Loading...
05 - Waters and WetlandsDEIS 5-1 9/12/2018 Chapter 5: Waters and Wetlands 5.1. INTRODUCTION This Chapter describes the Project Site’s existing surface water and wetland features and analyzes potential impacts to those resources from the Proposed Project. 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). Five wetlands meeting the three requirements for wetland identification were identified on the Project Site based on wetland investigations and delineations performed in accordance with federal and Village of Rye Brook (the “Village”) standards. The on-Site wetlands and/or streams are created and sustained by untreated stormwater runoff from the adjacent Hutchinson River Parkway (the “Parkway”) or by stormwater from impervious surfaces conveyed from the Village Hall, Rye Brook Police Department (RBPD), and Rye Brook Fire Department (RBFD) parking lot, and Project Site. The wetlands are of comparatively low ecological value, dominated by a limited number of 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. The Proposed Project would have no direct impact on any wetland or waterbody and would reduce the amount of impervious area by 0.41 acres on the overall Project Site from its current condition, benefiting water quality. 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. 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 the on-Site wetlands has been limited to an increase of 0.053 acres, or approximately 2,309 square feet (sf). Hydrology inputs to Wetlands B, C, D, and E would remain unchanged with the Proposed Project. 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 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 5-2 DEIS 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). As described below, 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 (§245-9A(3)). Further, the buffer mitigation plan is required to be at least two times “the area of wetland/watercourse buffer disturbed1” (§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. 5.2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.2.1. WETLANDS Desktop analysis indicates that there are no National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)-mapped wetlands and no New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)-mapped freshwater wetlands or streams within the Project Site. On April 28, 2017, May 12, 2017, May 22–24, 2017, and September 12, 2017, AKRF, Inc. conducted wetland investigations and delineations of the Project Site in accordance with federal and Village standards as defined in Chapter 245, Wetlands and Watercourses, of the Village Code. Five wetlands meeting the three requirements for wetland identification (i.e., hydric soil, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrology) were identified on the Project Site and are noted as Wetlands A, B, C, D, and E (see Figure 5-1). The methodology for these investigations and delineations is described in the Wetland Delineation Report in Appendix D-2. The soils, hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation of each wetland was also documented by sampling points and is described in the Wetland Delineation Report. There are a total of 3.36 acres of delineated wetland on-Site. The on-Site wetlands and streams are created and sustained by untreated stormwater runoff from the adjacent Parkway (Wetlands A, B, C, and E) or by stormwater from impervious surfaces conveyed from the Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD parking lot, and Project Site (Wetland D). As documented by Site inspection and a Functional Analysis (see Appendix D-5), these wetlands are of comparatively low ecological value, 1 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. Chapter 5: Waters and Wetlands DEIS 5-3 9/12/2018 dominated by a limited number of common plant species, and are stressed by untreated stormwater runoff hydrology inputs of short duration. Nevertheless, they do serve some habitat and modification of surface water quality functions. Wetland A (0.159 acres on-Site), located at the western side of the Site, is a forested wetland dominated by American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Wetland B (0.001 acres on-Site), located at the northwestern side of the Site, is predominantly an emergent wetland dominated by common reed (Phragmites australis), with a woodland fringe dominated by silver maple (Acer saccharinum) and poison ivy. The emergent portion of this wetland is located almost entirely off-Site. Wetland C (0.006 acres on-Site), located within the northern portion of the Site, is a small forested wetland dominated by silver maple and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), poison ivy, and bishop’s goutweed (Aegopodium podagraria). Wetland D (0.185 acres on-Site), located at the eastern side of the Site, is an emergent wetland created as a stormwater basin to handle runoff from the existing Project Site and adjacent Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD properties. It is dominated by common reed. Wetland E (0.015 acres on-Site) is a small forested wetland located in the far northern corner of the Site and continues northwest off-Site. Wetland E is dominated by green ash, silver maple, tatarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), and European privet (Ligustrum vulgare). This wetland demonstrates a high level of disturbance and fill. 5.2.1.1. Wetland Functions The Project Site’s wetlands are primarily the result of highway drainage and water management practices—pipes and basins—that, at present, exhibit low ecological diversity and low wetland functions. For example, Wetlands B, C, D, E, and Stream S all derive from the discharge of drainage from the Parkway or other on-Site/off-Site stormwater treatment practices and contain a significant amount of non-native or invasive species (phragmites, tatarian honeysuckle, etc.). On the western side of the Project Site, Wetland A and Stream A are less disturbed and not clearly the result of recent drainage improvements. Areas that currently discharge to Wetland A include the westernmost portion of the Project Site and The Arbors townhomes. As analyzed in further detail in the Wetland Functional Assessment (see Appendix D-5), Wetlands A and D are the only on-Site wetlands that receive at least a portion of their hydrology from onsite runoff. Wetlands A and D serve primarily “contribution of abundance and diversity of wetland vegetation” and “storm and floodwater storage” wetland functions respectively, that would be preserved or enhanced with the Proposed Project. Historic aerials of the Project Site show that Wetland D (the onsite detention basin) did not exist prior to the 1980s and was constructed as a stormwater detention basin concurrent with development of the on-Site office building. Wetland A was part of the open lawn/hedgerow landscaped portion of the former estate that occupied the site prior to the 1980s. As such, both wetlands are of recent origin and exist due to the increased runoff caused by impervious surfaces created by 1980s development. Wetland D has an outlet control structure that temporarily detains stormwater runoff 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 5-4 DEIS thereby allowing it to serve “storm and floodwater storage” functions. Wetland A is a small forested wetland with no outlet so does not provide substantial floodwater storage. However, Wetland A has fewer non-native/invasive plant species as compared to Wetland D. As such, Wetland A serves more “contribution of abundance and diversity of wetland vegetation” functions as compared to the low habitat value and low floristic diversity of Wetland D. Neither on-Site wetland is part of a larger wetland complex; both are small wetlands stressed by nutrient-laden runoff and invasive species, and neither substantially contribute to “modification of groundwater discharge/recharge” functions. 5.2.2. SURFACE WATERS Surface water investigations identified two streams located on Site (see Figure 5-1). Stream A is associated with Wetland A, and runs southeast across the lawn in the southern corner of the Site and continues under Arbor Drive via a culvert. Stream S is associated with Wetland D (e.g., the stormwater management basin), receiving flow via a culvert, flowing southeast through a vegetated meandering channel, and under Arbor Drive via a culvert. As noted in the EAF Mapper results for the Project Site, there are no principal or sole source aquifers within the Site (see Appendix D-1). 5.2.3. WETLAND AND WATERCOURSE BUFFER AREAS The Village regulates a buffer area of 100 feet around a wetland or watercourse edge.2 Vegetated wetland buffers can protect wetland functions by encouraging stormwater infiltration, improving wetland water quality, and providing plant and/or animal habitat. Development (e.g., clearing/paving) of wetland buffers eliminates their wetland protective functions to the detriment of wetland functions. 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. The 100-foot wetland buffer surrounding Wetland A is currently encroached upon on its northern edge by the on-Site office building and at two points on its southern edge by The Arbors townhomes. The buffer of Wetland D is occupied primarily by the on-Site parking lot and off-Site Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD parking lot. The buffers of Wetlands B, C, and E are occupied on their north sides by the Parkway (see Figure 5-1). As shown in Table 5-1, in total there is approximately 0.807 acres of existing impervious surface within the on-Site wetland buffer areas. 2 Village Code. Chapter 245, Wetlands and Watercourses. Chapter 5: Waters and Wetlands DEIS 5-5 9/12/2018 Table 5-1 Current Condition of On-Site Wetland Buffers Existing Buffer Area (acres) Existing On-Site Impervious Coverage in Buffer (acres)1 Wetland A / Stream A 2.363 0.025 Wetland B 0.389 0.101 Wetland C 0.504 0.000 Wetland D / Stream S 1.444 0.681 Wetland E 0.248 0.000 Total 4.948 0.807 Note: 1. There is additional impervious area within the 100-foot buffer that is located on adjacent parcels. Source: JMC Engineering 5.3. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.3.1. DIRECT IMPACTS TO WETLANDS AND WATERBODIES The Proposed Project would have no direct impact on any wetland or waterbody. In addition, as there are no principal or sole source aquifers within the Site, the Proposed Project would not adversely affect an existing aquifer. 5.3.2. DIRECT IMPACTS TO WETLAND AND WATERBODY BUFFER AREAS With the Proposed Project, Wetland D (0.185 acres), the on-Site detention basin serving the current office building and off-Site Village properties, would be restored and enhanced by removal of the invasive common reed, removal of common reed rhizomes and accumulated sediment, and would then be regraded and replanted with a mix of herbaceous and woody obligate and facultative wetland plants. This would have the effect of improving its “contribution of abundance and diversity of wetland vegetation” function, which at present is adversely affected by colonization of Phragmites. In addition, the on-Site detention basin is proposed to be expanded by approximately 18,780 cubic feet to provide the space necessary to collect and properly control the stormwater runoff from the Proposed Project. Construction of the Proposed Project would impact 2.79 acres within 100 feet of on-Site wetlands through regrading, new construction, and new plantings (see Table 5-2). 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 that would be impacted by the Proposed Project would consist of regrading and revegetating areas that are currently maintained lawn or wooded areas, most of which have been previously disturbed by on-Site development (see Figure 5-2). By locating development within the central, previously disturbed and developed portion of the Project Site, the net change in impervious surface within the 100-foot wetland buffer has been limited to an increase of 0.053 acres, or approximately 2,309 sf, as shown in Table 5-2. 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 5-6 DEIS Table 5-2 Proposed Changes to Wetland 100-foot Buffers On-Site Existing Buffer Area (acres) Existing On-Site Impervious Coverage in Buffer (acres)1 Proposed On-Site Impervious in Buffer (acres) Net Increase/Decrease in On-Site Impervious in Buffer (acres) Wetland A / Stream A 2.363 0.025 0.005 -0.020 Wetland B 0.389 0.101 0.206 0.105 Wetland C 0.504 0.000 0.164 0.164 Wetland D / Stream S 1.444 0.681 0.473 -0.208 Wetland E 0.248 0.000 0.012 0.012 Total 4.948 0.807 0.860 0.053 Note: 1 There is additional impervious area within the 100-foot buffer that is located on adjacent parcels. Source: JMC Engineering Wetland functions of Wetlands A and D, the two wetlands that receive their hydrology in part from on-Site runoff, would be preserved with the Proposed Project. This is primarily a result of locating the new development areas over the areas currently developed by the office building and parking lot. Most importantly, both Wetlands A and D would realize a net decrease in the amount of impervious surface within their 100-foot Village-regulated wetland buffers as compared to the current condition. Wetland A would have a 0.02 acre reduction of impervious surface within its wetland buffer and Wetland D would have a 0.21 acre reduction of impervious surface within its buffer. In the Applicant’s opinion, this is a substantial benefit of the Proposed Project, which will allow for additional infiltration of runoff in the buffers and a reduction in surface water pollutants entering these wetlands. 5.3.3. INDIRECT IMPACTS TO WETLAND AND WATERBODY HYDROLOGY The proposed grading of the Project Site is described in Chapter 4, “Geology, Soils and Topography,” and the proposed stormwater management system is described in Chapter 6, “Stormwater Management.” In general, 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 drainage patterns of the Site would not be significantly altered with the Proposed Project. Off-Site areas, including the Parkway from the north and the Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD from the east, would continue to discharge to the Project Site. The vast majority of the Project Site, including the entire area of the existing building and parking lot, would continue to drain to the southeast. The westernmost portion of the Site that currently drains through Wetland A, in between the Project Site and The Arbors, would not be adversely affected by the Proposed Project. However, a small area that currently drains to the west would instead drain to the east. As described in Chapter 6, “Stormwater Management,” despite the slight increase in area draining to the east, the rate and volume of runoff draining from the Site would be reduced with the Proposed Project. As discussed above, the Project Site’s wetlands are primarily the result of highway drainage and water management practices that currently exhibit low ecological diversity and wetland functions. A majority of on-Site wetlands derive from the discharge of drainage from the Parkway or other on-Site/off-Site stormwater treatment practices. By avoiding all direct wetland and stream disturbance, these drainages would be fully retained undisturbed by the Proposed Project. Hydrology inputs to Wetlands B, C, and E would Chapter 5: Waters and Wetlands DEIS 5-7 9/12/2018 remain unchanged with the Proposed Project and would continue to receive surface water inputs exclusively from the Parkway or paved surfaces from other off-Site sources. Drainage inputs to Wetland D (on-Site detention basin) from on-Site and off-Site sources would be retained, thereby sustaining the proposed revegetated and enhanced wetland. The proposed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) includes the use of vegetated swales, subsurface infiltration systems, reduction in overall site impervious cover, and improvements to the existing detention basin. These measures will improve Wetland D’s ability to provide “modification of water quality” and “storm and floodwater storage” wetland functions and will result in a decrease in post-construction runoff rates. 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; however, this small reduction 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. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would redevelop a previously disturbed and a currently developed site, and eliminate the large parking lot and office building currently on-Site, creating a net reduction in overall impervious surface. This would enhance groundwater infiltration that helps to sustain hydrology and improve water quality to downstream wetlands and streams during dry weather. The Proposed Project’s stormwater management system would substantially reduce the influx of sediment and other pollutants to Wetland A, thereby reducing water quality stressors that can facilitate the spread of invasive species. 5.4. MITIGATION MEASURES The Village regulates wetlands and wetland buffers through Chapter 245 of the Village Code. By avoiding direct wetland disturbance, minimizing impacts to wetland buffers to the maximum extent practicable, and confining wetland buffer impacts to areas of the Site that have been previously disturbed, it is the Applicant’s opinion that the Proposed Project would be consistent with the goals of the Village Code. Furthermore, the wetland buffer areas that would be impacted by the Proposed Project are primarily paved (e.g., parking lot or building) or lawn areas with no or limited buffer functions at present. The Proposed Project would retain the current buffer functions, including water quality and enhancement of wetland flora and fauna. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would reduce the amount of impervious area by 0.41 acres on the overall Project Site from its current condition, which would benefit water quality. Finally, with redevelopment of the currently developed Site, the Proposed Project would provide additional stormwater detention and treatment resulting in a net reduction in stormwater runoff as compared to the current condition, to the benefit of the Site’s wetlands and downstream receiving waters. (See Chapter 6, “Stormwater Management”). Impacts to the on-Site wetland and watercourse buffers require a permit from the Village Planning Board. In the Applicant’s opinion, the Proposed Project’s impact to these buffers from is consistent with the criteria for granting a wetland/buffer permit contained in §245-8(A) of the Village Code: • Wetland hydrology: The Proposed Project would avoid interference with existing wetland hydrology and wetland water circulation. The Site’s five wetlands occur around the periphery of the Project Site; therefore, redevelopment of the interior of the Project Site would not substantially change wetland water circulation or hydrologic inputs to the Site’s wetlands. • Wetland flora and fauna: By avoiding direct disturbance to all wetlands, impacts to wetland flora and fauna are avoided. The Proposed Project would limit disturbance to natural 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 5-8 DEIS vegetation by keeping development within the previously developed portions of the Site with the exception of minimal tree clearing for the loop and emergency access drive. All landscape plantings will be native species and will include revegetation (enhancement) of portions of the existing lawn within the wetland buffers. • Endangered species: There are no NYSDEC-listed or federally listed threatened, endangered, rare, or special concern plant or animal species on the Project Site, as discussed in Chapter 7, “Vegetation and Wildlife.” • Public health, safety, and welfare: Wetland functions would be retained on the Project Site for the benefit of public health, safety, and welfare. This would be achieved principally by reducing overall imperious surface coverage on-Site and increasing the treatment of stormwater runoff. • Sedimentation and turbidity: The Proposed Project would prevent the influx of sediments and other pollutants to the Site’s wetlands and waters by treating all runoff from the Proposed Project in a new stormwater management system that would significantly improve treatment and result in reduced post-construction runoff rates, in accordance with NYSDEC GP-0-15-002, as discussed in Chapter 6, “Stormwater Management.” • Influx of toxic chemicals or thermal changes: The Proposed Project would avoid the release of toxic or heavy metals through the construction of the proposed stormwater management system. The stormwater management system would remove such pollutants through sediment settling and absorption/adsorption. Thermal changes to wetland water supply would be avoided by reducing the amount of impervious surface on the overall Site by 0.41 acres, which would increase stormwater infiltration and minimize the potential for thermal impacts. In addition, the stormwater management plan will utilize sub-surface runoff storage that would similarly avoid the thermal impacts associated with surface detention ponds. • Cumulative effects: The cumulative effects of the Proposed Project would not affect or jeopardize any off-Site/downstream wetlands because the Proposed Project’s stormwater management plan and landscaping plan would prevent degradation of stormwater runoff and would use native plants to improve vegetation diversity on the Project Site. 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). In the Applicant’s opinion, the most important factor for determining whether there is a “loss” to the functionality of wetland buffer is the net change in impervious surface. Impervious surfaces within wetland buffers offer no buffer functions as they lack all vegetation, prevent groundwater infiltration, and provide no wildlife habitat. As such, increases in impervious surfaces within wetland buffer areas clearly constitute a “loss” of wetland buffer. Regrading of pervious areas within wetland buffers that were previously disturbed by grading activities, including areas of low ecological value, such as maintained lawn, and returning those areas to a pervious, planted condition, do not, in the Applicant’s opinion, constitute a “loss” to the wetland buffer and therefore, do not require wetland mitigation. In this situation, the wetland buffer’s functionality would not be “disturbed” by the Proposed Project—areas that are currently pervious would Chapter 5: Waters and Wetlands DEIS 5-9 9/12/2018 continue to be pervious. Therefore, 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 disturbed3” (§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. Therefore, on-Site buffer functions would be enhanced as compared to the existing condition. 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 (see Figure 5-3). These areas include approximately 22,400 sf around the existing stormwater pond (Wetland D) and Stream S, approximately 8,500 sf within the buffer for Wetlands B and C, and approximately 14,500 sf to the east of Wetland A. These proposed buffer planting enhancement areas are currently predominantly lawn areas. Conversion of these lawn areas to unmowed, native woody vegetation would substantially improve surface water infiltration, water quality, and wildlife habitat value. As shown in the Landscaping Plan (see sheet L-100 in Appendix A-4), such facultative wetland tree species as red maple (Acer rubrum), river birch (Betula nigra), American sycamore, and pin oak (Quercus palustris) are proposed for wetland buffer areas. Understory shrubs would include serviceberry (Amelanchier Canadensis), pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), red twig dogwood (Cornus sericea), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), elderberry (Sambucus nigra), arrowwood (Vibrurnum dentatum), and other wetland and wetland buffer appropriate species. Additional areas of buffer mitigation are also available on the Project Site. 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.  3 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. 10.17.17 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 5-1 Wetlands and Waterbodies Wetland Stream 5.2.18 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 5-2 5. 2 . 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 Backyard9,300 sf NorthernTownhouse Yard11,270 sf Southern Townhouse Yard12,475 sf North and West Lawn29,125 sf Memory Garden9,300 sf Linear WalkingPaths26,260 sf Figure 5-3 5.2.18 900 KING STREET N Potential Wetland Buffer Mitigation Areas Potential Wetland Buffer Mitigation Areas