The URL can be used to link to this page

01 - Executive SummaryDEIS 1-1 9/12/2018 Chapter 1: Executive Summary 1.1. INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT 900 King Street Owner, LLC (the “Applicant”) proposes to construct an integrated age-restricted residential community (the “Proposed Project”) that would replace the existing, largely vacant, office building and surface parking lot at 900 King Street in the Village of Rye Brook (the “Village”), New York (the “Project Site” or the “Site”). To effectuate its proposal, the Applicant has petitioned the Village Board of Trustees (the “Lead Agency”) to amend the Rye Brook Zoning Code to include a section entitled, 900 King Street Planned Unit Development, as Section 250-7(E)(6) (the “Revised Proposed Zoning,” see Appendix A-3). This document is a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) (Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR 617). The purpose of this DEIS is to provide an objective analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project and the Proposed Zoning, which together is the Proposed Action. As both actions are interrelated, the potential environmental impacts of both actions are evaluated in this DEIS pursuant to Section 617.3(g) of the SEQRA regulations. This Chapter describes the Project Site, summarizes the key components of the Proposed Action, including its purpose and need, the approvals required to implement the Proposed Action, and summarizes the analyses of the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and the measures taken to mitigate potentially significant adverse impacts. Subsequent chapters of this DEIS analyze the potential environmental impacts in more detail and are organized by topic in accordance with the DEIS Scoping Document adopted by the Lead Agency on January, 23, 2018 (see Appendix A-1). The DEIS analyzes the potential for the Proposed Action to have a significant adverse impact on each environmental category identified in the Lead Agency’s Positive Declaration. For ease of reference, an annotated version of the Positive Declaration with the DEIS section(s) in which the impact is addressed is included as (see Appendix A-5). 1.2. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Project Site is located at 900 King Street in the Village and is approximately 17.77 acres (see Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2). The Site is bounded to the north by the Hutchinson River Parkway (the “Parkway”), the east by the Rye Brook Police Department (RBPD), Rye Brook Fire Department (RBFD), Village Hall, and approximately 168 feet along King Street (NYS Rt. 120A), to the south by Arbor Drive, Harkness Park, and the Blind Brook Middle School and High School, and to the west by The Arbors townhouse community. Access to the Site is from Arbor Drive, which connects to King Street at a signalized intersection. Arbor Drive is a private street, owned by The Arbors Homeowner’s Association. The Project Site is the beneficiary of an easement, allowing the Project Site to access an improved Arbor Drive (see Appendix B-3). The Project Site, The Arbors, and Harkness Park are within the Village’s Planned Unit Development (PUD) 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 1-2 DEIS zoning district. The schools, municipal buildings, the Parkway, and the area to the north are within residential zoning districts (e.g., R-15 and R-20). The Project Site is dominated by the gently sloping surface parking lot in the eastern and northern portions of the Site and the three-story, 215,000-square-foot (sf) office building in the center of the Site. The existing office building is rectangular in shape and measures approximately 220 feet by 430 feet. The Site ranges in elevation (el.) from a low point of approximately 220 feet at the southeastern corner (Arbor Drive and King Street) to approximately 276 feet at the northwestern corner of the property. The center of the Site contains an abrupt, human-made change in elevation from the relatively flat parking area to the east (~ el. 246), to a higher plateau (~el. 260) to the west. A total of 15.35 acres, or 85.9 percent of the Site, is sloped less than 15 percent. The Site’s soils primarily consist of those known as “Urban land,” which is indicative of an area where the land surface is covered with buildings, structures, or parking lots and where the natural soil layers have been altered or mixed. As shown on Figure 1-2, the exterior of the Project Site contains areas of extensive vegetation, which obscures visibility of the interior of the Site during much of the year. Along the Site’s King Street frontage, extending west into the Project Site and along Arbor Drive for approximately 250 feet, is an area of thick wooded vegetation. Similarly, the area between the Project Site and Village Hall, RBPD, and the RBFD contains wooded vegetation that obscures the view into or out of the Project Site. To the north, between the parking lot and the Parkway, is an area of thick wooded vegetation that obscures views into and out of the Project Site from the Parkway. The western edge of the Project Site contains an undeveloped area of thick wooded vegetation in which a stream corridor and wetland are present. This vegetation, along with the rise in topography within the area to the east of the stream, restricts views into and out of the Project Site from The Arbors. An approximately 0.72-acre area of maintained lawn on the Project Site is located between this wooded area and the easternmost townhouses within The Arbors. The Project Site’s southern frontage is heavily vegetated with the exception of the area between the Site’s two driveways. As such, the interior of the Project Site is only visible from approximately 400 feet along Arbor Drive. Five wetlands were identified on the Project Site (see Figure 1-3). Wetlands B and C are hydrologically supplied by runoff from the Parkway. Wetland E’s hydrology is partially supplied by a drainage pipe from an adjacent residential property. Wetland D was created as a stormwater retention basin when the Site was developed with the current office building. Its hydrology is supplied by stormwater runoff that is conveyed from the developed portion of the Project Site and off-Site parcels to the east. Stream S, which is associated with Wetland D, flows southeast from the retention basin to a culvert under Arbor Drive. Wetland A and Stream A are located in a heavily vegetated corridor in the western portion of the Site. Stream A runs southeast across the lawn in the southwestern corner of the Site and continues under Arbor Drive via a culvert. 1.3. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION As stated above, the Applicant proposes to construct the Proposed Project, an integrated age-restricted residential community, which would replace the existing, largely vacant, office building and surface parking lot on the Project Site. To effectuate its proposal, the Applicant has petitioned the Lead Agency to amend the Rye Brook Zoning Code to include a section entitled, 900 King Street Planned Unit Development, as Section 250-7(E)(6), the Proposed Zoning. The Proposed Action is inclusive of the Proposed Zoning and the Proposed Project and is summarized below and in Chapter 2, “Project Description.” Chapter 1: Executive Summary DEIS 1-3 9/12/2018 1.3.1. PROPOSED ZONING 1.3.1.1. Existing Zoning The Project Site is located within the Village’s PUD zoning district. The Site is part of a larger PUD district, one of three within the Village, which was established between 1979 and 1981 when the Site was under the zoning jurisdiction of the Town of Rye (the “Town”) and prior to the establishment of the Village. The PUD, which includes the Project Site, The Arbors, and Harkness Park, is reflected on the Village’s Zoning Map as a PUD; however, unlike other PUDs within the Village, there is no specific reference to the regulatory scheme adopted in connection with this PUD. For example, the Village Zoning Map, in connection with the BelleFair PUD, references a specific local law, which established the PUD and set up the regulatory scheme for BelleFair, including the permitted uses, density, and bulk and area requirements. The Village’s existing PUD regulations generally allow a variety of land uses, including residential, office, and retail uses. The Site’s existing office building is an allowable use in the Village’s PUD district; however, the floor area ratio (FAR) of the building, 0.28 FAR, is more than twice that permitted by the current regulations and the building’s height (39 feet) and the height of its fascia (7.5 feet) are also greater than what is currently permitted. The original land use approvals for the PUD, the Project Site, and The Arbors were kept by the Town. The Applicant understands that those records are no longer available. Therefore, the specific details established by the original PUD approvals cannot be confirmed. The Lead Agency recognized this fact in a May 26, 1998 Resolution with which the Building Inspector at that time, William Gerety, concurred in his cover letter dated June 8, 1998. The Resolution and letter conclude that the existing development of the Project Site is fully conforming to is original site plan approval in order to provide it lawful status, i.e., it is zoning compliant (see Appendix B-2). 1.3.1.2. Proposed Zoning The Proposed Zoning Amendment would add a new site-specific section to the Rye Brook Zoning Code as Section 250-7(E)(6), entitled 900 King Street Planned Unit Development. Specifically, the Proposed Zoning would: • Except as otherwise allowed by the existing PUD zoning for other sites in the Village, “senior living facilities” will be the only permitted use on the Project Site; • Change the minimum age for residents of senior living facilities from 62 years to 55 years; • Establish a site-specific density standard for the proposed “senior living facilities,” which, in the Applicant’s opinion, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recognizes the inherent difference in use, and subsequently in impacts, from non-age-restricted residential uses; • Establish additional, site-specific setback and area requirements for the Project Site; • Establish a maximum gross land coverage for the Project Site; and, 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 1-4 DEIS • Increase the maximum permitted height of senior living facilities from 35 feet to 45 feet, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations. 1.3.2. PROPOSED PROJECT 1.3.2.1. Proposed New Uses and Buildings The Proposed Project would include an integrated age-restricted residential community consisting of approximately 160 one-, two-, and three-bedroom units (approximately 301 bedrooms total) within a three- and four-story Independent Living (IL) facility in the center of the Site; approximately 85 units of Assisted Living (AL) in a four-story structure in the northeast portion of the Site; and, 24 two-bedroom residential townhouses in the western portion of the Site. Figure 1-4 illustrates the layout of the Proposed Project; the full-size PUD Concept Plan1 contains floorplans, elevations, sections, and exterior dimensions of the proposed buildings. Table 1-1 presents the floor area and unit make-up of the proposed buildings. Table 1-1 Proposed Building Sizes Project Component Gross Floor Area (sf)1 Number of Units Total Bedrooms 1-bedroom Unit 2-bedroom Unit 3-bedroom Unit Townhomes 50,000 242 48 0 24 — Assisted Living 90,000 853 94 76 9 — Independent Living 305,000 1602 301 43 93 24 Total 445,000 269 443 119 102 24 Notes: 1 Gross Floor Area calculated pursuant to §250-2 of the Village Code. 2 Dwelling Units 3 Not dwelling units, in Applicant’s opinion. The center of the Site would be improved with a three- and four-story IL building, with 160 age-restricted units. The front of the IL building, facing Arbor Drive, would be three stories, while the rear of the building, beginning approximately 290 feet from Arbor Drive, would be four stories. IL is senior housing for able-bodied, healthy seniors who can care for themselves located in a setting that provides enhanced support and recreational services. Each IL unit would contain a full kitchen and full bathroom. The IL building will also contain a full commercial kitchen that can provide three meals a day. (As discussed below, this kitchen will also serve the AL building.) It is anticipated that the IL building would provide one or more meal plans for the residents. In addition to the formal dining room, it is anticipated that the IL building would provide an informal bistro and/or bar. Other amenities within the IL building are likely to include an indoor fitness 1 The complete PUD Concept Plan, as well as the Preliminary Site Plan for the Proposed Project, is provided in the full-size drawings prepared by JMC Engineering and Perkins Eastman Architects. An index of the requirements for submission of a PUD Concept Plan and Preliminary Site Plan and the location of all the required elements therein can be found in Appendix A-2 and the full size plans themselves can be found in Appendix A-4. Chapter 1: Executive Summary DEIS 1-5 9/12/2018 center, multipurpose room, card rooms, a library/computer area, and a small clinical space within the building for visiting medical professionals. Attached to the northeast portion of the IL building is a four-story AL building with 85 units/beds. AL provides care for individuals who need help with one or more tasks of daily living, but who do not require skilled nursing care. 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’s Zoning Code. Some of the AL units would be reserved for “memory care,” which provides services to those with some form of dementia. The AL building would share back-of-house spaces with the IL building. To the west of the IL building would be three clusters of four townhouse buildings, each of which would contain two dwelling units. As with the other uses proposed, these 24 townhouses would be age-restricted to those at least 55 years old. The townhouses would be two stories and would feature a one-car garage and driveway space for one additional car. In addition, each townhouse cluster would have four dedicated off-street parking spaces for visitors. As required by §209-3F of the Village Code, 19 dwelling units (10 percent of dwelling units proposed for the Project Site) would be provided as affordable units in accordance with the requirements of §250-26.1F(3)(d) of the Village Zoning Code. 1.3.2.2. Proposed PUD Concept Plan In accordance with Section 250-7(4)(a) of the Rye Brook Zoning Code, the Applicant has submitted a PUD Concept Plan that illustrates the Proposed Project in detail. The full-size PUD Concept Plan and Preliminary Site Plans are located in Appendix A-4, with an index to the various requirements for those plans located in Appendix A-2. 1.3.2.3. Proposed Method of Ownership and Control The Project Site is anticipated to be owned by a single entity. At this time, there is no plan to subdivide the Project Site. The IL, AL, and townhouse units are all anticipated to be rental units. A managing agent and/or operator may be retained to manage and operate the Proposed Project, and that party may be an affiliate of the owner. 1.3.2.4. Proposed Parking and Circulation Plans The Project Site would continue to be accessed from Arbor Drive and there would continue to be two access points from the Site to Arbor Drive. The proposed access points would be slightly east of their current locations. In between the two, two-way access drives would be a 330-foot long planted island ranging in depth from 55-feet to 105-feet. A two-way 26-foot-wide circular access driveway would loop around the Site and provide access to all on-Site buildings and parking areas (see Figure 1-5). The IL and AL portions of the main building would each include a porte cochere, which would include handicapped parking spaces and allow for the pick up and drop off of residents, as well as the delivery of small packages (e.g., FedEx). Larger delivery vehicles would utilize the designated loading area 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 1-6 DEIS located behind the IL building, which was designed to permit trucks to back in to unload and pull out to return to the main Site road. No trucks would back onto the Site from Arbor Drive or back onto Arbor Drive from the Site. Parking for the IL building would be accommodated underneath the northern portion of the building and would be accessed from one of two driveways on either side of the IL building. The underground parking area would accommodate 173 parking spaces, which is more than one per IL unit. Parking for the AL facility’s employees and visitors would be provided in three separate surface lots, which would provide 60 parking spaces. Each townhouse cluster would be accessed by its own drive from the western side of the main Site driveway. The interior of each cluster’s driveway would be appropriately sized to allow emergency vehicle access. As described in more detail in Chapter 10, “Community Facilities,” the Applicant proposes to construct an emergency access driveway in the northeast corner of the Project Site. This driveway would connect the existing Village-owned parking lot behind the firehouse to the internal Project Site driveway. This drive would provide emergency access to the Project Site and to The Arbors townhouses in the event that Arbor Drive at King Street was blocked. During normal operation, this driveway would be secured at both ends with a bollard and chain assembly. A 5-foot-wide sidewalk would be provided around the IL and AL building to connect the building’s entrances and walking paths. Crosswalks would be provided at all internal driveways (see Figure 1-6). The existing 4-foot-wide paved walking path along the Site’s eastern boundary would be extended to the north connecting with a landscaped looped path. Access to this path is currently provided to the public pursuant to an easement with the Blind Brook-Rye Union Free School District (BBRUFSD), which is also responsible for its maintenance. The internal Site sidewalk system would connect to the southern end of this walking path at Arbor Drive. As part of the Proposed Project, the Applicant would install standard crosswalk markings on Arbor Drive at this location to better identify the crossing. 1.3.2.5. Proposed Landscaping The existing vegetation within the western portion of the Project Site, between the Site and The Arbors, would remain, maintaining the buffer between the two properties. In addition, the vegetation along the Site’s King Street frontage, extending west along Arbor Drive to the new Site driveway, would also remain, maintaining this significant vegetative buffer between King Street and the interior of the Project Site. Similarly, the majority of the existing vegetation along the Site’s northern boundary and between Arbor Drive and the southernmost townhouse cluster would also be preserved. Most of the vegetation to be removed (a total of 129 trees with a diameter at breast height [dbh] greater than 10 inches) is located along the eastern boundary of the Site, between the Site and the Village-owned land and in the vicinity of the proposed easternmost Site access point. The vegetation proposed to be removed between the Site and the Village property would allow for expansion of the stormwater management basin. Chapter 1: Executive Summary DEIS 1-7 9/12/2018 As shown on sheet L-100 in Appendix A-4, an extensive landscape plan has been developed for the Proposed Project. In total, 438 new trees and 288 new shrubs are proposed to be planted within the Project Site with emphasis on providing or enhancing the visual buffer between the Site and the properties to the east and west. In addition, the area along the Site’s Arbor Drive frontage has been prioritized for additional buffer landscaping. Specifically, the large planted island between the Site’s two main driveways has been designed to provide an enhanced visual buffer between the interior of the Project Site and Arbor Drive. Within the interior of the Site, the landscaping would include a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees, ornamental flowering trees, and shrub areas, to present an attractive appearance for the residents and the surrounding community and to provide seasonal interest. The landscaping plan utilizes native species to the maximum extent practicable and carefully avoids the introduction of invasive species. As such, these plantings will require less watering once established. 1.4. SUMMARY STATEMENT OF PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED The Proposed Project would return the Site to productive use with uses that would minimize impacts to the surrounding residential and institutional uses for the benefit of the owner and the Site’s various property taxing jurisdictions. Specifically, the Proposed Project would dramatically minimize the generation of traffic as compared to the existing use. In addition, the Proposed Project would maintain the current landscaped buffers between the Project Site and the surrounding uses, including the residential uses to the west. The Proposed Project would also serve a social and market need by providing additional senior living options in the region—a need documented by the Village’s recently adopted Comprehensive Plan (see Chapter 3, “Land Use, Public Policy, and Zoning,” and Chapter 9, “Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts”). 1.5. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This section summarizes the analyses of the potential impacts of the Proposed Project. Each topic is discussed in greater detail in the subsequent chapters of this DEIS. The DEIS analyzes the potential for the Proposed Action to have a significant adverse impact on each environmental category identified in the Lead Agency’s Positive Declaration. For ease of reference, an annotated version of the Positive Declaration with the DEIS section(s) in which the impact is addressed is included as (see Appendix A-5). 1.5.1. LAND USE, PUBLIC POLICY, AND ZONING 1.5.1.1. Zoning and Land Use The Proposed Project is, in the Applicant’s opinion, consistent with the land uses within the study area. The proposed senior living facilities are consistent with the predominantly residential character of the study area and are a use that is currently permitted within the PUD zoning district. In the Applicant’s opinion, reducing the minimum age of residents in senior living facilities from 62 years to 55 years does not change the consistency of the proposed use with surrounding residential and institutional land uses. The Proposed Project does not conform to the existing PUD zoning regulations. As such, the Applicant has petitioned the Lead Agency for amendments to those regulations. It is the Applicant’s opinion that the 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 1-8 DEIS Proposed Zoning is consistent with the intent of the PUD zoning district. Specifically, the Proposed Zoning does not allow any new land uses within the PUD and preserves natural resources and open space to the maximum extent practicable by reducing the amount of impervious coverage on the Site by 0.41 acres and establishes a maximum site coverage standard. The Proposed Project would, in the Applicant’s opinion, be consistent with the other, existing, uses of the current PUD, which include The Arbors townhouses and Harkness Park. The Proposed Project would dramatically reduce the amount of Site-generated traffic when compared to that of the fully occupied office building on Site, which in the Applicant’s opinion is consistent with the PUD’s intent to “provide benefits to the community, such as but not limited to…reduced traffic impact.”2 Finally, when compared to the potential impact of a non-age-restricted residential development, the Proposed Project would generate significantly less need for parks and open space and less demand on the public school system. 1.5.1.2. Public Policy In the Applicant’s opinion, the Proposed Action is consistent with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. With respect to the general goals of the Village’s Plan, the Proposed Project would be an example of sustainable development that helps provide a more stable economic base for the Village. The Proposed Project would redevelop a largely vacant and underperforming office building, reduce the amount of on-Site impervious coverage, and meet a current need for increased housing options for seniors in the community. The Comprehensive Plan also makes several recommendations that are specific to the Project Site and the proposed use, age-restricted housing. The plan notes that the existing office building “has faced long-term vacancy issues” and suggests that the Village consider multifamily and/or senior and assisted-care housing for the Site. The Proposed Project directly responds to these recommendations by redeveloping the Site with a use that meets a current market demand, while placing a relatively small burden on community facilities. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that density requirements for residential uses be made less restrictive, while still preserving the Village’s low-density character. As recommended by the Comprehensive Plan, the Proposed Zoning would adjust the residential zoning requirements of the current PUD to make redevelopment of the Project Site economically viable. The Proposed Project would, in the Applicant’s opinion, also preserve the low-density character of the Village, preserving more than half of the Project Site as open space for use by Project residents, including the existing wooded buffer between the Project Site and The Arbors. The Comprehensive Plan makes two recommendations with respect to senior living and AL facilities. The first is that such facilities be allowed “to be a maximum of four stories or 45 feet in height, as consistent with typical facilities of this type.”3 The second is that the parking requirement AL facilities be 2 §250-7E(1)(d) of the Village Zoning Code. 3 Comprehensive Plan at pg. 145. Chapter 1: Executive Summary DEIS 1-9 9/12/2018 reduced to 0.5 spaces per unit, which “more closely matches the actual parking utilization of these facilities, which are extremely low traffic generators.”4 The Proposed Zoning would allow AL and age-restricted residential facilities to be four stories or 45 feet tall. The Proposed Project includes a three- and four- story IL building and a four-story AL facility, which, as noted by the Comprehensive Plan, is consistent with typical facilities of these types. Furthermore, the Proposed Zoning would reduce the required parking for the AL facility to 0.5 spaces per unit. 1.5.2. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND TOPOGRAPHY The Proposed Project was designed to focus disturbance within the Site to areas previously disturbed by development to the maximum extent practicable; that is, the Proposed Project seeks to redevelop that portion of the Site that was previously graded and on which a building and parking lot were constructed. As such, the Proposed Project seeks to avoid, or minimize, 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,” based on the fact that they had previously been disturbed through mass grading and building construction, and the vast majority of the steep slopes proposed to be disturbed are 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. 1.5.2.1. Soils The Proposed Project was designed to confine disturbance within the Site to areas previously disturbed by development, as opposed to developing a greenfield, or area that has not been disturbed by previous development, including mass grading and building construction. As such, the Proposed Project would result in the disturbance of the Urban land (Uf) soil type, with a small amount of disturbance to the Paxton fine sandy loam (PnB) soil type in the northeast corner of the Site in the area of the proposed emergency access drive. Through Site grading and excavation for the building foundations, the Proposed Project is anticipated to excavate, or “cut,” approximately 42,600 cubic yards of earthen material and add, or “fill,” approximately 51,600 cubic yards of earthen material. To reduce the potential for erosion of soils during construction and protect from loss of mature vegetation, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) have been prepared (see Appendix C-1). These plans include measures to prevent untreated stormwater runoff or sediments from leaving the Project Site during construction. Prior to final Site Plan approval, the Village will review and approve the final SWPPP and ESCP to ensure compliance with state and local regulations. With the implementation of the Village-approved SWPPP and ESCP, the Proposed Project would not be expected to have a significant adverse impact to on-Site soils. 1.5.2.2. Topography The grading for the Proposed Project was designed to create a relatively level building pad, which is necessary for the proper functioning of an age-restricted 4 Ibid. 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 1-10 DEIS residential community. As such, the western portion of the Site, with the exception of the area within the footprint of the existing building, is proposed to be “lowered” in elevation and the central portion of the Site, with the exception of the area where the underground parking is proposed, is proposed to be “raised” in elevation. The grading plan allows for the creation of underground parking, which will be screened from view and which allows for the amount of impervious surface coverage on the Site to be reduced from its current condition. The Proposed Project would require approximately 13.17 acres of disturbance to the Site, much if not all of which has been previously disturbed by the prior development of the site, including mass grading and building construction. Of that disturbance, approximately 12.20 acres, or 93 percent, would occur within areas having a slope of less than 15 percent. Areas of steep slope impacted are primarily associated with the human-made slope in the center of the Site. Areas of steep slopes along the northern, western, and southeastern portion of the Project Site have been avoided. 1.5.2.3. Construction of Subsurface Structures According to geotechnical borings, described in more detail in Chapter 4, “Geology, Soils, and Topography,” most rock elevations observed are below the elevations needed for the proposed infiltration basins 1A-2 and 1A-3, respectively. These infiltration basins are described in detail in the SWPPP (see Appendix C-1). As such, it is not anticipated that rock blasting would be required to accommodate the construction of the subsurface infiltration systems. Accordingly, it is not anticipated that construction of the Proposed Project would require materials processing (i.e., rock crushing) on-Site. The subsurface parking garage would be constructed to an elevation of 242.50, which is approximately 4 feet below the finished floor of the existing office building. If groundwater is encountered during construction of the parking garage, an underdrain system will be designed and implemented to divert groundwater away from the structure. The underdrain system would daylight into the existing stream at the southeastern portion of the Site. With respect to the potential impacts of the Proposed Project on groundwater, it is important to note that neither the Project Site, nor nearby parcels, utilize groundwater for their operations. Instead, the Project Site and adjacent properties utilize a municipal water system. The Proposed Project would reduce the amount of impervious coverage on the Project Site, which would enhance groundwater infiltration that helps to sustain hydrology and improve water quality to downstream wetlands and streams during dry weather. 1.5.3. WATERS AND WETLANDS Five wetlands meeting the three requirements for wetland identification—hydrology, vegetation, and soils—were identified on the Project Site based on wetland investigations and delineations performed in accordance with federal and Village standards (see Figure 1-3). The on-Site wetlands and/or streams are created and sustained by untreated stormwater runoff from the adjacent Parkway or by stormwater from impervious surfaces conveyed from the Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD parking lot and Project Site. The wetlands are of comparatively low ecological value, dominated by a limited number of Chapter 1: Executive Summary DEIS 1-11 9/12/2018 common plant species, and are stressed by untreated stormwater runoff hydrology inputs of short duration. The wetland and watercourse buffers within the Project Site are currently encroached upon by on-Site and off-Site developments, including impervious areas, buildings, and manicured lawns. Construction of the Proposed Project would impact 2.79 acres of land within 100-feet of on-Site wetlands through regrading, new construction, and new plantings. It should be noted that 0.807 acres of the 2.79 acres of land adjacent to the on-Site wetlands is currently impervious. Approximately 0.32 acres of vegetated functional wetland buffer would be converted to impervious surface (adjacent to Wetlands B and C, and Stream S); however, approximately 0.267 acres of currently impervious wetland buffer (adjacent to Wetlands A and D) would be restored to a vegetated condition. The remaining 1.663 acres of wetland buffer disturbance would consist of regrading and revegetating areas that are currently maintained lawn or wooded areas, most of which have been previously disturbed by on-Site development (see Figure 1-7). By locating development within the central, previously disturbed and developed portion of the Project Site, the net change in impervious surface within 100-feet of on-Site wetlands has been limited to an increase of 0.053 acres, or approximately 2,309 sf. Hydrology inputs to Wetlands B, C, D, and E would remain unchanged with the Proposed Project. However, the Proposed Project would reduce the drainage area to Wetland A by approximately 1.0 acre, resulting in a small 10–13 percent reduction in runoff volume for the 1- or 2-year storm events. This small reduction in storm-driven surface water inputs would have minimal indirect effects to Wetland A, which would continue to receive adequate surface and groundwater inputs considering its depressional landscape position and small size. The Village requires that “losses to wetland/watercourse buffers” be mitigated “by a ratio of at least two to one for the area of wetland/watercourse buffer disturbed that replace or enhance the functions of the wetland/watercourse buffer” (§245-9A(3)). It is the Applicant’s understanding that the Planning Board has historically interpreted this section of the code to mean that any construction activity within the 100-foot wetland buffer, inclusive of work in areas of the wetland buffer that are currently paved or that contain a building, would result in the wetland buffer being “disturbed.” Under this interpretation, the Applicant would be required to develop a wetland buffer mitigation plan for 5.58 acres of on- and/or off-Site wetland buffers (2 x 2.79 acres = 5.58 acres of buffer mitigation). It is the Applicant’s opinion that the net conversion of pervious to impervious cover within the wetland and watercourse buffer (0.053 acres) would constitute a “loss” to the on-Site wetland buffers, as defined in the Village Code, and would require mitigation. The Village Code requires that Applicants develop a plan that enhances or restores existing wetland buffers to mitigate for the “losses” to wetland buffers. The buffer mitigation plan is required by §to be at least two times “the area of wetland/watercourse buffer disturbed5” 5 As required by §245-3 of the Village Code, the word “disturbed” should be “interpreted so as to give [the Wetlands chapter of the Village Code] its most reasonable application in carrying out the regulatory goals.” In the Applicant’s opinion, the word “disturbed” should be interpreted in this context to mean an adverse impact to a wetland buffer—an impact that would degrade a wetland buffer’s functionality. This is consistent with the definition of the word “disturbed.” Oxford Dictionaries defines disturbed as “having had its normal pattern or function disrupted.” It is the Applicant’s opinion that impacts to impervious areas (e.g., parking lots and buildings) that are presently located within a wetland buffer cannot be understood as disrupting the normal function of the wetland buffer. 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 1-12 DEIS (§245-9A(3)). Therefore, it is the Applicant’s opinion that in order to compensate for the 0.053 acres of wetland buffer “loss,” a total of 0.106 acres of wetland buffer that are currently in an unvegetated or poorly vegetated condition (i.e. pavement and lawn) would be required to be restored and enhanced through the planting of native facultative wetland trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants. The Applicant has identified over 1 acre of areas within the wetland buffer that could be restored or enhanced as part of the buffer mitigation program. A final wetland buffer mitigation plan that identifies the specific areas of the Site to be restored, as well as the planting schedule and details for the restoration, would be prepared during Site Plan approval. 1.5.4. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The Project Site generally slopes, and surface water runoff generally flows, from north to south. An existing detention basin (also identified as Wetland D) is located along the east side of the Project Site. This basin receives stormwater runoff from the existing building and parking lot, as well as runoff from adjacent Village properties to the east. Stormwater runoff exits the detention basin and is discharged to the municipal drainage system below Arbor Drive, which then travels through Harkness Park, and then along the Blind Brook High School driveway to King Street. Two drainage lines convey stormwater from the Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD property to the Site’s detention basin pursuant to existing easements. The Proposed Project would result in a decrease in the amount of impervious area on the Project Site from the current condition. In order to manage stormwater runoff from the Proposed Project, the Applicant’s engineer prepared a SWPPP in accordance with Chapter 9: Redevelopment Projects of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual and Chapter 217, Stormwater Management of the Village Code (see Appendix C-1). The stormwater management system for the Proposed Project includes standard stormwater practices, including vegetated swales, subsurface infiltration systems, and improvements to the existing stormwater detention basin. To accommodate an increase in the Site’s main drainage as a result of proposed Site grading and layout, the existing stormwater detention basin would be slightly expanded. The Project Site does not currently have any stormwater practices with infiltration to provide water quality and runoff reduction. The SWPPP for the Proposed Project, however, includes practices that enhance water quality and provide runoff reduction volume through infiltration. Infiltration measures include the grasscrete paver emergency drive, vegetated swales, subsurface infiltration practices, and disconnected impervious areas throughout the Site. As demonstrated in the SWPPP, the stormwater design of the Proposed Project would result in a reduction in both the rate and volume of stormwater exiting the Site for each modeled storm event when compared to the existing condition. 1.5.5. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE The Proposed Project would reduce the amount of impervious surface on-Site by 0.41 acres. While the wooded areas would decrease by 0.85 acres, the Proposed Project would increase the amount of lawn by 1.26 acres. It should be noted that much of the wooded area that would be disturbed is located to the north of the stormwater basin in the narrow area between the Site’s existing parking lot and the Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD. As discussed more fully in Chapter 7, “Vegetation and Wildlife,” this change in habitat coverage is not, in the Applicant’s opinion, a significant adverse impact owing to the relatively low quality of the existing on-Site habitat and the overall decrease in impervious coverage on the Site with the Proposed Project. Chapter 1: Executive Summary DEIS 1-13 9/12/2018 The Proposed Project would not have an adverse impact on rare, threatened, or endangered species, or species of special concern, nor would it have an adverse impact on significant natural communities. As discussed above, the Project Site does not currently provide high quality habitat for wildlife. After the construction period, the Proposed Project would provide a net increase in pervious surface (lawn) coverage and a reduction in impervious surfaces. During the construction period, there would be a temporary disruption of habitat, however, that would not adversely affect existing wildlife due to the availability of similar habitat immediately adjacent to the Site. The Proposed Project would require the removal of approximately 213 trees with 6 inches dbh or greater; 134 of which have 10 inches dbh or greater. Four of these trees (Trees #408, 436, 591, and 686) are considered significant under the Village Code. There would be temporary impacts of reduced shade and tree habitat associated with tree loss during the construction period, however, this is not considered a significant adverse impact. In addition, as discussed further below, the Proposed Project includes the planting of 438 new trees and 288 new shrubs, which would fully mitigate the loss of 134 Village-regulated trees to be removed as required by the Village Code. 1.5.6. VISUAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER 1.5.6.1. Visual Character and Visibility of the Project Site The Project Site is dominated by a large-footprint (approximately 94,600 sf) three-story white concrete office building and a 5.3-acre surface parking lot. Areas of mature vegetation along the northern and eastern periphery buffer its visibility from adjacent properties. The western portion of the Site is dominated by a large wooded area, containing a wetland and a stream, providing a visual buffer between the interior of the Project Site and the residential neighborhood to the west. The Proposed Project would transform the on-Site visual character from one dominated by a large surface parking area and rectangular three-story office building to a landscaped campus featuring several uses, building sizes, and building types. While the Proposed Project would reduce the overall amount of impervious coverage on the Site, the redistribution of the pervious and impervious area within the Site would have the most dramatic effect on the Site’s visual character. The Proposed Project would create areas of landscaping and natural cover interspersed with buildings and driveways. This would be in contrast to the existing condition on the Site that prominently features an approximately 215,000-sf office building and 5.3 acres of surface parking lot. The Proposed Project would maintain the extensive vegetative buffer around the Site’s perimeter. As a result, the interior of the Project Site would be minimally visible from locations off-Site, with the exception of a short area along Arbor Drive. The Proposed residential buildings would be barely visible from North Ridge Street or King Street and would be minimally visible from the Parkway. From the west, the proposed townhouses would be minimally visible from a few locations within The Arbors, similar to the current view of the office building. From the east, looking west from King Street, the proposed buildings would be partially visible through on- and off-Site vegetation. Unlike the existing office building, the proposed building would include varied façade colors and materials and the building would not be a singular, rectangular shape. Taken 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 1-14 DEIS together, these architectural features would create, in the Applicant’s opinion, a more visually appealing view. During the leaf-on condition, views of the buildings from the east would be nearly completely screened by vegetation. The proposed buildings would be plainly visible from Arbor Drive, immediately to the south of the Site’s main entrance. From this vantage point, the view would be of the three-story portion of the IL building beyond the main Site driveway and the landscaped center island. The IL building would feature the architectural characteristics of residential construction within the Village. Various façade treatments, including stone, brick, and clapboard, would be used to break down the perceived scale of the building. Similarly, several roof treatments would be utilized, including gables, flat roofs with decorative railings, and dormers. The four-story portion of the IL building would be visible, however, given the approximately 290-foot setback from Arbor Drive, the perceived scale of that portion of the building would be similar to that of the three-story portion of the building. The new buildings would be consistent with the residential character of the Village, both in terms of scale and architecture. Building materials and sizes would be varied and areas of landscaped lawn would be interspersed throughout the Site, resulting in a more human-scale development. Therefore, while the visibility of the Project Site from this vantage point would be different than the existing condition, the Proposed Project would not create a significant adverse visual impact. 1.5.6.2. Community Character To facilitate the Proposed Project, the Proposed Zoning would allow a maximum height of 45 feet for senior living facilities, as recommended by the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. As described above, however, the Proposed Project’s IL and AL building would be limited to three stories closest to Arbor Drive and rise to four stories at approximately 290 feet from Arbor Drive. In addition to being consistent with the recommendations of the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan, there is existing precedent within the Village for buildings that are four stories or more, including The Atria, Rye Brook (an IL facility) and the Hilton Westchester, which is immediately adjacent to a single-family neighborhood. With respect to building and site coverage, the Proposed Project would slightly increase the amount of building coverage on the Site from the current condition, but would decrease the amount of surface parking and interior roadways by an even larger amount from the current condition. As a result, the Proposed Project would result in a decrease in gross land coverage on the Project Site from the current condition. In the Applicant’s opinion, the reduction in impervious site coverage is a beneficial impact of the Proposed Project. Additionally, it is the Applicant’s opinion that the relative amount of building and site coverage proposed is consistent with other properties in the Village, especially when considering the Project Site’s location, its visibility from areas outside of the Site, and the reduction in total coverage from the Site’s current condition. Specifically, the Proposed Project’s building coverage, relative to its parcel size, would be nearly identical to The Arbors, Chapter 1: Executive Summary DEIS 1-15 9/12/2018 and only slightly higher than the properties at 800 Westchester Avenue, the Hilton Westchester, and the Doral Arrowwood Conference Center. In the Applicant’s opinion, the height and Site coverage of the proposed buildings is consistent with other structures in the Village, including their location proximate to off-Site residences, as well as the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, it is the Applicant’s opinion that the relatively secluded location of the Project Site, which contains extensive on- and off-Site vegetative buffers that substantially screen the view of the Site from off-Site locations, makes the Project Site well-suited for the Proposed Project. 1.5.7. SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS The Proposed Project would be anticipated to add a population of 462 people aged 55 years and older to the Project Site. The increased senior population within the Village as a result of the Proposed Project is consistent with the existing demographic trends of the Village, including an overall increase in population with seniors increasing as a share of population. Furthermore, the addition of rental housing is consistent existing trends and the need to provide a more diverse range of housing options in the Village. The Proposed Project is expected to generate approximately $1.845 million per year in property taxes, which is approximately $1.313 million more than the Site currently generates. The Proposed Project would also have indirect fiscal benefits for the Village, the Town, and Westchester County (the “County”), primarily as a result of increased consumer spending within the areas on goods and services. As such, it is the Applicant’s opinion that there would be no significant adverse impacts from the Proposed Project on socioeconomic or fiscal conditions. 1.5.8. COMMUNITY FACILITIES 1.5.8.1. Emergency Services The Proposed Project could result in an increase of 66—465 calls for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) per year, an increase between 11 percent and 7.8 percent in the EMS service area’s total number of calls. 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 EMS is funded primarily through insurance recovery. As such, the financial impact of an increase in calls attributable to the Proposed Project would be primarily mitigated through future insurance recovery. With respect to the overall capacity of the EMS service, the Applicant understands that the service is operating near or at capacity. The expenses required to expand the EMS system, through the hiring of additional personnel and equipment, would be a shared responsibility between the many current and future projects within the EMS service area. The increase in revenue associated with the insurance recovery from the Proposed Project’s anticipated increase in call volumes would be one source of additional funding available to the EMS service for this need. Another source of funding available would be the increase in property tax revenue that would accrue to the Village as a result of the Proposed Project. 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 1-16 DEIS With respect to police services, RBPD indicated that the Proposed Project, considered with the other previously approved residential developments in the Village, would require additional police personnel and associated equipment. As described in Chapter 9, “Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts,” the Proposed Project is expected to result in an increase of approximately $281,359 per year in property taxes to the Village, which would be more than sufficient to cover the portion of the increase in RBPD costs attributable to the Proposed Project. In regards to fire services, the buildings within the Proposed Project would include modern life-safety equipment, alarm, and monitoring systems, and would be fully sprinklered. Based on the relatively low call volume to RBFD from The Atria, Rye Brook it is not anticipated that the Proposed Project would result in a significant increase in the number of Fire Department calls. Further, in the Fire Department’s correspondence to the Applicant, the RBFD did not opine on whether additional personnel or equipment to serve the Proposed Project would be needed. Therefore, it is the Applicant’s opinion that the Proposed Project would not be anticipated to have a significant adverse impact to the EMS, police, or fire services. 1.5.8.2. Schools Based on information provided by school districts in which similarly age-restricted projects are located, as detailed in Chapter 10, “Community Facilities,” it is reasonable to assume that school-age children would be unlikely to live at the Proposed Project. In the unlikely scenario that one or two school-age children were to live at the Proposed Project and attend BBRUFSD, based on the current and anticipated enrollment trends within the BBRUFSD, the addition of this limited number of school children would not be anticipated to result in an adverse impact to the available capacity within BBRUFSD’s schools. Further, as described in Chapter 9, “Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts,” the Proposed Project is expected to result in an increase of approximately $875,031 per year in property taxes to the BBRUFSD, which would be more than sufficient to cover the costs of one or two school-age children. 1.5.8.3. Open Space The Proposed Project would preserve approximately 10.72 acres of the Project Site, or 59.9 percent, as open space. Of that space, it is the Applicant’s opinion that at least 2.7 acres could be considered parks and recreational space, which is nearly twice the amount required to meet the needs of the projected on-Site population. Therefore, in the Applicant’s opinion, there would be no adverse impact with respect to the provision of open space, and the Proposed Project would fulfill its obligation under §209-14 of the Village Code to provide adequate open space on the Project Site; therefore, no fee would be required pursuant to §209-15. 1.5.8.4. Solid Waste and Recycling According to industry standard solid waste generation rates, there would be less solid waste generated in the Future with the Proposed Project (the “Build” condition) than in the Future without the Proposed Project (the “No Build” Chapter 1: Executive Summary DEIS 1-17 9/12/2018 condition). The Proposed Project could result in the generation of approximately 271 tons of solid waste per year, approximately 171.98 tons less than what would be generated in the condition where the existing office building is fully occupied. The Applicant intends to continue to contract with a private carting company for refuse and recycling collection. Refuse and recycling would be picked up two to three times per week during daytime hours. 1.5.8.5. Senior Services and Recreation Programs The Proposed Project would include extensive on-Site amenities and programs for Project residents, as well as planned outings and ad hoc transportation services for 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. Other activities, including exercise classes, games, and a library would be available for use by residents. Trips and programs would be offered to Project residents, such as to local grocery stores, shopping centers, malls, and cultural institutions. Therefore, it is the Applicant’s opinion that the Proposed Project would not be anticipated to have a significant adverse impact to the Village’s senior services and recreation programs. 1.5.9. INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES The Proposed Project is estimated to generate a water/sanitary demand of 55,700 gallons per day (gpd), approximately 35,787 gpd more the No Build condition. To serve the new buildings, the Proposed Project would install an 8-inch watermain within the Site’s loop road. From that main service, a 4-inch domestic water service and a 6-inch fire service are proposed to serve the main IL and AL building and extensions are proposed to serve the townhouses. The new watermain would connect to the existing municipal main within Arbor Drive at two locations. In an April 10, 2018 letter, SUEZ, the regional water supplier, confirmed that it has “adequate pressure and volume to serve” the Proposed Project, (see Appendix E-3). The Proposed Project would construct an 8-inch sanitary service that would connect the IL and AL building to the existing 10-inch private main in the southwestern portion of the Site. Separate connections for each townhouse cluster would be made to the new 8-inch main. Based on a sewer system capacity analysis (Appendix EE), the sewer system into which the Project Site discharges would have adequate capacity to serve the additional sewer flows generated by the Proposed Project. A letter received from the County Department of Environmental Facilities (WCDEF) confirmed the ability of the Blind Brook Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and the Blind Brook Trunk Sewer System to accommodate the increased sewer flows from the Proposed Project. The WCDEF recommends, as it has done in other County sewer districts, that the additional flow to the system resulting from the Proposed Project be offset by reductions in inflow and infiltration. The removal for the Proposed Project is recommended to be on a 3 to 1 ratio. In accordance with WCDEF recommendations, the Applicant would mitigate the additional 35,787 gpd to the system at a 3 to 1 ratio, or a reduction in inflow and infiltration to the system in the amount of 107,361 gpd. Electricity for the Proposed Project would be fed through an underground 13.2 kilovolt service originating from Arbor Drive. The Proposed Project would be connected to the 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 1-18 DEIS existing natural gas service along Arbor Drive and a medium-pressure service main would run underground to provide service to all buildings on the Site. Each building would be metered separately. It is anticipated that the existing electric and natural gas services will accommodate the Proposed Project. A will-serve application has been submitted to Con Edison; however, at the time of publication, a response has not been received. The Proposed Project would incorporate energy-efficient features, including building fixtures and HVAC and mechanical systems. The use of energy-efficient features would reduce the Site’s energy consumption, which would also reduce the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the Proposed Project. 1.5.10. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was conducted to assess the potential traffic and transportation impacts of the Proposed Project and its potential effects on the study area’s vehicular safety and circulation conditions. As demonstrated in the TIS, and summarized in Chapter 12, “Traffic and Transportation,” the Proposed Project would result in fewer vehicular trips than with the re-occupancy of the existing office building on-Site. In addition, the Proposed Project would not have a significant adverse impact on the study area intersections when compared to conditions with the re-occupancy of the existing office building. Finally signal retiming could be implemented at two King Street intersections (i.e., Arbor Drive and the Blind Brook Middle School and High School) to improve existing and future operating conditions, if required by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). 1.5.11. AIR QUALITY Given the low background concentrations, the level of emissions from the Proposed Project, and the distance to nearby sensitive receptors, no significant adverse air quality impacts would be expected from the Proposed Project’s stationary sources of air emissions (i.e., HVAC systems) on lower elevations. Maximum ground-level impacts were evaluated using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) AERSCREEN model (version 16216 EPA, 2016). Maximum projected concentrations at any ground-level receptor that were generated from the AERSCREEN model with the addition of the Proposed Project would not result in an exceedance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in potential significant adverse air quality impacts from stationary sources, such as the proposed HVAC systems. An assessment of the potential air quality effects of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions that would result from vehicles coming to and departing from the Site was performed following the procedures outlined in the NYSDOT The Environmental Manual (TEM). The results of the screening analysis show that none of the 11 study area locations would require a detailed microscale air quality analysis; therefore, Project-generated traffic would not result in a significant air quality impact. 1.5.12. NOISE The maximum predicted increase in noise levels attributable to traffic from the Proposed Project would be imperceptible and would result in noise levels below the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) recommended level for residential uses. Chapter 1: Executive Summary DEIS 1-19 9/12/2018 The Village Code Chapter 158 “Noise” does not specify a maximum allowable sound level for mechanical equipment or heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) sources. However, the proposed buildings’ mechanical systems, inclusive of emergency generators, would be designed to avoid producing a 6.0 dBA, or A-weighted decibel, or more increase at nearby receptors and consequently would not result in a significant adverse impact. 1.5.13. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS To identify historic and current uses on-Site and other potential sources of hazardous materials, reports from prior investigations were reviewed to assess the potential presence of contamination on the Project Site. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) and other environmental concerns associated with the Site resulting from past or current Site usage and usage of neighboring properties. To further assess the RECs and other environmental concerns identified in the Phase I ESA, a Phase II ESA was prepared, which included the advancement of nine soil borings, installation of one groundwater monitoring well, installation of three temporary soil vapor points, and the collection of soil, groundwater, soil vapor, and ambient air samples for field-screening and laboratory analysis. The analytical data from the soil, groundwater, and soil vapor sampling indicated that there was no evidence of a release of contamination associated with the RECs or de minimis condition observations identified during the Phase I ESA. No evidence of hazardous, non-hazardous, and/or petroleum-like releases (e.g., odors, staining, or elevated PID readings) were identified through the soil, groundwater, and soil vapor sampling. The potential for adverse impacts from hazardous materials would be avoided by performing construction of the Proposed Project in accordance with the recommendations included in Chapter 15, “Hazardous Materials.” 1.5.14. CONSTRUCTION Construction of the Proposed Project would be expected to take approximately 30 months. To provide for the implementation of the proposed construction plan and the measures proposed to mitigate potential adverse impacts from construction, the Applicant would prepare a detailed Construction Management Plan (CMP). The CMP would be reviewed by Village staff and approved as part of Final Site Plan approval and would be made a condition thereof. The Village would therefore be able to enforce the provisions of the CMP throughout the construction process. A Village-approved ESCP, meeting State and Village requirements, would be implemented to avoid and mitigate potential impacts associated with the off-Site migration of sediment during construction. To avoid and minimize the potential for significant adverse impacts to air quality, construction of the Proposed Project would incorporate measures to reduce fugitive dust and emissions from construction vehicles to the maximum extent practicable, as detailed in Chapter 16, “Construction.” These measures would be documented in the approved CMP. There would be no construction equipment, truck, material, or worker parking, queuing, or staging permitted on Arbor Drive at any time. This requirement, as well as a detailed plan that delineates areas of construction worker parking, truck queuing and unloading, and material and equipment staging, would be included in the CMP. While construction of the Proposed Project would create daily construction-related traffic to and from the Project Site, the results of a construction-period traffic analysis indicate 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 1-20 DEIS that the construction traffic impacts would be less than the typical peak hours during the operation of the Proposed Project. However, 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, 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. 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. 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, construction noise at these receptors would, in the Applicant’s opinion, rise to the level of a significant, but temporary, adverse impact. These temporary noise impacts would only occur during the daytime hours, Monday through Saturday, as allowed by the Village Noise Code. It is expected that construction would not regularly occur during evening and overnight hours or on Sundays, leaving the surrounding receptors unaffected by noise associated with construction of the Proposed Project at these times during which residences are most sensitive to noise. Finally, as noted in Chapter 17, “Alternatives,” the nature and magnitude of this temporary impact would be similar in all studied alternatives to the Proposed Project, except the No Action alternative. 1.6. SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES This section summarizes the measures proposed by the Applicant to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. Each topic is discussed in greater detail in the subsequent chapters of this DEIS. The DEIS addresses the potential for the Proposed Action to have a significant adverse impact on each environmental category identified in the Lead Agency’s Positive Declaration. For ease of reference, an annotated version of the Positive Declaration with the DEIS section(s) in which the impact is addressed is included as (see Appendix A-5). 1.6.1. LAND USE, PUBLIC POLICY, AND ZONING In the Applicant’s opinion, the Proposed Action would not have a significant adverse impact on zoning, public policy, or land use. As demonstrated above, the Proposed Zoning would not change the land uses permitted on the Project Site. The proposed increase in the allowable density of senior living facilities on the Project Site is, in the Applicant’s opinion, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goal to increase the currently permitted density in a way that is also protective of the Village’s low-density character. Specifically, it is the Applicant’s opinion that limiting the proposed increases in density to senior living facilities, as opposed to allowing increased density for all residential uses, is a tailored approach that recognizes the inherent differences between senior living facilities and Chapter 1: Executive Summary DEIS 1-21 9/12/2018 general residential land uses. As such, no other mitigation measures, other than the elements of the Proposed Action’s design, are required. 1.6.2. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND TOPOGRAPHY The Proposed Project is not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact on geology, soils, or topography. The area of the Site proposed for redevelopment has been disturbed by previous development. Furthermore, the Proposed Project includes an ESCP to avoid and/or mitigate impacts associated with the disturbance of on-Site soils and steep slopes during construction. Construction of subsurface structures, in the manner previously described, would not have an adverse impact on the Site’s geology or groundwater. As such, no additional mitigation measures are required. 1.6.3. WATERS AND WETLANDS As summarized above and presented in more detail in Chapter 5, “Waters and Wetlands,” it is the Applicant’s understanding that the Planning Board has historically interpreted the Village’s wetland ordinance to mean that any construction activity within the 100-foot wetland buffer, inclusive of work in areas of the wetland buffer that are currently paved or that contain a building, would result in the wetland buffer being “disturbed.” Under this interpretation, the Applicant would be required to develop a wetland buffer mitigation plan for 5.58 acres of on- and/or off-Site wetland buffers (2 x 2.79 acres = 5.58 acres of buffer mitigation). It is the Applicant’s opinion that the net conversion of pervious to impervious cover within the wetland and watercourse buffer (0.053 acres) would constitute a “loss” to the on-Site wetland buffers, as defined in the Village Code, and would require mitigation. The Village Code requires that Applicants develop a plan that enhances or restores existing wetland buffers to mitigate for the “losses” to wetland buffers. The buffer mitigation plan is required to be at least two times “the area of wetland/watercourse buffer disturbed” (§245-9A(3)). Therefore, it is the Applicant’s opinion that in order to compensate for the 0.053 acres of wetland buffer “loss”, a total of 0.106 acres of wetland buffer that are currently in an unvegetated or poorly vegetated condition (i.e. pavement and lawn) would be required to be restored and enhanced through the planting of native facultative wetland trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants. The Applicant has identified over 1 acre of areas within the Site’s wetland buffers that could be restored or enhanced as part of the buffer mitigation program. A final wetland buffer mitigation plan that identifies the specific areas of the Site to be restored, as well as the planting schedule and details for the restoration, would be prepared during Site Plan approval. 1.6.4. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The Proposed Project would result in a 0.41-acre decrease in the amount of impervious area on the Project Site from the current condition. In order to manage stormwater runoff from the Proposed Project, the Applicant’s engineer prepared a SWPPP in accordance with Chapter 9: Redevelopment Projects of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual and Chapter 217, Stormwater Management of the Village Code (see Appendix C-1). As demonstrated in the SWPPP, the stormwater design of the Proposed Project would result in a reduction in both the rate and volume of stormwater exiting the Site for each modeled storm event when compared to the existing condition and would also provide for increased infiltration opportunities on-Site. As such, no additional mitigation measures are required. 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 1-22 DEIS 1.6.5. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE The Proposed Project would not have a significant adverse impact on habitat or wildlife on the Project Site; however, approximately 134 Village-regulated trees would be removed. A preliminary planting plan has been developed (see Sheet L-100 in Appendix A-4) that proposes to plant 438 new trees and 288 new shrubs. At least 212 of the 438 trees proposed to be planted would meet the requirements of §235-18 as mitigation for the proposed removal of on-Site trees. All trees would be installed in accordance with the Village’s planting guidelines.6 1.6.6. VISUAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER In the Applicant’s opinion, the Proposed Project, inclusive of the building design (e.g., articulation, façade materials, height, roof line, location on-Site), grading, and proposed landscaping program would not result in an adverse impact to visual resources or community character. While the amount of floor area on the Site would increase, the amount of open space on the Site would also increase. In the Applicant’s opinion, this increase in open space is an important visual and community benefit of the Proposed Project. Together with the relatively visually secluded location and the existing precedent for buildings of at least four stories within the Village, it is the Applicant’s opinion that the Proposed Project would be consistent with the character of the Village. Therefore, in the Applicant’s opinion, no additional mitigation measures are required. 1.6.7. SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS The Proposed Project would not have an adverse impact to socioeconomic or fiscal conditions. Rather, the Proposed Project would provide rental housing for senior citizens, which is currently in demand within the Village and the demand for such housing is expected to continue to increase. In addition, the Proposed Project would significantly increase the amount of property taxes generated by the Project Site. Therefore, no mitigation measures would be required. 1.6.8. COMMUNITY FACILITIES 1.6.8.1. Emergency Services Response As stated above, it is the Applicant’s opinion that the Proposed Project would not have a significant adverse impact on the provision of emergency services. Given that the majority of the cost to provide EMS services is generated through insurance recovery, it anticipated that the increase in calls attributed to the Proposed Project would not have an adverse impact on the EMS service as these calls would generate additional insurance recovery. As discussed above, the Proposed Project is estimated to generate an additional approximately $281,359 per year in tax revenue for the Village, which is in excess of the Applicant’s share of the potential cost attributable to an increase in police services required by the Proposed Project and other planned projects in the Village. With respect to the provision of fire protection services, based on the call history of the Village’s existing IL facility, The Atria, Rye Brook, the Proposed Project would not be anticipated to generate a significant 6 Village Attachment 235-1 PLANTING GUIDELINES FOR TREES AND SHRUBS Chapter 1: Executive Summary DEIS 1-23 9/12/2018 increase in calls to RBFD. Furthermore, adequate access for fire and other emergency services would be provided. For those reasons, it is the Applicant’s opinion that the Proposed Project would not create a significant adverse impact on the provision of emergency services and therefore no additional mitigation measures are required. 1.6.8.2. Schools It is the Applicant’s opinion, based on the data presented above, that it is extremely unlikely that any school-age children would live at the Proposed Project. As shown above, it is extremely rare for school-age children to live within communities that are age-restricted to 55 years of age and older. Combined with the estimated increase in property taxes payable to the BBRUFSD from the Proposed Project, it is the Applicant’s opinion that the Proposed Project would not have a significant adverse impact on the BBRUFSD and no mitigation measures are required. 1.6.8.3. Open Space The Proposed Project would, in the Applicant’s opinion, provide more than enough open and recreational space on-Site to serve its projected new residential population. Therefore, in the Applicant’s opinion, the Proposed Project would not have a significant adverse impact on open space and recreation and no further mitigation measures would be required. 1.6.8.4. Solid Waste and Recycling The Proposed Project would generate significantly less solid waste than full occupancy of the existing office building. A solid waste management plan meeting the requirements of the County’s Source Separation Law, if required, would be submitted to the County and the Village as part of final Site Plan approval, based on the final layout and design of the Proposed Project. Therefore, in the Applicant’s opinion, the Proposed Project would not have a significant adverse impact on solid waste services and no further mitigation would be required. 1.6.8.5. Senior Services and Recreation Programs It is the Applicant’s opinion that the Proposed Project, by providing Project residents with many of the amenities offered by the Village’s senior services would not be expected to increase the number of seniors that make use of the Village’s senior services. Therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed. 1.6.9. INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES The Proposed Project includes the construction of on-Site water, sewer, electric, and natural gas services that would connect to the existing services in Arbor Drive or, in the case of the sewer service, on the Project Site. Both the Site’s water supplier and the operator of the WWTP that serves the Site have stated that there is adequate capacity to serve the increased demand generated by the Proposed Project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required with respect to the capacity of the water or sewer systems. The WCDEF recommends, as it has done in other County sewer districts, that the additional flow to the system resulting from the Proposed Project be offset by reductions in inflow and infiltration. In accordance with WCDEF recommendations, the Applicant 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 1-24 DEIS would mitigate the additional 35,787 gpd to the system at a 3 to 1 ratio, or a reduction in inflow and infiltration to the system in the amount of 107,361 gpd. 1.6.10. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION As described in the TIS (see Appendix F), the redevelopment of the Project Site to an age- restricted residential community, when compared to the re-occupancy of the office building, would not have a significant adverse impact on area roadways. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are required. However, signal retiming could be implemented at two King Street intersections (i.e., Arbor Drive and the Blind Brook Middle School and High School) to improve existing and future operating conditions, if required by NYSDOT. 1.6.11. AIR QUALITY The Proposed Project would not result in potential significant adverse air quality impacts from stationary sources or mobile sources. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have significant adverse air quality impacts. 1.6.12. NOISE The predicted noise levels associated with the Proposed Project would not exceed NYSDEC’s threshold for a significant noise level increase of 6.0 dBA at any receptor site, and the maximum future noise level associated with the Proposed Project would not exceed the threshold established by the Village Code. In addition, the Proposed Project’s mechanical equipment would be designed to avoid a 6.0 dBA increase at nearby receptors and would therefore not result in a significant adverse impact. With these design parameters in place, no further mitigation is required. 1.6.13. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS With the implementation of measures described in Chapter 15, “Hazardous Materials,” no significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials would be expected to occur as a result of the Proposed Project and, as such, no further mitigation measures would be required. Following construction, there would be no further potential for adverse impacts. 1.6.14. CONSTRUCTION To provide for the implementation of the proposed construction plan and the measures proposed to mitigate potential adverse impacts from construction, the Applicant would prepare a detailed CMP. The CMP would be reviewed by Village staff and approved as part of Final Site Plan approval and would be made a condition thereof. The Village would therefore be able to enforce the provisions of the CMP throughout the construction process. The measures proposed to mitigate potential adverse impacts during the construction period are detailed in Chapter 16, “Construction,” and summarized below: • An ESCP to control erosion and sediment leaving the Site that would include, among other measures, two stabilized construction entrances, the limit of disturbance beyond which no soil disturbance is to occur, the installation of silt fencing, inlet protection, and a temporary sediment basin. • No construction equipment, truck, material, or worker parking, queuing, or staging would be permitted on Arbor Drive at any time. Chapter 1: Executive Summary DEIS 1-25 9/12/2018 • A detailed plan that delineates areas of construction worker parking, truck queuing and unloading, and material and equipment staging. • Erosion and dust control procedures, such as minimizing the amount of time during which soils are exposed, watering exposed areas during dry periods, limiting on-Site construction vehicle speed to 5 miles per hour, and using truck covers/tarp rollers to cover fully loaded trucks. • The use of ultra-low sulfur diesel for all construction equipment and vehicles and prohibiting the idling of construction or delivery vehicles when not in active use. • Replacing diesel- or gas-powered equipment with electrical-powered equipment as early in the construction period as possible to reduce noise impacts. • Minimize back-up alarm noise where feasible. • Properly maintain construction equipment and vehicles, including mufflers, to reduce noise and air quality impacts. • Locate noise-intensive construction equipment away from, or shield from, sensitive receptors where feasible. • Install a noise barrier around the Project Site that is constructed from plywood or other material that is at least 12 feet tall to reduce off-Site noise impacts. 1.7. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED 1.7.1. NO ACTION SEQRA requires that the potential environmental impacts of not approving the Proposed Action be compared to the impacts of the Proposed Project. As required by the adopted DEIS Scoping Outline, this alternative considers the existing office building to be fully occupied, which may include rehabilitation and upgrades to the building for purposes of energy efficiency, incorporation of green building practices, and other amenities consistent with current zoning and a modern office building. Based on the rental history of the existing office building, including the Applicant’s previous attempts to rent the current building, and the trend of declining demand for stand-alone office buildings in the region, it is the Applicant’s opinion that re-use of the existing office building is not viable. It is important to note that this alternative does not meet the Applicant’s purpose and need and is not an alternative that the Applicant would pursue. This alternative would not require a change to PUD zoning; however, the legally existing dimensional nonconformities of the Site—a FAR that is more than twice what is permitted, building height that is taller than permitted, and parking that is approximately half what is required—would remain. In the Applicant’s opinion, the No Action alternative would be less consistent the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. The No Action alternative would be less environmentally sustainable than the Proposed Project (e.g., would have more impervious surface, less stormwater treatment) and would not help to create a stable economic base for the Village. Furthermore, the No Action alternative would not be responsive to the specific recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for the Project Site with respect to its reuse as senior housing. In the No Action alternative, the Site would continue to have 7.46 acres of impervious surface, including approximately 5.3 acres of surface parking and driveways and 0.81 acres of buildings and parking lot within the wetland buffers on-Site. The existing low-quality habitat would remain on-Site and no new tree removal or planting would occur. 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 1-26 DEIS The visual character of the Site would continue to be dominated by the 5.3 acres of parking lot and driveways, as well as the three-story, approximately 46-feet tall architecturally monolithic building. Re-occupancy of the existing office building would be expected to generate significantly more vehicle trips than the Proposed Project in each of the peak hours: 263 more AM peak hour trips; 212 more PM peak hour trips; and, 147 more midday peak hour trips. While most of the office traffic would be moving in the opposite direction from The Arbors traffic, a sizable number of trips would be expected to move in the same direction as the traffic from The Arbors community in the AM and PM peak hours. As shown in Table 1-2 below, in the AM and PM peak hours, full occupancy of the existing office building would be anticipated to generate approximately the same number trips moving in the direction of the residential peak as the Proposed Project. Table 1-2 Trip Generation Comparison No Action Alternative Proposed Project Difference In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total AM Peak Hour 293 40 333 25 45 70 +268 -5 +263 Midday Peak Hour 102 125 227 38 42 80 +64 +83 +147 PM Peak Hour 51 251 302 50 40 90 +1 +211 +212 Source: TIS for 900 King Street, Maser Consulting, Appendix F. Significant Site work and new construction would not be anticipated with the No Action alternative. However, renovations to the existing building could require a significant amount of time and labor. As such, it is likely that construction-related traffic would access the Project Site from Arbor Drive over a long period of time. In addition, future renovations could include façade reconstruction, which would result in temporary increased noise levels to surrounding properties. 1.7.2. RESIDENTIAL (NON-AGE-RESTRICTED) DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE EXISTING PUD REGULATIONS This alternative develops the Project Site with non-age-restricted residential uses in accordance with the existing PUD regulations (see Figure 1-8). In this scenario, 106 attached townhouses, each with approximately 1,480 sf of gross floor area would be constructed on the Project Site, together with a clubhouse, pool, and gazebo. Assuming the same average number of bedrooms per unit as exists within The Arbors, this alternative would have 250 bedrooms and, consistent with the experience of The Arbors community that the existing on-Site parking is inadequate for the current use, the hypothetical site plan provides 292 spaces, slightly more parking spaces than required. This alternative would not require a change to the PUD zoning. Development under this alternative would be, in the Applicant’s opinion, less consistent with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan than the Proposed Project. Specifically, the Village’s Comprehensive Plan recommends that the Village consider senior living facilities for the Project Site. Development under this alternative would not include senior living facilities, whereas the Proposed Project directly responds to, and is consistent with, this recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that senior living facilities are economically viable, serve an important market and community Chapter 1: Executive Summary DEIS 1-27 9/12/2018 need, provide a stable tax base, and are “extremely low” generators of traffic and other potentially adverse community impacts. Construction of this alternative would require extensive site grading, and similar to the Proposed Project, it would require disturbance of the steep slopes associated with the human-made rise in topography toward the western portion of the Site. As with the Proposed Project, development of this alternative would be confined to areas of the Site that have been disturbed by prior development, though overall Site disturbance may be slightly lower than with the Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, this alternative would not result in significant adverse impacts to vegetation and wildlife on the Project Site as the development would occur on previously disturbed portions of the Site. Development under this alternative could result in similar levels of disturbance to the existing wetland buffers. Such disturbance would require mitigation pursuant to Chapter 245 of the Village Code. Development under this alternative would transform the on-Site visual character from one dominated by 5.3 acres of surface parking lot and driveways and a three-story rectangular office building to a townhouse community with internal Site driveways and clusters of attached two-story townhouses. The Site could look similar to The Arbors townhouse community immediately to the west. This alternative would generate approximately the same number of vehicular trips as the Proposed Project, the majority of which would be moving in the same direction as the existing peak hour traffic from the Arbors community. Development of 106 townhouses could result in approximately 49 public school children living on-Site. While the BBRUFSD has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional school children, the additional school children would result in approximately $1.4 million of additional school spending per year based on the average per student costs in the district. In order to generate $1.4 million in additional property tax revenue, the average assessed value of the 106 townhouses would have to be $707,700. The construction period for this alternative would be slightly shorter than the Proposed Project and excavation for the underground parking would not be required. As the building coverage and internal road system would be similar in size to those of the Proposed Project, it is reasonable to assume that the foundation construction, road, and utility construction, construction periods that generate a significant amount of noise, would be a similar length to that of the Proposed Project and could cause similar levels of impacts to off-Site receptors. Finally, construction of this alternative would require daily on-Site construction activities, including vehicular trips by construction workers and material deliveries. 1.7.3. RESIDENTIAL (NON-AGE-RESTRICTED) DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE EXISTING PUD REGULATIONS WITH GREATER GROSS FLOOR AREA A second hypothetical site plan using the footprints of The Arbors townhouses was developed. While the number of townhouses in this site plan would be the same as the previous alternative, the gsf of development per acre would exceed the permitted 9,000 sf of the PUD. Consistent with the average gsf of the townhouses at The Arbors (2,290 gsf), the 106 townhouses in this scenario would result in 242,740 gsf being developed on the Project Site, exclusive of the clubhouse and gazebo. The Applicant contends that this 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 1-28 DEIS hypothetical site plan, while it has 65 percent more floor area than permitted by the PUD, is consistent with the precedent of residential construction within the PUD. The potential environmental impacts of this alternative would be similar in most respects to the previous alternative. The main difference in impacts would be in terms of the limit of disturbance during construction and the final building coverage: this alternative would require approximately 483,241 sf of disturbance, compared to 453,417 sf with the previous alternative and would result in approximately 121,000 sf of building coverage as compared to 80,000 sf. 1.7.4. SENIOR LIVING FACILITY DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE EXISTING PUD REGULATIONS This alternative develops the Project Site with IL units in accordance with the existing PUD regulations. In order to highlight the salient difference in impacts related to the programmatic differences between this alternative, the Proposed Project, and the as-of-right non-age-restricted alternative, the Applicant assumed that one of the hypothetical site plans developed for the non-age-restricted alternative would be developed with this alternative. As such, the physical impacts of this alternative to the Project Site would be the same as the non-age-restricted residential alternative. This alternative would be expected to generate a slightly lower on-Site population than the non-age-restricted alternative and would likely not include any school age-children within the development. It is likely that calls for EMS services would be higher with this alternative than the non-age-restricted development, though impacts to other community service providers would be similar. This alternative would be more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goal of reusing the Project Site for senior living facilities than the non-age-restricted as-of-right alternative. 1.7.5. REDUCED DENSITY PROPOSED PROJECT This alternative develops the Project Site with a senior living facility at a density greater than permitted by the current PUD zoning, but less than the Proposed Project (see Figure 1-9). To illustrate the potential differences in environmental impacts associated with the change in program, the Applicant assumed a 20 percent reduction in unit count for each component of the Proposed Project (see Table 1-3). The size of the units and the unit composition (e.g., percentage of one-bedroom, two-bedroom, three-bedroom units) was held constant. Table 1-3 Reduced Density Alternative Program Project Component Gross Floor Area (sf)1 Number of Units Total Bedrooms 1-bedroom Unit 2-bedroom Unit 3-bedroom Unit Townhomes 30,990 182 36 0 18 -- Assisted Living 81,080 683 76 61 7 — Independent Living 285,430 1282 275 35 77 16 Total 397,500 214 287 96 102 16 Notes: 1 Gross Floor Area calculated pursuant to §250-2 of the Village Code. 2 Dwelling Units 3 Not dwelling units, in Applicant’s opinion. Chapter 1: Executive Summary DEIS 1-29 9/12/2018 In this alternative, there would be slightly less impervious surface coverage (6.37 acres as opposed to 7.05 acres with the Proposed Project). As with the Proposed Project, development of this alternative would confine disturbance to areas of the Site that have been disturbed by prior development. Construction of this alternative would require disturbance of the steep slopes associated with the human-made rise in topography toward the western portion of the Site and would require a similar amount of disturbance to the Site’s wetland buffer areas as the Proposed Project. The visibility of the proposed buildings with this alternative would be similar to that of the Proposed Project. Views from the north, east, and west of the Project Site would be nearly identical to that of the Proposed Project. With this alternative, the southern wings of the IL and AL building would be set back further from Arbor Drive and reconfigured in shape so as to reduce the east-west dimension of the southern portion of these wings. The reduction in length of the southernmost wings of the IL and AL building would be noticeable from vantage points to the south of the Site. While these wings would be four stories in this alternative, the combination of the increased setback from Arbor Drive and the reconfiguration in the front wing’s shape would create a massing that would be perceived as very similar to that of the Proposed Project. Impacts to community facilities and the socioeconomic and fiscal conditions of the Village would be similar with this alternative to the Proposed Project. This alternative would likely generate less property tax revenue than the Proposed Project and place less demand on the EMS of the community. Other potential impacts, including those to infrastructure and utilities and construction, would be similar to that of the Proposed Project. 1.7.6. REDUCED SIZE PROPOSED PROJECT This alternative redevelops the Project Site with a senior living facility at the same density as the Proposed Project, but with smaller building and unit sizes and no increase in the permitted height of the proposed buildings (i.e., 35-feet maximum building height). The program for this alternative is largely similar to the Proposed Project (see Table 1-4), with the following exceptions: • The number of townhouses was reduced from 24 to 20, given the larger footprint of the IL and AL building required; • The number of one-bedroom units in the IL building increased, while the number of two-bedroom units decreased; and, • The average unit size of the IL and townhouse units was reduced, with emphasis on reducing the size of the largest units. 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 1-30 DEIS Table 1-4 Reduced Size Alternative Program Project Component Gross Floor Area (sf)1 Number of Units Total Bedrooms 1-bedroom Unit 2-bedroom Unit 3-bedroom Unit Townhomes 34,820 202 40 0 20 -- Assisted Living 89,500 853 94 76 9 -- Independent Living 276,330 1602 282 60 78 22 Total 400,650 265 416 136 107 22 Notes: 1 Gross Floor Area calculated pursuant to §250-2 of the Village Code. 2 Dwelling units. 3 Not dwelling units, in Applicant’s opinion. With this alternative, the general location of the uses within the Site is similar to the Proposed Project. However, the building configuration was modified to maintain the same number of units in a three-story building (see Figure 1-10). The IL portion of the main Site building was “stretched” in an east-west direction and a third wing was added to the front of the building in the location of the entry drive and porte cochere in the layout of the Proposed Project. This building configuration is extremely inefficient from an operational perspective. The spread out nature of the building’s rooms require longer interior travel distances for residents and spread out the common and amenity spaces to a larger area. With such a building configuration, it is likely that additional staff would be required to serve the resident population, especially in the AL facility. As with the Proposed Project, the Reduced Size alternative would require an amendment to the Village’s PUD zoning regulations. The amendment would be similar in all respects to the Proposed Zoning, except that the zoning change in this alternative would not require an increase in permitted height from three to four stories. Development of this alternative would require disturbance of the steep slopes associated with the human-made rise in topography toward the western portion of the Site. The Reduced Size alternative would have a similar amount of impervious coverage as the Proposed Project. The overall stormwater management system would be similar to that of the Proposed Project, however, owing to the increased building footprint, an additional stormwater management basin would be located within the front, landscaped island along Arbor Drive. Given the nearly identical programs, impacts to community facilities and socioeconomic and fiscal conditions would be nearly identical with this alternative and the Proposed Project. Construction of this alternative would be expected to be similar in nature and duration to that of the Proposed Project. The difference in the visibility of the on-Site buildings with this alternative as compared to the Proposed Project would be most noticeable from vantage points 4a and 4b on Arbor Drive. From vantage point 4a, the proposed center wing of the IL building would be approximately 144 feet closer than the four-story portion of the building with the Proposed Project. While this wing would be three stories, as opposed to four, the significant reduction in distance from this vantage point would make the front of this building appear much taller than the four-story portion of the IL building in the Proposed Project, which was set back 290 feet from Arbor Drive. Similarly, from vantage point 4b, the reduction in setback of the center of the IL portion of the building would make the three-story center wing of the building with this alternative appear much larger than the four-story portion of the building with the Proposed Project. Chapter 1: Executive Summary DEIS 1-31 9/12/2018 1.7.7. PROPOSED PROJECT WITH NO CHANGE TO THE MINIMUM AGE FOR RESIDENTS This alternative would have the same program and building/Site layout as the Proposed Project. The only difference would be that the minimum age for residents of this alternative would be 62 years, as opposed to 55 years with the Proposed Action. As such, a majority of the potential impacts resulting from this alternative would be the same as the Proposed Project with the exception of land use, zoning, and public policy, and community facilities. In regards to land use, zoning, and public policy, this alternative would require similar zoning amendments but would not require a change to the allowable age in senior living facilities. In regards to community facilities, this alternative would have slightly less potential for school-aged children to live at the Project Site. 1.8. LIST OF ALL APPROVALS REQUIRED The Proposed Project requires approvals from several governmental agencies, as summarized in Table 1-5. The Proposed Zoning will also be referred to the County Planning Board, pursuant Chapter 239 of the General Municipal Law and Section 277.61 of the County Administrative Code, and to the Village Planning Board pursuant to §250-7E of the Village Zoning Code. Table 1-5 Required Approvals Governmental Entity Approval Required Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees Zone text amendment, PUD Concept Plan approval, site plan approval, tree removal permit Planning Board Wetland/Watercourse buffer disturbance permit, Steep slope permit Department of Public Works MS4 / SWPPP approval Architectural Review Board Approval of Site and Building plans Westchester County Health Department Approval of water and sanitary sewer upgrades and modifications New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 5-acre waiver New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Signal retimings New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) Approval to Operate an Adult Care Facility New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Section 14.09 review  5/8/2018 Figure 1-1 Project Location 900 KING STREET N E W Y O R K C O N N E C T I C U T Rye Brook Greenwich HUTCHINSON RIVER PKWY LANDS HARKNESS PARK K i n g S t S t a t e H w y 1 2 0 A N Ridge St GlenRidgeRd A r bor Dr Hutchinson River Pkwy Shady Ln GreenwayClose Ettl L n Treetop L n G r e e n w a y Cir Exit 30S B a y b e r r y L n W a l ker C t I v y H i l l C r e s G r e e n w a y L n Ivy Hill Ln Brush Hollow Cres W a l k e r C t Project Site VT NH MANY PA CT RI NJ AREA OF DETAIL 0 580 FEET 5/ 8 / 2 0 1 8 Figure 1-2Project Site Aerial 90 0 K I N G S T R E E T NEW Y O R K CONNECTICU T Pr o j e c t S i t e 0 5 8 0 F E E T N E W Y O R K C O N N E C T I C U T Wetland A Wetland B Wetland C Wetland E Wetland D Stream A Stream S So u r c e : A K R F W e t l a n d D e l i n e a t i o n Project Site 0 580 FEET 900 KING STREET Figure 1-3 Wetlands and Waterbodies Wetland Stream 5.8.18 5. 8 . 1 8 Figure 1-4 90 0 K I N G S T R E E T AR B O R D R I V E KING STREET HU T C H I N S O N R I V E R P A R K W A Y AR B O R D R I V E AR B O R D R I V E WOOD DECK WOOD DEC K PATIO PATIO PATIO PA T I O PATIO W A L K 10 " S S LA W N WO O D E D LAW N WO O D E D LA W N WO O D E D LAW N WOO D E D LSA LS A LSA LSA W A T E R C O U R S E OF OF OF VP VPOF OF VP VLT VLT VLT VLT VLT VLT VLT VLTVLT TM H (NYS ROUTE 120A) TIMBERRET WALL TIM B E R PLA N T E R CONC WALL SM H TO P 2 4 5 . 9 6 IN V 2 3 3 . 7 0 ( C ) EXISTING BUILDING (VILLAGE HALL)EXISTING BUILDING (FIREHOUSE) EX I S T I N G BU I L D I N G IN D E P E N D E N T LIV I N G (3 & 4 S T O R I E S ) AS S I S T E D LIV I N G (4 S T O R I E S ) REC E I V I N G AR E A TO W N H O U S E S (2 S T O R I E S ) TO W N H O U S E S (2 S T O R I E S ) TO W N H O U S E S (2 S T O R I E S ) ARCHITECT:APPLICANT/OWNER:MCOLOR 16222-MColor Alt Drawing No:Project No:Date:Scale:Drawn:Approved:No.RevisionDate Previous Editions ObsoleteBy LAY.scrPRESENTATION PLAN 900 KING STREET REDEVELOPMENTPERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS, PC 900 KING STREET OWNER LLC 900 KING STREET VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK, NY422 SUMMER STREET STAMFORD, CT 06901 200 MADISON AVENUE, 26TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10016 1622211/06/2017DKJAR DK 1" = 40'C-340 S o u r c e : J M C E n g i n e e r i n g Site Plan 5. 8 . 1 8 Figure 1-5 90 0 K I N G S T R E E T Proposed Site Circulation AR B O R D R I V E KING STREET HU T CH IN S O N R IV E R P A R KW A Y AR B O R D R I V E AR B O R D R I V E WOOD DECK WOOD DEC K PATIO PATIO P A TI O P A TIO PATIO W A L K 1 0 " S S L AW N W OO DE D L AW N W OO DE D L AW N W OO DED L AW N W OO DE D L SA L SA L SA L SA W A T E R C OU R S E O F O F O F VP VPOF O F VP VLT VLT VLT VLT VLT VLT VLT VLTVLT TM H (NYS ROUTE 120A) TIMBERRET WALL TIM B E R P L AN T E R CONC WALL SM H T OP 2 4 5.9 6 IN V 23 3 .70 (C ) EXISTING BUI L DING (VI LL A G E H A LL )EXISTING BUI L DING (F I R E H O U SE ) EX I S T I N G BU I L DI N G IN D E P E N D E N T LIV I N G (3 & 4 S T O R I E S ) A SSI S T E D LIV I N G (4 S T O R I E S ) RE C EIV I N G A RE A TO W N H O U S E S (2 S T O R I E S ) TO W N H O U S E S (2 S T O R I E S ) TO W N H O U S E S (2 S T O R I E S ) ARCHITECT:APPLICANT/OWNER:MC O L O R 1 6222-M C olor Al t Drawi n g No:Pro j ect No:Date:Scale:Draw n :Approved:No.RevisionDate Previous Editions ObsoleteBy L A Y.s c rPRESENTATION PLAN 900 KING STREET REDEVELOPMENTPERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS, PC 900 KING STREET OWNER LLC 900 KING STREET VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK, NY422 SUMMER STREET STAMFORD, CT 06901 200 MADISON AVENUE, 26TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10016 1 622 211/0 6 /2 0 1 7DKJAR DK 1 " = 4 0 'C -3 4 0 RE C E I V I N G AN D LO A D I N G A R E A S o u r c e : J M C E n g i n e e r i n g Pr i m a r y S i t e C i r c u l a t i o n Un d e r g r o u n d P a r k i n g A c c e s s Em e r g e n c y A c c e s s Pr i m a r y S i t e C i r c u l a t i o n In d e p e n d e n t L i v i n g P i c k - u p / D r o p - o f f As s i s t e d L i v i n g P i c k - u p / D r o p - o f f 5. 8 . 1 8 Figure 1-6 90 0 K I N G S T R E E T Ex i s t i n g a n d P r o p o s e d P e d e s t r i a n P a t h s AR B O R D R I V E KING STREET HU T C H I N S O N R I V E R P A R K W A Y AR B O R D R I V E AR B O R D R I V E WOOD DECK WOOD DEC K PATIO PATIO PA TI O PA T I O PATIO W A L K 10 " S S LA W N WO O D E D LAW N WO O D E D LA W N WO O D E D LAW N WOO D E D LSA LS A LSA LSA W A T E R C O U R S E OF OF OF VP VPOF OF VP VLT VLT VLT VLT VLT VLT VLT VLTVLT TM H (NYS ROUTE 120A) TIMBERRET WALL TIM B E R PL AN TE R CONC WALL SM H T OP 2 4 5.96 IN V 23 3 .70 ( C ) EXISTING BUILDING (VI LL AGE H A LL )EXISTING BUILDING (FIREHOU SE ) EX I S T I N G BU I L D I N G IN D E P E N D E N T LIV I N G (3 & 4 S T O R I E S ) AS S I S T E D LIV I N G (4 S T O R I E S ) REC E I V I N G AR E A TO W N H O U S E S (2 S T O R I E S ) TO W N H O U S E S (2 S T O R I E S ) TO W N H O U S E S (2 S T O R I E S ) ARCHITECT:APPLICANT/OWNER:MCOLOR 1 6222-M C olor Al t Drawing No:Project No:Date:Scale:Drawn:Approved:No.RevisionDate Previous Editions ObsoleteBy LA Y.s crPRESENTATION PLAN 900 KING STREET REDEVELOPMENTPERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS, PC 900 KING STREET OWNER LLC 900 KING STREET VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK, NY422 SUMMER STREET STAMFORD, CT 06901 200 MADISON AVENUE, 26TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10016 1 622 211/0 6/2017DKJAR DK 1 " = 40'C -3 40 Ne w P e d e s t r i a n P a t h Ne w C r o s s w a l k s On - S i t e S i d e w a l k S y s t e m Ex i s t i n g P e d e s t r i a n P a t h AR C H I T E C T : AP P L I C A N T / O W N E R : Drawing No: Project No: Date: Scale: Drawn:Approved: ANY ALTERATION OF PLANS,SPECIFICATIONS, PLATS ANDREPORTS BEARING THE SEALOF A LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER OR LICENSED LANDSURVEYOR IS A VIOLATION OFSECTION 7209 OF THE NEWYORK STATE EDUCATION LAW,EXCEPT AS PROVIDED FOR BYSECTION 7209, SUBSECTION 2. No. Re v i s i o n Da t e By CO P Y R I G H T © 201 7 b y J M C All R i g h t s R e s e r v e d . N o p a r t o f t h i s d o c u m e n t m a y b e r e p r o d u c e d , s t o r e d i n a r e t r i e v a l s y s t e m , o r t r a n s m i t t e d i n a n y f o r m o r b y m e a n s , e l e c t r o n i c , m e c h a n i c a l , pho t o c o p y i n g , r e c o r d i n g o r o t h e r w i s e , w i t h o u t t h e p r i o r w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n o f J M C P L A N N I N G , E N G I N E E R I N G , L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E & L A N D S U R V E Y I N G , P L L C | J M C S I T E D E V E L O P M E N T CO N S U L T A N T S , L L C | J O H N M E Y E R C O N S U L T I N G , I N C . ( J M C ) . A n y m o d i f i c a t i o n s o r a l t e r a t i o n s t o t h i s d o c u m e n t w i t h o u t t h e w r i t t e n p e rmi s s i o n o f J M C s h a l l r e n d e r t h e m i n v a l i d a n d u n u s a b l e . Figure 1-7 5. 8 . 1 8 900 KING STREET N Wetland Buffer Disturbance Limit of Disturbance in Wetland Buffer Retain as Impervious Area Convert from Pervious to Impervious Convert from Impervious to Pervious 5. 8 . 1 8 Figure 1-8900 KING STREET Non-Age Restricted As-of-Right Residential Alternative AR C H I T E C T : AP P L I C A N T / O W N E R : Drawing No: Project No: Date: Scale: Drawn:Approved: ANY ALTERATION OF PLANS,SPECIFICATIONS, PLATS ANDREPORTS BEARING THE SEALOF A LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER OR LICENSED LANDSURVEYOR IS A VIOLATION OFSECTION 7209 OF THE NEWYORK STATE EDUCATION LAW,EXCEPT AS PROVIDED FOR BYSECTION 7209, SUBSECTION 2. No. Re v i s i o n Dat e B y CO P Y R I G H T © 201 8 by J M C All R i g h t s R e s e r v e d . N o p a r t o f t h i s d o c u m e n t m a y b e r e p r o d u c e d , s t o r e d i n a r e t r i e v a l s y s t e m , o r t r a n s m i t t e d i n a n y f o r m o r b y m e a n s , e l e c t r o n i c , m e c h a n i c a l , pho t o c o p y i n g , r e c o r d i n g o r o t h e r w i s e , w i t h o u t t h e p r i o r w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n o f J M C P L A N N I N G , E N G I N E E R I N G , L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E & L A N D S U R V E Y I N G , P L L C | J M C S I T E D E V E L O P M E N T CON S U L T A N T S , L L C | J O H N M E Y E R C O N S U L T I N G , I N C . ( J M C ) . A n y m o d i f i c a t i o n s o r a l t e r a t i o n s t o t h i s d o c u m e n t w i t h o u t t h e w r i t t e n p e rmis s i o n o f J M C s h a l l r e n d e r t h e m i n v a l i d a n d u n u s a b l e . Existing Building and Parking Lot So u r c e : J M C E n g i n e e r i n g 5. 8 . 1 8 Figure 1-9900 KING STREET Reduced Density Alternative AR C H I T E C T : AP P L I C A N T / O W N E R : Drawing No: Project No: Date: Scale: Drawn:Approved: ANY ALTERATION OF PLANS,SPECIFICATIONS, PLATS ANDREPORTS BEARING THE SEALOF A LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER OR LICENSED LANDSURVEYOR IS A VIOLATION OFSECTION 7209 OF THE NEWYORK STATE EDUCATION LAW,EXCEPT AS PROVIDED FOR BYSECTION 7209, SUBSECTION 2. No. Re v i s i o n Dat e B y CO P Y R I G H T © 201 7 by J M C All R i g h t s R e s e r v e d . N o p a r t o f t h i s d o c u m e n t m a y b e r e p r o d u c e d , s t o r e d i n a r e t r i e v a l s y s t e m , o r t r a n s m i t t e d i n a n y f o r m o r b y m e a n s , e l e c t r o n i c , m e c h a n i c a l , pho t o c o p y i n g , r e c o r d i n g o r o t h e r w i s e , w i t h o u t t h e p r i o r w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n o f J M C P L A N N I N G , E N G I N E E R I N G , L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E & L A N D S U R V E Y I N G , P L L C | J M C S I T E D E V E L O P M E N T CON S U L T A N T S , L L C | J O H N M E Y E R C O N S U L T I N G , I N C . ( J M C ) . A n y m o d i f i c a t i o n s o r a l t e r a t i o n s t o t h i s d o c u m e n t w i t h o u t t h e w r i t t e n p e rmis s i o n o f J M C s h a l l r e n d e r t h e m i n v a l i d a n d u n u s a b l e . So u r c e : J M C E n g i n e e r i n g Existing Building and Parking Lot 5 . 8 . 1 8 Figure 1-10 90 0 K I N G S T R E E T Reduced Size AlternativeANY ALTERATION OF PLANS,SPECIFICATIONS, PLATS AND REPORTS BEARING THE SEAL OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW,EXCEPT AS PROVIDED FOR BY SECTION 7209, SUBSECTION 2. S o u r c e : J M C E n g i n e e r i n g Ex i s t i n g B u i l d i n g a n d P a r k i n g L o t