2019.06.25 F.P. Clark Revised Memo1
A HARDESTY&HANOVER COMPANY www.HardestyHanover.com
To: Paul S. Rosenberg, Mayor and the
Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees
Date: June 24, 2019 REVISED
Subject: 900 King Street, Petition to Amend the PUD Regulations
and an Application for a PUD Concept Plan – Review of the
May 14, 2019 Preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement
As requested, we reviewed the preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement
(pFEIS) dated May 14, 2019, submitted to the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees
by 900 King Street Owner, LLC, as part of the petition to amend Section 250-7 E, the
Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations of the Village Code, and the application
for a PUD Concept Plan regarding the property located at 900 King Street, Town of Rye
Tax Parcel 129.68-1-13. The Proposed Action would construct 269 units of age-targeted
housing and related infrastructure, including driveways, walkways, garage and surface
parking, site lighting, signage and stormwater management facilities.
SUMMARY
Our office conducted a completeness and substantive review of the pFEIS and concept
plans dated May 14, 2019, on behalf of the Village Board of Trustees in its capacity as
Lead Agency. Our comments regarding the document and plans are included in this
memorandum along with comments from Village staff. Other commenters reviewing the
document and plans will submit comments separately, including the Rye Brook
Emergency Services Task Force, Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, and HDR.
Based on our review, we believe the pFEIS is not ready for acceptance by the Lead
Agency. We recommend that the Applicant be directed to revise the pFEIS and plans to
address all the comments provided during the current review by the Lead Agency, and
Village staff and consultants.
2
COMMENTS
Chapter 1, Revised Proposed Project
1. Page 1-3, Section 1.3, Revised Proposed Zoning: Where appropriate, revise each of the
bullet points in the section to state the actual, proposed, numerical dimensional requirements,
or changes. Revise the second bullet of the first list to eliminate the applicant’s opinion.
2. Page 1-4, Section 1.4, Revised Proposed Project, first paragraph: Revise the description of
the revised project to clearly state the total number of residential units proposed.
3. Page 1-11, Section 1.4.5.1, Grading, Drainage and Stormwater Management: Revise the last
sentence of the first paragraph to provide a numerical estimate of the quantity of fill reduced
by lowering the elevation of the garage and compare it to the quantity of fill required by the
original Proposed Action.
4. Page 1-11, Section 1.4.5.1 Grading, third paragraph: The FEIS states that the proposed
grading plan would result in a Site that has approximately 3.39 acres of slopes greater than
15 percent, which is 0.94 acres less than the Site has at present. However, based on the
information in Table 2.4-4, the Site would have 0.94 acres more of slopes greater than 15
percent than at present. The FEIS should be revised to correct this information.
5. Page 1-12, Section 1.5, Purpose and Need: Revise the second sentence of the first
paragraph to provide a numerical estimate of the reduction in the volume of traffic generated
by the revised proposed project and compare it to the volumes generated by the original
Proposed Action and the office building.
6. Figure 1-17: Figure 1-17 does not show how the pedestrian paths connect from the path to
the King Street sidewalks. The figure shows how they connect with 900 King Street, but they
do not connect with the public sidewalks on King Street. Students walking to/from the Blind
Brook HS/MS use these paths and often walk through the Village Hall/Police Station parking
lot to get to the sidewalks, and there is a walking path that currently exists behind the Police
Station. Further, the walking path easement is currently supposed to be maintained by the
BBRUFSD. The applicant should clarify the maintenance responsibility for the path, if the
current easement becomes an integral part of the Proposed Action’s circulation system as
shown on Figure 1-17. (C. Bradbury)
3
Chapter 2, Environmental Analysis
7. Page 2-2, Section 2.2, Summary of Environmental Analysis: Revise the section to eliminate
the conclusion of the applicant and present only the summary of the analysis.
8. Page 2-3, Section 2.3, Land Use, Policy and Zoning: Revise the first partial paragraph to
eliminate the first full sentence that includes the conclusion of the applicant regarding land
use. Also, remove the applicant’s opinion regarding the definition of a dwelling in Footnote 1.
9. Page 2-4, Section 2.3, Land Use, Policy and Zoning: Revise the first paragraph to eliminate
the third sentence that includes the conclusion of the applicant. Add a balanced discussion
that compares the density of the Revised Proposed Action to all the densities of other
developments by including those developments that are less dense. Also, remove the entire
second paragraph from the section.
10. Page 2-4, Section 2.3, Zoning: Remove the last two sentences of the first partial paragraph
regarding the density of the PUD.
11. Page 2-5, Section 2.3, Zoning: The second to last paragraph has several comments that “it
is the Applicant’s opinion” regarding zoning impacts. These opinions of the applicant should
be eliminated from the pFEIS as it is the Village Board’s document and they will determine
the policy matters regarding zoning impacts as part of their review. Remove the entire
paragraph.(C. Bradbury)
12. Page 2-7, Section 2.3, Zoning: Remove the applicant’s opinion from all the places it appears
in the first paragraph. Remove the last sentence of the paragraph that is the applicant’s
opinion. Further revisions may be required, pending review by Village counsel.
13. Page 2-7, Section 2.3.3, Zoning: The first paragraph on this page indicates that the applicant
believes that Harkness Park already satisfied the provision requiring recreational space (or
a fee in lieu of) under the Village Code (when the PUD was established). The many
references to “the Applicant’s opinion” on this matter should be eliminated until the Village
has a legal opinion from Village Counsel and a determination is made about the applicability
of the Village Code on this issue. Similarly, the applicant should not reflect on the “legislative
intent” of the Project in relation to the existing PUD legislation. (C. Bradbury)
14. Page 2-7, Section 2.3, Zoning: Remove the applicant’s opinion on legislative intent from the
first sentence of the second paragraph. Revise the second sentence of the second bullet in
the list to state the numerical increase in open space and the numerical decrease in
impervious coverage.
4
15. Page 2-7, Section 2.3, Zoning: In the list located in the second paragraph, remove the last
bullet that is not relevant to zoning.
16. Page 2-8, Section 2.3.4, Public Policy: In the first paragraph under “Site Specfic,” remove
the second sentence that is the applicant’s opinion.
17. Page 2-9, Section 2.3, Public Policy: In the list located in the first paragraph, remove the
second bullet regarding encouraging age-restricted housing. In the second and fourth
paragraphs, remove the last sentences.
18. Page 2-10, Section 2.3, Public Policy: In the second paragraph, remove the last two
sentences that express the applicant’s opinion.
19. Page 2-15, Section 2.5, Waters and Wetlands: In Table 2.5-1, revise Note 2 to read, “The
FEIS considers the Grasscrete emergency access drive to be impervious, consistent with
Village Code regulations, while the DEIS considered this area to be permeable.
20. Page 2-16, Section 2.5, Waters and Wetlands: Remove the last sentence of the second
paragraph and the first sentence of the last paragraph that express the applicant’s opinion.
21. Page 2-17, Section 2.5, Waters and Wetlands: Remove the last sentence of the first partial
paragraph that is the applicant’s opinion. In the second paragraph, remove “While the,” start
the sentence with “Buffers,” and end the sentence with “condition.” Remove the applicant’s
opinion and conclusions and simply characterize the wetlands in the rest of the paragraph
without conclusion. Remove the entire fourth paragraph that expresses the applicant’s
opinion.
22. Page 2-18, Section 2.5, Waters and Wetlands: Remove the last sentence of the narrative in
the second paragraph that precedes the bulleted list to eliminate the applicant’s opinion.
Revise the first bullet to be consistent with the wetland buffer disturbance mitigation proposed
by the Revised Proposed Project that includes improving buffers. Do not include the last
sentence of the current narrative that expresses the applicant’s opinion in the revised
narrative.
23. Page 2-18, Section 2.5, Waters and Wetlands: In the second bulleted item, remove the third
sentence from the end that states the applicant’s opinion. End the last sentence of the
paragraph with “existing condition” to remove the applicant’s opinion.
5
24. Page 2-20, Section 2.5, Waters and Wetlands: In the first paragraph, revise the last sentence
to eliminate, “the Lead Agency determined and the Applicant agreed that” and
“appropriately.”
25. Page 2-20, Section 2.5, Waters and Wetlands: In the third paragraph, revised the third
sentence to eliminate, “As further mitigation for potential impacts” because the project is not
mitigation for its impacts. End the last sentence with “Wetland A” and eliminate the rest of
the sentence that is conjecture.
26. Page 2-20, Section 2.5.4.1 Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan: Remove the first sentence of the
first paragraph that states the applicant’s opinion. Revise the next sentence to start with, “The
Applicant,” and remove “the Planning Board’s requirement,” and replace with “Village Code
Section 245-9 A. (3), which is the source of the wetland buffer requirements.
27. Page 2-21, Section 2.5.4.1, Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan: Remove the entire paragraph
after the three bulleted items and replace with, “The Applicant proposes the other 2.3 acres
of mitigation required be located off-site. All on-and off-site mitigation measures will require
review and approval by the Village Planning Board.
28. Page 2-21, Section 2.5.4.2, Applicant’s Interpretation of Village’s Wetland Buffer Ordinance:
Remove the entire section from the document because the applicant is not the interpreter of
Chapter 245 of the Village Code.
29. Page 2-22, Section 2.6: In reviewing the stormwater calculations, even though a decrease in
flow is proposed, under current events, the storm drain at corner of the school entrance drive
at Harkness park overflows. The Applicant should address if there is a way to hold back more
water in the retention basin and meter it out under the 1- through 25-year storms. (M. Nowak)
30. Page 2-24, Table 2.6-1: Table 2.6-1 is duplicated. Table 2.6-2 is not provided. (M. Nowak)
31. Page 2-25, Section 2.7.1, Vegetation and Wildlife: Remove the last sentence of the first
paragraph of the section that expresses the applicant’s opinion.
32. Page 2-26, Section 2.7.1, Vegetation and Wildlife: In the first sentence of the first paragraph,
add “wildlife” before “species,” and remove the rest of the sentence after “species” because
other habitats also would be disturbed by construction.
33. Page 2-27, Section 2.7, Vegetation and Wildlife: Revise Table 2.7-2, Tree Removal, to
indicate the correct number trees (128) to be removed by the Revised Project. Revise the
paragraph directly below the table to end the first sentence at “construction period,” and
6
eliminate the rest of the sentence that is the applicant’s opinion. End the next sentence after
“new shrubs,” and eliminate the rest of the sentence that is the applicant’s opinion.
34. Page 2-27, Section 2.7.5 and Sheet L300: Fifty percent of the hardwood shade trees
proposed are Linden Trees (approximately 127 trees). Linden trees are salt sensitive and to
have them lining roads that will be heavily salted is not a good idea. It is recommended that
a more salt-tolerant species be proposed along the roadways. In addition, it is recommended
that more diversity in plantings be added to the planting plan. Keeping any one species to
around 10/15% onsite would be a nice practice and also keeps the site less vulnerable to a
given blight or infestation. Not all proposed trees meet replanting requirements of Village
Code Section 235-18. Of the over 400 trees planted, the Village Code does not recognize
pines as a restoration tree. However, pines are warranted and needed as screening material.
The Planning Board may want to consider a 6-8’ pine tree as equivalent to a 2-2-1/2”
hardwood. Spacing of these trees in and around structures should be better coordinated as
they will get large in size. The placement of oaks near the residences should be reevaluated.
The ornamental and understory trees, though hardwood in nature, also do not satisfy the
replanting component of the Code. These understory trees do have their place in this
landscape and add benefit. Overall, it appears that the plan does cover the proper number
of replacement trees. (M. Nowak)
35. Page 2-28, Section 2.7.5, last paragraph: The FEIS should be revised to state that root
pruning should not be utilized. If utilities are going under trees to be protected, air spading
shall be utilized and roots saved. Should root pruning be unavoidable, tree roots shall be
cleanly cut, and the crown shall not be trimmed back. Also, the FEIS should be revised to
state that excavation shall be backfilled within one hour of cutting and the root zone watered.
(M. Nowak)
36. Page 2-29, Section 2.8, Visual Resources and Community Character: Remove the last
sentence of the first partial paragraph regarding visual character and replace it with, “The
Revised Proposed Project would break up areas of continuous impervious surface (e.g.,
building coverage and parking areas) and provide areas of landscape interspersed with
buildings and driveways.”
37. Page 2-29, Section 2.8, Visual Resources and Community Character: In the last sentence
of the first full paragraph, remove “minimally” from before “visible” in two places, and quantify
the visibility from the two roadways referenced. Remove the first sentence of the last
paragraph on the page to eliminate the applicant’s opinion.
38. Page 2-30, Section 2.8, Visual Resources and Community Character: Remove the last
sentence of the second full paragraph to eliminate the applicant’s opinion.
7
39. Page 2-31, Section 2.8, Visual Resources and Community Character: Remove the first
single-sentence paragraph and replace with, “On and off-site vegetation screens or partially
screens the site from off-site locations. Remove the third sentence from the second
paragraph to eliminate the applicant’s opinion, and in the next sentence, remove,
“Additionally, it is the Applicant’s opinion that.” Remove the last sentence from the paragraph
directly below the table to eliminate the applicant’s opinion.
40. Page 2-31, Section 2.8.3, Visual Resources and Community Character: Add discussion
regarding the visibility of the Revised Proposed Project from the parkway, Arbor Drive, and
adjacent areas in the winter when there are no leaves on deciduous trees.
41. Page 2-32, Section 2.8.3, Visual Resources and Community Character: Remove the last
sentence of the first partial paragraph to eliminate the applicant’s opinion. Remove
“dramatically” from the first sentence of the first full paragraph and quantify the increased
tree and shrub cover proposed. Remove the first and last sentences of the next paragraph
to eliminate the applicant’s opinion.
42. Page 2-32 and 2-33, Section 2.9.1: The overview of the existing senior population says that
it has increased similar to other parts of the nation and Westchester County, but does not
state the facts from the Comprehensive Plan that indicate that Rye Brook already has a
higher proportion of seniors compared to other municipalities in Westchester. (C. Bradbury)
43. Page 2-33, Section 2.9.2, Fiscal Conditions: The Applicant should make an additional
attempt to secure an assessed value for the Revised Proposed Project from the Town Tax
Assessor.
44. Page 2-34, Section 2.92: If known, the Applicant should provide what benefits will be
requested in an IDA application (i.e. sales tax, mortgage tax, etc.). If mortgage tax is
included, it is noted that Rye Brook has a practice of requiring that all of the local portions of
the mortgage tax (Rye Brook, Rye Town, Port Chester) to be paid by the Applicant. (C.
Bradbury)
45. Page 2-36, Section 2.10.1.1: The last sentence states that the increase in taxes would “more
than cover the potential increase in Village’s municipal contribution to the EMS Service.” The
sentence should be revised to provide the amount that will be covered or the sentence should
be removed.
8
46. Page 2-36, Section 2.10.1.2, first paragraph: The section states the Applicant’s opinion. The
opinion should be removed and replaced with factual information regarding the use of the 1.3
calls per unit multiplier.
47. Page 2-36, Section 2.10.1.2, second paragraph: The section states that the increase in the
number of calls may necessitate certain operational adjustments by the EMS, such as the
positioning of vehicles. The Emergency Services Task Force should review potential
adjustments that may be needed and the information should be included in the FEIS.
48. Page 2-38, Section 2.10.1.4, first full paragraph: Remove the last sentence to eliminate the
applicant’s opinion.
49. Page 2-39, Section 2.10.2, second paragraph: Remove the last sentence to eliminate the
applicant’s opinion.
50. Page 2-41, Section 2.10.3, Open Space: Revise the first sentence of the first full paragraph
to end after OPRHP. Remove the rest of the sentence and the rest of the paragraph to
remove the applicant’s opinion. In the next paragraph, remove, “It is the Applicant’s opinion
that,” from the second sentence, and remove, “In addition, the Applicant’s believes that,” from
the last sentence.
51. Page 2-41, Section 2.10.3, Open Space, and Pages 3-71 to 3-73, Open Space: Village
counsel should determine if the open space on the site (not necessarily available to the
general public), and the previously provided Harkness Park, satisfies both sections of the
Village Code requiring open space (or a fee in lieu of open space). (C. Bradbury)
52. Page 2-42, Section 2.10.4, Solid Waste: Remove the last sentence from the second full
paragraph on the page to eliminate the applicant’s opinion.
53. Page 2-43, Section 2.10.5, Senior Services: Remove the first full paragraph and replace it
with a meaningful and adequate discussion and analysis of the impacts to the senior services
provided by the Village from the Project. The current discussion is unrealistic and avoids the
issue. The IL and townhome residents will be mobile and active and would be expected to
use local facilities in Rye Brook and elsewhere.
54. Page 2-43, Section 2.11: The FEIS should state if the upgrades to the water system will this
also serve the residents North of Anderson Hill Road in Bellefair, Reckson Office Park, etc.
It is recommended that the water system upgrades be made prior to construction of the
project. (M. Nowak)
9
55. Page 2-45, Section 2.11.2, Sanitary Sewer: The first sentence of the first full paragraph that
states that trash receptacles would be located near toilets to minimize the potential for non-
flushable items to enter the sanitary waste stream. This is an unworkable solution, as
oversight cannot be performed in private dwelling units. Provide a meaningful response to
the issue.
56. Page 2-45, Section 2.11.3: The FEIS should be revised to explain if emergency power will
serve critical facilities such as kitchen, laundry rooms, climate control, etc. The section should
also note how many diesel generators, the sizes of the generators that would be required,
and the petroleum bulk storage permits required, if they exceed WCDOH bulk storage
quantities for the site. (M. Nowak)
57. Page 2-45, Section 2.11.3: The FEIS should also note if the townhouses will be allowed to
have generators. (M. Nowak)
58. Pages 2-48 and 2-49, Section 2.12.3 and Appendix I-2, No-Build Sensitivity Analysis: In
paragraph 3 on Page 2-48, the Applicant should add that there are the following impacts from
the proposed development, “The Glen Ridge Road westbound lane to King Street will maintain
a Level of Service “F” during the weekday morning peak hour, with an increase in delay of 12.7
seconds. The Hutchinson River Parkway northbound on-off ramp eastbound lane to King Street
will maintain a Level of Service “F” during the weekday afternoon peak hour, with an increase
in delay of 12.1 seconds. Lastly, the Betsy Brown Road eastbound lane will maintain a Level of
Service “F” during the weekday morning peak hour, with an increase in delay of 16.1 seconds.”
59. Page 2-49, Section 2.12.4: Even though traffic study shows little impact in the King Street
corridor, there is room for improvements in timing. The FEIS should be revised to include
information regarding adaptive traffic light technology similar to Grid Smart System on the
two lights immediately servicing the area at Arbors Drive and Glenville Road (School
entrance/Exit). Also, the entrance to the high school at Harkness Drive backs up in the
morning as parents drop off children, if this queuing can be minimized with internal changes
to the school traffic flow, it would drastically help south bound traffic. Northbound traffic
bunches up in this corridor and adaptive technology and/or sequencing the lights together
may help. (M. Nowak)
60. Page 2-50, Section 2.12.6, Pedestrian Circulation: The third sentence in paragraph one
should be revised to read, “This would decrease the potential for conflict between Site-
generated traffic and pedestrians.” The fifth sentence in paragraph one should be revised to
remove “In the Applicant’s opinion.”
10
61. Page 2-63, Section 2.16.2.2, Traffic and Transportation: The sixth paragraph should be
revised to remove “In the Applicant’s opinion.”
Chapter 3, Response to Comments
62. Page 3-7 to 3-8, Response 11: Remove “it is the Applicant’s opinion” from the third sentence
of the response. Remove the entire last sentence of the response for the same reason.
63. Page 3-10, Response 14: Remove the first sentence of the response to eliminate the
applicant’s opinion and protest. In addition, the response does not address Comment 322
regarding falling AI facility occupancy rates, and Comment 387 regarding repurposing the
existing building for residential use.
64. Page 3-11, Response 16: The response does not address elimination of the townhomes.
Comment 531 does not have a response.
65. Page 3-13, Response 18: Remove “it is the Applicant’s opinion that” from the second
sentence of the response.
66. Page 3-16, Response 20: Remove “in the Applicant’s opinion” from the fourth sentence of
the first paragraph on the page. Remove the entire second paragraph regarding the
applicant’s opinion about density.
67. Page 3-17, Response 20: Remove the entire third paragraph that is not relevant to the
discussion of density, and the first sentence of the next paragraph that is not relevant to the
comments.
68. Page 3-18, Response 20: Remove the second full sentence of the first partial paragraph,
as it is not relevant to the discussion. Remove the last full sentence of the paragraph that is
the applicant’s opinion.
69. Page 3-18, Response 21: The response does not address the comment and the question
of why senior housing would be the only use on the Site.
70. Page 3-18, Response 22: The comment asks for an analysis that justifies the statement that
the proposed zoning would not affect the zoning district surrounding the Site. The response
repeats the statement without presenting the analysis. Revise the response. The revised
response should not include the three last sentences of the current response that are off
topic, and are the applicant’s opinion.
11
71. Page 3-19, Response 23: The commenter asks for a comparison between each of the
proposed zoning amendments and the existing regulations. Revise the response to address
the comment.
72. Page 3-19, Response 24: The response does not address the comment and is off topic.
The response should state that the proposed zoning amendments, if approved, would guide
development of a conforming PUD on the Site, and the existing office building will be
demolished. Remove the applicant’s opinion from the revised response.
73. Page 3-24, Response 29: Revise the first sentence to begin, “The Village administration…”
74. Page 3-25, Response 30: Remove the last sentence of the first paragraph, and the entire
second paragraph to eliminate the applicant’s opinion and conclusions regarding zoning and
density.
75. Page 3-27, Response 33: The response does not address the comments regarding the
discrepancies between the proposed setbacks of the proposed zoning and the setbacks of
the proposed PUD Concept Plan.
76. Page 3-28, Response 34: Remove the last sentence of the first paragraph on the page to
eliminate the applicant’s opinion regarding building and site coverage.
77. Page 3-30, Response 36: Remove the last sentence of the third paragraph of the response
to eliminate the applicant’s opinion regarding density. Remove the entire last paragraph of
the response that is the applicant’s opinion.
78. Page 3-31, Response 37: Remove the current response that is the applicant’s opinion and
replace with, “The Rye Brook Comprehensive Plan recommends allowing assisted living and
senior congregate housing to be four stories or 45 feet in height in the PUD District to address
nonconformity issues. (Page 196)”
79. Page 3-33, Response 38, first full paragraph: The statement regarding the Applicant’s
opinion that the removal of trees serves a legitimate public safety purpose should be removed
from the FEIS.
80. Page 3-34, Response 38: The first three sentences on page 3-34 should be removed from
the FEIS because they are the Applicant’s opinion.
81. Page 3-35, Response 40: The reference to Figure 2-1 should be corrected to be Figure 2-2.
12
82. Page 3-37, Response 42: Remove the last sentence of the first partial paragraph on the
page. Table 3.5-1 indicates both the Proposed Action and the Revised Proposed Project
would increase impervious surfaces within wetland buffers. Revise the response to address
these increases. Remove the last sentence on the page.
83. Page 3-38, Table 3.5-2 and Response 42: The structure of the table regarding wetland buffer
impacts is flawed and obscures the information provided. Remove the last sentence of the
paragraph after the table to eliminate the applicant’s opinion. Revise the first sentence of the
next paragraph to end after, “project,” and remove the rest of the sentence to eliminate the
applicant’s opinion. Remove the entire third paragraph on the page to eliminate the
applicant’s opinion.
84. Page 3-40, Response 42: Remove the last sentence of the first paragraph to eliminate the
applicant’s opinion and conclusions. Remove the last sentence of the first bulleted item
regarding Wetland A to eliminate the applicant’s opinion and conclusions.
85. Page 3-41, Response 42: In the second bulleted item on the page, remove the two
sentences near the end of the paragraph that state the applicant’s opinions. Revise the
paragraph to discuss the amount of area that grading and disturbance of the wetland buffers
would cause during construction.
86. Page 3-42, Response 42: Replace “east” with “west” in the last sentence of the first
paragraph to correct the direction error.
87. Page 3-43, Response 43: Remove the last paragraph of the response to eliminate the
applicant’s opinion and interpretation regarding the regulations of Chapter 245 of the Village
Code.
88. Page 3-48, Response 53: At the end of the response, the last sentence should be revised to
quantify the statement that there is an increase in the amount of habitat on the Site or this
portion of the statement should be removed.
89. Page 3-52, Response 56: Remove the last sentence of the response that is an incorrect
conclusion and replace it with, “The visual impact analyses included in the DEIS and the
FEIS demonstrate that the IL and AL building would be visible from certain vantage points.
90. Page 3-53, Response 57: Remove the last sentence of the response that is the applicant’s
opinion regarding the removal of trees.
13
91. Page 3-54, Response 58: Remove the last paragraph of the response that is the applicant’s
opinion regarding building height.
92. Page 3-54, Response 59: The comment voices concern regarding the visual and community
character impacts of a much larger GFA building than the current office building located within
the community immediately surrounding the Site. The discussion of commercial buildings
elsewhere in Rye Brook does not address the comment. Remove the current response and
provide a new response that recognizes the differences between the buildings surrounding
the site and the proposed senior housing buildings, and explain the mitigation proposed to
address the impacts.
93. Page 3-56, Response 60: Remove the last sentence of the response that is the applicant’s
opinion. Revise the response to address the issue of building height and typology (i.e., a
multi-story, multiple dwelling) located within the existing community of attached townhomes
and single-family homes.
94. Page 3-57, Response 61: Remove the entire second paragraph of the response regarding
the size of the building and replace it with a response that discusses the factual information
in Section 2.8.3 of the FEIS. Remove the last paragraph, as it is off topic and does not
address the comments.
95. Page 3-59, Response 64: The last sentences should be removed from the response because
it is the Applicant’s opinion.
96. Page 3-60, Response 65: The last sentences should be removed from the response because
it is the Applicant’s opinion.
97. Page 3-66, Response 73: The last paragraph is stated from the Applicant’s point of view.
This paragraph should be revised to answer the question regarding information that has been
received by the Village regarding the senior living project at SUNY Purchase.
98. Page 3-67, Response 74: It is noted that the Applicant states that they will not anticipate
hiring an EMT to be available on-site for items such as “lift assists” when people fall. These
types of EMS calls are very frequent at Altria who also does not provide lift assist and requires
EMS response in each instance when someone falls which increases call volume. The
applicant should explain why they would not provide this service in the IL facility especially
since they will have medical staff 24/7 onsite already in the AL facility. This may mitigate
some of the impact to the anticipated volume of EMS calls to this facility. (C. Bradbury)
14
99. Page 3-68, Response 75: The last sentence states that the additional tax revenue is expected
to be “well in excess” of the additional costs to the Village. The sentence should be revised
to provide the amount that will be covered or the sentence should be removed.
100. Page 3-68, Response 76: The last sentence should be removed as it is the Applicant’s
opinion regarding fire emergency services.
101. Page 3-68, Response 77: The last two sentences should be removed as they are the
Applicant’s opinion regarding fire emergency services.
102. Page 3-69, Response 79: The last sentence should be removed as it is the Applicant’s
opinion regarding votes on school district matters.
103. Page 3-70, Response 80: The last sentence should be removed as it is the Applicant’s
opinion regarding impacts to the school district.
104. Page 3-71, Response 81: The first paragraph should be removed as it is the Applicant’s
opinion regarding demographics and the school district.
105. Page 3-72, Response 82: The response should be revised to remove all information that is
the Applicant’s opinion regarding open space.
106. Page 3-74, Response 83: The Village would have many concerns if the Applicant wanted to
utilize the existing residential food scrap program at Village Hall (space limitations, smell,
etc.). This site is very small, does not have dumpsters, and currently requires periodic
cleaning of bins, etc. by Village Hall staff. (C. Bradbury)
107. Page 3-75, Response 84: The last sentence should be removed as it is the Applicant’s
opinion. Further, the response does not answer the question of impacts to the existing senior
center.
108. Page 3-78, Response 88: The response states that the Applicant will contribute funds to the
Village’s current I&I program as mitigation. The response should be revised to consider
relining the sewers from 900 King Street to the connection of the existing main. (M. Nowak)
109. Page 3-81, Response 94: At the end of the last sentence in paragraph 2, it should read “(see
Section 2.12 and Appendix I-2).”
15
110. Pages 3-85 through 3-88, Response 100: The Applicant should provide a response to the
Snyder 061 (#500) comment and Level of Service tables comparing the existing conditions
to a build condition. The second paragraph of the response should state that the results of
the analysis with re-occupancy of the existing office building would not significantly impact
area roadways; whereas, the analysis without re-occupancy of the office building will have
the impacts noted in FPCA Comment 104.
111. Page 3-88, Response 101: The Applicant should provide a response to Planning Board 018
(#238) and Levine 048 (#375) concerns regarding emergency services and access during
emergencies.
112. Page 3-89, Response 102: The second paragraph of the response should state that the
results of the analysis with re-occupancy of the existing office building would not significantly
affect area roadways; whereas, the analysis without re-occupancy of the office building will
have the impacts noted in FPCA Comment 104.
113. Page 3-90, Response 104: The Applicant should provide a traffic signal warrant analysis for
the intersection of King Street/Betsy Brown Road to determine if it meets the 8-hour warrants.
The response should state that the results of the analysis with re-occupancy of the existing
office building would not significantly impact this intersection; whereas, the analysis without
re-occupancy of the office building will maintain a Level of Service “F” during the weekday
morning peak hour, with an increase in delay of 16.1 seconds.”
114. Page 3-90, Response 105: The response should state that “As shown in Section 2.12,
“Traffic and Transportation and Appendix I.”
115. Page 3-91, Response 107: The second paragraph of the response should state that the
results of the analysis with re-occupancy of the existing office building would not significantly
affect area roadways; whereas, the analysis without re-occupancy of the office building will
have the impacts noted in FPCA Comment 104.
116. Page 3-94, Response 112: The second sentence in paragraph two should be revised to
read, “This would decrease the potential for conflict between Site-generated traffic and
pedestrians.” The fifth sentence in paragraph two should be revised to remove “In the
Applicant’s opinion.” The last sentence in paragraph three should be revised to remove “In
the Applicant’s opinion.”
117. Pages 3-94 and 3-95, Response 113: The response should provide discussion as to how
they will address the Arbors using the existing office building parking lot as overflow parking.
16
118. Page 3-98, Response 117: The response should be revised to note it cooling towers and or
Ammonia chillers are proposed for cooling. If so, Fire and EMS need to know about these
chillers and any emergency response required. Cooling towers have noise, legionnaires’
disease risks and utilize large quantities of water for cooling. If proposed, these topics should
also be addressed in the FEIS. The section should also note if gasoline or diesel generators
would be used, the size of the generators that would be required, if stationary air permitting
is required, and the petroleum bulk storage permits required, if they exceed WCDOH bulk
storage quantities for the site. (M. Nowak)
119. Page 3-111, Response 136: Remove the second, third and fourth sentences of the response.
Revise the response to discuss facts regarding noise, air quality, traffic and weekend
construction; or limit the response to the current first and last sentences.
120. Page 3-111, Response 137: The FEIS review by HDR, provided in the memorandum to
Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed dated June 14, 2019 indicates construction noise level increases
over 6 dBA and noise over 65 dBA require mitigation. Revise the response, as it is
inadequate.
121. Pages 3-113 and 3-114, Response 140: The response should address if the 20-yard trucks
can enter and exit Arbor Drive with the current geometrics and reference any turning
templates provided.
122. Page 3-118, Response 146: The last paragraph on the page states the applicant does not
believe a Community Air Monitoring Plan is necessary. The applicant’s opinion should be
removed and the response revised to address the recommendations regarding a CAMP in
the HDR memorandum to Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed dated June 14, 2019.
123. Page 3-129 to 3-130, Response 151: In the third paragraph, remove the fourth sentence to
eliminate the applicant’s opinion regarding visual impacts. Remove the entire last paragraph
for the same reasons.
124. Page 3-131, Response 152: Remove the last sentence of the response to eliminate the
applicant’s opinion regarding what would be legal and customary findings by the Lead
Agency.
125. Page 3-132, Response 154: The response does not address Comment 81 regarding
provision of a draft construction management plan. Revise the response to address the
specific concerns in the comment.
17
126. Page 3-133, Response 155: Remove the last sentence of the response to eliminate the
applicant’s opinion regarding re-use of the building.
127. Page 3-135, Response 158: In the second paragraph of the response, remove the first
sentence, and the second sentence up to “the Applicant…” to eliminate the applicant’s
opinion regarding the reduced density alternative. Revise the rest of the response to simply
address Comments 36 and 218 and eliminate the confusing narrative currently provided that
is off topic.
128. Page 3-136, Response 159: The response does not adequately address the comments
regarding the reduced-size alternative. Revise the response to quantify the reduction in unit
sizes and the reduction in the number of units in the alternative and the Revised Proposed
Project. Do not include the last sentence of the current response in the revised response
because it is the applicant’s opinion.
129. Page 3-137, Response 161: Remove the entire second paragraph of the response to
eliminate the applicant’s opinion regarding SEQRA.
130. Page 3-138 to Page 3-139, Response 162: Limit the response to the first sentence of the
first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph. Eliminate the rest of the
comment that is the applicant’s opinion regarding cumulative impacts.
Appendices
131. Appendix D, Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: The townhouses shall
capture full stormwater runoff as per the Village Code. A Curve Number (Cn) of 98 shall be
utilized. (M. Nowak)
132. Appendix D, Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Page 35: Hardened materials
shall be disposed of offsite. They cannot be reused onsite or crushed and reused onsite. The
FEIS should be revised to correct this information. (M. Nowak)
133. Appendix D, Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Page 36: This section of the
FEIS should be revised to note that if a spill occurs, the Village Public Works Department
shall be notified immediately, and DEC Spill response hotline called immediately. Spill Kits
shall be onsite and readily available. (M. Nowak)
134. Appendix D, Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Page 37: The FEIS should
be revised to state that dumpsters shall have covers for any unit collecting food trash. (M.
Nowak)
18
135. Appendix D, Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Page 39: The FEIS should
be revised to state that all storm drains shall be cleaned yearly and reports filed with the
Village Public Works Department. (M. Nowak)
136. Appendix D, Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Page 43: The FEIS should
be revised to note that the Village’s BMP reporting form shall be completed on an annual
basis and reported to the Village. Also, it should be noted that streets shall be swept with
sweeper. (M. Nowak)
137. Appendix D, Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Page 43, Following
Construction: The Applicant should consider mulching mowers, mulching leaves and other
green techniques. This Section of the FEIS should be revised to follow the DEC standards
for Phosphorous and Nitrogen reduction. In addition, fertilizers cannot be spread within
proximity to wetlands and drainage ponds. (M. Nowak)
138. Appendix I, Traffic Study: Review of the revised Traffic Study with and without the re-occupancy
of the office building indicated that the no-build, site traffic, and build volumes were appropriate,
as well as the capacity analysis and results. As noted, the results of the analysis with re-
occupancy of the existing office building would not significantly impact area roadways;
whereas, the analysis without re-occupancy of the office building will have the impacts noted
in FPCA Comment 104.
PUD Concept Plans
139. Conceptual Building Plans: The lower level parking area should have fresh air exhaust and/or
carbon monoxide control systems in place. Explain how such a large area will “breathe and
vent.” (M. Nowak)
140. Conceptual Building Plans: The lower level garage should have some means of secondary
access through stairwell or some other way. (M. Nowak)
141. Conceptual Site Plans, Sheet A101: The Applicant should verify that the accepted NY
MUTCD Handicap Symbol is being used on the plans. (M. Nowak)
142. Conceptual Site Plans, Sheet A-100: It should be clarified on the plans if the floor drains in
the parking garage are being treated with an oil water separator. If they are, the location of
the oil water separator should be shown on the plans as this would be a very large unit. In
addition, the location of the grease interceptors for cooking facilities should be shown on the
plan and the size of the required tanks should be noted. (M. Nowak)
143. Conceptual Site Plans: The provisions for snow storage and plowing should be addressed in
the FEIS and the location of snow storage areas should be shown on the plans. (M. Nowak)
19
If you have questions or would like to discuss our comments, please contact us.
Michael A. Galante Steven T. Cipolla, EIT
Managing Principal Senior Associate/Transportation
Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed, AICP, RLA Sarah L. Brown
Senior Associate/Planning/Environmental Senior Associate/Planning
Cc: Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator
Michal Nowak, Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer
Jennifer L. Gray, Esq., Village Attorney
Peter Feroe, AICP, for the Applicant
Mark Miller. Esq., for the Applicant
James Ryan, RLA, for the Applicant
J:\DOCS2\500\Rye Brook\900KingStSeniorHousingSEQRA2018\FEIS Reviews\4133.02.900KingSt.SeniorHousingFEISReview1.docx