Loading...
03 - Land Use, Public Policy, and ZoningDEIS 3-1 9/12/2018 Chapter 3: Land Use, Public Policy, and Zoning 3.1. INTRODUCTION This Chapter analyzes the consistency of the Proposed Action, inclusive of the Proposed Zoning and the Proposed Project, with the land uses and zoning currently on the Project Site and within ½- mile of the Project Site, as well as the Proposed Action’s consistency with applicable public policies. As such, these analyses address the potential for the Proposed Action to have one or more significant adverse environmental impacts that were identified in the Lead Agency’s Positive Declaration (see Appendix A-5). The Proposed Zoning, as described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” consists of a zoning amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning regulations. 900 King Street Owner, LLC (the “Applicant”) proposed to construct an integrated age-restricted residential community (the “Proposed Project”), which includes Independent Living (IL), Assisted Living (AL), and residential townhouse units, on the Project Site. As described in this Chapter, it is the Applicant’s opinion that the Proposed Action is consistent with the intent of the PUD zoning district, the current built condition of the PUD of which the Project Site is a part, and the predominantly residential land uses within ½-mile of the Project Site. Similarly, it is the Applicant’s opinion that the Proposed Action is consistent with the Village of Rye Brook’s (the “Village”) Comprehensive Plan and Affordable Housing policies and consistent with Westchester County’s land use policies. 3.2. ZONING AND LAND USE 3.2.1. CURRENT CONDITIONS 3.2.1.1. Project Site Zoning The Project Site is located within the Village’s PUD zoning district (see Figure 3-1). The Site is part of a larger PUD, 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 and prior to the establishment of the Village. The PUD, which includes the Project Site, The Arbors, and Harkness Park, is reflected on the Rye Brook Zoning Map as a PUD but, unlike other PUDs within the Village, there is no specific reference to the regulatory requirements adopted in connection with this PUD. For example, for the BelleFair PUD, the Rye Brook Zoning Map references a specific local law, which established the PUD and set up the regulatory program, including permitted uses, density, and bulk and area requirements. The Village’s general PUD regulations allow residential, office, and retail uses. Density and bulk requirements for each use are presented in §250-7E(2)(d) and summarized in Table 3-1. 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 3-2 DEIS Table 3-1 Existing PUD Requirements Use Allowed Height Allowed Density Notes Residential 30 feet 9,000 sf per acre 6 dwelling units per acre1 Office 35 feet 0.12 FAR Conference Center 40 feet 0.164 FAR with Board of Trustees approval Limited Retail / Personal Service 30 feet 3,500 sf total Primarily to serve residents and employees of PUD Senior Living Facilities 35 feet2 Same as residential1 Age restriction 62 years Notes: sf = square feet FAR = floor area ratio 1 §250-7E(3)(a) allows the density requirements for residential facilities to be “waived, in whole or in part, to permit additional floor area to be developed in such PUD development, beyond the 9,000-square foot limit, if the development provides affordable housing equivalent to 10% in number of the market-rate dwelling units in such development…” 2 Height is defined as “the weighted average of the building height measured from finished grade adjacent to the exterior walls of the building.” Land Use The Project Site is currently improved with an approximately 215,000-sf office building (see Appendix B-1), a use allowed by the current PUD zoning district. However, the FAR of the office building is approximately 0.28, which is more than twice what is currently allowed. The office building is a three-story structure, with some parking provided on a portion of the building’s lower level. As shown on the approved building plans (see Appendix B-4), the fascia at the top of the roof of the building rises to an elevation of 294.17 feet from a finished grade of 247.67 feet at the southeastern corner of the building and a finished grade of 248.67 feet at the northeast corner of the building. As such, the top of the fascia is 46.5 feet above the finished grade of the building when viewed from Arbor Drive. The roof of the building is approximately 39 feet from ground level, which is greater than permitted in the current PUD, and the fascia extends another 7.5 feet, which is also greater than that which is permitted in the zoning code. The original land use approvals for the PUD for the Project Site and The Arbors were kept by the Town of Rye. The Applicant understands that those records are not available. Therefore, the specific details established by the original PUD approvals cannot be confirmed. The Village Board of Trustees (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 its original site plan approval in order to provide it lawful status, i.e., it is zoning compliant (see Appendix B-2). There are certain utility easements (e.g., electrical, sewer, gas, and water) on the southern portion of the Project Site, adjacent to Arbor Drive, as shown in the full-size site plans (see Appendix A-4) and described in Appendix B-3. In addition, the Blind Brook-Rye Union Free School District (BBRUFSD) is Chapter 3: Land Use, Public Policy, and Zoning DEIS 3-3 9/12/2018 the beneficiary of a 5-foot-wide easement along the Site’s eastern boundary within which it may maintain a walking path. Finally, the Village properties to the east (e.g., Village Hall, Rye Brook Police Department [RBPD], and the Rye Brook Fire Department [RBFD]) have a drainage easement for the conveyance of stormwater to the Project Site’s retention basin. 3.2.1.2. Study Area Zoning The area within ½-mile of the Project Site, the Study Area, is within the Village, generally west of King Street, as well as Town of Greenwich, Connecticut, generally east of King Street. The portion of the study area in the Village is predominantly zoned for residential uses (see Figure 3-1). There are five zoning districts within ½-mile of the Project Site in the Village: the R-15, R-20, R-25, R-35, and PUD. As discussed above, the Village’s PUD district permits a mix of uses; both commercial and residential. The other three Village zoning districts within ½-mile of the Project Site do not allow commercial uses. Rather, they permit one-family dwellings, schools, and agricultural uses as-of-right. There are six residential zoning districts within ½-mile of the Project Site in the Town of Greenwich—the RA-1, R-20, R-12, R-7, R-C7, and R-C7-HO—and three commercial districts—LBR-2, LB-R-C7, and LB-HO. The residential districts permit only residential uses and vary in terms of the required minimum lot area. Those residential districts with a “C” component are permitted to have multiple dwellings on a lot for the purpose of assuring land conservation whereas those without the “C” component are restricted to single-family detached dwellings. The commercial districts permit a variety of commercial uses including retail, service, and community and business support services (such as community centers, printing shops, banks, and gasoline stations). The “HO” designation identifies the Historic Overlay district, which encourages the restoration, preservation, protection, enhancement, and perpetuation and use of buildings and structures having historical or aesthetic value and represent the Town of Greenwich’s history. Land Use The area within ½-mile of the Project Site consists primarily of detached single-family residential uses (see Figure 3-2), with some exceptions, most notably adjacent to the Project Site. Immediately to the south of the Project Site is the Blind Brook Middle School/High School (MS/HS). The approximately 21-acre campus serves grades 6–12 and includes a MS/HS building and gymnasium, multiple baseball and football fields, a track, and various out buildings. The Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD are adjacent to the Project Site’s eastern boundary. To the Site’s north is the Hutchinson River Parkway, a four-lane divided highway. Finally, to the west of the Site is The Arbors townhouse community. The Arbors contains 250 attached-townhouses on approximately 36 acres, which includes the roadbed of Arbor Drive. The 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 3-4 DEIS 250 units have 591 bedrooms and approximately 572,400 gsf of floor area.1 As such, The Arbors has approximately seven dwelling units per acre (or eight units per acre if you do not count the area of Arbor Drive) and approximately 16,000 gsf per acre. This is greater than the six dwelling units and 9,000 gsf per acre permitted by the current PUD regulations. North of the Hutchinson River Parkway, within an otherwise residential neighborhood, is the Ridge Street School, serving grades K–5, and the Ridge Street Country School, a nursery school and pre-K facility. South of the Project Site, along King Street, is the King Street Nursing Home. To the east of King Street within the Town of Greenwich, the study area is dominated by single-family detached residential homes (see Figure 3-2), with several exceptions. East of the Project Site and west of Pemberwick Road are the Lansing Meadows Condominiums, River Run Condominiums at the Mill, and the condominiums on Ettl Lane. The Glenville Town Center is located in the easternmost portion of the study area. This area contains a mix of uses, as well as higher density housing. 3.2.2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION As described above, the Applicant has petitioned the Village Board of Trustees for zoning amendments to facilitate the Proposed Project. The revised proposed zoning amendments are in Appendix A-3. The Proposed Zoning would permit senior living facilities to be constructed to a maximum height of 45 feet, as recommended by the Village’s Comprehensive Plan, set specific density requirements for senior living facilities in recognition of the differences between the impacts of this use and traditional residential uses, and establish 55 years of age as the minimum age for residents of senior living facilities. The amendments would also establish additional site-specific bulk and area requirements. 3.2.2.1. Consistency with Existing Land Use and Zoning Zoning The Proposed Project does not conform to the existing PUD zoning regulations. As such, the Applicant has petitioned the Village Board of Trustees for amendments to those regulations. 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 1 Gross square feet and number of bedrooms were obtained from the Town of Rye Assessor’s online geographical information system (GIS). Chapter 3: Land Use, Public Policy, and Zoning DEIS 3-5 9/12/2018 Comprehensive Plan and recognizes the inherent difference in use, and subsequently in impacts, from non-age-restricted residential uses (see Table 3-2); • Establish additional, site-specific setback and area requirements for the Project Site (see Table 3-3); • Establish a maximum gross land coverage for the Project Site (see Table 3-3); and, • Increase the maximum permitted height of senior living facilities from 35 feet to 45 feet, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations (see Table 3-2). Other aspects of the existing PUD regulations, including those related to buffer areas, open space, and approval procedures are not proposed to be changed. Similarly, no changes to the Village’s site plan regulations, including those related to recreation fees, are proposed. Table 3-2 provides a comparison of the density and dimensional requirements of the existing and proposed PUD regulations. Table 3-3 lists additional dimensional requirements within the Proposed Zoning that would apply to the Project Site. Table 3-4, presented later in the chapter, lists other requirements of the PUD zoning district and compares the current site condition to the future condition of the Site with the Proposed Project. Table 3-2 Comparison of PUD Density and Height Requirements Use Height Density Other Existing Proposed3 Existing Proposed3 Existing Proposed3 Residential 30 feet 30 feet* 9,000 sf per acre 6 dwelling units per acre1 9,000 sf per acre* 6 dwelling units per acre1* No Changes Proposed Office 35 feet 35 feet* 0.12 FAR 0.12 FAR* Conference Center 40 feet 40 feet* 0.164 FAR with Board of Trustees approval 0.164 FAR with Board of Trustees approval* Limited Retail / Personal Service 30 feet 30 feet* 3,500 sf total 3,500 sf total* Senior Living Facilities 35 feet2 45 feet Same as residential1 26,000 sf per acre 10.4 dwelling units per acre 4.8 AL units per acre Age restriction 62 years Age restriction 55 years Notes: sf = square feet FAR = floor area ratio * No change proposed 1 §250-7E(3)(a) allows the density requirements for residential facilities to be “waived, in whole or in part, to permit additional floor area to be developed in such PUD development, beyond the 9,000-square foot limit, if the development provides affordable housing equivalent to 10% in number of the market-rate dwelling units in such development…” 2 Height is defined as “the weighted average of the building height measured from finished grade adjacent to the exterior walls of the building.” 3 The zoning amendment proposed by the Applicant would only apply to the 900 King Street Site. The proposed dimensional requirements would not be applicable to any other PUD site in the Village. 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 3-6 DEIS Table 3-3 Proposed Additional PUD Dimensional Requirements Requirement Proposed1 Notes Front Yard 42 feet Current PUD regulations provide for a “buffer area” that is, in the Applicant’s opinion applicable to the entire site zoned PUD, not to individual lots within a PUD. Side Yard 90 feet Rear Yard 30 feet Maximum Impervious Coverage 40% Note: 1 The zoning amendment proposed by the Applicant would only apply to the 900 King Street Site. The proposed dimensional requirements would not be applicable to any other PUD site in the Village. The Village’s PUD zoning district requires the provision of buffer areas and open space within an overall PUD district (§250-7E(3)(e) and (f)). As stated above, the Project Site, and the larger PUD of which the Project Site is a part, was developed prior to the implementation of these requirements. Neither individual development within the PUD (e.g., The Arbors and the Project Site) nor the overall PUD itself is compliant with the current buffer area and open space requirements. While the Proposed Project would similarly be non-conforming with these buffer requirements, it is the Applicant’s opinion that the proposed non-conformities would not have significant adverse impacts as they would be similar in nature and magnitude to the existing non-conformities and would not introduce new significant adverse impacts to adjacent sensitive land uses. As such, the Applicant is requesting that the Board of Trustees modify the existing buffer requirements for the Proposed Project, pursuant to the Board’s existing authority under §250-7E(2)(e)[1][d] of the zoning code. In addition to the buffer requirements, the Village’s PUD regulations set forth minimum lot sizes and road frontage requirements, which in the opinion of the Applicant, are applicable to the PUD as a whole and not an individual site within the PUD. The Proposed Zoning would not modify the existing frontage requirements, to which the Project Site currently conforms. The Proposed Zoning would, however, modify the minimum lot size, as applicable to the Project Site only, to 17 acres. As this requirement would only be applicable to the Project Site, it is the Applicant’s opinion that this provision would not have any significant adverse impacts to off-Site properties. Potential on-Site environmental impacts are discussed throughout this DEIS. Section 250-7E(2)(f) of the Village Code requires that 10 percent of a PUD site be offered and dedicated to the Village for recreational use or a fee in lieu of providing such land be paid to the Village. It is the Applicant’s opinion that this provision of the Village Code was intended to apply to a PUD site as a whole at the time that it is mapped a PUD, and not to individual lots within a PUD site, including the Project Site. In addition, the Applicant believes that Harkness Park, which is within the same PUD site as the Project Site, would fulfill the obligation of providing a suitably sized public park within a PUD site. Further, it is the Applicant’s opinion that the Village retains its authority to require the provision of adequate recreational facilities on the Project Site at such time as the Site is redeveloped pursuant to its authority under §209-15 of the Village Code. Specifically, §209-15 of Chapter 3: Land Use, Public Policy, and Zoning DEIS 3-7 9/12/2018 the Village Code states that site plans must, when required, contain a suitable sized park or parks for active or passive recreation or remit a fee in lieu thereof. The ability of the Proposed Project to meet the requirements of §209-15 and provide adequate recreational facilities for the projected population of the Project Site is discussed in detail in Chapter 10, Section 10.4, “Open Space.” As discussed in that Chapter, it is the Applicant’s opinion that the Proposed Project provides sufficient on-Site recreational areas and, therefore, does not need to remit a “recreation fee.” Consistent with the Fair Housing Act (FHA), a housing facility may lawfully refuse to sell or rent dwellings to families with minor children if they are either intended for, and solely occupied by persons 62 years of age or older or, if they are intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older. To qualify for the “55 or older” housing exemption from the FHA, at least 80 percent of units must have at least one occupant who is at least 55 years old and must publish and adhere to policies demonstrating intent to operate as 55 or older housing, consistent with United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements.2 If a facility meets either of these requirements, the facility may refuse to rent or sell a dwelling unit to a family with minor children. With respect to off-Site zoning districts within the Study Area, Figure 3-3 provides a detailed comparison of the requirements of the existing and proposed PUD requirements with the zoning districts within ½-mile of the Project Site. It is the Applicant’s opinion that the Proposed Zoning would not adversely impact the existing zoning districts within the study area. Specifically, it is the Applicant’s opinion that, as shown in this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), the amendments requested do not fundamentally change the nature of the uses allowed on-Site and do not introduce any permanent adverse environmental impacts to the community that would undermine the continued viability of the Zoning Districts within the study area. Land Use The Proposed Action is, in the Applicant’s opinion, consistent with the land uses within the study area. The use proposed for the Site, senior living facilities, is consistent with the predominantly residential character of the study area and is a use that is currently permitted within the PUD 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. 3.2.2.2. Consistency with the Intent and Current Condition of the PUD The Proposed Zoning’s consistency with the legislative intent of the PUD zoning district is analyzed below. For ease of navigation, the sections of the PUD’s legislative intent are presented in italic text. Based on this analysis, it is the Applicant’s opinion that the Proposed Zoning is consistent with the legislative intent of the PUD district as set forth in §250-7E(1) of the Zoning Code. 2 https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/seniors 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 3-8 DEIS To provide, where appropriate, a mixture of single-family residences, senior living facilities, excluding nursing homes, townhouses, apartments and limited commercial, retail and institutional uses, plus related accessory uses. (§250-7E(1)(a)) The Proposed Zoning would not introduce any new uses to the PUD; rather, it makes a minor adjustment in the minimum age of residents of senior living facilities. In addition, the Proposed Project would remove a large (and largely vacant) commercial office building from the Project Site, which is consistent with the intent of providing “limited commercial” uses within the PUD. To provide flexibility of design by coordinating site plan, subdivision and zoning review and other government regulations and review procedures. (§250-7E(1)(b)) This section is not applicable to the Proposed Project, which does not contemplate subdivision. To conserve natural resources and to preserve open space. (§250-7E(1)(c)) The Proposed Project would reduce the amount of impervious coverage on the Project Site and would focus development on a Project Site that has already been disturbed by previous development. In addition, the Proposed Project would focus development on the particular areas of the Site that had previously been extensively disturbed by prior uses of the Site and would maintain the existing wetland corridor in the western portion of the Project Site. To provide benefits to the community over and above that which the underlying zoning district provides for, such as but not limited to increased recreational opportunities and reduced traffic impact. (§250-7E(1)(d)) The Proposed Project would dramatically reduce the amount of Site-generated traffic when compared to that of the fully occupied office building on Site (see Chapter 12, “Traffic and Transportation”). In addition, the Proposed Project would, in the Applicant’s opinion and as demonstrated in Chapter 10, “Community Facilities,” not place a significant burden on recreational and other community resources and services of the Village. In fact, 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. 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 be a complimentary, but not identical, use to the existing townhouses (i.e., The Arbors). The senior residential buildings proposed would not introduce negative noise or light pollution to the adjoining properties and would similarly have very low levels of traffic generation. At the same time, the Proposed Project would maintain the diversity of uses sought by the PUD regulations. Finally, both The Arbors and the Project Site are the beneficiaries of the open space provided by the PUD’s third component, Harkness Park. Chapter 3: Land Use, Public Policy, and Zoning DEIS 3-9 9/12/2018 Table 3-4 Other PUD Requirements Current Proposed Notes PUD Requirement Project Site PUD Requirement Project Site Minimum lot area 30 acres 17.77 acres 17 acres No change Frontage on State Road, County, or major Village Road 150 feet 168 feet No change No change Buffer Areas 25% of Site (Board of Trustees may increase or decrease by 20%) N/A No Change N/A Buffer requirement apply to the entire PUD district. 150 feet from property line abutting existing road1 357 feet from King Street No Change ~300 feet from King Street Applies to King Street as the existing road when PUD established 100 feet along zoning district boundary1 12 feet along northern boundary No Change No change on northern boundary; AL building 94 feet from property line (firehouse) The closest portion of the AL building to the zoning district boundary is adjacent to the firehouse parking lot. Therefore, there would be no adverse impact from the slight reduction in the buffer at this location. Parking set back 50 or 100 feet from perimeter PUD property line 77 feet from east 12 feet from north No Change 16 feet from east 22 feet from north 70 feet from south The easternmost AL parking would be adjacent to the parking lot behind the Village firehouse. The southernmost 4-guest parking spaces for the townhouses would be 70 feet from the northernmost point of the MS/HS property line. Neither location would create a significant adverse impact to adjoining properties. Public Open Space 10% dedicated space or fee in lieu N/A No Change N/A Applies to PUD Site as a whole See Chapter 10, Community Facilities (Harkness Park (~3.2 acres) is within the existing PUD district) Parking Office: 1 per 200 sf3 (1,075 spaces) 595 spaces — — Ratio for senior living facility was recommended by Village’s Comprehensive Plan Two-family dwelling: 2.5 per unit2 — No change (24 * 2.5 = 60) 61 Age-restricted multifamily No specific requirement 1 per unit (1 * 160 = 160) 179 Senior living facility: 0.75 spaces per unit4 — 0.5 per unit (85 * 0.5 = 43) 60 Notes: 1 §250-7E(2)(e)[1][d] allows Board of Trustees to reduce buffers based on site-specific findings. 2 §250-6G(c)(1)(b)[3] 3 §250-6G(c)(1)(b)[11] 4 §250-7E(2)(g) 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 3-10 DEIS 3.2.2.3. Consistency with Scenic Roads Overlay District The Project Site is within the Village’s Scenic Roads Overlay District (SROD). The SROD, codified in §250-7F of the Zoning Code, was “established for the purpose of preserving the Village of Rye Brook’s historic resources, stone walls, natural features and views from its roadways…” The Proposed Project’s consistency with the requirements of the SROD is analyzed below. For ease of navigation, the SROD requirements are presented in italic text. As demonstrated, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the requirements of the SROD. The structure or alteration shall be architecturally compatible with surrounding structures and the important scenic and natural features of the site shall be preserved. §250-7F(6)(a) The structures immediately surrounding the Project Site possess diverse architectural character and include single-family residential uses, institutional uses, townhouses, and a firehouse. As such, the Proposed Project’s buildings have been designed to be architecturally compatible with the predominant characteristics of residential construction within the Village. This includes the use of clapboard and stone siding, dormers, and gabled roofs. In addition, the proposed townhouses are located in the western portion of the Site, closest to the existing townhouses within The Arbors. The Site’s frontage along King Street, the road to which the SROD applies, will be preserved in its current state with relatively dense wooded vegetation. The interior of the Site, which is not visible from a public right-of-way, contains no important scenic features. The Proposed Project will preserve the important on-Site natural features, including the wetlands and streams. The minimum front yard setback requirement for all structures, as set forth for the underlying zoning district, shall be increased by a factor of 1.5…Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, in the case of a lot abutting two or more streets, the increased front yard setback requirement shall apply only to the front yards abutting a street located within the SROD. §250-7F(6)(b) The current PUD zoning district does not have a front yard setback requirement. Nonetheless, the buildings on the Project Site would be set back approximately 300 feet from King Street, which is the street abutting the Project Site that is within the SROD. This distance, combined with the preservation of the Site’s wooded King Street frontage, would be protective of King Street’s scenic character in this location. A thirty-five-foot-wide area, measured perpendicularly from the front property line and running the length of the lot frontage shall remain as a vegetative buffer. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, in the case of a lot abutting two or more streets, the vegetative buffer requirement shall apply only to frontages abutting a street located within the SROD. §250-7F(6)(c) Within the Project Site, the area within approximately 300 feet of King would be maintained in its current condition, consisting of dense wooded Chapter 3: Land Use, Public Policy, and Zoning DEIS 3-11 9/12/2018 vegetation. As stated above, King Street is the street abutting the Project Site that is within the SROD. The Applicant would maintain and preserve the buffer to protect the scenic quality of King Street in this location. A conservation easement may be placed on the thirty-five-foot-wide front yard buffer to protect the vegetative buffer. §250-7F(6)(d) Preservation of the vegetative buffer would be shown on the final, approved, site plan and maintenance of this area would be a condition of any final site plan approval. Therefore, a conservation easement is not required. Existing natural and constructed features, including but not limited to rock outcrops, stonewalls, gates, and entrance piers will be preserved and incorporated into development plans. §250-7F(6)(e) At present, building signage is located within the natural buffer. The Proposed Project would retain the existing vegetative buffer, replacing, and potentially slightly relocating, signage. Any new utility equipment installed within a designated road shall be properly screened…. §250-7F(6)(f) No above-ground utility equipment would be placed on the Project Site within 35 feet of King Street. Parking areas shall not be located within the front yard buffer and shall be placed to minimize encroachment upon areas and terrain that have qualities of natural beauty. §250-7F(6)(g) No parking will be located within the SROD vegetative buffer. The majority of Project-required on-Site parking would be located underground, replacing the existing extensive surface parking lot with an integrated age-restricted residential community within a landscaped setting. Any grading or earth moving operation shall be conducted so that the final, post development contours appear to be consistent with the predevelopment terrain, both on and adjacent to building sites. Within the front yard landscape buffer, existing grade shall not be altered. §250-7F(6)(h) No grading within the vegetative buffer is proposed. The Proposed Project would redevelop and regrade a site that is currently developed with a large footprint office building and expansive surface parking lot. The Project Site has previously been disturbed and the grades within the Site are not reflective of its natural topography. Notwithstanding, the Proposed Project would be largely consistent with the contours of the Site as it currently exists. The eastern portion of the Project Site would remain relatively flat with higher elevations to the west. 3.2.2.4. Other Potentially Affected Properties The Village, in the approved DEIS Scoping Outline (see Appendix A-1), identified the following properties that might be rezoned to accept a senior project, similar to the Proposed Project: Doral Arrowwood Hotel; Hilton Westchester; Reckson Executive Park; 800 Westchester Avenue; and Blind Brook Club. 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 3-12 DEIS The Applicant is not proposing a project on any of the above-mentioned properties, nor would the Proposed Zoning permit a similar development on any of those sites. 3.3. PUBLIC POLICY 3.3.1. VILLAGE’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 3.3.1.1. General Recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan This section analyzes the consistency of the Proposed Project with the relevant general recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. For ease of navigation, sections of the Comprehensive Plan are presented in italic text. The primary goal of the Comprehensive plan is to maintain and improve the overall quality of life for village residents by: promoting sustainable development; encouraging a stable and enduring economic base; providing for safety, health and education; preserving the natural, cultural, recreational and historic assets of Rye Brook; enhancing the design of the built and natural environment; and advocating for smart-growth design principles in the planning process. (pg. 1) Sustainable Development—The Proposed Project would utilize energy-efficient building design and fixtures. All outdoor lighting would utilize LED fixtures with full cut-offs. The Proposed Project would also reduce the amount of impervious surface area on the Project Site from the current condition, and provide enhanced stormwater management to reduce the volume and rate of stormwater runoff and improve stormwater quality. Stable Economic Base—The Project Site contains an office building that has been largely vacant and under-performing for decades and has been the subject of tax certiorari proceedings seeking to lower the assessed value of the Site. The Proposed Project would provide significant tax revenues to the Village and other taxing jurisdictions, including the BBRUFSD, while placing no additional burden on the BBRUFSD. Safety, Health, and Education—The Proposed Project would include modern life-saving technologies, including fully sprinklered buildings, and would feature wide hallways and elevators. Preserving the Natural, Cultural, Recreational, and Historic Assets of the Village—The Proposed Project would not disturb the existing on-Site wetlands and would minimize new disturbance to the wetland buffer areas. The Proposed Project would also reduce the amount of impervious area on the Project Site from its current condition. Finally, the Proposed Project would include modern stormwater management systems that would reduce the volume and rate of stormwater runoff as well as improve stormwater quality. Enhancing the Design of the Built Environment—The Proposed Project would develop the Project Site with three age-restricted residential uses that are integrated into a single, coherent site plan. The uses would be served by common parking and circulation and would be tied together with a common Chapter 3: Land Use, Public Policy, and Zoning DEIS 3-13 9/12/2018 landscaping program. The new buildings would be designed to complement each other and to evoke the highest standards of traditional architectural design. Smart-Growth Design Principles—The Proposed Project would redevelop and repurpose an existing disturbed Site that is currently improved with a largely vacant 200,000-sf office building and vast surface parking lot. The Project Site is well-served by existing infrastructure, including roads and utilities. As such, the Proposed Project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goal of promoting smart-growth. The future of the Village of Rye Brook shall be one that strives to maintain and enhance the quality of life of its residents, businesses, interest groups, and future generations based on a community consensus that establishes and strengthens the village’s distinct identity while working with neighboring communities to achieve desired or shared goals. (p.4) The Proposed Project would enhance the quality of life for Village residents by providing needed senior housing options. Senior citizens already living in the Village who wish to downsize their homes or who need a higher level of care can relocate within the area, close to family and friends. In addition, the Proposed Project would redevelop a largely vacant and underperforming office building on the Project Site into a residential community that produces significant tax revenues for the Village and BBRUFSD, while placing no additional demands on the BBRUFSD. Goal: Enhance sense of community through changes in the built environment. Policy: Promote a diversity of housing choices for both current and prospective residents (p.4) The Proposed Project would offer various housing options for seniors needing different levels of care, consistent with this recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. The comprehensive plan continues to encourage developers to utilize affordable housing. 10 percent of new units should be set aside for affordable units (p.127) As required by §209-3F of the Village Code, the Proposed Project would include 19 affordable units (10 percent of all dwelling units), as defined in §250-26.1D of the Village Code. These units would be provided in both the townhouses and IL facility in proportion to the total number, and type, of market-rate units. The Comprehensive Plan suggests that any zoning change (including mixed- use) requested by an applicant to sites in Rye Brook that would add value by expanding the permitted uses should include a provision for affordable units in future development or redevelopment. This would balance the benefit received by the property owner with the clear community benefit of achieving more affordable housing. (p.127) 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 3-14 DEIS As required by §209-3F of the Village Code, the Proposed Project would include 19 affordable units (10 percent of all dwelling units), as defined in §250-26.1D of the Village Code. 3.3.1.2. Site Specific Recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan This section analyzes the consistency of the Proposed Project with the sections of the Comprehensive Plan that deal specifically with the Project Site. For ease of navigation, sections of the Comprehensive Plan are presented in italic text. Another multi-tenant corporate campus formerly occupied by IBM, 900 King Street, is located on the eastern edge of Rye Brook near the municipal complex. Built in 1981 on an 18-acre site, the campus contains 201,000 sf of Class A office space, a café, fitness center, and conference center. The building lay vacant for most of the 1990’s until the majority of it was occupied by Snapple in 2004; since Snapple’s departure later that decade, 900 King Street has faced long-term vacancy issues. As of March 2014, the entire second floor of the building, totaling 100,000 sf as well as approximately 32,000 sf on the first floor, was available for lease. (pg. 133) The existing office building on the Project Site has been largely vacant and underperforming for decades. The Project Site has been the subject of tax certiorari proceedings seeking to lower the assessed value of the Project Site. Redevelopment of the Project Site into an age-restricted residential community would provide significant tax revenues to the Village and other taxing jurisdictions, including the BBRUFSD, while placing no additional burden on the BBRUFSD. One office development in Rye Brook is not located in an office zone, but rather a PUD zone (see Section 250-7). The 900 King Street facility was developed through a PUD in the late 1970s/early 1980s in conjunction with the adjacent Arbors residential development. Subsequent to its development, the standards for PUDs were revised several times in the 1990s, and the 900 King Street/Arbors PUD appears to no longer conform. For example, the PUD is located south of the Hutchinson River Parkway, where the code requires that PUDs must be located north of that roadway… Finally, the office building’s FAR is about 0.26 (201,000 total square footage divided by the approximately 773,626 sf of lot area), which is well in excess of the maximum allowable FAR of 0.12. While it is likely that the PUD regulations were revised to provide for tight control of future development, the effect of this nonconformity may be limiting the potential of 900 King Street, possibly contributing to its vacancy issues. (pg. 135-136) The Proposed Project would amend the existing PUD zoning regulations to facilitate the redevelopment of the Project Site. This zoning approach is consistent with the zoning approach utilized for the Village’s other PUDs and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s finding that the current zoning for the Project Site is not adequate or appropriate to facilitate redevelopment. In the future, the Village may also consider opening up selected office zones to carefully specified multifamily development, an approach being explored by other communities. For example, Harrison, faced with significant office Chapter 3: Land Use, Public Policy, and Zoning DEIS 3-15 9/12/2018 vacancies in its Platinum Mile area along I-287, is considering allowing by special permit the development of senior, assisted-care and other housing, as well as complementary retail. Rye Brook may explore a similar strategy for some of its office areas, particularly those that have long-term vacancy issues, such as 900 King Street. (pg. 126) The Proposed Project responds directly to this section of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan recommends allowing age- restricted and AL facilities on the Project Site in recognition that these uses are more economically viable than the Site’s existing office use. Re-Assess the Provisions of the PUD Zone Some development in Rye Brook facilitated by the Village’s PUD zone pre-dates the zone’s current regulations and is thus nonconforming. This is particularly the case with the 900 King Street building, which has faced long-standing problems of vacancy throughout its lifetime. Much of this situation reflects the office market, the constantly shifting needs of corporate users and the particulars of the building itself (notably the fact that much of the building is not subdivided, requiring a large tenant). However, some of the facility’s problems may be due to the fact that it is the only major office building in Rye Brook that is not located in an office zone, and that it does not meet the requirements of the PUD zone within which it is sited. Although the facility is a legal nonconforming use, this results in a lack of predictability and potentially diminished options for significant changes to the property, including expansion or infill development that could allow for a repurposing of the site. While the Village clearly desires to carefully control the type of large-scale development that is contemplated by the PUD zone, the following items should be considered for further study: (pg. 144) • Remove the locational requirement that PUD zones must be north of the Hutchinson River Parkway. While this would open up two significant properties for potential redevelopment (760/800 Westchester Avenue and Westchester Hilton), these sites are not likely to be redeveloped in the near future given their current use and occupancy, and any redevelopment can be controlled through other provisions of the PUD district. This change would help make The Arbors and 900 King Street conform to zoning. (pg. 144) The Proposed Zoning would not allow new PUD zones to be mapped south of the Hutchinson River Parkway; however, it would create site-specific zoning regulations for the Project Site, thereby providing zoning certainty for the redevelopment of the Project Site, which is consistent with this recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. • Adjust the density requirement for residential uses to a less restrictive regulation that still maintains Rye Brook’s low-density character. (pg. 144) 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 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 3-16 DEIS Project would 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. More than half of the Project Site would remain as open space, including all, or almost all, of the existing wooded buffer between the Project Site and The Arbors. • Adjust the FAR requirement for office uses to more closely match modern facilities. The current maximum FAR of 0.12 is highly restrictive; a range of 0.25 to 0.5 may be more appropriate. (pg. 144) This section of the Comprehensive Plan is not relevant to the Proposed Project. • Remove the square footage restriction on retail uses (currently capped at 3,500 sf), and instead require any retail to be accessory to a principal use. Continue to make such uses subject to a special permit. (pg. 145) This section of the Comprehensive Plan is not relevant to the Proposed Project. • Allow assisted-living or senior congregate-care facilities to be a maximum of four stories or 45 feet in height, as consistent with typical facilities of this type. (pg. 145) 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. • Adjust the parking requirement for assisted-living facilities to 0.5 spaces per unit (current requirement is 0.75 spaces per unit). This more closely matches the actual parking utilization of these facilities, which are extremely low traffic generators. (pg. 145) The Proposed Zoning would require that AL facilities provide one-half off-street parking space per unit. In addition, as recognized by the Comprehensive Plan, the uses included in the Proposed Project, including the AL facility, are extremely low traffic generators. 3.3.2. VILLAGE’S AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICIES The Village has adopted policies and zoning provisions that encourage the development of Fair and Affordable Housing. As discussed above, the Proposed Project is fully consistent with these policies and would be compliant with all zoning regulations with respect to the provision of affordable housing. Specifically, as required by §209-3F of the Village Code, the Proposed Project would include 19 affordable units (10 percent of all dwelling units), as defined in §250-26.1D of the Village Code. Three of these units would be within the Proposed Project’s townhouses, which are proposed to be the same size. The balance of the affordable units, 16, would be within the IL building. The same proportion of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units would be made available under the Village’s affordable housing program as are provided in the IL building. Chapter 3: Land Use, Public Policy, and Zoning DEIS 3-17 9/12/2018 3.3.3. APPLICABLE POLICY DOCUMENTS OF WESTCHESTER COUNTY 3.3.3.1. Patterns for Westchester: The Land and the People In 1996, the Westchester County Planning Board developed and published a document entitled Patterns for Westchester: The Land and the People. This document provides a general policy framework for Westchester County’s review of local applications and major development proposals, defined as 50,000 sf or more of commercial floor area, or 25 or more housing units. Patterns for Westchester sets forth general policies for Westchester County’s involvement in local and regional land use planning. It recommends strategies to balance economic growth with a sound environment by directing growth to centers, reinventing developed corridors as multiuse places, and factoring open space elements into the development process. While Patterns for Westchester does not contain any specific recommendations for the Project Site, the Proposed Project is consistent with the main themes of the document. Specifically, the Proposed Project would redevelop an existing built site with convenient access to transportation, rather than develop a “greenfield”; is consistent with the Village’s recently adopted Comprehensive Plan; provides affordable housing and housing options for seniors; and is protective of the character of the Village. 3.3.3.2. Westchester 2025 Westchester 2025 is a county-wide planning effort that emphasizes the importance of regional planning and makes planning resources accessible to communities and their residents. As part of that effort, the 2025 Context for County and Municipal Planning and Policies to Guide County Planning was adopted by the Westchester County Planning Board in 2008 and amended in 2010. This document replaces and updates the “Assumptions and Policies” section of Patterns for Westchester with new principles and policies for development in Westchester County. Listed below are those principles from the 2025 Context that are most applicable to the Project Site and the Proposed Project, and a description of how the Proposed Project is consistent with those policies. The principles are provided below in italic type; consistency of the Proposed Project is evaluated below each principle and appears in plain type. Channel development to centers: Channel development whenever possible to centers where infrastructure can support growth, where public transportation can be provided efficiently and where redevelopment can enhance economic vitality. Development should be consistent with defined community character and be designed to facilitate or enhance a smart growth urban fabric. The Proposed Project would redevelop an existing built site as opposed to developing a “greenfield.” Existing utility services and transportation systems would serve the Proposed Project and no extensions of public infrastructure would be required. Therefore, the Proposed Project is consistent with this policy. 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 3-18 DEIS Preserve natural resources: Preserve and protect the county’s natural resources and environment, both physical and biotic. Potential impacts on water resources (water bodies, wetlands, coastal zones, and groundwater), significant land resources (unique natural areas, steep slopes, ridgelines and prime agricultural land) and biotic resources (critical habitat, plant communities and biotic corridors) require careful consideration as part of land management and development review and approval. The Proposed Project would redevelop an existing built site as opposed to developing a “greenfield” and potentially altering significant natural habitat. The Project Site contains five wetlands and limited areas of steep slopes. As described more fully in Chapter 5, “Waters and Wetlands,” the Proposed Project would protect the five on-Site wetlands and the buffer for the largest wetland located on the Project Site would remain undisturbed. While encroachment into the other wetland buffers on-Site would be required, the disturbance has been minimized to the maximum extent practicable through project design. As such, through redevelopment of a previously developed site, rather than building on a “greenfield,” the Proposed Project is consistent with Westchester County’s policy of protecting natural resources. 3.3.3.3. Westchester County Greenway Compact Plan The Village has adopted the Westchester County Hudson River Valley Compact Plan, The Greenprint for a Sustainable Future (§219-4.1). The Greenprint was prepared by the Westchester County Department of Planning and approved by the Hudson River Valley Greenway (HRVG) in 2005. Adoption of The Greenprint provides the Village the opportunity to pursue grant funding through the HRVG and ensures that the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) reviews consider Greenway principles in project evaluation. Consistent with the Hudson River Valley Greenway Act of 1991, The Greenprint provides five criteria for Greenway planning. Each criterion, and the consistency of the Proposed Project with that criterion, is presented below. Natural and Cultural Resource Protection As described in Chapter 5, “Waters and Wetlands,” and Chapter 7, “Vegetation and Wildlife,” the Proposed Project would not result in a significant adverse impact to natural resources in the Applicant’s opinion. Rather, the Proposed Project would redevelop an existing built site, decrease the amount of impervious coverage on the Site, and protect the on-Site wetlands and their buffers to the maximum extent practicable. Finally, as described in the approved DEIS Scoping Outline (see Appendix A-1), the Proposed Project would have no adverse impact to historic or cultural resources. Therefore, the Proposed Project is consistent with this criterion. Regional Planning As described earlier in this Chapter, the Proposed Project is consistent with applicable regional planning policies, including the Village’s recently adopted Comprehensive Plan and the planning documents of Westchester County. Therefore, the Proposed Project is consistent with this criterion. Chapter 3: Land Use, Public Policy, and Zoning DEIS 3-19 9/12/2018 Economic Development The Proposed Project would return an underperforming site to productive use for the benefit of the Village, BBRUFSD, and the owner, while protecting the natural resources and the existing character of the community. Therefore, the Proposed Project is consistent with this criterion. Public Access to Hudson River and Important Local Resources The Project Site is not adjacent to the Hudson River or an identified important local resource to which increased public access is needed. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable to the Proposed Project. Heritage and Environmental Education The Project Site is not adjacent to the Hudson River or an identified important local resource to which increased public access is needed nor is it the location of significant natural or cultural resources that could be used to enhance public education. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable to the Proposed Project. 3.4. MITIGATION In the Applicant’s opinion, the Proposed Action, inclusive of the Proposed Zoning and the Proposed Project, would not have a significant adverse impact on land use, zoning, or public policy. 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 general residential land uses. As such, no other mitigation measures, other than the elements of the Proposed Project’s design, are required.  5 /2 /2 0 1 8 Figure 3-2 Land Use 900 KING STREET N E W Y O R K C O N N E C T I C U T Greenwich N Ridge St CountyHwy54B K i n g S t EttlLn Bis h o p Dr S E Lawn Ln Comly Ave A r b o r D r P e m b e r w i c k R d G le n v ille S t Robins Roost T r a f f i c Cir c l e R o c k i n g h o r s e T r l RockR i d g e D r C a s t l e L n d g G r eenwi c h H ills Dr GlenRidgeR d F a i rl a w n P k w y B o l t o n P l E s s e x R d Seton Ln W e a v e r S t StonehedgeDr S Riversville RdHillandaleRd C a m b r i d g e D r Lantern Ln Linden Pl M a y P l Boxwood Pl Wa tc h H i l l D r G r e e n w a y L n Service Road Dorchester DrHutchinso n River P k wy E xit 27S BurdsallDr T r e e t op L n Bishop DrN D o u g l a s D r M uriel Pl Maiden Ln H u n t T e r Woodland Dr State Hwy 15 S u t r o P l G r e y R o c k D r R i v e r W Exit 30S B a y b e r r y L n S tillv ie w D r KingsPkDr Rincard Ter S i o u x P l C ountry RidgeDr G r e e n w a y D r Hawthorne St N S l e e p y H o l l o w R d R a m p E d g e w o o d D r Law r i d g e D r Gard C t Benders Dr Riverview Ct C o u n t r y R i d g e Cir P a r ki n g L o t W in din g w o o d R d N B u ena V ist a Dr Upland St M e a d o w l a r k R d T a m a r a c k P l G l e n v i l l e R d W a l k e r C t NedleyLn B r u s h H o l l ow Cr e s Exit27 LittleKingsLn E B y w a y Parkwood Pl Lesl i e A v e C a s t l e V i e w C t E a g l e s B l f Homestead R d Linco l n L n Curt Ter Ori o l e P l W o o d s A v e A n ge l u s Dr ShadyL n Mansion Pl Whippoorwill Rd B e e c h w o o d B l v d Country Ridge Dr N Loch L n R i v e r R u n E xit29 Holly Ln M a g n o l i a D r Bowman Dr Weavers Hl Drivew ay Project Site Study Area Boundary (Half-mile perimeter) No Data Agricultural Commercial Community Services Industrial Public Services Recreation & Entertainment Residential Vacant Land Wild, Forested, Conservation Lands & Public Parks Paved Roadbeds, Driveways, and Parking Lots 0 1,000 FEET 8. 2 9 . 1 8 Detailed Zoning Comparison Figure 3-3900 KING STREET Municipality Zoning District Allowable Uses Building Height Front Setback for each Lot Side Setback for each Lot Rear Set- back for each Lot Maximum Building Coverage (Main/ Accessory/Deck) Maximum Impervious Coverage Gross Floor Area/Acre Dwelling Units per Acre Other Proposed - Village of Rye Brook PUD-900 King Street Senior Living Facilities 45 feet - senior living facilities 42 feet2 90 feet2 30 feet2 none 40%26,000 per acre for senior living facilities 10.4 senior living units per acre 4.8 assisted living units per acre also permitted Village of Rye Brook PUD Residential, Office, Senior Living, Conference Center, Limited Retail 30 feet 35 feet - senior living facilities --2 --2 --2 none none 9,000 sf - residential1 0.12 FAR - office 0.164 FAR - conference center 9,000 sf - senior living facilities1 6 dwelling units per acre Village of Rye Brook R-15 Single-Family; School; Religious; Membership Clubs 2 stories/ 30 ft 40 feet 15 feet 40 feet 16% / 3.5% / 4%--3 Main Building Gross Floor Area = 4,000 + [(Lot Area - 21,780) *0.11478421] 2.90 per acre Accessory Structures not counted in maximum gross floor area Village of Rye Brook R-20 Single-Family; School; Religious; Membership Clubs 2 stories/ 30 ft 40 feet 15 feet 40 feet 14% / 3.5% / 4%--3 Main Building Gross Floor Area = 4,000 + [(Lot Area - 21,780) *0.11478421] 2.18 per acre Accessory Structures not counted in maximum gross floor area Village of Rye Brook R-25 Single-Family; School; Religious; Membership Clubs 2 stories/ 30 ft 45 feet 15 feet 40 feet 14% / 3.5% / 4%--3 Main Building Gross Floor Area = 4,000 + [(Lot Area - 21,780) *0.11478421] 1.74 per acre Accessory Structures not counted in maximum gross floor area Village of Rye Brook R-35 Single-Family; School; Religious; Membership Clubs 2 stories/ 30 ft 55 feet 20 feet 55 feet 16% / 4% / 5%--3 Main Building Gross Floor Area = 4,000 + [(Lot Area - 21,780) *0.11478421] 1.24 per acre Accessory Structures not counted in maximum gross floor area Town of Greenwich RA-1 Single Family 2.5 stories / 40 feet 50 feet 25 feet 50 feet None 28%0.135 FAR 1 per acre Town of Greenwich R-20 Single Family 2.5 stories / 37.5 feet 40 feet 15 feet 40 feet None 38%0.225 FAR 2.18 per acre Town of Greenwich R-12 Single Family 2.5 stories / 35 feet 35 feet 10 feet 35 feet None 45%0.315 FAR 3.63 per acre Town of Greenwich R-7 Single Family 2.5 stories / 35 feet 25 feet 5 feet 25 feet None 50%0.36 FAR 6.22 per acre Town of Greenwich R-C7 Single Family 2.5 stories / 35 feet 25 feet**5 feet**25 feet**None**50%**0.41 FAR - detached 0.45 FAR - attached 6.22 per acre **Conservation zone Town of Greenwich R-C7- HO*** Single Family 2.5 stories / 35 feet 25 feet**5 feet**25 feet**None**50%**0.41 FAR - detached 0.45 FAR - attached 6.22 per acre **Conservation zone ***Historic Overlay Town of Greenwich LBR-2 Local Business Retail 2.5 stories / 35 feet 10 feet 0 feet 25 feet 30%75%0.3 FAR Town of Greenwich LB-HO***Local Business 2.5 stories / 35 feet 25 feet 5 feet/story 25 feet 30%75%0.5 FAR ***Historic Overlay 1. §250-7E(3)(a) allows the density requirements for residential facilities to be “waived, in whole or in part, to permit additional floor area to be developed in such PUD development, beyond the 9,000-square foot limit, if the development provides affordable housing equivalent to 10% in number of the market-rate dwelling units in such development…” 2. The Village’s PUD zoning district requires the provision of buffer areas and open space within an overall PUD district (§250-7E(3)(e) and (f)), but not lot-specific yard requirements. The buffer requirements include 150 feet from an existing road, 100 feet along a zoning district boundary, and a parking setback of 50 or 100 feet from PUD property line. 3. Section 250-37C of the Zoning Code regulates the maximum permitted impervious lot coverage based on lot size.