2019.01.08 Applicant LetterRalph G. Mastromonaco, PE PC Consulting Engineers
Robert I. Goodman, Chairman, January 8, 2019
And Members of the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board
Village of Rye Brook
938 King Street,
Rye Brook, NY 10573 Hand Deliver
Re: 259 North Ridge Street
North Ridge Street Development
Rye Brook, NY
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members,
Enclosed please find the Full Environmental Assessment Form for North Ridge Street Development
revised January 8, 2019.
We received a review Memorandum from Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. dated January 4,
2019. We provide the following additional information:
Comment: 1. Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). A Full EAF and EAF Mapper Summary
Report were provided with the new submission. We have the following comments
regarding items on the FEAF:
Comment: a. The EAF must include information for the entire project, i.e. the Lot 1 zone change
and map amendment, the 3-lot subdivision, and the Lot 1 site plan, which should be
reflected in the description of the proposed action in Section A;
Response: The Description of Action has been so revised.
Comment: b. Section C.4.a. The local school district is the “Blind Brook-Rye Union Free School
District;”
Response: The name of the school district has been revised.
Comment: c. Section D.1.e. It appears the response only pertains to construction on Lot 1. It
should address the entire proposed action, including construction on the other two
lots, and the other questions in the section should receive responses. Also, 6 months
for construction of Lot 1 does not appear to be a realistic estimate, and it contradicts
the “Construction Management Plan and Time Frame” dated 12/1/2018 provided by
the applicant, which appears to indicate a 13 month construction schedule;
Response: Section D.1.e. has been adjusted to reflect the 13 month schedule proposed by
the applicant for Lot 1. Lot 2 is not proposed for construction and the Lot 3
schedule is undetermined at this time.
Ralph G. Mastromonaco, PE PC Consulting Engineers
2 North Ridge Street Development
Comment: d. Section D.2.b. The answer should be yes for the entire proposed action, and the
other questions in the section should receive responses regarding wetlands and
water bodies;
Response: Section D.2.b. has been revised to show wetland buffer disturbance of 0.12
acres on Lot 1 and 0.35 acres on Lot 3.
Comment: e. Section D.2.e. The answer should be yes for the entire proposed action, and the
other questions in the section should receive responses regarding storm water;
Response: Section D.2.e. has been so revised.
Comment: f. Section D.2.n. The answer should be yes for the entire proposed action, and the
rest of the questions in the section should receive responses regarding lighting;
Response: Section D.2.n. now describes the proposed doorway lighting. The question
asks for “Outdoor” lighting which is normally on poles, therefore, our original
answer was ‘No”.
Comment: g. Section E.1.b. Regarding the “acreage after project completion” column, the areas
indicated for each type of land use and cover type to do not equal the proposed
action site of 3.96 acres. The “changes” column should be updated as well; and
Response: Section E.1.b. has been so revised to include 0.63 acres of proposed
residential landscaping.
Comment: h. Section E.2.m. The section regarding wildlife should be completed.
Response: Section E.2.m. has been revised.
2. SEQRA Review. Environmental review pursuant to SEQRA is required for the revised Lot 1 site
plan as part of the combined action of the subdivision, and map amendment to re-
zone proposed Lot 1 into the FAH District and the Lot 1 site plan. All the information
and analyses provided for the original subdivision and site plan should be updated
for the revised application and site plan.
Response: All the information from the original subdivision is updated by the revised
application and Site Plan.
3. Additional Planning Information Needed. The following plans and updated information are
required for the revised applications:
a. An updated tree preservation and protection plan that complies with the requirements of
Chapter 235 of the Village Code for the revised Lot 1 site plan;
b. We did not receive a revised estimate of the number of school children generated by the
revised building plans; and
c. Tim Miller Associates, which performed the 2015 wetland assessments, should provide
review and written verification that the delineation and functional analysis
continue to be valid.
Response: The tree preservation and protection plan is revised on the revised plans. The
school children estimate will be revised by the applicant’s consultant. The
wetland functional analysis are generally valid for at least 7 years.
Ralph G. Mastromonaco, PE PC Consulting Engineers
3 North Ridge Street Development
4. Alteration of Land and Topography.
Response: The proposed Site Plan causes the least disturbance practicable.
5. Wetlands and Wetland Buffers.
Response: The areas of wetland buffer disturbance are contained in Section D.2.b. of the
FEAF and shows a wetland buffer disturbance of 0.12 acres on Lot 1 and 0.35
acres on Lot 3.
6. Revised Site Plan.
Response: The applicant has already provided views for the larger, original building, and
the proposed buildings are significantly smaller.
7. Soils.
Response: No blasting is proposed. Any rock encountered for footings will be chipped.
8. Transportation, Site Access Considerations.
Response: We will respond to the proposed separate Memorandum to be sent by F. P.
Clark.
9. Land Use and Zoning.
Response: The applicant has provided the appropriate plans indicating the residences will
be similar to the adjoining houses.
10. Community Character.
Response: Based on an email from the applicant’s planning consultant, Richard Hyman,
the estimate of school age public school children is reduced from a maximum
of 7 in the original application to 5 students in the revised application.
11. Visual Impacts.
Response: There will be no site lighting other than door lamps.
12. Construction.
Response: The applicant has constructed many residential projects in the area and has
always employed best practices for construction. We request the Planning
Board review the development proposal to narrow impact items to the most
significant ones.
The above information is submitted for the January 10, 2019 meeting of the Planning Board.
Sincerely,
Ralph G. Mastromonaco, PE Cc: Lou Larizza, Mssrs Nowak and Bradbury V. Rye Brook