03 Response to CommentsDRAFT 3-1 5/14/2019
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
3.1. INTRODUCTION
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) addresses comments that were made on the Draft EIS (DEIS), either verbally at the Public Hearings held on October 22, 2018, November 11,
2018, December 11, 2018, and January 8, 2019, or provided in writing through January 23, 2019. This includes all comments made by the public or their representatives, the Village of Rye Brook (the “Village”) Board of Trustees (the “Lead Agency”), and Interested and Involved Agencies.
This chapter provides responses to the substantive verbal and written comments submitted on the DEIS. Full transcripts of the public testimony and complete correspondence from which these comments are drawn can be found in Volume 3. Comments were assigned numbers, as shown in Volume 3.
Similar comments, in terms of subject or technical points, multiple or by the same commenter, were grouped together. Each comment is presented in this chapter. For ease of reading, a comment summarizing each group of similar comments was provided, with careful attention to ensure that the substance of the comments was preserved.
Comments were received that generally expressed support or opposition to the Proposed Project, but that did not substantively comment on the DEIS. These comments are not included in this chapter. Comments were received regarding the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA) process, such as the time of the public hearings. These comments are similarly not included in this FEIS. Finally, duplicative comments from the same commenter were received. These duplicate pieces of correspondence are noted and responded to in their first instance.
3.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AGE RESTRICTION
Comment 1: Comments were received recommending that the age restriction for the Proposed
Project should be set at 62 years old and older, not 55 years old and older as
proposed by the Applicant. Commenters cited community character concerns
associated with a 55 years old and older project and the potential for a 62 years
old and older project to have decreased traffic impacts and a reduced potential for
school-age children. A comment was also received from the Westchester County
(the “County”) Planning Board encouraging consideration of making the
townhouses non-age-restricted. (Straubinger 003, Zhao 006, Planning Board 018,
Rosenberg 021, Levine 029, Drummond 037)
Straubinger 003 (#12): Look at alternatives that: set the age restriction at 62
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-2 DRAFT
Zhao 006 (#25): I don’t see any reason for seeking a code change to lower the age limit to 55 years.
Planning Board 018 (#236): Age restriction should be 62+ to alleviate traffic and school impacts.
Rosenberg 021 (#247): We are very serious about this being a 62 and older project.
Levine 029 (#263): What is the reason for the 55 and over being a nonstarter?
Rosenberg 021 (#264): The 55+ community has different impacts than the 62+ community: traffic and school children.
Drummond 037 (#286): We encourage the Applicant to consider making a portion of the development non-age restricted and open to families...[such as the townhouses] given the Site’s proximity to the school. This may also be a fair exchange for the residential density increase the Applicant is seeking.
Rosenberg 063 (#525): The residents MUST be limited to 62 and over.
Response 1: In response to comments from the Lead Agency and members of the public, the
Revised Proposed Project would be a residential community constructed and
operated for those 62 years old and older, not 55 years old and older. Consistent
with this change, the Revised Proposed Zoning, included in Appendix A, no
longer includes a proposed change to the definition of “senior living facility”
within the Village.
Comment 2: Comments were received questioning whether age-restricted housing is legal
given the experience of Heritage Hills in Somers and, if so, how the age restriction
would be enforced. (Mignogna 001, Planning Board 018)
Mignogna 001 (#5): Age restrictions may not be valid. Look at the Heritage Hills in Somers which lost its age restriction through legal proceedings.
Planning Board 018 (#237): Explain how the age restriction will be enforced.
Response 2: The proposed age restriction, and its enforcement, are governed by the Federal
Fair Housing Act (FHA). Under the FHA, the general rule is that it is illegal to
discriminate in housing based, among other things, upon family status, i.e.,
discrimination against families with children. However, as an exception to the
general rule, the FHA has carved out two “safe harbor” provisions. If the
requirements of either of those safe harbor provisions are met, a property owner
or landlord is not liable for discrimination. In the case of the Revised Proposed
Project, the Applicant proposes to follow the safe harbor requirements for an age
62 years old or older project. Under those requirements, occupancy in any unit
will be restricted to persons over the age of 62 years old, thereby precluding
children from residing at the project.
Enforcement is regulated by the requirement that the property owner provide
annual reports to the Federal government demonstrating compliance with the safe
harbor provisions. Failure to comply can result in liability on the part of the
property owner for improper discrimination in violation of the FHA.
With respect to the Heritage Hills project in Somers, little information is
available. We have located an article that appeared in the New York Times on
June 2, 1985 that sheds some light on the Heritage Hills project. Based upon that
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-3 5/14/2019
article, it appears that the project opened in 1975 and permitted only people over
the age of 40 years old, or their spouses, to live there. When the law changed to
prohibit age discrimination, except in the case of the safe harbor provisions, the
management was required to either allow anyone to live there or to restrict
ownership to those 55 years old or older. Again, based upon the newspaper article,
it appears that the owners of Heritage Hills chose to allow anyone to live there,
rather than restrict the potential market.
With respect to Revised Proposed Project, the age requirement will be 62 years
old or older from the commencement of occupancy and will, as noted above, be
regulated pursuant to the provisions of the FHA.
SITE PLAN DETAILS
Comment 3: Comments were received requesting more detail on the height of the Independent
Living (IL) and Assisted Living (AL) building, the square footage of each Project
component, and the number of proposed parking spaces, and how that compares to
the existing condition. (Planning Board 018, Chakar 025, Boccini 035, Heiser 051)
Planning Board 018 (#233): Clarify and explain the height of the units and building height.
Chakar 025 (#252): What is the square footage of each of the [components] of the projects, the 24, the 160 units, that total the 445,000?
Heiser 051 (#347): How much is it going up in height?
Boccini 035 (#282): On that first screen that they put up, there was parking shown as one number and 300. Then on the second screen he did a comparison and they only used the 300 parking lot. I’m confused as to percentages. I think that should be looked at very carefully.
Response 3: Table 3.2-1 lists the components of the Revised Proposed Project, including their
size (i.e., gross square feet) and number of units and beds.
Table 3.2-1 Proposed Building Sizes
Project Component
Gross Floor Area (sf)1 Number of Units (Beds/Bedrooms)
Original Project (DEIS) Revised Proposed Project (FEIS) Original Project (DEIS) Revised Proposed Project (FEIS)
Town Homes 50,000 44,300 24 (48) 20 (40)
Assisted Living 90,000 87,735 85 (94) 85 (94)
Independent Living 305,000 244,147 160 (301) 152 (228) Total 445,000 376,182 269 (444) 257 (362)
Note: 1 Gross Floor Area calculated pursuant to Section 250-2 of the Village Code.
The roof of the existing office building has a height of 39 feet above current grade
(el. 246.5 feet) and features a fascia that extends approximately 7 feet 6 inches
above the roof, such that the building appears approximately 46.67 feet tall (el.
293.17 feet)
The proposed IL and AL building would have an average height of 41.64 feet
above the proposed grade, which grade would be approximately 6 feet 6 inches
higher than the current grade. As such, the elevation of the IL and AL building’s
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-4 DRAFT
average height would be approximately el. 294.64 feet, or about 1.5 feet higher
than the existing office building.
The proposed IL and AL building would feature various architectural features,
which would create multiple “peaks” along the roof line to add visual interest to
the building. These various “peaks” would have differing heights, as shown on
sheets A-104 and A-301, included in Volume 4. As stated in Chapter 1, “Revised
Proposed Project,” in response to public comments and to decrease the potential
for visual impacts, the IL and AL building have been set back further from Arbor
Drive and The Arbors. In addition, the ‘peak’ of roof on the four-story section of
the proposed IL building has been reduced in elevation 7 feet from the original
project. With this change, the peak of the roof of the four-story IL building closest
to The Arbors, which extends only for approximately 30 feet, would be
approximately 11 feet higher in absolute elevation than the height of the existing
three-story office building, which extends for the length of the entire building.
However, this proposed peak would be approximately 541 feet from the nearest
townhouse in The Arbors, which is approximately 264 feet further away than the
existing office building. The remainder of the peak of the four-story section of the
IL roof facing The Arbors would be approximately 7 feet higher in elevation than
the top of the existing office building and would be set back even further than the
tallest peak facing the Arbors.
With respect to parking, the existing office building has approximately 595
parking spaces. As stated in Section 1.4.3.2, “Parking,” the Revised Proposed
Project would have 276 parking spaces.
Comment 4: Comments were received requesting additional information on the Applicant’s plan
for emergency or secondary access and suggesting that it was not the Village’s
responsibility to provide land for that purpose. (Snyder 007, Orris 032, Snyder 022)
Snyder 007 (#50): Applicant’s proposal to have an emergency access driveway using Village owned land does not appear to be a true secondary access. The Village has no obligation to burden its public land (especially right next to the firehouse and police station) for the applicant.
Orris 032 (#270): My question is, if anything goes through, of getting in and out of The Arbors on a different access road. Right now we have an access road you can’t use behind The Arbors for emergencies, but there’s no way for us to get in and out otherwise. If there’s an accident, a tree down, we’re already captive, but you add all these people, what is the plan for that, if there is one?
Snyder 022 (#279): Second is that we would like to discuss if secondary access is not feasible, we’re wasting a lot of time and resources on a proposal which really wouldn’t have much feasibility.
Response 4: As described in Section 1.4.3, “Parking and Circulation,” the Applicant proposes
to construct a secondary, emergency-only access to the Project Site from Village-
owned property. This access was included at the specific request of Village staff
and consultants. The specific location and alignment of the access was discussed
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-5 5/14/2019
with Village staff and consultants and determined to best meet the needs of the
Revised Proposed Project and the Village.
Comment 5: The Village’s Consulting Engineer stated that an easement would be required for
the proposed realignment of the curb at the existing Rye Brook Fire Department
(RBFD) firehouse. (Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#109): Proposed realignment of the curb at the existing firehouse crosses the property line, an easement would be required to do this.
Response 5: No curb improvements are necessary to accommodate this new fire truck
movement and the existing curb alignment would remain. This truck movement
is depicted on drawing C-320, “Fire Truck, Emergency Vehicle & Truck Turning
Plan” (see Volume 4).
Comment 6: The Village’s Consulting Engineer made several comments requesting additional
information be provided on the proposed site plan. (Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#110): The Fire Department should verify noted fire truck dimensions on the proposed turning plan.
Oliveri 011 (#111): Road profiles will be required for review & approval; road slopes on the west loop road seem to approach 10% in some areas.
Oliveri 011 (#117): Indicate locations for concrete and Belgium block curbs on the layout plan, stone curbing should be 18” in depth within the village R.O.W.
Oliveri 011 (#118): Handicap parking dimensions should be indicated on the details.
Response 6: A template of the largest Village fire truck was emailed by the Village’s Fire
Inspector, Michael Izzo, to the Applicant’s engineer, JMC, on September 20,
2017. These dimensions were used in the truck turning simulation, shown on
drawing C-320 and included in the JMC site plan set (see Volume 4).
Drawing C-310 has been added to the site plans showing all road profiles (see
Volume 4). The slopes on all roads are less than or equal to 10 percent.
Labels have been added to drawing C-300 to clarify where stone curb shall be
installed. The stone curb detail #37 on drawing C-905 has been updated to show
a depth of 18 inches for all stone curbs, within the Village right of way (see
Volume 4).
Dimensions have been added to both accessible parking details (details #42 &
#47) on drawing C-906 (see Volume 4).
Comment 7: A comment was received requesting more information on the layout of, and
access and egress to, the underground parking proposed as well as a discussion of
the impacts of that access to on-Site circulation. (Snyder 007)
Snyder 007 (#44): There is no clear depiction of the underground parking, and the access way out of the parking areas and how traffic will be distributed in connection therewith.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-6 DRAFT
Response 7: Figure 1-15 depicts the access and egress to the proposed underground parking. The
full size underground parking plan is included on sheet A-100 in Volume 4. As
shown, access and egress to the underground parking area will be from a single
location along the Site’s main access road in the rear of the Site. Egress from the
parking area to the internal Site drive will be controlled with a stop sign.
Comment 8: The Chairman of the Village’s Architectural Review Board stated that, “the layout
[of the Proposed Project] appears to work well for the three different groups.”
(Levy 004)
Levy 004 (#17): The layout appears to work well for the three different groups.
Response 8: Comment noted. As stated in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project,” the layout
of the Proposed Project was designed to promote operational efficiencies as well
as to create an aesthetically pleasing, landscaped residential community.
PROPOSED PROGRAM
Comment 9: A comment was received asking if an operator for the Proposed Project was
selected and suggesting that without an operator the Proposed Project was
speculative. (Schlank 040)
Schlank 040 (#321): Without some evidence of commitments from a future manager and/or occupants, the project appears to amount to “building on speculation.” This strategy is particularly risky.
Response 9: The final selection of an operator for the Revised Proposed Project has not yet
been made. As indicated in Section 1.5, “Purpose and Need,” there is a current
market demand for an age-restricted residential community in the Village. In
addition, and as was the case with the original project, the Revised Proposed
Project is anticipated to be owned by a single entity and there is no plan to
subdivide the Site. A managing agent and/or operator may be retained to manage
and operate the Revised Proposed Project, and that party may be an affiliate of
the owner.
Comment 10: Comments were received requesting more information on the ancillary and
accessory uses included in the Proposed Project, including food service, fitness,
and other amenity spaces, and questioning whether the impacts of those uses were
considered in the DEIS. (Snyder 007, Greenbaum 031)
Snyder 007 (#41): Second, the independent living component is massive, consisting of 305,000 square feet with 301 bedrooms. The component is also likely to have additional uses such as “an indoor fitness center, small clinical space for visiting medical professionals, hair salon, manicure/pedicure and massage therapy.” The DEIS fails to
specify the size of these uses and whether they can be utilized by non-residents and the impact of same.
Snyder 007 (#47): The "residential amenity spaces" are not defined and need to be analyzed…“wandering garden” needs to be clearly depicted and its security analyzed,
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-7 5/14/2019
especially in light of the site’s proximity to a main road, King Street and the middle school/high school campus.
Greenbaum 031 (#269): Does this mean that along with independent living, meals will be provided to the residents? So the dining room will be staffed, with enough staff to provide three meals a day. 365 days a year…like a restaurant that seats 300 people, 400 people…that should be considered as well.
Response 10: The Revised Proposed Project includes the following uses that are considered
accessory or ancillary to the primary residential use of the Site, as defined in the
Village’s Zoning Code: indoor and outdoor recreation facilities, libraries, food
preparation facilities, dining facilities, laundry facilities, examination and
treatment rooms, housekeeping services, administrative offices, staff facilities,
storage and maintenance facilities, beauty parlors, and a facility for the sale of
sundries for residents.
The impacts of the Revised Proposed Project, as described in this FEIS and the
DEIS, are inclusive of the various accessory and ancillary uses described above
and in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project.” For example, the estimates of
traffic generation are inclusive of the staff associated with the Revised Proposed
Project and the water and sewer demand that was estimated included both an
estimate for each household in the IL and townhouse units, as well as the an
estimate for the commercial kitchen.
Comment 11: A comment was received suggesting that The Arbors would suffer adverse
financial impacts as a result of the Proposed Project’s residential program.
Specifically, the commenter stated that the residential nature of the Proposed
Project would increase acts of trespassing within The Arbors (including walking
on private property and dog walking), increase the necessity of road maintenance,
and increase acts of illegal parking within The Arbors—all of which would place
an additional financial burden on The Arbors as it is the responsibility of the
individual owners or the Home Owners Association (HOA) to “self-police.”
(Schlank 060, Schlank 068)
Schlank 060 (#425): Questions related to ‘self-policing’ services that must be established and funded by private property owners under the laws governing VRB PUDs with private roads.
Schlank 068 (#538): If a residential option is approved, the challenges for The Arbors will be more difficult to meet in a cost effective manner because The Arbors was not designed to be a fully-secured gated community. Significant adverse financial impacts
could be felt on property values, as well as costs of self-policing services, road maintenance, and safety/security.
Schlank 068 (#546): Trespassing is a common area of self-policing, and incidents of trespassing would likely increase if additional individuals start taking walks along The Arbors roadways.
Response 11: The Revised Proposed Project is not anticipated to result in increased trespassing
on The Arbors’ property. With respect to parking, the Revised Proposed Project
would contain sufficient on-Site parking for residents, guests, and staff, obviating
the need for Project residents to park within The Arbors (see Section 2.12.8,
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-8 DRAFT
“Parking,”). With respect to making use of The Arbors’ property for recreation,
it is the Applicant’s opinion that, as described in Section 2.10.3, “Open Space,”
the Revised Proposed Project would provide more than sufficient space to meet
the outdoor recreation needs of Project residents. In addition, Harkness Park and
the Village ballfields are also within walking distance of the Project Site. For
these reasons, it is not anticipated that residents of the Project Site would choose
to trespass on The Arbors’ property for recreational purposes. With respect to
road maintenance, it is noted that the Project Site is the beneficiary of an easement
that provides for access to an improved Arbor Drive for access and egress and
that the provision of that drive is the responsibility of The Arbors. The Revised
Proposed Project would not in and of itself, change that obligation. As noted in
Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” the Revised Proposed Project would,
however, substantially reduce the amount of traffic that would utilize Arbor Drive
to access the Project Site from the Site’s currently permitted office use. Therefore,
it is the Applicant’s opinion that The Arbors would not suffer an adverse financial
impact as a result of the Revised Proposed Project.
PURPOSE AND NEED
Comment 12: Comments were received questioning whether the Proposed Project and Proposed
Zoning were in the best interests of the Village or only in the best interests of the
Applicant. (Mignogna 001, Snyder 007, Feinstein 049)
Mignogna 001 (#6): Paragraph 23 which states the density of 102 units is now allowed by current law is “simply economically unfeasible.” Does the Village of Rye Brook Board want to allow a change in the law [density and height] which affects our quality of life solely for the profit motive of a developer?
Snyder 007 (#30): The proposed text amendment is only to the advantage of the applicant and not to the Village. There is absolutely no reason that the applicant cannot comply with the zoning text in its current form.
Feinstein 049 (#379): Status quo of this parcel cannot be maintained indefinitely. Question is, something’s going to happen at some point in time to this particular parcel. So what’s in the best interests of Rye Brook?
Response 12: As discussed in this FEIS and the DEIS, there is a current market demand for age-
restricted housing within the Village. The Revised Proposed Project would help
meet this existing community need. In addition, the Project Site as currently
improved is not economically viable. Despite the efforts of the Applicant, and
previous owners, it has not been possible to lease the current office building in a
sustained and profitable manner. As a result, the assessment of the Project Site,
and the property tax revenue generated by the Site, has declined over the past 5
years and is expected to decline further in the future. The Revised Proposed
Project offers the Applicant and the Village the opportunity to meet a current
market demand while also increasing the tax revenue generated by the Project
Site without overtaxing the existing community services.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-9 5/14/2019
Comment 13: Comments were received questioning the overall economic viability of age-
restricted housing in the Village given current vacancies at The Atria, Rye Brook
and the construction of an age-restricted facility in Purchase. (Levy 004, Snyder
007, Planning Board 018, Feinstein 049, Schlank 068)
Levy 004 (#16): It [The Project] does answer many needs for the community and our baby boomer population in Westchester
Snyder 007 (#57): Also the Atria has vacancies, thereby questioning as to the need for another independent living facility.
Planning Board 018 (#220): Is there a market demand for assisted living in this geographic area? Is there a market demand for senior living in this geographic area? Are the rentals competitively priced with other facilities with similar amenities? Will the new senior housing at SUNY Purchase result in a need for fewer units at 900 King? How will the Village be protected against a scenario whereby the senior housing at 900 King is built but not occupied thereby resulting in another empty or near empty
structure, or conversion to more traditional rental apartments? Please explain.
Feinstein 049 (#380): The concept, I applaud in the sense that we are community. And what we’re missing in this community is housing stock for seniors. Yes we have Atria, but what happened is that it was built as independent living, and over the years the average age of the Atria has crept up. The people we know, they want to stay in Rye Brook. But they have nowhere to go. We don’t want to be a transient community. So I applaud the fact that there’s going to be senior housing. I think it’s important to have different housing stock - that’s the sense of a community. And things can’t stay stagnant. Things are going to have to change.
Feinstein 049 (#385): No one has really spoken in favor of the project per se. But I think the concept of senior housing, 62 and above, and to have also independent living and rental apartments, is something that would be very unique to Rye Brook.
Schlank 068 (#539): King Street and other nearby areas in Rye Brook and bordering municipalities already have significant senior housing capacity. To date, there has been no known attempt to measure the extent to which the current citizens of Rye Brook want and need additional age-restricted housing. In the absence of a grass-roots study of this nature, there are open questions about whether a senior housing facility will truly serve the citizens of Rye Brook well and whether it can survive and prosper in future years.
Response 13: As described in Section 1.5, “Purpose and Need,” the Revised Proposed Project
responds to an existing market need within the Village. This need is documented
by both demographic trends as well as a recent economic market study by JLL, a
leading real estate valuation and advisory firm (see Appendix C). The JLL study
concludes, in pertinent part, that within the market area “the assisted living
(including memory care) and independent living segments [are] under-supplied at
this time. This is supported by the higher occupancies reported throughout each
segment (95 percent for assisted living (including memory care), 92 percent specific
to memory care, and 93 percent for independent living).”1 The report goes on to
note that though there are 399 IL units and 346 AL units forecast to come online
within the next three years, including the Revised Proposed Project, there is forecast
to be excess demand of 720 AL beds, 319 memory care beds, and 1,417 IL units.
This data suggests that the local market can support both the new senior housing
at SUNY Purchase as well as the Revised Proposed Project at 900 King Street.
1 Page 4 of: Market Study: Rye Brook Senior Living, 900 King Street. JLL. October 2017. Included as Appendix C.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-10 DRAFT
Comment 14: Comments were received questioning whether the Applicant is purposefully not
leasing the existing on-Site office building so that it can propose to redevelop the
Project Site and claim that the office building is not economically viable.
Commenters cited the Applicant’s recent purchase and efforts to re-tenant 1100
King Street in the Village as a potential example of the strength of the local office
market as well as the regional demand for “flex space.” (Mignogna 001, Snyder
007, Schlank 040, Gorek 050, Schlank 060, Schlank 068)
Mignogna 001 (#3): Is the reason for a relatively modern building used as an office building being vacant a result of the owners wishing to make a larger profit by offering this proposal? Or has the market changed and rents have gone down forcing office space to rent at a lower price?
Snyder 007 (#31): As detailed herein and the attached article ("Applicant’s Article"), the
applicant’s principal, Mr. Duncan has stated in a public forum in October 2018 that there is a vibrant office market in Rye Brook. Therefore, contrary to the DEIS, there is no reason that 900 King Street cannot be updated to Class A office space and utilized for office use, just like the developer is doing with 1100 King Street.
Schlank 040 (#320): Applicant complains of vacancies in office facilities and it projects that the vacancies will continue in the future. Does the applicant recognize that the actions it has taken during the past year might be construed as constituting a self-fulfilling prophecy of defeat? A repurposing of the office building [part-office, part-research laboratories – this would appear to be more consistent with the intent of the zoning laws and comprehensive plan.
Schlank 040 (#322): Statistics show the inventory of senior housing has soared in recent years while occupancy rates have fallen dramatically since 2014. Occupancy rates for assisted living facilities are at their lowest levels since 2006 (October 30, 2018 Wall Street Journal Article). How do the current trends affect the assumptions made by the applicant and the management firm about future occupancy rates and affordable low income housing tax credits? What evidence does the applicant have that the proposal will in fact provide a stable economic base for the Village and/or meet a real need for senior housing options, especially in view of competing facilities such as at Purchase College?
Gorek 050 (#387): I can’t see why the 900 building cannot be recycled. I was told that there were parts of the buildings that had no windows, why can’t those particular spots be used for storage? You build nice condos and you put in storage. It would solve every senior’s problem, of what you do with all your stuff.
Schlank 060 (#427): Questions about the implications of evolving business events and trends that affect the proposed and alternative uses of the property at 900 King Street, including the announcement of Amazon’s nearby NYC HQ, the continued growth of e-commerce, and the accompanying high level of demand for conversion of commercial office buildings to the increasingly popular concept of “flex space” – a less radical form of redevelopment that results in lower occupancy levels by office workers and less traffic to and from the office buildings during rush hours.
Schlank 068 (#543): Include an alternative that would convert the existing office space into “flex space.”
Response 14: The Applicant disputes the notion that it deliberately, and over the course of many
years, purposefully did not lease the existing office building. The Applicant, as
well as predecessors in interest, unsuccessfully attempted to lease the existing
office building for a variety of uses to a variety of tenants. These efforts were not
successful in producing sufficient building occupancy or long-term tenancy to
make operating the building profitable. One reason contributing to the inability to
lease the existing Site is the building’s relatively large floorplate broken up by
twin atriums. The large, rectangular, floorplate makes it inefficient to subdivide
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-11 5/14/2019
the space while providing for the necessary means of egress for each tenant. As a
result, buildings with more efficient floorplates, such as the buildings at 1100
King Street, which utilize a single core are more easily adapted for multiple
tenants and have had more success in re-tenanting existing space.
Comment 15: Comments were received questioning why three-bedroom IL units were needed
in an age-restricted project and why the three-bedroom units were so large.
(Snyder 007, Drummond 037, Rosenberg 064, Tazbin 071)
Snyder 007 (#42): If {the IL} units are truly for seniors, then it would seem that the three bedroom units should be eliminated.
Drummond 037 (#284): Such a wide mix of unit types is atypical for housing developments restricted solely to seniors. For example, the draft EIS offers no explanation for why so many three-bedroom units are proposed.
Rosenberg 064 (#530): The question is, why for 62 and older, why a three-bedroom units?
Tazbin 071 (#560): Three bedrooms seem a little bit much, a little bit large [for a 62+ community] and only one parking spot.
Response 15: In response to public comments, the Applicant has both reduced the number of
three-bedroom units included in the IL building as well as reduced the size of the
three-bedroom units that are included in the Revised Proposed Project (see
Section 1.4.1.1, “Independent Living”).
As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project proposes a relatively
up-market product. As indicated in the market study (see Appendix C), there is
a market demand for larger, three-bedroom units. These units tend to appeal to
those residents that are accustomed to a larger residential setting (e.g., house)
where separate rooms for sitting, reading, watching TV, and engaging in activities
are available. Therefore, while the Applicant has reduced the number and size of
the three-bedroom units proposed, these units have not been eliminated from the
Revised Proposed Project.
Comment 16: Comments were received questioning why age-restricted townhouses are
included in the Proposed Project, especially if elevators are not included. Some
commenters requested that this use be eliminated or further setback from The
Arbors to provide more open space or to reduce potential adverse impacts.
(Snyder 007, Planning Board 018, Drummond 037, Snyder 038, Feinstein 049,
Rosenberg 064, Heiser 065)
Snyder 007 (#48): The town homes appear to be an unnecessary feature of the project, just resulting in more congestion of the site. Alternative designs without the town homes should be considered.
Planning Board 018 (#223): Consider eliminating the townhouses to preserve more open space.
Drummond 037 (#285): It is not clear if the two-story townhouse units are intended to be part of an arrangement where tenants live in the townhouses first and are then given the option to move to the independent living facility as they age.
Snyder 038 (#294): The Applicant has not provided any meaningful mitigation measures that would aid in reducing the significant traffic impacts associated with the
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-12 DRAFT
project. Given that the DEIS has disclosed potential for adverse impacts associated with the project, the project should be modified....reduction in the overall size and density of the project. At a minimum, the Applicant should eliminate the townhomes.
Feinstein 049 (#382): I think that this project is necessary and good for the community in a scaled-back version of it. I personally am opposed to all the townhouses for lots of reasons; it’s closer to the Arbors and the like.
Rosenberg 064 (#526): I shared that concern as well [townhouses would interfere with the nice buffer between the assisted living facility and the border of the Arbors’ property], because I think that we do want to create the greatest – a buffer to the greatest extent possible.
Heiser 065 (#531): Are there going to be elevators in the townhouses?
Response 16: As described in Section 1.4.1.3, “Townhouses,” the townhouses proposed to be
included in the Revised Proposed Project have been redesigned from the original
project. The townhouses are being provided in a “master-down” format that has
the master bedroom located on the first floor. Other architectural features have
been included that make the townhouses both more suitable to a senior population
as well as more distinguishable from other Village townhouse communities,
including double-height living rooms, evoking a “grand” space, and kitchens and
bathrooms of a more generous size that are also designed for adaptability and
accessibility for aging-in-place. Finally, residents of the townhouse units would
have access to the amenities within the IL building, including the dining room
and meal service, fitness center and pool, and on- and off-Site activities. While it
is anticipated that some residents of the townhouses may decide to move to the
IL or AL building due to changes in circumstances, it is also likely that some
residents would choose to, and have the physical ability to, continue living in the
townhouses for an extended period of time.
As noted in Figure 1-10, the two-story townhouse units in the Revised Proposed
Project are set back a minimum of ±270 feet from the closest unit in The Arbors.
In between The Arbors and the proposed townhouses is a wooded stream corridor
with a topographic rise in the middle. As such, visibility from The Arbors into the
Project Site, including visibility of the proposed townhouses, is extremely limited.
This is demonstrated in the visual simulations included as Figures 8-9, 8-17, 8-18,
and 8-19 in the DEIS. Therefore, and as explained in Section 2.8, “Visual
Resources and Community Character,” the proposed townhouses would not
create an adverse visual impact for The Arbors residents. In addition, as described
in Section 2.10.3, “Open Space,” the Revised Proposed Project would not only
increase the amount of open space on the Project Site from the current condition,
it would provide a sufficient amount of open space to meet the outdoor
recreational needs of the Site’s future residents.
3.3. LAND USE, PUBLIC POLICY, AND ZONING
LAND USE
Comment 17: The Planning Board requested that the FEIS include an explanation of, “the
impacts, if any, of changing the existing use of the property such that the overall
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-13 5/14/2019
[Planned Unit Development] PUD which includes The Arbors would be altered
from a mix of uses (residential/office) to solely residential.” (Planning Board 018)
Planning Board 018 (#215): Explain the impacts, if any, of changing the existing use of the property such that the overall PUD which includes the Arbors would be altered from a mix of uses (residential/office) to solely residential.
Response 17: As with the original zoning, the Revised Proposed Zoning does not add any
allowable uses to the PUD zoning district. Rather, the Revised Proposed Zoning
would limit the allowable uses on the Project Site to only senior living facilities
in recognition that that is the only use included in the Revised Proposed Project.
The impacts of changing the overall PUD of which the Project Site is apart from
a residential/office/park use to a residential/age-restricted residential/park use are
examined throughout the DEIS and this FEIS. As demonstrated in the
environmental analyses, the change in use from office use to age-restricted
residential use would dramatically decrease the number of traffic trips to and from
the Site, increase the assessed value and property tax revenue of the Project Site
while placing no additional burden on the Blind Brook-Rye Union Free School
District (BBRUFSD), and improve the aesthetic character of the Project Site,
which is currently dominated by a 5.3-acre surface parking lot and single
rectangular building with an uninterrupted footprint of 94,600 square feet (sf),
through the development of a landscaped residential campus with buildings of
varying height and sizes interspersed with open space throughout.
Comment 18: A comment was received suggesting that the Proposed Project is inconsistent with
the other uses in the existing PUD, including The Arbors and Harkness Park, as a
result of the introduction of noise and light pollution and additional traffic
generation. (Snyder 007)
Snyder 007 (#55): Project would be consistent with other existing uses of the PUD which include The Arbors and Harkness Park, alleging that the buildings would not introduce negative noise or light pollution to the adjoining properties and would similarly have very low levels of traffic generation. These statements cannot fairly be supported by the facts.
Response 18: No evidence has been presented to indicate that an age-restricted residential use
is incompatible with other residential uses, a school, a park, or municipal uses.
Further, given the relative traffic generation and the intensity with which Project
residents and staff are anticipated to use the Project Site, it is the Applicant’s
opinion that an age-restricted residential use is not only inherently compatible
with the surrounding uses, but that it is, in many ways, less disruptive to the
surrounding area than many other uses, including commercial uses.
As demonstrated in the analysis included in Section 2.12, “Traffic and
Transportation,” the Revised Proposed Project would represent a significant
decrease in the number of vehicular trips entering and exiting the Site as compared
to the former office use. In addition, the Revised Proposed Project would add only
20 trips in the AM, and 50 trips in the PM to the amount of trips counted entering
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-14 DRAFT
and exiting the Project Site in 2017. Compared to the existing volume of traffic
on King Street, this increase is minimal and would not adversely affect Harkness
Park.
With respect to the potential for light pollution, as stated in Section 3.3.1.1,
“General Recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan,” of the DEIS, “The
Proposed Project would utilize energy-efficient building design and fixtures. All
outdoor lighting would utilize LED fixtures with full cut-offs.” With the
implementation of full cut-off fixtures, there is not be anticipated to be off-site
light spillage to the ground level of Harkness Park as a result of the Revised
Proposed Project. With respect to the potential for noise pollution, the Revised
Proposed Project, as was the case with the original project, will include building
mechanical systems and emergency generators that are designed to avoid
producing a 6.0 A-weighted decibel (dBA) or more increase at nearby receptors,
including Harkness Park. As a result, the Revised Proposed Project would not
have an adverse impact on noise conditions at the Harkness Park.
Comment 19: Comments were received questioning the appropriateness of comparing the Proposed
Project to The Atria, Rye Brook in the DEIS. (Snyder 007, Planning Board 018)
Snyder 007 (#56): The DEIS compares itself to the Atria in Rye Brook but that facility is only for independent living.
Planning Board 018 (#224): How does the proposed project compare with the Atria?
Response 19: The Atria, Rye Brook is an IL facility in the Village that has approximately 168
units. Unlike the Revised Proposed Project, The Atria, Rye Brook does not have
townhouses or AL units, nor does it have landscaped open space on-Site. The
Atria, Rye Brook is the closest IL facility to the Project Site and was therefore
used within the DEIS and this FEIS for purposes of providing specific, limited,
comparisons. The reasons for each comparison, and the limitations of each
comparison, are presented within this FEIS. In general, The Atria, Rye Brook was
used for purposes of benchmarking the number of emergency services calls that
may result from the Revised Proposed Project (e.g., emergency medical services
[EMS] and fire), the potential for the Revised Proposed Project to have school-
age children as residents, and the potential assessed value of the Revised Proposed
Project. For all of these comparisons, the DEIS and FEIS note the limitation of
the comparison and the usefulness of the comparison in understanding a potential
impact of the Revised Proposed Project.
Comment 20: Comments were received suggesting that density, in and of itself, is an impact to
the community and that the Proposed Project, for that reason, should be modified.
(Planning Board 018, Chakar 025, Schlank 040, Snyder 045, Zimmerman 046,
Feinstein 049, Snyder 053, Snyder 061)
Planning Board 018 (#219): Putting aside potential appreciable impacts of a high density development, high density in and of itself should be considered an impact to the character of the Village which is predominantly low density.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-15 5/14/2019
Chakar 025 (#253): That’s [Proposed Project] two and a half times the size of the Arbors (based on number of units and gsf per acre).
Chakar 025 (#254): This is 257,000 square feet more than what should go there. You have a density problem there [at the Project Site with the Proposed Project].
Schlank 040 (#315): The "condition precedent" [existing office building] was established as a way to ensure a balanced and complementary mix of commercial and residential land uses…a way to mitigate the population shift that would otherwise result from a density of 7 dwellings per acre. This 7-per-acre density was unusual for the Town of Rye. How can the effects of the increased density be effectively mitigated?
Snyder 045 (#348): This project is way too dense. They are proposing 15.2 units per acre when your zone now only allows six units per acre. This is a huge discrepancy.
Zimmerman 046 (#354): We are very concerned about the density of the project.
Feinstein 049 (#386): As a person who worked very hard on the Comprehensive Plan, the density has to be addressed.
Snyder 053 (#409): As recommended by the Planning Board in the Planning Board resolution, there shall be, and I quote, "a reduction in the overall size and density of the project. At a minimum, the applicant should eliminate the townhomes and more considerably reduce the assisted living and independent living components to make the project have less of an impact."
Snyder 061 (#502): Again, we support the recommendation of the Planning Board that there should be a "reduction in the overall size and density of the project." At a minimum, the Applicant should eliminate the townhomes and considerably reduce the assisted living and independent living components to make the project have less of an impact.
Response 20: As detailed in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project,” in response to public and
Lead Agency comments, and to reduce the potential for adverse impacts, the
Applicant has reduced the size of the Revised Proposed Project from what was
originally included in the DEIS. Specifically, the Applicant has reduced the size
of the project by 68,818 gsf through reductions in the number of IL and townhouse
units, reduction in the IL unit sizes and number of bedrooms, and reductions in
the common and amenity spaces in the IL and AL building.
As detailed in Section 2.3.2, “Proposed Density,” and shown in Table 3.3-1, when
considered on its own (e.g., not part of the entire PUD of which it is a part), the
density of the Revised Proposed Project is less than The Atria, Rye Brook (both
in terms of sf per acre and number of units per acre). The Revised Proposed
Project is less dense than the Doral Greens PUD in terms of sf per acre. While the
number of units or dwelling units per acre for the Revised Proposed Project
exceeds that of other PUDs, it is still within the range of “low- to medium-
density” housing as defined by the Comprehensive Plan (see Section 2.3.4.1,
“Comprehensive Plan” and the Response to Comment 36). Further, the units
included in the Revised Proposed Project are considerably smaller than the units
included in other PUDs and, most importantly, they are age-restricted housing
units, including AL units, which have significantly different impacts per unit than
market-rate housing.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-16 DRAFT
Table 3.3-1 Comparative Project Density
Development
Dwelling Units per 5,000 sf
Dwelling Units per Acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Square feet per Acre
Average Unit Size (sf)
The Arbors 0.8 6.9 0.37 15,900 2,304 The Atria, Rye Brook 3.9 34.1 1.11 48,352 ukn
Revised Proposed Project 1.1 (1.7)* 9.7 (14.5)* 0.49 21,169 1,069 (IL) 2,215 (TH) 647 (AL)
PUD with Revised Proposed Project 0.8 (1.0)* 7.0 (8.4)* 0.36 15,743 1,846 (1,645)*
Doral Green 0.9 7.9 0.54 23,369 2,943
Sun Homes 0.4 3.6 0.28 12,109 3,364
Notes: * Includes Dwelling Units and Assisted Living Units
Considering the entire PUD District of which the Project Site is a part, with the
Revised Proposed Project the PUD would have 7.0 dwelling units per acre, of
which 41 percent would be age restricted (see Table 3.3-1). Including the AL
units in the Revised Proposed Project, which are not dwelling units,2 the PUD
would have 8.4 total units per acre, more than half of which would be age
restricted and 17 percent of which would be AL units. With the Revised Proposed
Project, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the PUD District as a whole would
increase by 0.06 FAR to 0.36 FAR. Therefore, in the Applicant’s opinion, the
Revised Proposed Project would not result in a PUD that was significantly denser
than other PUDs. Further, the PUD of which the Revised Proposed Project would
be a part would consist of fewer units per acre and less sf per acre than Doral
Greens, which contains no age-restricted housing.
In the Applicant’s opinion, density is not an impact. Zoning codes classify density
to regulate impacts. Specifically, zoning codes regulate different land uses at
different densities (e.g., commercial, retail, residential, and industrial) and the
same use is often permitted at different densities depending on its location (e.g.,
lower densities near a sensitive environmental resource, higher densities in
downtowns and sites that are not environmentally sensitive). Projects with the
same measured density can produce vastly different impacts depending on their
use and location. For these reasons, it is the Applicant’s opinion that analyzing
the specific impacts of a project is the most effective method for municipalities
to evaluate the appropriateness of a project. This comprehensive analysis is the
purpose of a SEQRA review. Analyzing only the number of units per acre or sf
per acre would not, in the Applicant’s opinion, provide sufficient information for
a municipality to make an informed decision about a project.
2 The AL units will not have a kitchen and, therefore, in the Applicant’s opinion, do not meet the definition of a “dwelling unit” as set forth in the Village Zoning Code.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-17 5/14/2019
As analyzed in the DEIS and this FEIS, uses proposed by the Applicant (e.g., age-
restricted housing and assisted living) have remarkably different impacts on a per
unit basis than market-rate residential uses. For example, when compared to
market-rate housing, on a per unit basis, age-restricted housing generates fewer
traffic trips, places less (or no) burden on the school district, and places less
burden on the community’s parks and open space and most other community
facilities. The two uses have similar impacts on a per unit basis with respect to
water and sewer usage. Age-restricted housing tends to place a larger burden on
EMS services than market-rate housing. As such, regulating age-restricted
housing at the same per unit density as market-rate housing does not appropriately
take into account the significant differences in impacts (i.e., beneficial and
adverse) of the various uses.
Impacts related to site development, including impervious coverage, and site
disturbance and the necessary stormwater management, natural resource
protection, and construction staging as well as site-specific environmental factors,
are more meaningful than density when evaluating the physical impacts of a given
project. As shown in Table 17-1 of the DEIS and Table 3.17-1 in Section 3.17,
“Alternatives,” the Revised Proposed Project has 7.10 acres of impervious
coverage compared to the as-of-right residential building coverage of 4.92 acres
or, if the Project was built using the same size units as The Arbors, 7.06 acres. As
such, the impacts to natural resources and the impacts of constructing the Revised
Proposed Project are anticipated to be similar to the impacts of construction of
the as-of-right alternatives (see Response to Comment 152).
With respect to visual and community character, measures of density do not
provide sufficient information to determine the relevant impacts of a project. For
example, a neighborhood of single-family homes on ¼-acre lots will look and feel
different depending on whether the homes are each 2,500 sf or 5,000 sf. In both
cases, the density of the neighborhood in terms of the number of units per acre
(e.g., four units per acre) would be the same, but the density in terms of the floor
area per acre in one scenario would be double the other scenario (0.23 FAR vs.
0.46 FAR). Similarly, if the 5,000-sf houses were instead two-unit townhouses,
the FAR of the project would remain the same, but the number of units would
double. Obviously, while one measure of density would remain the same, the
other would change and the community and visual character of the development
would be markedly different. Similarly, if the townhouses were developed as an
age-restricted community, the density of the project would be exactly the same (8
units per acre and 0.46 FAR), but the “look and feel” or community character of
the Revised Proposed Project would be markedly different than if they were
market-rate units.
Site context—its natural and human-made features—is critical to appropriately
evaluating the community character impacts of the Project. As discussed in the
DEIS and this FEIS, the Project Site has been heavily impacted by human
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-18 DRAFT
development that has altered the topography and natural features of the vast
majority of the Site. The Revised Proposed Project will protect the natural feature
with the most beneficial ecological function, the stream and wetland corridor on
the western portion of the Site. With respect to the visual character of the
development, the Revised Proposed Project would improve the visual character
of the Site by removing the vacant monolithic building and sea of deteriorated
blacktop and instead introduce buildings and landscape features of similar
character to other residential developments in the Village. As analyzed in Sections
2.8 and 3.8, “Visual Resources and Community Character,” the Revised Proposed
Project would break down the scale of the built environment through building
massing and articulation and the introduction of landscaped spaces throughout the
Site. The increase in height proposed, from three stories to four stories, would be
visually mitigated through the deep setbacks to the four-story portion of the
building. This change in the visual character of the Site, as demonstrated in the
photosimulations and renderings, is a better indication of the potential impacts to
visual resources than the density of the Revised Proposed Project.
Comment 21: Comments were received questioning why age-restricted housing is the only use
proposed to be allowed by the Proposed Zoning and questioning why construction
of that use should be allowed at greater densities than other uses. (Schlank 040)
Schlank 040 (#319): Why is the Applicant requesting that senior living be the only permitted use?
Schlank 040 (#323): A residential project of similar density was proposed and rejected in the early 1970s. There is no evidence that the proposed restrictions on the ages of occupants should alter the basic determination, and the issue of inconsistency with community character continues to be an apparent “showstopper” for the proposal.
Response 21: Age-restricted housing and assisted living have vastly different impacts on a per
unit basis than market-rate residential uses. See Response to Comment 20.
ZONING
GENERAL
Comment 22: A comment was received suggesting there was no evidence, such as an appraisal,
to support the statement in the DEIS that the “Proposed Zoning would not
adversely impact the existing zoning districts in the study area.” (Snyder 007)
Snyder 007 (#54): “Proposed zoning would not adversely impact the existing zoning districts in the study area.” There are no appraisals or any other evidence to support that statement.
Response 22: The DEIS and this FEIS analyze, in detail, the potential impacts of the Revised
Proposed Project, including those impacts on adjacent zoning districts. As a
zoning district cannot be physically impacted, the analyses examine numerous
other factors that may impact the uses or users within the surrounding zoning
districts. These analyses evaluate visual, air, noise, and traffic impacts, as well as
impacts to community character. As detailed throughout the DEIS and this FEIS,
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-19 5/14/2019
the Revised Proposed Project is not anticipated to have an adverse impact on
surrounding uses or on community character. In fact, it is the Applicant’s opinion
that the Revised Proposed Project would benefit surrounding uses and community
character by reducing the number of vehicular trips when compared to the former
office use, increasing the tax revenue generated by the Project Site without
placing an additional burden on the BBRUFSD, and providing an improvement
to the Site’s visual character by replacing a single large footprint rectangular
office building and attached 5.3-acre surface parking lot with a landscaped
residential campus that utilizes various building façade materials, articulation,
and roof designs to break down the massing of the proposed IL and AL building.
In addition, the Revised Proposed Project would increase the amount of open
space on the Project Site. For these reasons, it is the Applicant’s opinion that the
Revised Proposed Project would not adversely affect surrounding zoning districts
or decrease the value of neighboring properties.
Comment 23: A comment was received questioning why the Proposed Zoning was different in
nature than the section of the Village’s PUD ordinance that applies to The Arbors
and to other PUDs. (Schlank 040)
Schlank 040 (#309): Nature of the applicant’s proposed zoning amendments appears to differ markedly from the nature of the matters addressed in the site-specific Arbors Code. For each of the proposed zoning amendments, which ones does the applicant believe are similar in nature to the ones in the Arbors site-specific section? Which ones are fundamentally different in that the changes would create a significant variance from the laws that apply to other PUDs in the Village?
Response 23: The Revised Proposed Zoning was prepared to establish appropriate densities for
senior living facilities, as opposed to standard market-rate housing, as well as to
add site-specific setback requirements that were not included in the PUD zoning
district. While the Applicant was not involved with the adoption of the site-
specific section of the PUD dealing with The Arbors, it is the Applicant’s
understanding that the purpose of those zoning amendments were different from
those of the instant proposed amendments.
Comment 24: Comments were received questioning why the Village would allow another non-
conforming PUD when The Arbors is already a non-conforming PUD. (Mignogna
001, Schlank 041)
Mignogna 001 (#7): The Arbors is a non-conforming PUD does the Village Board wish to have another non-conforming PUD if so is the Board opening up a new can of worms with regard to conforming issues?
Schlank 041 (#325): The office building was approved under the original Town of Rye resolution dated June 19, 1973. Please clarify that it does not need to be rebuilt to meet the current VRB requirements regarding the maximum height and floor area.
Response 24: The Village’s PUD zoning district allows the Lead Agency to adjust the permitted
density (both number of units per acre and amount of sf per acre) based on the
specific context of the project being proposed. In fact, it is the Applicant’s
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-20 DRAFT
understanding that, perhaps with the exception of BelleFair, there is no PUD
development within the Village that meets all of the “standard” PUD
requirements set forth in the zoning ordinance. Instead, the Lead Agency utilized
the discretion provided by the PUD zoning district to make site-specific findings
that allowed appropriately scaled development to occur that deviated from the
baseline standards of the ordinance.
As noted in the Response to Comment 36, Doral Greens, The Arbors, and The
Atria, Rye Brook, if considered separately from BelleFair, have both more units
and more sf per acre than the baseline PUD standard and Sun Homes has more sf
per acre than the baseline standard. It is the Applicant’s opinion that it is not only
legal, but appropriate, for the Lead Agency to make specific findings as to the
appropriateness of various uses, their density, and their site-specific suitability
based on the specific application proposed, inclusive of the use, layout, and
location.
Comment 25: A commenter questioned whether other amendments to the Village’s PUD should
be considered, including changing the requirement for new PUDs to be north of
the Hutchinson River Parkway (the “Parkway”). The commenter also questioned
whether periodic reviews of any new zoning were appropriate. (Schlank 040,
Schlank 041)
Schlank 040 (#310): Does the applicant agree that the purpose of its proposed amendments is to streamline the review process? If not, what is the objective? Would the applicant object to periodic after-the-fact reviews of its proposed site-specific zoning amendments? If so, which ones and why? In the applicant’s view, what would be a suitable time period for such reviews?
Schlank 041 (#324): Type 1 revisions would include statements, where appropriate, that clarify the Village will honor the terms of the original 1973 Town of Rye resolution for the Arbors/900 King Street PUD. The Arbors/900 King Street PUD is located south of
the Hutchinson River Parkway in accordance with the terms of the 1973 Town of Rye resolution which permitted PUDs to be located adjacent to or north of the Hutch. Please clarify that it does not need to be relocated to meet the VRB requirement that all PUDs must be located north of the Hutch.
Response 25: The Project Site is mapped within the Village’s PUD zoning district. As such, it
is not necessary to change the language of the PUD section of the zoning
ordinance with respect to the siting of new PUDs. If the Village determines that
other, unrelated, amendments are necessary to the Village’s zoning ordinance, it
has the authority to adopt those amendments.
Comment 26: Comments were received questioning the precedential nature of the Proposed
Zoning. (Barnett 047)
Barnett 047 (#361): They are dissolving our PUD and asking for zoning regulations to make a brand-new PUD, one that really only benefits themselves, with a zoning text that they say can’t be used by any future development.
Barnett 047 (#362): Why can’t another development in the future or some other property, if something goes out of business, do this? What can’t on King Street if the old age home that’s there falls into disrepair in 15, 20 years and you have a large property
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-21 5/14/2019
there, why can’t you say, well, there’s a four-story building right up the road and it’s right in this neighborhood, let’s build one, as well, because we have to compete with them because we’re going to be competing against that project.
Response 26: With respect to the precedential nature of the Revised Proposed Zoning, it is
important to note that zoning is a legislative act within the jurisdiction of the
Village Board. As such, the Village Board has almost unfettered discretion. In
addition, every proposed zoning amendment must be considered on its own merits.
Accordingly, the mere fact that the Village Board may have approved our proposed
zoning in no way obligates it to use it as a basis for rezoning another property. Of
course, should the Village Board believe that it is in the best interest of the Village
to utilize the proposed zoning elsewhere, it has the authority to do so.
PRIOR APPROVALS AND RESOLUTIONS
Comment 27: The Village Administrator stated that, “The 1998 Village Board Resolution
regarding the zoning status of the Project Site does not necessarily determine the
project’s ‘legal status’ or that it is ‘zoning compliant’ so those statements should
be deleted.” Other commenters, including the Planning Board, asked for
clarification on the relationship between the 1998 Resolution and the Proposed
Zoning. (Bradbury 017, Planning Board 018, Schlank 040)
Bradbury 017 (#203): The May 26, 1988 Resolution does not necessarily determine the project’s “legal status” or that it is “zoning compliant” so those statements should be deleted.
Planning Board 018 (#216): Explain the relationship between, or impact of, the 1998 Resolution of the Board of Trustees (DEIS, Appendix B-2) and the proposed Zoning Amendments and Concept Plan.
Schlank 040 (#313): The 1998 Village of Rye Brook Resolution states that, "any modifications should continue to be governed by the PUD regulations in effect under the Town Code as of the date of the original Site Plan Approval, rather than the provisions currently governing a PUD under the Rye Brook Code."
Response 27: Comment noted. The 1998 Resolution, included as Appendix B-2 of the DEIS,
stated that, “The Site and all existing conditions, improvements, and information
as shown on the current site plan are hereby deemed to have been developed and
in accordance with the original site plan approval and the applicable regulations
of the Town Code (the “Approved Site Plan”) and, accordingly, are legally
conforming.”
At the time of the approval of the PUD, of which 900 King Street is a part, all of
the property was within the municipal boundaries of the Town of Rye and,
accordingly, subject to the provisions of the Town of Rye Zoning Code.
Subsequently, on July 7, 1982, the Village was incorporated. The land comprising
the subject PUD, including 900 King Street, The Arbors, Harkness Park, and the
Rye Brook schools were all within the municipal boundaries of the new Village.
On July 24, 1984, the Board of Trustees adopted a Zoning Code for the Village.
With respect to amendments to a PUD, the Town of Rye Zoning Code requires
the consent of all of the owners within the PUD. The Village Zoning Code
contains no such requirement. There are state statutes as well as case law that
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-22 DRAFT
dictate what zoning code applies to 900 King Street. The first relevant state statute
is Town Law § 132, which reads in full as follows:
“A rule, regulation, or ordinance of a town shall be effective and
operative only in that portion of such town outside of any
incorporated village or city therein, except as otherwise
specifically provided by statute.”
In other words, as soon as the Village was incorporated, the Village became a
separate municipal entity and the Town’s Zoning Ordinance no longer governed
the subject property, except temporarily as set forth below.
In order to provide an opportunity for a newly incorporated Village to establish
its own codes, including zoning, § 2-250 of the Village Law provides in relevant
part as follows:
“For a period of two years after the date of incorporation, all
local laws, ordinances, rules or regulations, which otherwise
would apply to and affect only such part of a town as is outside
the limits of any incorporated village…including, but not limited
to, zoning ordinances, shall remain in effect in such village…as
if same had been duly adopted by the board of trustees….”
This statute further provides that the Board of Trustees may adopt legislation to take
effect before the two years have expired. In other words, once a village is incorporated
within a town, the town’s codes and ordinances remain in effect until superseded by
Village legislation, or for a period of two years, whichever occurs first.
Based upon the date of incorporation of the Village (July 7, 1982), and absent
intervening legislation, the Zoning Code of the Town of Rye would have
remained in effect until July 7, 1984, the expiration of the two year “grace period”
established by Village Law § 2-250. The Village Zoning Code would thereafter
have taken effect on July 24, 1984 when it was adopted by the Board of Trustees.
Notwithstanding the 1998 Village Board Resolution, pursuant to the clear and
unambiguous language of the foregoing state statutes, the Town of Rye Zoning
Code has been of no force and effect whatsoever within the boundaries of the
incorporated Village of Rye Brook since July 24, 1984. The consent provision of
the Town of Rye Code is, therefore, not applicable to the current zoning petition.
While the unambiguous language set forth in the Town of Rye Law and the
Village Law described above makes it clear that the Town of Rye Zoning Code
has no applicability within the Village, case law demonstrates that, even if it were
to be applicable (which the Applicant does not in any way concede), the consent
provision is violative of the Federal constitution and, therefore, invalid.
In practical terms, if the Town of Rye Zoning Code provision regarding consent
of the owners were applicable and enforceable, any single unit owner within The
Arbors could prevent any proposed amendment whatsoever with respect to 900
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-23 5/14/2019
King Street. Numerous cases provide that such a consent provision cannot stand
because it is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power in violation of the
14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Those cases include Eubank
v. Richmond, 226 U.S. 137 (1912); Washington ex. rel. Seattle Title Trust Co. v.
Roberge, 278 U.S. 116 (1928); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356; Concordia
Collegiate Institute v. Miller, 301 NY 189 (1950); Crossroads Realty, Inc. v.
Gilbert, 109 NYS2d 59 (Supreme Court, Westchester County, 1951); In re N.Y.,
New Haven & Hartford R.R. Co., 198 NYS2d 353 (Supreme Court, Westchester
County, 1960); and General Elec. Co. v. New York State Dep’t of Labor, 936 F.
2d 1448 (2d Circuit, 1991).
The provisions of Town Law § 132 and Village Law § 2-250 are clear and
unambiguous. When the Village was incorporated, all Town Ordinances,
including the Zoning Ordinance, were rendered ineffective in the Village, except
for the two-year grace period established by Village Law § 2-250. Accordingly,
since July 24, 1984, when the Board of Trustees adopted a Zoning Code for the
Village, the only relevant and effective zoning provisions governing any property
within the Village were those contained in the Rye Brook Zoning Code.
Even if the Town of Rye Zoning Code were somehow deemed to be applicable to
900 King Street, the cases listed above demonstrate that the unanimous consent
provision is unconstitutional and unenforceable as an improper delegation of
legislative powers.
Comment 28: Several comments were received questioning the relationship between the
original approval for the Project Site (e.g., the existing office building and parking
lot) by the Town of Rye and the Proposed Zoning amendments and Concept Plan.
(Planning Board 018, Schlank 040, Schlank 068)
Planning Board 018 (#214): Explain the relationship, if any, between the property’s original PUD approval by the Town of Rye and the proposed Zoning amendments and Concept Plan.
Schlank 040 (#308): The Applicant should not be permitted to avoid its obligations under the Town of Rye regulations by submitting proposed zoning amendments to the Village without the consent of the other owners in the PUD...Demolition of the office building would trigger a requirement to comply with the specifications of the Village zoning code. This does not mean the applicant can completely ignore the provisions of the original Town of Rye resolution.
Schlank 040 (#311): Please include in the FEIS all known and relevant terms, conditions, provisions, benchmarks and precedents reflected in the Town’s PUD regulations and site-specific approvals.
Schlank 040 (#312): All of the permitted 250 dwellings have already been built in the Arbors section of the PUD. So, under the Town’s ruling, the number of additional dwelling units that can be built now is zero. Why does the applicant think the addition of any dwelling units at all is consistent with the intent of the original PUD regulations?
Schlank 040 (#316): Why does the Applicant believe that any expansion beyond the original footprint of the office building is consistent with the intent of the PUD regulations and precedents?
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-24 DRAFT
Schlank 068 (#540): All but one of the alternatives presented in the DEIS involves construction of new housing facilities, and this is not permitted by the site-specific regulations that apply to 900 King Street.
Schlank 068 (#541): It would be helpful for the applicant to get an independent opinion from an outside realtor about how other businesses might use the existing building.
Schlank 068 (#544): The Town Code also established a process by which any modifications to the approved site plan for the 60-acre PUD must be signed by all the owners of property within this PUD zone. In effect, this resolution provides assurances to the property owners that no major changes will be made without our [Arbors’
property owners] consent.
Schlank 041 (#571): Type 2 revisions would include assurances that the Village will also honor other rights and conditions specified in the original resolution for the Arbors/900 King Street PUD. Specifically, the revisions should clarify that the Village will enforce the following: (1) Please clarify that the Village will not approve any changes in land use from those originally approved by the Town of Rye without the consent of all the property owners in the PUD. For the Arbors/ 900 King Street PUD, this means the application must be filed jointly by the individual owners of the 250 private properties as well as the owner of the streets and common areas (the Arbors HOA). (2) Please clarify that the Village will not approve any changes in land use from those originally approved by the Town of Rye if the proposed changes would violate the 1973 restrictions with regard to the maximum number of residences within a PUD. For the Arbors/900 King Street PUD, the maximum has already been met (250 dwelling units and/or 450 bedrooms or sleeping quarters as defined therein).
Response 28: See Response to Comment 27.
Comment 29: A comment was received suggesting that open space required by the original
approval by the Town of Rye to be permanently preserved should be preserved in
the Proposed Project. (Schlank 041)
Schlank 041 (#326): Please clarify that the Village will not approve any changes in land use that infringe on areas that are designated as “permanent” open space in the Town of Rye resolution.
Response 29: The Applicant is not aware of any easement or other covenant that restricts the
use of any land on the Project Site for open space, other than the easement
benefitting the BBRUFSD for the purpose of the pedestrian path on the Site’s
eastern boundary, which will be improved with the Revised Proposed Project.
(See Appendix B-3 in the DEIS for the Site’s current deed, covenants, and
restrictions.)
PROPOSED ZONING
Comment 30: Comments were received questioning whether the Proposed Project, or a
modification thereof, could be constructed without modifications to the existing
zoning. (Planning Board 018, Snyder 045, Schlank 068)
Planning Board 018 (#217): Consider whether the Project, or a modified version thereof, can be developed without amending the Zoning Code and instead relying on waivers by the Board of Trustees or variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Snyder 045 (#351): It is so out of scale, and the developer should be able to follow your text. There’s no absolute reason for them to have all these different uses.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-25 5/14/2019
Schlank 068 (#542): The discussion of alternatives should be updated to take into account the provisions of those documents and to include additional realistic and practical alternatives that will not require zoning waivers or amendments.
Response 30: The PUD zoning district grants wide latitude to the Lead Agency to establish the
project-specific densities and setbacks appropriate for development within the
PUD district. Section 250-7(E)(3) of the Village Code states that, “The Village
Board shall retain the jurisdiction to waive, in whole or in part, dimensional
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for flexibility of design in the site
plan.” The section goes on to specifically indicate that the density requirements
for residential uses, and by extension, senior living facilities, “may be waived, in
whole or in part, to permit additional floor area…if the development provides
affordable housing equivalent to 10 percent in number of the market-rate dwelling
units in such development.” As such, the Lead Agency has the authority to
approve the number of units proposed, as well as the GFA proposed, for the
Revised Proposed Project without modifying the PUD as the Revised Proposed
Project included a 10 percent affordable housing component. Similarly, the Lead
Agency has the explicit authority to “reduce the buffer in specific areas.” (Section
250-7(E)(2)(e)[1][d]) Therefore, the Lead Agency can also approve, without
modification to the existing zoning ordinance, the building and parking setbacks
included in the Revised Proposed Project. It is the Applicant’s opinion that the
only portion of the Revised Proposed Project that requires a change to the zoning
is the proposed four-story building height, which was recommended by the
Village’s Comprehensive Plan.
As stated previously, however, it is the Applicant’s opinion that it is appropriate
to set specific density requirements for senior living facilities in recognition of
the inherent difference in use, and subsequently impacts, from non-age-restricted
residential uses.
Comment 31: The Village’s Planning Consultant request a comparison of the propose zoning
with the current site zoning. (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#132): The current PUD regulations should be considered the starting point for the Applicant’s proposed zoning amendments and PUD Concept Plan. The proposed 26,000 square feet per acre gross floor area and the combined 10.4 dwelling units plus 4.8 assisted living units (total of 15.2 residential units per acre) should be reviewed against the current requirements of 9,000 square feet per acre and 6 residential units per acre, and other PUDs in Rye Brook, such as the Arbors (15,900 square feet per acre and 7 units per acre), Sun Homes at Reckson (12,000 square feet per acre and 3.5 units per acre), BelleFair (1.9 units per acre), Doral Green (7.9 units per acre). The proposed 45-foot building height and 4 story building should be compared to the current 35-foot building height for senior living facilities, and the proposed setbacks/buffers of 16 feet, 22 feet, and 70 feet should be compared to the current required buffers of 150 feet, 100 feet, and 50 feet. These comparisons should be clear when considering the new zoning and waivers requested for the Proposed Action.
Response 31: As detailed in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project,” in response to public and
Lead Agency comments, and to reduce the potential for adverse impacts, the
Applicant has reduced the size of the Revised Proposed Project from what was
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-26 DRAFT
originally included in the DEIS. Specifically, the Applicant has reduced the size
of the project by 68,818 gsf through reductions in the number of IL and townhouse
units, reductions in the IL unit sizes and number of bedrooms, and reduction in
the common and amenity spaces in the IL and AL building.
The comparative density of the Revised Proposed Project and the PUD of which
it is a part is described in detail in Response to Comment 20. The compliance of
the Revised Proposed Project with the Revised Proposed Zoning is detailed in
Section 2.3.3, “Zoning,” specifically Table 2.3-2.
The proposed three- and four-story IL and AL building is setback further from
Arbor Drive than the existing office building. The southernmost two-story
townhouse is setback approximately 88 feet from the nearest PUD zoning
boundary, while the Village’s current zoning requires a 100 foot setback (i.e.,
buffer) from a PUD zoning boundary. The proposed townhouse would be located
behind existing vegetation to remain, as well as new vegetation that would be
planted. Similarly, the proposed AL building would be approximately 87 feet
from the Site’s eastern PUD boundary, across from which is located Village Hall.
Finally, the northernmost townhouse and the northernmost wing of the IL
building would be 25 and 73 feet from the Site’s northern PUD boundary. The
Revised Proposed Project purposefully locates these buildings to the north to
minimize visual impacts from Arbor Drive as the Site shares a northern boundary
with the Hutchinson River Parkway.
The Revised Proposed Zoning would allow these deviations from the standard
PUD buffers by utilizing the Board of Trustee’s current power under the existing
PUD zoning to set site-specific PUD buffer requirements.
Comment 32: The Village’s Planning Consultant requested a comparison of proposed PUD
standards with existing PUD standards. (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#133): Revision of the PUD regulations is recommended in the Rye Brook 2014 Comprehensive Plan, provided any changes made maintain “…Rye Brook’s low density character,” which consists of the number of dwelling units, the size and gross floor area of the units, and the type of buildings housing the units on a lot. Any
revised PUD standards should not stand out from, but should maintain the low density character and complement the existing zoning and land uses in the neighborhoods surrounding the Site, which are predominately attached townhomes, local civic buildings (middle/high school, firehouse and village hall), and detached single family homes...Consideration of the buffer/setback requirements should be based, as a starting point, on the current PUD regulations because the Proposed Action is a completely new use and concept plan for the Site. The consideration by the Village Board of revisions to the current requirements should include a determination of the appropriate setbacks/buffers for the size and location of the proposed building allowable under the new zoning and its PUD Concept Plan regarding loading areas, roads, and parking areas, and the environmental constraints of the site, such as the presence of steep slopes and wetlands and wetland buffer areas.
Response 32: As discussed in Section 2.3.4, “Public Policy,” and Section 2.8.3, “Consistency
of the Revised Proposed Project with the Existing Visual and Community
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-27 5/14/2019
Character,” the Revised Proposed Project is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan’s recommendation to allow increased residential density at the Project Site
in a manner that maintains the predominantly low-density character of the
Village. As stated in Section 2.3.3, “Zoning,” specific buffers and setbacks
proposed as part of the Revised Proposed Project are appropriate for the buildings
and uses. Further, such buffers and setbacks support the ecological benefit of on-
Site environmental resources when balanced with the need to avoid and minimize
other potential adverse impacts (e.g., visual impacts). See Response to
Comment 20.
Comment 33: The Village’s Planning Consultant stated that, “The setbacks of the proposed
PUD Concept Plan do not conform with the proposed zoning, which would
require the Board to waive certain of the proposed zoning setbacks. The Applicant
should explain these differences.” (FP Clark 012, Timpone-Mohamed 043)
FP Clark 012 (#134): The setbacks of the proposed PUD Concept Plan are less
restrictive than the proposed zoning, which would require the Village Board to waive certain of the setbacks in the zoning proposed by the Applicant. The Applicant should explain the need for the differences.
Timpone-Mohamed 043 (#335): We had a question about the difference between the zoning petitions requirements for setbacks in particular, and the setbacks that are part of the PUD concept plan. Since this is a zoning that is directly related to the concept plan, it is unclear why they don’t match. Right now, the PUD plan that’s in the DEIS actually doesn’t comply with the zoning that they’re asking for. It wouldn’t comply; it would need a waiver.
Response 33: The compliance of the Revised Proposed Project with the Revised Proposed
Zoning is detailed in Section 2.3.3, “Zoning,” specifically Table 2.3-2. Consistent
with the Board of Trustee’s existing authority to establish site specific PUD buffer
standards, pursuant to Section 250-7E(2)(e)[1][d] of the Zoning Code, the
Revised Proposed Zoning explicitly states that Site Plans in conformance with the
site-specific yard requirements established by the Revised Proposed Zoning shall
also be deemed to have an adequate PUD buffer.
Comment 34: The Village’s Planning Board questioned how the 40 percent gross land coverage
included in the Proposed Zoning compares with gross land coverage in other
existing PUDs and why 40 percent was chosen for the Proposed Zoning?
(Planning Board 018)
Planning Board 018 (#222): How does 40% gross land coverage compare with gross land coverage in other existing PUDs? How was the 40% figure arrived at?
Response 34: The current PUD zoning regulations do not contain a maximum gross land
coverage (e.g., maximum impervious cover). As was included in the original
zoning, the Revised Proposed Zoning includes a 40 percent maximum land
coverage, which is less than the existing condition on-Site and only slightly more
(0.05 percent) than is proposed with the Revised Proposed Project.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-28 DRAFT
As noted in the DEIS, the building coverage of the original project as a percent
of the total lot size would be less than Doral Greens, similar to that of The Arbors
and the Hilton Westchester, and slightly higher than 800 Westchester Avenue and
the Doral Arrowwood Conference Center. With the Revised Proposed Project, the
Site’s building coverage as a percentage of lot area would continue to be less than
the Doral Greens and would be slightly higher than The Arbors. The Site’s total
land coverage as a percent of lot area with the Revised Proposed Project would
be similar to The Arbors and continue to be less than Doral Greens. In addition,
both the original project and the Revised Proposed Project, would reduce the
Site’s gross land coverage from the existing Site condition. Table 3.3-2 provides
a comparison of parcel size, building coverage, and gross land coverage for other
properties within the Village. In the Applicant’s opinion, the relative amount of
building and site coverage proposed is consistent with other properties in the
Village, especially when considering the Project Site’s location, its limited
visibility from areas outside of the Project Site, and the Project’s proposed
reduction from impervious Site coverage.
Table 3.3-2 Parcel Coverage Comparison
Site
Parcel Size (ac)
Building Coverage (ac)
Roads, Drives, Parking (ac)
Total Site Coverage (ac)
Percent Building Coverage
Percent Other Coverage
Percent Total Coverage
Existing Condition 17.77 2.17 5.29 7.46 12.22% 29.77% 41.99% Original Project 17.77 3.14 3.91 7.05 17.67% 22.00% 39.67% Revised Proposed Project 17.77 2.97 4.13 7.10 16.71% 23.24% 39.95%
The Arbors 35.29 5.58 6.26 11.83 15.80% 17.73% 33.53%
The Arbors (w/o Arbor Drive) 33.49 5.58 5.26 10.83 16.65% 15.70% 32.34%
800 Westchester Ave 44.94 5.46 6.30 11.76 12.15% 14.02% 26.17%
Hilton Westchester 35.52 3.80 7.10 10.89 10.69% 19.97% 30.67%
Doral Arrowwood Conference Center 105.93 10.67 13.51 24.18 10.07% 12.76% 22.83%
Doral Green 23.13 5.63 4.73 10.36 24.37% 20.47% 44.84%
Notes: *includes area of pervious pavers Sources: Westchester County GIS & 900 King Site Survey and Proposed Project (originally included as Table 8-2 in the DEIS)
Comment 35: The Planning Board stated that, “The AL units should be considered ‘dwelling
units’ for the purposes of calculating the number of units of affordable housing
that are required for the Project. The Applicant should consider providing
additional affordable housing units beyond what is currently proposed.”
(Planning Board 018, Tazbin 071)
Planning Board 018 (#230): The assisted living units should be considered “dwelling units” for the purposes of calculating the number of units of affordable housing that are required for the project. The Applicant should consider providing additional affordable housing units beyond what is currently proposed.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-29 5/14/2019
Tazbin 071 (#565): What about affordable housing units? I know there a lot of units going up like this around the county and I’ve heard that other units have affordable housing units. Would this have any?
Response 35: The requirement for providing affordable housing (AFFH) units is set forth in
Section 209-3F of the Village Code. That section states in part that affordable
units “…shall be provided as set forth in the table below when the new
construction of a minimum of 11 dwelling units is proposed in a site development
plan application.” (emphasis added)
The table referred to above bases the number of required AFFH units on the
“Number of Proposed Dwelling Units” (emphasis added). According to the chart,
a project comprising 41 to 50 dwelling units requires four AFFH units. For
projects over 50 dwelling units, the chart provides “1 additional AFFH Unit shall
be required for each additional increment of 10 dwelling units or part
thereof.”(emphasis added)
The Zoning Code defines a “dwelling unit” as follows: “A building, or portion
thereof, providing complete housekeeping facilities for one family.”
Inasmuch as the assisted living units do not contain kitchens, they do not provide
“complete housekeeping facilities” and, therefore, they are not dwelling units as
defined in the Village Code. Accordingly, they cannot be considered in the
calculation of the number of required AFFH units.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Comment 36: Comments were received requesting clarity on the Proposed Project’s consistency
with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. (FP Clark 012, Marrow 024, Timpone-
Mohamed 043, Rosenberg 063, Heiser 065, Klein 070)
FP Clark 012 (#136): The proposed amendments in the Applicant’s zoning petition and the accompanying proposed PUD Concept Plan would develop a high density, largescale multi-family building on a relatively small site that is not consistent with the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan in our opinion. The Applicant should re-consider the zoning petition to reduce the allowable building bulk, the number of units per acre and the gross floor area per acre to be more compatible with existing zoning adjacent to and surrounding the Site.
Marrow 024 (#251): The Comprehensive Plan is a roadmap for the future...it gives the Village options. The Comprehensive Plan talks about the Site at 900 King Street and preserving the low density character of the Site.
Timpone-Mohamed 043 (#334): I think one of the biggest issues is the requirement in the Comprehensive Plan that any changes made would maintain Rye Brook’s low density character. It is clear that the number of units and the GFA that’s being proposed isn’t in that category of low density.
Rosenberg 063 (#524): The building is too big, too bulky. The scale and massing of the
proposed building needs to be further reduced in what is presented in the FEIS.
Heiser 065 (#527): I think the buildings are too big and I think you are talking about too many people.
Klein 070 (#558): I really would like to see a reduction in size and density
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-30 DRAFT
Response 36: Based on comments from the Lead Agency and the public, the Applicant has
reduced the size of the Revised Proposed Project by 68,818 gsf—a 15.5 percent
reduction in gross floor area. The Applicant believes that this modification
addresses the concerns expressed that the size of the original project was not in
keeping with the character of the community.
As described in Section 2.3.2, “Proposed Density,” the Comprehensive Plan
encourages increased density for new residential development within PUDs and
suggests such density should not alter the Village’s overall low-density character.
With regard to allowable density for new residential developments within PUD
districts, the Comprehensive Plan prioritizes preservation of the Village’s low-
density residential character. The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically opine
or ascribe a density limit or cap for new PUD district residential development,
which would be antithetical to the explicit recommendation to allow increased
density in the PUD zones. As noted in the Comprehensive Plan, the Village is
developed with a wide variety of residential densities. In general, the
Comprehensive Plan recognized the Village’s single-family zoning districts (e.g.,
R-5 to R-25) as “low density,” allowing up to one unit per 5,000 sf of lot area. Low-
to medium-density is recognized as generally occurring within the Village’s two-
family zoning districts (e.g., R-2F), which allow two units per 5,000sf of lot area.
Finally, the medium- to high-density residential areas are defined as attached
housing, regardless of the number of units per lot area. Explicitly included in this
definition of high-density housing is Doral Greens, The Arbors, and Talcott Woods.
The Revised Proposed Project proposes 172 dwelling units, a density of 9.7
dwelling units per acre, or 1.1 dwelling units per 5,000 sf. If AL units, which are
not dwelling units, are included in calculation, total units per acre would be 14.5,
or 1.7 units per 5,000 sf. Using the Comprehensive Plan’s measure of density, the
Revised Proposed Project would be classified as “low- to medium-density.”
Using the Comprehensive Plan’s consideration of housing type, regardless of the
number of units, though the Revised Proposed Project would be considered
medium- to high-density housing, similar to The Arbors and Doral Greens. Given
that the residential density of the Revised Proposed Project is within the range of
density and type for existing housing in the Village, it is the Applicant’s opinion
that the proposed density is consistent with the overall character of the Village.
It is important to note that, as described in the Response to Comment 20,
comparing the number of units per acre of an age-restricted residential project to
the number of units in a market-rate residential project does not provide sufficient
information to evaluate differences in the “look and feel,” or “character,” of a
project. Age-restricted residential projects are inherently different from market-
rate projects in terms or architecture and site layout, and more significantly in
terms of their impacts per unit. This latter differentiating factor is critical to
understanding how the “character” of a site may change with a given use. For
example, an age-restricted residential community tends to generate significantly
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-31 5/14/2019
fewer car trips than a market-rate development. Residents of these communities
are, by requirement, older, potentially less active, and much less likely to have
children than residents in market-rate developments. For these reasons, it is the
Applicant’s opinion that it is appropriate for the Village to regulate the density of
age-restricted housing differently than market-rate housing. Further, as described
above, it is the Applicant’s opinion that the density of the Revised Proposed
Project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendation to allow
increased residential density within the PUD, while maintaining the overall low-
density character of the Village. See also Response to Comment 20.
Comment 37: A comment was received suggesting that the Comprehensive Plan’s
recommendation for allowing four-story AL facilities was likely targeted to the
proposal at the Hilton Rye Brook Site and that it was not aimed at the Project Site.
(Schlank 040)
Schlank 040 (#318): At the time the Plan was written, the Hilton Westchester had
proposed developing a 100-unit assisted-living buildings and a memory-care facility with 25 units. This is likely the site the Plan had in mind when it suggested that the Village might consider allowing assisted-living or senior care facilities to be four stories or 45 feet in height. The 2014 plan offers suggestions that relate to keeping the office buildings and making it more marketable. The Plan does not mandate (or even suggest) the kind of radical redevelopment of the portion of the PUD that is discussed in the DEIS…the plan suggests that, “the Village clearly desires to carefully control the type of largescale development that is contemplated by the PUD zone.”
Response 37: Comment noted. The Applicant is not aware of the Comprehensive Plan targeting
only one specific site for allowing four-story AL facilities. Further, as
demonstrated in the analyses in Chapter 8, “Visual Resources and Community
Character,” of the DEIS and Section 2.8, “Visual Resources and Community
Character,” the increase in allowable height from three to four stories is not
anticipated to have an adverse visual impact on neighboring properties as a result
of the deep setbacks included in the Revised Proposed Project and the
architectural design of the proposed buildings.
3.4. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND TOPOGRAPHY
Comment 38: The Village’s Planning Consultant requested an analysis demonstrating site
changes necessary to support the proposed development and amendments to the
site plan to reduce tree removal and grading impacts. (Straubinger 003, Levy 004,
Snyder 007, FP Clark 012, Snyder 045)
Straubinger 003 (#13): Increased analysis of alternatives to the Project that will incorporate less – bulk, density, and scale: impact on ground disturbance and wetlands and impact on vegetation.
Levy 004 (#21): There appears to be a lot of impervious surface
Snyder 007 (#26): The applicant’s proposal will impact 74% of the property, thereby effectively changing substantially all of the property.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-32 DRAFT
Snyder 007 (#39): Applicant should state exactly how many acres are being disturbed (regardless of whether the area was previously disturbed or not); which existing vegetated areas and the size of those areas are being disturbed with a plan showing same.
Snyder 007 (#40): A Chart should be provided to show the difference between the {the physical impacts of the} proposed zoning, existing zoning, and existing conditions, so that they can more easily be compared.
Snyder 007 (#61): The DEIS should analyze reducing the project’s scope to i) avoid erosion, ii) avoid blasting, iii) avoid cut/fill, iv) keep all buffers intact, and v) eliminate steep slope disturbance.
Snyder 007 (#63): The reduction in impervious surfaces is a mere 0.41 acres…the project is affecting the wooded areas by twice that. Alternatives should be considered which do not affect the wooded areas and do not require impacting 74% of the Property.
FP Clark 012 (#138): However, the cut and fill and grading required to achieve the proposal results in 13.17 acres of disturbance, the creation of 0.72 additional acres of steep slopes and the removal of 213 trees on the Site. The Applicant should explain the specific aspects of the existing site that prevent it from properly functioning as an age-restricted community. The PUD Concept Plan should be reconsidered by the Applicant to reduce disturbance to the Site.
Snyder 045 (#349): They are affecting over 13.17 acres of the 17-acre property. They like to say that they are reducing impervious surfaces, but it’s by like 0.4 of an acre, and they are affecting 13 of their acres, and affecting, really, the entire site in multiple ways.
Snyder 045 (#350): Project will have significant adverse environmental impact, which includes significant adverse impacts to wetlands, steep slopes, existing vegetation, aesthetics, community character, as well as affecting the community in real ways, such as having adverse noise, contaminants in the air, for a significant period of time.
Response 38: In response to comments received, the Revised Proposed Project reduces the gross
floor area of the original project by 68,818 gsf and reduces the area of the Site
proposed to be disturbed by construction from 13.17 acres with the original
project to 12.54 acres with the Revised Proposed Project. The area proposed to
be disturbed is shown on Figure 2-1 and within the full size engineering plans,
sheets C-110, “Demolition,” C-200, “Erosion & Sediment Control Plan,” and C-
400, “Grading” (see Volume 4). The Applicant also notes that with construction
of the Revised Proposed Project, the amount of impervious area on the Project
Site would be reduced from its current condition by 0.36 acres.
As described in Section 2.4.1, “Soils,” the Revised Proposed Project was designed
to create a relatively level Site. Age-restricted residential communities seek to
provide pedestrian paths and sidewalks with minimal slope so residents can easily
walk throughout the Site. However, reducing the number of townhouse units and
reconfiguring the layout of that portion of the Site allowed for the townhouses to
be located at a slightly higher elevation than the original project, reducing the
amount of “lowering” or “cut” required. As with the original project, the Revised
Proposed Project includes “raising” the elevation of the eastern side of the Site to
level the terrain. The proposed grading also allows for underground parking,
which in addition to reducing the adverse visual impact of expansive surface
parking lot, reduces the amount of impervious cover on the Site concomitant
potential for adverse stormwater impacts.
As stated in Section 2.4.2, “Topography,” the Revised Proposed Project would
create new areas of steep slope on the Project Site, most notably in areas around
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-33 5/14/2019
the access ramp to the underground parking area (see Figure 2-2 and Table 2.4-4).
These areas of steep slope are necessary to allow for a grading plan that
accommodates the underground parking, the need for a relatively flat pedestrian
experience outside of the buildings, and the need to meet the existing grades on
Arbor Drive at the driveway connections. Another small area of moderately steep
slope would be created within the landscaped area between the two driveways on
Arbor Drive. This area would provide visual screening of the buildings and Site
from Arbor Drive.
With respect to the proposed removal of trees, as stated in Section 2.7.4, “Trees,”
the number of trees proposed to be removed has been reduced from 213 with the
original project to 128 with the Revised Proposed Project. As was the case with
the original project, the majority of the trees proposed to be removed with the
Revised Proposed Project are less than 25 inches diameter breast height (dbh).
Only 8 trees proposed for removal have a dbh of 25 inches or greater. As shown
on sheet C-130 of the full size plans in Volume 4, most of the trees proposed for
removal are in two areas: (1) the emergency access drive, and (2) north and east
of the existing stormwater basin. With respect to the trees proposed to be removed
in the northeast of the Site, the Applicant respectfully submits that this removal
serves a legitimate public safety purpose—providing a secondary means of
accessing the Project Site. The tree removal proposed around the existing
stormwater basin is required to accommodate the expansion of the stormwater
basin as a result of the modern stormwater system that is being installed as part
of the Revised Proposed Project.
The overwhelming majority of the area within the proposed Limit of Disturbance
(LOD) for the Revised Proposed Project is within areas disturbed by the
immediately preceding Site development (e.g., construction of the existing office
building and parking lot). Any disturbance outside the existing building and
parking lot footprint was likely disturbed by the prior development on the Site
(e.g., the residential use). By concentrating development activities in areas
previously disturbed by construction, the Revised Proposed Project avoids and
minimizes impacts to mature vegetation, native soils, and native topography to
the maximum extent practicable. For example, the soils proposed to be disturbed
are classified as “Urban Fill.” This classification is the consequence of prior
disturbance through mass grading and building construction. The majority of
proposed steep slopes disturbance occurs on human-made steep slopes, including
those around the existing stormwater basin on the Site’s eastern edge and the
vegetated slope towards the Site’s western edge. (See Appendix B for site plans
depicting the condition of the Site prior to development of the current office
building as well as the changes in topography proposed by construction of the
office building.)
Table 17-1 in the DEIS provides a direct comparison between the area proposed
to be disturbed for each of the alternatives studied and the original project.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-34 DRAFT
Construction activity in previously disturbed areas is not, in and of itself, a
significant adverse impact. Rather, it is the Applicant’s opinion that to determine
the significance of the re-disturbance, impacts to vegetation and wildlife, and
erosion during construction should be considered. As described in Section 2.7,
“Vegetation and Wildlife,” the Revised Proposed Project would not have a
significant adverse impact on vegetation or wildlife. Similarly, as described in
Sections 2.6, “Stormwater,” and Section 2.16, “Construction,” the Revised
Proposed Project would implement a Village- and State-approved Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) to avoid and mitigate the potential for significant
adverse impacts from erosion during construction.
Comment 39: Comments were received opining that the cut-and-fill required for the Proposed
Project is “enormous” and that alternatives to the underground parking or
elimination of the IL building should be considered in order that the impacts from
the cut-and-fill be reduced. (Snyder 007)
Snyder 007 (#52): The cut and fill is an enormous volume of material. The Applicant
should be sure that no blasting will be required, rather than just claim it is not anticipated. Additionally the impacts {of the cut/fill/grading} on the neighborhood in terms of noise, dust, vermin, vibration, and other adverse impacts should be more adequately analyzed.
Snyder 007 (#60): The DEIS should provide alternatives to the underground parking and as a proper mitigation measure, eliminate the independent living component from the project.
Response 39: As noted in Section 2.4.1, “Soils,” the Revised Proposed Project reduces the
excavation, or cut, required as well as the fill required within the Site. As shown in
Table 3.4-1, the Revised Proposed Project also reduces the net cut-and-fill
compared to the original project, which further mitigates potential adverse impacts
related to on-Site construction activities and off-Site trucking of earthen material.
Table 3.4-1
Cut-and-Fill Analysis
Total Cut (cubic yards) Total Fill (cubic yards) Net Cut-and-Fill (cubic yards)
Original Project ±42,600 ±51,600 ±9,000 net import
Revised Proposed Project ±37,958 ±36,686 ±1,272 net import
Source: JMC Engineering.
The potential impacts associated with the cut-and-fill proposed are evaluated in
the DEIS and this FEIS, specifically in Section 2.6, “Stormwater Management,”
Section 2.7, “Vegetation and Wildlife,” and Section 2.16, “Construction.”
Comment 40: The Village’s Planning Consultant stated that, “The DEIS states that areas of
steep slopes along the northern, western, and southeastern portion of the Project
Site have been avoided. However, based on Figure 4-5, the slopes along the
northern and western portions of the Site have been disturbed and in some cases
result in additional steep slopes. The Applicant should explain specifically how
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-35 5/14/2019
the areas have been avoided. Based on review of the PUD Concept Plan the areas
have not been avoided. The only way to completely avoid these areas would be
for the PUD Concept Plan to be reconsidered by the Applicant to reduce
disturbance to the Site.” (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#139): The [DEIS] states that areas of steep slopes along the northern, western, and southeastern portion of the Project Site have been avoided. However, based on Figure 4-5 “Proposed Steep Slope Condition,” the slopes along the northern and western portions of the site have been disturbed and in some cases result in additional steep slopes. The Applicant should explain specifically how the areas have been avoided. Based on review of the PUD Concept Plan the areas have not been avoided. The only way to completely avoid these areas would be for the PUD Concept Plan to be reconsidered by the Applicant to reduce disturbance to the Site.
Response 40: As shown in Table 2.4-3, the Revised Proposed Project reduces the impact to the
existing steep slopes on the Project Site from the original project. Specifically,
and as shown in Figure 2-1, the Revised Proposed Project avoids the existing area
of steep slopes in the northern portion of the Site adjacent to the Hutchinson River
Parkway right-of-way. Similarly, the Revised Proposed Project does not disturb
the areas of steep slopes in the western portion of the Site, between the existing
office building and the Arbors, which are primarily located within the wetland
buffer for Wetland A. Finally, the Revised Proposed Project reduces the area of
the Site proposed to be impacted by construction from 13.21 with the original
project acres to 12.54 acres with the Revised Proposed Project.
Comment 41: The Village’s Planning Consultant stated that, “The DEIS then concludes that
there is a possibility of a perched water flowing beneath the asphalt into OW-2,
one of the temporary observation wells installed during the preliminary
geotechnical investigation. The Applicant should explain how this conclusion
was made. If there is perched water beneath the Site, why were extra monitoring
wells not installed to explore the extent of the perched water. The Applicant
should explain why the two locations for the groundwater observation wells were
chosen and why other locations on the Site were excluded from groundwater
observation.” (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#137): The DEIS then concludes that there is a possibility of a perched water flowing beneath the asphalt into OW-2. The Applicant should explain how this conclusion was made. If there is perched water beneath the site, why were extra monitoring wells not installed to explore the extent of the perched water? The Applicant should explain why the two locations for the groundwater observation wells were chosen and why other locations on the site were excluded from groundwater observation.
Response 41: AKRF’s preliminary geotechnical engineering report for the Project Site was
prepared in 2017 (see DEIS Appendix I). As part of this exploration, two wells
(OW-1 and OW-2) were installed near the eastern and northwestern areas of the
Site where proposed buildings were to be sited. The locations of the wells were
intended for geotechnical engineering purposes in developing design and
construction recommendations for the proposed foundations. Section 6.7.3 of the
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-36 DRAFT
DEIS indicated that due to the difference in groundwater levels (6 feet in OW-1
and 2 feet in OW-2), localized areas of perched water may be present at the
Project Site. No definitive conclusion was stated that the water was perched. The
section also indicated that additional efforts were to be taken to confirm the depth
to groundwater. Additional testing was performed by AKRF in January of 2018
to further investigate the possibility of perched groundwater. An additional
observation well was drilled and installed approximately 10 feet southwest of
OW-2 and the depth to groundwater in wells OW-1, OW-2 and OW-2X were
measured at 3.73 feet below grade, 1.14 feet below grade, and 0.98 feet below
grade. These results indicate the presence of high groundwater, not perched
groundwater. The observed groundwater condition is very consistent with the area
where low permeability, heterogeneous dense glacial till overlying a shallow
bedrock results in a variable shallow groundwater condition.
3.5. WATERS AND WETLANDS
Comment 42: The Village’s Planning Consultant recommends that the Applicant re-consider
the zoning proposed and the PUD Concept Plan to reduce or eliminate disturbance
of wetlands buffers on the property so the PUD Concept Plan complies with the
requirements of Chapter 245 of the Village Code, which recommends avoidance
of impacts. (Snyder 007, FP Clark 012, Timpone-Mohamed 043)
Snyder 007 (#62): The project has significant grading requirements and would reduce the drainage area to at least one of the wetlands by at least 1 acre, and impact 2.79 acres of wetlands through regrading, new construction, and new plantings. Project alternatives should be considered whereby these impacts [waters and wetlands] are eliminated since wetlands have important function in the environment.
FP Clark 012 (#141): Before mitigation is considered by the wetland regulations, Chapter 245 encourages the conservation of wetland buffers and recommends re-design of impactful projects to eliminate or reduce impacts. We recommend that the Applicant re-consider the zoning proposed and the PUD Concept Plan to reduce or eliminate disturbance of wetlands buffers on the property so the PUD Concept Plan complies with the requirements of Chapter 245.
Timpone-Mohamed 043 (#336): Right now the application -- the PUD concept plan that is being provided actually does not comply with the requirements of the wetlands law. That will have to be resolved in the FEIS.
Response 42: In response to public comments and to reduce potential impacts to wetland buffers
as well as to mitigate the overall impact of the Revised Proposed Project, the
Revised Proposed Project reduces the total amount of construction required
within 100 feet of on-Site wetlands to 2.25 acres—a reduction of 0.33 acres (13
percent) from the original project (see Section 2.5.2, “Direct Impacts to Wetland
and Waterbody Buffer Areas”). Further, the Revised Proposed Project reduces the
total amount of additional impervious area proposed to be created within 100 feet
of on-Site wetlands to 0.100 acres—a reduction of 0.013 acres (12 percent) from
the original project (see Table 3.5-1). The increase in impervious area within 100
feet of on-Site wetlands would be approximately 4,356 square feet, or one-tenth
of an acre, with the Revised proposed Project. As discussed in Section 2.6,
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-37 5/14/2019
“Stormwater,” the amount of impervious area within the Project Site would be
reduced with the Revised Proposed Project. In the Applicant’s opinion, this
increase is not a significant adverse impact and, in fact, the reduction of
impervious area within the Site as a whole is actually a beneficial impact of the
Revised Proposed Project.
Table 3.5-1 Cumulative Changes to Wetland Buffers by Wetland Area
Existing Buffer Area (acres)
Existing On-Site Impervious Coverage in Buffer (acres)1
Proposed Impervious in Buffer (acres)
Net Increase/Decrease in Impervious in Buffer (acres)
Original Project
Revised Proposed Project Original Project
Revised Proposed Project
Wetland A / Stream A 2.363 0.025 0.005 0.000 -0.020 -0.025
Wetland B/C 0.893 0.101 0.370 0.365 0.269 0.264 Wetland D / Stream S 1.444 0.681 0.473 0.461 -0.208 -0.220 Wetland E2 0.248 0.000 0.072 0.081 0.072 0.081
Total 4.948 0.807 0.920 0.907 0.113 0.100
Note: 1 There is additional impervious area within the 100-foot buffer that is located on adjacent parcels. 2 The FEIS considers the grasscrete emergency access drive to be impervious, while the DEIS considered this area to be permeable. Source: JMC Engineering
As noted above, approximately 0.807 acres of land within 100 feet of the on-Site
wetlands is currently impervious (e.g., building or parking area). These areas
currently provide no beneficial wetland buffer function. As shown in Figure 2-3
and Table 3.5-2, with the Revised Proposed Project, approximately 0.57 acres of
vegetated functional wetland buffer would be converted to impervious surface
(adjacent to Wetlands B/C, E, and Stream S); however, approximately 0.40 acres
of currently impervious wetland buffer (adjacent to Wetlands A and D) would be
restored to a vegetated condition. Approximately 0.34 acres of wetland buffer that
is currently impervious will remain in impervious. The remaining 0.94 acres of
wetland buffer that would be affected by construction of the Revised Proposed
Project would consist of regrading and revegetating areas that are currently
maintained lawn or wooded areas, most of which have been previously disturbed
by previous on-Site development (see Figure 2-3). By locating development
within the central, previously disturbed and developed portion of the Project Site,
the total amount of impervious area within the Site’s wetland buffers would only
increase by approximately 4,356 sf with the Revised Proposed Project from its
current condition. In the Applicant’s opinion, this increase is not a significant
adverse impact and, in fact, the 0.36 acre reduction of impervious area within the
Site as a whole with the Revised Proposed Project is actually a beneficial impact
of the Revised Proposed Project.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-38 DRAFT
Table 3.5-2 Impacts to Wetland Buffers by Current Coverage Type
Existing Site Condition
Condition with Original Project Condition with Revised Proposed Project
Impervious Permeable Impervious Permeable
Impervious 0.44 ac 0.34 ac 0.34 ac 0.40 ac
Permeable 0.47 ac 1.33 ac1 0.57 ac 0.94 ac
Total Area Impacted by Construction
0.92 ac 1.93 ac 0.91 ac 1.34 ac
2.58 ac2 2.25 ac2
Notes: 1 Values do not include the clearing and improvement of the stormwater basin, which area was included in the tables included in the DEIS. 2 Values provided only for wetland buffer areas physically impacted by construction of the Revised Proposed Project. Approximately 2.698 acres of wetland buffer on-Site would not be altered by construction of the Revised Proposed Project.
Also as noted in Section 2.5.2, “Direct Impacts to Wetland and Waterbody Buffer
Areas,” the Revised Proposed Project would not, in the Applicant’s opinion,
adversely impact the ecological functions of the Site’s wetland buffers. Both
Wetlands A and D would realize a net decrease in the amount of impervious
surface within their 100-foot Village-regulated wetland buffers as compared to
the current condition. Wetland A would have a 0.025-acre reduction of
impervious surface within its wetland buffer as a result of removing the existing
building and Wetland D would have a 0.22 acre reduction of impervious surface
within its buffer as a result of removing the existing parking lot. In the Applicant’s
opinion, this is a substantial benefit of the Revised Proposed Project, which will
allow for additional infiltration of runoff in the buffers and a reduction in surface
water pollutants entering these wetlands.
While Wetlands B, C, and E would have slight increases in impervious areas with
the Revised Proposed Project, this impact is, in the Applicant’s opinion,
insignificant for two reasons. First, Wetlands B, C, and E are of low ecological
value, deriving their hydrology from the discharge of drainage from the Parkway
or other off-Site practices. Second, the wetland buffers themselves are dominated
by invasive species or manicured lawn and are heavily disturbed by development.
As such, in their current condition, they provide little in the way of functional
benefit to their associated wetlands.
With respect to compliance with Chapter 245 of the Village Code, and for the
reasons detailed in Section 2.5.2 and repeated below, it is the Applicant’s opinion
that the Revised Proposed Project, inclusive of the reduction in wetland buffer
area disturbance and the reduction in impervious area within the wetland buffers,
meets the criteria for the issuance of a wetland buffer disturbance permit.
Section 245-8(A) of the Village Code states that the following factors, highlighted
below should be considered, to determine “the impact of the proposed activity
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-39 5/14/2019
upon public health, safety and welfare, flora and fauna, rare and endangered
species, water quality, and additional wetland functions.”
• Wetland hydrology: The Revised Proposed Project would avoid interference with existing wetland hydrology and wetland water circulation. The Site’s five wetlands occur around the periphery of the Project Site; therefore, and as
described in more detail above, redevelopment of the interior of the Project Site would not substantially change wetland water circulation or hydrologic inputs to the Site’s wetlands.
• Wetland flora and fauna: By avoiding direct disturbance to all wetlands, impacts to wetland flora and fauna are avoided. The Revised Proposed Project
would limit disturbance to natural vegetation by keeping development within the previously developed portions of the Site with the exception of minimal tree clearing for the loop road and emergency access drive. All landscape
plantings will be native species and will include revegetation (i.e., enhancement) of portions of the existing lawn within the wetland buffers, thereby improving the habitat functions of the existing wetland buffers.
• Endangered species: There are no New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)-listed or federally listed threatened, endangered, rare, or special concern plant or animal species on the Project Site, as discussed in Section 2.7, “Vegetation and Wildlife.”
• Public health, safety, and welfare: Wetland functions would be retained on the Project Site for the benefit of public health, safety, and welfare. This would be achieved principally by reducing overall impervious surface coverage on-Site
by 0.36 acres and increasing the treatment of stormwater runoff.
• Sedimentation and turbidity: The Revised Proposed Project would prevent
the influx of sediments and other pollutants to the Site’s wetlands and waters by treating runoff from the Revised Proposed Project in a new stormwater management system that would significantly improve treatment and result in
reduced post-construction runoff rates, in accordance with NYSDEC GP-0-15-002, as discussed in Section 2.6, “Stormwater Management.”
• Influx of toxic chemicals or thermal changes: The Revised Proposed Project would avoid the release of toxic or heavy metals through the construction of the proposed stormwater management system. The stormwater management
system would remove such pollutants through sediment settling and absorption/adsorption. Thermal changes to wetland water supply would be avoided by reducing the amount of impervious surface on the overall Site by 0.36 acres, which would increase stormwater infiltration and minimize the potential for thermal impacts. In addition, the stormwater management plan will utilize sub-surface runoff storage that would similarly avoid the thermal impacts associated with surface detention ponds.
• Cumulative effects: The cumulative effects of the Revised Proposed Project
would not affect or jeopardize off-Site/downstream wetlands because the Revised Proposed Project’s stormwater management plan and landscaping plan would prevent degradation of stormwater runoff and would use native plants to improve vegetation diversity on the Project Site.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-40 DRAFT
As noted by the Village’s Planning Consultant, Chapter 245 of the Village Code
recommends that projects be located and designed to minimize impacts to
wetlands and wetland buffers. It is the Applicant’s opinion that the Revised
Proposed Project meets that standard for the reasons set forth below.
• Wetland Buffer A—The area proposed to be disturbed within Wetland Buffer A consists of manicured lawn, which provides relatively low levels of wetland buffer functionality, as well as impervious surface in the form of a portion of the existing building, which provides no beneficial wetland buffer function. The Revised Proposed Project would remove the existing portion of the
building within the wetland buffer and replace it with porous surface (e.g., lawn), which would improve the buffer function from its current condition. The remainder of the disturbance proposed within this wetland buffer area would
consist of regrading existing areas of manicured lawn, which would be returned to the same condition. As such, there would be no change to the existing wetland buffer function in this area. Importantly, the Revised Proposed Project
avoids disturbing the wooded area of the wetland buffer, which currently provides the highest level of ecological value to the wetlands within the Project Site. As such, it is the Applicant’s opinion that the Revised Proposed Project avoids significant adverse impacts to the wetland buffer area by reducing impervious surfaces within this wetland buffer area and avoiding impacts to the more ecologically beneficial areas of the wetland buffer.
• Wetland Buffers B and C—Wetlands B and C are located primarily off-Site, within the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)-owned
right-of-way for the Parkway. The on-Site area within 100-feet of the wetlands is characterized primarily by manicured lawn, which provides relatively low levels of wetland buffer functionality, an asphalt parking lot, which provides no beneficial wetland buffer function, and, in the northeastern most corner of the buffer, an area of shrubs and trees. The Revised Proposed Project would limit disturbance primarily to the area of the buffer that is manicured lawn or existing parking lot. Approximately six trees within the wetland buffer would be removed. Overall, the amount of impervious area within 100 feet of Wetlands B and C after construction of the Revised Proposed Project would increase by approximately 0.264 acres, or 11,450 sf from the current condition.
The Applicant and the Lead Agency considered an alternate placement of the
proposed IL and AL building that would “slide” the building and access drive
to the south, toward Arbor Drive. With this alternative configuration, the
amount of new construction and grading within the buffer to Wetlands B and
C would be less than the Revised Proposed Project. Given the comparatively
low ecological value of Wetlands B and C (see the Wetland Functional
Analysis included as Appendix D-5 of the DEIS), as well as the relatively low
functionality of their wetland buffers, and the relative importance of reducing
the visual impacts of the Revised Proposed Project from Arbor Drive, the
Lead Agency determined, and the Applicant agreed, that the layout of the
Revised Proposed Project (with the buildings further north) appropriately
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-41 5/14/2019
balance the need to reduce visual impacts and reduce adverse impacts to
wetland buffers.
• Wetland Buffer E—As with the original project, the disturbance to Wetland Buffer E with the Revised Proposed Project is solely attributable to the construction of the secondary, emergency Site access. As described in the
DEIS, the Applicant evaluated the potential for the emergency access drive to be located in a different location that would have fewer impacts to Wetland Buffer E (see DEIS Figure 10-2). This alternative location, however, would have required a steeper driveway connection and the turning movements into and out of the Site from this driveway would be more constrained than in the proposed location. For these reasons, and after conversations with Village staff, the Lead Agency decided, and the Applicant agreed, to advance the proposed emergency access location.
• Wetland/Stream Buffer D/S—Wetland D is a human-made settling basin that was created to serve as the stormwater detention basin for the existing 900 King Street improvements, as well as several off-Site locations (e.g., Village Hall and RBFD firehouse). Off-site areas within 100-feet of the stormwater basin include a portion of Village Hall and the Rye Brook Police Department (RBPD) station, the parking lot for the police station, and a portion of the building associated with the cell tower on Village property. On-Site, approximately 0.681 acres of the buffer around Wetland D and Stream S—
the stream that drains the stormwater basin—is improved with the existing parking lot for 900 King Street. This area provides no beneficial wetland buffer function. Other portions of the wetland/stream buffer include areas of
maintained lawn and areas of woody vegetation. In order to comply with current stormwater regulations, redevelopment of the Project Site requires the expansion of the existing stormwater basin. (This is true even though the
Revised Proposed Project is reducing the amount of impervious surfaces on the Project Site from the current condition.) As such, impacts to the wetland buffer associated with this expansion are not avoidable. In addition, the stormwater basin and its surrounding area is in relatively poor ecological health; it is dominated with invasive species. Therefore, it is necessary to impact the area around the stormwater basin to improve the current functionality of both the basin and the buffer. In the Applicant’s opinion, this is not an adverse impact of the Revised Proposed Project; rather, it is a beneficial impact. In addition, the area of the wetland buffer currently improved with a parking lot will be removed with the Revised Proposed Project. Replacing this area would be various permeable surfaces (e.g., lawn)
and a small portion of the access road as well as a small portion of the IL building. As a result, the overall amount of impervious area within this wetland buffer will be reduced by 0.22 acres compared to the existing
condition, which in the Applicant’s opinion is a beneficial impact to the wetland buffer.
Finally, as described in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project,” the Revised
Proposed Project was reduced by 68,818 gsf from the original project, thereby
reducing the overall width of the IL building. This reduction in width allowed the
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-42 DRAFT
IL and AL building to either be set back further from The Arbors or set back
further from the existing stormwater basin. Given the relative importance of
reducing the visual impacts of the Revised Proposed Project from The Arbors,
and the fact that the Revised Proposed Project is already reducing the amount of
impervious area adjacent to the stormwater basin, the Lead Agency determined,
and the Applicant agreed, that the layout of the Revised Proposed Project (with
the buildings further east) appropriately balances the need to reduce visual
impacts and reduce adverse impacts to wetland buffers.
Comment 43: The Village’s Planning Consultant and Planning Board, along with members of
the public, opined that any change to the existing condition of the site within 100
feet of a delineated wetland should be considered “disturbance” and would
require mitigation at at least a 2:1 ratio pursuant to Chapter 245 of the Village
Code. (Snyder 007, FP Clark 012, Timpone-Mohamed 043)
Snyder 007 (#51): The DEIS must provide specific measures to appropriately mitigate
that impact {to wetland buffers}. A plan [alternative] should also be prepared that has no wetland or steep slope disturbances.
FP Clark 012 (#140): Based on the currently proposed PUD Concept Plan, the Proposed Action would require 5.58 acres of buffer and/or wetland mitigation for the 2.79-acre disturbance. The DEIS indicates that the current plan would provide only 1 acre of mitigation, which is inconsistent with the requirements of Chapter 245. The Applicant should provide the required area of mitigation.
Planning Board 018 (#240): The Planning Board recommends requiring compliance with the current requirements of Chapter 245 of the Village Code and upholding its historic interpretation and application of Chapter 245 to require all activities in the regulated wetland buffer to be mitigated, regardless of whether the surface of the land is currently pervious or impervious.
Response 43: As described in Section 2.5.4, “Wetland Buffer Mitigation,” the Applicant has
identified on- and off-Site wetland buffer mitigation areas that would satisfy the
Planning Board’s historical interpretation of the mitigation required pursuant to
the Village’s Wetland Ordinance. On-Site, wetland buffer mitigation would be
incorporated into the overall Landscape Plan for the Revised Proposed Project.
The specific wetland buffer planting plan would be finalized during the site plan
approval process. The plan would include a mixture of the following: replanting
select areas within wetland buffers that would be re-graded with a diverse mix of
woody and herbaceous hydrophytic (i.e., wetland) vegetation; selectively planting
areas within the wetland buffer that would not be disturbed by the Revised
Proposed Project with native plants to increase floristic diversity and wetland
functions; and, removal of invasive species within select areas of the on-Site
wetland buffers. Areas of conceptual wetland buffer mitigation on-Site totaling
approximately 2.4 acres are identified in Figure 2-4. If wetland buffer mitigation
in excess of the amount that can be accommodated on-Site is required by the
Planning Board, the Applicant would improve off-Site wetland buffer areas as
identified and approved by the Superintendent of Public Works such that the total
amount of on- and off-Site wetland buffer areas improved totaled 4.50 acres. The
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-43 5/14/2019
off-Site improvements could include the removal of invasive species and debris,
as well as select plantings of appropriate vegetation.
Also as described in Section 2.5.4.2, “Applicant’s Interpretation of Village’s
Wetland Buffer Ordinance,” the Applicant continues to contend that impacts to
impervious areas within 100 feet of a wetland do not constitute either “losses” to
wetland buffers or “disturbance” to wetland buffers pursuant to the Village Code
and therefore should not require mitigation under the Village’s Code.
3.6. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
STORMWATER
Comment 44: A comment was received expressing concern about the Proposed Project’s
potential impact on downstream flooding conditions. (Zimmerman 046)
Zimmerman 046 (#357): Concerned about flooding, which has been a major concern in the Village of Rye Brook. We are very concerned about both of these things in this development, which is in Rye Brook proper.
Response 44: The Revised Proposed Project would reduce post-construction peak runoff rates
in all analyzed storm events from pre-construction conditions. This is a result of
the stormwater improvements included in the Revised Proposed Project,
including underground infiltration systems, a reduction in impervious surfaces,
and the expansion of the existing stormwater detention basin.
Stormwater runoff is conveyed from the 900 King Street Site, through a stream that
empties into the aforementioned pipe, and then conveyed into the drainage system
running along King Street. A downstream stormwater analysis was performed by
the Applicant’s engineer, JMC, to determine the potential for flooding on the
existing 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe running underneath Arbor Drive. This
pipe was chosen for analysis because all drainage that will be affected by the
Revised Proposed Project is upstream of this pipe. This analysis is summarized in
the report Existing Downstream Storm Sewer Analysis (see DEIS Appendix C-2)
and demonstrates that the existing pipe under Arbor Drive has the capacity to
accommodate the projected stormwater flow from the Project Site.
Comment 45: The Village’s Consulting Engineer noted that, “The Boring Locations Plan
prepared by AKRF does not show the locations of PB-1 and PB-2. The locations
of these borings must be provided.” (Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#124): The Boring Locations Plan prepared by AKRF does not show the locations of PB-1 and PB-2. The locations of these borings must be provided.
Response 45: The locations of PB-1 and PB-2 are depicted on Sheet C-101 (see Volume 4).
Comment 46: The Village’s Consulting Engineer stated that, “Based on the existing drainage
piping that is shown on the watershed maps, the area tributary to the drain inlet at
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-44 DRAFT
the entrance to the Hutchinson River Parkway South (from North Ridge Street)
should be included in the “Bypass Area.” Where does the drainage go from the
drain inlet that is located on the exit ramp (to King Street) of Hutchinson River
Parkway North?” (Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#122): Based on the existing drainage piping that is shown on the watershed maps, the area tributary to the drain inlet at the entrance to the Hutchinson River Parkway South (from North Ridge Street) should be included in the “Bypass Area”. Where does the drainage go from the drain inlet that is located on the exit ramp (to King Street) of Hutchinson River Parkway North?
Response 46: A set of drawings titled Drainage Structures Rehabilitation on Hutchinson River
Parkway, dated March 19, 1986, was acquired from the NYSDOT and used to
supplement the information from the JMC survey. Structures, pipes, and flow
arrows, from the 1986 drawings have been added to the site plan depicting the
direction of flow of stormwater runoff through the pipes. Stormwater runoff
collected by the drain inlet located at the exit ramp of the Northbound Hutchinson
River Parkway to King Street is conveyed northeast to the Parkway’s drainage
system running along the centerline of the Parkway. The bypass area drainage
divide has been updated on JMC’s drawing DA-2A titled “Proposed Drainage
Area Map” (see Appendix D) to include the catch basin, and its associated
drainage area, located in the southbound lane of the Parkway.
Comment 47: The Village’s Consulting Engineer stated that conservative infiltration rates
should be used for areas where infiltration testing cannot occur due to the presence
of the existing building. The Village’s Consulting Engineer also requested more
information on test pits and percolation tests and stated that a future site plan
application may require test pits and percolation tests witnessed by the Village.
(Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#119): It is required that percolation tests and test pits must be conducted in the vicinity of all infiltration practices including Detention Pond 1B and infiltration systems 1A-2 and 1A-3 to determine feasibility of infiltrating stormwater and the presence of rock or groundwater. The applicant did perform a percolation test near system 1A-2, however tests were not performed near Pond 1B or for system 1A-3 (due to the presence of the building); we recommend use of conservative infiltration rates in these areas until actual infiltration rates can be field verified.
Oliveri 011 (#120): The locations of all test pits and percolation tests must be superimposed on the watershed maps contained in the SWPPP. The percolation test method and the methodology of how the percolation rate was translated into an infiltration rate for the stormwater model must be provided.
Oliveri 011 (#121): Any future site plan approval for this project may require test pits and percolation tests to be conducted at the time of the application. All tests must be witnessed by the Village.
Response 47: A conservative percolation rate of 1 inch per hour was used in the area of
infiltration system 1A-3 until percolation tests can be performed. These
percolation test will be performed after the existing building has been demolished.
The NYSDEC requires a minimum percolation rate of 0.5 inches per hour to
install an infiltration system.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-45 5/14/2019
All test pit and percolation test locations are depicted on both the existing and
proposed drainage area maps included in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) (Drawings 1, 1A, 2 &2A).
Any additional test pits and percolation tests that may be required will be
coordinated and witnessed by the Village. This will be addressed as the site plan
approval process progresses.
Comment 48: The Village’s Consulting Engineer stated that, “The SWPPP cites the New York
State Stormwater Design Manual in that if the hydrology and hydraulic study
shows that the post-construction 1-year 24-hour discharge rate and velocity are
less than or equal to the preconstruction discharge rate, providing 24-hour
detention of the 1-year storm to meet the channel protection criteria is not
required. Pre- and post-construction discharge velocities must be provided.”
(Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#123): The SWPPP cites the New York State Stormwater Design Manual in
that if the hydrology and hydraulic study shows that the post-construction 1-year 24 hour discharge rate and velocity are less than or equal to the preconstruction discharge rate, providing 24 hour detention of the 1-year storm to meet the channel protection criteria is not required. Pre- and post-construction discharge velocities must be provided.
Response 48: Pre- and post-construction discharge velocities for the 1-year storm event have
been provided in Appendix C of the SWPPP, which is included as Appendix D.
Comment 49: The Village’s Consulting Engineer made several technical comments on the
design of the stormwater system and requested certain technical modifications to
the system’s design. (Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#112): Additional catch basins should be considered within the town house areas and front/side entry drive to avoid excessive runoff travel down the loop roads and possibly into Arbor Drive.
Oliveri 011 (#116): Hoods should be added to all drainage structure outlets.
Oliveri 011 (#125): Sizing calculations must be provided for all proposed drainage piping.
Oliveri 011 (#126): More specific storm-tech chamber details and layouts drawn to scale should be included as opposed to generic details.
Oliveri 011 (#127): The “Schedule of Inverts” tables for the two infiltration systems on Sheet C-903 appear to include the incorrect designations and overflow weir elevations.
Oliveri 011 (#128): The invert elevations on each Stormtech chamber section (Sheet C-903) appear to have been provided for the incorrect chamber models. All invert elevations, section dimensions, and detail titles must be corrected.
Oliveri 011 (#129): Overflow weir elevations must be reconciled among the “Schedule of Inverts” tables on Sheets C-903 and C-904, and with the invert elevations provided on C-500.
Oliveri 011 (#130): Greater detail must be provided for how the “Initial Water Quality Volume”, “Adjusted Water Quality Volume”, and “Minimum Runoff Reduction Volume” values were calculated (Appendix C of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan). Calculations must also be provided for how runoff reduction volumes are provided in the infiltration systems.
Oliveri 011 (#131): Water levels must be shown on each Stormtech chamber section (Sheet C-903) and each outlet control structure section (Sheet C-904) for all design storms, including the 90th percentile rainfall event.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-46 DRAFT
Response 49: An additional catch basin has been added to the end of each driveway to the
townhouses, as depicted on drawing C-500 (see Volume 4).
A detail for a Hooded Outlet (#19) has been added to drawing C-902 and a note
has been added to the Notes and Legends Drawing (Drawing C-010) calling for
hoods to be installed on all drainage structure outlets (see Volume 4).
Appendix K has been added to the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan which
includes sizing calculations for all proposed drainage piping (see Appendix D).
A plan view, that is to scale, has been added to the Stormtech Chamber details on
Drawing C-903 and C-904 (see Volume 4). These details have been updated to
include all pertinent Stormtech Chamber information.
The “Schedule of Inverts” has been updated and coordinated between all plans
and reports.
Additional calculation sheets have been added to Appendix C of the SWPPP to
clarify the “Initial Water Quality Volume,” “Adjusted Water Quality Volume,”
“Minimum Runoff Reduction Volume,” and how runoff reduction volumes are
provided in each of the infiltration systems (see Appendix D).
Water levels for each analyzed storm have been added to each Stormtech
Chamber detail on drawing C-903 and C-904 (see Volume 4).
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
Comment 50: The Village’s Consulting Engineer stated that the “Site disturbance proposed is
greater than the maximum 5 acres allowed under the NYSDEC Design Manual.
The proposed disturbance appears to be greater than 13 acres at one time. This
presents great concerns with regard to sediment and erosion control during
construction. This will require a NYSDEC waiver with adequate use of Best
Management Practices before a final site plan can be approved.” (Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#103): Site disturbance proposed is greater than the maximum 5 acres allowed under the NYSDEC Design Manual. The proposed disturbance appears to be greater than 13 acres at one time, this presents great concerns with regard to sediment and erosion control during construction. This will require a NYSDEC waiver with adequate use of Best Management Practices before a final site plan can be approved.
Response 50: Comment noted. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plans (ESCPs) (Drawings C-
200 through C-205) that are included in the site plan submission set have been
updated to further clarify the disturbances throughout each particular phase and
how the stormwater runoff will be treated and mitigated during each of these
phases (see Volume 4). Square footages and acreages have been added to these
plans and also to the notes included on each plan. Section VI of the SWPPP, titled
Soil Erosion & Sediment Control, and has also been updated to include more
detail of the phasing process (see Appendix D).
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-47 5/14/2019
Comment 51: The Village’s Consulting Engineer made several technical comments on the
design of the ESCP and requested certain technical modifications to the plan’s
design. (Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#104): Square footage of disturbance should be noted for each construction phase on the sediment and erosion control plans.
Oliveri 011 (#106): No details have been provided for the proposed temporary sediment basin. An analysis to size the temporary basin and outlet pipe/structure should be included to demonstrate adequate capacity for the large disturbance proposed and extended construction time anticipated.
Oliveri 011 (#107): The plan notes call for “hay bale filters” on drain inlets, these should be noted as “silt sacks.”
Response 51: Square footages and acreages have been added to the ESCPs and also to the notes
included on each of these plans.
The sizing analysis for the temporary sediment basin, along with all
appurtenances, has been included in Appendix C of the SWPPP (see
Appendix D). A detail of this basin is included on drawing C-903 (see
Volume 4).
The Construction Phase 2 Sequence on drawing C-201 has been updated to show
“silt sacks” instead of “hay bale filters” (see Volume 4).
Comment 52: Comment 52: The Village’s Consulting Engineer made several comments with
respect to the proposed construction phasing as it relates to the avoidance of
erosion during construction. (Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#105): Construction phase 1 should denote when asphalt is removed from the existing parking lot, asphalt should be maintained during building demo.
Oliveri 011 (#108): It may be necessary to further stage disturbance in the town house areas & south wings of the A.L. facility since the temporary sediment basin is removed by phase 5 of construction and no further temporary sediment basins or traps seem to be proposed. Individual sediment traps or basins should be added during these phases of construction as needed.
Response 52: The Construction Phase 1 Sequence on drawing C-200 has been updated to ensure
all existing asphalt shall remain during the existing building demolition (see
Volume 4).
Silt fence has been added to drawing C-204 for each cluster of townhouses (see
Volume 4). It has been determined by JMC that the silt fence, accompanied by
the already installed silt sacks, will adequately treat runoff coming from the
disturbed soils during this phase of construction, and individual sediment traps or
basins will not be necessary. Square footages and acreages of disturbance have
been added to drawing C-204 for each townhouse cluster (see Volume 4).
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-48 DRAFT
3.7. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
Comment 53: Comments were received regarding the potential impacts of the Proposed Project
on the wildlife on, and proximate to, the Project Site. (Carravone 002, Levy 067,
Levy 072)
Carravone 002 (#11): there is so much beautiful wildlife, (deer, rabbits, turtles) in my/our back yards, where are they supposed to go?
Levy 067 (#537): We have seen deer and red-tail hawks inhabiting the land behind 900 King Street. We are concerned with the habitat disturbance and loss for those and other animals. Having wildlife around us is also a part of our quality of life.
Levy 072 (#567): I just wanted to make sure this was noted. I observed over the past couple of months that more than just squirrels but there are also deer and Canadian geese actually rest and actually I believe breed, I have baby deer every spring born on the grass at 900 King Street and I just would, if possible, just how that will affect their life.
Response 53: As indicated in Section 7.2.2 “Wildlife,” of the DEIS, “the Project Site does not
provide high-quality habitat for wildlife due to the existing development on and
adjacent to the Site and the lack of any sizeable areas of undeveloped wooded land.
As such, wildlife expected to occur on-Site would include urban tolerant species.”
Section 7.3.2, “Wildlife,” of the DEIS adds that, “the Project would not have an
adverse impact on rare, threatened, or endangered species, nor would it have an
adverse impact on significant natural communities,” as neither are known to be
present on-Site. During the construction period, there would be a temporary
disruption of habitat, however, immediately adjacent to the Project Site is a similar
habitat that would be available to wildlife. After the construction period, the
Revised Proposed Project would result in an increase in the amount of permeable
coverage (lawn habitats) and a reduction in impervious coverage (less buildings and
roads), resulting in an increase in the amount of habitat currently found on-Site.
Comment 54: Comments were received regarding the impact of the tree removals that will be
necessary for the Proposed Project. In addition, commenters requested more
information on the magnitude and type of impacts that would occur from the tree
removal (e.g., shade trees, mature trees) and clarity with respect to the amount of
vegetation along the Site’s northern boundary and southern boundary that is
proposed to be removed. (Snyder 007, FP Clark 012)
Snyder 007 (#53): A true representation of the disturbance should be provided…landscaping can be adequately reviewed…evaluate its impact on The Arbors. The “majority” of the existing vegetation along the Site’s northern boundary and between Arbor Drive and the southernmost townhouse cluster would be preserved. The meaning of “majority” should be clarified.
Snyder 007 (#64): The project requires 686 significant trees to be removed, resulting in reduced shade and tree habitat that even temporarily could be a significant adverse impact. The new trees planted will not provide shade cover as much as the old ones being removed.
FP Clark 012 (#142): The Applicant has not identified the impact of the loss of 213 mature trees on the existing site due to the excessive disturbance to site to achieve the PUD Concept Plan. The FEIS should address the impacts of the loss of mature
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-49 5/14/2019
vegetation and the Applicant should reconsider the PUD Concept Plan to reduce disturbance to the Site.
Response 54: As stated in Section 2.7.4, “Trees,”, the Revised Proposed Project would require the
removal of approximately 128 trees with 6 inches dbh or greater, of which 74 trees
have a diameter of 10 inches dbh or greater, and 4 of which are considered
“significant” under the Village Code. This is a decrease from the tree removal
contemplated with the original project, as shown in Table 3.7-1. In addition, as
further discussed in Section 2.7.5, “Mitigation Measures,” the Revised Proposed
Project includes the planting of 438 new trees and 309 new shrubs, which would fully
mitigate the loss of the 128 trees to be removed as required by the Village Code.
Table 3.7-1 Tree Removal
DBH of Tree Removed Trees Removed Original Project Revised Project
Less than 10 dbh 79 54
10 to 24 dbh 120 66
25 to 36 dbh 12 6
37 to 48 dbh 2 2
49 dbh or more 0 0
Total 213 128
Sources: Village Zoning Code Section 235-18; AKRF, Inc.
As stated in Section 2.7.4, “Trees,”, “there would be temporary impacts of reduced
on-Site shade and tree habitat associated with tree loss during the construction
period, however, that is not considered to be a significant adverse impact.” Sheet
C-100 in Volume 4 includes an Existing Conditions plan, which depicts the
locations of the inventoried trees. Sheets C-130 and C-131 in Volume 4, include an
updated tree removal plan. As noted in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project,” the
Revised Proposed Project would preserve more existing vegetation along the
southern property line with Arbor Drive than was the case with the original project
as a result of a shift in the location of the western-most driveway.
Comment 55: Comments were received regarding the Applicant’s plan to mitigate the removal
of Village-regulated trees. The Village’s Planning Consultant inquired as to why
not all of the trees the Applicant proposes to plant would count as “mitigation.”
The attorney for The Arbors HOA stated that the Applicant cannot plant trees
within the Arbor Drive ROW as it is not owned by the Applicant. (Snyder 007,
FP Clark 012)
Snyder 007 (#65): The tree plan envisions adding trees along Arbor Drive. Alternatives need to be considered since the applicant has no right to plant trees on Arbor Drive since it is owned by The Arbors.
FP Clark 012 (#143): The DEIS states that 212 of the 438 trees proposed to be planted would meet the requirements of Section 235-18 of the Tree Ordinance. The Applicant should explain how the other 226 do not meet this criteria of the Code Section and why the Applicant is proposing non-complying trees.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-50 DRAFT
Response 55: Table 2.7-3 details the required tree mitigation per Section 235-18 of the Village
Code. The Revised Proposed Project would be required to plant at least 84 trees
that have a caliper of 2 to 2.5 inches dbh. The Revised Proposed Project proposes
to plant 438 trees and 309 shrubs, as shown on sheet L-300 in Volume 4. All 408
trees would be at least 2-inch caliper. All trees would be installed in accordance
with the Village’s planting guidelines.
3.8. VISUAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER
VISUAL CHARACTER OF PROJECT SITE
Comment 56: Comments were received questioning the methodology for and locations of the
photosimulations presented in the DEIS. Specific comments included requests for
additional photosimulations from vantage points within The Arbors, balloon
test(s), and removal of computer-generated trees in Figures 8-20 and 8-21.
(Snyder 007, Snyder 045, Klein 062)
Snyder 007 (#43): Not only is the size of the independent living building nearly more than 100,000 square feet larger than the existing office building, the height of the
building is more than 6 feet taller. The applicant should be required to prepare a visual analysis comparing the existing structure to that proposed. The visual breaks that the applicant alludes to in the DEIS are not forthcoming and should be presented so that the public can truly see the magnitude of the project.
Snyder 007 (#66): The Visual Study is insufficient. It was not performed using any proven methodology and the preparer has indicated it utilized a standard smartphone camera, rather than a 55 mm lens, typically utilized as the industry standard. Moreover, no balloon test was provided so that The Arbor residents and all Village residents could determine its visibility, particularly due to the project’s proposed increased height and massiveness, with its extensive use of the property.
Snyder 007 (#68): photographs must be taken throughout The Arbors during leaf-off conditions and computer simulated to render the proposed buildings, including lighting and mechanical equipment at full build-out. At least 25 locations should be selected within The Arbors, including locations from second story windows inside of residences.
Snyder 045 (#377): Unless they are showing someone on the ground, they are not showing someone from their second floor window.
Snyder 045 (#378): If you look at their visuals they are totally deficient. They are not really formed and done with proper methodology. So we would hope that once the project is scaled down, that a proper visual analysis will be prepared.
Klein 062 (#506): No balloon tests have been done. These should be conducted and pictures added to Volume 2, Chapter 8 to show from different locations
Klein 062 (#507): As suggested by public comment, permission should be sought to take pictures from 2nd floor windows of selected Arbors residences
Klein 062 (#508): Figures 8-20 and 8-21 have trees added by computer graphic. These should be removed and replaced with appropriate pictures showing proper view sheds.
Response 56: The visual analyses included in the DEIS, including the photosimulations, were
performed in accordance with NYSDEC-approved guidelines, and using
industry-standard, state-of-the-art methodology. The locations were selected by
the Village Board and its consultants as documented in the adopted DEIS Scoping
Outline. The general methodology consisted of the following:
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-51 5/14/2019
• Taking photographs that are reflective of what could be seen by a person standing at the vantage points specified in the approved DEIS scoping outline;
• Creating an electronic three-dimensional (3-D) model of the existing terrain on and around the Project Site based on Site-specific survey information and 2-foot contour data provided by Westchester County Geographic Information System (GIS);
• Aligning the existing conditions photos with the 3-D model using computer software that allows for various adjustment of the model view to account for
the unique perspective of each individual photograph;
• Creating an electronic 3-D model of the Proposed Project, inclusive of the
proposed grading and the proposed building locations and size;
• Producing a snapshot of the computer-generated 3D model from each vantage point location that is aligned with the existing condition photograph; and,
• Using photo-editing software to “remove” the existing buildings from the existing condition photograph, “add” the location and size of the proposed new buildings and new topography/roads, and then add façade and ground materials to the location of the new site buildings and infrastructure.
This methodology produces a photosimulation that appropriately locates and
scales the proposed new buildings and topography from each existing condition
location. The result is a “before” and “after” picture demonstrating the first person
point of view of the project from various vantage points.
For photosimulations in Figures 8-20 and 8-21 of the DEIS, existing on-Site
natural trees were simulated with computer-generated trees. This was necessary
to accurately depict the visibility of the proposed buildings with “new” trees
added in the foreground. The computer-generated trees and tree cover depict the
potential for the proposed IL and AL building to be visible from the Parkway
through the existing tree cover.
Balloon testing is not considered state-of-the-art for visual impact assessment. If
properly executed, balloon tests allows the public to see the height of a proposed
structure at a single point. Balloon tests do not provide an observer with context,
including the size, shape, color, or articulation of proposed new structures, which
are important to understand the visual impacts of a building, or buildings. In
addition, balloon tests can be unreliable. Weather conditions can affect the
accuracy of the balloon’s placement. For those reasons, the Lead Agency required
the Applicant to prepare photosimulations of the original project using actual
photographs and 3-D computer modeling.
The Village Board and its consultants selected the locations for the
photosimluations, as stipulated in the approved scoping document. The selected
vantage points represent the maximum potential for the original project to be
visible from The Arbors. Vantage points further west or south within the Arbors
would likely not have a view of the Project Site given intervening topography and
buildings. Finally, changes in views from private property as a result of a project,
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-52 DRAFT
including second-story windows, are generally not considered to be an
environmental impact under SEQRA. Rather, SEQRA encourages the evaluation
of publicly accessible views to determine whether there is a “detrimental effect
on the perceived beauty of,” or that causes a “diminishment of the public
enjoyment and appreciation of…[or]…impairs the character or quality of” a
public resource. The visual impact analyses included in the DEIS and this FEIS
demonstrate that while the IL and AL building would be visible from certain
vantage points, its visibility would not adversely impact the character of the
vantage point from which they are viewed.
Comment 57: A comment was received opining that the proposed removal of trees would create
a significant adverse visual impact. (Snyder 045)
Snyder 045 (#376): One thing that should be noted is in connection with the visual impact. So there’s over 686 trees that are being removed. When they show those little line of sight and they show someone standing in the trees, there’s a huge magnitude of all these mature trees being removed.
Response 57: As stated in Section 2.7.4, “Trees,” the number of trees proposed to be removed
has been reduced from 213 with the original project to 128 with the Revised
Proposed Project. As was the case with the original project, the overwhelming
majority of the trees proposed to be removed with the Revised Proposed Project
are less than 25 inches dbh. Only 8 trees proposed for removal have a dbh of 25
inches or greater. As shown on sheet C-130 of the full size plans in Volume 4, a
large portion of the trees proposed for removal are in two areas of the Site: (1) the
proposed emergency access drive, and (2) north and east of the existing
stormwater basin. With respect to the trees proposed to be removed in the
northeast of the Site, removal of trees from this area will not significantly change
the view into the Site from publicly accessible vantage points. There will still be
significant tree coverage between the Project Site and both King Street and the
Parkway with the Revised Proposed Project. With respect to the tree removal to
the north and east of the existing stormwater basin, these removals are necessary
to facilitate the slight expansion of the stormwater basin, as well as to regrade the
area surrounding the basin. Most of the trees proposed for removal in this area are
directly between Village Hall and the Project Site. As such, their removal would
not change the view of the Project Site from King Street because Village Hall
would screen views of this change. The trees proposed to be removed further
south of Village Hall, in the area closer to the cell phone tower on Village
property, would similarly not change the view into the Project Site from King
Street as Village Hall’s property sits on a “hill” in this location, blocking views
of the interior of the Project Site from King Street.
While some trees will be removed along the Site’s southern boundary with Arbor
Drive, the Revised Proposed Project includes a significant landscaping program,
as described in Section 1.4.4, “Landscaping.” In addition to meeting the minimum
requirements for tree plantings to mitigate the removal of Village-regulated trees,
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-53 5/14/2019
the proposed landscaping program will significantly enhance the aesthetics of the
Project Site, which is currently dominated by a 5.3-acre surface parking lot and
an approximately 94,600-sf footprint monolithic office building. In the
Applicant’s opinion, the Revised Proposed Project, inclusive of the proposed tree
removals and landscaping plan, would have a beneficial visual impact.
Comment 58: Comments were received suggesting that the proposed height and “size” of the IL
and AL building would be a substantial increase from the current condition and
create an adverse impact owing to its visibility from public and private rights of
way as well as Harnkess Park. (Snyder 007, Schlank 040, Barnett 047)
Snyder 007 (#70): the DEIS does not adequately evaluate the visual impacts created by the project, nor does it provide mitigation measures utilized to address adverse visual impacts, namely a reduction in the scale of the massive project.
Schlank 040 (#307): DEIS indicates the applicant feels the proposed facility is consistent with the character of the community. What factual support does the applicant have for this conclusion in terms of: (a) zoning laws of either the Village of Rye Brook or the Town of Rye, (b) past precedents involving either the Village or the Town, or (c) court decisions in which similar shifts in population and architectural style were not seen as inconsistent with community character?
Barnett 047 (#360): It would be extremely visible and a part of Rye Brook that really does not look like this proposed development.
Barnett 047 (#364): Also doesn’t change the fact that we still can all see it, a large percent of us daily, and honestly, way more than that as you pull up.
Barnett 047 (#365): You are, by your numbers, saying 14 feet, maybe 20. That’s a story above what the current building is. So when we’re talking about numbers that equate to a story, which by definition is about 14 feet, that’s a substantial increase. You’re talking about a building now at 14 feet higher. So this would be substantial.
Barnett 047 (#366): To say that one road of The Arbors would be able to see this property and so it’s not such a big deal, ask an Arbor’s resident, you know, has to.
Response 58: The Revised Proposed Zoning would permit the construction of four-story senior
living facilities, as specifically recommended by the Village’s Comprehensive
Plan. This is a one-story increase over the height that is currently permitted within
the PUD district. To mitigate the potential for this increase in height to have an
adverse visual impact, the Applicant has done the following:
• Increased the setback of the four-story portion of the IL building to 304 feet from Arbor Drive and 488 feet from The Arbors with the Revised Proposed Project, an increase of 12 and 24 feet, respectively, from the original project.
• Decreased the peak of the roof closest to The Arbors by 7 feet from the
original project. With this change, the peak of the roof of the four-story IL building closest to The Arbors, which extends only for approximately 30 feet, would be approximately 11 feet higher in absolute elevation than the height
of the fascia of the existing 3-story office building, which extends for the length of the entire building. However, this proposed peak would be approximately 541 feet from the nearest townhouse in The Arbors, approximately 264 feet further away than the existing office building. The remainder of the peak of the 4-story section of the IL roof facing The Arbors
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-54 DRAFT
would be approximately 7 feet higher in elevation than the top of the existing
office building and would be set back even further.
In the Applicant’s opinion, and as analyzed in more detail in Section 2.8, “Visual
Resources and Community Character,” the slight increase in the allowable height
would not create an adverse visual impact. In addition, there are numerous other
buildings within the Village that are as tall, or taller, than those proposed for the
Project Site that are also as close, or closer, to residential properties than those
proposed by the Applicant. See also Response to Comment 59.
CONSISTENCY OF PROPOSED PROJECT WITH COMMUNITY CHARACTER
Comment 59: The Village’s Planning Consultant questions the relevance of comparing Village-
wide commercial buildings with the Proposed Project. (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#145): the DEIS presents large commercial buildings in Rye Brook in this section to point out that there is a precedent of large buildings in Rye Brook, it is the visual impacts and changed community character of adjacent residential properties and the neighborhoods immediately surrounding the Proposed Action that is of concern, especially as the proposed GFA would be significantly higher than the current PUD zoning allows. In our opinion, the locations and siting of the commercial buildings mentioned are very different from the situation of the Proposed Action. These buildings are not impactful to the character of the residential neighborhoods they are adjacent to or within by virtue of a number of factors.
The Atria at BelleFair is separated by significant topography from the BelleFair residential neighborhoods and by distance from the closest residences in Greenwich, C.T. The Doral/Arrowwood Conference Center is located on a very large site separating it by great distances from the Doral Green homes, area roads and the Blind Brook Golf Club. The Hilton at Rye Brook is located on a large parcel that is enclosed by significant topography and separated from adjacent homes and area roadways by substantial grade changes. And, 800 Westchester Avenue is located on an insular large site surrounded by roadways, and it is not located near any residences.
Response 59: As described in Section 2.8.3, “Consistency of the Revised Proposed Project with
the Existing Visual and Community Character,” the setbacks of the proposed IL
building from neighboring residences and Arbor Drive are consistent with, if not
slightly greater than, the setbacks of other four-story and taller buildings within
the Village to their neighboring residential properties (see Figures 2-6 to 2-10 and
Table 3.8.1). While the context of each building and residence is different (e.g.,
surrounding topography, level of activity on adjacent Site, intervening features),
the comparison of the setbacks of Revised Proposed Project to other Village
properties illustrates the extensive nature of the setbacks proposed. Given the
viability of the surrounding residential uses to other four-story and taller
buildings, it is the Applicant’s opinion that the Revised Proposed Project would
not have an adverse visual impact on surrounding residential properties.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-55 5/14/2019
Table 3.8-1 Setback Comparison
Development Setbacks Notes
Revised Proposed Project
±575 feet from four-story IL building to nearest The Arbors residence ±531 feet from three-story IL building to nearest The Arbors residence ±302 feet from Arbor Drive to four-story section of IL building ±345 feet from AL building to closest residence on N. Ridge St. ±240 feet from AL building to closest residence on King St.
Through wooded buffer Through wooded buffer Across the Parkway
Doral Greens
±100 feet from closest residence to parking lot for Arrowwood ±330 feet from closest residence to ballroom ±500 feet from closest residence to front door of Arrowwood
Relatively flat and unvegetated area between Doral Greens and Arrowwood
BelleFair
±48 feet from closest residence to four-story section of The Atria, Rye Brook Other nearby residences are ±72 feet; 64 feet; and 138 feet
Hilton Westchester
±250 feet from four-story hotel wing to residence ±115 feet from hotel parking lot to closest residence
Through wooded buffer; hotel sits at higher topography than residences to the west and south, but lower than residences to the north and east
800 Westchester Ave
±305 feet and 415 feet from building to closes residences
Building is ±560,000 sf with ±1,125 parking spaces and is four and five stories above several stories of parking
Finally, the nature of the use proposed for the Project Site—age-restricted housing
and assisted living—is markedly different than the other buildings described
above, with the notable exception of BelleFair/The Atria, Rye Brook. The
Revised Proposed Project would be a significantly less intense use in terms of
Site activity (e.g., people, traffic, noise) than either The Doral/Arrowwood
Conference Center, the Hilton Westchester, or 800 Westchester Avenue. In fact,
the Revised Proposed Project would be most similar in nature to The Atria, Rye
Brook, which as shown above is adjacent to single-family homes, the closest of
which are 48, 64, 72, and 138 feet away. In contrast, the IL building is more than
500 feet from the closest residence in The Arbors and 240 feet away from the
closest single-family residence on King Street.
Comment 60: A comment was received stating that the architectural style of the Proposed
Project was inconsistent with the suburban character of the Village. (Schlank 040)
Schlank 040 (#306): The architectural style would give the area a more populous, citified effect than the comfortable suburban surroundings in the rest of the Village.
Schlank 040 (#317): The two-story office building with its gently-sloping lawn area blends in with the surroundings. But the height and architectural style of the proposed senior-housing building appear to be out of sync with the surroundings. A spokesperson for the applicant has tried to justify the appearance of the building in public hearings by discussing the extent to which the building would be visible to others while standing or walking in certain locations. But that is not the issue. The issue is with the architectural style of the building and whether it is consistent with the character of the community.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-56 DRAFT
Response 60: Section 2.8.3, “Consistency of the Revised Proposed Project with the Existing
Visual and Community Character,” analyzes the potential change to the visual
character of the Project Site with the Revised Proposed Project. As stated therein,
in addition to reducing the overall amount of impervious coverage on the Site, the
Revised Proposed Project would redistribute the pervious and impervious area
within the Site, which would have a dramatic impact on the Site’s visual character
(e.g., new parking and building areas would be interspersed with green space,
creating a landscaped residential campus). The view into the Site from Arbor
Drive with the Revised Proposed Project would feature residential buildings of
similar scale, style, and character as found on similar Village properties, as
opposed to the existing view of the office building and surface parking lot. The
proposed buildings have been designed to be architecturally compatible with the
predominant residential characteristics within the Village, including the use of
clapboard and stone siding, as well as incorporating dormers and gabled roofs,
commonly seen on single-family homes within the Village. As such, the
architectural character of the proposed buildings and their location within a Site
buffered by existing mature vegetation is, in the Applicant’s opinion, consistent
with the character of other Village buildings and developments.
Comment 61: Comments were received opining that the character of the community would be
adversely affected by the density of the Proposed Project. The Village’s Planning
Consultant stated that, “The proposed amendments in the Applicant’s zoning
petition and the accompanying proposed PUD Concept Plan would develop a
high-density, large-scale multifamily building on a relatively small,
environmentally constrained site, and would be significantly less restrictive than
the current PUD regulations, impacting the character of the neighborhoods
adjacent to the Site. We recommend the Applicant re-consider the zoning petition
and the PUD Concept Plan to reduce the allowable building bulk, the number of
units and the gross floor area per acre to be more compatible with existing
development adjacent to and surrounding the Site.” (Carravone 002, Levy 004,
Snyder 007, FP Clark 012, Planning Board 018, Schlank 040, Barnett 047)
Carravone 002 (#8): If they build that tremendous development at 900 King Street it would be a major disaster in every which way for the tranquil surroundings everyone is so accustomed to in The Arbors community.
Levy 004 (#19): The project massing, SF and height seems too large for the Site
Snyder 007 (#27): the scale of the project is not in keeping with the character of the community.
Snyder 007 (#67): The project contains buildings which would represent a substantial departure from conventional suburban development patterns.
FP Clark 012 (#146): Rye Brook’s low-density character is created by the size, scale and building types of existing residential and PUD neighborhoods and the relationship of built areas to the open space areas on lots. Any revised PUD regulations for 900 King Street should not create development that alters the character of neighborhoods surrounding the Site, which are predominantly attached townhomes, local civil buildings (middle/high school, firehouse and village hall), and detached single-family homes. The proposed amendments in the Applicant’s zoning petition and the accompanying proposed PUD Concept Plan would develop a high density, large-scale multi-family building on a relatively small, environmentally constrained site, and would be
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-57 5/14/2019
significantly less restrictive than the current PUD regulations, impacting the character of the neighborhoods adjacent to the Site. We recommend the Applicant re-consider the zoning petition and the PUD Concept Plan to reduce the allowable building bulk, the number of units and the gross floor area per acre to be more compatible with existing development adjacent to and surrounding the Site.
Planning Board 018 (#235): The mass of the buildings appear too large for the property.
Schlank 040 (#305): An inconsistency with community character…the proposed senior housing facility would not fit in with its surroundings: (1) the facility would concentrate too many people in one area.
Barnett 047 (#363): When we talk about the density of the village, I really think it’s important to understand that whether or not you can see it, because some trees block it from King Street, doesn’t change the fact that it’s there.
Response 61: As detailed in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project,” in response to public and
Lead Agency, the Applicant has reduced the size of the Revised Proposed Project
from what was originally included in the DEIS. Specifically, the Applicant has
reduced the size of the project by 68,818 gsf through reductions in the number of
IL and townhouse units, reduction in the IL unit sizes and number of bedrooms,
and reductions in the common and amenity spaces in the IL and AL building.
Section 2.8.3, “Consistency of the Revised Proposed Project with the Existing
Visual and Community Character,” details the reasons supporting the Applicant’s
opinion that the Revised Proposed Project is consistent with the character of the
community and would not result in an adverse visual impact.
As discussed in Section 2.3.2, “Proposed Density,” as well as the Response to
Comment 20, the Revised Proposed Project would not result in a PUD that is
significantly denser than other PUDs. Further, the PUD of which the Revised
Proposed Project would be a part, would consist of fewer units per acre and less
sf per acre than Doral Greens, which contains no age-restricted housing.
In addition, the Revised Proposed Project would result in a PUD with more than
half of its units age-restricted to those 62 years old or older, 17 percent of which
would be AL units. As described in this FEIS, age-restricted housing has, with
the exception of impacts to EMS services, significantly fewer impacts per unit
than market-rate housing. As such, it is appropriate to allow age-restricted
housing at higher densities than market-rate housing.
Comment 62: A comment was received suggesting that the Proposed Project’s rental units
would adversely affect the existing community character and quality of life.
(Stella-Turner 014)
Stella-Turner 014 (#194): The building plans, rental units...will threaten our quality of life.
Response 62: The Revised Proposed Project would develop an age-restricted residential
community with units that would be rented by their occupants. Similar communities
exist throughout the region, including The Atria, Rye Brook and The Osborn in
Rye. No evidence has been presented that those communities, or others similar in
nature, adversely affect the property values or community character of their
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-58 DRAFT
community. It should be noted that both The Atria, Rye Brook and The Osborn in
Rye are situated in proximity to stable and desirable residential neighborhoods.
3.9. SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS
DEMOGRAPHICS
Comment 63: Comments were received suggesting that the Proposed Project might have a larger
population than estimated in the DEIS as a result of the proposed age restriction (55
years old and older) and the number of bedrooms proposed. (Snyder 007, FP Clark 012)
Snyder 007 (#28): The project will generate 462 people but that number is not realistic. You must consider the scope of the project since it calls for 301 bedrooms of Independent Living alone, together with 94 bedrooms of Assisted Living, and 48 bedrooms in the townhomes for independent living. Therefore, just in terms of bedrooms, there are a total of 443 bedrooms. Easily, the project could generate at least 600 more residents.
FP Clark 012 (#148): The DEIS states that the Proposed Project is anticipated to add a population of 462 people to the Village. This was calculated by estimating 1 person per Assisted Living facility bed, 2 people per Independent Living unit and 2 people per townhouse. With the proposed age-restriction of 55 and the number of 2- and 3-bedroom units, in addition to “empty-nesters” and elderly people, the proposed project would also attract families with children. The projected population should be recalculated to take into consideration the above.
Response 63: Chapter 1, “Revised Project Description,” describes the following relevant changes
to the original project: (1) maintaining the age restriction for the Site at 62 years old
and older, consistent with the existing Site zoning; (2) reducing the number of
bedrooms proposed for the IL building by 24 percent and reducing the size of the
IL units; and (3) reconfiguring the layout of the proposed age-restricted townhouses
to more clearly target an older population and to differentiate the product from other
Village townhouses. Within the IL building specifically, the Applicant has reduced
the size of the units proposed, reduced the number of two- and three-bedroom units,
and increased the number of one-bedroom units (see Table 3.9-1).
As stated in Section 2.9.1, “Demographics,” the Revised Proposed Project
anticipates having a population of approximately 438, which assumes 1 person
per AL bed, and 2 people per townhouse and IL unit. While the data presented in
Section 10.3.4, “Potential Impact of the Proposed Project,” of the DEIS indicates
that 55 years old and older communities rarely have school-age children as
residents, the proposed change to a 62 years old and older community further
decreases the likelihood that families with school-age children would live at the
Revised Proposed Project.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-59 5/14/2019
Table 3.9-1 Independent Living Building Size Reduction
DEIS Plan FEIS Plan
Average Unit Size 1,219 sf 1,069 sf
Number of Bedrooms 301 228
Largest Unit Size 1,800 sf (36 units >1,500 sf) 1,500 sf
3-Bedroom Units
Number of Units 18 12
Percent of Total 11% 8% Average Size (sf) 1,700 sf 1,450 sf
2-Bedroom Units
Number of Units 99 52
Percent of Total 62% 34%
Average Size (sf) 1,270 sf 1,215 sf
1-Bedroom Units
Number of Units 43 88
Percent of Total 27% 58%
Average Size (sf) 900 sf 933 sf
Sources: PerkinsEastman
Comment 64: A comment was received opining that the Proposed Project would increase the
average age and decrease the average income of Village residents, which would
make the Village less attractive to prospective residents. (Schlank 068)
Schlank 068 (#552): Does the applicant agree that the effect of constructing additional senior housing in Rye Brook would be to raise the average age of a Rye Brook resident and lower the average income of a Rye Brook resident? …less desirable place to live.
Schlank 068 (#552): Does the applicant agree that the effect of constructing additional senior housing in Rye Brook would be to raise the average age of a Rye Brook resident and lower the average income of a Rye Brook resident? …less desirable place to live.
Response 64: As shown in Section 9.4.1, “Demographics,” of the DEIS, the population of the
Village has increased 10.8 percent since 1990 and the median age of Village
residents has also increased. In addition, the median household income has
decreased 14.9 percent since 2000. As such, the Revised Proposed Project would
be anticipated to absorb a portion of this increase in senior citizen residents within
the Village and would be meeting a current market need, rather than creating a
market that would fundamentally change the demographic character of the Village.
FISCAL
GENERAL
Comment 65: Comments were received requesting additional information on the potential fiscal
impacts of the Proposed Project and suggesting that the Proposed Project would
have an adverse fiscal impact on the community. (Snyder 007, Schlank 068)
Snyder 007 (#74): A more detailed analysis of the fiscal impacts proposed by the project should be provided since it would appear that the project, as proposed, could have an adverse financial impact. A more realistic analysis should be provided, and project alternatives to reduce the size, scope and components of the project should be considered in connection therewith.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-60 DRAFT
Schlank 068 (#538): If a residential option is approved, the challenges for The Arbors will be more difficult to meet in a cost effective manner because The Arbors was not designed to be a fully-secured gated community. Significant adverse financial impacts could be felt on property values, as well as costs of self-policing services, road maintenance, and safety/security.
Schlank 068 (#575 or #538B): The DEIS notes that a change to senior housing could result in additional tax revenue to the Village of $281 thousand per year, and that would be sufficient to fund any additional police personnel and associated equipment that might be required as a result of the change. Who will compensate the Arbors property owners for any increase in the cost of our self-policing services as a result of changes at 900 King Street?
Schlank 068 (#576 or #538C): For each alternative discussed in the FEIS, describe the potential impacts on the costs borne by the PUD property owners for road maintenance, traffic control, procedured, and safety and security.
Schlank 068 (#577 or #538D): Is the applicant willing to work out an intra-PUD agreement that would cover the costs of road maintenance, traffic control and safety and security, as well as any related systems, processes, and controls?
Response 65: Section 2.9.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” and Section 2.10, “Community Facilities,”
analyze the potential fiscal benefits (e.g., tax revenue) and the potential fiscal
impacts (e.g., increase municipal costs) of the Revised Proposed Project.
As stated in those sections, it is conservatively estimated that the Revised
Proposed Project would generate approximately $1.68 million more in tax
revenue than the Project Site currently generates, including an $1,187,812
increase in revenue to the BBRUFSD and $334,420 to the Village. With respect
to the BBRUFSD, there would be no additional costs to the BBRUFSD from the
Revised Proposed Project. With respect to the Village, there is the potential for
the Revised Proposed Project to result in additional municipal expenses,
specifically those related to police and EMS service. As detailed in Section 2.10.1,
“Emergency Services,” the conservative estimate of potential additional
municipal costs associated with the Revised Proposed Project is anticipated to be
less than the conservative estimate of the additional property tax revenue
generated. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the Revised Proposed Project would
have an adverse impact on the Village’s budget.
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY TAXES
Comment 66: Comments were received questioning the validity of the DEIS’ statement that in
the Future without the Proposed Project (the “No Build” condition) the assessed
value of the Project Site would continue to decline. The commenter notes that the
Applicant has stated, when commenting on another office building in the Village,
that it has a strong office market. (Snyder 007, Schlank 060)
Snyder 007 (#71): The DEIS states that in the future without the project (the "No Build" condition), the assessed value would be expected to decline. In light of the applicant’s own statement in the attached Applicant’s Article, that does not have to be the case. The applicant has noted in the Applicant’s Article that Rye Brook has a strong office market and that with marketing, re-occupancy of the existing office building has potential. It may be that the applicant will have to perform upgrades to its building, like was done with The Atrium building at Westchester Avenue. Again, it is respectfully submitted
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-61 5/14/2019
that this Board should halt further review of the proposal in its current form and encourage the applicant to pursue the No Action alternative.
Schlank 060 (#424): Questions related to tax effects of any change in zoning from commercial to residential.
Response 66: The Project Site has experienced declining assessed values over the last 5 years
as a result of the inability to successfully re-tenant the Site. As noted in the
Response to Comment 14, the Applicant, as well as its predecessors in interest,
unsuccessfully attempted to lease the existing office building for a variety of uses
to a variety of tenants. These efforts were not successful in producing sufficient
building occupancy or tenancy to make operating the building profitable. One of
the reasons for this lack of success is the relatively large floorplate of the building
that is broken up by two atriums. The large, rectangular, floorplate makes it
inefficient to subdivide the space while providing for the necessary means of
egress for each tenant. As a result, buildings with more efficient floorplates, such
as the buildings at 1100 King Street, are more easily adapted for multiple tenants.
Given the consistent lack of success in re-tenanting the existing office building,
it is unlikely that one or more substantial and long-term tenants could be identified
to re-occupy the existing building, which is the only way for the assessed value
of the Site to increase.
Comment 67: The Village’s Planning Consultant requested that, “The FEIS…provide the
estimated assessment from the Town Tax Assessor and the projected taxes for all
jurisdictions used in Table 9-9 of the DEIS.” (FP Clark 012, Rosenberg 021)
FP Clark 012 (#149): The FEIS should provide the estimated assessment from the Town
Tax Assessor and the projected taxes for all jurisdictions used in Table 9-9 of the DEIS.
Rosenberg 021 (#248): Peter Feroe stated, “…if you look at tax revenue for the project site, as Tony mentioned, you’d have about a 350 percent increase. Mayor Rosenberg responded, “Have you checked – where are you coming up with those numbers?”
Response 67: As discussed in Section 2.9.2, “Fiscal Condition,” the Applicant has sought an
estimated assessed value from the Town Tax Assessor for the Revised Proposed
Project, however, an estimate has not been provided at the time of publication.
Nevertheless, and for the reasons set forth more completely in the DEIS, it is the
Applicant’s opinion that applying the per unit assessed value of The Atria, Rye
Brook to the number of units included in the Revised Proposed Project provides
a conservative (i.e., low) estimate of the future assessed value of the Project Site.
In turn, this provides a conservative (i.e., low) estimate of the future property
taxes that may be generated by the Project Site. For example, it is noted that The
Osborn in Rye, which, like the Revised Proposed Project, features more amenities
and a larger landscaped campus than The Atria, Rye Brook, has a much higher
per unit assessed value than The Atria, Rye Brook. In order to be conservative,
however, the Applicant utilized the per unit assessed value of The Atria, Rye
Brook within the DEIS and this FEIS to estimate the assessed value of the Revised
Proposed Project.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-62 DRAFT
Comment 68: The Village’s Planning Consultant stated that, “The loss per year of tax revenue
was incorrectly calculated. The loss of $65,000 in revenue took place over 5 years,
not 1 year. The FEIS should provide the correct calculations.” (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#147): The loss per year of tax revenue was incorrectly calculated. The loss of $65,000 in revenue took place over 5 years, not 1 year. The FEIS should provide the correct calculations.
Response 68: This comment refers to the decrease in annual property tax revenue generated by
the Project Site since 2013. As stated in Section 9.2.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” of the
DEIS, “the property tax revenue generated by the Project Site has decreased by
more than $65,000, or 11 percent, in the past 5 years.” The DEIS goes on to say
in Section 9.3.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” that “since 2013 the assessed value of the
Site has decreased nearly $2 million, resulting in a loss of approximately $65,000
per year in tax revenue.” In other words, the amount of property tax revenue
generated by the Project Site in a given year declined 4 out of 5 years between
2013 and 2017. As a result, by 2017, the Project Site was generating $65,000 less
per year than it was 5 years earlier. In total, the declining assessed value of the
Project Site resulted in the loss of an amount equal to $153,060 in property tax
revenue between 2013 and 2017 using 2017 tax rates.
Comment 69: The Village’s Planning Consultant stated that, “The FEIS should identify any tax
exemptions or subsidies that the [Proposed] Project would be eligible to receive,
other than the tax exemptions and reductions that maybe available through the
Westchester County Industrial Development Agency [IDA].” Another
commenter requested additional information on the IDA inducement process and
whether the Village had the capacity to successfully participate in that process.
(FP Clark 012, Schlank 068)
FP Clark 012 (#150): The DEIS states that the Applicant will not be seeking “standalone tax-exempt status” from the Internal Revenue Code. The FEIS should identify any tax exemptions or subsidies that the Project would be eligible to receive, other than the tax exemptions and reductions that maybe available through the Westchester County Industrial Development Agency.
Schlank 068 (#548): Does the Village of Rye Brook have sufficient authority to approve a PILOT agreement? Or do other governments, including the Town of Rye and/or the school district, need to approve the agreement as well?
Schlank 068 (#549): How long do these PILOT agreements typically take to negotiate? Are PILOT agreements relatively easy to negotiate? Or are they complicated enough for municipalities the size of Rye Brook and Town of Rye to require the use of outside help? How does the sales tax exemption work? Would the owners be exempt from collecting taxes from others or from paying taxes on their own purchases? On what types of items would the applicant collect or pay sales taxes for each alternative, if it were not exempt? Do the Village, Town, or School District get a share of any sales taxes? Could the applicant estimate how much the sales taxes would be for each alternative discussed in the FEIS?
Schlank 068 (#550): From the applicant’s perspective, what are the pros and cons of these kinds of IDA/PILOT agreements?
Schlank 068 (#551): If a senior housing facility is approved and constructed at 900 King Street and it subsequently goes out of business, how will this affect tax payments under the PILOT agreement? (assuming one is negotiated and agreed-upon).
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-63 5/14/2019
Response 69: As stated in Section 2.9.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” “The Applicant and owner of the
property is a for-profit entity and will remain so. Similarly, the Applicant will not
be seeking standalone tax-exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code.
However, certain tax exemptions or reductions may be available through the
Westchester County [IDA].” The Applicant does not foresee applying for or
availing itself of tax exemption, reductions, or subsidies other than those available
through the IDA.
The IDA process is summarized in Section 2.9.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” and
detailed in Section 9.4.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” of the DEIS. The Applicant needs
financial benefits from the IDA to make the project financially feasible and, as
such, the Applicant plans on making an application to the IDA for sales tax
exemption, mortgage tax exemption as well as real property tax abatements (i.e.,
a PILOT). With respect to the PILOT, the IDA’s general policy is to have the
Applicant agree upon a PILOT with the local municipality and then submit that
PILOT to the IDA for final approval. IDA benefits are typically awarded to
incentivize the creation of new jobs as well as to assist in developing or
redeveloping strategic sites within a municipality by lowering construction costs
and allowing for the phase in of full property taxes during the period when a
project is “stabilizing,” or in this case, becoming fully leased.
OFF-SITE IMPACTS
Comment 70: Comments were received suggesting that the Proposed Project would adversely
affect the property values of off-Site properties in the Village. (Mignogna 001,
Maniscalco 005, Schlank 068, Gudaski 075)
Mignogna 001 (#4): this [Project] will adversely affect our values which is something we do not need to see again.
Maniscalco 005 (#22): If we are to allow any type of rental properties [in the School District], particularly those in such volume as in the proposal, we will be creating undue taxation on our school system, and the children in our schools (and our property values) will suffer
Schlank 068 (#545): Estimate the resulting adverse financial impact on the property values in the Arbors. Please include both short-term construction impacts and longer-
term impacts, and please indicate how the applicant plans to proceed to negotiate a settlement or agreement with the Arbors property owners to mitigate the adverse financial impacts on our property values.
Gudaski 075 (#570): So, if they are rentals they always, you know, affect the value of the houses, they seem to decrease the value of the houses.
Response 70: See Response to Comment 62.
3.10. COMMUNITY FACILITIES
GENERAL
Comment 71: A comment was received stating that the Proposed Project would “drain valuable
resources from the community.” (Mandell 010)
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-64 DRAFT
Mandell 010 (#99): [The project will] drain valuable resources from the community.
Response 71: See Response to Comment 65. The Revised Proposed Project is anticipated to
generate property tax revenue to the Village in excess of the increased cost
required to provide additional community services.
EMS
Comment 72: The Village Administrator provided additional information with respect to the
current condition of the EMS service, including its service area, procedures for
positioning ambulances, staffing levels, and the financial contributions of its three
member municipalities. The Administrator also noted that, “in order to meet
current demand, EMS has hired an additional supervisor. They are also
considering adding an additional ambulance at certain times of the day. For
FY2019, they have requested a 5-percent increase in their municipal contributions
for the first time since 2010 in order to address the need for additional coverage.
The EMS is discussing the need to add an ambulance on certain shifts to meet the
call demand.” (Bradbury 017)
Bradbury 017 (#204): The Emergency Services section does not fully address the service area or the revenue sources. The DEIS should more fully explain that the EMS covers three (3) municipalities. Rye Brook, Rye City, and Port Chester (this relationship is briefly discussed in DEIS Section 10.2.1.1).
Bradbury 017 (#207): The EMS’s headquarters is at 417 Ellendale Avenue in Port Chester. Based on staffing and call volume, the EMS positions an ambulance in other locations, including at the Rye Brook firehouse. As calls come in, they will reposition these ambulances as needed based on those calls and ambulances available. When patients need transport, they usually go to Greenwich Hospital or White Plains Hospital pulling those ambulances out of the response area. If mutual aid is needed in their service area, they will typically call Harrison EMS or Greenwich EMS. Similarly, they will also go to mutual aid calls in Harrison or elsewhere if needed and staffing is available.
Bradbury 017 (#208): In order to meet current demand, EMS has hired an additional supervisor. They are also considering adding an additional ambulance at certain times of the day. For FY2019, they have requested a 5% increase in their municipal contributions for the first time since 2010 in order to address the need for additional coverage.
Response 72: Comment noted. Additional detail with respect to the existing operational and
budgetary conditions of the EMS service is provided in Section 2.10.1,
“Emergency Services.”
Comment 73: Comments were received regarding the magnitude of the potential impacts to the
EMS service from the Proposed Project. These comments included questions
regarding the number of calls estimated for the Proposed Project (e.g., “why the
large variation in potential calls?”); the percentage increase in call volume that
would be attributable to the Proposed Project; the cost to the Village and the two
other municipalities in the EMS district from the increase in calls attributable to
the Proposed Project as well as the increase in population attributed to the
Proposed Project; and, the impact of the Proposed Project, and the senior living
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-65 5/14/2019
facility proposed at Purchase, on mutual aid operations. (Snyder 007, FP Clark
012, Bradbury 017, Planning Board 018)
Snyder 007 (#72): The DEIS asserts that the increase in EMS calls and expenditures would be offset by an increase in revenue but it fails to provide evidence to support that conclusion. The DEIS simply states with no evidence that the financial impact of an increase in calls would be primarily mitigated through future insurance recovery. It does not take into the account that the EMS service would have to be expanded since it is operating near or at capacity.
FP Clark 012 (#152): The Port Chester-Rye-Rye Brook EMS received 1257 calls in 2017. By the Applicant’s estimate, the potential projected calls per year by the Proposed Project would be 465. This would be a 37% increase in the numbers of calls to the EMS that is currently operating near or at capacity, not a 7.8% increase as incorrectly identified by the Applicant in the DEIS. The FEIS should analyze the cost of the 37% increase in call versus the increase in funding from tax revenue and the 70% insurance recovery rate.
Bradbury 017 (#205): The DEIS states that since most of the EMS revenue comes from insurance recovery, the costs for any increase in calls will be recovered through insurance recovery and additional property tax revenue. This conclusion is not reflective of the impacts of the additional calls on the three municipalities in the EMS service area. Approximately 70% of the EMS revenues come from insurance recovery, while 25% of the remaining revenues come from municipal contributions…75% of the municipal contributions are divided equally among the 3 municipalities while the remaining 25% is based on population. As populations change in the census figures, the 25% share of the municipal contributions change as well. The potential impact of an increase in Rye Brook’s population from this development is not discussed in the DEIS. In terms of property tax revenue offsets, both Port Chester and Rye City would not receive additional property tax revenues from this project to offset any potential increase in their municipal contributions.
Bradbury 017 (#206): The DEIS should break down the calls by municipality to more clearly reflect t6he number of EMS calls to Rye Brook. The DEIS indicates that there could be as much as a 7.8% increase in call volume from this site but this is in the entire service area, not just Rye Brook.
Bradbury 017 (#212): There is a significant difference between 66 and 465 EMS calls per year and the DEIS indicates that this difference in response rate “could be attributable to a number of factors, including the relative age and health of the on-Site population.” And that to “minimize the number of additional calls for EMS services, the Proposed Project would seek to incorporate physical and operational measures to minimize unnecessary EMS calls, such as instituting physical improvements and operational policies to reduce fall hazards throughout the facility.” The differences in the number of calls, and how this impact could be mitigated, should be more specifically identified.
Planning Board 018 (#239): How will the proposed senior housing in nearby Purchase impact mutual aid for emergency services.
Response 73: Section 2.10.1, “Emergency Services,” provides an expanded discussion of the
potential impacts of the Revised Proposed Project on the EMS service as well as
on the municipal contributions to that service. In summary, Village population
increases by 438 people as a result of the Revised Proposed Project, and the
Village of Port Chester and City of Rye do not also experience similarly
proportioned increases in their municipal population, the Village may be required
to contribute an additional $1,784.50 per year to the EMS service. Increases in
the population of the Village of Port Chester and/or City of Rye would have the
potential to reduce, or eliminate, this increase.
The Revised Proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 334 EMS
calls per year—approximately one additional call per day. This would represent
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-66 DRAFT
an increase of approximately 5.4 percent in calls system-wide and an increase of
approximately 26.6 percent in calls within the Village.
If the EMS service determined that the increase in EMS calls attributable to the
Revised Proposed Project would substantially increase the non-reimbursed
expenses of the service, an increase in the municipal contribution to the EMS
service may be required. As noted in Section 2.10.1.2, “EMS: Increase in Call
Volume,” it is unlikely that the Revised Proposed Project will require an increase
in EMS expenses equal to the percentage increase in calls attributable to the
Revised Proposed Project. More likely, a smaller increase in expenses, and
required revenue, would likely be needed. The Applicant bases this assumption
on two findings. First, and as noted earlier, the EMS service did not raise the
municipal contribution to the service for nearly a decade, during which the
number of calls to the service increased. This indicates that the number of calls is
not directly proportional to the municipal contribution. Second, the EMS service
has indicated that they are currently considering adding another ambulance to
certain shifts to meet the current demand of the service. This increased fixed cost
of service would be required with or without the Revised Proposed Project.
Further, it is likely that the recent increase in municipal contributions to the EMS
service was required, in part, to fund this anticipated current, fixed-cost need.
Therefore, the Revised Proposed Project, while increasing the number of calls to
the service, may not, in and of, itself require the addition of new staff or
equipment; rather, it may lead to a higher utilization of the staff and equipment
that are currently budgeted for the EMS service.
Finally, even in the most conservative, worst case, the Village could experience
an increase of approximately $11,813 per year to support the EMS service and
the Village of Port Chester and City of Rye would also experience increased costs.
The costs to the Village would be offset by the increase in property taxes
attributable to the Revised Proposed Project, which the costs to the City of Rye
and Village of Port Chester would not be offset by increases in property tax
revenue to those municipalities.
The Applicant has not been made aware of potential adverse impacts to mutual
aid as a result of the Revised Proposed Project and the proposed senior living
project at SUNY Purchase.
Comment 74: The Village’s Planning Consultant requested additional information on the
measures proposed to reduce the number of EMS calls for “lift assist,” such as
providing an on-Site emergency medical technician (EMT). (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#151): The Applicant should advise whether there will be an EMT required to be on-site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in the assisted living and independent living facility to help in cases that would require “lift assist.” If there is an EMT on-Site, this would limit the number of calls to the Port Chester-Rye-Rye Brook EMS.s
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-67 5/14/2019
Response 74: Consistent with industry practices, the Applicant does not anticipate hiring an
EMT to staff the Revised Proposed Project. Instead, as state in the DEIS, the
Applicant would institute physical improvements and operational policies to
minimize unnecessary EMS calls, including physical improvements and
operational policies to reduce fall hazards throughout the facility.
POLICE
Comment 75: A comment was received questioning whether the Proposed Project would
generate sufficient additional property tax revenue to offset the cost of increased
police services attributable to the Proposed Project. (Snyder 007)
Snyder 007 (#73): with respect to police services, the DEIS states that an additional police officer would be required due to the scale of the project at a cost of approximately $225,750 per year. However, the project will generate only $281,359 in tax revenue, providing a small spread of the differential between the tax revenue and cost for police. This differential does not take into account other community services such as additional fire and EMS services which would be needed. Unlike other projects in the Village, the very nature of the project here relies on having sufficient emergency services and an adverse fiscal impact appears likely.
Response 75: As stated in Section 10.2.3.2, “Police Services,” of the DEIS, RBPD noted that
the Proposed Project “together with other previously approved residential
developments in the Village, would require additional police personnel and
associated equipment” (emphasis added). As such, the Revised Proposed Project
would only be responsible for a fraction of the total annual cost of an additional
police officer—$225,750. Even when combined with the potential increased costs
associated with EMS service, described above, and fire services, described below,
the additional tax revenue provided by the Revised Proposed Project is expected
to be well in excess of the additional costs to the Village. See also Response to
Comment 73.
FIRE SERVICES
Comment 76: The Village Administrator requested that the current conditions of the RBFD be
updated in light of the new fire services agreement with the Village of Port
Chester and the Village of Port Chester requested additional discussion of the
impacts that the Proposed Project may have on the fire services agreement. In
addition, the Administrator clarified that the RBFD and Port Chester Fire
Department (PCFD) both respond to calls within the Village together and that the
RBFD is under the operational control of the PCFD. Finally, a comment was
received questioning whether the RBFD had the capacity to provide service to the
Proposed Project. (Bradbury 017, Bradbury 017, Port Chester 019, Tazbin 071)
Bradbury 017 (#209): The opening paragraph [of Section 10.2 of the DEIS] indicates that the PCFD responds “with assistance from the RBFD”. This should be modified that both the PCFD and RBFD both respond to calls together and that the RBFD is under the operational control of the PCFD.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-68 DRAFT
Bradbury 017 (#210): The number of RBFD personnel (and their working hours) and the contract with Port Chester is currently very different in FY2019 compared to FY2015 and should be updated.
Port Chester 019 (#245): Additional discussion should occur regarding the potential impact of the project on fire services and the April 3, 2018 agreement between the Village of Port Chester and Village of Rye Brook.
Tazbin 071 (#563): The police and fire department, they are wonderful, but do they feel with the current staffing that they could support.
Response 76: The Village and the Village of Port Chester executed a fire services agreement in
March 2018 (see Appendix E-2). This agreement details the roles and
responsibilities of the villages with respect to fire protection services within the
Village. As noted therein, the RBFD will respond to calls within the Village
together with the PCFD. The RBFD will be under the operational control of the
PCFD. The RBFD has a budget of $2,035,018 for the 2019 Fiscal Year.3 As noted
in Section 2.10.1.4, “Fire Services,” the Revised Proposed Project is not
anticipated to result in significant increases in calls to RBFD. The Revised
Proposed Project’s height and construction would be of a similar height and
construction type to buildings already present within the Village. Finally, in
RBFD’s correspondence to the Applicant, the RBFD did not discuss whether
additional personnel or equipment to serve the Revised Proposed Project would
be needed. Based on the information provided, it is the Applicant’s opinion that
the Revised Proposed Project would not have a significant adverse impact on the
provision of fire services, allowing RBFD to support the new buildings.
Comment 77: The Village Administrator requested confirmation of the RBFD’s actual historical
response time to the Project Site with data from the County’s dispatcher.
(Bradbury 017)
Bradbury 017 (#211): While the location [Project Site] is admittedly very close to the Rye Brook Firehouse, it is unlikely that it would take “less than 1 minute” to get to the site from the time of dispatch. This information should be verified with factual information available from 60 Control.
Response 77: The Applicant requested and received documentation with respect to the actual
response times to 900 King Street (see Appendix E-3).
According to this documentation, the historical response time (2016, 2017, 2018)
to the Project Site from the time of dispatch is 3 to 7 minutes, with an average of
4 minutes 30 seconds. The difference between the response time provided in the
DEIS and the updated information received would not meaningfully change the
potential impacts of the Revised Proposed Project. That is, the response time to
the Site would be relatively short and would not be adversely affected by the
Revised Proposed Project.
3 https://www.cleargov.com/new-york/westchester/village/rye-brook/2019/expenditures/public-safety/fire department-&-ems/fire
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-69 5/14/2019
Comment 78: The Planning Board requested that the Proposed Project demonstrate compliance
with the New York State Fire Code. (Planning Board 018)
Planning Board 018 (#225): Demonstrate compliance with the NYS Fire Code, including means of egress from the building for the staff and residents.
Response 78: The building will be designed to fully comply with the applicable provisions of
the New York State Building and Fire Codes, including Chapter 10, “Means of
Egress.” Compliance with these provisions would be determined by the Village’s
Building Inspector during the building permit review process.
SCHOOLS
Comment 79: Comments were received expressing concern that an age-restricted population
might not vote in favor of school budgets. Another commenter noted that in her
experience, age-restricted populations do not necessarily vote against school
budgets. Finally, other commenters noted that age-restricted developments may
be appropriate to balance the potential of a project adding more school-age
children in the district with the potential for a project to add a voting bloc that
may be less supportive of the school budget. (Ghosh 008, Parvani 009, Samuels
016, Levine 029, Neumann 030, Barnett 034, Feinstein 049) (AKRF)
Ghosh 008 (#90): A 55+ community would impact our school budget proposals. More residents in our small community that do not have a stake in passing our school budgets…negatively impact property values for all residents.
Parvani 009 (#94): A 55+ community would impact our school budget proposals. More residents in our small community that do not have a stake in passing our school budgets…negatively impact property values for all residents.
Samuels 016 (#199): The 55+ community would adversely impact financial support for our school budget proposals. More residents in our small community who do not have a stake in passing the budgets would be detrimental to future school funding…decrease the stature of our schools in district rankings…negatively impact property values.
Levine 029 (#265): So why would they [the residents of the proposed project] ever vote to pass the school budget if they have no school-age children?
Neumann 030 (#267): You really can’t have it both ways. If you don’t want to impact the school, in terms of number of children, then we are taking the risk that we’re going to have a large community that doesn’t really care about the extremely high taxes and school taxes in this district.
Barnett 034 (#276): what’s the impact on the schools and what about the voters? There’s a surefire way to make sure that the impact is mitigated to the schools, and that’s to make sure that the number of residents that goes to this project, whether 62, that the number of units is as little as possible so that it’s economically viable.
Feinstein 049 (#383): I’ve taken offense – I’ve read some of the letters online. I don’t want people to feel that if you have seniors in a development that they are going to be against the school budget. Some of your best supporters of budgets are your seniors who have had children go through the schools and the like.
Feinstein 049 (#384): I personally think that this development will add tax revenue, which is needed, because we want our schools to be maintained to the quality they are right now.
Response 79: No evidence was presented that an age-restricted population might be more
included to vote in favor of, or be less supportive of, school budgets. The
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-70 DRAFT
Applicant notes that many families without children in public schools vote for
school budgets for a variety of reasons.
Comment 80: Several commenters suggested that a 55 years old and older community (or 62
years old and older community) would be more likely to have school-age children
than estimated in the DEIS. (Maniscalco 005, Mandell 010, Samuels 016,
Rosenberg 021, Levy 067)
Maniscalco 005 (#23): We lack the capacity to handle potentially hundreds more families in the schools...the 55+ community does not preclude older parents, grandparents, or subsequent occupants from occupying the units at this, or some future time.
Mandell 010 (#97): This development will overcrowd our schools (I know it is 55+, but so was Belle Fair when proposed).
Samuels 016 (#200): A larger number of young families with children (will) soon find their way into the community, despite the 55-and-over goal, this would further crowd our schools with finite resources.
Rosenberg 021 (#278): There wasn’t a concern in terms of the increase of school-age children. They felt that they – if it was 55 and above, they felt that they could accommodate them.
Levy 067 (#535): One of the primary reasons people move to Rye Brook is the wonderful schools. Even with an age limit of 62, there will be residents with children; these days, people having school-age children at the age of 62 is not uncommon.
Response 80: In response to comments from the Lead Agency and the public, and to further
minimize the potential for school-age children to live within the Revised
Proposed Project, the Applicant has modified the original project to increase the
minimum age of project residents to 62 years old and older, which is consistent
with the Village’s current definition of “senior living facility.”
In order to estimate the number of school-age children that could have been
expected to live in the original project, which was proposed to be age restricted
to those 55 years old and older, the Applicant collected information on the number
of school-age children living at eight residential developments in the region that
was age restricted to 55 years old and older. Within the eight developments, there
was a total of 1,173 dwelling units across seven different school districts. Based
on information collected directly from the school districts, there was a total of
three school-age children enrolled from those developments. The Applicant also
requested information from the Superintendent of the BBRUFSD regarding the
number of school-age children residing at The Atria, Rye Brook and the King
Street Rehab facility, two age-restricted senior living communities located on
King Street. To the best of the Superintendent’s knowledge, there were no
children living at either facility. Based on this data, as well as the revision to the
project’s age restriction, it is the Applicant’s opinion that it is extremely unlikely
that school-age children would reside within the Revised Proposed Project.
Comment 81: A commenter questioned the impact of the Proposed Project on the BBRUFSD
would be if current residents of the Village who do not have school-age children
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-71 5/14/2019
move into the Proposed Project and sell their houses to a family that does have
school-age children. (Barnett 034)
Barnett 034 (#277): If this community, this new community, is designed to get people to move out of their homes, what isn’t addressed…is especially in that first year or two or three, how many people who live in this area…decide to move to this structure…and decide to get out of their house, and those people are replaced with people who have school-age children and the impact on the schools.
Response 81: The Applicant does not believe that the Revised Proposed Project would
incentivize a significant number of Village residents who would otherwise be
content to remain in their homes to sell their house. Rather, it is the Applicant’s
opinion that the Revised Proposed Project would give residents that were going
to sell their house anyway, and potentially sell to a family with school-age
children, an opportunity to stay in their community.
As noted in Section 2.9.1, “Demographics,” the Village’s population has grown
10.8 percent since 1990 and the median age of Village residents has increased from
40.7 to 44.2 years old. This is consistent with the trend in the nation and the County.
As such, it can be expected that with or without the construction of the Revised
Proposed Project, an increasing number of Village residents that may seek to sell
their houses due to time and cost associated with home maintenance and the desire
to live closer to friends and live in a setting where car usage is not required.
Nevertheless, in the event that the Revised Proposed Project did incentivize a
small number of Village senior citizens that might not otherwise have wanted to
move to sell their houses to families with children, it would not be expected to
adversely affect the BBRUFSD. As discussed in Section 10.3.1, “Schools:
Existing Conditions,” of the DEIS, enrollment within BBRUFSD declined by 90
students—or 6 percent—between the 2014-2015 school year and the 2017-2018
school year. According to the BBRUFSD, enrollment is anticipated to continue
to decline slightly during the next few years. Therefore, even with the anticipated
increase in school-age children within the district as a result of the Kingfield
development, there would still be sufficient capacity to serve new students to the
district. With respect to the financial costs associated with potential new school
children, it is noted that the Revised Proposed Project would generate
approximately $1,187,812 more per year in property tax revenue to the
BBRUFSD than the Site does currently. This would be enough to cover the costs
of at least 42 school children based on the 2017-2018 average annual expenditure
per pupil of $28,061.
OPEN SPACE
Comment 82: The Village’s Planning Consultant requested that the source of the guidelines
used to estimate the appropriate amount of open space for the Proposed Project’s
residents be provided. In addition, the Village Administrator requested more
detail on how the open space provided on the Project Site fulfills the requirements
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-72 DRAFT
of Section 209-14 of the Village Code with respect to the siting of “a park or
parks.” (FP Clark 012, Bradbury 017, Klein 062)
FP Clark 012 (#153): The tables provide the amount of open space that should be provided per 1,000 people based on guidelines provided by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). The attached appendices and figures do not contain the original information from the OPRHP and we have been unable to verify the information. The FEIS should include the original report from the OPRHP to verify that the information on recommended open space is correct.
Bradbury 017 (#213): The DEIS indicates that the Project would include 2.7 acres of space for active and passive recreation, which exceeds the Section 209-14 code requirement (for) that purpose. However, the DEIS ignores the first part of the code requirement for “a park or parks suitably located and usable for passive or active recreational purposes”. The Village Board should decide if providing the identified open space on the project meets this code requirement.
Klein 062 (#510): Agree with Bradbury comments that Village Board determines what is appropriate.
Response 82: The source of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation (OPRHP) guidelines is the New York State Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Specifically, Appendix I, Recreation
Facility Design Guidelines,4 which is included as Appendix F.
The Applicant notes that these guidelines were published to help municipalities
develop open space and recreation plans for their entire community. As such, they
reflect a blended average of the open space needs of those members of the
community that require more opportunities for open space and recreation and
those that require less. The Applicant also notes that neither New York State, nor
the National Recreation and Park Association, the organization that published
data on which some of the New York State data is based, currently publish a
“target” for the amount of park space per capita.
The Applicant agrees with the comments from the Village Administrator and
Trustee Klein that the Lead Agency makes the determination, at the time of site
plan approval, as to whether all, or a portion of, the open space provided meets
the requirement of Section 209-14 of the Village Code to provide, “when required
by the approval authority, a park or parks suitably located and usable for passive
or active recreational purposes.”
It is the Applicant’s opinion that the Revised Proposed Project provides an adequate
quantity of appropriately designed “park or parks” to meet the recreational needs of
its residents. Specifically, and as stated in Section 2.10.3, “Open Space,” the
Revised Proposed Project would preserve approximately 10.67 acres of the Project
Site, or 60 percent, as open space—an increase of 0.36 acres from the current
condition. Of that space, at least 2.24 acres could be considered parks and
recreational space, as shown on Figure 2-11 and summarized in Table 3.10-1.
4 The 2014-2019 Plan no longer publishes these guidelines and the 2009-2013 Plan edited the guidelines to
remove the targeted amount of open space per capita, focusing instead on guidelines and park development.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-73 5/14/2019
Table 3.10-1 On-Site Recreation Areas
Open Space Area Approximate Area Description
East Garden (Memory Garden) 5,000 sf For AL and memory care residents
South Courtyard 9,400 sf Primarily for IL residents West Terrace Garden 2,662 sf Primarily for IL residents
West Sun Deck Garden 3,528 sf Primarily for IL residents North Courtyard Garden 10,790 sf Primarily for IL residents
Dining Garden 4,590 sf Primarily for IL/AL residents Walking Path 31,950 sf For all Project residents and staff
Backyard 29,830 sf For all Project residents and staff Total 97,750 sf (~2.24 acres)
The five main areas of open and recreation space are described in more detail
below:
• A Memory Garden (the East Garden, approximately 5,000 sf) would be located east of the AL facility for use by the facility’s residents. This secure, outdoor area would be landscaped and programmed to allow AL residents to safely enjoy the outdoors.
• Various landscaped gardens and terraces would be provided adjacent to the IL building. These spaces would be programmed for a various uses, including passive activities, such as reading or having a conversation, as well as for slightly more active activities.
• The existing Walking Path would be extended to the north within the Site and
would terminate at a landscaped loop in the Site’s northeast corner. This path, and the landscaped area to its east, would give Project residents the opportunity to enjoy longer walks on the Project Site. In addition, this Linear
Walking Path would connect to the existing sidewalk that connects the Project Site to Harkness Park, as well as to the Backyard walking path.
• The Backyard walking path would connect to pedestrian paths located at the northern and southern portions of the Site. This path would meander through a slightly wooded area and provide residents and staff with a more serene setting to recreate or simply sit and relax.
In the event that the Lead Agency determines during the Site Plan Review process
that the Revised Proposed Project does not meet the requirements of Section 209-
14, then the Applicant would be required to remit a fee in lieu of the amount of
deficient parkland.
SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING
Comment 83: A comment was received requesting that the FEIS more fully “discuss the
potential for food waste composting to reduce the waste stream from food services
at the Project.” (Drummond 037)
Drummond 037 (#290): The final scoping outline for the EIS required the applicant to address the potential for food waste composting. However, the draft EIS did not contain a discussion on this topic beyond a statement that “the Applicant would welcome the
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-74 DRAFT
opportunity to partner with a community organization that may want to make use of the Proposed Project’s organic waste by composting it.” The draft EIS cites the lack of a finalized solid waste management plan as the reason why no further discussion of food composting could be made. The final EIS should fulfill the scoping requirement to (more) fully ‘discuss the potential for food waste composting to reduce the waste stream from food services at the Project."
Response 83: The Applicant understands that food waste can be a sizeable portion of the solid
waste generated by residential uses. At this time, the Revised Proposed Project has
not yet finalized its solid waste management plan. The Applicant will develop a solid
waste management plan during final site plan approval that meets the requirements
of the County’s Source Separation Law. This plan will be submitted to the
Commissioner of Environmental Facilities of the County as well as the Village.
The Applicant notes that the Village operates a Food Scrap Recycling Program,
where residents can collect their food scraps and bring them to a designated drop-
off in the parking lot at Village Hall (938 King Street). The food scraps are then
carted to a licensed compost facility in Ulster County, where they are converted
into nutrient rich top soil. The Village currently pays $400/month to maintain 10
large 64-gallon compost bins, which are emptied every Wednesday. To date, the
program has composted 3 tons of food waste from residents individually dropping
off food scraps at the Village Hall parking lot. However, on any given week, the
Village only fills the equivalent of three 64-gallon bins.
The Applicant has begun conversations with the Village to determine the potential
for the Revised Proposed Project to make use of the food scrap recycling program
by potentially including a second pick-up location at the Project Site. This
collaboration would be the first of its kind in the Village. The Applicant plans to
continue these discussions and, if possible, coordinate the recycling of the
Project’s food scraps with the Village’s existing program.
SENIOR SERVICES
Comment 84: The Village’s Planning Consultant requested that, “The Applicant…explain why
[it] believes that residents of the proposed development will not use the existing
Rye Brook Senior Center inside the Anthony J. Posillipo Community Center.”
(FP Clark 012, Timpone-Mohamed 043)
FP Clark 012 (#154): The Applicant should explain why the Applicant believes that residents of the proposed development will not use the existing Rye Brook Senior Center inside the Anthony J. Posillipo Community Center.
Timpone-Mohamed 043 (#337): What (is) the impact on the senior center that is run by the Village, the Posillipo Center, what impacts would there be on them from this influx of seniors who will be -- you know, those who the Village property would be available to them. I don’t think that’s touched in the DEIS.
Response 84: As stated in Section 10.6.3, “Senior Services and Recreation Programs: Potential
Impacts of the Proposed Project,” of the DEIS, “the Proposed Project would
include extensive on-Site amenities and programs for the Proposed Project
residents, as well as planned outings and ad hoc transportation services for
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-75 5/14/2019
residents. The Proposed Project would include a fitness center for use by residents
that would be equipped with strength-training machines and a group fitness room.
The cost of accessing the fitness center and associated fitness classes is included
in the cost of living at the senior living community.” In addition, “trips and
programs would be offered to Proposed Project residents, such as to local grocery
stores, shopping centers, malls, and cultural institutions. In terms of dining, IL
residents would be expected to participate in a meal plan that would include some
or all of their meals; AL residents would be expected to participate in a meal plan
for all of their meals; and, townhouse residents would have the option to
participate in a meal plan at the IL building, but would also have the opportunity
to cook for themselves.”
As such, and as stated in Section 2.10.5, “Senior Services,” “it is the Applicant’s
opinion that the Revised Proposed Project, by providing many of the amenities
offered by the Village’s senior services to its residents would not be expected to
increase the number of seniors who make use of the Village’s senior services.”
3.11. INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES
WATER SUPPLY
Comment 85: Comments were received questioning the capacity of Suez to provide adequate
water to the Proposed Project without adversely affecting other areas within the
Village. (Carravone 002, Planning Board 018, Zimmerman 046)
Carravone 002 (#10): poor air quality, water pressure and sewer system will be a big problem for our neighborhood
Planning Board 018 (#227): Notwithstanding the “will serve” letter, does Suez have capacity to meet the projected water supply demand? The concern is that a majority of water supply in this area of the Village comes from Greenwich and when we are in drought alert residents are advised to restrict water use.
Zimmerman 046 (#356): As far as environmental analysis on water supply, your Village Board said you were concerned about insufficient pressure of volume of water for firefighting and domestic use.
Response 85: A thorough analysis was performed by Suez Water Westchester Inc. (SWWC), in
conjunction with Westchester Joint Water Works (WJWW) located in
Mamaroneck, New York and Aquarion Water Company (Aquarion CT) in
Bridgeport, Connecticut, regarding the capacity of the existing water
infrastructure to serve the Proposed Project (see Appendix G). The report
concluded that SWWC’s supply pressure will have to be upgraded by providing
an interconnection to WJWW on Anderson Hill Road via the Blind Brook
pressure reducing valve and an interconnection made with Aquarion CT via the
King Street pressure reducing valve. SWWC will be financially responsible for
making these interconnections. Based on this analysis, SWWC reissued a Will
Serve Letter, dated February 1, 2019 that takes into account the maximum fire
flow demand of the Revised Proposed Project (see Appendix G).
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-76 DRAFT
In addition to upgrades to the existing infrastructure, a new meter needs to be
installed on the 16-inch main at Anderson Hill Road, bypassing the existing 8-
inch meter vault, due to the significant head losses that are currently occurring in
the vault during peak flow conditions. The design criteria of the meter vault are
being finalized by WJWW. The cost associated with the meter upgrade and new
vault would be the responsibility of the Applicant.
The report prepared by SWWC, dated February 1, 2019, summarizes the findings
of the analysis performed to ensure these upgrades are sufficient to provide
adequate water flows and pressures during both normal and extreme scenarios (i.e.
during fire demand) (see Appendix G). SWWC service standards establish a
minimum pressure of 35 psi at the service tap location and a minimum residual
pressure of 20 psi during fire-flow conditions. The analysis shows pressures of 62
psi under post-development conditions and 32 psi under fire flow conditions, which
are both more than the required 35 psi and 20 psi, respectively. Therefore, sufficient
flows and pressures during both normal and extreme conditions will be provided.
Comment 86: The Village’s Consulting Engineer requested additional information on the ability
of the water system to provide adequate capacity and pressure to serve the
Proposed Project in the event of an on-Site fire during a condition where an off-
Site fire occurs within the same area. Specifically, the Village’s Consulting
Engineer requested a discussion of the potential impacts to the booster system on
Anderson Hill Road along with mitigation measures that may be required,
including on-Site pumps or tanks. (Snyder 007, Oliveri 011)
Snyder 007 (#77): Details on storage tanks and pumps in connection with fire requirement (needs to be provided).
Oliveri 011 (#100): Section 11.2.3 of the Scoping Outline required an analysis of the capacity available while firefighting is occurring in the vicinity. While fire flow hydrant tests have been performed, and SUEZ has provided a "willingness to serve" letter, this analysis has not yet been performed. The DEIS states that "confirmation of this analysis has been requested from SUEZ". SUEZ has acknowledged problems with the system in this area, not necessarily restricted to drought conditions.
Oliveri 011 (#101): The DEIS does not discuss the status of increasing capacity and reliability of the system. The DEIS states that SUEZ noted that there is infrastructure in place “to secure water from different locations”, however this is not discussed in any detail. Additional information is also needed on potential problems within the area supplied by the booster system on Anderson Hill Road that would affect this development. Particularly if an off-site fire occurs within the area served by the booster system. If fire pumps and/or water storage are required, the applicant should provide information now. As discussed previously, this issue should be resolved by the time of FEIS submission.
Response 86: The latest analysis performed by SWWC on the existing infrastructure has shown
that on-Site storage tanks and pumps to accommodate fire flows in connection
with the Revised Proposed Project are not needed (see Appendix G). See also the
Response to Comment 85.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-77 5/14/2019
SANITARY SEWER
Comment 87: Comments were received requesting confirmation that the sanitary sewer system,
specifically the section of the system between the Project Site and the County’s
trunk main, had sufficient capacity to accommodate the Proposed Project.
(Carravone 002, Snyder 007, Saboia 052)
Carravone 002 (#10): poor air quality, water pressure and sewer system will be a big problem for our neighborhood
Snyder 007 (#76): The sufficiency of the sanitary sewer needs to be more properly documented.
Saboia 052 (#388): My biggest concern is effluent...waste discharge from toilets, showers, dish washers, washing machines. The scope of this project...one of the biggest complaints was the worry of what was going to happen to all the waste water, the effluent.
Saboia 052 (#389): There were years back where we had horrible floods down towards the lower end of Bayberry. My concern is that with the scope of this [proposed project] and the size, we would have to be facing major issues with our water and the fluid.
Response 87: As described in Section 2.11.2, “Sanitary Sewer,” an analysis of the capacity of
the sanitary sewer network connecting the Project Site to the County’s sewer
trunk line was performed (see DEIS Appendix EE). As shown in Table 6 of DEIS
Appendix EE, this sewer infrastructure has the capacity to handle up to 0.960
cubic feet per second (cfs) of flow, which is well in excess of the 0.645 cfs of
flow projected in the post-development condition with the original project. As
shown in the analysis, with the original project, the existing 8-inch sewer main
would flow at 45 percent of its capacity during periods of peak flow. As the
Revised Proposed Project would generate less sanitary wastewater than the
original project, the sewer mains would similarly be able to handle the increase
flows associated with the Revised Proposed Project. Therefore, the Revised
Proposed Project is not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact to the
sanitary system.
Comment 88: The Village’s Consulting Engineer noted that, “The DEIS states that the
Applicant agrees to mitigate increases to sewage flow (net 35,787 [gallons per
day] gpd increase) at a 3:1 ratio (107,361 gpd). This is in accordance with the
County Departments of Planning and Environmental Facilities recommendations
and should be made a condition of any future site plan approval. The Applicant
agrees to either complete further investigation to identify I&I sources in the
downstream sewer system and conduct repairs or to contribute sufficient funds to
the Village’s current I&I program as mitigation.” (Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#102): The DEIS states that the applicant agrees to mitigate increases to sewage flow (net 35,787 gpd increase) at a three for one ratio (107,361 gpd). This is in accordance with the Westchester County Departments of Planning and Environmental Facilities recommendations and should be made a condition of any future site plan approval. The applicant agrees to either complete further investigation to identify I&I sources in the downstream sewer system and conduct repairs or to contribute sufficient funds to the Village’s current I&I program as mitigation.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-78 DRAFT
Response 88: As part of the Revised Proposed Project, the Applicant will contribute funds to
the Village’s current I&I program as the remaining mitigation. Coordination
between the Applicant and the Village will continue through the design process
to finalize a monetary amount that will satisfy the remaining mitigation.
Comment 89: The Village’s Consulting Engineer made several comments with respect to
specific design elements of the on-Site sanitary sewer system. (Oliveri 011)
Oliveri 011 (#113): Connection of sanitary sewer services from the proposed town houses directly into manholes should be avoided.
Oliveri 011 (#114): Sewer main alignment between SMH-3-1 and SMH-3 is at an extremely acute angle, this should be avoided.
Oliveri 011 (#115): Sewer and drainage profiles are required for review and approval.
Response 89: The sanitary sewer service connections are designed to connect directly into
sewer mains instead of manholes. This is illustrated on drawing C-500 (see
Volume 4).
The proposed sanitary sewer main alignments have been designed to avoid any
connections at acute angles. This is illustrated on drawing C-500 (see Volume 4).
Drawings C-510, C-511, and C-520 has been added to the site plans showing the
sanitary sewer and storm sewer profiles (see Volume 4).
ENERGY USAGE (ELECTRICITY AND GAS)
Comment 90: Comments were received requesting that Con Ed confirm that sufficient electric
and gas service for the Proposed Project is available. (Snyder 007, Planning Board
018, Tazbin 071)
Snyder 007 (#75): Existing electric service and existing gas service will accommodate the proposed project. It is imperative that these statements be confirmed.
Planning Board 018 (#234): Consolidated Edison should confirm (and such confirmation should be independently analyzed) that its existing infrastructure can handle the increased electricity demand. The Arbors experiences blackouts that also affect properties on Country Ridge Drive.
Tazbin 071 (#562): Con Edison. Do they honestly feel that they would support a couple hundred extra units if they can’t even support what they have now with all the outages that we have?
Response 90: The Revised Proposed Project would require electricity and gas to power building
systems. Con Edison would continue to provide electric service to the site, which
would be fed through an underground 13.2 kilovolt (kV) service originating from
Arbor Drive. This 13.2 kV service would be tapped by the various buildings on
the Project Site with pad-mounted utility transformers at each building. As
confirmed by Con Edison, the existing transformer on the Project Site is adequate
for the electric loads of the Revised Proposed Project (see Appendix H).
Con Edison has stated that they can provide firm gas to the Revised Proposed
Project and that two upgrades to Con Edison’s gas system would be required:
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-79 5/14/2019
replacement of 945 feet of 4- and 6-inch main with 12-inch main on Mohegan
Lane and Latonia Road; and, installation of a 12-inch tie on King Street from
Arbor Drive to N. Ridge Street. The cost of these improvements would be initially
funded by the Applicant, and refunded by Con Edison upon completion of the
Revised Proposed Project (see Appendix H). It is the Applicant’s understanding
that Con Edison will supply the Revised Proposed Project with firm natural gas
service if the Applicant demonstrates continued progress in completing the
project even if construction is not completed within two years despite Con
Edison’s temporary gas moratorium in southern Westchester County.
3.12. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
METHODOLOGY
Comment 91: Comment 91: The Village of Port Chester’s Board of Trustees requested that
the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and DEIS examine the following additional
intersections:
• King Street (Route 120A) and Indian Road/Quintard Drive
• King Street (Route 120A) and Putnam Terrace/Putnam Avenue. (Port Chester 019)
Port Chester 019 (#241): The Traffic Impact Study and DEIS should examine the following additional intersections:
a. King Street (Route 120A) and Indian Road/Quintard Drive
b. King Street (Route 120A) and Putnam Terrace/Putnam Avenue
Response 91: As per the Adopted Scoping Document (see DEIS Appendix A-1), the DEIS
Traffic Impact Study evaluated twelve (12) intersections, including the
unsignalized King Street/Comly Avenue and the unsignalized King Street/Betsy
Brown Road intersections to the south. Based on the anticipated
arrival/distributions shown in the Traffic Impact Study and the reduction in
vehicular trip generation as described in Section 2.12, “Traffic and
Transportation,” it is anticipated that the Revised Proposed Project would add an
additional 16 trips during the Weekday Peak AM Highway Hour, 19 trips during
the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 22 trips during the Weekday Peak PM
Highway Hour to the unsignalized King Street/Indian Hill Road/Quintard Drive
and the signalized King Street/Putnam Avenue/N. Regent Street/Putnam Terrace
intersections. This would be an increase in traffic of approximately 2 percent,
which is expected to have minimal impact at the above two intersections.
It should also be noted that, as with the original project, the Revised Proposed
Project would generate significantly less traffic than the re-occupancy of the
existing office building.
Comment 92: Questions were received questioning the validity of the existing condition traffic
counts used in the TIS. (Snyder 007, FP Clark 012, Galante 020, Galante 044)
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-80 DRAFT
Snyder 007 (#86): the applicant’s Traffic Impact Study appears to have been done when the private schools in Greenwich (nearby Greenwich Academy, Sacred Hart, Brunswick, and Eagle Hill to name a few) may have been out of session, thereby not reflecting real traffic patterns, and does not evaluate more than peak periods.
FP Clark 012 (#155): The traffic volumes from June [for the North ridge Street at Hutchinson River Parkway Southbound Ramps], which were used in the Traffic Study, are reasonably acceptable for the purposes of this Study [based on recounts done in September and October].
FP Clark 012 (#156): Clark Associates has conducted their own traffic counts at the
King Street/Arbor Drive intersection on Tuesday, October 2, 2018. The intersection total volume comparison indicated that the traffic volumes used in the Traffic Study are reasonably acceptable.
Galante 020 (#246): In comparison of the data obtained by the Applicant (traffic counts included in the DEIS) and traffic counts obtained by our office (traffic counts performed by FP Clark on King Street), it is our opinion that the baseline traffic volumes used by the Applicant for the purposes of completing their Traffic Study are appropriate and represent typical traffic conditions on King Street and at each of the intersections included in the analyses.
Galante 044 (#339): The count was redone this past fall on two different days, and generally speaking the volumes were almost identical. We’re comfortable with those volumes.
Galante 044 (#340): We went out and did separate traffic counts. We counted actually King Street at The Arbors driveway, turn moving counts, following the turn movements at different peaks, morning with schools, commuters, after school dismissal, and at the end of the day commuter traffic. We did that with video cameras, and we recorded the volumes, and they matched very closely to the volumes that were included in the document -- in the DEIS.
Galante 044 (#341): We did another method of collecting traffic data, which was the hoses across the road. We did that along King Street, basically between Arbors and the Village Hall driveway. It took us three different tries on three different weeks to obtain that data. Three different times because the hoses were tampered with: Either removed, cut, damaged, whatever. But in the end we have the data. Using that volume, which is hourly directional volumes for a period of days, we matched that to the volumes used in the traffic study for the different time periods by direction, and those volumes were very similar, almost identical to what’s in the report.
Galante 044 (#342): Volumes that were identified as the baseline, volumes were existing condition, volumes in the traffic report, we would agree with. We think it’s good data as far as the traffic volumes out there.
Response 92: The Existing Traffic Volumes were conducted when the area schools were in
session and, as outlined in the comment above, Village’s the Traffic Consultant
(FPCA) indicated that “the baseline traffic volumes used by the Applicant for the
purposes of completing their traffic study are appropriate and represent typical
traffic conditions on King Street and at each of the intersections included in the
analysis.”
Comment 93: The Village’s Traffic Consultant noted that, “The capacity analysis provided [in
the TIS] is reasonably acceptable and is properly calibrated to illustrate existing
conditions with capacity deficiencies on the minor street approaches at the
Hutchinson River Parkway interchange as well as queue along King Street at key
signalized intersections.” (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#158): The capacity analysis provided is reasonably acceptable and is properly calibrated to illustrate existing conditions with capacity deficiencies on the
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-81 5/14/2019
minor street approaches at the Hutchinson River Parkway interchange as well as queue along King Street at key signalized intersections.
FP Clark 012 (#164): The capacity analysis provided (for Build Conditions) is reasonably acceptable.
Response 93: Comment noted.
Comment 94: The Village’s Traffic Consultant noted that the 2025 No Build traffic volumes in
the TIS are reasonably acceptable and that it is the opinion of the Village’s Traffic
Consultant that inclusion of trips associated with the full occupancy of the
existing office building provided a “fair assessment” because the building is
“there and it could be reoccupied.” (FP Clark 012, Galante 044)
FP Clark 012 (#159): The 2025 no-build traffic volumes are reasonably acceptable.
Galante 044 (#344): There was a comparison with the office building. I know there’s some concern in here why are we comparing it to the office building. It’s there. It could be reoccupied. And I think that’s a fair assessment that should be -- for the Village to see and understand.
Response 94: The Village’s traffic consultant (FPCA), as part of their review dated November
2, 2018 of the Traffic Impact Study (August 24, 2018) and DEIS (September 12,
2018) indicated that in addition to the re-occupancy of the existing office
building, the Applicant has accounted for five other future developments and has
used an appropriate background growth rate for increases in traffic volume not
specifically related to a specific no-build project; therefore the 2025 No-Build
Traffic Volumes are reasonably acceptable. The Year 2025 Build analysis was
updated to reflect the reduced vehicular trip generation associated with the
Revised Proposed Project and is compared to the DEIS Year 2025 no-build
analysis with the re-occupancy of the existing office building (see Section 2.12,
“Traffic and Transportation,” and Appendix I-1).
Subsequently, based on a comment by the New York State Department of
Transportation (NYSDOT) and at the request of FPCA, the Applicant has provided
a sensitivity analysis of a No-Build Condition without any traffic associated with
re-occupancy of the existing office building. The Year 2025 Build analysis for the
Revised Proposed Project is compared to the Year 2025 No-Build analysis without
the re-occupancy of the existing office building (see Appendix I-2).
It should be noted that FPCA in their January 4, 2019 memorandum addressing
NYSDOT commented that, “It is important to note that in the past the re-
occupancy of vacant buildings was included to account for the net change in site
traffic for redevelopment.”
See also the Response to Comment 98.
Comment 95: Comments were received questioning the number of trips estimated for the
Proposed Project during the peak hours, including whether the trip generation
estimates took into account the proposed staffing of the facility. The Village’s
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-82 DRAFT
Traffic Consultant stated that the trip generation estimates are acceptable and that
“the proposed uses generate significantly less traffic than the current office
building, if fully occupied.” (Mignogna 001, FP Clark 012, Levine 029, Galante
044, Klein 062)
Mignogna 001 (#1): Total 269 “units”…”fewer than 100 vehicle trips”…The numbers are hard to believe.
FP Clark 012 (#160): The proposed uses generate significantly less traffic than the current office building, if fully occupied.
FP Clark 012 (#162): The Applicant has increased the trip rates for the 160-units of senior adult housing by 25 percent (x 1.25) to account for larger units and is acceptable. Site traffic estimates for the 24 residential townhouses and 94-Bed assisted living are acceptable. Site traffic distribution is reasonably acceptable for the proposed residential development.
FP Clark 012 (#163): The 2025 build traffic volumes are reasonably acceptable.
Levine 029 (#260): There’s no basis for it at all to say there’s a reduction in traffic during peak hours. We have no idea what hours people are going to be leaving for work out of those units, or people coming in and visiting them. But with an assisted living, there’s going to be emergency vehicles coming in, there’s going to be physical
therapists coming in. They are going to be coming in during peak hours. Any kind of employees for those buildings will be coming in during peak hours. And there’s no way to say when people will be leaving.
Galante 044 (#343): As far as site traffic generation, we agree with that. The site traffic volumes are actually increased by 25% to look at a worst case. There was some concern that the units were bigger than what you might find in the ITE trip handbook, so the volumes were increased by 25%, and the analysis reflects that increase in site traffic.
Klein 062 (#511): It is unclear in the traffic study if staff trips are incorporated in the [trip generation] numbers. Table 2-4...shows expected staffing levels, however Appendix F in the Proposed Project Section does not seem to incorporate staff trips during the commuting hours.
Response 95: The anticipated trip estimates for the original project, as included in the DEIS,
were based on industry standards contained in the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. These standards
include trips generated both by residents and staff of similar facilities. Based on
these standards, the original project would have been anticipated to generate a
total of 70 trips during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 80 trips during the Weekday
Peak Midday Hour, and 90 trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour. As noted by
the Village’s traffic consultants, these estimates were “reasonably acceptable”
and reflective of the expectation that the “proposed uses generate significantly
less traffic than the current office building if fully occupied.”
As stated in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” the Revised Proposed
Project would generate a total of 54 trips (reduction in 16 trips) during the
Weekday Peak AM Hour, 62 trips (reduction in 18 trips) during the Weekday
Peak Midday Hour, and 71 trips (reduction in 19 trips) in during the Weekday
Peak PM Hour.
Comment 96: The Village’s Traffic Consultant stated that the TIS “that was eventually accepted
by the Village was pretty much what we were looking for from a traffic
perspective.” (Galante 044)
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-83 5/14/2019
Galante 044 (#338): The document that was eventually accepted by the Village was pretty much what we were looking for from a traffic perspective.
Galante 044 (#345): We’re in agreement in what’s in the document as far as how it was put together, how it was analyzed, and we do agree with the results.
Response 96: Comment noted. The DEIS Traffic Impact Study followed the Adopted Scoping
Document and standard Traffic Impact Study methodology.
Comment 97: A commenter suggested that the traffic associated with the office building when
it was fully occupied was generally moving in the opposite direction from the
peak flow on Arbor Drive and therefore had a less adverse impact than the
Proposed Project may have. (Fiedler 027)
Fiedler 027 (#257): The office building only had incoming traffic in the morning; nobody was ever leaving. The Arbors is leaving. The high school, the middle school, their lining up of cars. So I don’t know how it’s 79% less (than traffic generated by the office building).
Response 97: The re-occupancy of the existing office building would generate a total of 333
trips (293 entering trips and 40 exiting trips) during the Weekday Peak AM Hour,
227 trips (102 entering trips and 125 exiting trips) during the Weekday Peak
Midday Hour, and 302 trips (51 entering trips and 251 exiting trips) during the
Weekday Peak PM Hour (see DEIS Appendix F). As such, it would be expected
that a percentage of the total office-related trips would be moving toward King
Street in the morning and toward the Arbors in the afternoon.
The Revised Proposed Project would generate a total of 54 trips (20 entering trips
and 34 exiting trips) during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 62 trips (29 entering
trips and 33 exiting trips) during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 71 trips
(39 entering trips and 32 exiting trips) during the Weekday Peak PM Hour. As
shown above, the existing office development would generate significantly more
traffic the Revised Proposed Project.
Based on the existing conditions traffic counts that were performed in 2017 and
2018, the existing office building is generating 34 existing trips during the
Weekday Peak AM Hour, 25 existing trips during the Weekday Peak Midday
Hour, and 21 existing trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour. As a result, the
Revised Proposed Project would generate an increase from the current condition
of only 20 trips during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 37 existing trips during the
Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 50 existing trips during the Weekday Peak PM
Hour. That is to say, the Revised Proposed Project is only expected to add one
additional car to Arbor Drive every 1.2 to 3 minutes during the peak hours.
Comment 98: Comments were received suggesting that considering the existing office building
on the Project Site to be fully occupied in the No Build condition in the TIS was
inappropriate either because it did not demonstrate the “real feel” of the Project’s
traffic impacts or because it was contrary to SEQRA policy. (Snyder 007,
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-84 DRAFT
Planning Board 018, Levine 029, Drummond 037, Snyder 038, Adler 039, Snyder
053, Darelius 056, Galante 057, Galante 058, Klein 062)
Snyder 007 (#32): comparing the Proposed Redevelopment to a fully occupied office building for the purpose of analyzing impacts is not consistent with law. As the Court held in Kirk Astor Drive Neighborhood Association v. Town Board of Town of Pittsford. 106 AD 2d 868 (1984), the board action under SEQRA must encompass the impacts associated with the actual change from its current use (a partially occupied office building) to the Proposed Development. Therefore, the DEIS is fatally flawed in all respects and proper comparisons to its current use must be reviewed by the Village Board.
Snyder 007 (#87): The applicant’s position that the project will have a reduced traffic impact on the community when compared to a full re-occupancy of the existing office use is not supported by the law or facts.
Planning Board 018 (#221): In the Traffic Study, the vehicle trips generated by the existing occupancy level of the building should be compared with the proposed condition to help demonstrate the “real feel” of the project’s traffic impacts.
Levine 029 (#262): A half occupied office building right now is not providing the same amount of traffic that will be happening with all the additional employees and residents.
Drummond 037 (#287): The (traffic) analysis should take into account the fact that there is currently very minimal traffic to and from the Site and that the proposed development would change this.
Snyder 038 (#292): The Applicant has misrepresented the overall size and intensity of the Proposed Redevelopment by comparing its impact to that of a nonexistent full occupancy of the existing office building at 900 King Street...This comparison is completely inappropriate since it does not adequately reflect the impact of the project and seeks to deprive the Village Board and the Rye Brook community of their opportunity to truly understand the devastating magnitude of this project.
Adler 039 (#295): Using the No-Build to mean a full re-occupancy of the existing office building is not appropriate in the instant case…current office buildings on the 900 King Street Site have been minimally used for many years. A comparison between a full re-occupancy of the existing office building to the proposed development does not adequately reflect the traffic impact that the proposed 900 King Street redevelopment would have on the surrounding roadway network. A more appropriate gauge would have been to compare the Build operating conditions with the existing conditions.
Snyder 053 (#394): As set forth in the Adler Report, the applicant’s comparison of the no-build, which they connote to mean full re-occupancy of existing office buildings to the proposed project is inappropriate.
Snyder 053 (#395): Indeed the applicant should be directed to redo the traffic impact study in a manner that demonstrates the true impact of the proposed project against the existing conditions.
Darelius 056 (#420): The TIS may have overestimated the no-build traffic in the study due to wording of the scoping document. The office building located at this location has been operating at a very low occupancy for several years, and the submitted analysis provides a no-build model with the current land use fully occupied. Please have the developer to [sic] resubmit a TIS that accurately depicts the current no-build situation. A no-build analysis that includes growth rate, surrounding development and existing traffic conditions at the site is requested to properly adhere to SEQR policy 617-2-L regarding existing neighborhood character and existing patterns of population concentration.
Galante 057 (#421): We are recommending that the Applicant provide in the FEIS a separate analysis of a 2025 no-build condition, which includes other development and a growth rate, to a build condition which only includes the site traffic to be generated by the proposed residential use of the Subject Property. This analysis would not take any credit for the previous office use of the Subject Property since it has been mostly vacant for many years. This analysis will provide the Village with additional information to determine potential impact on area roadways and the need for mitigation to address traffic related to this specific proposed residential development.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-85 5/14/2019
Galante 058 (#422): Based on these comments from NYSDOT we are recommending that the Applicant include the analysis of a no-build and build condition, without any office building estimated traffic under full occupancy, be included in the FEIS.
Klein 062 (#513): There is too much comparison to full re-occupancy of the existing office building in the trafficstudy and subsequently in the DEIS. New York State DOT has commented as such in their 1/4/19 letter and the FEIS should include builds from existing conditions as specified in FP Clarkletter also dated 1/4/19
Response 98: The TIS submitted as part of the DEIS utilized as a baseline the existing 200,000-
sf office building as if it were fully occupied, pursuant to the adopted DEIS
Scoping Outline. While there is case law to support the DEIS analysis, based upon
comments received during the DEIS review process, this FEIS provides an
analysis based upon the current utilization of the office building.
In addition, as noted in Comment 94, a sensitivity analysis was conducted without
the re-occupancy of the existing office building, as summarized in Section 2.12,
“Traffic and Transportation,” and contained in its entirety in Appendix I-2.
Comment 99: The Village’s Traffic Consultant noted that, “The Applicant has provided
accident data from 2014 to 2016 and [it] is acceptable.” (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#165): The Applicant has provided accident data from 2014 to 2016 and is acceptable.
Response 99: Comment noted.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS
Comment 100: Comments were received regarding the overall traffic impacts of the Proposed
Project. Several commenters expressed their opinion that the Proposed Project
would create a “traffic nightmare,” especially along King Street, which is already
a heavily trafficked corridor. (Mandell 010, FP Clark 012, Adler 039, Ross 042,
Levine 048, Snyder 061, Heiser 065)
Mandell 010 (#98): (The proposed project will) create a traffic nightmare.
FP Clark 012 (#157): During the morning peak period, as it relates to both commuter traffic and School-related traffic, significant delays were observed along King Street generally from and including the Parkway ramp intersections, along King Street in the vicinity of the Arbors signalized intersection and including the Blind Brook School’s driveways. This congestion and delays were clearly related to School activity and included School buses, staff, parents and students. Combined with this traffic was the typical commuter traffic found along King Street. During the afternoon School dismissal, traffic
conditions were found to be better with reduced delays; however, there were observed traffic delays related to the School dismissal, mostly in the vicinity of the Blind Brook School’s signalized intersection, which continued to the Arbors signalized intersection. However, during both the morning and midday time periods the Arbors Drive intersection driveway had minimal traffic delays. The dismissal time delays were found to dissipate within 15 minutes and is typical for any School activity on adjacent roads. During the typical weekday afternoon commuter time period, which essentially excludes any or most School-related traffic the delays were found to be less and traffic flowed reasonably well, although there were short-terms delays at the signalized intersections near Glenville Street. The field observations mostly match the results of the computer modeling for these intersections, as completed by the Applicant’s Traffic Consultant.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-86 DRAFT
Adler 039 (#296): Proposed redevelopment project will have a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions…which are already at or near capacity. Several intersections in the immediate area around the project will operate at capacity Levels of Service (LOS) “E” or LOS “F”.
Adler 039 (#300): The Proposed Project’s senior population could be at risk since emergency service vehicles would be unable to quickly enter and exit the property due to the failing LOS conditions.
Adler 039 (#301): (The site would) result in individual movements operating at capacity LOS “E” conditions or failure conditions (LOS “F”) during the peak hours at the six (6)
intersections studied: King Street (Route 120A) & Anderson Hill Road, King Street (Route 120A) & North Ridge Street, King Street (Route 120A) & Glen Ridge Road/Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway NB on/off-ramp, King Street (Route 120A) & Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway NB on/off-ramp, and King Street (Route 120A) & Betsy Brown Road.
Ross 042 (#327): we (Blind Brook-Rye Union Free School District) are very concerned with traffic on King Street in Rye Brook as it is currently extremely heavy during rush hour periods each weekday morning and afternoon. Traffic will only worsen…the situation may get so poor that the safety of pedestrians and motorists will be jeopardized. Very concerned about the potential for congestion especially on King Street southbound between the Belle Fair Boulevard and Magnolia Drive and northbound on King Street from Magnolia Drive to Belle Fair Boulevard.
Levine 048 (#372): You have no control over when people will be visiting the residents, when people will be going in and out in the care facility, when the hospitality people will be coming in and out.
Levine 048 (#373): Emergency vehicles, I’m concerned about the fire trucks being able to get to where they need to go. And any other police that are going to be needing to go down King Street.
Levine 048 (#374): You cannot control the flow of traffic. 600 other residents and an elderly care facility in there, and the traffic is going to explode. There’s one road in, one road out. King Street is used by many and it’s going to be used by even more. Access to it from the Hutch is going to be affected as well. There’s no control over what’s going to be going on during construction.
Heiser 065 (#528): I’m concerned about the traffic.
Maniscalco 076 (#574): It seems to me that the biggest challenge with replacing an office building with any type of residential development, particularly one so dense will greatly add to the problem. This is true because, unlike an office building, drivers coming to and from the new development will be traveling the same direction as current residents. In other words, office workers are coming to the building in the morning and night, as opposed to residents which do the opposite. This will multiply our issue.
Snyder 061 (#500): Adler Consulting prepared the attached chart, using numbers from the Applicant’s TIS and comparing the proposed project to existing conditions. The chart highlights the “F” conditions resulting from the project and demonstrates the true significant adverse traffic impact of the project.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-87 5/14/2019
Table 1 Level-of-Service Comparison1
Intersection App1
Weekday Peak AM Weekday Peak Midday Weekday Peak PM
Existing Build Existing Build Existing Build
King Street (Route 120A) and Anderson Hill Road
NB l A (4.3) A (6.2) A (3.3) A (4.6) B (12.0) C (20.9) NB t B (17.9) C (27.7) B (10.9) B (14.5) B (13.9) B (18.1)
SB t B (12.9) B (17.9) B (13.3) B (18.6) C (30.6) E (63.8) SB r A (0.7) A (0.8) A (0.5) A (0.7) A (1.1) A (1.3)
EB l D (35.6) D (40.1) C (33.9) D (36.2) C (32.4) C (34.3)
EB r B (19.1) B (18.6) B (18.3) B (18.6) C (21.2) C (21.4) Overall B (16.6) C (20.3) B (13.0) B (16.5) C (21.6) D (36.5)
King Street (Route 120A) and Hutchinson River Pkwy/Merritt Pkwy SB off-ramp WB r c (19.0) d (27.3) b (13.6) c (16.2) b (14.0) c (16.7)
King Street (Route 120A) and N. Ridge Street
NB l b (10.6) b (11.6) a (9.8) b (10.4) a (9.9) b (10.5) EB l f (160.9) f (346.3) f (89.1) f (177.6) f (60.8) f (99.5) EB r c (21.7) d (27.4) c (17.6) c (21.5) d (26.2) e (38.6)
King Street (Route 120A) and Glen Ridge Road/Hutchinson River Pkwy/Merritt Pkwy NB on/off ramp
SB l b (14.6) c (18.0) b (14.5) c (17.6) c (15.8) c (19.8)
WB l/r f (53.1) f (138.3) d (31.4) f (53.6) e (41.8) f (97.7)
King Street (Route 120A) and Hutchinson River Pkwy/Merritt Pkwy NB on/off ramp
NB l a (0.0) a (0.0) a (8.3) a 98.4) a (8.8) a (9.0)
EB l/r f (82.1) f (151.1) c (22.4) d (30.7) f (53.9) f (110.7)
King Street (Route 120A) and Arbor Drive
NB l A (3.0) A (3.8) A (2.1) A (2.5) A (2.5) A (2.9)
NB t A (8.2) B (13.2) A (5.3) A (7.8) A (4.3) A (5.6) SB t B (10.1) B (15.6) A (6.4) A (7.8) A (7.9) B (10.2) SB r A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.1) A (0.1) A (0.1) EB l D (45.1) D (46.6) D (40.8) D (42.8) D (51.0) D (52.0) EB r B (14.2) B (12.6) B (17.2) B (15.8) B (18.2) B (16.8) Overall B (10.3) B 915.5) A (6.4) A (8.4) A (7.0) A 98.7) King Street (Route 120A) and Blind Brook MS/HS right turn entry SB r a a a a a a
Notes: 1. Letters indicate levels of service, delays (in parentheses) are in seconds per vehicle. 2. EB – eastbound, WB = westbound, NB = northbound, SB = southbound, l = left, t = through, r= = right. Overall = the weighted average delay of all the movements at the intersection and the corresponding LOD. 4. Uppercase letters indicate signalized intersections, lowercase letters indicate unsignalized intersections.
Table 1 Level-of-Service Comparison1 (continued)
Intersection App1 Weekday Peak AM Weekday Peak Midday Weekday Peak PM Existing Build Existing Build Existing Build
King Street (Route 120A) and Blind Brook MS/HS Glenville Street
NB l A (9.7) B (10.4) B (12.0) B 913.2) A (8.0) A (8.4) NB t/r C (31.5) D (38.3) C (29.7) D (36.6) B (19.7) C (22.7)
SB l B (12.5) B (17.5) B (13.1) B (15.5) A (5.2) A (5.8)
SB t/r C (20.3) C (22.8) C (22.7) C (25.5) B (10.1) B (10.9) EB l D (46.0) D (46.4) D (47.5) D (49.0) D (50.6) D (50.8) EB t/r B (15.5) B(15.2) B (12.8) B (12.7) C (21.8) C (21.3)
WB l/t D (46.4) D (47.0) D (50.5) D (D (48.9) E (60.5) E (60.8) WB r B (18.9) B (18.8) C (22.2) C (25.0) B 916.0) B 915.7)
Overall C (24.5) C (27.8) C (26.9) C (30.4) B (17.7) B (18.8)
Arbor Drive and Site Driveway WB l a (0.0) a (0.0) a (0.0) a (0.0) a (0.0) a (0.0) SB l/r a (9.6) b (10.0) b (10.1) b (10.6) a (9.5) a (9.9)
King Street (Route 120A) and Comely Avenue SB l a (8.8) a (9.1) a (8.4) a (8.6) a (8.6) a (8.9) WB l/r c (20.9) d (27.4) b (14.9) c (16.9) c (18.7) c (23.6)
King Street (Route 120A) and Betsey Brown Road NB l a (9.8) b (10.3) a (9.3) a (9.6) a (8.7) a (8.9) EB l/r f (172.2) f (374. 9) e (40.1) f (69.6) d (25.0) d (34.8)
N. Ridge Street and Hutchinson River Pkwy SB on/off ramps SB l a (8.9) a (9.3) a (8.0) a (8.2) a (7.9) a (8.0) WB l/r b (11.9) b (12.7) b (10.2) b (10.4) b (10.7) b (11.2)
Notes: 1. Letters indicate levels of service, delays (in parentheses) are in seconds per vehicle. 2. EB – eastbound, WB = westbound, NB = northbound, SB = southbound, l = left, t = through, r= = right. Overall = the weighted average delay of all the movements at the intersection and the corresponding LOD. 4. Uppercase letters indicate signalized intersections, lowercase letters indicate unsignalized intersections.
Response 100: As described in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” and in Response to
Comment 95, the Revised Proposed Project would result in 16 fewer trips during
the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 18 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak Midday
Hour, and 19 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour than the original
project.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-88 DRAFT
The results of the analysis with and without the re-occupancy of the existing office
development are summarized in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” and
detailed in Appendix I-1 and Appendix I-2, respectively. As described therein,
the Revised Proposed would not significantly affect the area roadways. See also
the Response to Comment 94.
Comment 101: Comments were received regarding the potential impacts of the Proposed Project
on Arbor Drive and its intersection with King Street. Some commenters suggested
that the Proposed Project would not adversely affect Arbor Drive. Other
commenters suggested that the traffic from the Proposed Project would
“overwhelm” Arbor Drive and severely inconvenience residents of The Arbors
and, eventually, residents of the Proposed Project. (Straubinger 003, Levy 004,
Snyder 007, Planning Board 018, Levine 029, Adler 039, Snyder 045, Levine 048,
Snyder 061, Tazbin 071)
Straubinger 003 (#14): (Increased analysis of alternatives to the Project that will
incorporate) the major traffic congestion impacts the project will have on Arbor Drive traffic patterns and the King Street Interchange
Levy 004 (#18): I do think they were sensitive to the use of Arbor Drive to limit the concerns of the Arbors.
Snyder 007 (#49): in light of the magnitude of the project, a much more careful analysis needs to be made regarding access...there is only one access drive, Arbor Drive, to be used by the 250 townhome owners at the Arbors and the potential 600 residents of the project, is alarming.
Planning Board 018 (#238): Capability of emergency services to address the increased demand from the proposed project needs further study. The adequacy of proposed ingress and egress for the property for emergency vehicles should be confirmed.
Levine 029 (#261): Without a second access road, this should never have gone any further. Arbor Drive cannot maintain that amount of traffic.
Adler 039 (#299): Arbor Drive cannot safely sustain the significant increase in vehicles and trips associated with the proposed project.
Snyder 045 (#353): Board must take into account there’s one road in. There’s Arbor Drive, and whatever ends up being with the secondary access, which they don’t even have.
Levine 048 (#375): If there is an emergency in The Arbors, how do we all get out? That hasn’t really been answered either. There needs to be another way in an out that’s accessible to all, and I don’t want to figure it out when there is an emergency.
Snyder 061 (#503): Mitigation measures need to be designed and implemented by the Applicant...to address the one way access road of Arbor Drive and the anticipated traffic from the project compared to existing conditions.
Response 101: The signalized intersection of King Street (Route 120A) and Arbor Drive is
anticipated to operate at similar Levels of Service for the No-Build conditions and
under the Build condition with the Revised Proposed Project (see Section 2.12,
“Traffic and Transportation,” and Appendix I-1 and Appendix I-2). It should be
noted that the current office building is generating some 34 existing trips during the
Weekday Peak AM Hour, 25 existing trips during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour,
and 21 existing trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour. As a result, the Revised
Proposed Project would generate an increase from the current condition of only 20
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-89 5/14/2019
trips during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 37 existing trips during the Weekday
Peak Midday Hour, and 50 existing trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour.
Comment 102: Comments were received opining that the Proposed Project would have a
significant adverse impact on the intersections of the Parkway with King Street.
(Ghosh 008, Parvani 009, Maniscalco 015, Samuels 016, Ross 042)
Ghosh 008 (#89): The increase in traffic on and off the Hutch and King Street would be seriously impacted. The width of the street is not adequately designed to handle that kind of an increase in traffic.
Parvani 009 (#93): The increase in traffic on and off the Hutch and King Street would be seriously impacted. The width of the street is not adequately designed to handle that kind of an increase in traffic.
Maniscalco 015 (#197): Concern over the handling of traffic coming off of the Northbound Hutchinson River Parkway onto King Street. Poor signage on the highway and/or poor traffic controls at the exit caused unnecessary and extended backups due to the number of drivers who make left turns off of that exit.
Samuels 016 (#198): The increase in traffic on and off of the Hutch and on King Street, from 600 new housing units, could be devastating to our community and those passing through. The width of the street is not adequately designed to handle that kind of an increase in traffic flow.
Ross 042 (#328): Problem with cars backing up on the Hutchinson River Parkway (North), a longstanding issue and hazard.
Maniscalco 015 (#573): Now, a proposal exists to allow hundreds of more drivers to use this exit [Northbound Hutchinson River Parkway onto King Street] to get home, which already sometimes takes me 10 or more minutes to clear during peak times. Our sleepy
little village exit off of the parkway cannot handle volume at its current state. Adding hundreds more drivers, all of whom likely to want to use this exit will further complicate the matter. What provisions will the Village be requiring to change the current traffic at the King Street exit in the Northbound Hutchinson River Parkway? Will there be better signage on the Parkway? Will there be a traffic light? Will there be a no left turn sign on King Street? Will the exit ramp provide for two lanes, one for left and one for right turns?
Response 102: The Revised Proposed Project would result in 16 fewer trips during the Weekday
Peak AM Hour, 18 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 19
fewer trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour than the original project. See also
the Response to Comment 95.
The results of the analysis with and without the re-occupancy of the existing office
development are detailed in Appendix I-1 and Appendix I-2, respectively. As
described therein, the Revised Proposed would not significantly affect the area
roadways. See also the Response to Comment 94.
Comment 103: The Village’s Traffic Consultant noted that, “The northbound through movement
at the intersection of King Street (Route 120A) and Betsy Brown Road during the
weekday peak PM highway hour should be 542 vehicles, not 452 vehicles. This
should be revised and the capacity table updated.” (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#161): the northbound through movement at the intersection of King Street/Betsy Brown Road during the weekday peak PM highway hour should be 542 vehicles, not 452 vehicles. This should be revised and the capacity table updated.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-90 DRAFT
Response 103: Comment noted. The northbound through movement at the intersection of King
Street/Betsy Brown Road during Peak PM Highway Hour has been corrected
under the Year 2025 No-Build Condition.
Comment 104: The Village of Port Chester stated that, “A traffic signal should be provided at the
intersection of King Street (Route 120A) and Betsy Brown Road.” (Port Chester 019)
Port Chester 019 (#242): A traffic signal should be provided at the intersection of King Street (Route 120A) and Betsy Brown Road.
Response 104: Based on the analysis provided in the DEIS Traffic Impact Study and updated
analysis for the Revised Proposed Project (see Appendix I-1 and Appendix I-2),
a traffic signal is not proposed at this location. The Revised Proposed Project is
anticipated to add 19 additional trips during Weekday Peak AM Hour, 22
additional trips during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 26 additional trips
during the Weekday Peak PM Hour and would equate to less than 2% of the No-
Build traffic projections. In addition, similar Levels of Service would be expected
under No-Build and Build Conditions.
Comment 105: Comments were received repeating the finding of the DEIS that during the build
condition, certain intersection movements would be expected to experience
queues that exceed the available storage length during the 95th and 50th percentile
traffic conditions. (Adler 039, Snyder 053)
Adler 039 (#298): Vehicle queues are expected: King Street (Route 120A) & Anderson Hill Road; King Street (Route 120A) & North Ridge Street; King Street (Route 120A) & Glen Ridge Road/Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway NB on/off-ramp; King Street (Route 120A) & Arbor Drive; King Street (Route 120A) & Blind Brook MS/HS – Glenville Street.
Snyder 053 (#402): The project will cause a queue spill back which is in excess of what is available for the length of the same, resulting in difficulties to the area. Lines will back up beyond the available length in the queue…particularly by the Hutch. It will be similar to the devastating traffic that occurred during the recent November 15th snow storm, but this will occur in a daily basis.
Response 105: As shown in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” the Revised Proposed
Project would not significantly increase the queuing on the area roadways.
Comment 106: A comment was received stating that level of service (LOS) E and LOS F
intersection operations will result in a greater likelihood of more traffic accidents.
(Adler 039, Snyder 061)
Adler 039 (#297): LOS “E” and “F”, the delay will result in a myriad of consequences…based on an earlier study published in the June 2010 ITE Journal, a greater likelihood of more traffic accidents (will occur).
Snyder 061 (#501): [LOS] “F” conditions have been found to cause an increase in traffic accidents, and the proposed project’s senior population could be at risk since emergency service vehicles would be unable to quickly enter and exit the property due to the failing LOS conditions.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-91 5/14/2019
Response 106: As outlined in the DEIS Traffic Impact Study (see DEIS Appendix F), “Based on
the anticipated traffic generation for the Proposed Project, it is expected that the
Proposed Project will not have a significant impact on the accident rates on the
area roadways.” As the Revised Proposed Project is anticipated to generate fewer
trips than the original project, it is similarly anticipated that the Revised Proposed
Project would not have a significant impact on accident rates on the area
roadways.
TRAFFIC MITIGATION
Comment 107: Comments were received requesting information on the measures proposed to
mitigate potential traffic impacts of the Proposed Project, including the staggering
of shift changes to avoid peak hours and school arrival/dismissal times, or
reducing the size of the Proposed Project. (Drummond 037, Adler 039, Ross 042,
Snyder 053, Klein 062)
Drummond 037 (#288): How will the anticipated staffing level of 121 daily employees be handled in terms of traffic...King Street has issues with stopped school buses during the period just before and after school. If possible…avoid these times for shift changes and other staff arrival and departure times.
Adler 039 (#304): The Village Board should consider reducing the density and size of the project to alleviate the traffic impacts. At a minimum, the Village Board must require mitigation for the significant adverse traffic impacts that the current proposal of redeveloping the 900 King Street Site would have on the area intersections.
Ross 042 (#329): Several hundred cars and buses that already travel on King Street to Blind Brook MS/HS located at 840 King Street during rush hour period. Please do not forget to take into consideration what the proposed complex may do to a traffic situation that is already not good and for the safety of students who walk and bike between their homes and the Middle and High School campus. We request that traffic generated by the
construction be limited during school arrival (7:15-8:00 am) and dismissal (2:15-3:00 pm)
Snyder 053 (#407): Applicant has not provided any meaningful mitigation measures that would result in reducing the significant traffic impacts associated with the project.
Klein 062 (#512): Mitigating measures in 12.6 should include proposed staff schedules that will mitigate traffic.
Response 107: The Revised Proposed Project would result in 16 fewer trips during the Weekday
Peak AM Hour, 18 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 19
fewer trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour. See also the Response to
Comment 95.
The results of the analysis with and without the re-occupancy of the existing office
development are detailed in Appendix I-1 and Appendix I-2, respectively. As
described therein, the Revised Proposed would not significantly affect the area
roadways. See also the Response to Comment 94.
In response to public comments and to further reduce the potential for adverse
traffic impacts, the Applicant has committed to staggering the shifts of the Site’s
employees so that shift changes do not occur during school arrival or dismissal
times. See also the Response to Comment 112.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-92 DRAFT
Comment 108: Comments were received supporting the concept of a shuttle to and from the
Proposed Project and local downtowns and train stations. The Village of Port
Chester’s Board of Trustees requested additional information regarding potential
impacts at the Port Chester Train Station from the shuttle’s operation. (Port
Chester 019, Drummond 037)
Port Chester 019 (#244): More information should be provided regarding the potential of a shuttle to and from the project to potentially the Port Chester train station as this could potentially not only impact King Street, but the area in and around the train station and downtown.
Drummond 037 (#289): We are supportive of any initiative undertaken by the applicant to provide a shuttle service to building residents to allow them to avoid using personal cars.
Response 108: A shuttle service is not currently planned as part of the Revised Proposed Project.
As stated in the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Project “would offer transportation
services for residents to off-site locations…Furthermore, depending on the
demand, the Proposed Project’s operator may provide shuttle service to and from
a local train station (e.g., Port Chester or White Plains).” If, in the future, the
operator of the Revised Proposed Project decided to operate a shuttle between the
Project Site and a local train station, it is likely that only one or two shuttles per
‘shift change’ would be utilized. The anticipated impact of this service at a
particular train station would be de minimis, owing to the infrequent service.
Comment 109: The Village of Port Chester requested that, “A traffic meeting between the Village
of Port Chester and Village, hosted by NYSDOT should be scheduled, similar to
a series of meetings that NYSDOT hosted with the two Villages and the City of
Rye regarding the redevelopment of the United Hospital site.” (Port Chester 019)
Port Chester 019 (#243): A traffic meeting between the Village of Port Chester and Village of Rye Brook, hosted by NYSDOT should be scheduled, similar to a series of meetings that NYSDOT hosted with the two Villages and the City of Rye regarding the redevelopment of the United Hospital site.
Response 109: If a meeting with NYSDOT is requested, the Applicant would coordinate with the
Village of Rye Brook and the Village of Port Chester.
Comment 110: A comment was received requesting that, “Bicycle access, including travel and
parking, should be discussed, pursuant to the scope. As the Site is not located
along a bus line, but is within biking distance of a train station, bicycle access
should be explored to help employees get to the Site from the train station.”
(Drummond 037)
Drummond 037 (#291): There was no discussion of bicycle travel or parking contained in the draft EIS. Because the site is not located along a bus line, but is within biking distance of a train station, bicycle access should be explored to help employees get to the site from the train station.
Response 110: As stated in Section 12.5.4, “Public Transportation,” of the DEIS, “The Proposed
Project would have at least 900 fewer employees than the fully occupied office
building.” The Applicant notes that the potential expansion of the public transit
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-93 5/14/2019
system to serve the Proposed Project is under the jurisdiction of the system’s
governing body, Westchester County. However, as stated in this section of the
DEIS, “depending on the demand, the Proposed Project’s operator may provide
shuttle service to and from a local train station (Port Chester or White Plains).”
Similarly, if there is a demand from employees regarding bicycle amenities within
the Site, the Revised Proposed Project would provide secure areas for on-Site
bicycle storage.
PEDESTRIANS
Comment 111: A comment was received questioning the accuracy of the pedestrian counts and
the representative nature of the counts owing to the season in which the counts
were collected. (Zhao 006, Levy 072)
Zhao 006 (#24): Data presented here are not reliable for the following reasons: (1) Data are collected on two specific dates: Both are Wednesdays…all in the winter season, and are not statistically acceptable as representative data; (2) There is no weather condition reported. The two dates are all in winter, severe weathers like snow or rain could result in significant decrease of pedestrian counts; (3) Manual counting conducted by a single person or the average of multiple people? Considering there are lots of middle school and high school students walking to school in the AM peak hour, it’s hard to believe that such a low number was observed.
Levy 072 (#566): There are numerous kids who are walking home and friends who accompany them walking home who might have to deal with noise, and I just want the Board to know that there are a lot of kids.
Response 111: In addition to the January 2018 traffic counts, traffic counts were collected in
March 2017 and reflected pedestrian activity at the study area intersections,
including King Street/Arbor Drive, and the King Street/Blind Brook Middle/High
School intersections. It should be noted that a sidewalk is currently provided
along the west side of King Street in the vicinity of the Project Site. See also the
Response to Comment 112, below.
Comment 112: A comment was received expressing concern about the safety of pedestrians on
Arbor Drive, including residents of The Arbors and students walking to and from
the Blind Brook Middle School and High School owing to the increase in traffic
on Arbor Drive and the service people coming to the Proposed Project. (Joy 033,
Levy 055, Levy 067)
Joy 033 (#272): I worry about their safety when they walk home, because even after the construction’s finished there’s going to be so many service people coming, you don’t even know who they are.
Levy 055 (#417): I just want to mention…just quality of life to being in the Arbors. For people who walk down Arbor Drive to go for walks and walk their dogs, when it comes to thinking about traffic. In terms of quality of life, that is our way in and out. It is the children who walk to school, and… it (construction of proposed project) limits how kids walk to and from.
Levy 067 (#534): Arbors residents use Arbor Drive for walking and driving. Residents use Arbor Drive for walking, for exercise, walking their dogs, and walking to school. It is our only means in and out of the Arbors. Arbor Drive is also used as party parking as
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-94 DRAFT
well. I am concerned that the traffic created during the construction and after this project due to the density proposed will greatly impact our quality of life and safety.
Response 112: As described in Section 1.4.3, “Parking and Circulation,” the Revised Proposed
Project includes enhancements to the existing pedestrian path along the Project
Site’s eastern boundary and will include standard crosswalk markings on Arbor
Drive at the location where this path crosses Arbor Drive and enters the Blind
Brook Middle School and High School property. This will be an improvement
from the current condition where no crosswalk markings are present.
As described in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” the Revised Proposed
Project would represent a significant decrease in the number of vehicular trips
entering and exiting the Site as compared to the former office use. In the
Applicant’s opinion, this is a significant benefit of the Revised Proposed Project
and would decrease the potential for conflict between Site-generated traffic and
pedestrians. When compared to the number of trips generated by the Site in 2017,
the Revised Proposed Project would only add 20 trips in the AM, 37 trips in the
midday, and 50 trips in the PM (see also Response 101). In the Applicant’s
opinion, this minimal increase in the number of Site-generated trips from the
existing condition would not significantly impact pedestrian safety on Arbor
Drive. To further avoid and mitigate potential adverse impacts, the Applicant has
committed to staggering the shifts of the Site’s employees so that shift changes
do not occur during school arrival or dismissal times, further reducing the
potential for conflict between Site-generated traffic and pedestrians.
Finally, the Applicant notes that the number of employees and residents of the
Revised Proposed Project, combined (705 + 438 = 518), would be less than the
number employees that could have worked at the existing office building (e.g.,
1,0756). Therefore, in the Applicant’s opinion, the Revised Proposed Project
would not cause an adverse impact to public safety as a result of the introduction
of a large population to the Project Site.
PARKING
Comment 113: The Village’s Planning Consultant asked why the Applicant is providing more
parking spaces than required by its Proposed Zoning and requested a comparison
of the parking rates proposed to Institute for Traffic Engineers (ITE) parking
guidelines. Other commenters opined that the amount of parking proposed for the
Project and its various components was insufficient. (Levy 004, Snyder 007, FP
Clark 012, Tazbin 036, Schlank 068, Tazbin 071)
5 This is the maximum number of staff anticipated to be on-Site during a single shift. See DEIS Section 2.4.2.
6 The number of parking spaces required under the Village’s zoning ordinance for the existing office building.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-95 5/14/2019
Levy 004 (#20): There appears not enough parking for the number of units and required staff
FP Clark 012 (#135): The Applicant is providing an additional 37 parking spaces or 14 percent over the [Applicant’s proposed] requirements. The Applicant should provide a comparison using the latest Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) “Parking Generation,” 4th Edition for all proposed land uses to provide additional backup information for the parking required for the proposed development.
Tazbin 036 (#283): you’re assuming one person will be living in each one of the units, and based on the number of parking spaces, there will be one car per unit. And I find that hard to imagine, living in The Arbors, and I don’t know how you’re calculating
your figures in terms of density, people density, and in terms of car usage.
Snyder 007 (#46): Third, the assisted living component with its 90,000 square feet and 85 units/beds, only has 60 parking spots. The 60 spots appear deficient and should be more carefully reviewed.
Snyder 007 (#45): A better analysis as to how just 173 spots will accommodate 301 bedrooms of independent living should be provided, especially in light of the staff needed to keep the facility running.
Schlank 068 (#547): The risks of parking violations are compounded by the limited availability of spaces for 3-car families. Since the inception of the PUD, the 900 King Street site has had ample parking spaces, and the owners/managers of the site have been willing to provide overflow parking for 3-car families in the Arbors and others who require it. Continuation of this arrangement would likely not be feasible under alternatives that would provide additional residential housing at 900 King Street. For each alternative discussed in the FEIS, please describe the potential parking impacts. To what extent might it raise the risk that the 900 King Street site would need to find (rather than provide) overflow parking? To what extent would it compound the parking problems within the Arbors section of the PUD, add to the costs of self-policing, and increase the risks of losses there?
Tazbin 071 (#559): I didn’t really understand that, you are living in the Arbors and its one car per unit. We struggle with that every day and now you are going to have three bedrooms and one car.
Response 113: As set forth in more detail in Section 2.12.8, “Parking,” the Revised Proposed
Project would provide sufficient on-Site parking resources for the expected demand
of Project residents and employees. The amount of parking included in the Revised
Proposed Project is slightly more than required by the Revised Proposed Zoning
and more than the ITE generic guidelines of the ITE (see Table 3.12-1).
Table 3.12-1 Comparison of Parking Spaces for the Revised Proposed Project
Use Revised Proposed Zoning ITE Guideline Revised Proposed Project
Independent Living (152 units) 1 per unit (152) 0.67 per unit (102) 174
Assisted Living (85 units/94 beds) 0.5 per unit (43) 0.58 per bed (55) 52
Townhouse (20 units) 2.5 per unit (50) 1.52 per unit (31) 50
Total 245 188 276
Source: Based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation
Manual, 5th Edition, January 2019. Values are for 85th percentile. ITE Land Use 252 – Senior Attached Housing, ITE Land Use 254 – Assisted Living, ITE Land Use 220 – Low Rise Multifamily
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-96 DRAFT
3.13. AIR QUALITY
GENERAL
Comment 114: A comment was received suggesting that the Proposed Project would have an
adverse impact on the air quality within The Arbors. (Carravone 002)
Carravone 002 (#10): poor air quality, water pressure and sewer system will be a big problem for our neighborhood
Response 114: The DEIS assess the potential for significant adverse air quality impacts resulting
from the on-Site fuel combustion and Project-generated vehicles on the surrounding
neighborhood—including the adjacent residential and institutional properties along
King Street to the east/northeast; the residential properties to the north/northwest
along North Ridge Street, the residential properties and open spaces to the
west/southwest along Ivy Hill Lane (The Arbors), and the Blind Brook High School
grounds to the south/southwest. Based on the results of the air quality analyses, the
DEIS identified that the original project would not result in a potential for
significant adverse air quality impacts. The Revised Proposed Project is anticipated
to generate slightly fewer air emissions than the original project owing to the
reduction in vehicle trips and the reduction in gross floor area to be heated and
cooled. Therefore, as with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would
not result in a potential for significant adverse air quality impacts.
EXISTING CONDITIONS—METHODOLOGY
Comment 115: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant requested clarification with respect
to the number of intersections screened for air quality impacts. (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#176): Section 13.4.2 states the traffic study area included nine intersections, but then states that screening was performed at 11 intersections. It should be clarified if nine or 11 intersections were screened for air quality.
Response 115: Consistent with the Chapter 12, “Traffic and Transportation” of the DEIS, the
mobile source screening was performed for the following intersections included
in the study area:
• King Street (Route 120A) and Anderson Hill Road
• King Street (Route 120A) and Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway SB Off Ramp
• King Street (Route 120A) and N. Ridge Street
• King Street (Route 120A) and Glen Ridge Road (Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway NB On/Off Ramp)
• King Street (Route 120A) and Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway
NB On/Off Ramp
• King Street and Arbor Drive
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-97 5/14/2019
• King Street (Route 120A) and Blind Brook Middle/High School Right Turn Entry Driveway
• King Street (Route 120A) and Glenville Street / Blind Brook Middle/High School
• Arbor Drive and Existing Office / Proposed Site Driveway
• King Street (Route 120A) and Comly Avenue
• King Street and Betsy Brown Road
• N. Ridge Street and Hutchinson River Parkway SB On/Off Ramp
Comment 116: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant stated that, “The data in the DEIS
was based on the NYSDEC New York State Ambient Air Quality Report for
2016, which the DEIS states is the most recent year for which data are available.
However, the NYSDEC New York State Ambient Air Quality Report for 2017 is
available (https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8536.html).” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#167): The data in the DEIS was based on the NYSDEC New York State Ambient Air Quality Report for 2016, which the DEIS states is the most recent year for which data are available. However, the NYSDEC New York State Ambient Air Quality Report for 2017 is available (https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8536.html).
Response 116: At the time, 2016 was the most recent year for which data was available. The
concentrations of all criteria pollutants including the 2017 report are presented in
Table 3.13-1. Consistent with the DEIS, the recently monitored levels for all
pollutants other than ozone did not exceed the NAAQS.
Table 3.13-1 Representative Monitored Ambient Air Quality Data
Pollutant Location Units Averaging Period Concentration NAAQS
CO Botanical Garden (Pfizer Lab), Bronx ppm 8-hour 1.1 9
1-hour 1.9 35
SO2 Botanical Garden (Pfizer Lab), Bronx µg/m3 3-hour 23 1,300 1-hour 20(1) 196
PM10 IS 52, Bronx µg/m3 24-hour 37 150
PM2.5 White Plains, Westchester µg/m3 Annual 6.6(2) 12
24-hour 15.8(2) 35
NO2 Botanical Garden (Pfizer Lab), Bronx µg/m3 Annual 30 100 1-hour 108(3) 188
Lead IS 52, Bronx µg/m3 3-month 0.016(4) 0.15 Ozone White Plains, Westchester ppm 8-hour 0.074+(5) 0.070
Notes: + Indicated values exceeding the NAAQS. (1) The 1-hour value is based on a 3-year average (2015–2017) of the 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations. EPA replaced the 24-hour and the annual standards with the 1-hour standard. (2) Annual value is based on a 3-year average (2015–2017) of annual concentrations. The 24-hour value is based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour average concentrations. (3) The 1-hour value is based on a 3-year average (2015–2017) of the 98th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations. (4) Based on the highest quarterly average concentration measured in 2017. (5) Based on the 3-year average (2015–2017) of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentrations. Source: New York State Air Quality Report Ambient Air Monitoring System, NYSDEC
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-98 DRAFT
Comment 117: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant stated that, “The assumption of
HVAC systems being natural gas fired systems may be a reasonable assumption,
but not conservative. This statement should be revised in the DEIS.” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#169): The assumption of HVAC systems being natural gas fired systems may be a reasonable assumption, but not conservative. This statement should be revised in the DEIS.
Response 117: The Revised Proposed Project is assumed to use natural gas for all fossil fuel-
fired HVAC systems to provide space heating, air conditioning, and domestic hot
water. Con Edison has stated that they can provide firm gas to the Revised
Proposed Project and that two upgrades to Con Edison’s gas system would be
required: replacement of 945 feet of 4- and 6-inch main with 12-inch main on
Mohegan Lane and Latonia Road; and, installation of a 12-inch tie on King Street
from Arbor Drive to N. Ridge Street. The cost of these improvements would be
initially funded by the Applicant, and refunded by Con Edison upon completion
of the Revised Proposed Project (see Appendix H). It is the Applicant’s
understanding that Con Edison will supply the Revised Proposed Project with
firm natural gas service if the Applicant demonstrates continued progress in
completing the project even if construction is not completed within two years
despite Con Edison’s temporary gas moratorium in southern Westchester County.
Comment 118: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant requested clarification as to why
additional criteria pollutants were not modeled, such as PM10. (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#170): The DEIS should discuss why additional criteria pollutants were not modeled, such as PM10.
Response 118: As discussed in the DEIS, using screening procedures outlined in the 2014 City
Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual, sources of a similar
size to the original project would not cause any exceedance of standards covered
by the screening. The screening procedures assesses the potential for significant
adverse air quality directly from NO2 as the critical pollutant of concern and
indirectly from carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and PM10. Given the
low background concentrations, the level of emissions from the original project,
and the distance to nearby sensitive receptors, the screening procedures identified
no potential for significant adverse air quality impacts from these pollutants. The
DEIS further assesses the potential for significant adverse air quality impacts
from NO2 (1-hour) and PM2.5 (24-hour and annual average) as updated standards
have been published following the development of the CEQR screening
procedures.
Comment 119: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “The DEIS mentions the
more stringent criteria to be applied when a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
intersection is located within ½-mile of the Project Site. However, this criteria is no
longer included in the NYSDOT [The Environmental Manual] TEM.” (Musso 013)
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-99 5/14/2019
Musso 013 (#175): It should be noted that the DEIS mentions the more stringent criteria to be applied when a State Implementation Plan (SIP) intersection is located within 0.5 mile of the project. However, this criteria is no longer included in the NYSDOT TEM.
Response 119: Comment noted.
Comment 120: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “The last sentence in
the first paragraph in Section 13.3 of the DEIS incorrectly states that the
“….pollutant concentrations in the Future with the Proposed Project (the “Build”
condition) would be similar or less than those predicted for the Proposed Project.”
(Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#168): It should be noted that the last sentence in the first paragraph in Section 13.3 of the DEIS incorrectly states that the “….pollutant concentrations in the Future with the Proposed Project (the “Build” condition) would be similar or less than those predicted for the Proposed Project.”
Response 120: Comment noted. The sentence should read, “Therefore, the pollutant
concentrations in the No Build condition would be similar or less than those
predicted for the Future with the Proposed Project (the “Build” condition).
ANALYSIS
Comment 121: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “While the emissions
from the HVAC systems for the townhouses would be considered negligible, the
DEIS does not address emissions from the underground parking area.” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#172): While the emissions from the HVAC systems for the townhomes would be considered negligible, the DEIS does not address emissions from the underground parking area.
Response 121: As discussed in Section 2.13, “Air Quality,” the original air quality analysis was
revised to include an assessment of the proposed parking garage.
Emissions from vehicles using the parking facility could potentially affect
ambient levels of CO and PM at adjacent receptors. An analysis of the emissions
from the outlet vents and their dispersion in the environment was performed,
calculating pollutant levels in the surrounding area, using the methodology set
forth in the CEQR Technical Manual. Emissions from vehicles entering, parking,
and exiting the garages were estimated using the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) mobile
source emission model, as referenced in the CEQR Technical Manual. For all
arriving and departing vehicles, an average speed of 5 miles per hour (mph) was
conservatively assumed for travel within the parking garages. In addition, all
departing vehicles were assumed to idle for 1 minute before proceeding to the
exit. Although specific design plans for the project have not yet been defined, the
garage was assumed to be designed for a minimum airflow of 0.75 cubic foot per
minute of fresh air per gsf of garage area.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-100 DRAFT
To determine compliance with the NAAQS, CO concentrations were determined
for the maximum 8-hour average period. A persistence factor of 0.70 was used to
convert the calculated 1-hour average maximum concentrations to 8-hour
averages, accounting for meteorological variability over the average 8-hour
period, as referenced in the CEQR Technical Manual.
To determine pollutant concentrations, the outlet vents were analyzed as a “virtual
point source” using the methodology in EPA’s Workbook of Atmospheric
Dispersion Estimates, AP-26. This methodology estimates CO and PM
concentrations at various distances from an outlet vent by assuming that the
concentration in the garage is equal to the concentration leaving the vent, and
determining the appropriate initial horizontal and vertical dispersion coefficients
at the vent faces. It was assumed for the purpose of this analysis that all levels of
the parking garage would be mechanically ventilated.
The CO concentrations were determined for the time periods when overall garage
usage would be the greatest, considering the hours when the greatest number of
vehicles would enter and exit the facility (PM concentrations were determined on a
24-hour and annual average basis). Traffic data for the parking garage analysis were
derived from the trip generation analysis. Background street concentrations were
added to the modeling results to obtain the total ambient levels for CO and PM2.5.
Exhaust air from the analyzed parking garage was conservatively assumed to be
vented through a single outlet at a height of approximately 3 feet above grade.
Since there is no specific garage design at this time, the vent face was assumed to
discharge towards the nearest receptors, to be conservative. “Near” and “far”
receptors were placed along the sidewalks at a pedestrian height of 6 feet and at
the minimum exhaust stack height of 3 feet. A receptor also was modeled at and
above the assumed vent release height, directly at the location of the exhaust vent,
to conservatively assess the air quality impacts from the proposed garage on the
adjacent buildings, representing windows or air intake locations.
Based on this methodology, the maximum predicted CO and PM concentrations
from the underground parking area were analyzed, assuming a nearby ground
level receptor (7 feet), and a far side sidewalk receptor across Arbor Drive (54
feet), as well as a receptor on the façade of the original project. All values are the
highest predicted concentrations for any time period analyzed.
The maximum predicted 8-hour average CO concentration modeled is 1.17 ppm.
This value includes a predicted concentration of 0.07 ppm from emissions within
the parking facility and a background level of 1.10 ppm.
The maximum predicted 24-hour and annual average PM2.5 concentrations from
the vehicles using the garage are of 22.5 µg/m3 and 7.7 µg/m3, respectively. These
value includes predicted concentrations of 6.7 µg/m3 and 1.1 µg/m3, respectively,
from emissions within the parking facility and background levels of 15.8 µg/m3
and 6.6 µg/m3, respectively.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-101 5/14/2019
These values are below the respective NAAQS; therefore, no significant adverse
impacts are predicted for CO or PM2.5 from the Build condition as a result of
emissions from the garage.
Comment 122: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant stated that, “The stationary source
analysis consisted of modeling a single stack from a four-story building. This is
identified in the DEIS as being conservative. However, the proposed multifamily
residential buildings consists of three and four stories. Since the receptors of
concern are ground level, placing a stack on a four-story building is not
conservative.” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#173): the stationary source analysis consisted of modeling a single stack from a four-story building. This is identified in the DEIS as being conservative. However, the proposed multifamily residential buildings consists of three- and four-stories. Since the receptors of concern are ground level, placing a stack on a four-story building is not conservative.
Response 122: The stationary source analysis assumed that the exhaust stacks would be located
on the tallest portion of each building. In order to account for the potential
cumulative, or conservative, effect, the emissions associated with the HVAC
systems for the entire Revised Proposed Project would be exhausted from a single
stack. Since the majority of the HVAC needs for the Revised Proposed Project
would be associated with the IL and AL building (approximately 87 percent of
the total development area), the exhaust stack was analyzed at a height of 48 feet
(3 feet above the tallest portions of either building).
An additional AERSCREEN analysis was performed for the combined HVAC
systems associated with the full development of two-story townhouses at a height
of 28 feet. Maximum projected concentrations that were generated from the
AERSCREEN model as a result of the combined HVAC systems are presented in
Table 3.13-2. Similar to the DEIS, the maximum projected NO2 and PM2.5
concentrations with the addition of the Revised Proposed Project at any ground-
level receptor would be well below the NAAQS. Therefore, the Revised Proposed
Project would not result in potential significant adverse air quality impacts from
stationary sources, such as the proposed HVAC systems.
Table 3.13-2 Maximum Modeled Pollutant Concentrations from Townhouses
Pollutant Averaging Period
Maximum Modeled Impact Background Concentration(1) Total Concentration NAAQS
NO2 1-hour 21 108 129 188
Annual 6 30 36 100
PM2.5 24-hour 1.2 15.8 17.0 35
Annual 0.5 6.6 7.1 12
Note: 1 See Table 3.13-1
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-102 DRAFT
Comment 123: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “Section 13.4.1 of the
DEIS states…‘no significant adverse air quality impacts would be expected from
the Proposed Project on lower elevations.’ However, the statement should be
based on elevated sensitive receptors. In addition, the DEIS should clarify if
receptors along Ivy Hill Crescent, Arbor Drive, and within the [Project Site] along
the existing and new pedestrian paths and new sidewalks were considered in the
model. If not, why not?” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#171): Section 13.4.1 of the DEIS states “…no significant adverse air quality impacts would be expected from the Proposed Project on lower elevations.” However, the statement should be based on elevated sensitive receptors. In addition, the DEIS should clarify if receptors along Ivy Hill Crescent, Arbor Drive, and within the Proposed Project site along the existing and new pedestrian paths and new sidewalks were considered in the model. If not, why not?
Response 123: As discussed in the DEIS, sensitive receptors at ground levels and lower
elevations are located approximately 150 feet to the northeast of the Site (along
King Street), 350 feet to the northwest of the Site (along North Ridge Street), 470
feet to the south (along Ivory Hill Lane), and 370 feet to the southeast at Blind
Brook High School. Concentrations at ground-level receptors and elevated
receptors up to 25 feet in elevation were predicted in the AERSCREEN analysis.
The analysis used the maximum concentrations at ground level receptors
predicted regardless of the distance between the modeled source and receptor, and
the minimum distance of 150 feet at all elevated receptors. Therefore,
concentrations at receptors along Ivy Hill Crescent, Arbor Drive, and within the
Project Site along the existing and new pedestrian paths and new sidewalks would
be similar to or less than those predicted for the AERSCREEN analysis.
MITIGATION
Comment 124: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant “recommended that the Applicant be
required as a condition to the permit/approvals for the Proposed Project to not place
generators on the east side of the Project Site to avoid disturbance to receptors in
that area, including the Village Hall, [RBPD], and [RBFD].” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#174): it is recommended that the applicant be required as a condition to the permit/approvals for the proposed project to not place generators on the east side of the project site to avoid disturbance to receptors in that area, including the Village Hall, Rye Brook Police Department and Rye Brook Fire Department.
Response 124: As discussed in Section 2.13, “Air Quality,” the Applicant has committed to
locating the generators on the west side of the Project Site, facing the Parkway.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-103 5/14/2019
3.14. NOISE
EXISTING CONDITIONS—METHODOLOGY
Comment 125: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “Based on the
NYSDEC Noise Program Policy, appropriate receptor locations may be either at
the property line of the parcel on which the facility is located or at the location of
use or inhabitance on adjacent property. However, the most conservative
approach utilizes the property line. The DEIS did not include a sensitive receptor
along the eastern side of the property line near Village Hall, [RBPD] and
[RBFD].” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#178): Based on the NYSDEC Noise Program Policy, appropriate receptor
locations may be either at the property line of the parcel on which the facility is located or at the location of use or inhabitance on adjacent property. However, the most conservative approach utilizes the property line. The DEIS did not include a sensitive receptor along the eastern side of the property line near Village Hall, Rye Brook Police Department and Rye Brook Fire Department.
Response 125: Noise Measurement Site 2, on the corner of King Street and Arbor Drive,
represents existing noise levels at receptors along King Street, including the
Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD, for which traffic along King Street is the
dominant noise source. The operational analysis presented in Chapter 14,
“Noise,” of the DEIS uses noise levels measured at Site 2 as the basis for analysis
at these receptors since the dominant noise source at Site 2 was vehicular traffic
along King Street, to which these buildings are also exposed. An analysis receptor
representing the Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD has been added to the
construction analysis. Please see response to Comment 148.
Comment 126: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “The DEIS recognizes
schools and hospitals as ‘most sensitive receptors’. However, a 3 dBA noise level
increase limit was not used for Site #4, representative of the Blind Brook High
School.” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#179): the DEIS recognizes schools and hospitals as “most sensitive receptors”. However, a 3 dBA noise level increase limit was not used for Site #4, representative of the Blind Brook High School.
Response 126: As shown in Table 14-4 of Chapter 14, “Noise,” of the DEIS, the Build condition
maximum noise level increase at Receptor Site 4, which represents the Blind
Brook High School, is less than 2 dBA, which is considered imperceptible to
barely perceptible. Furthermore, the total Build condition noise level would be
approximately 62 dBA, which is considered acceptable for residential uses
according to NYSDEC guidance, and is likewise considered an acceptable
exterior noise level for comparably sensitive educational uses such as the Blind
Brook High School.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-104 DRAFT
Comment 127: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “Weekend existing
noise levels were not measured. A discussion of the weekend vehicular traffic
anticipated for the Proposed Project should be added and, if deemed to be
necessary, the noise analysis should include a typical Saturday, including
obtaining existing noise levels. Similarly, the DEIS is silent on nighttime noise
level (10 PM to 7 AM) increases due to the Proposed Project.” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#180): Weekend existing noise levels were not measured. A discussion of the weekend vehicular traffic anticipated for the Proposed Project should be added and, if deemed to be necessary, the noise analysis should include a typical Saturday, including obtaining existing noise levels. Similarly, the DEIS is silent on nighttime noise level (10 PM to 7 AM) increases due to the Proposed Project.
Response 127: Weekday peak hours were identified as the periods with the greatest project-
generated traffic and consequently the greatest potential to result in project
generated noise level increases. Weekend and overnight hours would experience
less traffic generation and consequently lower noise levels. As the noise level
increments as a result of project-generated traffic would be well below the
threshold for a significant adverse impact in peak traffic periods, weekend, and
overnight noise level increments would likewise not rise to the level of significant
adverse impact.
Comment 128: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant stated that, “The noise levels from
the on-Site movement of traffic, including trucks, should be assessed to determine
the noise level increases for the proposed sensitive receptors, as well as The
Arbors townhouses.” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#181): The proposed project consists of adding a sensitive receptor to the area, residences. The noise levels from the on-site movement of traffic, including trucks, should be assessed to determine the noise level increases for the proposed sensitive receptors, as well as the Arbors Townhouses.
Response 128: As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” of the DEIS, and Chapter 1,
“Revised Proposed Project,” three to four deliveries are anticipated each day
during the week, with one to two deliveries possible during the weekend.
Deliveries would not be expected to occur during overnight hours. Therefore, less
than one delivery truck would be expected in a single hour, which would not result
in a significant increase in mobile source noise levels above ambient conditions
at existing receptors (e.g., Arbor Townhouses, Town and Village Hall, RBPD,
RBFD) and at the proposed IL and AL building.
IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS
Comment 129: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “The Future with the
Proposed Project noise levels presented in Table 14-4 are lower than those
provided in Table 14-3 for the Future without the Proposed Project. Please explain
or correct.” (Musso 013)
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-105 5/14/2019
Musso 013 (#182): The Future With the Proposed Project noise levels presented in Table 14-4 are lower than those provided in Table 14-3 for the Future Without the Proposed Project. Please explain or correct.
Response 129: As discussed in Chapter 12, “Traffic and Transportation,” of the DEIS, the
adopted scoping outline for the DEIS required that the No Build condition include
the condition where the existing on-Site office building was fully occupied. As
the office building was not fully occupied at the time of the existing condition
traffic counts, the No Build condition results in higher traffic increments than the
Build condition, particularly along Arbor Drive. The increased traffic in the No
Build condition is the source of increased noise levels.
Table 14-4 of the DEIS compares the existing noise condition with the expected
Build condition. As shown, the maximum increase in mobile source Leq(1)
attributable to the Proposed Project would be 1.6 dBA. As discussed in Chapter
2, “Environmental Analysis,” Sections 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” and
2.14, “Noise,” the Revised Proposed Project would generate fewer peak hour trips
than the original project. Therefore, the maximum increase in mobile source noise
generated by the Revised Proposed Project would be expected to be less than 1.6
dBA, which would be imperceptible.
Comment 130: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant stated that, “The total noise level
from the Proposed Project should not result in an increase of 6 dBA or more at
nearby receptors. In addition, the total noise level from the Proposed Project
should not cause interior noise levels within the proposed buildings greater than
45 dBA. This includes noise from all sources, including mobile sources as well
as the combined noise level from stationary sources, as opposed to on an
individual basis.” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#183): The total noise level from the proposed project should not result in an increase of 6 dBA or more at nearby receptors. In addition, the total noise level from the proposed project should not cause interior noise levels within the proposed buildings greater than 45 dBA. This includes noise from all sources, including mobile sources as well as the combined noise level from stationary sources, as opposed to on an individual basis.
Response 130: Chapter 14, “Noise,” Section 14.4.3 “Noise Levels at the 900 King Street
Residences,” of the DEIS states that interior noise levels within the original
project’s buildings would be less than 45 dBA with standard façade construction.
As stated in Table 14-4 of the DEIS, the maximum increase in mobile source Leq(1)
attributable to the original project would be 1.6 dBA, which would be
imperceptible. Further, as discussed in Sections 2.12, “Traffic and
Transportation,” and 2.14, “Noise,” the Revised Proposed Project would generate
fewer peak hour trips than the original project. Therefore, the maximum increase
in mobile source noise generated by the Revised Proposed Project would be
expected to be less than 1.6 dBA, which would be imperceptible.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-106 DRAFT
As stated in Chapter 14, “Noise,” Section 14.4.4, “Stationary Source Analysis”
of the DEIS, mechanical equipment would be designed to avoid a combine 6.0
dBA increase at nearby receptors.
MITIGATION
Comment 131: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant “recommended that the Applicant be
required as a condition to the permit/approvals for the Proposed Project to not place
generators on the east side of the Project Site to avoid disturbance to receptors in
that area, including the Village Hall, [RBPD], and [RBFD].” (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#184): it is recommended that the applicant be required as a condition to the permit/approvals for the proposed project to not place generators on the east side of the project site to avoid disturbance to receptors in that area, including the Village Hall, Rye Brook Police Department and Rye Brook Fire Department.
Response 131: The Applicant has agreed to place generators on the west side of the Project Site
facing the Parkway, which would avoid direct line of sight from the generators to
the surrounding sensitive receptors, including The Arbors, Village Hall, RBPD,
and RBFD.
3.15. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Comment 132: Comments were received questioning the potential for hazardous materials to be
present in the subsurface and the potential for the community, including The
Arbors and the Blind Brook Middle School and High School, to be exposed to
those materials during construction. Other comments questioned the sufficiency of
the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs). The Village’s
Special Engineering Consultant commented that the Phase I and Phase II ESAs
were completed in accordance with ASTM International (ASTM) and industry
standards and that the DEIS conclusion that there is no evidence of a release
appears reasonable. The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant went on to state
that the controls proposed in the DEIS to address the Phase II recommendations
are reasonable standards of practice. The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant
recommended that the asbestos-containing material (ACM) and lead-based paint
(LBP) surveys proposed in the DEIS be required and that the information be shared
with the Village’s Building Department. Finally, the Village’s Special Engineering
Consultant recommended the preparation of a Materials Management Plan (MMP)
prior to the start of construction that would include a plan for soil, groundwater,
and dust management as well as contingency plans in the event that unforeseen
contaminants are encountered during construction. (Snyder 007, Musso 013,
Barnett 034, Ross 042, Levine 048, Tazbin 071)
Snyder 007 (#78): The DEIS indicates that the project site was a “historic generator of ignitable waste, corrosive waste, and spent halogenic solvents. Storage and handling of these wastes have the potential to have affected the subsurface.” Although a Phase II was conducted, the Phase II testing only involved 9 soil borings on the 17.7 acre site.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-107 5/14/2019
The DEIS states that “excavation may reveal different or more significant soil contamination in areas not tested as part of this investigation.” It also indicates that “the greatest potential for exposure to contaminated materials would occur during subsurface disturbance associated with construction of new buildings as part of the Proposed Project.” The DEIS concedes the “Proposed Project could potentially result in an increase in exposure for the community and construction workers.” The Village Board has a duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. The middle school and high school filled with the children of this community is proximate to the project. With this danger lurking in connection with the substantial excavation of the site (requiring 42,600 cubic yards of fill to be excavated), project alternatives must be considered. Certainly, the project must be modified to avoid the excavation and the disturbance of more than 74% of the project site.
Musso 013 (#189): It appears that the Phase I has been completed in conformity with the applicable ASTM standard. The RECs identified were investigated as part of the Phase II in accordance with industry practice. Based on the RECs identified the scope of the sampling and laboratory analysis appears reasonable and appropriate. The conclusion that there is no evidence of a release appears reasonable.
Musso 013 (#190): due to the RECs identified the majority of the samples were collected in the shallow soils. The Village should note that, due to the significant earthwork proposed as part of the development, deeper excavation may reveal differing soils conditions and/or contamination in areas not tested as part of this investigation.
Musso 013 (#191): ACM and lead-based paint surveys and abatement as recommended in the DEIS by AKRF will reduce the risk to hazardous materials during building demolition. Should the project and demolition / development move forward, it is recommended that the Village Building Department track progress on ACM and lead-based paint surveys and abatement. Surveys and abatement, as required, should be completed prior to disturbing existing building materials.
Musso 013 (#192): The controls proposed in the Hazardous Materials section of the DEIS address the Phase II Recommendations and are reasonable standards of practice.
Musso 013 (#193): HDR is providing the following recommendation[s] for consideration in order to further reduce risk of exposure and document that there are appropriate plans in place that are in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations and that aim to prevent a release to the surrounding environment or community.
The proposed project plans indicate that a significant amount of earth work will be a part of development. The DEIS reports that the western portion of the site will be lowered by 42,600 cubic yards of excavation and 51,600 cubic yards of fill will be used to raise the central portion of the site. The preparation of a Materials Management Plan(s) prior to the start of construction would allow the contractor to provide plans for soil, groundwater and dust management prior to disturbance. The plans should also provide procedures to follow if unforeseen contaminants or hazardous materials are encountered during construction, such as odors, sheen, petroleum and/or USTs.
Due to the volume of soils that will be exposed at the site, dust management and suppression should also be included in the plans. To ensure there is no dust release to the surrounding community Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be identified. Additionally, plans for monitoring (visual or instrumentation) are typically included with action levels and the appropriate responses outlined.
Barnett 034 (#274): There is no time when construction can occur, if we’re not very careful, especially without knowing with all the boring samples what’s going to be under there…it could be too late, if there’s going to be any sort of adverse impact, because you have a site that has been…it was constructed in the ‘70s, and regulation wasn’t the same for the structure as it was today.
Ross 042 (#331): We (BBSD) are concerned about the amount of dust and dirt that may be
released from the site during construction and encourage the Village of Rye Brook to establish and enforce restrictions to address this matter. Especially the case with hazardous materials such as those containing asbestos or any other harmful substances. This is critical during the "subsurface disturbance associated with construction of the new building" as described on page 15-3 of the "Hazardous Materials" section of the proposal.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-108 DRAFT
Levine 048 (#368): What about during construction? The construction is what I’m most concerned about. There is such an unknown when you knock down a building and excavate the land and try to build something. We don’t even know what they are going to find, and it could potentially be hazardous.
Response 132: As described in Section 2.15, “Hazardous Materials,” the Applicant conducted
Phase I and Phase II ESAs to identify potential sources of hazardous materials
and to assess the potential presence of contamination. The Village’s Special
Engineering Consultant, HDR, reviewed these reports and stated that, “It appears
that the Phase I has been completed in conformity with the applicable ASTM
standard. The [recognized environmental conditions] RECs identified were
investigated as part of the Phase II in accordance with industry practice. Based on
the RECs identified, the scope of the sampling and laboratory analysis appears
reasonable and appropriate. The conclusion that there is no evidence of a release
appears reasonable.” With respect to the mitigation measures proposed in the
original project, which are summarized in Section 2.15, “Hazardous Materials,”
the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “the controls proposed
in the Hazardous Materials section of the DEIS address the Phase II
Recommendations and are reasonable standards of practice.”
As noted in Section 2.15, “Hazardous Materials,” and reiterated by the Village’s
Special Engineering Consultant, the majority of the subsurface samples were
collected in shallow soils as the majority of the RECs identified in the Phase I
were above ground, and sampling protocol dictated that samples be collected from
the soil zone with the highest potential for contamination (e.g., shallow soil). As
with any construction project, excavation may reveal unknown or unreported
conditions (e.g., underground tanks). In the event that unforeseen and unexpected
contamination is discovered during construction, these areas would be addressed
and handled in accordance with applicable State regulations. In addition, and as
recommended by the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant, the Revised
Proposed Project would include an MMP, which would be prepared by the
Applicant prior to the start of excavation. The MMP would establish a protocol
outlining the handling of Site soil and other subsurface materials encountered
during the proposed excavation work. The MPP would include measures for
appropriate soil handling, soil stockpile management, site controls to mitigate
sediment and dust, and would include contingency measures to address potential
unknown conditions (unknown tanks or contamination) in accordance with all
prevailing regulations.
As stated in Section 2.15, “Hazardous Materials,” prior to demolition, ACM and
LBP surveys would be conducted throughout the existing structure. ACM would be
removed prior to demolition by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor in
accordance with applicable regulatory requirements and activities with the potential
to disturb LBP would be performed in accordance with applicable Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OHSA) regulations. In addition, the Applicant,
as recommended by the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant, would provide
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-109 5/14/2019
the Village with results of the pre-demolition ACM and LBP surveys as well as
provide progress reports on any required pre-demolition abatement.
Based on the above, and with the implementation of the mitigation measures
noted in Section 2.15, “Hazardous Materials,” no significant adverse impacts
related to hazardous materials would be expected to occur as a result of the
construction of the Revised Proposed Project. Following construction, there
would be no further potential for adverse impacts.
Section 2.16.2.3, “Construction: Air Quality,” describes the measures included in
the Revised Proposed Project that would avoid or mitigate potential off-Site air
quality impacts during construction (e.g., dust) that are not specifically related to
subsurface conditions.
Comment 133: Comments were received requesting additional discussion of plans for the
disposal of medical waste and hazardous material from the AL facility. (Snyder
007, Planning Board 018)
Snyder 007 (#79): DEIS states that there will not be hospital care of skilled nursing care so
it is not “expected” to generate significant quantities of medical waste. This statement is without support since the Assisted Living component intends to have dementia patients.
Planning Board 018 (#226): Discuss and explain the plans for disposal of medical and hazardous material from the assisted living facility.
Response 133: According to the National Institute on Aging at the National Institute of Health
(NIH), there are differences between assisted living and nursing homes, where
“Assisted living is for people who need help with daily care, but not as much help
as a nursing home provides.” In addition, according to Chapter X of the New York
Public Health Code, “Assisted Living Residences,” AL facilities are defined as
entities which provide or arrange for housing, on-site monitoring, and personal
care services and/or home care services in a home-like setting. AL residents
usually live in their own apartments or rooms and share common areas. They have
access to a number of services, including up to three meals a day; assistance with
personal care; help with medications; housekeeping and laundry; and 24-hour
supervision. However, AL residences differ from nursing homes, where full-time
nurses provide skilled nursing care to patients and medical waste could be more
common. In Chapter 15, “Hazardous Materials,” of the DEIS, the Applicant notes
that “the Proposed Project would not include hospital care or skilled nursing care
at the AL facility, it would therefore not be expected to generate significant
quantities of medical waste. Any medical or biological waste generated would be
handled, stored, and disposed in accordance with all applicable regulations,
including those of the Department of Health (DOH).” Therefore, in the
Applicant’s opinion, the Revised Proposed Project would not have an adverse
impact as a result of the handling of disposable medical waste.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-110 DRAFT
3.16. CONSTRUCTION
GENERAL
Comment 134: A comment was received requesting information on the duration of construction
for the Proposed Project. (Fox 023)
Fox 023 (#250): How long is the construction scheduled from mobilization to substantial completion?
Response 134: As stated in Section 2.16.1, “Construction Phasing,” construction of the Revised
Proposed Project would be completed in approximately 30 months.
Comment 135: Comments were received requesting more definitive information on the need for
blasting, rock chipping, pile-driving, and materials processing (e.g., rock
crushing) during construction of the Proposed Project. (Snyder 007, Klein 062)
Snyder 007 (#59): DEIS does not assure that there will not be blasting or rock crushing. The DEIS merely states rock crushing and blasting are not “anticipated” without any adequate support.
Klein 062 (#514): Is rock chipping or pile driving expected and if so, at what stages and for how long?
Klein 062 (#572): DEIS states that materials processing will not be done on site yet Figure 16-1 includes a crusher as part of the included equipment in both Phase 1 and Phase 2 - please clarify.
Response 135: Drawing C-410 titled “Excavation Cross Section” has been added to JMC’s site
plan set to clarify the extents of excavation and the height of rock encountered
during the soil borings performed by AKRF on November 9, 2017 and January
2018 (see Volume 4). As shown on drawing C-410 and using information from the
Preliminary Geotechnical Report (DEIS Appendix I) and the Phase II ESA (DEIS
Appendix H-2), competent rock will come no closer than approximately 11 feet
from the bottom of the garage, which based upon the current design, would be the
lowest excavation. Bedrock height can be unpredictable but from the accessible
information, no blasting or rock crushing is anticipated during construction. As rock
blasting, rock crushing, rock chipping, and pile driving are not anticipated during
construction, on-Site materials processing will not be necessary.
Based upon the recommendation from the geotechnical report, proposed
foundations can be supported upon the soils present on-Site (see DEIS
Appendix I). Therefore, shallow foundations are proposed and deep foundations,
such as piles, are not feasible, nor recommended.
Comment 136: Comments were received suggesting that adverse impacts from construction of
the Proposed Project would be significant, especially to nearby residents in The
Arbors, and that those impacts may affect the potential of The Arbors residents to
sell their houses during construction. (Carravone 002, Stella-Turner 014, Levine
029, Barnett 034, Levy 055, Klein 062, Levy 067)
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-111 5/14/2019
Carravone 002 (#9): the noise of construction will be horrendous for me and every one of my neighbors.
Stella-Turner 014 (#196): (Would you want to listen to) 3 years of building? Suffer the air and noise pollution?
Levine 029 (#266): How are the Arbors residents or any houses around there going to sell their homes during that construction time? Our property values will definitely go down.
Barnett 034 (#275): The Arbors is concerned because some people are only going to be 150 feet away from the construction that’s occurring.
Levy 055 (#418): Quality of life certainly during construction in terms of noise for those of us who have businesses at homes, who are self-employed and can’t have that king of noise going on when we are working and trying to make a living. Especially for those people who are home all day, whether they are home because they are working or not
home. I am a self-employed person, my husband is a self-employed person and we spend a lot of time working during the day and that noise level could really affect our work…quality of life during and after.
Klein 062 (#505): Much of the concern about the project, aside from traffic, is regarding the construction phase and not the operational phase. Greater attention should be paid in the FEIS to mitigating measures to disturbance to the school and the Arbors during the construction phase, as mentioned below, and a Construction Management Plans should be cognizant of these concerns.
Levy 067 (#532): There will be the noise of construction vehicles coming and going as well as the noise of the construction. At one meeting, it was mentioned that residents of the Arbors may need to keep windows closed to insulate us from some of the noise. Whether residents are working from home -as both myself and my husband do - or socializing on our patios, studying for school or sleeping, our quality of life should not be affected for 3 years of construction. Additionally, we should not be disturbed on the weekends with Sunday construction.
Response 136: The potential impacts to The Arbors as a result of construction of the Revised
Proposed Project is detailed in Section 2.16.2, “Construction Period Impacts and
Mitigation.” As detailed therein, construction of the Revised Proposed Project is
not anticipated to result in a significant traffic or air quality impact. With the
exception of the units located on the north side of Ivy Hill Crescent, the townhouses
within The Arbors are not anticipated to experience a significant adverse noise
impact from construction. The townhouse units on the north side of Ivy Hill
Crescent are likely to experience a significant, but temporary, adverse impact from
noise during construction. As noted in Chapter 17, “Alternatives,” of the DEIS, the
nature and magnitude of this temporary impact would be similar in all studied
alternatives to the Revised Proposed Project, save the No Action alternative.
Comment 137: A comment was received requesting additional information regarding “mitigation
measures for the potential construction-period impacts to Harkness Park.” (Klein 062)
Klein 062 (#509): [Section] 10.4.3 [of the DEIS] should include mitigation for loss of use of the tennis courts at Harkness due to construction during the 21 months of heavy construction anticipated
Response 137: As summarized below, and described in more detail in response to Comment 149,
construction of the Revised Proposed Project would not have the potential to
cause a significant adverse noise impact to the Harkness Park. The maximum
predicted noise levels at the Park, which would occur during the approximately 3
months of excavation work, would be in the mid-70s dBA. This would be an
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-112 DRAFT
increase of approximately 5 dBA. This approximately 5 dBA increase is below
the 6 dBA threshold for potential significant adverse noise impacts as specified
by NYSDEC. Outside of the approximately 3 months of excavation work, noise
impacts from construction, and overall noise levels at the Park, would be lower.
Consequently, the Park would not have the potential to experience a significant
adverse construction noise impact as defined by NYSDEC and further mitigation
would not be appropriate.
Comment 138: A comment was received asking how off-Site stormwater flow that currently uses
the on-Site stormwater basin will be accommodated during construction.
(Planning Board 018)
Planning Board 018 (#231): If other properties currently utilize the drainage basin on the subject property, how will this drainage be accommodated during construction?
Response 138: The existing drainage basin will remain fully functional throughout the entire
duration of construction. The extent of work to be done on the existing basin is
minimal and should not take an extended period of time. The clearing of the basin
would be limited to invasive species only. Reshaping of the basin would be limited
to lowering the northeast portion of the basin in a 2,500-sf area (from 3 inches in
some portions and up to 2 feet in other portions) and pulling back the western
portion of the basin in order to increase the overall size of the basin. This work
would occur on the opposite side of where the off-Site drainage is piped into the
basin. As soon as the proposed grade is established, the exposed soil will be seeded
and stabilized to prevent further erosion. This excavation will also be carefully
planned around the weather to avoid exposing bare soil to any rain events before
this soil can be stabilized. To further reduce potential siltation downstream, silt
fence will be installed at the toe of the reshaped slope until vegetation is established.
This work will take place during Phase 1 of construction.
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Comment 139: The traffic consultant hired by The Arbors provided a letter which, in part, recited the
potential construction period traffic impacts as identified in the DEIS. (Adler 039)
Adler 039 (#302): Intersection capacity analysis shows that the proposed redevelopment of the 900 King Street Site would result in LOS “F” operating conditions for individual movements during the PM peak construction activity hour at the following intersections: (1) King Street (Route 120A) & North Ridge Street (2) King Street (Route 120A) & Glen Ridge Road/Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway NB on/off ramp.
Adler 039 (#303): The 95th percentile queue in the northbound shared through/right-
turn lane at the intersection of King Street with Blind Brook MS/HS -- Glenville Street is expected to exceed the available 345-foot storage lane during the PM peak construction activity hour.
Response 139: As stated in the DEIS, to provide the most conservative analysis, the study
analyzed the construction time period during which the most number of on-Site
workers would be present—months 20 and 21. The study did not take any credits
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-113 5/14/2019
for potential carpooling, and assumed that all 180 workers would arrive and
depart in separate vehicles during the peak hour.
In reality, the periods of construction that have the most workers on-Site are those
that include multiple trades. As stated in DEIS Section 16.3.2.1, “Construction
Period Trip Generation,” it is unlikely that all 180 workers would arrive during a
single peak hour, nor is it likely that each worker would arrive in a separate
vehicle. In addition, only two months are estimated to have 180 workers present
on-Site, with all other months expected to have fewer workers on-Site. Potential
temporary adverse traffic impacts during construction are unavoidable and
mitigation is not typically required.
Comment 140: Comments were received regarding the potential impacts of construction truck
traffic. One commenter questioned the accuracy of the number of trucks estimated
in the DEIS based on a belief that the DEIS assumed a truck size that was too
large. Other commenters questioned whether the intersection of Arbor Drive and
King Street was properly configured to handle construction truck movements,
while others questioned the overall impact to the traffic network from the number
of trucks anticipated and requested more detail on the duration and timing of peak
construction activity. (Snyder 007, Neumann 030, Zimmerman 046, Klein 062)
Snyder 007 (#58): 9,000 cubic yards is the best case scenario…you would need at least 900 dump trucks to bring the fill to the site. (The DEIS assumes a 20 yard capacity truck
and thus 420 truck trips, but that seems dubious when most trucks are 10-14 yard capacity). The DEIS needs to address worst case scenario as well as best case to fully analyze the impact of the subsurface structure excavation.
Neumann 030 (#268): Where are all these trucks going to come from? They can’t go on the Hutch? How (are) they going to take the turn into the street? We’re talking about a big project. It’s huge.
Zimmerman 046 (#358): Third thing was construction traffic. You were concerned with the construction at Broadview impact on Rye Brook. This one is right in Rye Brook, and it most assuredly is going to affect many areas in Rye Brook, as well as nearby Greenwich and Port Chester and whichever way the trucks are going to have to go.
Klein 062 (#516): Please specify the amount of weeks for typical truck activity and peak truck activity (Section 16.3.2.3).
Response 140: As noted in Section 2.4.1, “Soils,” the Revised Proposed Project reduces the
excavation, or cut, required as well as the fill required within the Site. As shown
in Table 3.4-1, the Revised Proposed Project also reduces the net cut-and-fill
compared to the original project, which further mitigates potential adverse
impacts related to on-Site construction activities and off-Site trucking of earthen
material. It is anticipated that, owing to the size of the Revised Proposed Project,
larger (20 cubic yard) capacity trucks would be primarily utilized for the import
or export of earthen material. Conservatively assuming 14-yard capacity trucks,
a total of approximately 91 truck trips would be required to deliver this material.
These trucks are accounted for in the estimated number of weekly truck trips
described in more detail below.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-114 DRAFT
Section 16.3.2.3, “Construction Truck Traffic,” of the DEIS describes the potential
truck routes to and from the Site (i.e., I-95, I-684, and I-287). As shown in Figure
16-1 of the DEIS, 22 of the 30 months of construction are anticipated to have 30 or
fewer weekly tuck trips to and from the Site and only three (non-consecutive)
months are estimated to have more than 100 truck trips per week. At no time would
truck parking or queuing be permitted on King Street or Arbor Drive.
As described in Section 2.16.2, “Construction Period Impacts and Mitigation,” a
detailed Construction Management Plan (CMP) would be implemented that
would provide for communication between the Project’s construction manager
and Village staff, including the Police Department. Through the CMP, Village
staff would be alerted to times of peak truck activity.
Comment 141: A comment was received questioning the validity of the construction traffic
analysis given that it assumed peak construction traffic would occur between 6
AM and 7 AM though the Village’s noise ordinance prohibits construction before
8 AM, which might indicate a later construction traffic peak time. (Klein 062)
Klein 062 (#515): Given that the waiver has not been granted, the traffic study should examine an 8AM start time for construction.
Response 141: The Village’s noise ordinance prohibits construction that makes audible noise
beyond the project boundary prior to 8:00 AM on weekdays. During the periods
of peak construction activity, a significant number of workers in various trades
will be doing interior finishing work. This work can take place prior to 8:00 AM
as it would not create noise outside of the Site.
To further mitigate the potential for adverse impacts related to construction
workers arriving during school arrival time, the Applicant has proposed that the
Village allow for a waiver of the 8:00 AM start time by no more than 1 hour (i.e.,
allow a start time of 7:00 AM) in cases where the Village Board finds that such a
waiver could reduce potential traffic impacts at sensitive locations within the
Village, such as the Project Site.
See also the Response to Comment 139.
Comment 142: The Village’s Traffic Consultant stated that, “The Applicant has provided an
analysis for a worst-case condition at months 20-21 where up to 180 workers will
arrive to the site between 6:00 and 7:00 AM and leave between 3:30 and 4:30 PM.
To develop the 6:00 to 7:00 existing baseline volumes, the Applicant reduced the
7:00 to 8:00 AM traffic volumes from their counts by 50%.” (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#166): The Applicant has provided an analysis for a worst-case condition at months 20-21 where up to 180 workers will arrive to the site between 6:00 and 7:00 AM and leave between 3:30 and 4:30 PM. To develop the 6:00 to 7:00 existing baseline volumes, the Applicant reduced the 7:00 to 8:00 AM traffic volumes from their counts by 50%.
Response 142: Comment noted.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-115 5/14/2019
Comment 143: Comments were received that expressed concern for pedestrian safety,
specifically for students walking to and from school, during construction of the
Proposed Project. (Stella-Turner 014, Joy 033, Levine 048, Klein 062, Levy 067)
Stella-Turner 014 (#195): Compromise your child’s safety when he walks to school every day? Wonder what was to become of the school systems.
Joy 033 (#271): My concern…about the kids’ safety walking home from middle and high (schools). I will be concerned about safety during all (of) the construction time.
Levine 048 (#370): The kids walk to school and they walk home crossing Arbor Drive. Sports take place throughout that land: Are those sports going to go away? What’s going to be the plan for the school? This is going to immediately impact the school for potentially three years.
Klein 062 (#521): Pedestrian access to the school from the Arbors should be guaranteed during construction.
Levy 067 (#533): Arbors residents use Arbor Drive for walking and driving. Residents use Arbor Drive for walking, for exercise, walking their dogs, and walking to school. It is our only means in and out of the Arbors. Arbor Drive is also used as party parking as well. I am concerned that the traffic created during the construction and after this project due to the density proposed will greatly impact our quality of life and safety.
Response 143: During construction, the Site would be fenced off to ensure safety from
construction activities and the existing parking lot would be physically closed
from public use. The pedestrian path leading from the Village buildings to
Harkness Park and the Blind Brook High School would be temporarily closed. At
the end of the construction period, the pedestrian path on the Project Site would
be restored and enhanced and would be re-opened to the public.
To further reduce the potential for conflicts between pedestrians and construction
traffic, the Applicant proposes that the Village allow for a waiver of the 8:00 AM
construction start time for noise-producing activities by no more than 1 hour (i.e.,
allow a start time of 7:00 AM) in cases where the Village Board finds that such a
waiver could reduce potential traffic impacts at sensitive locations within the
Village, such as the Project Site. This would minimize the number of workers
anticipated to arrive during the peak school arrival time.
Comment 144: Comments were received regarding the potential construction traffic mitigation
measure of allowing construction to start at 7 AM, as opposed to 8 AM. Several
commenters stated that allowing construction noise to begin at 7 AM would be
detrimental to their quality of life. Other comments expressed concern over the
impacts to the school district and the traffic network. The Village’s Traffic
Consultant stated that from a traffic perspective, allowing construction to start at
7 AM, rather than 8 AM, would be beneficial and would avoid both the AM peak
hour and the morning drop off time at the Blind Brook Middle School and High
School. (Snyder 007, Ghosh 008, Parvani 009, Samuels 016, Planning Board 018,
Zimmerman 026, Snyder 038, Ross 042, Galante 044, Zimmerman 046, Levine
048, Snyder 053, Zarkower 054)
Snyder 007 (#84): Due to the magnitude of the project and the proximity to the school, the DEIS proposes a potential mitigation measure which would allow a start time of 7 a.m. (as opposed to the Village Code Section 158 provision requiring a start time of 8
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-116 DRAFT
a.m. Weekdays and Saturdays of 9 a.m.) Monday-Saturday, 6 days a week in an effort to reduce potential traffic impacts. The DEIS provides no analysis as to how that will impact The Arbors and the use of Arbor Drive and what specific measures will be in place to assure the surrounding community is not impacted.
Ghosh 008 (#91): Construction starting a 7am for 3 years would severely impact King Street Traffic - morning school drop off would be a nightmare.
Parvani 009 (#95): Construction starting a 7am for 3 years would severely impact King Street Traffic - morning school drop off would be a nightmare.
Samuels 016 (#201): The impact of the proposed construction beginning at 7am for three years would impact the ability of school buses to get kids to school on time (and home on time for activities.) King Street would be the hardest hit, as mentioned above. Morning school drop off would be a nightmare.
Planning Board 018 (#228): How will a 7AM construction start time affect planned renovations for the public school during summer months? How will that construction time affect school drop-off and children walking to school? After school activities should be considered in determining construction time frames.
Zimmerman 026 (#281): the developer has proposed that they get a variance to have their construction crews come in at 7:00 am every day instead of 8:00 am. And we in the Arbors feel that would be a tremendous disservice to the community. It would severely negatively impact our quality of life for up to three years.
Snyder 038 (#293): The Change in construction [start] time will certainly be adverse to the community.
Ross 042 (#329): Several hundred cars and buses already travel on King Street to Blind Brook MS/HS located at 840 King Street during rush hour period. Please do not forget to take into consideration what the proposed complex may do to a traffic situation that is already not good and for the safety of students who walk and bike between their homes and the Middle and High School campus. We request that traffic generated by the construction be limited during school arrival (7:15-8:00am) and dismissal (2:15-3:00pm). Traffic generated by shift workers at the assisted living & memory care facility be limited during these arrival and dismissal times as well.
Galante 044 (#346): From a traffic perspective and looking at our traffic volumes, we support what they were saying, because the volumes are substantially lower before 7:00 am in the morning. They increase from 7:00 on in the morning. The comment that bringing employees in, construction employees in, before 7:00, from a traffic perspective, does make sense. I’m not suggesting impacts to neighbors. Just from a traffic perspective.
Zimmerman 046 (#359): As far as starting at 7:00am in the morning, while I understand that would mitigate traffic, that’s putting people in The Arbors and in nearby homes here in a very untenable living situation for three years, and I don’t think that’s fair to even consider. I don’t think it’s fair to ask our residents to live that way for a three-year period.
Levine 048 (#371): So the trucks are going to be in you’re saying before 7:00 am. So no trucks are going to be coming in and out after 7:00? 7:20 is when parents, 7:15, 7:20 is when parents start bringing their kids to school.
Snyder 053 (#405): This all assumes that the village will grant a waiver for their time requirements for construction and 3:30 to 4:30 when all 180 workers are expected to depart from the site. The change in these construction times would certainly be adverse to the community.
Zarkower 054 (#413): The 3:30 to 4:30 slot which was discussed before, has the developer reached out to the school district directly to discuss some of these concerns and how to mitigate some of the issues during this 21 to 30 month period, the retrieve school buses come right through Arbor Drive, between 3:30 and 4:00.
Response 144: Strict adherence to the Village’s existing noise code could create the situation
where, during times of predominantly exterior construction that is not allowed to
start prior to 8:00 AM, construction workers would be arriving at the Project Site
at the same time as the peak school arrival time. As a potential mitigation measure
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-117 5/14/2019
and to reduce potential conflicts between construction worker trips and school
arrival trips, the Applicant proposes that the Village allow for a waiver of the 8:00
AM start time by no more than 1 hour (i.e., allow a start time of 7:00 AM) in cases
where the Village Board finds that such a waiver could reduce potential traffic
impacts at sensitive locations within the Village, such as the Project Site.
As noted by the Village’s Traffic Consultant, permitting such a waiver “makes
sense” from a traffic perspective “because the volumes [on the area roadways] are
substantially lower before 7:00 AM.”
Comment 145: The Planning Board stated that, “repairs to Arbor Drive should be performed by
the Applicant as needed during construction; not just when construction is
complete.” (Planning Board 018)
Planning Board 018 (#232): Regarding page 6-11, repairs to Arbor Drive should be performed by the Applicant as needed during construction; not just when construction is complete.
Response 145: In Section 16.3.2.3, “Construction Truck Traffic,” the Applicant committed to
“monitor the condition of Arbor Drive throughout the construction period and
make necessary repairs, such as repaving, at the conclusion of the construction
period.” While it was always the Applicant’s intent, the Revised Proposed Project
includes an explicit commitment to make repairs to Arbor Drive during the
construction period as warranted and as appropriate.
AIR QUALITY
Comment 146: Comments were received expressing a concern for the air quality impacts of
construction as experienced by The Arbors and the school, especially outdoor
activities at the school. An additional comment advocated for a reduced scale
project that would necessitate less construction and earth moving, which would
in turn reduce impacts to air quality during construction. In addition, the Village’s
Special Engineering Consultant recommended that the measures listed in the
DEIS to avoid and minimize adverse air quality impacts during construction be
memorialized as part of any Project approvals and that two other measures be
included: (1) the use of Best Available Technology (BAT) for all non-road diesel-
powered vehicles rated at 50 horsepower (hp) or above; and, (2) the
implementation of a Community Air Monitoring Plan (CAMP) during
construction. (Snyder 007, Musso 013, Ross 042, Klein 062)
Snyder 007 (#83): Furthermore, the extent of the air quality resulting in air pollutant emissions which would be occurring for more than 6 months due to the use of "large non-road diesel engines, such as excavators, dozers, graders and loaders" needs to be analyzed, especially as to its impact on school aged children. Again, the statement in the DEIS that the nature and magnitude of these significant adverse impacts would be similar in all alternatives, except for the No Action alternative cannot be supported. Certainly, project alternatives reducing the scale of the project should be considered which include decreasing the footprint of the buildings and eliminating the underground parking excavation. Accordingly, the project in its current form must be modified
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-118 DRAFT
Musso 013 (#177): These control measures [The list of erosion and dust control measures listed in the DEIS] should be a listed as conditions included in the approvals/permits for the proposed project. In addition, use of best available technology (“BAT”) for reducing emissions, such as diesel particulate filters (“DPFs”) or diesel oxidation catalysts (“DOCs”), on all nonroad diesel-powered vehicle rated at 50 horsepower or more should be required. Since the project site is adjacent to sensitive receptors, the proposed project should also be required to prepare and implement a Community Air Monitoring Plan (CAMP). The focus of the CAMP would be to monitor airborne particulate levels during demolition, soil removal/handling activities and other activities that could potentially generate airborne particulates. The CAMP should include action levels and steps to be taken shall these action levels be met or exceeded.
Ross 042 (#332): Air quality during demolition and construction is of greater concern.
Air quality will be an issue for our students during the school day during construction, and particularly for students participating in Physical Education classes and team practices and competitions outside on the fields and tennis courts.
Klein 062 (#517): Given that the construction is happening so close to a school I would differ and would prefer that further analysis be done once a specific CMP is complete and specific timing of activities is known.
Response 146: As discussed in Section 2.16.2.3, “Air Quality,” the Revised Proposed Project
includes the following measures to reduce pollutant emissions during
construction to further reduce and mitigate potential air quality impacts during
construction.
To reduce the potential for fugitive dust emissions (those emissions as a result of
earth moving), the Revised Proposed Project would implement the following
mitigation measures, which would be codified in the Construction Management
Plan (CMP), which would be made a condition of site plan approval:
• Minimizing the area of soil that is disturbed at any one time;
• Minimizing the amount of time during which soils are exposed;
• Installing truck mats or anti-tracking pads at egress points to clean the trucks’ tires prior to leaving the Project Site;
• Watering of exposed areas during dry periods;
• Using drainage diversion methods (e.g., silt fences) to minimize soil erosion during Site grading;
• Covering stored materials with a tarp to reduce windborne dust;
• Limiting on-Site construction vehicle speed to 5mph; and
• Using truck covers/tarp rollers that cover fully loaded trucks and keep debris and dust from being expelled from the truck along its haul route.
With the implementation of these measures, the Revised Proposed Project would
avoid and minimize potential air quality impacts from fugitive dust to the
maximum extent practicable. Further, the Applicant does not believe that
construction of the Revised Proposed Project would create an adverse impact to
outdoor activities at the BBRUFSD. Therefore, the Applicant does not believe
that a CAMP is necessary. As stated in Section 2.16, the CMP would include
provisions for robust and regular communication with the BBRUFSD. In the
unlikely event that airborne dust from the Project Site creates an adverse impact
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-119 5/14/2019
to the BBRUFSD, procedures would be in place to immediately alert the on-Site
construction manager and the Village so that appropriate measures could be taken
to ameliorate the potential temporary impact.
As stated in Section 2.16.2.3, “Air Quality,” the Revised Proposed Project would
also include the following measures to minimize emissions from construction
vehicles and equipment:
• Ultra-low sulfur diesel would be utilized for all construction equipment and vehicles;
• All equipment would be properly maintained;
• Idling of construction or delivery vehicles or other equipment would not be allowed when the equipment is not in active use; and
To further reduce the potential for adverse air quality impacts, the Revised
Proposed Project includes the following mitigation measure that was not included
in the original project:
• Use of Best Available Tailpipe Reduction Technologies. The Revised Proposed Project includes this mitigation measure that was not included in the original project. Construction of the Revised Proposed Project would
mandate that non-road diesel engines with a power rating of 50 hp or greater and controlled truck fleets (i.e., truck fleets under long-term contract with the project) including but not limited to concrete mixing and pumping trucks would utilize BAT technology for reducing DPM emissions. Diesel particulate filters (DPFs) have been identified as being the tailpipe technology currently proven to have the highest reduction capability. Construction contracts would specify that all diesel non-road engines rated at 50 hp or greater would utilize DPFs, either installed by the original equipment manufacturer or retrofitted. Retrofitted DPFs must be verified by EPA or the California Air Resources Board. Active DPFs or other technologies proven to achieve an equivalent reduction may also be used.
NOISE AND VIBRATION
Comment 147: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant questioned whether the
construction noise analysis should be augmented with data collected on a
weekend. (Musso 013)
Musso 013 (#187): Table 16-4 of the DEIS provides existing noise levels for the sensitive receptors included in the construction noise analysis. However, it is not stated if this noise measurement data is from a weekday or Saturday. Since construction may occur on Saturdays, the noise analysis should be performed for both a typical weekday and Saturday.
Response 147: Regular construction will occur on Monday through Friday, with limited Saturday
work as required by the Project schedule. The primary noise-generating
construction activities (e.g., excavation, concrete operations) would not typically
occur on Saturday. Because the primary noise-generating construction activities
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-120 DRAFT
would typically occur on weekdays, the construction noise analysis considered
weekday construction as the worst-case construction scenario.
Comment 148: Comments were received suggesting that the noise impacts to the Blind Brook
Middle School and High School from construction noise, both within the school
building and outside of the school building during physical education and/or
sports practices and games, may be significant. One commenter requested
additional information on the distance from the various on-Site construction
locations (e.g., townhouses and IL and AL building) and the school and suggested
that additional receptors on the school and Village playing fields be evaluated. In
addition, several commenters questioned what measures would be implemented
to mitigate this impact. Suggestions included restrictions on the most noise-
intensive construction activities during sensitive times (e.g., AP testing) and the
prioritizing of summers and school holidays for noise-intensive activities. (Ghosh
008, Parvani 009, Samuels 016, Zarkower 028, Barnett 034, Ross 042, Levine
048, Feinstein 049, Zarkower 054, Levy 055, Klein 062, Heiser 065, Levy 067,
Stella-Turner 073, Barnett 074)
Ghosh 008 (#92): The noise from blasting and construction would negatively impact our students.
Parvani 009 (#96): The noise from blasting and construction would negatively impact our students.
Samuels 016 (#202): The noise from blasting and construction would negatively impact our students.
Zarkower 028 (#258): Middle and high school…especially those classrooms that overlook this construction site, are in harm’s way. That is not a soundproof building…you’re talking about impacting high school kids for three years.
Zarkower 028 (#259): Is this developer prepared to shut down the construction during, say, the two weeks of Advanced Placements (APs)? You have to be able to provide classrooms that are quiet…you also have Regents, you have PSATs. There has to be more addressed in terms of that building, which to me is in harm’s way.
Barnett 034 (#273): Construction noise…how are you going to protect students after school? Those fields are right up against 900 (King Street).
Ross 042 (#330): If the 900 King Street project is approved, the District expects that during the time of construction the Village of Rye Brook will issue general restrictions on the amount of noise that emanates from construction site during the day from 7:45 am to 3:45 pm during days when school is in session. Based on Appendix J of the DEIS, BBHS will be exposed to one of the highest Constant LEQ of 80.0dB due to its close proximity to the site. We request that noise-intensive construction work be contained during summer months and school holiday and vacation days. Curtailing noise will be a particularly important matter during the testing periods that occur through the school year.
Ross 042 (#333): Concerned that the District may lose use of its outdoor sports fields due to noise and air quality issues…and the implications should this occur. We (BBSD) would want some sort of assurances that this will not occur but if it does, the developer will provide compensation to the District if it incurs costs because it had to relocate athletic programs.
Levine 048 (#369): Noise is going to be right there when our kids are studying, our kids are working, our kids are taking tests. What’s going to happen during the school day during testing? Are they not going to be blasting? Are they not going to be bulldozing? Are they not going to be digging? Because all of that will affect the kids.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-121 5/14/2019
Feinstein 049 (#381): I just want to let you know that Blind Brook High School existed before The Arbors was constructed. So we had to deal with that issue way back in the early ‘70s, in the mid ‘70s when The Arbors were built…because construction was going on when kids were at Blind Brook High School.
Zarkower 054 (#410): I am focusing on the concern with the school district. I brought up the fact that those noise components during key periods such as AP exams, PSATs will have to be addressed…have to be some kind of commitment to work around those schedules.
Zarkower 054 (#411): Should there be noise during those times that the students can’t hear in the classrooms, every student’s report and file will have to show an irregularity
that would be reported to the college board, and could wind up being put on their exams that are sent later to colleges if this isn’t remedied ahead of time.
Zarkower 054 (#412): If this goes more than the testing site, the school could be in jeopardy of losing a key status if they can’t not provide, they have to agree to provide a quiet setting during each test period the following year.
Zarkower 054 (#414): You have tennis courts out there that are utilized by the school for the tennis team. What will the developer proposed if during that period of time those tennis courts are not going to be able to utilize and those students will have to be…relocated? It shouldn’t really be beyond the cost to the school district.
Zarkower 054 (#415): There are greater issues that the school district can really benefit from, an enriched tuition program at the high school and that it actually offsets the budget and helps them stay within the tax cap. If I was a parent coming to look at the school district and this noise was going on for 20 months, I might not go there. You could lose one or two kids, maybe, but you lose 10 or 15 that’s going to have a direct financial impact on the school district, may push them either towards to override that tax cap or take money out of those classrooms.
Zarkower 054 (#416): I’d like to know if the developer has reached out and really understood the short term impacts when running the school district.
Levy 055 (#419): In terms of our children and the noise. It is important during APs and those big testing periods for a lot of the kids. Noise, any day, in test taking and listening to their teachers and paying attention. You know, there is a discussion in the school about this block schedule that has longer periods, so they (the kids) are already going to be asked to be focused longer and then you are going to add noise to that, and dust and whatever else is going to come from that.
Klein 062 (#518): How far is the High School from the AL and IL work areas where more prolonged construction is taking place?
Klein 062 (#519): Table 16-4 should include additional points of the high school baseball field, football field, and King Street Fields (or generally the closest point at the combined athletic fields) with noise summary analyzed.
Klein 062 (#520): Why are there not mitigation measures listed in this section as with other sections? These could include measures around testing times. Paying to increase insulation on the walls closest to the construction.
Heiser 065 (#529): I am concerned about the adequacy of protection for the school when you are doing the construction.
Levy 067 (#536): The construction times will interfere with children coming and going to school. Also, the noise created during construction, if heard in the middle school and high school, will impact students’ ability to learn.
Stella-Turner 073 (#568): 21 months of building is what we are putting at the back door of an educational school system which is bar none.
Barnett 074 (#569): He essentially asked for no construction until 3:45 pm, and the Arbors, you know, while we agree, the school has to you know, have protections. We also live right there as well.
Response 148: As discussed in Section 2.16.2.4, “Noise,” a revised construction noise analysis
was conducted. The revised analysis included additional receptors as requested
by the Village’s special engineering consultant and a more detailed analysis of
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-122 DRAFT
the distance between the closest receptors to the Project Site and the work areas
of the Revised Proposed Project based on specific sites plans and construction
logistics diagrams. The updated construction noise analysis uses the same
methodology and evaluation criteria as the DEIS analysis, but includes the
additional receptors. The updated analysis also assumes implementation of the
construction noise mitigation measures that were identified in the DEIS and FEIS,
specifically:
• Erection of a noise barrier that is 12 feet tall along the perimeter of the Project Site on Arbor Drive between the Main Site entrance and the southern site boundary. The barrier would be constructed from plywood, or a material of similar noise abatement properties, and would be installed prior to the start of significant construction activities during the time that the Blind Brook Middle School and High School is in session during the normal school year;
• Noisy construction equipment, such as cranes, concrete pumps, concrete
trucks, and delivery trucks, would be located away from, and shielded from, sensitive receptors, such as the school, to the extent practicable;
• Construction equipment, including the mufflers on the equipment, would be required to be properly maintained;
• Electrification of construction equipment to the extent feasible and practicable would be undertaken as soon in the construction process as logistics allow;
• The construction site would be configured to minimize back-up alarm noise to the extent feasible and practicable;
• Construction trucks would not be allowed to idle for longer than 3 minutes.
Noise receptor locations associated with the BBRUFSD listed Table 3.16-1 were
evaluated as part of the revised analysis. A detailed discussion of the complete
revised construction analysis is included in Section 2.16.2.4, “Construction: Noise.”
Table 3.16-1 BBRUFSD Construction Noise Receptor Areas
Receptor(s) Land Use(s) Relationship to Proposed Construction Work Areas
Blind Brook Middle/High School West façade (facing Arbor Drive) Education 170 feet east of Townhouse Work Area
Blind Brook Middle/High School South façade (facing baseball field) * Education 295 feet southeast of Townhouse Work Area
Blind Brook School Baseball Field* Active Recreation 340 feet east of Townhouse Work Area
Blind Brook School Football Field/Track* Active Recreation 750 feet east of Townhouse Work Area
Blind Brook Middle School Education 335 feet east of Townhouse Work Area
Harkness Tennis Court* Active Recreation 345 feet east of Independent Living south Wings Work Area
Note:* Indicates new receptor location in FEIS
The projected maximum noise levels during construction for the BBRUFSD
receptors are summarized in Table 3.16-2. The construction noise estimates for
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-123 5/14/2019
the full construction period are shown in Appendix J and discussed in detail in
Section 2.16.4.2, “Construction: Noise.” The maximum noise level estimates
presented below are for noise levels exterior to the receptor during the worst-case
scenario. Noise levels interior to a structure would be significantly lower than the
levels presented below due to the attenuation provided by building walls and
windows (approximately 25 dBA lower for typical façade construction with a
closed-window condition). Typical façade construction, including insulated glass
windows and some kind of alternate means of ventilation (i.e., air conditioning)
would be expected to provide approximately 25 dBA reduction in interior noise
levels compared to exterior levels for a closed-window condition.
Table 3.16-2 BBRUFSD Estimated Maximum Construction Noise Summary (in dBA)
Receptor Area Existing Leq
Maximum Construction Noise Levels Leq Increase
Blind Brook Middle/High School West façade (facing Arbor Drive) 59.0 70.6 11.6
Blind Brook Middle/High School South façade (facing baseball field) * 59.0 59.6 0.6
Blind Brook School Baseball Field* 59.0 60.6 1.6
Blind Brook School Football Field/Track* 59.0 60.9 1.9
Blind Brook Middle School 59.0 59.6 0.6
Harkness Tennis Court* 70.0 73.1 3.1 Note: * Indicates new receptor location in FEIS
The maximum predicted noise levels shown in Table 3.16-2 would occur at times
during the most noise-intensive activities of construction, which would not occur
every day during the construction period, and would not occur during every hour
on days when those activities are underway. During hours when the loudest pieces
of construction equipment are not in use, receptors would experience lower
construction noise levels than those shown above. As described below,
construction noise levels would fluctuate during the construction period at each
receptor, with the greatest levels of construction noise occurring for limited
periods during construction.
Blind Brook Middle/High School
West Façade (Facing Arbor Drive)
As shown in Table 3.16-2, the west façade of the Blind Brook Middle School and
High School building across Arbor Drive from the Project Site would experience
high levels of construction noise and increases in exterior noise levels that would
be considered highly objectionable at times during the most noise-intensive
construction activities. Maximum Leq(1) noise levels at this receptor resulting from
construction would be in approximately the low 70s dBA, resulting in exterior
noise level increases of up to approximately 12 dBA. Consequently, the
maximum exterior noise levels predicted to be generated by on-Site construction
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-124 DRAFT
activities at this receptor would be expected to exceed the NYSDEC noise level
threshold at times during the construction period.
The maximum construction noise levels would occur during portions of the
approximately 3 months of road and utilities installation and parking garage
foundation construction as well as during the approximately 2 months during the
overlap of interior and exterior finishing at the AL facility and IL center core and
framing and roofing construction at the IL south wings and townhouses.
Construction noise levels in the mid 60s dBA, resulting in noise level increases
up to approximately 8 dBA, would occur intermittently over portions of another
6 months during the construction period. During the remainder of construction,
noise levels would remain below the 65 dBA NYSDEC recommended exterior
noise levels and the 6.0 dBA noise increment threshold identified by NYSDEC.
Consequently, while construction noise levels would not persist at their maximum
level throughout all construction activities, construction noise levels are predicted
to exceed the NYSDEC noise threshold for approximately 11 months during
construction of the Revised Proposed Project.
It is important to note that the spaces along this west façade, generally include
areas that would not be considered noise-sensitive, including the cafeteria,
gymnasium, custodial, and loading spaces. The only classrooms along this façade
are those on the second floor towards the north end of the building, and these
classrooms have very limited window area, with the façade facing the Arbor
Drive consisting mostly of brick. As such, noise levels interior to the these
classrooms would be significantly lower than the maximum exterior noise levels
presented above due to the attenuation provided by building façade
(approximately 35 dBA lower in a closed-window condition with no façade
penetrations for ventilation, and mostly brick façade area). This would result in
noise levels in these classrooms of 45 dBA or lower, which would be considered
acceptable for classroom use. Based on the short duration of exterior construction
noise exceeding the NYSDEC impact threshold and the acceptable level of
interior noise when considering the façade attenuation, it is the Applicant’s
opinion that the classrooms along this façade would not have the potential to
experience a significant adverse construction noise impact.
South Façade (facing the baseball field)
As shown in Table 3.16-2, the south façade of the Blind Brook Middle School
and High School building, facing the baseball field, would experience minimal
levels of construction noise. Maximum exterior Leq(1) noise levels at this receptor
resulting from construction would be in approximately the high 50s dBA.
Consequently, the maximum exterior noise levels predicted to be generated by
on-Site construction activities at this receptor would not be expected to exceed
the NYSDEC noise level threshold during the construction period.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-125 5/14/2019
North and East Façades (facing Harkness Park and the School Parking Lot)
The south and west façades of the school, analyzed above, represent the locations
with the maximum potential for adverse noise impacts within the school during
construction. Receptors along the north and east façades of the school would
experience lower noise levels than those for the south façade due to additional
distance and shielding from the construction work areas at these façades.
Consequently, these façades would also not have the potential to experience a
significant adverse construction noise impact.
Blind Brook School Baseball Field, Track, and Football Field
As shown in Table 3.16-2, the Blind Brook School baseball field, track, and
football field across Arbor Drive from the Project Site would experience low
levels of construction noise. Increases in noise levels at the track and football field
would be considered imperceptible to barely perceptible during the most noise-
intensive construction activities. Maximum Leq(1) noise levels at this receptor
resulting from construction would be in approximately the mid-50s dBA,
resulting in noise level increases of up to approximately 1 dBA. Consequently,
the maximum noise levels predicted to be generated by on-Site construction
activities at these receptors would not be expected to result in exceedances of the
NYSDEC noise level thresholds, and the baseball field, track, and football field
would not have the potential to experience a significant adverse construction
noise impact.
Blind Brook Middle School and High School Additional Mitigation Measures
Because of the predicted high levels of construction noise at a limited area along
the west façade of the school, the Applicant has agreed to the following additional
mitigation measures as part of the Revised Proposed Project. These measures, in
addition to the ones listed above, would be expected to further reduce the potential
for adverse impacts to the operation of the school during construction of the
Revised Proposed Project. The additional mitigation measures include:
• Working with the Village approval authorities to expedite demolition of the existing office building to allow that noise-intensive activity to occur during
the summer, when the Blind Brook Middle School and High School is not in regular use;
• Coordinating with the BBRUFSD to avoid the most noise-intensive activities during critical testing days/times (e.g., Advanced Placement, and other tests).
• Coordinating with the BBRUFSD during the construction process and providing a 2-week look-ahead construction schedule that would identify potentially noise-intensive activities;
Harkness Park Tennis Court
As shown in Table 3.16-2, the Harkness Park Tennis Court across Arbor Drive
from the Project Site would experience moderate levels of construction noise and
increases in noise levels that would be considered noticeable at times during the
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-126 DRAFT
most noise-intensive construction activities. Maximum Leq(1) noise levels at this
receptor resulting from construction would be in approximately the low 70s dBA,
resulting in noise level increases of up to approximately 3 dBA. Consequently,
the maximum noise levels predicted to be generated by on-Site construction
activities at this receptor would not be expected to result in exceedances of the
NYSDEC noise level thresholds, and the tennis court would not have the potential
to experience a significant adverse construction noise impact.
As discussed in Section 2.16, “Construction” of this FEIS, it is not anticipated
that construction of the Revised Proposed Project would require blasting.
Comment 149: Comments were received regarding the general mitigation measures included in
the DEIS with respect to construction noise. Specifically, the Village’s Special
Engineering Consultant requested documentation with respect to the DEIS’
statement that typical façade construction would be expected to provide
approximately 25 dBA noise attenuation and recommended that the noise
mitigation measures included in the DEIS, including the time of day and day of
week restrictions, be conditions of any future permit or approval. The Village’s
Special Engineering Consultant also requested a discussion of the appropriateness
of additional construction noise mitigation measures, including a barrier of
greater than 12 feet, noise absorbent material for the barrier, and path controls for
construction equipment expected to increase noise levels by more than 6 dBA or
to a level greater than 65 dBA at the property boundary. Other commenters
suggested that the Proposed Project should be reduced in scope to avoid potential
significant adverse, though temporary, noise impacts, while still other
commenters expressed their concern with the overall level of noise anticipated
during construction. (Snyder 007, Musso 013, Planning Board 018)
Snyder 007 (#80): The DEIS readily admits that “construction of the Proposed Project would result in large noise level increases and high noise levels during the most noise-intensive construction activities at the adjacent work area. These noise levels would have the potential to occur for approximately 21 months. Therefore, in the Applicant’s opinion, construction noise at these receptors would rise to the level of significant but temporary adverse impact.” The DEIS concedes that the project does indeed result in the creation of significant adverse environmental impacts [with respect to noise impacts during construction] that cannot be mitigated, and thus the project must be modified. The applicant, a private developer, cannot require a community to endure significant adverse impacts for nearly 2 years and likely longer.
Musso 013 (#185): Maximum noise levels during construction at 12 noise-sensitive receptor sites are predicted to range from 57.4 dBA to 84 dBA, resulting in an increase of 0.3 to 21 dBA. Per the DEIS, “construction of the Proposed Project would be expected to result in elevated noise levels at nearby receptors and noise due to construction would at times be noticeable and highly objectionable. However, at receptors other than those directly adjacent to the Project Site, noise from construction would be intermittent and of limited duration, and estimated construction noise levels would not exceed NYSDEC noise screening thresholds. Consequently, in the Applicant’s opinion, noise associated with the construction of the Proposed Project would not rise to the level of a significant adverse noise impact at receptors not directly adjacent to the project.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-127 5/14/2019
At receptors immediately adjacent to the Project Site, construction of the Proposed Project would result in large noise level increases and high noise levels during the most noise-intensive construction activities at the adjacent work areas. These noise levels would have the potential to occur for approximately 21 months. Therefore, in the Applicant’s opinion, construction noise at these receptors would rise to the level of significant, but temporary, adverse impact.”
The noise control measures presented in the DEIS should be a listed as conditions included in the approvals/permits for the proposed project.
The DEIS states that these temporary noise impacts would only occur during the
daytime hours, Monday through Saturday, and that construction would not regularly occur during evening and overnight hours or on Sundays. It is recommended that the approvals/permits for the proposed project restrict construction hours to Monday through Saturday and NOT allow construction to occur during evening and overnight hours or on Sundays.
Musso 013 (#186): In addition, the predicted increases would be greater than 10 dBA and for a duration of approximately 21 months. Although temporary, exposure to this much of an increase in noise for almost two years would cause an annoyance and disturbance to the adjacent receptors. The noise analysis should determine if a noise barrier greater than 12 feet and/or with noise absorbent material would reduce the noise level increase. In addition, equipment predicted to increase noise levels at the property boundary by more than 6 dBA or to a noise level greater than 65 dBA should be required to include path controls.
Musso 013 (#188): The DEIS states that “Typical façade construction, including insulated glass windows and some kind of alternate means of ventilation (i.e., air conditioning) would be expected to provide approximately 25 dBA reduction in interior noise levels compared to exterior levels for a closed-window condition.” A source for this value should be provided.
Planning Board 018 (#229): Consider a prohibition of construction on Sundays.
Response 149: The assumption of a 25 dBA reduction in noise levels associated with typical
façade construction is based on United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) Noise Guidelines and AKRF’s experience with acoustical
test reports for typical insulated glass windows. Chapter 2 of HUD’s Noise
Guidelines have been added to Appendix J.
Additional mitigation measures, including a barrier greater than 12 feet in height
or noise absorption material on the noise barrier would not result in significant
reductions in construction noise levels. Noise barriers are most effective for
reducing noise at receptors within approximately 50 feet of the barrier if the noise
source (e.g., trucks, excavators) are within a comparably small distance to the
noise barrier. The benefit of the barrier reduces as the distances between source
and barrier or receptor and barrier increases. Taller barriers require horizontal
structural support to safeguard against wind loads and properly support the
structure. Consequently, a taller barrier would result in increased cost, logistical
and safety concerns with minimal increase in noise mitigation. Likewise, the
benefit of sound absorption material on the noise barrier would be minimal, as
most equipment would operate too far from the barrier for a majority of the
construction period for the material to be effective. Sound absorption material
would add material cost for minimal noise reduction benefit, given the relatively
long distances between the construction work areas and the receptors and the
minimal number of reflective surfaces in the project area.
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-128 DRAFT
The Applicant agrees that the noise mitigation measures described in the DEIS
and this FEIS should be conditions of any future site plan approval for the Revised
Proposed Project. These mitigation measures include:
• The days of the week and time of day restrictions codified in the Village Noise Code, with the exception of the morning start time, as discussed in Section 2.16.2.2, “Construction: Potential Traffic Impacts on the MS/HS”;
• Construction of the noise wall as described above; and,
• Coordination with the school district.
As stated in Section 2.16, “Construction,” the Applicant would prepare a detailed
Construction Management Plan (CMP), which would provide for implementation
of the proposed construction plan and the measures proposed to mitigate potential
adverse impacts. The CMP would be reviewed by Village staff and consultants
and approved as part of the final site plan approval and would be made a condition
thereof. It is important to note that demolition of the existing office building may
occur after the conclusion of the SEQRA process, but before final site plan
approval so as to minimize the impact on the Blind Brook Middle School and
High School. In this case, the CMP would not yet be approved by the Village, but
the Applicant would commit to adhering to the mitigation measures included in
the DEIS and FEIS during demolition activities.
Comment 150: A comment was received requesting confirmation of the DEIS’ statement that
vibration from building demolition would be expected to be well below the
threshold of damage to the Tennessee gas pipeline or to structures within the
Arbors. (Snyder 007)
Snyder 007 (#85): the DEIS makes statements that vibration from building demolition "would be expected" to be well below the threshold of damage to the Tennessee gas pipeline and the residents of The Arbors, some of who are only 250 feet away. Statements as to "would be expected" to not have an impact require further definitive review, especially when you have nearby residents and a major gas line in the vicinity of the project.
Response 150: As described in Section 16.3.5, “Vibration,” of the DEIS, demolition of the
existing office building will occur at least approximately 250 feet from the nearest
residences within The Arbors community. At this distance, vibrations from
building demolition would be imperceptible and would not have the potential to
result in architectural or structural damage to even a structure extremely
susceptible to damage from vibration. Therefore, vibrations from construction of
the Revised Proposed Project would not have the potential to result in a significant
adverse impact at The Arbors townhouses.
Similarly, at a distance of 1,000 feet from demolition activity, vibration levels at
the Tennessee Gas Pipeline would be well below the threshold of damage to even
a structure extremely susceptible to damage from vibration. Therefore, vibrations
from construction of the Revised Proposed Project would not have the potential
to result in a significant adverse impact at the Tennessee Gas Pipeline.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-129 5/14/2019
Nevertheless, the Applicant will commit to a vibration monitoring program at The
Arbors community and at the Tennessee Gas Pipeline during demolition of the
existing office building to ensure that vibration levels do not exceed the thresholds
that could potentially result in damage during construction.
3.17. ALTERNATIVES
GENERAL
Comment 151: A comment was received requesting an evaluation of a range of alternatives to
the Proposed Project that includes what is allowable under existing zoning, on the
low end, to what is proposed by the Applicant, on the high end. (Barnett 047)
Barnett 047 (#367): This complex, I think most of us in our gut know, is too large, and
so what number is acceptable? Until we see real alternatives that encompass a range from what is legally allowed today to the moon…we really can’t sit back as a community, to try to determine what would be best for all of us.
Response 151: Chapter 17, “Alternatives,” of the DEIS, evaluated the potential environmental
impacts of a range of alternatives to the Proposed Project as required by the
adopted DEIS scoping outline. These alternatives included, among others, the
following:
• An alternative that did not involve demolition of the existing building or construction or a new building (i.e., the “No Action” alternative);
• Two alternatives that could be constructed under the existing zoning (i.e., the “Residential As-of-Right” and “Senior Living Facility As-of-Right” alternatives);
• A project similar to the Proposed Project, but with 20 percent fewer units (i.e., the Reduced Density” alternative); and,
• A project with the same number of units as originally proposed, but in three-story buildings and reduced unit sizes (i.e., the “Reduced Size” alternative).
As shown in the analyses in Chapter 17, “Alternatives,” of the DEIS, with the
exception of the reuse of the existing office building, which would result in a
significant increase in traffic generation, the remaining alternatives would
generate similar volumes of traffic as the Proposed Project. Community service
impacts would be similar for the various senior living alternatives, with the
market-rate residential alternative having a smaller impact on EMS service, but a
significantly larger impact on the school district. Similarly, and with the exception
of the No Action alternative, each alternative, as well as the Proposed Project,
would entail similar levels of site disturbance and construction and similar
impacts to the Site’s natural resources.
Another difference between the various new construction alternatives and the
Proposed Project would be in terms of visual impacts. In the Reduced Size
alternative and the two As-of-Right alternatives, building height would be three and
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-130 DRAFT
two stories, respectively. With the Proposed Project, buildings would be two, three,
and four stories. As discussed in the DEIS, and in Section 2.8, “Visual Resources
and Community Character,” the increase in allowable height from three to four
stories would not, in the Applicant’s opinion, create an adverse visual impact. In
addition, the Revised Proposed Project includes measures to further reduce the
potential for adverse visual impacts, including increasing the setback of the four-
story portion of the buildings from Arbor Drive and from The Arbors, as well as
reducing the roof height of the four-story building closest to The Arbors.
In sum, the Applicant believes that the analysis of alternatives presented in the
DEIS, which was completed in accordance with the scoping outline approved by
the Lead Agency, provides the public the opportunity to meaningfully assess the
changes in environmental impacts associated with a range of building and project
configurations.
Comment 152: The Village’s Planning Consultant requested a comparative analysis of building
coverage, parking coverage, impervious coverage, and gross floor area for Alternative
17.3, Senior Living Facility under the Existing PUD Regulations. (FP Clark 012)
FP Clark 012 (#144): it would be helpful to provide the same type of statistics [building coverage, parking coverage, impervious coverage, and gross floor area], presented in a similar manner, for Alternative 17.3, Senior Living Facility under the Existing PUD Regulations, to inform the Village Board’s review of the potential impacts to community character from the current building as built, a development under the current zoning and the Proposed Action.
Response 152: The building coverage, road coverage, and total Site coverage for the Senior
Living Facility As-of-Right alternative is shown in Table 3.17-1, which was
originally included as Table 8-2 in the DEIS and updated and presented in
Response to Comment 34. As described in Chapter 17, “Alternatives,” of the
DEIS, the As-of-Right alternative could reasonably include two configurations;
one that adheres to the baseline PUD standard of 9,000 sf of gross floor area per
acre (“Alternative 17.3”) and one that uses building sizes similar to The Arbors,
while maintaining the base six units per acre PUD standard (“Alternative 17.3A”).
As shown in Table 3.17-1, the building and impervious coverage of the
alternative using the PUD baseline standard for both the number of units and total
gsf could yield a project with a total of 4.92 acres of impervious coverage—27.67
percent of the Site. The alternative that adheres to the PUD baseline standard of
six units per acre but allows for unit sizes similar to The Arbors, could create a
project with 2.78 acres of building coverage, 4.28 acres of roads and other
impervious areas, and a total of 7.06 acres of impervious area—39.74 percent of
the Site. As shown in Table 3.17-1, if the Revised Proposed Project utilized the
baseline PUD standards for number of units and gsf building and Site coverage
could be reduced from that proposed. However, an increase in gsf that would
permit units of the same size of The Arbors, while still maintaining the baseline
PUD standard of six units per acre, could result in a project with greater building
and Site coverage than the Revised Proposed Project.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-131 5/14/2019
Table 3.17-1 Parcel Coverage Comparison
Site
Parcel Size (ac)
Building Coverage (ac)
Roads, Drives, Parking (ac)
Total Site Coverage (ac)
Percent Building Coverage
Percent Other Coverage
Percent Total Coverage
Existing Condition 17.77 2.17 5.29 7.46 12.22% 29.77% 41.99%
Original Project 17.77 3.14 3.91 7.05 17.67% 22.00% 39.67%
Revised Proposed Project 17.77 2.97 4.13 7.10 16.71% 23.24% 39.95%
DEIS Alternative 17.3 17.77 1.84 3.08 4.92 10.35% 17.33% 27.67%
DEIS Alternative 17.3A 17.77 2.78 4.28 7.06 15.64% 24.09% 39.74%
The Arbors 35.29 5.58 6.26 11.83 15.80% 17.73% 33.53% The Arbors (w/o Arbor Dr) 33.49 5.58 5.26 10.83 16.65% 15.70% 32.34%
800 Westchester Ave 44.94 5.46 6.30 11.76 12.15% 14.02% 26.17%
Hilton Westchester 35.52 3.80 7.10 10.89 10.69% 19.97% 30.67%
Doral Arrowwood Conference Center 105.93 10.67 13.51 24.18 10.07% 12.76% 22.83%
Doral (w/o golf) 46.46 10.38 11.89 22.26 22.34% 25.58% 47.92%
Notes: *includes area of pervious pavers Sources: Westchester County GIS & 900 King Site Survey and Proposed Project (originally included as Table 8-2 in the DEIS)
As stated in Response to Comment 24, it is the Applicant’s understanding that,
with the exception of BelleFair, there is no PUD development within the Village
that meets all of the “standard” PUD requirements set forth in the zoning
ordinance. Instead, the Lead Agency utilized the discretion provided by the PUD
Zoning District to make site-specific findings that allowed appropriately scaled
development that deviated from the baseline standards of the ordinance.
Therefore, it is the Applicant’s opinion that it is customary and legal for the Lead
Agency to make specific findings regarding the appropriateness of various uses,
their density, and their site-specific suitability based on the specific application
proposed, inclusive of the use, layout, and location.
Comment 153: A comment was received suggesting that the DEIS alternatives should be
compared to the existing condition of the Site and not to the full occupancy of the
existing office building. (Snyder 007)
Snyder 007 (#33): The entire alternative analysis should reference [the] current conditions-not a fully occupied office building
Response 153: Chapter 17, “Alternatives,” of the DEIS, compares the potential environmental
impacts of the Proposed Project to several other alternative Site configurations
and developments, as required by the DEIS Scoping Outline. One of the project
alternatives is the No Action alternative, which in the instance, was defined as the
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-132 DRAFT
full occupancy of the existing office building. This is consistent with both
SEQRA regulation and guidance.7 Each chapter in the DEIS also describes the
current, relevant, environmental conditions so as to allow the Lead Agency the
ability to compare the Revised Proposed Project’s impacts to the current
condition, a future condition without the Proposed Project, and to project
alternatives.
Comment 154: A comment was received suggesting that, “The statement in the DEIS that the
nature and magnitude of these significant adverse impacts [with respect to
construction noise or air emissions] would be similar in all studied alternatives,
except the No Action alternative, cannot be supported.” (Snyder 007)
Snyder 007 (#81): In addition, if a potentially adverse impact has been identified, the DEIS must provide specific measures to appropriately mitigate that impact. Referencing that a Construction Management Plan (CMP) will be prepared is inadequate and does not meet the requirements of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) regulations. The DEIS notes that approximately 180 workers will be working at the construction site, and the impacts of that magnitude require the project to be modified. Moreover, the DEIS construction noise levels to occur at the Blind Brook High School, The Arbor condos, 942 King Street, and Walker Court, among others, are unacceptable levels at any time and incompatible with the surroundings. For a comparison with selected typical sounds, if the project proceeds, Blind Brook High School and The Arbors as well as the other properties would be forced to ensure noise as if a radio or vacuum cleaner was blasting for at least 13 months, according to the DEIS. These noise levels, some as high as 80 dBA levels, can be found to result in hearing loss. The DEIS’ suggestion that windows be kept closed to mitigate the impacts is unacceptable.
Response 154: As stated in Section 16.3.3, “Construction: Air Quality,” of the DEIS, and Section
16.3.4, “Construction: Noise,” of the DEIS, potential off-Site impacts during
construction related to air quality and noise are directly related to the operation of
construction vehicles, as well as the various construction processes (e.g., dust-
generating and noise-generating activities). As with the original project, all of the
alternatives, with the exception of the No Action alternative, would utilize on-Site
construction vehicles and require the demolition of the existing office building,
regrading of the Project Site, and construction of new buildings. Therefore, the
impacts to the community as a result of those activities would be the same. As noted
in Chapter 17, “Alternatives,” of the DEIS, the main difference in the level of off-
Site noise and air impacts relates to the duration of construction. The As-of-Right
alternatives would likely require slightly shorter construction periods than the
original project, which would reduce the duration of off-Site construction impacts
7 6 NYRCR 617.9(g)(5)(v) states that “For private project sponsors, any alternative for which no discretionary approvals are needed may be described.” The SEQRA Handbook states that, “For many private actions, the no action alternative may be simply and adequately addressed by identifying the direct financial effects of not undertaking the action, or by describing the likely future conditions of the property if developed to the maximum allowed under the existing zoning.” Re-occupancy of the existing site building requires no discretionary approvals and describes the likely future conditions of the property if developed to the maximum allowed by zoning.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-133 5/14/2019
when compared to the Revised Proposed Project. While these alternatives would
not include excavation for an underground garage included in the original project,
significant Site-regrading and foundation work, which are noise intensive, would
be required. Similarly, these alternatives would also require the demolition of the
existing building, which would also be a noise-intensive activity.
With respect to the Reduced Density and Reduced Size alternatives, the
construction phases and sequences would be nearly identical to the original
project. As such, the impacts of construction would be similar.
COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC DEIS ALTERNATIVES
Comment 155: A comment was received requesting the evaluation of alternatives that “do not
require major demolition or construction.” (Straubinger 003)
Straubinger 003 (#15): (Look at alternatives that) do not require major demolition and a massive construction.
Response 155: Section 17.1 “No Action Alternative,” of the DEIS, evaluates the scenario where
the Proposed Zoning is not adopted and the Proposed Project is not implemented.
This alternative considers the existing office building to be fully occupied, which
may include rehabilitation and upgrades to the building for energy efficiency,
incorporation of green building practices, and other amenities consistent with
current zoning and a modern office building. Section 17.1, “No Action
Alternatives,” of the DEIS, discusses an analysis of the potential environmental
impacts of the No Action alternative. As noted therein, it is the Applicant’s opinion
that although the No Action alternative has been evaluated, this alternative does not
meet the Applicant’s purpose and would be following a downward trend of
declining demand for stand-alone office buildings in the region. In the Applicant’s
opinion, re-use of the existing office building is not a viable alternative.
Comment 156: A comment was received requesting additional specificity on the number of
vehicular trips and the duration of construction for Alternatives 17.2 and 17.2A
in the DEIS. (Snyder 007)
Snyder 007 (#34): Development under the Existing PUD regulations, 17.2 and 17.2A references to slightly fewer trips than proposed project, slightly shorter construction time and other vague terms are made. These terms should be quantified and again should also be compared to its current use, not to a fully occupied office building.
Response 156: As stated in Section 17.2.10, “Traffic and Transportation,” of the DEIS, the As-
of-Right residential alternatives are, “anticipated to generate 55 AM peak hour
trips (10 in/45 out), 59 Midday peak hour trips (26 in/33 out), and 63 PM peak
hour trips (42 in/21 out). This is 15 to 27 fewer peak hour trips than the Propose[d]
Project and significantly less than the number of vehicular trips generated in the
No Action alternative.” The number of trips generated by the Project Site at the
time of the Existing Conditions Traffic Counts in 2017 were, as noted in the TIS
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-134 DRAFT
included as Appendix F of the DEIS, 34 AM peak hour trips (30 in/4 out), 26
Midday peak hour trips (3 in/22 out), and 21 PM peak hour trips (6 in/15 out).
As stated in Section 17.2.13, “Construction,” of the DEIS, “Construction of [the
residential As-of-Right] alternative would be expected to take approximately 24
months, 6 months less than the Proposed Project.”
Comment 157: A comment was received asking, “if the population [of Alternative 17.3] is
expected to be half of the population of the Proposed Project, why aren’t the
impacts ‘considerably less’ than the Proposed Project?” (Snyder 007)
Snyder 007 (#35): (In alternative) 17.3…it would seem that with half as many people as the Proposed Redevelopment, the impacts should be considerable less than the project.
Response 157: The impacts of a given alternative are not necessarily directly proportional to the
population of that alternative. Specifically with respect to a comparison of the
potential impacts of Alternative 17.3, the “Senior Living Facility As-of-Right”
alternative to the original project, the Applicant notes the following (which is
further explained in Section 17.3, “Senior Living Facility Development under the
Existing PUD Regulations,” of the DEIS):
• Site coverage and limit of disturbance would be similar as Alternative 17.3 would have buildings of lower height that are more spread out than the
original project;
• Water and sewer demand would be lower with Alternative 17.3 than the
original project as the number of units and bedrooms are lower;
• The visual and community character impacts would be similar to that of the Residential As-of-Right alternative in that the physical layout of the alternatives are the same;
• The impacts to the Village’s senior services would be greater with Alternative 17.3 as it would not contain the same level of amenities included in the original project;
• The number of vehicle trips would only be slightly lower than the original project, as attached townhouses, even age-restricted townhouses, generates a trips at a higher rate than an IL building.
Comment 158: Comments were received questioning why 20 percent was chosen as the
percentage by which the density of the Proposed Project was reduced in the
Reduced Density alternative. One comment requested that an alternative that
reduces the density by more than 20 percent be studied, while other comments
suggested that an alternative with just the AL facility be analyzed. (Snyder 007,
Planning Board 018, Snyder 022)
Snyder 007 (#36): Reduced Density, 17.4, alternative of a senior living facility for assisted living within just one structure. Given that the DEIS has disclosed potential adverse impacts, simply reducing the scale by 20 percent is not meaningful. Rather an analysis of just one component should be considered. This will also substantially reduce the traffic and other site development impacts.
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-135 5/14/2019
Planning Board 018 (#218): Why was 20% chosen as the percentage by which the density of the project was reduced in the “Reduced Density” alternative? How is the Reduced Density alternative consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendation for increased density that is in keeping with the low density character of the Village?
Snyder 022 (#280): Alternatives that are presented – really are not adequate to mandate that – alternatives that reduce the scope much more substantially than what we – you have in the scoping…rather than being stuck with the alternatives that the Applicant has proposed. I would hope…Applicant will…reduce that scope of the project much more considerably than what they’ve presented at their alternatives. I wouldn’t want to be limited to the alternatives that they proposed.
Response 158: As stated in the SEQRA Handbook, “An analysis of alternative project
configurations or designs will enable the lead agency to determine if there are
reasonable, feasible alternatives which would allow some or all of the adverse
impacts to be avoided while generally satisfying the sponsor’s goals…The goal
of the alternatives discussion in an EIS is to investigate means to avoid or reduce
one or more identified potentially adverse environmental impacts.”
Based on the analyses in the DEIS and the previously expressed concerns of the
community, it is the Applicant’s understanding that impacts related to density,
traffic, visual and community character, and construction are some of the most
important to the community with respect to the Proposed Project. Therefore, in
accordance with the Approved Scoping Outline, the Applicant selected a 20-
percent reduction in the number of units to illustrate the impact of what is, in its
opinion, a meaningful and significant reduction in the number of units proposed.
The analysis of this alternative illustrates that eliminating 20 percent of the units
proposed would reduce the peak generation of vehicular trips by 14-18 per hour,
or 1 less trip every 3 to 4 minutes. This change is not considered significant. The
analysis also illustrates that reducing the density of the original project would not
significantly change the duration or sequencing of construction, and therefore the
construction-period impacts of the Reduced Density alternative would be similar
in nature and duration to the original project.
With respect to the consistency of the number of units proposed in the original
project or the Reduced Density alternative with the Comprehensive Plan’s
recommendation to allow increased density on the Project Site while maintaining
the Village’s overall low-density character, please see Response to Comment 36.
For the reasons set forth in Response to Comment 20, it is the Applicant’s opinion
that not only are the number of units and size of the Project being proposed
consistent with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan, but that density, in and of
itself, is not sufficient to evaluate the impacts of the Project on the character of
the community. Rather, impacts related to open space, visual character,
community service needs, traffic generation, and the intensity with which Project
residents utilize a Site and the surrounding area are critical to understanding the
impacts of a project on the community.
Based on the above, it is the Applicant’s opinion that analyzing an alternative that
reduces the number of units even further would not illustrate the potential for
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-136 DRAFT
meaningful reductions in adverse impacts compared to the original project. For
example, reducing the number of units by an additional 20 percent could reduce
the total number of Site-generated trips by 28 to 36 per hour, or 1 every 2 minutes.
This reduction, while double that of the Reduced Density alternative, would still
not meaningfully change the impacts of the Project on the traffic network.
Comment 159: Comments were received regarding the design of the site plan for the Reduced
Size alternative in Section 17.5, “Reduced Size Proposed Project,” of the DEIS.
One commenter stated that while “size” was the factor listed in the scope, the
intention of the alternative was to have a project reduced in not only sf, but
number of units. Another commenter stated that this alternative should eliminate
the townhouses and reduce both the size and number of units within the IL and
AL components to reduce adverse impacts associated with the Proposed Project.
(Snyder 007, Snyder 045, Klein 062)
Snyder 007 (#37): in the Reduced Size Proposed Project in 17.5, the alternative should
eliminate the townhomes and more considerably reduce the assisted living and independent living (in terms of size and number of units) to make it have less of an impact. Given that the DEIS has disclosed potential for adverse impacts associated with the project, simply providing for smaller buildings and reduced unit sizes is meaningless. A site development plan with fewer residential units, possibly just the assisted living units, should be presented.
Snyder 045 (#352): The Arbors has stated if it was just assisted living and you just had that one building, I think they would be able to work alongside the Applicant.
Klein 062 (#523): (Alternative) 17.5 does not meet the intention of this alternative. While size is the listed factor, the alternative simply made the units smaller and kept nearly the same number of units. Through the multiple public hearings the applicant has mentioned that they will in the FEIS submit a reduced scope project. I hope that this meets both size and density reductions, which I think was really the true intention of 17.5.
Response 159: The Approved Scoping Outline specifically states that the Reduced Size
alternative should “maintain the proposed density” and reduce the size of the
units. In addition, the scoping outline requires that buildings in this alternative be
limited to 35 feet in height.
In response to comments from the Lead Agency and the public, the Applicant has
revised the original project, as described in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed
Project.” The Revised Proposed Project addresses the community’s concern that
the units in the original project were too large and that the overall massing and
visual impacts of the IL building should be reduced. As demonstrated in the
analysis of the Reduced Density alternative in the DEIS, reductions in the number
of units would not meaningfully further reduce the actual or perceived impacts of
the Project, including those related to traffic and construction.
Comment 160: Comments were received suggesting that additional details on the potential
impacts of the DEIS alternative that considered the Proposed Project with an age
restriction of 62 years old and older were needed. In addition, comments were
received that expressed concerned that the only 62 years old and older project that
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-137 5/14/2019
the Lead Agency could adopt is the original project at 62 years old and older and
not a project with reduced density that was also age-restricted to 62 years old and
older. (Snyder 007, Zimmerman 026, Zimmerman 046)
Snyder 007 (#38): an alternative providing for the same project but raising the minimum age for residents to 62 does not take into account the practical effect of having residents older than 62. If the minimum age of the project is 62, the project will more fully address senior housing and not just end up being a rental development with no set purpose. There should be a discussion as to what services will be for seniors as opposed to those at age 55.
Zimmerman 026 (#256): There’s only one scenario, which was a full build with all 269 units, and that was the only one that was addressed with age 62.
Zimmerman 046 (#355): There was only one scenario that encompassed age 62, which we know now 62 is going to be the age limit. All of the other ones only encompassed age 55. We have not to this date seen any plan that shows any kind of reduction in the density of this project that also encompassed the age 62.
Response 160: As stated in Response to Comment 158, the analysis of Project alternatives in the
DEIS is intended to provide an illustration as to the type and magnitude of
changes to environmental impacts that could be expected given a range of changes
to a given project. In this case, while there was only one alternative that contained
a 62 years old and older community, the DEIS analyzed the potential change in
environmental impacts associated with that specific project modification, as well
as other specific modifications. Based on these analyses, and the comments from
the Lead Agency and members of the public, the Applicant has revised the
original project and is no longer seeking to lower the minimum age of Project
residents to 55 years old. In addition, and based on the analysis of other Project
alternatives and comments received, the Applicant has also revised the original
project to reduce the size of the units proposed, reduce the roof height of the four-
story building closest to The Arbors, increase the setback of the IL building from
both The Arbors and Arbor Drive, and modify the design of the townhouse units
to further differentiate them from other Village properties.
3.18. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
Comment 161: A comment was received opining that because the “DEIS has disclosed the
potential for adverse impacts associated with the project, the project should be
modified, if not totally denied.” (Snyder 053)
Snyder 053 (#408): DEIS has disclosed potential for adverse impacts associated with the project, the project should be modified, if not totally denied.
Response 161: The Applicant has incorporated measures to avoid and reduce adverse
environmental impacts associated with the Revised Proposed Project.
Neither SEQRA regulations nor guidance suggest that a finding of adverse
impacts requires a project modification or denial. In fact, SEQRA requires that
Lead Agencies make a finding that the Action approved avoids or minimizes (not
eliminates) environmental impacts consistent with other social, economic, and
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-138 DRAFT
other essential considerations; and, that adverse environmental impacts are
avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable.8 In the case of the
Revised Proposed Project, only temporary impacts associated with construction
noise were found to be potentially significant. As described in Section 2.16,
“Construction,” a number of measures are included in the Revised Proposed
Project to avoid and minimize the magnitude and duration of these impacts. In
addition, all alternatives, with the exception of the No Action alternative, would
have similar construction-period impacts. As such, it is the Applicant’s opinion
that the Revised Proposed Project minimizes those unavoidable adverse impacts
to the maximum extent practicable as well as maximizes the potential community
benefits associated with redeveloping the Project Site.
3.19. IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE IMPACTS
No comments received.
3.20. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
No comments received.
3.21. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Comment 162: Comments were received requesting a revision to the cumulative impact analyses
to include projects, such as projects in Glenville, proposals to toll I-95 in
Connecticut, and another senior living facility in the Village. (Snyder 007,
Schlank 060, Schlank 068)
Snyder 007 (#88): The DEIS does not adequately evaluate the project and particularly its cumulative impacts which include long term visual impacts, traffic impacts, noise and air quality impacts, socio-economic impacts resulting in a potential fiscal drain on the Village due to EMS, fire and other essential services, as well as avoidable erosion and wetlands impacts.
Schlank 060 (#426): Questions related to the implications of other local projects…including the cumulative effects of recent land-use decisions in Glenville and other neighboring areas, the effects of major construction projects and toll proposals on
nearby roads, and the potential for a competing senior living facility in a more suitable area of Rye Brook.
Schlank 068 (#553): As a result of events that occurred subsequent to January 2018, there are other planned or potential projects that may need to be considered when evaluating and discussing the environmental impacts in the FEIS, particularly with regard to traffic on King Street.
Response 162: The SEQRA handbook states that, “Cumulative impacts occur when multiple
actions affect the same resource(s).” The Lead Agency identified relevant projects
to be included in the cumulative impact analyses. As such, the traffic, noise, and
air quality analyses included a cumulative impact analysis on the roadway
8 The SEQRA Handbook provides the following response to the question, “Must all identified significant impacts be mitigated?” “No. Mitigation of unavoidable impacts must occur to the fullest extent practicable.”
Chapter 3: Response to Comments
DRAFT 3-139 5/14/2019
network resulting from the Proposed Project and pertinent projects identified by
the Lead Agency. With respect to the visual analyses, the Applicant is not aware
of any projects that would change the analysis of potential impacts associated
with the Proposed Project (e.g., no off-Site buildings are proposed that should be
included in the photosimulations or that would fundamentally change the
discussion of community character).
The SEQRA handbook goes on to state that the, “assessment of cumulative
impacts should be limited to consideration of reasonably foreseeable impacts, not
speculative ones.” As such, impacts related to speculative projects or proposals,
or projects or proposals that are not likely to significantly impact the same
resources as the Proposed Project, were not discussed in the DEIS.
3.22. COMMENTS NOT REQUIRING RESPONSE
DUPLICATE
Comment 163: These comments, made at a public hearing, consisted of reading excerpts of a
letter or statement that was submitted in writing, the contents of which are already
included and responded to in this FEIS.
Snyder 053 (#396): The Adler Report states, "the proposed redevelopment project will have a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions in the immediate neighborhood and the community as a whole. Traffic conditions which were already at or near capacity will be exacerbated by the influx of passing vehicles and trucks associated with the project resulting in deleterious conditions."
Snyder 053 (#397): The project will cause several intersections in the immediate area to operate at capacity levels of service, E, or levels of service F during peak travel times
Snyder 053 (#398): Intersections at failing conditions include King Street at Anderson Hill Road, King Street and North Ridge Street, King Street and Glen Ridge Road, by the Hutch. King Street and the Hutchinson River Parkway off ramp, and King Street at Betsy Brown Road. The project will cause at all peak hours at the intersection of King Street and North Ridge Street to result in level of service F.
Snyder 053 (#399): Significant increases in vehicle delays to almost six minutes in a.m. peak hour, almost three minutes in the mid-day peak hour, and 99.5 seconds in the p.m. peak hour.
Snyder 053 (#400): The project will also result in the intersection of the King Street and Betsy Brown Road to also operate at (LOS) F during a.m. and mid-day peak hours, with significant increases to vehicle delays to more than six minutes in the a.m. peak hour and 69.6 seconds in the mid-day peak hour.
Snyder 053 (#401): The Adler Report aptly concludes that the levels of service of E and F, that delay will result in a myriad of consequences…driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, increase travel time, and most importantly a greater likelihood of more traffic accidents.
Snyder 053 (#403): The project only has Arbor Drive as a sole method of ingress and egress to King Street. The Adler Report determined that, "the singular access point for vehicles traveling to or from King Street cannot safely sustain the significant increase in vehicles and trips associated with the proposed project. In its current form, the proposed project would likely result in an adverse environment for both pedestrians and drivers alike as levels of service F conditions have been found to lead to many more traffic accidents.
Snyder 053 (#404): The proposed project senior population could be at risk since emergency service vehicles would be unable to quickly enter and exit the property due to a failing level of service condition."
900 King Street Redevelopment
5/14/2019 3-140 DRAFT
Snyder 053 (#406): The Adler Report found, "the intersection capacity analysis shows that the project will result in levels of service F, operation conditions for individual movements during the pm peak construction activity hours at the following intersections resulting in more than doubling the delay experienced by motorist making the left turn from North Ridge Street onto King to 149.4 seconds, almost three minutes, in the build condition and tripling the delay experienced by motorist in the westbound shared left turn right turn at King Street and Glen Ridge Road, by the Hutch. The change in time proposed by the applicant provides no benefit to the area.
Snyder 022 (#249): Oral testimony was duplicate of first letter, already cataloged as correspondence 007. (Ms. Snyder’s written comments were read during the PH so her oral comments are noted in the FEIS.)
Rosenberg 064 (#554): {Read stmt, which is categorized as 063}
Fry 069 (#555): {Duplicate of Snyder Letter, which was 061}
Klein 070 (#557): {Testimony captured in ltr, #062)
Response 163: Responses previously provided.
NOT SUBSTANTIVE
Comment 164: These comments are not considered substantive and/or they do not deal with a
substantive environmental issue associated with an impact of the Proposed Project.
Mignogna 001 (#2): The Arbors is not a condominium community
Snyder 053 (#392): Arbors reiterates its opposition to the project in its current form to the devastating impacts that the Arbors and the community will be forced to endure if approved.
Snyder 007 (#29): The Village Board does not have any obligations to continue to entertain the zoning text amendment being sought by the Applicant.
Zimmerman 026 (#255): Our development (The Arbors) will be more impacted than any other place in Rye Brook. We are not against having something at 900 King. What we are against is something of this size and this scope.
Schlank 040 (#314): Who is the current owner of the 900 King Street property? Could the Applicant please disclose the names of the LLC principals that hold title to the property through the LLCs named on the deed?
Snyder 053 (#390): Numerous residents in extreme close proximity to the project.
Snyder 053 (#391): The Arbors will share an access drive with the proposed project....single access point for both.
Snyder 053 (#393): Tonight I would like to focus on the significant adverse, traffic impacts of the project, if approved, that will have on the surrounding roadway network…affect village residents on a daily basis, not only during the applicant’s conservative estimate of 21 to 30 months for construction, but also for the many years to follow.
Maniscalco 059 (#423): Please advise me how I can view the proposed contractor’s responses to my concerns.
Snyder 061 (#504): Once the public hearing has been closed, please allow for an additional 30-day period for submission of any written comments.
Klein 062 (#522): There is too much commentary in the alternatives section as a whole - the point is to present straight alternatives and it will be up to the various boards to determine the merits of the alternatives.
Fry 069 (#556): The only other request that I would make is that as changes to the plans are being made, if perhaps the public would have the opportunity to also comment on any updates really in connection with the FEIS.
Response 164: Comments noted.