21 - Cummulative ImpactsDEIS 21-1 9/12/2018
Chapter 21: Cumulative Impacts
As required by the adopted Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Scoping Document (see Appendix A-1), this Chapter “identify[ies] and discuss[es] the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action by summarizing the analysis set forth in the foregoing chapters pertaining to
cumulative impacts.”
21.1. CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) (see Appendix F) assesses the potential traffic and transportation impacts of the Proposed Project and its potential effects on the study area’s vehicular safety and circulation conditions. As summarized in Chapter 12, “Traffic and Transportation,” this analysis begins with baseline traffic counts within the Study Area and then
adds to that existing traffic volume normal background traffic growth that would be expected to occur with or without the Proposed Project. The TIS then includes traffic volumes that are expected from other planned or potential developments in the Study Area, as identified by the
adopted DEIS Scoping Document. This potential future condition is referred to as the “No Build” condition. The estimated Project-generated vehicular trips are then added to the No Build traffic volumes in order to present a traffic analysis that is reflective of the potential cumulative
impacts of the Proposed Project and the other planned developments in the area.
As shown in the TIS, the Proposed Project would not have a significant adverse impact on any study area intersection when compared to the No Build condition. In fact, certain study area
intersections would see a beneficial change to Level of Service and/or average delays with the Proposed Project when compared the No Build condition.
21.2. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS TO SCHOOL DISTRICT
To estimate the potential impact of the Proposed Project on the Blind Brook–Rye Union Free School District’s (BBRUFSD) enrollment, AKRF contacted school districts in which similar age-restricted projects are located. Data were collected for projects that were age-restricted to
those 55 years of age and older (see Appendix E-2). As summarized in Chapter 10, “Community Facilities,” only three school-age children in aggregate were reported to live at any of these communities. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that school-age children would be
unlikely to live at the Proposed Project. In the unlikely scenario that one or two school-age children were to live at the Proposed Project and attend BBRUFSD, based on the current and anticipated enrollment trends within the BBRUFSD that indicate declining enrollment, the
addition of this limited number of school children would not be anticipated to result in an adverse impact to the available capacity of BBRUFSD. Further, as described in Chapter 9, “Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts,” the Proposed Project is expected to result in an increase of approximately $875,031 per year in property taxes to the BBRUFSD, which would be more than sufficient to cover the costs of one or two school-age children that could live at the Proposed
900 King Street Redevelopment
9/12/2018 21-2 DEIS
Project. (The total expenditure per pupil within the BBRUFSD is approximately $28,061.1) Given the extremely small number of school-age children that could be live at the Project Site,
the Proposed Project would not be expected to have an adverse impact to the BBRUFSD, either on its own or taken cumulatively with other developments in the Study Area.
21.3. EMERGENCY SERVICES
As described in more detail in Chapter 10, “Community Facilities,” the Emergency Medical Service (EMS) that serves the Project Site is funded primarily through insurance recovery. As such, the financial impact of an increase in calls attributable to the Proposed Project, or other
developments in the Study Area, would be primarily mitigated through future insurance recovery. Of the other planned or potential development identified in the Scoping Outline, only two are within the Village of Rye Brook (the “Village”), and therefore within the EMS service area: The
Enclave and Sun Homes. Both of these projects are market-rate residential developments, which combined will have approximately 140 units. Owing to their use, neither of these developments are anticipated to create a large demand for EMS services. Rather, they will likely add only a small increment to the existing EMS demand, while adding to the Village’s property tax base. With respect to the overall capacity of the EMS service, the Applicant understands that the service is operating near or at capacity. As stated in the EMS service’s correspondence, there are “several other projects in various stages of development [within Port Chester, the City of Rye, and the Village of Rye Brook] that collectively will have [a] significant impact on our call volume and EMS system performance.” The expenses required to expand the EMS system, through the hiring of additional personnel and equipment, would be a shared responsibility between the many current and future projects within the EMS service area. The increase in revenue associated with the
insurance recovery from the Proposed Project’s anticipated increase in call volumes would be one source of additional funding available to the EMS service for this need. Another source of funding available would be the increase in property tax revenue that would accrue to the Village as a result
of the Proposed Project. Therefore, in the Applicant’s opinion, the Proposed Project would not be anticipated to have a significant adverse impact to the EMS either on its own or taken cumulatively with other developments in the Study Area as the increase in demand for EMS services would be
expected to be offset by an increase in revenue.
The Rye Brook Police Department (RBPD) indicated that the Proposed Project, considered with the other previously approved residential developments in the Village, would require additional police
personnel and associated equipment. For the fiscal year 2017, the average salary of a RBPD patrolman is approximately $107,500.2 However, the “fully loaded” cost of a patrolman, including benefits, is approximately $225,750.3 As described in Chapter 9, “Socioeconomic and Fiscal
Impacts,” the Proposed Project is expected to result in an increase of approximately $281,359 per year in property taxes to the Village, which would be more than sufficient to cover the portion of the
1 2017–2018 BBRUFSD Adopted Budget.
2 Correspondence from the RBPD indicated that there are 26 sworn officers. The fiscal year 2017 budget, available on the Village’s website, lists the total salary by officer rank. The number of officers by rank was estimated based on the total of 26 officers and assuming an increase in salary for each level of rank. This yields a total of 16 patrolmen, 2 patrolmen/detectives, 6 sergeants, 1 lieutenant, and 1 chief.
3 Employee benefits are assumed to be 1.1 times the cost of the salary, the rate reflected in the 2017 Village budget. Therefore, the “fully loaded” cost of an employee would be 2.1 times their salary.
Chapter 21: Cumulative Impacts
DEIS 21-3 9/12/2018
increase in RBPD costs attributable to the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact with respect to the provision of police services.
The buildings within the Proposed Project would include modern life-safety equipment, alarm, and monitoring systems, and would be fully sprinklered. Based on the relatively low call volume to the fire department from The Atria, Rye Brook, it is not anticipated that the Proposed Project would
result in a significant increase in the number of calls to the Rye Brook Fire Department (RBFD). The Proposed Project’s buildings would not be of a height or construction type that is not already present within the Village. Furthermore, as stated above, the Village has recently signed a Fire Services Agreement with the Village of Port Chester that requires that Port Chester Fire Department (PCFD) respond to all Village fire calls and that places RBFD under the operational control of the Port Chester Fire Chief. Therefore, the resources available to fight a fire on the Project Site would include the resources of PCFD. Finally, in RBFD’s correspondence to the Applicant, the RBFD did not state that there would be a need for additional personnel or equipment to serve the Proposed Project. Based on the above, it is the Applicant’s opinion that the Proposed Project would not have a significant adverse impact on the provision of fire services.