allow for the construction of the market rate dwelling and a small but reasonable rear yard area. Impacts to Site Wetlands From a functional standpoint. this proposal will not affect the most important functions of the wetland system. i.e., the treatment and control of stormwater runoff. The wetland itself will not be touched, and runoff from those areas of the buffer that are disturbed by development will be captured and treated prior to discharge back into the wetland system. The stormwater management plan for the project controls post-development runoff and provides for treatment of new impervious surfaces after construction. Flow patterns and drainage channels will remain undisturbed. A buffer planting plan will be prepared to enhance those areas of the buffer between the new retaining walls and the wetland to ensure a buffer to that wildlife that does use the wetland and a visual barrier between the developed areas and the wetlands. Since the wetland will remain in its entirety, it will continue to be a valuable open space to the neighborhood, and those remaining areas of buffer will provide green space and visual relief from the new development. The new plantings will be installed from the list below, which are all native species adapted to wetland and adjacent areas and common in these locations in southern Westchester. Shrubs Mountain laurel Kalmia latifolia Winterberry Ilex verticillata Witch hazel Hamamelis vir iniana S icebush Lindera benzoin Arrowwood Viburnum dentatum Trees Red maple Acer rubrum Sugar maple Acer saccharum Red oak Quercus rubra White oak Quercus alba Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Black gum N ssa s Ivatica Hickory Ca rya spp Mitigation Measures It is proposed to implement the following mitigation and enhancement plan for the remaining wetland and adjacent areas. 1. Nuisance and nonnative vegetation will be removed from within the wetland area, including phragmites, multifloral rose, climbing bittersweet, Japanese barberry and Morrow honeysuckle. No native species will be removed. The use of retaining walls rather than graded slopes will allow for the preservation of more than 24 trees that would have otherwise been removed. Larizza Rye Brook Wetland Assessment Page 4 3. A minimum of seven large trees and 40 shrubs will be planted to enhance the buffer plant community on site as per the plant list above. These trees and shrubs will be in addition to those planted as part of the Landscape Plan for the affordable housing component. Larizza Rye Brook Wetland Assessment Page 5 • Vol* 80 3J01a H:)O*j ` 4 w _ ��nniai r�aie3rne 40 - l� f s' Y � cc ` �. ru 00 f7 i a dalllHO8 HO f Y a r O g QO CL Of gel w cm N N N � J O t � V N N E U Q � U (q m cc g = � w o c w pU - E m Z ID C o ram. E c I o y SS � F W o U OC _ o W �Z a ) V O N E- `o J m m c CLcu c o --_—� ■ v) oa� � V Y r c_ : V `o y . co Z r '7 U N I C COL 0 v 3 ai _ ~ O m LJ r a N » � z jt r m cc c► m f0 � J� � U � « C O Q O Q-m c6 a � Y N .- O O� O N N vJ£ O O D C� coU m O w U: 9 � a c` 4-0 m O J L N iO R N 70 W m ❑ NLL LL uj w LLL J �V = LL �L ❑ � Z r11 1111 � � I 1 a° oEa .12 12.s �o!! Z;E ir A 3 N O V �N H C O j GpL n 3 �f L L � 0 c Z e E C i N Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map s 610620 610550 610680 610710 610740 610770 41°1'25'N 41°1'29'N Of UIC a 4 A V V O N a 1 i a � E � 41°1'22"N 41°1'22"N 610620 610650 610680 610710 610740 610770 3 3 F, Map Sde:1:1,170 if pnrted on A portrait(8.5'x 11")stied. � Myers N 0 15 30 60 90 A0 50 100 200 300 Map projection:VkbMercahx Comacoordnates:WGS84 Edge tics:UTMZnre 18N VOGSM 8 '?`� _, r'fps,'s.t �, .a. � k °z '' �y G�y{{�►�> /r �� � 'ro: •i• �r 7 7 Photo 1: Wetland view looking west ..�. \ --mom; - ' - .,fir �-�4�'✓� Photo 2: Wetland view looking east • �{�, yL'i�� F -+�. Il .,.s ;. ��� -ski•.' .` i��%Y 1 fJ- • �O -. I 1.15-Y Y �% ��.' �cyy ?� �a ♦..'` Y r ', `• \ •i� �i±1K • • • 21 of • t 1 r,,l .� �, ��;,,,. ►��( -; _ ' i rosy.. n++..Y �•�, r,..:'fs3ir s � ,A • • ' a r : i .y /1 gip■ . . { #�,� I �.t w� '; Y.I. �+ � •.s' i r 40 1 y 1'+ TW Fill USDA United States A product of the National Custom Soil Resource Department of Cooperative Soil Survey, Agriculture a joint effort of the United Report for NRCSStates Department of Agriculture and other Westchester Federal agencies, State Natural agencies including the Resources Agricultural Experiment County, New Conservation Stations, and local Service participants York Larizza Rye Brook NRCS 0=MMMMMMM 8,000 fft October 21, 2015 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers,foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,protect,or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses.The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning,onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/main/soils/health/)and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center(http:// offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres)or your NRCS State Soil Scientist(http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nres142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads.Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA)prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation,genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal,or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 2 for communication of program information(Braille, large print,audiotape,etc.)should contact USDA's TARGET Center at(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800)795-3272 (voice)or(202)720-6382(TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 HowSoil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 SoilMap..................................................................................................................7 SoilMap................................................................................................................8 Legend..................................................................................................................9 MapUnit Legend................................................................................................10 MapUnit Descriptions........................................................................................10 Westchester County, New York......................................................................12 UhC—Urban land-Charlton complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes.....................12 UIC—Urban land-Charlton-Chatfield complex, rolling, very rocky...............13 References............................................................................................................15 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area.They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles.A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently,soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate,water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform,a soil scientist develops a concept,or model,of how they were formed.Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship,are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied.They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction,and other features that enable them to identify soils.After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the 5 Custom Soil Resource Report individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping,design of map units,complexity of the landscape,and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil- landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt,clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests.Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and identified each as a specific map unit.Aerial photographs show trees,buildings,fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 6 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 7 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 3 9 610650 610680 610710 610740 610770 41°1z_ t f �f V t Q s 41°1'22'N 41°1'22'v 610620 610650 610680 610710 610740 510779 3 3 En Map Scale:1:1,170 if pmtz?d on A porLm t(8.5"x 11")shee g � —Mebffs N 0 15 30 60 90 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Map projection:Web Mercator Comer moncinates:WGS84 Edge t-:UTM Zone 18N WGS84 8 sommolm Im., Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detai I/soils/scientists/?cid=nres 142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States,the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/? cid=nres142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nresl42p2_052290.pdf 16 RALPH G. MASTROMONACO, P.E., P.C. Civil / site / Environmental Consulting Engineers www.rgmpepc.com 13 Dove fo*Croton-on;jjudson, New York 10520 Tel: (914) 271-4762 Fax: (914) 271-2820 PROJECT: NORTH RIDGE STREET Subdivision and Site Plan for Affordable Housing SCOPE: PRELIMINARY STORM WATER REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2015 INTRODUCTION: The 3.96 acre site is proposed for development of one new single family home and 8 affordable townhomes. In addition, there is a single family home on the lot that will be re-constructed on its foundation. To mitigate the effects of the new imperviousness, a storm water plan is proposed that meets the requirements of the NYS DEC storm water rules and the Storm water Design Manual. Figure: Site Location and Zoning (/ Nam'NsoN USA& 4P —' lack I MCA. amp T _-t— � 1 ® North Ridge Street Storm Water Report METHODOLOGY: The overall watershed was determined from NYS GIS topographical maps. Runoff Curve Numbers we determined from Soil mapping of the Natural Resources Conservation Division. There is no specific mapping of the soils on the site as they are characteristically urban and disturbed. Therefore, we widened the area of interest and noted outlying soil types. Accordingly, the site is principally a 'B' hydrologic grouping with a `C' grouping within the wetland area. Travel time in the watershed was determined using the longest hydraulic time in the watershed. To determine the travel time a profile was created of the travel path and appropriate velocities were computed along each leg. The Hydrocad computer software was used to compute runoff from watersheds and routings through the control structures, water quality basins and detention basins. The purpose of this analysis is to ensure that peak flows after development do not exceed the peak flows that occur currently for a range of storms. This report analyzes the 2 through 100 years storm frequencies. The required water quality volume is captured in a subsurface chamber system. The water quality volume is treated by processing the flows through a cartridge filter for eventual discharge to the design point. After the capture of the water quality volume the flow passes through a controls structure that allows some flow to enter into a detention basin that mitigates any increases in peak flow. The results of the analysis are contained in a simple Table below: Table: Results of Study at Design Point#1 Storm Existing Peak Flow Proposed Peak Flow (yr) (cfs) (cfs) 100 12.59 12.28 50 10.89 10.39 25 7.68 7.41 10 4.79 4.76 5 3.5 3.2 2 1.38 1.29 ® North Ridge Street Storm Water Report Fi ure: Aerial Photo raph Showin Property Boundaries 4, tu. f. k' Note:The site is completely wooded with the exception of the single family house along North Ridge Street. North Ridge Street Storm Water Report Figure: Watersheds and Site Plan RIG STREET �\,�A / VuTER ATERSHEDOUNDARY L 4,0997.5 facre 0.941 crea DE&S!�InP I WATERSHED 50865.85 .f. TOWNHOUSES 1.168 a e8 WETLAND SOIL / 90.59 a. `\ TRAVEL PATH / _ 6. 0 acrq� �\> _ 25 7.23 s.f.^ REMAINING r 0.58 acres I 1 WATERSHED � � WATERSHED \ ® North Ridge Street Storm Water Report Figure: Soil Map (UIC soil throughout— Urban Land) Soil Map—Westchester County,New York ; M (North Ridge Street) 4 610510 610640 61= 610700 610730 610760 6I0790 630810 41°1'30N 41•1'-1 F� all MOT v v 41°!'YI'N I • Ol•1'MN 610610 61060C 610670 610700 610730 610760 610790 WORD 3 3: ~ Map Scale:1:1,420 If printed w A portrait(8.5'x 11")shed. x — —_ Meters $ N 0 20 40 80 120 A e 0 50 !00 200 300 Mappro)em0n:Nkb Mercator Corner mordnates:WGS84 Ed¢tics:VrM Zore 18N WG584 15a� Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/17/2015 ii Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 North Ridge Street Storm Water Report Figure: Hydrogroups and Soil Types in the Surroundings d�`XtSt Oo;roSr x�r.'r5: x ..,. _1'�tl OOIZK. OOOZ►S► 0pBlK► Owl,,, OOGtYS► 00 ilIv — i s Q� � M 8- 8 ES 8 pp h*ft $ e N $ O N O Ud (2 / yr m r. o 0 O R T g it MAP LEGEND Area of Interest(AOI) C Area of Interest IAOIj O CID Sod. D Soil Rating Polygons 13 0 A11 Not rated or not available g U A/D Water Features g Streams and Canals '0 0 8 Transportation 0 BID $ hr-r RaAs 8 U C ti Interstate Highways Q C/D US Routes LJ D Malor Roads Q Not rated or not available Local Roads 009Z.5► OOSZoSo OO►tl5r OOCZrs, OOZZK► OO1ZIOW 000ZfS/ 0051v% gggl►A ODOVS0 009tpst North Ridge Street Storm Water Report Figure: Site Plan � 11 tA 4 i 1, I 1. F i 1 II I X go:, �s q 1 1 �x 5 i I •�. 1 e r ® North Ridge Street Storm Water Report Table: Computation of Runoff Curve Numbers EXISTING WATERSHED LAND USE CONDITION AREA HSG CN AMOUNT WETLAND WOODS GOOD 50865 C 70 3560550 IMPERVIOUS 2000 B 98 196000 WOODS GOOD 211525 B 55 11633875 264390 58.2 15390425 WS A-TOWNHOMES EXISTING LAND USE CONDITION AREA HSG CN AMOUNT IMPERVIOUS 23236 B 98 2277128 OPEN SPACE GOOD 17761 B 61 1083421 IMPERV 40997 82.0 3360549 57% WS B-REMAINING LAND USE CONDITION AREA HSG CN AMOUNT WETLAND WOODS GOOD 50865 C 70 3560550 IMPERVIOUS 2000 B 98 196000 WOODS GOOD 145221 B 55 7987155 198086 59.3 11743705 WS C-NEW HOUSE LAND USE CONDITION AREA HSG CN AMOUNT IMPERVIOUS 6330 B 98 620340 OPEN SPACE GOOD 18977 B 61 1157597 IMPERV 25307 70.3 1777937 25% CHECK TOTAL AREA 264390 OK North Ridge Street Storm Water Report Table: Computation of Travel Time WATERSHED EXISTING AND PROPOSED SCS TR-55 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTATIONS WATERSHED 3 PROPOSED CONDITIONS LENGTH sheet flow ELEVS ELEV2 SLOPE MAGNIN 2YR PRP DELTA TRAVEL (FT) PERCENT n (INCHES) (FT) TIME 95 196 194 2.105 0.4 3.3 2 0.331 SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW(UN- PAVED PATH) LENGTH ELEV1 ELEV2 SLOPE DELTA TRAVEL (FT) PERCENT (FT) TIME 139.9 194 180 10.007 14 0.008 CHANNEL FLOW(UN-PAVED PATH) CHANNEL WETTED HYDRAULIC LENGTH ELEVI ELEV2 SLOPE WIDTH DEPTH MAGNIN AREA PERIMETER RADIUS VELOCITY DELTAY TRAVEL (FT) PERCENT (FT) (FT) n a Pw RADIUS (FT) TIME 258.6 180 176 1.547 3 2 0.03 6 7 0.857142957 6.92854649 4 0.010 TOTAL TOTAL DELTA Y TOTAL LENGTH DELTA Y TRAVELT (FT) (FT) (HRS) 493.5 20 20 0.349 Lag 0.210 Tc(mins) 21.0 Table: Computation of Water Quality Volume at Townhouses NYSDEC WQv AREA Imp.Area I P Rv WQv System (sq ft) (sq ft) % in ft (cu. Ft.) 1 40,997.00 23,236.00 57% 1.3 0.56 2,487.58 ®1 North Ridge Street Storm Water Report 100 YEAR STORM Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs,dt-0.01 hrs,4801 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Weighted-CN Reach routing byStor-Ind method - Pond routing byStor-Ind method Subcatchment 1:BUST DP1 Iinoff Area=264,390 sf 0.00%Impervious Iinoff Depth=2.78" T(--21.0 min CW58.20 Rinoff=12.59 ds 61,157 d Subcatchment 2:TOWNHWES %noff Area=40,997 sf 0.00%Impervious R inoff Depth=5.39" Tc=6.0 min CW-82.00 Rinoff=5.83 ds 18,402 d Subcatchment 3:FOMNING %noff Area=198,806 sf 0.00%Impervious Iinoff Depth--2.89" Tc=21.0 min CW59.30 Rinoff=9.92 ds 47,880 d Subcatchment 5:NEW HOUSE %noff Area=25,307 sf 0.00%Impervious %noff Depth=4.OT' Tc=6.0 min CN'=70.30 Iinoff--2.77 ds 8,585 d Pond CS:CS Peak Bev=80.8T Inflow=5.42 ds 9,607 d Primary=2.84 ds 8,115 d Secondary=2.58 ds 1 A92 d Cutflow=5.42 ds 9,607 d Pored DET:DETENTION BASIN Peak8ev=79.30' Storage=3,339 d Inflow--2.84 ds 8,115 d Discarded=0.01 ds 220 d Primary=1.38 ds 7,896 d Outflow--1.39 ds 8,116 d Pond DW:DayWB-L PeakBev=62.96' Storage=1,001 d Inflow=2.77 ds 8,585 d Discarded=0.20 ds 5,871 d Primary=2.55 ds 2,714 d Outflow=2.75 ds 8,585 d Pond WQ:WQ BASIN Peak Bev-�3.69 Storage=3,990 d Inflow-5.83 ds 18,402 d Primary=5.42 ds 9,607 d Secondary=0.15 ds 8,567 d Cutflow-5.57 ds 18,175 d Link 4:OFFSrTE Inflow=10.97 ds 50,594 d Primary=10.97 ds 50,594 d Link RN:PROP DP1 Inflow=12.28 ds 68,549 d Primary=12.28 ds 68,549 d Link JCT:JUNCTION Inflow-2.98 ds 17,955 d Primaryr-2.98 ds 17,955 d Total Runoff Area=529,500 sf Frioff Volume=136,024 cf Average Runoff Depth=3.08" 100.00%Pervious=529,500 sf 0.00%Impervious=0 sf ® North Ridge Street Storm Water Report 50 YEAR STORM Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs,4801 points Runoff bySCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Weighted-CN Reach routing byStor-Ind method - Pond routing byStor-Ind method Subcatchment 1:EXIST DPI %noff Area=264,390 sf 0.00%Impervious %noff Depth--2.43" Tc21.0 min CW58.20 %noff=10.89 ds 53,507 d Subcatchment 2:TOWN HWES %noff Area=40,997 sf 0.00%Impervious Idrnoff Depth=4.92" Tc=6.0 min CW-82.00 %noff=5.34 ds 16,796 d Subcatchment 3:REMAINING Fdrnoff Area=198,806 sf 0.00%Impervious Fdrnoff Depth=2.54" Tc=21.0 min CW59.30 Fvnoff-�.62 ds 42,001 d Subcatchment 5:NEW HOUSE Runoff Area=25,307 sf 0.00%Impervious Runoff Depth=3.65" Tc=6.O min CW70.30 Runoff--2.49 ds 7,697 d Pond CS:CS PeakBer�0.86' Inflovy=5.14 ds 8,348 d Primary=2.83 ds 7,118 d Secondary--2.32 ds 1,230 d Outflovv=5.14 ds 8,348 d Pond DIET:DETENTION BASIN PeakFJev=79.02' Storage=3,152 d Inflovr-2.83 ds 7,118 d Discarde&O.01 ds 209 d Primary=1.11 ds 6,909 d outflow=1.12 ds 7,118 d Pond DIN:DRYVVE-L PeakBev=62.86' Storage-91 d Inflovr✓2.49 ds 7,697 d Discarded=0.20 ds 5,507 d Primary=-2.27 ds 2,191 d Outflow-2.47 ds 7,697 d Pored WQ:WQ BASIN PeakBev=83.6T Storage=3,990 d Inflow=5.34 ds 16,796 d Primary--5.14 ds 8,348 d Secondary-0.15 ds 8,344 d Outflow=5.29 ds 16,692 d Link 4:OFFSrrE IAowF9.54 ds 44,192 d Pn mary--9.54 ds 44,192 d Link RN:PROP DP1 Inflow=10.39 ds 60,674 d Primary=10.39 ds 60,674 d Link JCT:JUNCTION Inflovv--2.68 ds 16,483 d Primary=2.68 ds 16,483 d Total Runoff Area=529,500 sf Runoff Volume=120,001 cf Average Runoff Depth=2.72" 100.00%Pervious=529,500 sf 0.00%Impervious=0 sf North Ridge Street Storm Water Report 25 YEAR STORM Time span=0.0048.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs,4801 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Weighted-CN Reach routing byStor-Ind method - Pond routing byStor-Ind method Subcatchment 1:DUST DP1 %noff Area=264,390 sf 0.00%Impervious Runoff Depth=1.77" T(--21.0 min CW-58.20 Runoff=7.68 ds 39,066 d Subcatchment 2:TOWNHOMES %noff Area=40,997 sf 0.00%Impervious Runoff Depth=3.99" Tc=6.0 min CW-82.00 Rdrnoff--4.36 ds 13,622 d Subcatchment 3:REMAINING R naff Area=198,806 sf 0.00%Impervious Rdinoff Depth=1.86" Tc=21.0 min CNt=59.30 Runoff=6.14 ds 30,872 d Subcatch rent 5:N N HOUSE Rdrnoff Area=25,307 sf 0.00%Impervious Runoff Depth=2.83" Tc=6.0 min CW-70.30 Rdrnoff=1.92 ds 5,975 d Pond(S:CS PeakElev-80.80' Inflow=3.73 ds 5,611 d Primary=2.69 ds 5,169 d Secondary=1.02 ds 441 d 0utflovv=3.73 ds 5,611 d Pond DET:DETENTION BASIN PeakBev=78.48' Storage=2,675 d Inflo%=2.69 ds 5,169 d D a;arded=0.01 ds 187 d Pnmary=0.47 ds 4,982 d Outflow=0.48 ds 5,169 d Pond DIN:DRyWE-L Peak Bev=62.66' Storage=972 d Inflow=1.92 cfs 5,975 d Discarded=0.20 ds 4,735 d Primary=1.54 ds 1,240 d Outflow=1.74 ds 5,975 d Pond WCr WQ BASIN PeakBev-83.54' Storage=3,990 d Inflow=4.36 ds 13,622 d Primary=3.73 ds 5,611 d Seoondary=0.14 ds 7,863 d outflow--3.87 ds 13,473 d Link 4:OFFSITE Inflow=6.82 ds 32,111 d Pri mary=6.82 ds 32,111 d Link FIN:PROP DPI Inflow=7.41 ds 45,397 d Primary=7.41 ds 45,397 d Link JCT:JUNCTION Inflow=1.29 ds 13,286 d Primary=1.29 ds 13,286 d Total Runoffoff Area=529,500 sf Ruroff Volume=89,534 d Average Rundf Depth=2.03" 100.00%Pervious=529,500 sf 0.00%Impervious=0 sf North Ridge Street Storm Water Report 10 YEAR STORM Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs.4801 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS.Weighted-CN Reach routing byStor-Ind method - Pond routing byStor-Ind method Subcatchment 1:EXIST DPI %noff Area=264,390 sf 0.00%Impervious %noff Depth=1.18" Tc=21.0 min CW58.20 %noff=4.79 cfs 26,038 cf Subcatchment 2:TOWNHOMES F unoff Area=40,997 sf 0.00%Impervious %noff Depth=3.08" Tc=6.O min Cf -82.00 %noff=3.39 cfs 10,519 cf Subcatchment 3:F2BANNING %noff Area=198,806 sF 0.00%Impervious Rinoff Depth=1.25" Tc=21.0 min CNE=59.30 Runoff=3.90 cfs 20,778 d Subcatchment 5:NEW HOUSE Punoff Area=25,307 sf 0.00%Impervious %noff Depth=2.06" Tc=6.0 min Cv=70.30 finoff=1.38 cfs 4,345 cf Pond CS:CS PeakDev=80.42' Inflow=1.86 ds 3,147 cf Primary=1.69 cfs 3,036 d Secondary=0.17 cfs 112 d Outflow-1.86 cfs 3,147 d Pond DET:DETEN11ON BASIN PeakDev=77.48' Storage=1,501 d Inflow=1.69 cfs 3,036 d Dis arded=0.01 cfs 140 d Pnmary=0.26 ds 2.896 d Outflovw0.27 cfs 3,036 d Pond DW:DRyWELL Peak Elev=62.35' Storage-J40 d Inflow-1.38 cfs 4,345 d Discarded=0.20 cfs 3,938 d Rimary=0.51 cfs 407 d Outflow=0.71 ds 4,345 d Pored WQ:WQ BASIN Peak Elev=83.33' Storage=3,866 d Inflovw3.39 cfs 10,519 d Primary=1.86 cfs 3,147 d Secondary=0.13 cfs 7,317 d 0utflov&-1.99 cfs 10,464 d Link 4:OFFSITE Inflov.-4.33 cfs 21,185 d Ph mary=4.33 cfs 21,185 d Link RN:PROP DP1 Inflow=4.76 cfs 31,510 d Primary--4.76 cfs 31,510 d Link JCT:JUNCTION Inflovr-0.45 cfs 10,325 d Primary=0.45 cfs 10,325 d Total Runoff Area=529,500 sf R urx)ff Volume=61,680 cf Average R unaff Depth=1.40" 100.00%Pervious=529,500 sf 0.00%Impervious=0 sf ;s O=snoyuadwl%00'0 Js OOS`6ZS=snouuad%00'00 L ..L L'L=41dao mourrd a6ejahv ;o Z86`9b=�IoA JPunI Js OOS`6ZS=eaJV lelbl P ZSs's sP CC*aA W Ird P NO's sP E£"O=MOBuI NOLLowr ax*in P 9L L'SZ sP OZ*E=/,J—Ud P 9L L'SZ sP OZ*E--WOUUI wo doud:Nw*in P v9Z'9L sP 6E'Z--f JeWUd P b9Z'9L sP 69"Z=mOILul 3 t&w:y*in P 996'8 sP 6V L=mOPrK) P L LO'L sP E P 0176'L sP LO'L--keW ud P 900'6 sP L6Z=mOUul P 89L'£=—w1S SZ'£9-a13Mead NISd9 OM W PuOd P SLS'E sP ZE'O=mOUM P 917 sP ZL'O=O(JewUd P 6Z9'E sP OZ'9=Pawex10 P SLS'E sP ZL'L=mO4WI P LZ6--96ex)1S .%'Z9=A99Jead -nS&V J0:AAO PuOd P OZ6'L sP ZZ'O=mOBF)O P S Ls'L sP 2'O=fJew11d P 90L sP L0'0=PePiexlp P OZ6'L sP ZO'L=wgul P Egg-a6m1S ,86'9L-13 Mead NtM NOW31x UM Pwd P 046'L sP LO'L=mO PU P OZ sP 90'0=fJePua)96 P OZ6'L sP ZO'L ew ud P OK L sP LO'L=mOUul .90'09sa13 plead SO M Pwd P SLS'E sP ZV L=11ourrd OE OL=Nq ulw 0*9=01 »OL'L=41daa M-% snOwadwl%00'0 J3 LO£'SZ=east/90urrd 3Sf10H AA3N:S 1usuNoleo4nS P 92'9L sP 68Z=10urld OV65=N3 u!w 0 LZ--Ol „86'0=41daO.40urm snowadwl%00'0 15 909's6l=eaJV Uourrd E)NNIVYM:£1v--"oleoqnS P 900'6 sP L6'Z=110urrd 00ZB4,q ulw O'9=01 .V9'Z=41dap,4our41 snowadwl%00"0 P L66'04=eW J4ourpj SSV40 N AACLL:Z lu"oleoqnS P£E L'OZ sP O9'£=4wrrd OZ'BS=Nq u!w O'LZ=Ol .Z6'0=41daO J4-rrd snowadwl%00'0 P O6£'b9Z=eafV llourrd Ld0 ism:L WOW-M S pot.pow pul joISAq 6u4na puod - poL49w pul-jo)SAq 6ugnoi Lpeab NO-P9146laAA'SOS=Hn`poL4aw OZ-Zjj SOS Aq goun�j sluiod L08ti'si4 LO'0=1p'si4 00'ft-00'0=ueds awl WbOlS ZI`d3A 5 jloda�j jaleM wjo;S 199jIS a6p2i 41JON Is 0=snowadwl%00'0 Js OOS`6ZS=snovuad%00'OOL .,69'0=4ldaa 4ourrl a6ejany p gSL`9Z=awnPA 4ourPd ;s OO9'6ZS=easy W)Urrd lelol P ZSO'9 sP L L'o=,Iiewud P ZSO'9 SP L L O=Mollul Nou-,wr aor Nun P L6£'bL sP6ZI--�Jewud P L6£'bl sP 6Z L�ollul LdO dOdd:NH 4u!l P 6££'8 sP OZ -= —ud P 6££'8 sP OZI=mNul 311S:80:b MUrl P ZSO'9 sP L L O=mopno P ZSO'9 sP L L O=AjepuoaaS P O sP 00 0-tieW ud P 060'9 sP L6 L=mollul P£9b'£=a6e,olS ,09 Z8-sa13 V@d NISVS OM:DM Pad P L9L'Z SP OZ O=Motgnp P O sP 00 0=tiewud P L9L'Z sP OZ O=PaWeo;10 P L9 L'Z sP 99 O=mollul P 99£=a6eiolS ,£9 9S-a13 dead T2MJl2 O:Ma Pad P O sP oo'o—oulno P O sP oO o=AieW ud P O sP o0'0=paW—!0 P 0 sP OO O—oUul P 0=abeolS N 9L-al3Ne@d NISVS NOWT IM:130 Pad P O sP 00 0—u4rio P O sP 00 O=Alepuo-s P O sP OO o=fjeW 11d P 0 sP OO O=mogul ,0£'6L--AaS3 ead SD:SD PuOd P L9L'Z sP 99 0=40u% 0£OL=NO u!w 0 9=01 „Z0'L=43daC hound snowadwl%00'0 )s LO£'SZ=earl hour 3SnOH M3V:S luaLu4ole3gnS P 6££'8 sP OZ L=4ouRd 0£69=NO u!w O 2--01 „OS o=41da0 hour snowadwl%00 0 is 908'86 L=eaiV gourQ{ `JNNIVY1Bi1:£luauM�le �S P 060'9 sP M L=hour OO Z8=10 u!w 0 9=O1 „8L L=4ldap l;ourrd snowadwl%00 0 is L66'O>r=easy-4ourrd S3WOFNMOI:Z luaw4olexlnS P 84L'OL sP 8£ l=hour OZ'8S=ND u!w 0 LZ=o1 „9V"0=41da0 j4ou% snowadwl%00 0 j3 06£'b9Z=eajv hour Lda ISD(3:6 luaw43leognS papaw pul-jolSlq 6u4na puod - papw puI-lolSlq 6ugnoi goea�j NO-Pal46IaM'SOS=Hn'Po4law OZ-aL S3S Aq l;ougj sluiod Mqt,,sj4 60 0=1P,sjy OO Sti-00'0=ueds awl W�IOlS 2JVI . Z jjoda�j jaleM wjojS la9j1S aBp2j glJON North Ridge Street Storm Water Report CONCLUSION: The proposed water quality treatment system and the proposed storm detention system will mitigate the impacts of the development as to quality and quantity of storm water. The water quality treatment system will filter the runoff of the first flush of storm water in accordance with the methods of the NYS DEC. The detention systemis-des�igned to maintain peak flows to the same level that exists currently. MAST�o� Submi �.�,- .A d �V Ralph G. Mastror North Ridge Street Stormwater Report October 19, 2015 ROUTING DIAGRAM EXIST DP' TOWNHOMES Design Point 1 O O Existing Flow O BAISIN REMAINI G NEW OUSE 1 CB Cartridge Filters Control Structure CSOutlet S �DRYWELL �� � a OFF ITE `d 4 1CT FIN DETENTION BASIN JUNCTION PROP DPI Design Point 1 Proposed Flow RALPH G. MASTROMONACO, PE, PC Consulting Engineers Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 SubcaO Reach Pon Link Routing Diagram for laz_greto_model_MIN_full Prepared by Microsoft, Printed 10/18/2015 —' HydroCAD®10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type/1/ 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 4801 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment1: EXIST DP1 Runoff Area=264,390 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff De th=2.78" Tc=21.0 min CN=58.20 Runoff=12.59 cfs 61,157 cf Subcatchment2: TOWNHOMES Runoff Area=40,997 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.39" Tc=6.0 min CN=82.00 Runoff=5.83 cfs 18,402 cf Subcatchment3: REMAINING Runoff Area=198,806 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.89" Tc=21.0 min CN=59.30 Runoff=9.92 cfs 47,880 cf Subcatchment5: NEW HOUSE Runoff Area=25,307 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.07" Tc=6.0 min CN=70.30 Runoff=2.77 cfs 8,585 cf Pond CS: CS Peak EIev=80.87' Inflow=5.42 cfs 9,607 cf Primary=2.84 cfs 8,115 cf Secondary=2.58 cfs 1,492 cf Outflow=5.42 cfs 9,607 cf Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Peak EIev=79.30' Storage=3,339 cf Inflow=2.84 cfs 8,115 cf Discarded=0.01 cfs 220 cf Primary=1.38 cfs 7,896 cf Outflow=1.39 cfs 8,116 cf Pond DW: DRYWELL Peak EIev=62.96' Storage=1,001 cf Inflow=2.77 cfs 8,585 cf Discarded=0.20 cfs 5,871 cf Primary=2.55 cfs 2,714 cf Outflow=2.75 cfs 8,585 cf Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Peak EIev=83.69' Storage=3,990 cf Inflow=5.83 cfs 18,402 cf Primary=5.42 cfs 9,607 cf Secondary=0.15 cfs 8,567 cf Outflow=5.57 cfs 18,175 cf Link 4: OFFSITE Inflow=10.97 cfs 50,594 cf Primary=10.97 cfs 50,594 cf Link FIN: PROP DP1 Inflow=12.28 cfs 68,549 cf Primary=12.28 cfs 8,549 cf Link JCT:JUNCTION Inflow=2.98 cfs 17,955 cf Primary=2.98 cfs 17,955 cf Total Runoff Area = 529,500 sf Runoff Volume = 136,024 cf Average Runoff Depth = 3.08" 100.00% Pervious = 529,500 sf 0.00% Impervious = 0 sf North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type Ill 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Summary for Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Runoff = 12.59 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 61,157 cf, Depth= 2.78" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Area (sf) CN Description 264,390 58.20 EXISTING 264,390 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Hydrograph 14 13 12 59 cfs Runoff 127Type III 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Runoff Area=264,390 sf 9 Runoff Volume=61,157 cf 7. Runoff Depth=2.78" LL 6 Tc=21.0 m i n 57 CN=58.20 4 3 2 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 11124-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Summary for Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Runoff = 5.83 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 18,402 cf, Depth= 5.39" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 82.00 TOWNHOMES 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Hydrograph 6 5.83 cfs Runoff Type III 24-h r 5 A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Runoff Area=40,997 sf 4 Runoff Volume=18,402 cf 3 Runoff Depth=5.39" LL 3 Tc=6.0 m i n CN=82.00 2 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Runoff = 9.92 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 47,880 cf, Depth= 2.89" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Area (sf) CN Description 198,806 59.30 REMAINING AREA 198,806 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Hydrograph 11 9.92 cfs Runoff 1 Type III 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50"8-Runoff Area=198,806 sf Runoff Volume=47,880 cf 3 6-Runoff Depth=2.89" LL 5 Tc=21.0 m i n 4 CN=59.30 3 2 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type/1/ 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Summary for Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Runoff = 2.77 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,585 cf, Depth= 4.07" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Area (sf) CN Description 25,307 70.30 NEW HOUSE WS 25,307 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Hydrograph �Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" 4 Runoff Area=25,307 sf Runoff Volume=8,585 cf 3 2.77cfs Runoff Depth=4.07" U. Tc=6.0 m i n 2 CN=70.30 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Summary for Pond CS: CS Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.81" for A-100 event Inflow = 5.42 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 9,607 cf Outflow = 5.42 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 9,607 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 2.84 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,115 cf Secondary= 2.58 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,492 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 80.87'@ 12.09 hrs Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 79.95' CS1_Primary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.341 0.751 1.175 1.255 1.328 1.359 1.398 1.438 1.458 #2 Secondary 79.95' CS1_Secondary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.140 0.210 0.268 0.668 1.510 1.946 2.848 3.754 4.207 #3 Primary 79.30' 7.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Primary OutFlow Max=2.84 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=80.87' (Free Discharge) �__3=0rifi-ce/G 1=CS1Primary_ratings(Custom Controls 1.39 cfs) rate (Orifice Controls 1.46 cfs @ 5.45 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=2.57 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=80.87' (Free Discharge) 2=CS1_Secondary_ratings(Custom Controls 2.57 cfs) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type/1/ 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 Pond CS: CS Hydrograph 6 5.42 ds Inflow Outflow Primary 5 Inflow Area=40,997 Sf Secondary Peak Elev=80.87' 4 3 2.84 cfs 0 2.58 ds LL 2 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type Ill 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.38" for A-100 event Inflow = 2.84 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,115 cf Outflow = 1.39 cfs @ 12.46 hrs, Volume= 8,116 cf, Atten= 51%, Lag= 22.5 min Discarded = 0.01 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 220 cf Primary = 1.38 cfs @ 12.46 hrs, Volume= 7,896 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 79.30'@ 12.46 hrs Surf.Area= 1,656 sf Storage= 3,339 cf Plug-Flow detention time=76.1 min calculated for 8,114 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=76.1 min ( 847.2 - 771.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 96.10' 2,172 cf 30.00'W x 80.76'L x 3.50'H Field A 8,480 cf Overall - 3,049 cf Embedded= 5,431 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 96.60' 3,049 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 66 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 6 rows #3 116.10' 9,000 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)-isted below(Recalc) #413 76.10' 1,505 cf 20.50'W x 80.761 x 3.50'H Field B 5,795 cf Overall - 2,033 cf Embedded= 3,762 cf x 40.0% Voids #56 76.60' 2,033 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 44 Inside#4 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 4 rows 17,759 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store _(feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 116.10 900 0 0 126.10 900 9,000 9,000 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 76.10' 3.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 76.10' 0.01 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations #3 Primary 78.30' 0.50' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 11.97 hrs HW=76.60' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.01 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.40 cfs @ 12.46 hrs HW=79.30' (Free Discharge) 11=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.41 cfs @ 8.44 fps) 3=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 0.98 cfs @ 3.27 fps) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 11124-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Hydrograph Inflow �Outflow �Discarded 5 Inflow Area=40,997 sf Primary Peak Elev=79.30' 4 Storage=3,339 cf 2. 3 2.84 cfs 3 0 U. 2 1 jk- 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN—full Type /// 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 Summary for Pond DW: DRYWELL Inflow Area = 25,307 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.07" for A-100 event Inflow = 2.77 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,585 cf Outflow = 2.75 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 8,585 cf, Atten= 1%, Lag= 0.6 min Discarded = 0.20 cfs @ 11.51 hrs, Volume= 5,871 cf Primary = 2.55 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 2,714 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 62.96'@ 12.10 hrs Surf.Area= 101 sf Storage= 1,001 cf Plug-Flow detention time=25.6 min calculated for 8,583 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=25.6 min ( 852.7 -827.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 53.00' 1,005 cf 8.00'D x 10.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinderx 2 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 62.00' 12.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 53.00' 0.20 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations Qscarded OutFlow Max=0.20 cfs @ 11.51 hrs HW=53.10' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.20 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=2.57 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=62.95' (Free Discharge) L1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 2.57 cfs @ 3.33 fps) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12 Pond DW: DRYWELL Hydrograph Inflow �Outflow —Discarded 5 Inflow Area=25,307 sf Primary Peak Elev=62.96' 4 Storage=1 ,001 cf u v 3 c 2.55 cfs LL 2 1 0.20 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type H/ 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10 00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13 Summary for Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.39" for A-100 event Inflow = 5.83 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 18,402 cf Outflow = 5.57 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 18,175 cf, Atten= 4%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 5.42 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 9,607 cf Secondary= 0.15 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,567 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 83.69'@ 12.09 hrs Surf.Area= 1,859 sf Storage= 3,990 cf Plug-Flow detention time=230.6 min calculated for 18,175 cf(99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=222.9 min ( 1,023.4-800.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 80.00, 1,679 cf 25.25'W x 73.64'L x 3.50'H Field A 6,508 cf Overall - 2,311 cf Embedded = 4,197 cf x 40.0%Voids #2A 80.50' 2,311 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 50 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows 3,990 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard _Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 82.50' 18.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate X 0.00 C= 0.600 #2 Primary 83.00' 3.00' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #3 Secondary 80.00' Special & User-Defined Head (feet) 0.00 10.00 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.400 Primary OutFlow Max=5.41 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=83.69' (Free Discharge) �__1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 2=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 5.41 cfs @ 2.72 fps) $econdary OutFlow Max=0.15 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=83.69' (Free Discharge) 3=Special & User-Defined(Custom Controls 0.15 cfs) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Hydrograph 6 5.83 cfs Inflow Outflow 5.42cfs Primary Inflow Area=40,997 sf _ Secondary 5 Peak Elev=83.69' 4 Storage=3,990 cf c 3- FL 2 1 0.15 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type H/ 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 15 Summary for Link 4: OFFSITE Inflow Area = 224,113 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.71" for A-100 event Inflow = 10.97 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 50,594 cf Primary = 10.97 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 50,594 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 4: OFFSITE Hydrograph 12 10.97 cfs Inflow 11 Primary Inflow Area=224,113 sf 97 7 6 LL 5- 4- 3- 2- 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD810.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16 Summary for Link FIN: PROP DP1 Inflow Area = 265,110 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 3.10" for A-100 event Inflow = 12.28 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 68,549 cf Primary = 12.28 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 68,549 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link FIN: PROP DP1 Hydrograph 13 12.28 cfs —Inflow Primary 12 Inflow Area=265,110 sf 8 0 M 6- 5- 4- 3- 2- 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 11124-hr A-100 Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 17 Summary for Link JCT: JUNCTION Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 5.26" for A-100 event Inflow = 2.98 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 17,955 cf Primary = 2.98 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 17,955 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link JCT: JUNCTION Hydrograph F Inflow Primary 5 Inflow Area=40,997 sf 4 N 2.98 cfs 3 3 0 LL 2 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 18 Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 4801 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment1: EXIST DPI Runoff Area=264,390 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.43" Tc=21.0 min CN=58.20 Runoff=10.89 cfs 53,507 cf Subcatchment2: TOWNHOMES Runoff Area=40,997 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.92" Tc=6.0 min CN=82.00 Runoff=5.34 cfs 16,796 cf Subcatchment3: REMAINING Runoff Area=198,806 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.54" Tc=21.0 min CN=59.30 Runoff=8.62 cfs 42,001 cf Subcatchment5: NEW HOUSE Runoff Area=25,307 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.65" Tc=6.0 min CN=70.30 Runoff=2.49 cfs 7,697 cf Pond CS: CS Peak EIev=80.86' Inflow=5.14 cfs 8,348 cf Primary=2.83 cfs 7,118 cf Secondary=2.32 cfs 1,230 cf Outflow=5.14 cfs 8,348 cf Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Peak EIev=79.02' Storage=3,152 cf Inflow=2.83 cfs 7,118 cf Discarded=0.01 cfs 209 cf Primary=1.11 cfs 6,909 cf Outflow=1.12 cfs 7,118 cf Pond DW: DRYWELL Peak EIev=62.86' Storage=991 cf Inflow=2.49 cfs 7,697 cf Discarded=0.20 cfs 5,507 cf Primary=2.27 cfs 2,191 cf Outflow=2.47 cfs 7,697 cf Pond WQ:WO BASIN Peak EIev=83.67' Storage=3,990 cf Inflow=5.34 cfs 16,796 cf Primary=5.14 cfs 8,348 cf Secondary=0.15 cfs 8,344 cf Outflow=5.29 cfs 16,692 cf Link4: OFFSITE Inflow=9.54 cfs 44,192 cf Primary=9.54 cfs 44,192 cf Link FIN: PROP DP1 Inflow=10.39 cfs 60,674 cf Primary=10.39 cfs 60,674 cf Link JCT:JUNCTION Inflow=2.68 cfs 16,483 cf Primary=2.68 cfs 16,483 cf Total Runoff Area = 529,500 sf Runoff Volume = 120,001 cf Average Runoff Depth = 2.72" 100.00% Pervious = 529,500 sf 0.00% Impervious = 0 sf North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 11124-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 19 Summary for Subcatchment 1: EXIST DPI Runoff = 10.89 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 53,507 cf, Depth= 2.43" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.00" Area (sf) CN Description 264,390 58.20 EXISTING 264,390 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Hydrograph 12 10.89 cfs Runoff 11 Type III 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.00" 97 8 Runoff Area=264,390 sf Runoff Volume=53,507 cf 3 6 Runoff Depth=2.43' LL 5 Tc=21.0 min 4 CN=58.20 3 2 01 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 20 Summary for Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Runoff = 5.34 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 16,796 cf, Depth= 4.92" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.00" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 82.00 TOWNHOMES 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Hydrograph 5.34 cfs Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.00" 4 Runoff Area=40,997 sf Runoff Volume=16,796 cf 3 Runoff Depth=4.92" LL Tc=6.0 min 2 CN=82.00 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 21 Summary for Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Runoff = 8.62 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 42,001 cf, Depth= 2.54" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.00" Area (sf) CN Description 198,806 59.30 REMAINING AREA 198,806 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Hydrograph 9 8.62 cfs Runoff 8 Type III 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.00" Runoff Area=198,806 sf 6 Runoff Volume=42,001 cf 5 Runoff Depth=2.54" LL 4 Tc=21.0 min CN=59.30 3 2 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 22 Summary for Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Runoff = 2.49 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 7,697 cf, Depth= 3.65" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.00" Area (sf) CN Description 25,307 70.30 NEW HOUSE WS 25,307 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Hydrograph �Runoff 5-. Type III 24-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.00" 4 Runoff Area=25,307 sf F Runoff Volume=7,697 cf 3 2.49cfs Runoff Depth=3.65" U. Tc=6.0 m i n 2 CN=70.30 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN-full Type /// 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 23 Summary for Pond CS: CS Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.44" for B-50 event Inflow = 5.14 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,348 cf Outflow = 5.14 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,348 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 2.83 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 7,118 cf Secondary= 2.32 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,230 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 80.86'@ 12.09 hrs Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 79.95' CS1_Primary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.341 0.751 1.175 1.255 1.328 1.359 1.398 1.438 1.458 #2 Secondary 79.95' CS1_Secondary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.140 0.210 0.268 0.668 1.510 1.946 2.848 3.754 4.207 #3 Primary 79.30' 7.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Primary OutFlow Max=2.82 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=80.86' (Free Discharge) T__3=Orifi`ce/G 1=CS1Primary_ratings(Custom Controls 1.37 cfs) rate (Orifice Controls 1.45 cfs @ 5.43 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=2.31 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=80.86' (Free Discharge) 2=CS1_Secondary_ratings(Custom Controls 2.31 cfs) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN—full Type 111 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 24 Pond CS: CS Hydrograph Inflow 5.14 cfs Outflow Primary 5 Inflow Area=40,997 Sf Secondary Peak Elev=80.86' 4 u 3 3 2.83 cfs _o U. 2.32 cfs 2 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 11124-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 25 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.08" for B-50 event Inflow = 2.83 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 7,118 cf Outflow = 1.12 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 7,118 cf, Atten= 60%, Lag= 25.0 min Discarded = 0.01 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 209 cf Primary = 1.11 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 6,909 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 79.02'@ 12.50 hrs Surf.Area= 1,656 sf Storage= 3,152 cf Plug-Flow detention time=80.1 min calculated for 7,116 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=80.1 min ( 850.1 - 770.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 A 96.10' 2,172 cf 30.00'W x 80.76'L x 3.50'H Field A 8,480 cf Overall - 3,049 cf Embedded= 5,431 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 96.60' 3,049 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 66 Inside #1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44'x 6.45 sf x 6 rows #3 116.10' 9,000 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below(Recalc) #413 76.10' 1,505 cf 20.50'W x 80.76'L x 3.50'H Field B 5,795 cf Overall -2,033 cf Embedded = 3,762 cf x 40.0% Voids #513 76.60' 2,033 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 44 Inside#4 Effective Size=44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44'x 6.45 sf x 4 rows 17,759 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 116.10 900 0 0 126.10 900 9,000 9,000 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 76.10' 3.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 76.10' 0.01 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations #3 Primary 78.30' 0.50' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 12.02 hrs HW=76.61' (Free Discharge) 't-2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.01 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.11 cfs @ 12.50 hrs HW=79.02' (Free Discharge) T__3=Sharp-Crested 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.40 cfs @ 8.05 fps) Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 0.71 cfs @ 2.78 fps) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 11124-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 26 Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Hydrograph Inflow �Outflow �Discarded 5 Inflow Area=40,997 sf Primary Peak Elev=79.02' 4 Storage=3,152 cf 3 3 2.83 cfs 0 U. 2 1.11 cfs 1 0.0 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 11124-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 27 Summary for Pond DW: DRYWELL Inflow Area = 25,307 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.65" for B-50 event Inflow = 2.49 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 7,697 cf Outflow = 2.47 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 7,697 cf, Atten= 1%, Lag= 0.6 min Discarded = 0.20 cfs @ 11.59 hrs, Volume= 5,507 cf Primary = 2.27 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 2,191 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 62.86'@ 12.10 hrs Surf.Area= 101 sf Storage= 991 cf Plug-Flow detention time=26.3 min calculated for 7,696 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=26.3 min ( 856.5 -830.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 53.00' 1,005 cf 8.00'D x 10.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinderx 2 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 62.00' 12.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 53.00' 0.20 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations J?iscarded OutFlow Max=0.20 cfs @ 11.59 hrs HW=53.10' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.20 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=2.27 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=62.86' (Free Discharge) t1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 2.27 cfs @ 3.16 fps) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 28 Pond DW: DRYWELL Hydrograph Inflow �Outflow �Discarded 5 Inflow Area=25,307 sf Primary Peak Elev=62.86' 4 Storage=991 cf 3 0 u. 2.27 cfs 2 1 0.20 cfs kL 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 11124-hr B-50 Rainfall=7.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 29 Summary for Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.92" for B-50 event Inflow = 5.34 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 16,796 cf Outflow = 5.29 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 16,692 cf, Atten= 1%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 5.14 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,348 cf Secondary= 0.15 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,344 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 83.67'@ 12.09 hrs Surf.Area= 1,859 sf Storage= 3,990 cf Plug-Flow detention time=240.0 min calculated for 16,692 cf(99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=236.1 min ( 1,039.1 -803.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 80.00' 1,679 cf 25.25'W x 73.641 x 3.50'H Field A 6,508 cf Overall - 2,311 cf Embedded= 4,197 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 80.50' 2,311 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 50 Inside #1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows 3,990 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 82.50' 18.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate X 0.00 C= 0.600 #2 Primary 83.00' 3.00' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #3 Secondary 80.00' Special & User-Defined Head (feet) 0.00 10.00 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.400 Primary OutFlow Max=5.12 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=83.67' (Free Discharge) 11=0rifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 2=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 5.12 cfs @ 2.67 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.15 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=83.67' (Free Discharge) 3=Special & User-Defined(Custom Controls 0.15 cfs) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type/1/ 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pape 30 Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Hydrograph Inflow 5.14 cfs Outflow Primary 5 Inflow Area=40,997 sf Secondary Peak Elev=83.67' 4 Storage=3,990 cf 3 0 LL 2 1 0.15 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 31 Summary for Link 4: OFFSITE Inflow Area = 224,113 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.37" for B-50 event Inflow = 9.54 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 44,192 cf Primary = 9.54 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 44,192 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 4: OFFSITE Hydrograph 10 9.54 cfs Inflow Im Primary Inflow Area=224,113 sf a 7 ae 6 0 5- EL: 4 3 2 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type/1/ 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 32 Summary for Link FIN: PROP DP1 Inflow Area = 265,110 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.75" for B-50 event Inflow = 10.39 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 60,674 cf Primary = 10.39 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 60,674 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link FIN: PROP DP1 Hydrograph 11 10.39 cfs F Inflow Primary '° Inflow Area=265,110 sf 8- 7- 6- 0 LL 5- 4- 3- 2- 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN—full Type/1/ 24-hr 8-50 Rainfall=7.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 33 Summary for Link JCT: JUNCTION Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 4.82" for B-50 event Inflow = 2.68 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 16,483 cf Primary = 2.68 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 16,483 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link JCT: JUNCTION Hydrograph F—Inflow Primary 5 Inflow Area=40,997 sf 4 a 3 2.68 cfs 0 LL 2 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN-full Type/1/ 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 34 Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 4801 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment1: EXIST DP1 Runoff Area=264,390 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.77" Tc=21.0 min CN=58.20 Runoff=7.68 cfs 39,066 cf Subcatchment2: TOWNHOMES Runoff Area=40,997 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.99" Tc=6.0 min CN=82.00 Runoff=4.36 cfs 13,622 cf Subcatchment3: REMAINING Runoff Area=198,806 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.86" Tc=21.0 min CN=59.30 Runoff=6.14 cfs 30,872 cf Subcatchment5: NEW HOUSE Runoff Area=25,307 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.83" Tc=6.0 min CN=70.30 Runoff=1.92 cfs 5,975 cf Pond CS: CS Peak EIev=80.80' Inflow=3.73 cfs 5,611 cf Primary=2.69 cfs 5,169 cf Secondary=1.02 cfs 441 cf Outflow=3.73 cfs 5,611 cf Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Peak EIev=78.48' Storage=2,675 cf Inflow=2.69 cfs 5,169 cf Discarded=0.01 cfs 187 cf Primary=0.47 cfs 4,982 cf Outflow=0.48 cfs 5,169 cf Pond DW: DRYWELL Peak EIev=62.66' Storage=972 cf Inflow=1.92 cfs 5,975 cf Discarded=0.20 cfs 4,735 cf Primary=1.54 cfs 1,240 cf Outflow=1.74 cfs 5,975 cf Pond WQ:WO BASIN Peak EIev=83.54' Storage=3,990 cf Inflow=4.36 cfs 13,622 cf Primary=3.73 cfs 5,611 cf Secondary=0.14 cfs 7,863 cf Outflow=3.87 cfs 13,473 cf Link4: OFFSITE Inflow=6.82 cfs 32,111 cf Primary=6.82 cfs 32,111 cf Link FIN: PROP DP1 Inflow=7.41 cfs 45,397 cf Primary=7.41 cfs 45,397 cf Link JCT:JUNCTION Inflow=1.29 cfs 13,286 cf Primary=1.29 cfs 13,286 cf Total Runoff Area = 529,500 sf Runoff Volume = 89,534 cf Average Runoff Depth = 2.03" 100.00% Pervious = 529,500 sf 0.00% Impervious = 0 sf North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 35 Summary for Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Runoff = 7.68 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 39,066 cf, Depth= 1.77" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Area (sf) CN Description 264,390 58.20 EXISTING 264,390 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Hydrograph g 7.68 cfs Runoff Type III 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" 6 Runoff Area=264,390 sf F 5 Runoff Volume=39,066 cf Runoff Depth=1.77' LL 4 Tc=21.0 m i n 3 CN=58.20 2 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street Wa _greto_model_MIN_full Type 11124-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 36 Summary for Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Runoff = 4.36 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 13,622 cf, Depth= 3.99" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 82.00 TOWNHOMES 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Hydrograph �Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr 4.36cfs C-25 Rainfall=6.00" 4 Runoff Area=40,997 sf Runoff Volume=13,622 cf 3 3 Runoff Depth=3.99" U. Tc=6.0 m i n 2 CN=82.00 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN—full Type/1/ 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 37 Summary for Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Runoff = 6.14 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 30,872 cf, Depth= 1.86" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Area (sf) CN Description ' 198,806 59.30 REMAINING AREA 198,806 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Hydrograph 6.14 cfs Runoff 6-Type III 24-hr 5 C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Runoff Area=198,806 sf 4 Runoff Volume=30,872 cf Runoff Depth=1.86" LL 3 Tc=21.0 min CN=59.30 2 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 38 Summary for Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Runoff = 1.92 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 5,975 cf, Depth= 2.83" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Area (sf) CN Description 25,307 70.30 NEW HOUSE WS 25,307 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Hydrograph �Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" 4 Runoff Area=25,307 sf Runoff Volume=5,975 cf u 3 Runoff Depth=2.83" U. Tc=6.0 m i n .92 cfs 2 CN=70.30 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 39 Summary for Pond CS: CS Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.64" for C-25 event Inflow = 3.73 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 5,611 cf Outflow = 3.73 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 5,611 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 2.69 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 5,169 cf Secondary= 1.02 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 441 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 80.80'@ 12.09 hrs Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 79.95' CS1_Primary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.341 0.751 1.175 1.255 1.328 1.359 1.398 1.438 1.458 #2 Secondary 79.95' CS1_Secondary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.140 0.210 0.268 0.668 1.510 1.946 2.848 3.754 4.207 #3 Primary 79.30' 7.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Primary OutFlow Max=2.69 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=80.80' (Free Discharge) �--3=Oriflce/G 1=CS1_Primary_ratings(Custom Controls 1.28 cfs) rate (Orifice Controls 1.41 cfs @ 5.29 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.94 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=80.80' (Free Discharge) 2=CS1_Secondary_ratings(Custom Controls 0.94 cfs) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type ///24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 40 Pond CS: CS Hydrograph Inflow Outflow �Primary 5 Inflow Area=40,997 sf Secondary Peak Elev=80.80' 4 3.73 cfs 0 3 2.69 cfs 0 LL 2 1.02 cfs 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type/1/ 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 41 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.51" for C-25 event Inflow = 2.69 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 5,169 cf Outflow = 0.48 cfs @ 12.67 hrs, Volume= 5,169 cf, Atten= 82%, Lag= 34.9 min Discarded = 0.01 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 187 cf Primary = 0.47 cfs @ 12.67 hrs, Volume= 4,982 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 78.48'@ 12.67 hrs Surf.Area= 1,656 sf Storage= 2,675 cf Plug-Flow detention time=90.1 min calculated for 5,168 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=90.1 min ( 857.6 - 767.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 96.10' 2,172 cf 30.00'W x 80.761 x 3.50'H Field A 8,480 cf Overall - 3,049 cf Embedded = 5,431 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 96.60' 3,049 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 66 Inside#1 Effective Size=44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 6 rows #3 116.10' 9,000 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below(Recalc) #46 76.10' 1,505 cf 20.50'W x 80.76'L x 3.50'H Field B 5,795 cf Overall - 2,033 cf Embedded = 3,762 cf x 40.0% Voids #513 76.60' 2,033 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 44 Inside#4 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 4 rows 17,759 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 116.10 900 0 0 126.10 900 9,000 9,000 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 76.10' 3.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 76.10' 0.01 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations #3 Primary 78.30' 0.50' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=76.62' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.01 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.47 cfs @ 12.67 hrs HW=78.48' (Free Discharge) �1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.35 cfs @ 7.23 fps) 3=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 0.11 cfs @ 1.38 fps) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 11124-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 42 Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Hydrograph �Inflow �Outflow �Discarded 5 Inflow Area=40,997 sf Primary Peak Elev=78.48' 4 Storage=2,675 cf 3 2.69 cfs 0 U. 2 1 10.417 cfs s 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type Ill 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10 00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 43 Summary for Pond DW: DRYWELL Inflow Area = 25,307 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.83" for C-25 event Inflow = 1.92 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 5,975 cf Outflow = 1.74 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 5,975 cf, Atten= 10%, Lag= 2.6 min Discarded = 0.20 cfs @ 11.66 hrs, Volume= 4,735 cf Primary = 1.54 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 1,240 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 62.66'@ 12.13 hrs Surf.Area= 101 sf Storage= 972 cf Plug-Flow detention time=27.3 min calculated for 5,975 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=27.3 min ( 864.8-837.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 53.00' 1,005 cf 8.00'D x 10.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinderx 2 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 62.00' 12.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 53.00' 0.20 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations ,Qiscarded OutFlow Max=0.20 cfs @ 11.66 hrs HW=53.10' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.20 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.52 cfs @ 12.13 hrs HW=62.66' (Free Discharge) t1=0rifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.52 cfs @ 2.76 fps) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN—full Type Ill 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 44 Pond DW: DRYWELL Hydrograph Inflow �Outflow —Discarded 5 Inflow Area=25,307 sf Primary Peak Elev=62.66' 4 Storage=972 cf 3 0 U. 2 1.92 cfs 1.54 cfs 1 0.20 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type Ill 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 45 Summary for Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.99" for C-25 event Inflow = 4.36 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 13,622 cf Outflow = 3.87 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 13,473 cf, Atten= 11%, Lag= 0.5 min Primary = 3.73 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 5,611 cf Secondary= 0.14 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 7,863 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 83.54'@ 12.09 hrs Surf.Area= 1,859 sf Storage= 3,990 cf Plug-Flow detention time=283.1 min calculated for 13,470 cf(99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=276.7 min ( 1,085.6 - 808.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 80.00' 1,679 cf 25.25'W x 73.64'L x 3.50'H Field A 6,508 cf Overall - 2,311 cf Embedded=4,197 cf x 40.0%Voids #2A 80.50' 2,311 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 50 Inside#1 Effective Size=44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44'x 6.45 sf x 5 rows 3,990 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 82.50' 18.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate X 0.00 C= 0.600 #2 Primary 83.00' 3.00' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #3 Secondary 80.00' Special & User-Defined Head (feet) 0.00 10.00 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.400 Primary OutFlow Max=3.62 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=83.53' (Free Discharge) �`!=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 2=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 3.62 cfs @ 2.37 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.14 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=83.53' (Free Discharge) 3=Special & User-Defined(Custom Controls 0.14 cfs) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN—full Type/1/ 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10 00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pape 46 Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Hydrograph Inflow 4.36 cfs Outflow Primary 4 3.73 cfs Inflow Area=40,997 sf Secondary Peak Elev=83.54' 3 Storage=3,990 cf 0 LL 2 1 0.14 cfs 0 all 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN—full Type/1/ 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 47 Summary for Link 4: OFFSITE Inflow Area = 224,113 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.72" for C-25 event Inflow = 6.82 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 32,111 cf Primary = 6.82 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 32,111 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 4: OFFSITE Hydrograph 6.82 cfs —Inflow 7 m Primary Inflow Area=224,113 sf 6- 5- 4- U. 3- 2- 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCADO 10 00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 48 Summary for Link FIN: PROP DP1 Inflow Area = 265,110 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.05" for C-25 event Inflow = 7.41 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 45,397 cf Primary = 7.41 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 45,397 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link FIN: PROP DP1 Hydrograph 8 Inflow 7.41 cfs �Primary 7-Inflow Area=265,110 sf 6 5 3 4 U. 3- 2- 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN—full Type 11124-hr C-25 Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 49 Summary for Link JCT: JUNCTION Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 3.89" for C-25 event Inflow = 1.29 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 13,286 cf Primary = 1.29 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 13,286 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link JCT: JUNCTION Hydrograph F Inflow w Primary 5 Inflow Area=40,997 sf 4 3 0 U. 2 1.29 cfs 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 11124-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD810.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 50 Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 4801 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment1: EXIST DP1 Runoff Area=264,390 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.18" Tc=21.0 min CN=58.20 Runoff=4.79 cfs 26,038 cf Subcatchment2: TOWNHOMES Runoff Area=40,997 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.08" Tc=6.0 min CN=82.00 Runoff=3.39 cfs 10,519 cf Subcatchment3: REMAINING Runoff Area=198,806 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.25" Tc=21.0 min CN=59.30 Runoff=3.90 cfs 20,778 cf Subcatchment5: NEW HOUSE Runoff Area=25,307 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.06" Tc=6.0 min CN=70.30 Runoff=1.38 cfs 4,345 cf Pond CS: CS Peak EIev=80.42' Inflow=1.86 cfs 3,147 cf Primary=1.69 cfs 3,036 cf Secondary=0.17 cfs 112 cf Outflow=1.86 cfs 3,147 cf Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Peak EIev=77.48' Storage=1,501 cf Inflow=1.69 cfs 3,036 cf Discarded=0.01 cfs 140 cf Primary=0.26 cfs 2,896 cf Outflow=0.27 cfs 3,036 cf Pond DW: DRYWELL Peak EIev=62.35' Storage=940 cf Inflow=1.38 cfs 4,345 cf Discarded=0.20 cfs 3,938 cf Primary=0.51 cfs 407 cf Outflow=0.71 cfs 4,345 cf Pond WQ:WQ BASIN Peak EIev=83.33' Storage=3,866 cf Inflow=3.39 cfs 10,519 cf Primary=1.86 cfs 3,147 cf Secondary=0.13 cfs 7,317 cf Outflow=1.99 cfs 10,464 cf Link4: OFFSITE Inflow=4.33 cfs 21,185 cf Primary=4.33 cfs 21,185 cf Link FIN: PROP DPI Inflow=4.76 cfs 31,510 cf Primary=4.76 cfs 31,510 cf Link JCT:JUNCTION Inflow=0.45 cfs 10,325 cf Primary=0.45 cfs 10,325 cf Total Runoff Area = 529,500 sf Runoff Volume = 61,680 cf Average Runoff Depth = 1.40" 100.00% Pervious = 529,500 sf 0.00% Impervious = 0 sf North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN—full Type 111 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 51 Summary for Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Runoff = 4.79 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 26,038 cf, Depth= 1.18" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Area (sf) CN Description 264,390 58.20 EXISTING 264,390 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Hydrograph �Runoff 5 4.79 cfs Type III 24-h r D-10 Rainfall=5.00" 4 Runoff Area=264,390 sf Runoff Volume=26,038 cf 3 3 Runoff Depth=1.18" LL Tc=21.0 m i n 2 CN=58.20 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 52 Summary for Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Runoff = 3.39 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 10,519 cf, Depth= 3.08" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 82.00 TOWNHOMES 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Hydrograph F Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" 4 Runoff Area=40,997 sf 3.39cfs Runoff Volume=10,519 cf 3 3 Runoff Depth=3.08" LL Tc=6.0 m i n 2 CN=82.00 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type/1/ 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 53 Summary for Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Runoff = 3.90 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 20,778 cf, Depth= 1.25" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Area (sf) CN Description 198,806 59.30 REMAINING AREA 198,806 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Hydrograph �Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" 4 3.90cis Runoff Area=198,806 sf Runoff Volume=20,778 cf 3 Runoff Depth=1.25" LL Tc=21.0 m i n 2 CN=59.30 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 54 Summary for Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Runoff = 1.38 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 4,345 cf, Depth= 2.06" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Area (sf) CN Description * 25,307 70.30 NEW HOUSE WS 25,307 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Hydrograph �Runoff 5-. Type III 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" 4 Runoff Area=25,307 sf Runoff Volume=4,345 cf 3 Runoff Depth=2.06" U. Tc=6.0 min 2 CN=70.30 1.38 cfs 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10 00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 55 Summary for Pond CS: CS Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.92" for D-10 event Inflow = 1.86 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 3,147 cf Outflow = 1.86 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 3,147 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 1.69 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 3,036 cf Secondary= 0.17 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 112 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 80.42'@ 12.20 hrs Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 79.95' CS1_Primary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.341 0.751 1.175 1.255 1.328 1.359 1.398 1.438 1.458 #2 Secondary 79.95' CS1_Secondary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.140 0.210 0.268 0.668 1.510 1.946 2.848 3.754 4.207 #3 Primary 79.30' 7.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Primary OutFlow Max=1.69 cfs @ 12.20 hrs HW=80.42' (Free Discharge) T--3=Ori 1=CS1_Primary_ratings(Custom Controls 0.52 cfs) fice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.17 cfs @ 4.38 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.17 cfs @ 12.20 hrs HW=80.42' (Free Discharge) 2=CS1_Secondary_ratings(Custom Controls 0.17 cfs) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10 00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 56 Pond CS: CS Hydrograph Inflow Outflow Primary 5 Inflow Area=40,997 Sf Secondary Peak Elev=80.42' 4 3 0 LL 2 1.69 Cis 1 0.17 cis 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10 00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 57 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.89" for D-10 event Inflow = 1.69 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 3,036 cf Outflow = 0.27 cfs @ 12.85 hrs, Volume= 3,036 cf, Atten= 84%, Lag= 39.3 min Discarded = 0.01 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 140 cf Primary = 0.26 cfs @ 12.85 hrs, Volume= 2,896 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 77.48'@ 12.85 hrs Surf.Area= 1,656 sf Storage= 1,501 cf Plug-Flow detention time=69.5 min calculated for 3,035 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=69.5 min ( 838.1 - 768.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 96.10' 2,172 cf 30.00'W x 80.761 x 3.50'H Field A 8,480 cf Overall - 3,049 cf Embedded = 5,431 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 96.60' 3,049 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 66 Inside#1 Effective Size=44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 6 rows #3 116.10' 9,000 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below(Recalc) #413 76.10' 1,505 cf 20.50'W x 80.76'L x 3.50'H Field B 5,795 cf Overall - 2,033 cf Embedded = 3,762 cf x 40.0% Voids #56 76.60' 2,033 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 44 Inside#4 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 4 rows 17,759 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 116.10 900 0 0 126.10 900 9,000 9,000 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 76.10' 3.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 76.10' 0.01 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations #3 Primary 78.30' 0.50' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 12.22 hrs HW=76.63' (Free Discharge) t2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.01 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.26 cfs @ 12.85 hrs HW=77.48' (Free Discharge) 11=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.26 cfs @ 5.39 fps) 3=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10 00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 58 Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Hydrograph �Inflow �Outflow �Discarded 5 Inflow Area=40,997 sf �Frimary Peak Elev=77.48' 4 Storage=1 ,501 cf 3 0 LL 2 1.69 cfs 1 0.26 cfs 0.0 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type/1/ 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCADO 10 00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 59 Summary for Pond DW: DRYWELL Inflow Area = 25,307 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.06" for D-10 event Inflow = 1.38 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 4,345 cf Outflow = 0.71 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 4,345 cf, Atten= 49%, Lag= 10.3 min Discarded = 0.20 cfs @ 11.75 hrs, Volume= 3,938 cf Primary = 0.51 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 407 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 62.35'@ 12.26 hrs Surf.Area= 101 sf Storage= 940 cf Plug-Flow detention time=28.8 min calculated for 4,344 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=28.8 min ( 875.7 -846.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 53.00' 1,005 cf 8.00'D x 10.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinderx 2 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 62.00' 12.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 53.00' 0.20 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations 4iscarded OutFlow Max=0.20 cfs @ 11.75 hrs HW=53.11' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.20 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.50 cfs @ 12.26 hrs HW=62.35' (Free Discharge) L1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.50 cfs @ 2.02 fps) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 11124-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 60 Pond DW: DRYWELL Hydrograph �Inflow Outflow �Discarded 5 Inflow Area=25,307 sf Primary Peak Elev=62.35' 4 Storage=940 cf 3 0 LL 2 1.38 cfs 1 0.51 cfs 0.20 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type Ill 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10 00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 61 Summary for Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.08" for D-10 event Inflow = 3.39 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 10,519 cf Outflow = 1.99 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 10,464 cf, Atten=41%, Lag= 6.8 min Primary = 1.86 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 3,147 cf Secondary= 0.13 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 7,317 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs /2 Peak Elev= 83.33'@ 12.20 hrs Surf.Area= 1,859 sf Storage= 3,866 cf Plug-Flow detention time=335.0 min calculated for 10,464 cf(99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=331.7 min ( 1,148.0 - 816.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 80.00' 1,679 cf 25.25'W x 73.641 x 3.50'H Field A 6,508 cf Overall - 2,311 cf Embedded = 4,197 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 80.50' 2,311 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 50 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows 3,990 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 82.50' 18.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate X 0.00 C= 0.600 #2 Primary 83.00' 3.00' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #3 Secondary 80.00' Special & User-Defined Head (feet) 0.00 10.00 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.400 Primary OutFlow Max=1.85 cfs @ 12.20 hrs HW=83.33' (Free Discharge) �__1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 2=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 1.85 cfs @ 1.89 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.13 cfs @ 12.20 hrs HW=83.33' (Free Discharge) 3=Special & User-Defined(Custom Controls 0.13 cfs) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 62 Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Hydrograph 3.39 cfs Inflow Outflow Primary Inflow Area=40,997 sf Secondary 3 Peak Elev=83.33' Storage=3,866 cf 2 ,.86 cfs 0 LL , 0.13 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 63 Summary for Link 4: OFFSITE Inflow Area = 224,113 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.13" for D-10 event Inflow = 4.33 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 21,185 cf Primary = 4.33 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 21,185 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 4: OFFSITE Hydrograph F Inflow Primary 5 Inflow Area=224,113 sf 4.33 cfs 4 uo u 3 0 U. 2 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10 00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 64 Summary for Link FIN: PROP DP1 Inflow Area = 265,110 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.43" for D-10 event Inflow = 4.76 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 31,510 cf Primary = 4.76 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 31,510 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link FIN: PROP DP1 Hydrograph F Inflow Primary 5 4.76 cfs Inflow Area=265,110 sf 4 a 3 0 U. 2 1 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type/1/ 24-hr D-10 Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 65 Summary for Link JCT: JUNCTION Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 3.02" for D-10 event Inflow = 0.45 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 10,325 cf Primary = 0.45 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 10,325 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link JCT: JUNCTION Hydrograph F—Inflow Primary 5 Inflow Area=40,997 sf 4 V 3 3 0 LL 2 1 0.45 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10 00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 66 Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 4801 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment1: EXIST DP1 Runoff Area=264,390 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.92" Tc=21.0 min CN=58.20 Runoff=3.50 cfs 20,183 cf Subcatchment2: TOWNHOMES Runoff Area=40,997 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.64" Tc=6.0 min CN=82.00 Runoff=2.91 cfs 9,006 cf Subcatchment3: REMAINING Runoff Area=198,806 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.98" Tc=21.0 min CN=59.30 Runoff=2.89 cfs 16,218 cf Subcatchment5: NEW HOUSE Runoff Area=25,307 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.70" Tc=6.0 min CN=70.30 Runoff=1.12 cfs 3,575 cf Pond CS: CS Peak EIev=80.08' Inflow=1.07 cfs 1,940 cf Primary=1.02 cfs 1,920 cf Secondary=0.05 cfs 20 cf Outflow=1.07 cfs 1,940 cf Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Peak EIev=76.98' Storage=853 cf Inflow=1.02 cfs 1,920 cf Discarded=0.01 cfs 105 cf Primary=0.21 cfs 1,815 cf Outflow=0.22 cfs 1,920 cf Pond DW: DRYWELL Peak EIev=62.16' Storage=921 cf Inflow=1.12 cfs 3,575 cf Discarded=0.20 cfs 3,529 cf Primary=0.12 cfs 46 cf Outflow=0.32 cfs 3,575 cf Pond WQ:WQ BASIN Peak EIev=83.23' Storage=3,788 cf Inflow=2.91 cfs 9,006 cf Primary=1.07 cfs 1,940 cf Secondary=0.13 cfs 7,017 cf Outflow=1.19 cfs 8,956 cf Link 4: OFFSITE Inflow=2.89 cfs 16,264 cf Primary=2.89 cfs 16,264 cf Link FIN: PROP DP1 Inflow=3.20 cfs 25,116 cf Primary=3.20 cfs 25,116 cf Link JCT:JUNCTION Inflow=0.33 cfs 8,852 cf Primary=0.33 cfs 8,852 cf Total Runoff Area = 529,500 sf Runoff Volume = 48,982 cf Average Runoff Depth = 1.11" 100.00% Pervious = 529,500 sf 0.00% Impervious = 0 sf North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD@ 1n nn sir, M16359 n 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 67 Summary for Subcatchment 1: EXIST DPI Runoff = 3.50 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 20,183 cf, Depth= 0.92" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description 264,390 58.20 EXISTING 264,390 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Hydrograph �Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" 4 Runoff Area=264,390 sf 3.50ds I Runoff Volume=20,183 cf 3 Runoff Depth=0.92" LL Tc=21.0 m i n 2 CN=58.20 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCADO 10 00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 68 Summary for Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Runoff = 2.91 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 9,006 cf, Depth= 2.64" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 82.00 TOWNHOMES 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Hydrograph �Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" 4 Runoff Area=40,997 sf Runoff Volume=9,006 cf 2.91 cfs 3 Runoff Depth=2.64" U. Tc=6.0 m i n 2 CN=82.00 0 1 1- 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10 00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 69 Summary for Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Runoff = 2.89 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 16,218 cf, Depth= 0.98" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description 198,806 59.30 REMAINING AREA 198,806 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Hydrograph �Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" 4 Runoff Area=198,806 sf Runoff Volume=16,218 cf 3 2.89cfs Runoff Depth=0.98" LL Tc=21.0 min 2 CN=59.30 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 11124-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10 00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 70 Summary for Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Runoff = 1.12 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,575 cf, Depth= 1.70" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description 25,307 70.30 NEW HOUSE WS 25,307 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Hydrograph �Runoff 5 Type III 24-h r E-5 Rainfall=4.50" 4 Runoff Area=25,307 sf Runoff Volume=3,575 cf u 3 Runoff Depth=1.70" U. Tc=6.0 min 2 CN=70.30 1.12 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 71 Summary for Pond CS: CS Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.57" for E-5 event Inflow = 1.07 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 1,940 cf Outflow = 1.07 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 1,940 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 1.02 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 1,920 cf Secondary= 0.05 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 20 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 80.08'@ 12.32 hrs Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 79.95' CS1_Primary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.341 0.751 1.175 1.255 1.328 1.359 1.398 1.438 1.458 #2 Secondary 79.95' CS1_Secondary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.140 0.210 0.268 0.668 1.510 1.946 2.848 3.754 4.207 #3 Primary 79.30' 7.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Primary OutFlow Max=1.02 cfs @ 12.32 hrs HW=80.08' (Free Discharge) 11=CS1Primary_ratings(Custom Controls 0.12 cfs) 3=0 rifi-ce/G rate (Orifice Controls 0.90 cfs @ 3.37 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.05 cfs @ 12.32 hrs HW=80.08' (Free Discharge) 2=CS1_Secondary_ratings(Custom Controls 0.05 cfs) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 11124-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCADO 10 00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 72 Pond CS: CS Hydrograph Inflow Outflow Primary 5 Inflow Area=40,997 Sf Secondary Peak Elev=80.08' 4 3 0 LL 2 1.02 cfs 1 0.05 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type H/ 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 73 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.56" for E-5 event Inflow = 1.02 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 1,920 cf Outflow = 0.22 cfs @ 12.89 hrs, Volume= 1,920 cf, Atten= 79%, Lag= 34.1 min Discarded = 0.01 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 105 cf Primary = 0.21 cfs @ 12.89 hrs, Volume= 1,815 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 76.98'@ 12.89 hrs Surf.Area= 1,656 sf Storage= 853 cf Plug-Flow detention time=51.6 min calculated for 1,920 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=51.6 min ( 823.9 - 772.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 96.10' 2,172 cf 30.00'W x 80.76'L x 3.50'H Field A 8,480 cf Overall - 3,049 cf Embedded= 5,431 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 96.60' 3,049 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 66 Inside#1 Effective Size=44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 6 rows #3 116.10' 9,000 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below(Recalc) #413 76.10' 1,505 cf 20.50'W x 80.76'L x 3.50'H Field B 5,795 cf Overall - 2,033 cf Embedded = 3,762 cf x 40.0% Voids #513 76.60' 2,033 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 44 Inside#4 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 4 rows 17,759 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 116.10 900 0 0 126.10 900 9,000 9,000 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 76.10' 3.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 76.10' 0.01 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations #3 Primary 78.30' 0.50' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 12.36 hrs HW=76.61' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiitration (Exfiltration Controls 0.01 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.21 cfs @ 12.89 hrs HW=76.98' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.21 cfs @ 4.20 fps) 13=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 11124-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 74 Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Hydrograph Inflow —Outflow —Discarded 5 Inflow Area=40,997 sf Primary Peak Elev=76.98' 4 Storage=853 cf 3 0 LL 2 1.02 Cfs 1 0.21 cfs 0.0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n M16359 n 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pape 75 Summary for Pond DW: DRYWELL Inflow Area = 25,307 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.70" for E-5 event Inflow = 1.12 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,575 cf Outflow = 0.32 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 3,575 cf, Atten= 72%, Lag= 23.8 min Discarded = 0.20 cfs @ 11.81 hrs, Volume= 3,529 cf Primary = 0.12 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 46 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 62.16'@ 12.49 hrs Surf.Area= 101 sf Storage= 921 cf Plug-Flow detention time=29.6 min calculated for 3,575 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=29.6 min ( 882.3 - 852.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 53.00' 1,005 cf 8.00'D x 10.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinderx 2 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 62.00' 12.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 53.00' 0.20 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations 4iscarded OutFlow Max=0.20 cfs @ 11.81 hrs HW=53.10' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.20 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.11 cfs @ 12.49 hrs HW=62.16' (Free Discharge) L1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.11 cfs @ 1.35 fps) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN—full Type 11124-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 76 Pond DW: DRYWELL Hydrograph Inflow Outflow Discarded 5 Inflow Area=25,307 sf Primary Peak Elev=62.16' 4 Storage=921 cf 0 3 3 0 LL 2 jcfO. 1 0. cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 77 Summary for Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.64" for E-5 event Inflow = 2.91 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 9,006 cf Outflow = 1.19 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 8,956 cf, Atten= 59%, Lag= 14.0 min Primary = 1.07 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 1,940 cf Secondary= 0.13 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 7,017 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 83.23'@ 12.32 hrs Surf.Area= 1,859 sf Storage= 3,788 cf Plug-Flow detention time=375.4 min calculated for 8,954 cf(99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=372.2 min ( 1,192.9-820.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 80.00' 1,679 cf 25.25'W x 73.64'L x 3.50'H Field A 6,508 cf Overall - 2,311 cf Embedded=4,197 cf x 40.0%Voids #2A 80.50' 2,311 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 50 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows 3,990 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 82.50' 18.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate X 0.00 C= 0.600 #2 Primary 83.00' 3.00' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #3 Secondary 80.00' Special & User-Defined Head (feet) 0.00 10.00 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.400 Primary OutFlow Max=1.05 cfs @ 12.32 hrs HW=83.23' (Free Discharge) T__1=0rifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 2=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 1.05 cfs @ 1.56 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.13 cfs @ 12.32 hrs HW=83.23' (Free Discharge) 3=Special & User-Defined(Custom Controls 0.13 cfs) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 78 Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Hydrograph 3 2.91 cfs Inflow Outflow Primary Inflow Area=40,997 sf Secondary Peak Elev=83.23' 2 Storage=3,788 cf 0 U. 1.19 cfs 1.07 cfs 1 0.13 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD810.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 79 Summary for Link 4: OFFSITE Inflow Area = 224,113 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.87" for E-5 event Inflow = 2.89 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 16,264 cf Primary = 2.89 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 16,264 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 4: OFFSITE Hydrograph F Inflow Primary 5 Inflow Area=224,113 sf 4 3 3 2.89 cfs 0 LL 2 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10 00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 80 Summary for Link FIN: PROP DP1 Inflow Area = 265,110 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.14" for E-5 event Inflow = 3.20 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 25,116 cf Primary = 3.20 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 25,116 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link FIN: PROP DP1 Hydrograph �Inflow �Primary 5 Inflow Area=265,110 sf 4 a 3.20 cfs `u 3 3 0 U. 2 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 11124-hr E-5 Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 81 Summary for Link JCT: JUNCTION Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.59" for E-5 event Inflow = 0.33 cfs @ 12.85 hrs, Volume= 8,852 cf Primary = 0.33 cfs @ 12.85 hrs, Volume= 8,852 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link JCT: JUNCTION Hydrograph F Inflow Primary 5 Inflow Area=40,997 sf 4 3 3 0 LL 2 1 0.33 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 11124-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 82 Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 4801 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment1: EXIST DP1 Runoff Area=264,390 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.46" Tc=21.0 min CN=58.20 Runoff=1.38 cfs 10,148 cf Subcatchment2: TOWNHOMES Runoff Area=40,997 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.78" Tc=6.0 min CN=82.00 Runoff=1.97 cfs 6,090 cf Subcatchment3: REMAINING Runoff Area=198,806 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.50" Tc=21.0 min CN=59.30 Runoff=1.20 cfs 8,339 cf Subcatchment5: NEW HOUSE Runoff Area=25,307 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.02" Tc=6.0 min CN=70.30 Runoff=0.65 cfs 2,161 cf Pond CS: CS Peak EIev=79.30' Inflow=0.00 cfs 0 cf Primary=0.00 cfs 0 cf Secondary=0.00 cfs 0 cf Outflow=0.00 cfs 0 cf Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Peak EIev=76.10' Storage=0 cf Inflow=0.00 cfs 0 cf Discarded=0.00 cfs 0 cf Primary=0.00 cfs 0 cf Outflow=0.00 cfs 0 cf Pond DW: DRYWELL Peak EIev=56.63' Storage=365 cf Inflow=0.65 cfs 2,161 cf Discarded=0.20 cfs 2,161 cf Primary=0.00 cfs 0 cf Outflow=0.20 cfs 2,161 cf Pond WQ:WQ BASIN Peak EIev=82.80' Storage=3,463 cf Inflow=1.97 cfs 6,090 cf Primary=0.00 cfs 0 cf Secondary=0.11 cfs 6,052 cf Outflow=0.11 cfs 6,052 cf Link 4: OFFSITE Inflow=1.20 cfs 8,339 cf Primary=1.20 cfs 8,339 cf Link FIN: PROP DPI Inflow=1.29 cfs 14,391 cf Primary=1.29 cfs 14,391 cf Link JCT:JUNCTION Inflow=0.11 cfs 6,052 cf Primary=0.11 cfs 6,052 cf Total Runoff Area = 529,500 sf Runoff Volume =26,738 cf Average Runoff Depth = 0.61" 100.00% Pervious = 529,500 sf 0.00% Impervious = 0 sf North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 83 Summary for Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Runoff = 1.38 cfs @ 12.43 hrs, Volume= 10,148 cf, Depth= 0.46" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Area (sf) CN Description 264,390 58.20 EXISTING 264,390 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Hydrograph �Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" 4 Runoff Area=264,390 sf Runoff Volume=10,148 cf 3 3 Runoff Depth=0.46" 0 LL Tc=21.0 min 2 CN=58.20 1.38 cfs 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type I// 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 84 Summary for Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Runoff = 1.97 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 6,090 cf, Depth= 1.78" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 82.00 TOWNHOMES 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Hydrograph �Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" 4 Runoff Area=40,997 sf Runoff Volume=6,090 cf 3 Runoff Depth=1 .78" U. 1.97 cfs Tc=6.0 m i n 2 CN=82.00 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 85 Summary for Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Runoff = 1.20 cfs @ 12.40 hrs, Volume= 8,339 cf, Depth= 0.50" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Area (sf) CN Description 198,806 59.30 REMAINING AREA 198,806 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Hydrograph �Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" 4 Runoff Area=198,806 sf Runoff Volume=8,339 cf 3 Runoff Depth=0.50" U. Tc=21 .0 m i n 2 CN=59.30 1.20 cfs 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 86 Summary for Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Runoff = 0.65 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 2,161 cf, Depth= 1.02" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Area (sf) CN Description 25,307 70.30 NEW HOUSE WS 25,307 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Hydrograph �Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" 4 Runoff Area=25,307 sf Runoff Volume=2,161 cf 3 Runoff Depth=1 .02" Tc=6.0 m i n 2 CN=70.30 0.65 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 87 Summary for Pond CS: CS Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.00" for F-2 event Inflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Secondary= 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 79.30'@ 0.00 hrs Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 79.95' CS1_Primary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.341 0.751 1.175 1.255 1.328 1.359 1.398 1.438 1.458 #2 Secondary 79.95' CS1_Secondary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.140 0.210 0.268 0.668 1.510 1.946 2.848 3.754 4.207 #3 Primary 79.30' 7.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=79.30' (Free Discharge) T--3=Orifi-ce/G 1=CS1Primary_ratings( Controls 0.00 cfs) rate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=79.30' (Free Discharge) 2=CS1_Secondary_ratings( Controls 0.00 cfs) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN—full Type 111 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 88 Pond CS: CS Hydrograph Inflow e•Outflow e•Primary 5 Inflow Area=40,997 Sf Secondary Peak Elev=79.30' 4 3 0 LL 2 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 89 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.00" for F-2 event Inflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 76.10'@ 0.00 hrs Surf.Area= 1,656 sf Storage= 0 cf Plug-Flow detention time=(not calculated: initial storage exceeds outflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= (not calculated: no inflow) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 96.10' 2,172 cf 30.00'W x 80.761 x 3.50'H Field A 8,480 cf Overall - 3,049 cf Embedded = 5,431 cf x 40.0%Voids #2A 96.60' 3,049 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 66 Inside #1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 6 rows #3 116.10' 9,000 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below(Recalc) #4B 76.10' 1,505 cf 20.50'W x 80.761 x 3.50'H Field B 5,795 cf Overall - 2,033 cf Embedded = 3,762 cf x 40.0%Voids #56 76.60' 2,033 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 44 Inside#4 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 4 rows 17,759 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 116.10 900 0 0 126.10 900 9,000 9,000 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 76.10' 3.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 76.10' 0.01 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations #3 Primary 78.30' 0.50' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=76.10' (Free Discharge) t2=Exfiltration (Passes 0.00 cfs of 0.01 cfs potential flow) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=76.10' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 13=Sharp-C rested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 11124-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 90 Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Hydrograph Inflow �Outflow �Discarded 5 Inflow Area=40,997 sf �Pnmary Peak Elev=76.10' 4 Storage=0 cf F u 3 0 LL 2 1 01 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 91 Summary for Pond DW: DRYWELL Inflow Area = 25,307 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.02" for F-2 event Inflow = 0.65 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 2,161 cf Outflow = 0.20 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 2,161 cf, Atten= 69%, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded = 0.20 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 2,161 cf Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 56.63'@ 12.49 hrs Surf.Area= 101 sf Storage= 365 cf Plug-Flow detention time=9.4 min calculated for 2,160 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=9.4 min ( 877.7 - 868.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 53.00' 1,005 cf 8.00'D x 10.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinderx 2 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 62.00' 12.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 53.00' 0.20 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations Discarded OutFlow Max=0.20 cfs @ 11.97 hrs HW=53.11' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.20 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=53.00' (Free Discharge) t1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pape 92 Pond DW: DRYWELL Hydrograph �Inflow —Outflow �Discarded 5 Inflow Area=25,307 sf Primary Peak Elev=56.63' 4 Storage=365 cf 3 0 LL 2 1 0.65 cfs 0.20 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 93 Summary for Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.78" for F-2 event Inflow = 1.97 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 6,090 cf Outflow = 0.11 cfs @ 14.59 hrs, Volume= 6,052 cf, Atten= 94%, Lag= 149.8 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Secondary= 0.11 cfs @ 14.59 hrs, Volume= 6,052 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 82.80'@ 14.59 hrs Surf.Area= 1,859 sf Storage= 3,463 cf Plug-Flow detention time=483.2 min calculated for 6,052 cf(99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=479.4 min ( 1,311.3 - 832.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 80.00' 1,679 cf 25.25'W x 73.64'L x 3.50'H Field A 6,508 cf Overall - 2,311 cf Embedded = 4,197 cf x 40.0%Voids #2A 80.50' 2,311 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 50 Inside #1 Effective Size=44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows 3,990 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 82.50' 18.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate X 0.00 C= 0.600 #2 Primary 83.00' 3.00' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #3 Secondary 80.00' Special & User-Defined Head (feet) 0.00 10.00 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.400 Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=80.00' (Free Discharge) �__2=S 1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) harp-Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) §econdary OutFlow Max=0.11 cfs @ 14.59 hrs HW=82.80' (Free Discharge) 3=Special & User-Defined(Custom Controls 0.11 cfs) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 94 Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Hydrograph 1.97 cfs mi 2 Inflow Area=40,997 sf Peak Elev=82.80' Storage=3,463 cf 3 o , LL 0.11 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 95 Summary for Link 4: OFFSITE Inflow Area = 224,113 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.45" for F-2 event Inflow = 1.20 cfs @ 12.40 hrs, Volume= 8,339 cf Primary = 1.20 cfs @ 12.40 hrs, Volume= 8,339 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 4: OFFSITE Hydrograph F Inflow Primary 5 Inflow Area=224,113 sf 4 3 3 0 U. 2 1.20 cfs 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 96 Summary for Link FIN: PROP DP1 Inflow Area = 265,110 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.65" for F-2 event Inflow = 1.29 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume= 14,391 cf Primary = 1.29 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume= 14,391 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link FIN: PROP DPI Hydrograph �Inflow Primary 5 Inflow Area=265,110 sf 4 3 0 LL 2 1.29 cfs 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr F-2 Rainfall=3.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 97 Summary for Link JCT: JUNCTION Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.77" for F-2 event Inflow = 0.11 cfs @ 14.59 hrs, Volume= 6,052 cf Primary = 0.11 cfs @ 14.59 hrs, Volume= 6,052 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link JCT: JUNCTION Hydrograph F Inflow Primary 5 Inflow Area=40,997 Sf 4 3 0 LL 2 1 0.11 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type/1/ 24-hr G-1 Rainfall=1.30" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 98 Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 4801 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment1: EXIST DP1 Runoff Area=264,390 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.00" Tc=21.0 min CN=58.20 Runoff=0.00 cfs 0 cf Subcatchment2: TOWNHOMES Runoff Area=40,997 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.24" Tc=6.0 min CN=82.00 Runoff=0.21 cfs 829 cf Subcatchment3: REMAINING Runoff Area=198,806 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.00" Tc=21.0 min CN=59.30 Runoff=0.00 cfs 0 cf Subcatchment5: NEW HOUSE Runoff Area=25,307 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.04" Tc=6.0 min CN=70.30 Runoff=0.00 cfs 93 cf Pond CS: CS Peak EIev=79.30' Inflow=0.00 cfs 0 cf Primary=0.00 cfs 0 cf Secondary=0.00 cfs 0 cf Outflow=0.00 cfs 0 cf Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Peak EIev=76.10' Storage=0 cf Inflow=0.00 cfs 0 cf Discarded=0.00 cfs 0 cf Primary=0.00 cfs 0 cf Outflow=0.00 cfs 0 cf Pond DW: DRYWELL Peak EIev=53.00' Storage=0 cf Inflow=0.00 cfs 93 cf Discarded=0.00 cfs 93 cf Primary=0.00 cfs 0 cf Outflow=0.00 cfs 93 cf Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Peak EIev=80.48' Storage=357 cf Inflow=0.21 cfs 829 cf Primary=0.00 cfs 0 cf Secondary=0.02 cfs 827 cf Outflow=0.02 cfs 827 cf Link 4: OFFSITE Inflow=0.00 cfs 0 cf Primary=0.00 cfs 0 cf Link FIN: PROP DP1 Inflow=0.02 cfs 827 cf Primary=0.02 cfs 827 cf Link JCT:JUNCTION Inflow=0.02 cfs 827 cf Primary=0.02 cfs 827 cf Total Runoff Area = 529,500 sf Runoff Volume = 922 cf Average Runoff Depth = 0.02" 100.00% Pervious = 529,500 sf 0.00% Impervious = 0 sf North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr G-1 Rainfall=1.30" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 99 Summary for Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Runoff = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf, Depth= 0.00" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr G-1 Rainfall=1.30" Area (sf) CN Description 264,390 58.20 EXISTING 264,390 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: EXIST DP1 Hydrograph �Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr G-1 Rainfall=1 .30" 4 Runoff Area=264,390 sf Runoff Volume=0 cf 3-Runoff Depth=0.00" U. Tc=21.0 m i n 2 CN=58.20 01 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type/1/ 24-hr G-1 Rainfall=1.30" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 100 Summary for Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Runoff = 0.21 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 829 cf, Depth= 0.24" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr G-1 Rainfall=1.30" Area (sf) CN Description 40,997 82.00 TOWNHOMES 40,997 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2: TOWNHOMES Hydrograph �RunoH 5 Type III 24-hr G-1 Rainfall=1 .30" 4 Runoff Area=40,997 sf _ Runoff Volume=829 cf 3 0 LL Runoff Depth=0.24" 2 Tc=6.0 m i n CN=82.00 0.21 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type/1/ 24-hr G-1 Rainfall=1.30" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 101 Summary for Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Runoff = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf, Depth= 0.00" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr G-1 Rainfall=1.30" Area (sf) CN Description 198,806 59.30 REMAINING AREA 198,806 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 3: REMAINING Hydrograph �Runofi 5 Type III 24-hr G-1 Rainfall=1 .30"4-Runoff Area=198,806 sf Runoff Volume=0 cf 3-Runoff Depth=0.00" Tc=21 .0 m i n 2 CN=59.30 01 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 16 7 8 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr G-1 Rainfall=1.30" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 102 Summary for Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Runoff = 0.00 cfs @ 13.66 hrs, Volume= 93 cf, Depth= 0.04" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr G-1 Rainfall=1.30" Area (sf) CN Description 25,307 70.30 NEW HOUSE WS _ 25,307 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 5: NEW HOUSE Hydrograph �Runoff 5 Type III 24-hr G-1 Rainfall=1 .30" 4 Runoff Area=25,307 sf _ Runoff Volume=93 cf 3 0 LL Runoff Depth=0.04" 2 Tc=6.0 m i n CN=70.30 0.00 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr G-1 Rainfall=1.30" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 103 Summary for Pond CS: CS Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.00" for G-1 event Inflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Secondary= 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 79.30'@ 0.00 hrs Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 79.95' CS1_Primary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.341 0.751 1.175 1.255 1.328 1.359 1.398 1.438 1.458 #2 Secondary 79.95' CS1_Secondary_ratings Elev. (feet) 79.95 80.34 80.52 80.73 80.78 80.83 80.85 80.88 80.91 80.92 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.140 0.210 0.268 0.668 1.510 1.946 2.848 3.754 4.207 #3 Primary 79.30' 7.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=79.30' (Free Discharge) T--1=CS1-Primary_ratings( Controls 0.00 cfs) 3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) e Scondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=79.30' (Free Discharge) 2=CS1_Secondary_ratings( Controls 0.00 cfs) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr G-1 Rainfall=1.30" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 104 Pond CS: CS Hydrograph �Inflow —Outflow �Primary 5 Inflow Area=40,997 sf Secondary Peak Elev=79.30' 4 3 3- 2- 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type /// 24-hr G-1 Rainfall=1.30" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 105 Summary for Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.00" for G-1 event Inflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 76.10'@ 0.00 hrs Surf.Area= 1,656 sf Storage= 0 cf Plug-Flow detention time=(not calculated: initial storage exceeds outflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= (not calculated: no inflow) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 96.10' 2,172 cf 30.00'W x 80.761 x 3.50'H Field A 8,480 cf Overall - 3,049 cf Embedded= 5,431 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 96.60' 3,049 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 66 Inside#1 Effective Size=44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 6 rows #3 116.10' 9,000 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below(Recalc) #46 76.10' 1,505 cf 20.50'W x 80.76'L x 3.50'H Field B 5,795 cf Overall - 2,033 cf Embedded = 3,762 cf x 40.0% Voids #513 76.60' 2,033 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 44 Inside#4 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44'x 6.45 sf x 4 rows 17,759 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 116.10 900 0 0 126.10 900 9,000 9,000 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 76.10' 3.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 76.10' 0.01 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations #3 Primary 78.30' 0.50' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=76.10' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration (Passes 0.00 cfs of 0.01 cfs potential flow) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=76.10' (Free Discharge) tl=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 3=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr G-1 Rainfall=1.30" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 106 Pond DET: DETENTION BASIN Hydrograph Inflow �Outflow m Discarded 5 Inflow Area=40,997 sf Primary Peak Elev=76.10' 4 Storage=0 cf 3 0 LL 2 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr G-1 Rainfall=1.30" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 107 Summary for Pond DW: DRYWELL Inflow Area = 25,307 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.04" for G-1 event Inflow = 0.00 cfs @ 13.66 hrs, Volume= 93 cf Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 13.67 hrs, Volume= 93 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 13.67 hrs, Volume= 93 cf Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 53.00'@ 13.67 hrs Surf.Area= 101 sf Storage= 0 cf Plug-Flow detention time=0.8 min calculated for 93 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=0.8 min ( 1,025.3 - 1,024.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 53.00' 1,005 cf 8.00'D x 10.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinderx 2 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 62.00' 12.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Discarded 53.00' 0.20 cfs Exfiltration at all elevations ,Qiscarded OutFlow Max=0.20 cfs @ 13.67 hrs HW=53.00' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.20 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=53.00' (Free Discharge) L1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN—full Type ///24-hr G-1 Rainfall=1.30" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 108 Pond DW: DRYWELL Hydrograph �Inflow �Outflow �Discarded 5 Inflow Area=25,307 sf Primary Peak Elev=53.00' 4 Storage=0 cf 3 0 a 2 1 0.00 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN-full Type /// 24-hr G-1 Rainfall=1.30" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 109 Summary for Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.24" for G-1 event Inflow = 0.21 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 829 cf Outflow = 0.02 cfs @ 15.08 hrs, Volume= 827 cf, Atten= 91%, Lag= 178.4 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Secondary= 0.02 cfs @ 15.08 hrs, Volume= 827 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/2 Peak Elev= 80.48'@ 15.08 hrs Surf.Area= 1,859 sf Storage= 357 cf Plug-Flow detention time=306.9 min calculated for 827 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 305.7 min ( 1,201.4- 895.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 80.00' 1,679 cf 25.25'W x 73.64'L x 3.50'H Field A 6,508 cf Overall - 2,311 cf Embedded= 4,197 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 80.50' 2,311 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 x 50 Inside #1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44'x 6.45 sf x 5 rows 3,990 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 82.50' 18.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate X 0.00 C= 0.600 #2 Primary 83.00' 3.00' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #3 Secondary 80.00' Special & User-Defined Head (feet) 0.00 10.00 Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.400 Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=80.00' (Free Discharge) �I!=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 2=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.02 cfs @ 15.08 hrs HW=80.48' (Free Discharge) 3=Special & User-Defined(Custom Controls 0.02 cfs) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN—full Type H/ 24-hr G-1 Rainfall=1.30" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 110 Pond WQ: WQ BASIN Hydrograph 0.23 0.22 0.21 cfs Inflow 0.21 Outflow �Primary 0. 9 Inflow Area=40,997 sf Secondary 017 Peak Elev=80.48' 0.16 0.15 Storage=357 cf 0.14 0.13 0.12 c 0.11 LL 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 cfs 0.02 0.01 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street lmz_greto_model_MIN—full Type /// 24-hr G-1 Rainfall=1.30" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 111 Summary for Link 4: OFFSITE Inflow Area = 224,113 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.00" for G-1 event Inflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 4: OFFSITE Hydrograph F w— Im Primary 5 Inflow Area=224,113 sf 4 p 3 0 U. 2 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type 111 24-hr G-1 Rainfall=1.30" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 112 Summary for Link FIN: PROP DP1 Inflow Area = 265,110 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.04" for G-1 event Inflow = 0.02 cfs @ 15.08 hrs, Volume= 827 cf Primary = 0.02 cfs @ 15.08 hrs, Volume= 827 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link FIN: PROP DP1 Hydrograph �Inflow Primary 5 Inflow Area=265,110 sf 4 3 0 LL 2 1 0.02 cfs 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) North Ridge Street laz_greto_model_MIN_full Type/1/ 24-hr G-1 Rainfall=1.30" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 10/18/2015 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n M16359 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 113 Summary for Link JCT: JUNCTION Inflow Area = 40,997 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.24" for G-1 event Inflow = 0.02 cfs @ 15.08 hrs, Volume= 827 cf Primary = 0.02 cfs @ 15.08 hrs, Volume= 827 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link JCT: JUNCTION Hydrograph �Inflow Primary 5-Inflow Area=40,997 Sf 4 a u 3 3 0 LL 2 1 0.02 CfS 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Time (hours) 259 North Ridge Street Tree G: Good, F: Fair, P: Poor, D: Dead, C: Cavity, UB: Crown Tree Tag Tree # Species Diameter Condition 1 Black Cherry 10" P, Uprooting 2 Norway Maple 10" F 3 Walnut 12" F 4 Maple 18" P, UB 5 Walnut 12" F 6 Black Cherry 12" F 7 Walnut 28" G 8 Maple 12" G 9 Oak 14" F 10 Hickory 16" G 11 Elm 18" G 12 Black Cherry 18" F 13 Black Cherry 12" F 14 Black Cherry 18" F 15 Maple 14" G 16 Black Cherry 22" F 17 Maple 10" F 18 Hickory 10" F 19 Black Cherry 20" P 20 Maple 14" F 21 Hickory 14" F 22 Oak 16" G 23 Maple 16" G 24 Maple 18" G 25 Ash 10" D 26 Walnut 28" F 27 Oak 10" F 28 Ash 28" P 29 Elm 26" P,UB 30 Maple 12" F Tree Inventory Performed by: Paul D. Muscariello ISA Certified Arborist: NE-0252A February 2, 2016 259 North Ridge Street Tree G: Good, F: Fair, P: Poor, D: Dead, C: Cavity, UB: Crown Tree Tag Tree # Species Diameter Condition 31 Ash 14" D 32 Black Cherry 10" P 33 Tulip 22" G 34 Elm 10" P 35 Oak 12" F 36 Maple 16" G 37 Ash 20" P 38 Cherry 10" P 39 Ash 28" G 40 Maple 10" F 41 Maple 16" P, Uprooted 42 Tulip 18" P 43 Maple 12" P 44 Tulip 40" G 45 Tulip 18" F 46 Oak 20" G 47 Ash 18" F 48 Ash 14" F 49 Unknown 18" D 50 Maple 12" F 51 Elm 12" P 52 Maple 14" F 53 Cherry 10" D 54 Maple 10" D 55 Maple 10" P 56 Cherry 12" F 57 Cherry 10" P 58 Maple 14" F 59 Maple 12" F 60 Maple 10" P Tree Inventory Performed by: Paul D. Muscariello ISA Certified Arborist: NE-0252A February 2, 2016 259 North Ridge Street Tree G: Good, F: Fair, P: Poor, D: Dead, C: Cavity, UB: Crown Tree Tag Tree # Species Diameter Condition 61 Maple 10" F 62 Oak 18" F 63 Walnut 30" F 64 Walnut 36" F 65 Walnut 28" F 66 Walnut 22" F 67 Spruce 10" D, Uprooted 68 Beech 16" D 69 Ash 16" F 70 Maple 20" P 71 Maple 26" F 72 Maple 12" F 73 Maple 12" F 74 Ash 18" F 75 Tulip 20" F 76 Tulip 32" P 77 Tulip 32" F 78 Tulip 32" F 79 Walnut 30" F 80 Maple 14" P 81 Maple 12" F 82 Magnolia 10" P 83 Maple 16" P 84 Walnut 24" F 85 Ash 20" P 86 Maple 12" P 87 Walnut 32" P 88 Walnut 32" P 89 Maple 16" F 90 Maple 12" F Tree Inventory Performed by: Paul D. Muscariello ISA Certified Arborist: NE-0252A February 2, 2016 259 North Ridge Street Tree G: Good, F: Fair, P: Poor, D: Dead, C: Cavity, UB: Crown Tree Tag Tree # Species Diameter Condition 91 Maple 12" F 92 Hickory 14" F 93 Maple 16" F 94 Maple 16" F 95 Maple 10" P 96 Hickory 16" F 97 Maple 16" F 98 Maple 36" P 99 Maple 22" P 100 Maple 24" F 101 Maple 14" P 102 Maple 16" F 103 Maple 20" P 104 Maple 16" P 105 Maple 12" P 106 Maple 10" F 107 Maple 16" F 108 Maple 12" P 109 Hickory 24" G 110 Elm 20" F 111 Maple 16" F 112 Maple 10" P 113 Maple 10" F 114 Maple 12" F 115 Hickory 26" G 116 Maple 10" P 117 Cherry 10" P 118 Maple 10" P 119 Maple 14" P 120 Maple 22" P Tree Inventory Performed by: Paul D. Muscariello ISA Certified Arborist: NE-0252A February 2, 2016 259 North Ridge Street Tree G: Good, F: Fair, P: Poor, D: Dead, C: Cavity, UB: Crown Tree Tag Tree # Species Diameter Condition 121 Maple 12" P 122 Maple 18" P 123 Maple 14" P 124 Maple 12" D 125 Ash 12" D 126 Elm 16" D 127 Maple 20" G 128 Maple 12" P 129 Walnut 32" P 130 Walnut 30" F 131 Hickory 24" F 132 Maple 12" P 133 Ash 16" F 134 Hickory 10" P 135 Ash 16" P 136 Ash 16" P 137 ICherry 10'' j P Tree Inventory Performed by: Paul D. Muscariello ISA Certified Arborist: NE-0252A February 2, 2016 �1Y r" f^.J �i✓ •-� 010 z< 0 CUrniD < D c�nzrn -� rn 0 ffl W -n M F-�n -u M Nnrn0 rn W70 ol . m � Z --� rn � �o rnD z ,pI :D( / �.. v L � i r� �• , v n% f � � rJfr j -! k y ,�� � i O � o E 'y 1"7 ti .c°ti4 Gj A.)C/>co A b0 r (� ^ O �b 14 o, .4 0 �� / 1 _ Ul & Co J,Wo N / DN 0 Is, 70 mW N) .�/ �3�• W o / 9 O ° / a: Cvr_n Z C Z O rm-40 O Z S z D >-i U) O z 2 m��- 0�m� ovv� - C ZD0ID �0c� O Om < o v O D=�v_ orn,coU) T DO �m-4 z�DCCA v ` Z O m�� O z< Ac�nm0 O O M m10m t O i �U)0� �� Usm 9 _ m m =mX-4 �fOrI�D rn0 [m ? c x N D m C < Q•_in mm r -0O z� z �Y z • :*0wM Z�mO m0�� �p o!> G �' �. ^Y-n R Q pmp> r-U)m> { / 1�O ° co C zgr0 -+ r�OZ 0mK--c r �. 7No -y �,� W W -n �m0(D c ��Azrn O cc'� C� me (� � CD -} �'0 / O D mml. > ��v �m� m o > S� zMF O o ZQ 2 D O2 Mm� *Z mT= gym v O m F 0m w �qm jp�2� DN m ^ `, _cmn<= r0 >- Om> O m m no�o Q �m D -4�O t 4 O ono zO Z omo Acn7, > �z� mGlz ,, 4 F,� t ? �'i / �� �o•� $6� F °t0 , tp -4po=0 zcunC9 Oz 0� � cm Ir{�Z c // n �-�� Fti_N �°,/ z-c<r yG)m 1007°m> >�m> o mp- Cl)m0 n mm z ��� -a co '• ° ►�j tr�" o l l I T�v mMRbf-0zU)Czn �m m to cnmlj 3V < �<m p0 (U/ipCMZ > �mrn�OcOi�<O�tg ion rO�C<-ic> �g U)Z Om �Do -IZ� c-4= 620 -�•-•:E ncmi r� mar mcnm '" x' •• r- ��� '! z D rri XZ� � Z 0 0 U) m v v >Z0- co mz zm r e m Z Xz O--1 In p my G�n e � Ord cam•''' � � e� � ea" r' -1 Z OrT p<-n --iX GODDn-n>;1cQ> m0 m 0 mv= cnmm z D�� z s F , z 0 cm =-<0mg� r o�— m to T zp �� mOOLO Om z g m O Z�m O 'OmZ y z<_O U ,'i �...,-.. o� v0OrnU)ZnZv� < O �cOP_ Cpo�U,<Zz._p=1m y xcnD �rJ mvi0 m m D U Z D/ //� S i4 i m rr uu 1 O� ;i •, o C Ozm ?nOnOp� mp�ZnD OoNDZZ = - ' cn 0 00 � i p O� c x r / / / / cZ mN-a�nmmz 7 m ZCmmxm> K _ b z"•}� b m fn �o G1v>DZ7p�D D Zz0 �cmn Coy �s a D�pD�G� nm�Zv�_0 m 7c1 fD r to C :O < < O Z m U) o� �� = b m o� z �% j 'o• Jr s N 'is w / '� r o• Ci , a / / / al • ' S F '�' \ S a mow: 6�0\ �Kanma o, 0 A m �l7 m ZU)m DU�n y ;u m r c D D m D Q m(n m Z D!..�-rv.. N r r ,' , J' / / >\z O / /. A F r' // ' by :~: i' • ct o F. 70m00 *mmwimv C O O D '� r 0 -D-/ �U-11 mi��omOc Zmmv ZK Z O � mN Z ar z< m OmL -i fn xnI �;/ moAD m • / c e -.��,r' ' .b • s •r ? ° 5 :-._. • /� ,' ,' / my \1 /. U) D = < �o 0 .. 0Z Zv D� ain0 D -mm z r- < S �< M 3 .Z�] -Q U O < D D z mNZ ZS m fmn T Z Q¢ M m m M v nt m m cr-D-n= •m mim (A mm m 0vm �m �� >M nag o�n0N 0�� go��o Z m� v—igvz J <<p gD�� Uri r-z ovo0 GJ 02 rDm rnm ;IU Z�rn m0 >- vmv6zi • �17 m0 � nOF mm 070cn� 0 Op-D �; n p C) Xm z�0� p �maD Z � oz m w0 0-4 0 IN) mC. D Dnm N Rt C)pMm F z z�� -4Zv 1 m On �nr, / / ,/ /J /i p -=x -- r't• yo' at p� r•''' Ov �Q 1 _ / /V,'1'�, �. !\'� , • ° c r! Q � ../ i )~ Q .f•• •/ '..a ai // �%' l / / / �� ; s r � • \gym f. %'' �'• �� j At 19 % j 4 / , _♦ / 1 Q a // /�m / c y/ �•''4 A r {{ ♦♦♦ AA • / . f,.,AA 0 la IV At Z • m / Z' r ID j 1 , /, I M / i • p / / \� N� \'cd,�\ z ' ♦ y / { c J v , ` � ; � .� / - � r .. � .• ,.% / Qom. � / ? t� i/ fn 9 p , � C \-- A `\♦ . �\•: NN- _ - - J. , 3 Q b A i N. i Obi : 4 t m j/' , z7 ♦ r' may, ♦rw • 'NA / I :<. u \y fir' `, P� m O izb `LS \,•:1 S , f of • t � . , � '' ': a '. E --,. __ � � 8L loaeZ,. ♦: r- m 9 40 M rOW �y z a A �\ p •'` M of L� �S�� ��1 `J Lp 0� '1• o sQ%A'n a .l �wo F G-) 60�vt mm�ODC? e Ows\(qZ��\� �r,•,Ov -0 .l1 "< z 0 O -< W m M 1 's zm O o a 0 rn C O,p 7392 EAGLES BLUFF RIDGE. I I o o,�-00 �\ £ � I I •-. ggOt\ONO 115 ��,os6 ��� �' 0 O 50g01�151og � - / 4 \\ f a log,a B11.a� d g 1 _ Sg0�p P� 4N" ale naxrrxwe /� ` SOgOSJ\5\O � u / 15E I' w o o D L A N D s 1.... \\ Q 0 7 � W O O D L A N D 6 �q �\ 1«� ,o ',�i THISMAP WABPPSPAAEIFRpAANACNALRFIDSURVEYONTNEMT 1��^^N'��,wN1'� CJ�T`��T - AxoTHATsuosuRVErwa6vREFORMEDInAccORDAMCEwrmrNE—EwsnNGnc 'CODE OG PRACTICE FORLAND SURVIYS'ADOPIEO BY THENEw TORKSTATE - X1° \ ASSOCWTON OF RtOFE9310NAL LAN09U0.VEY0P9. UNAIRNgU7F0ALTERATONORADONIONTOASIIRVEYM,BNBDI CN2CEF NMDSLRVEYORSSFP TN)g1AlKN10F3ECT10N1918,91100MSIONROFTNE _ NEW rOMt STATE EDUCATION uws. _ _ -" SURVEY OF PROPERTY _ __- -"""- sITUATEDINTHE K,THESURVEYORWHOMADETHIS M ,DO HEREBYCERIIFY "---" 1HAT TH011-UNESURVETOFTNISP�PERTYSWMNHBECNWASCCMPLETEDON ------ a�w-0 -� VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK NOVEMBEA 20,A18ANOMAilXISNAP WASCONRETEDONNOV.M,2018. ONE-YOJ%ES FTi0A1THE 0HIGINAL OFTNIB SURVEY NMKED WffH OPo01NLL OF " ---- u TOWN OF RYE THE ANDS—SEAL III—BE CONB ICERED--D BE T RUE VALD COPIES. ENCROACNMEM98ELOW GAADEANDgi SUBSURFACE FEATURES,IFANY.NOT (�. WESTCHESTER COUNTY LOCAIEDAT10Wt SHOWN HEREON. ,v NEW YORK s M1"=AP U�NItIMNID 9VRVEY0R8 P.C./11 RIGNfB RESERVFD.TxE UNAV1fi0RIIED REPR6 ' A 11 OGY "® SURVEYED:NDVEMBE—,RD15 IXA;TONM'DIOR04"IRIBUIIONOFiHI300G1MFM I8111EflLLAtID 18AKOL1110N �-� _� UNDER UNTIED 3TATE5 COP/NGHTLAW9. �- ,` THE—M—Nbl HEFEgI KINGALLTNAT CERTAIN ROT.PIE— P.C, �y 0FLMNASCOIIVEYEDBY'ROYAADMl4'TO'RIDGEVND—P,INC.-ERDEEO D ATED,MARCH15,RW1ASDULYRECORDEDINTHEIN—T ESTERCWNTV BUHVEY IS BUBJECTTO AHY6TATEOFI—INHICHAN UFTOOATE TIRE� CLERMS OFFICE,DIVIV0N0F IAND RECORDS CNADRIL 13,=l M COMRDL 1 �4 1m" INATION MAT DIBCLOSE. O NUMBERIIIWORTB. le 1HE OFFBETS SHOWN HEREON ME FORINFORMATIONAL RIRPOSES 0!¢Y. THE PREM16E6AssHOWN HEPEON DESIGNATEDONTHETACMAPB FOR #ti OFFSET9MENOT WRNCEDIO ESTABLISH P0.0PEFT'UNES FIXi THE EAECIION THE TOWNOFRYE,VILLAGEOFRYEBROO- OFFENCES.SINIICTU0.FRANdOR OIHERIMPROVEMENTS. SECTION 135.35-BLOCK 1 `LOT 11 TOTAL PARCEL AREA:172,620 SQ.FT.or 3.96 Acres 00 OTERO \ \\ n F f ANOSA \•`� RI NOND& AX LOT+8 TAX LOT IS ' ' �� N/F ' � MAKK&W. .✓KEN SMA� ' I 'If I \$\ AH SOT 32 ' O ERO li ANOSA X]RtNCE NAes—LL \ ^KENN H Ff X:D'1/ OF I - a, ; HEDA OKUN 8 '�� k� n`z CRAiO em 4P C�Ea TAa I Fli R -L N MA'4 L.. 724d T 31 N,a x sin I ns q y 1 It �:7 e LLJ iUl� \ / L t� � u a 21 c Inw 1 q RT <J, ,. ZONE R-18 �` �6. . �W.W I /` u�R �.II AF_� �: AA I ITT I E o' I �✓ o J 1 ..rE 1 :y v �—. 17�� FET n E r k — - r ( lr "E U I I-� M1 E1 T ti Ele.k..l V'� ��.�1 l o lk -Rf a 14 PE E i PO r M1 ��� Jt ., � J]P n I-LIRT y P F I a OW I ,1ITT T syF. 21 Ell, TE of 'E 35 k If �,/ Ci_ a TLF 2.GTP. cl O h ITI .°*• a ul H 0 0 D L �, fv�G Oh I � urn 19 Ek +) 2 IT 1�r I — ^ ��s-1�l,. a }( q �: a f P P _ L o d , aa,le 1 Er.E 1 IT- An r �_ �• — 0 4, ,. E f • ) TR XI ITT ^ — •� , �, 71 , - Y • I M1 1 �._ T'; E ya, o To \~ CIE �a1 n ...« — 1 M1,a IE e� TREE TR PRESERVATION EJ � PL AN 259 NORTH RIDGE STREET F � RYE BROOK,NEW YORK ^'�f r F,� F5 n st.IT., - �raEEPItoTEcnoN \ A' r {� -1ANUAFCY 29,2019 �J I� 1A,301019L f � \'is Ij ENGIDPW NOT TO S1 LF —� DE ry n Pr'.WesicnESTER Courviv PU,rvry rvG DEPARTN=_rvi 1 FILED IN THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE,DIVISION OF 4 LAND RECORDS oc EAGLES 33 V BLUFF r Ai0 ON AS MAP NO. APPROVED BY RESOLUTION OR THE BOARD Of TRUSTEES OF THE \ 19 � / �^� / O'• VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK NEW YORK o- D" n,W W� ' CIO 6 00 1m�T A IL,T DATE q SA1 �M'p0 FOOY O -- �F ,r(\O 9B0 / T THE LOCATION Of UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED q MAYOR \ OjEI�'Q�� Nhs° 1. 37 ONABOVEGROUND STRUCTURES ONLY LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY GRIED UTILITIES/STRUCTURES roIED � 'RA£ �PP'O MP ED NO-ION I STRUCTURE MAY VARY FROM LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON.ADDRIONAL SITE ALL TAKES TO PATE HAVE BEEN PAID 'J' `4�92 UTILITIES BEFORE EXCAVRE MADE DURING THE ATON SSOBEOF HIS OONE CONTRACTOR SHNLTO LOCATE LCONTACT PIG SAFELY NEW YORK(OUTSDE N V C.&LONG SLAND CALL 811 OR DATE Fq 5 1 70 "00AB2-78B2,WWW.DIGSAFLEYNEWYORKGOM,IN NY.C.&LONG ISLAND CALL ,/�. � q�_ 811 OR 1A00272J 0,WJWLLOGUS.NET).AND REQUEST CODE 753,PROTECTION RECEIVER OF TA ES (17 1 ,M N OF UNDERGROUND FACILITIES,16 NYCRR PART 753,ADOPTED FEB.5,1997 AND ANEBDED JULY 10,2002. TAX ASSESSMENT MAP DESIGNATION�3 )S � \s\ 9EGTION13535-BLOCKI°LOTH L FIDE E YS ° G 2 L 0'A'0 90 `�. Y ENCROACHMENTS BELOW GRADE ANNOR SUBSURFACE FEP.TURES.IF ANY. 15,, °F µti 5ry0 BT T �2 NOT LOCATED OR SHOWN HEREON. t I Tr o LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALEp9 N c Y � I WESTCHESTER COUNTY INDEX SHEET:78 BLOCK:8366 V/ E T L A N�I 0 S L IZ4 Ec,00, AREA=a 9os s F= r 3t Ac. e �� TOTAL PARCEL AREA:172,620 SQ.FT.or 3.96 Ac. 0pP'o Q ONE STORY FRAME 92ds Y T x qg EXTEND D UTILITY ERR EASEMENT ENTIRETY OF I g ONE THE MAINTENANCE of LOT i '. LOT AREA LOT AREA ONE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE / STORMWATERDANQSANITARY9EWER J/ -�F / 44KK /�PYSE r%hF' � 0 LOT 1 LOT 2 y' SVGTEMS.1� M.S.F 533325.F. ,ry 9�`NiT/lir% . / z 0a oR �' �� 131 ACRES 1 12AOREs Nm 1 AREA 53,332 S.F.—1,22 AC. AREA 52380 SF '.43 AC L-n , \P go \OZ LOT AREA , 7p °° na LOT 3 FO I- Y \y An 1 2 FNC qr _C a� N 236&.F (�A 00R . W / R I� n" P O [ 14 1�0 3 ACRES 1 TC1 ✓ ' 2 NORTH 6 , _ 9 AFT<z g F w; GPRAGEI) ` i \\ 4 III "O THE PREMISESSHOWN HEREON BEING ALL THAT CERTAIN PLOT,PECE OR PARCEL y.J /o0g \ �e a'3` \/, '',7A c �-\'1 Of LAND AS CONVEYED BY"ROY A.ADAMS TOTHE S ELAND GROUP INO"PER DEED �BILLY ECTER COUNTY DCLERKSOF ICE DIVISION RECORDED IN ON OF LAND RFCORO50N APRI 142001 AS CONTROL --. V >8 �\ iS/OR6gv OI` _ H NUMBER 4110002 `� _a °=M�Po "�, h '3�Z \dI' I� UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO A SURVEY MAP BEARING A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR'S SEAL IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 72095U&DIVSION 2i OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION e � ; THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FROM AN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY ON THE DATE SHOWN -- F w AND THAT SAID SURVEY WAS PREFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXISTING =.ay ;' -- mob" ex<_ ea•ar. ---- " "'° 'CODE OF PRACTICE FOR LAND SURVEYS"ADOPTED BY THE NEWYORK STATE ASSOCIATION OF PROFESBIONAL LAND SURVEYORS. EXISTING PUBLIC WATER/PUBLIC SEWER -_ STREET WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH _ g" �£ I,ROIANDCLINK.THE SURVEYOR WHO MADE THIS MAP,DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT NEW ROCHELLE,NEW YORK --� --.z- SUBDIVISION PLAT THE SURVEY OF THIS PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON WAS COMPLETED ON NOVEMBER - _ 20.2015 AND THAT THIS MAPWAS COMPLETED ON OCTOBER 10,2019. EACH PURCHASER OF PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON SHALL BE "---�= -_'- PREPARED FOR FURNISH A TRUE COPY OF THIS PLAT SHOWNG THIS ENDORSEMENT - ------ "° --" -`' NORTH RIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT ANYERASURES,CHANGE6 ADDITIONS OR ALTERATIONS OF ANY KIND a° P� E%CEPTTHEADOITION.1RIGNAITIRISCIDTHERAPPROVING SITUATED IN THE AUTHORITY ANREQ THEDATEF MADE ON THIS PLAN AFT THIS APPROVAL,SHALL INVAL DATE THIS APPROVAL VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK\ / /�7�yp/ Link APPROVED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 873 ARTICLE%SECTION 873951 // TOWN OF RYE AN DB7a1pn OF THEWESTCHESTE—UNIY RANITAR CODF y WESTCHESTER COUNTY C. - SUBJECT TO THE PROVISION OF THE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY AND yJ✓ r^ OWNER OF RECGRO: NEW YORK Land Surveyors P.C. PTENDEDN MR HUMAN OCCH LTIESTOSTRIEAL UCTEDSTRUCTURES estl l9ntl OV UBLIO DFORHUMAN IIAU ILNCY CONSTRUCTED HEREIN. 3 �aa1 I 21 CIaA Place Suile lB Ph° 845LOS 587 OF NE CFI MaM1 pae N.Y.10541 Far 849621A013 APPROVEDBV THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DATE ON BEHALF 5ensmM e ` SURVEYED:NOVFMBER 2➢,2015 NORTH,/'x DATE. MAP DRAFT OCTOBER 10,.19 OF t dpe10 0� A RVEEPARTHENTOFTANT C OATE RALPH G.MAS'RuOMONAC*0; ,�9µ ,F RDGE STRET,RYE ROOK,NYPMENi 30 60 90 140 tE A P E.,P.G. ti x m p ROLANTJ K LINK 1 30- PFOLAND B� ux°suavEvOB NU.waf2a SCALE 1 It I