HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Resolution - 2024-12-10 - Negative DeclarationRegistrar of Vital Statistics Telephone: (914) 962-5722 x 208 Fax: (914) 962 6591 Diana L. Quast, Town Clerk dquast@yorktownny.org Se TOWN OF YORKTOWN 363 Underhill Avenue, RO. Box 703 Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 This is a resolution adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Yorktown at its regular meeting held on Tuesday, December 10, 2024. WHEREAS, Toll Brothers, Inc. (the “Applicant”) as contract vendee, petitioned the Town Board to rezone an approximately 50.51-acre parcel located at 2302 and 2448 Catherine Street in the Town of Yorktown, also known as SBL 35.12-1-2 & 35.08-1-45 on the Tax Map of the Town of Yorktown (the “Property”) from the RSP-3 (Age-Oriented Geriatric Community) and R1-40 (One- Family Residential) zoning districts to the RSP-2 (Senior Citizens) zoning district pursuant to Article XXIV of the Yorktown Zoning Code (“Zoning Map Amendment”); and WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to redevelop a portion of the Property with a 118-unit townhouse community targeting 55+ active adults, with an amenity clubhouse and pool, roads, stormwater management infrastructure, and related improvements, in accordance with the Town’s RSP-2 District regulations (“Project”, together with the Zoning Map Amendment, the “Action”); and WHEREAS, one parcel of the Property is currently improved with the former Catherine Field Home building and a former sales office building (“Field Home Buildings”), and the other parcel is largely undeveloped but is occupied by a soccer field used by Yorktown teams; and WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to convey the Field Home Building to the Town for preservation and reuse, and to accomplish this, proposes to resubdivide the Property into two parcels (the +48.05-acre parcel containing the new residential development, and a +2.46-acre parcel upon which the Field Home Buildings are located), and offer the +2.46-acre parcel to the Town of Yorktown for a nominal price; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted as part of its application a Full Environmental Assessment Form (“FEAF”), consisting of NYSDEC EAF Form Parts 1, 2 and an expanded Part 3 narrative with attachments dated November 14, 2022 (revised August 2023, February 2024, May 2024, October 2024, and December 2024), and the following appendices, evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action: A. Site Plan, prepared by Site Design Consultants, last revised November 15, 2024; B. Existing Conditions Plan, prepared by Site Design Consultants, last revised November 15, 2024; C. Stormwater Management Plan, prepared by Site Design Consultants, last revised November 15, 2024;
oO Wetland Functional Analysis, prepared by Ecological Analysis, LLC, last revised June 24, 2024; Correspondence from the Town of Yorktown Consolidated Water District, dated May 5, 2022; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York Natural Heritage Program Correspondence, dated December 8, 2022; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish and Wildlife Correspondence from Lisa M. Masi, dated February 1, 2024; Wildlife Habitat Assessment for New York State or Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species and Species of Special Concern, prepared by Ecological Analysis, LLC, last revised June 24, 2024; Tree Inventory Data, prepared by Bartlett Tree Experts, dated August 25, 2023; Aesthetic Resource Analysis; New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation Correspondence, dated October 28, 2022; Historical Analysis, Conditions & Adaptive Reuse, prepared by Stephen Tilly Architect, dated August 30, 2023; Recreational Impact Analysis, prepared by ESE Consultants, last revised October 5, 2023; Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Colliers Engineering & Design, dated October 19, 2022 (submitted under separate cover); Yorktown NY TB Report, prepared by ADS Environmental Services, dated July 21, 2022; Correspondence from the Town of Yorktown Town Engineer, dated April 20, 2022; . Real Estate Property Tax Projection Report, prepared by Cronin & Cronin Law Firm, PLLC, dated May 2022; Supplemental Environmental Review Letter, prepared by SESI Consulting Engineers, dated December 18, 2023; Letter Report on Subsurface Soil and Groundwater Investigation, prepared by Carlin- Simpson & Associates, LLC, dated December 20, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Town Board also received and considered the following materials submitted by the Applicant: 1. Be Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated August 17, 2023; Preliminary Site Plan Set, prepared by Site Design Consultants, last revised November 15, 2024: e Preliminary Site Plan; Existing Conditions; Preliminary Erosion & Sediment Control Plan; Preliminary Improvement Plan; Preliminary Stormwater Plan; Site Grading Plan Sections; Overall Existing Slope Map; Overall Existing Slope Disturbance and Proposed Grading Plan; Tree Removal Plan; Tree Tables;
Memorandum, prepared by JMC Planning Engineering Landscape Architecture & Land Surveying, PLLC, dated October 15, 2024, summarizing the pollutant loading analysis removal rates associated with different stormwater practices; Preliminary Concept Plan, prepared by Colliers Engineering & Design, dated August 27, 2024, demonstrating proposed traffic improvements; Memorandum, TIS Comment Response, prepared by Colliers Engineering & Design, dated May 14, 2024; Applicant’s Responses to May 3, 2024 Planning Department Comment Memorandum, dated May 24, 2024; and Letters, prepared by Zarin & Steinmetz LLP, dated July 2, 2024, July 16, 2024, August 23, 2024, and December 3, 2024. WHEREAS, pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 617.6(b)(3) a coordinated review of this Action is required; and WHEREAS, the Town Board declared its intent to serve as lead agency in connection with the SEQRA review of the proposed Action on November 22, 2022, and thereafter circulated a Notice of Intent, the petition and supporting materials to the following involved and interested agencies: SG Ge: ST SS OT A Pl iS Westchester County Planning Department Westchester County Planning Board Westchester County Department of Public Works and Transportation Westchester County Department of Health Westchester County Parks Department NYS DOT Region 8 NYS DEC Region 3 NYS OPRHP US Army Corps of Engineers . NYC DEP . Town of Cortlandt Town Clerk . Town of Ossining . Town of Somers . Lakeland School District . Mohegan Lake Fire District . Yorktown Chamber of Commerce . Advisory Committee on Open Space . ABACA . Yorktown Building Inspector . Yorktown Community Housing Board . Yorktown Fire Inspector . Yorktown Highway Department . Yorktown Planning Department . Yorktown Planning Board . Yorktown Police Department . Yorktown Recreation Commission . Yorktown Town Attorney
28. Yorktown Town Engineer 29. Yorktown Water Department; and WHEREAS, receiving no objection or opposition to its intent to act as lead agency, the Town Board declared itself lead agency for carrying out the procedural requirements of the SEQRA regulations on December 10, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Town Boad determined that the proposed Zoning Map Amendment and Project constitute a Type I Action; and WHEREAS, the Town Board, after referring the petition and supporting materials to all involved and interested agencies, received and considered comments in the following memoranda issued: 1. Town of Yorktown Planning Board, dated January 23, 2024 and August 30, 2024 2. Town of Yorktown Planning Department, dated May 3, 2024 3. Town of Yorktown Advisory Board on Architecture & Community Appearance (“ABACA”), dated December 19, 2022 and May 10, 2024 Town of Yorktown Conservation Board, dated April 17, 2024 Town of Yorktown Heritage Preservation Commission, dated June 27, 2024 Town of Yorktown Police Department, dated November 29, 2022 New York City Department of Environmental Protection (“NYCDEP”), dated June 26, 2024 8. Office of New York City Watershed Inspector General (“WIG”), dated June 28, 2024, August 5, 2024 and August 29, 2024; and A SAA WHEREAS, the Town Board requested verification of the wetland delineation and review of the submitted tree survey, wetlands functional analysis, and wildlife habitat assessment by the Town Wetland Consultant, Barton & Loguidice, and received and considered comments from said consultant dated November 29, 2022 and June 10, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Town Board requested review of the Historical Analysis, Conditions € Adaptive Reuse report submitted by the Applicant by the Town”s Historic Consultant, Gregory Dietrich Preservation Consulting, and received and considered a letter from said consultant dated June 7, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Action was presented to the Town Board at a duly noticed Public Hearing conducted on July 16, 2024 in Town Hall and reconvened on September 3, 2024 in the community center gym at the Albert A. Capellini Community $ Cultural Center at the conclusion of which the hearing was closed; and WHEREAS, the Town Board has received and considered oral and written comments submitted by residents and involved/interested agencies; and WHEREAS, The Applicant initially proposed to develop 130 age restricted townhouse units, but subsequently lowered the number of units to 118 and reduced the development footprint of the Project as it progressed through the review process; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 617.7(b)(2), the Town Board reviewed the FEAF, the criteria for determining significance contained in § 617.7(c), and other supporting information to identify the relevant areas of environmental concern for the Action; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 617.7(b)(3), the Town Board reviewed the FEAF, the appendices attached thereto, and other supporting documentation to thoroughly analyze the identified relevant areas of environmental concern for the Action; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 617.3(g), the Town Board has taken the requisite “hard look” at the entire set of activities in this Action related to both the Zoning Map Amendment and the Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 617.7(a)(2), the Town Board determined that the Action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts and that accordingly preparation of an EIS is not required for this Action; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 617.7(b)(4), the Town Board set forth its determination of significance for the Action in a written form containing a reasoned elaboration and providing reference to any supporting documentation in the Notice of Determination of Non-significance attached to this resolution; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law, the Lead Agency has determined that the proposed Type I Action will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment for the reasons enumerated in the attached Notice of Determination of Non-significance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this SEQRA Negative Declaration resolution shall have an effective date of December 10, 2024.
617.21 Appendix F State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-significance Date: December 10, 2024 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the Implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Town Board of the Town of Yorktown, located at 363 Underhill Avenue, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, as lead agency, has determined that the “Proposed Action” described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement is not required. Name of Action: Toll Brothers, Inc. / Field Home Active Adult Residential Community, Catherine Street SEQR Status: Type 1 a Unlisted O Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes O No Ll Description of Action: Toll Brothers, Inc. (“Applicant”) is contract-vendee to purchase two parcels with frontage along Catherine Street in the Town of Yorktown (“Town”), totaling 50.51 acres, currently split zoned in the RSP-3 and R1-40 Districts (“Property”). The Applicant proposes to rezone the Property from the R1-40 and RSP-3 Districts to the RSP-2 District (“Zoning Map Amendment”). Upon the Town Board enacting the Zoning Map Amendment, the Applicant is seeking subdivision approval from the Planning Board to subdivide the parcels into two new parcels: (i) an approximately 48.06-acre parcel on which a 118-unit age-restricted (55+) residential development would be constructed (“Project Site”); and (ii) a 2.45-acre parcel on which the existing Field Home Building would remain (“Field Home Parcel”). The Field Home Building would be preserved and considered for reuse by the Town of Yorktown or a lessee. On the Project Site, the Applicant is seeking Site Plan and other approvals from the Planning Board to develop 37.55 acres with a 118-unit age-restricted (55+) active adult townhouse community (“Project,” and together with “Zoning Map Amendment,” the “Action”). The 118 townhouse-style units will be accessed from Catherine Street by way of two driveways. Various recreational amenities and a clubhouse would be provided for residents. An approximately 14.3-acre portion of the Project Site would be subjected to a conservation easement, preserving it as open space and natural area in perpetuity. State-of-the-art stormwater management practices and controls, including two stormwater bio-infiltration basins, are incorporated into the design of the Project to retain, treat, and infiltrate stormwater generated on-site by the development.
The Applicant is proposing to contribute $150,000.00 to the Town in furtherance of upgrading the Hunterbrook Upper Field to mitigate the loss of the practice field currently existing on the Project Site. In addition, the Applicant is proposing to convey the Field Home building to the Town for reuse, as well as contribute to the Town $150,000.00 towards the maintenance of the Field Home Building in the event that the Town accepts the Field Home Building. The Applicant would also contribute $170,500 toward Inflow and Infiltration (I & I) mitigation to remove approximately 60,000 gallons of stormflow from entering the Town sewer system, which meets the Town’s requirement of 1:1.5 mitigation. The Applicant would also contribute approximately $55,000 to the Voluntary Ambulance Corps (Mohegan EMS) in furtherance of the VAC acquiring four CPR units for its vehicles. Additionally, the Applicant proposes certain offsite improvements to Catherine Street, including construction of a 6” rolled asphalt curb on Catherine Street along the Project Site’s frontage, the adjustment of existing catch basins as necessary, and the installation of rip rap behind the new curb as needed at the direction of the Town Highway Superintendent. The Applicant would also clear and prune vegetation as needed along the Catherine Street frontage and along site frontage at the proposed site driveways, to ensure adequate sight distances for entering and exiting vehicles. Location: The Property is identified in the FEAF at Figure 1, entitled “Site Location Map.” It encompasses a 50.51-acre portion of the property in the Town known as 2302 and 2448 Catherine Street, designated on the Town Tax Map as parcels 35.12-1-2 and 35.08-1-45. Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determination of significance is based upon the full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) that was prepared by the Applicant, as well as the supporting plans, studies and materials, requested by and submitted to the Town Board and the Planning Board, and reviewed by the Board’s professional consultants and staff, as well as the public, and upon the criteria contained in Section 617.7 of SEQRA. The Town Board with the assistance of its staff and professional legal, planning, environmental, traffic and engineering consultants, as well as various involved and interested agencies, including the Planning Board, has conducted its own independent review and analysis of the information provided and the potential environmental impacts from the proposed Action, including the Zoning Map Amendment and the redevelopment plans for the Applicant’s proposed Project. It has reviewed a revised Part 1 and Part 2 of the FEAF prepared by the Applicant and its consultants. It has conducted a Site Inspection on various dates throughout the review process, and held a public hearing on July 16, 2024 and September 3, 2024, at which time the hearing was closed. The Town Board has also incorporated into its Record the comments and correspondence that the Town Board received during the public hearing on the Zoning Map Amendment commencing on July 16, 2024 and lasting through September 3, 2024, as well as the various comment memos and letters submitted by the Planning Board, various Town Committees, other Involved and Interested Agencies, and the public. In addition, the Town Board has incorporated into its Record the plans, studies, assessments, comments and other materials compiled by the Planning Board during its review of the Zoning Map Amendment and Project from December 2022 through August 2024.
Through this comprehensive SEQRA review process, the Applicant has incorporated various modifications to the Project at the direction of the Planning Board and Town Board. This includes reducing the proposed density from 130 units to 118 units. It also includes limiting the area of disturbance and agreeing to preserve approximately 14.3 acres of area encumbered by wetlands as open space through a conservation easement. Based upon all of the information generated during the aforementioned review of the Action, and its own careful and thorough independent review of the potential environmental effects, the Town Board has made its determination. As more fully described herein, the Action as currently proposed would not result in any significant adverse impacts upon the environment pursuant to the criteria listed in Section 617.7(c) of the SEQRA regulations. I. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Petitioner’s proposed Zoning Map Amendment would rezone the Property from the R1-40 and RSP-3 Districts to the RSP-2 District to facilitate a 118-unit age-restricted (55+) residential development. The Zoning Map Amendment and the subsequent age-restricted residential redevelopment at a density of 118 units is consistent with the Town’s applicable land use plans, including the Comprehensive Plan. A vision of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted June 15, 2010, seeks in part to promote housing diversity, including age-restricted developments, to serve a growing demographic in Yorktown and surrounding area of empty nesters and active adults to “age in place.” (2010 Comprehensive Plan at 5-25). The Zoning Map Amendment would further this goal by facilitating the Project, which, in turn, would satisfy an important demand for housing within the Town of Yorktown and Westchester County for 55+ age restricted housing, as well as minimize impacts to on-site natural resources. Another important aspect of the Project is to preserve and protect the historic resources of the Field Home. According to the 2006 Yorktown Reconnaissance-Level Historic Resource Survey, the Field Home Mansion is considered a “notable example of architecture” and a potential candidate for local/National Register designation. The Town has listed the Field Home as a historic resource within the Town’s Comprehensive Plan due to its “association with Town history.” (2010 Comprehensive Plan at 6-8). The Applicant retained an Architect to investigate and document the various timeless historic aspects of the Field Home building and recommend options for the adaptive reuse of the Field Home to continue its historic tradition to support the local community. This will encourage the ongoing use and re-use of the Field Home, an important historic structure, by either the Town of Yorktown or private property owners, while protecting the historical and architectural attributes of this structure. The Applicant has also offered to contribute $150,000 towards maintaining the Field Home building should the Town take title to the building in the near future. Potential preservation actions for the Field Home can advance the Town’s objectives in preserving structures, including the Field Home, that have been identified as eligible for listing on National and State registers. (2010 Comprehensive Plan at 6-8).
With respect to recreational resources, Goal 9-K of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan encourages the Town to “[u]se innovative funding mechanisms to pay for park expansion and maintenance, helping to keep park costs under control.” (2010 Comprehensive Plan at 9-2). The Applicant has proposed in connection with the Project to contribute $150,000 towards improvements at the Upper Hunter Brook Field so that the Town will have a significantly upgraded - and permanent - field to accommodate soccer games and other active recreation. This benefit, possible as a result of the Zoning Map Amendment, would facilitate Goal 9-K in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan also calls for protecting natural resources and protecting scenic resources by ensuring development is sited in a manner that protects critical resources and open space. (2010 Comprehensive Plan at 6-12; 7-1; 7-7). The Project would facilitate these goals by limiting development to a portion of the Project Site away from existing wetlands and watercourses. By way of example, the Applicant has modified its development plan to reduce disturbance of an intermittent stream and significantly reduce buffer encroachment, as discussed with the Town’s Wetland Consultant during a field visit. In addition, the modification served to eliminate any impervious surfaces within the buffer. The Applicant is also proposing to record a conservation easement against an approximately 14.3-acre portion of the Project Site where a wetland and other environmentally sensitive areas are located to ensure no development may occur in this area in the future. (2010 Comprehensive Plan at 7-18). The Applicant also recognizes the importance of mitigating the potential for aesthetics impacts to the Aqueduct Trail and the Sylvan Glen Nature Preserve located beyond the northern boundaries of the development. This will be accomplished by providing supplemental native vegetation screening along the northern boundaries of the site, consistent with policy 7-15 of the Comprehensive Plan. (2010 Comprehensive Plan at 7-11). Therefore, the Town Board finds that adopting the Zoning Map Amendment would be consistent with the Town’s planning goals announced in the Comprehensive Plan, and further developed through subsequent planning initiatives, including the review of the subject Zoning Map Amendment and Project. Accordingly, the adoption of the Zoning Map Amendment would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts.
Il. PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Upon the completion of the SEQRA review process, and in the event the Town Board adopts the Zoning Map Amendment, the Planning Board will review the Project in accordance with its site plan, subdivision and other relevant land development jurisdiction. The Town Board, as the SEQRA Lead Agency, has taken a hard look at the potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the Project. As summarized below, it has determined that the redevelopment of the Project Site with an age-restricted residential community consisting of 118 units would not result in any environmental impacts that should be quantified as significant. There are adequate design measures already incorporated into the Project, or available to incorporate into the Project, during the Planning Board’s site plan review process under N.Y. Town Law Section 274-a, to ensure that the redevelopment of the Project Site is consistent with the Town’s planning priorities and protective of adjacent land uses and the environment. Overall Site Characteristics The Property is approximately 50.51 acres in size. It is currently improved with the Field Home Building. In addition, a practice soccer field is located on the Project Site, as well as several areas of historic grading and other historic disturbance. The topography of the Project Site ranges from 0 to greater than 25 percent slopes, portions of which will be developed on slopes greater than 15 percent. An unnamed stream, including adjoining freshwater wetlands, lies along the eastern portions of property site. See Wetlands Functional Analysis, prepared by Ecological Analysis, LLC, last revised May 15, 2024, included in the FEAF as Attachment D. The stream flows both north and south and is a sub-tributary of the Hunter Brook (a NYSDEC Class B stream with a B(TS) standard), situated 0.70 miles south of the site. Most of the property is comprised of a hardwood deciduous forest including forested wetland areas. An existing soccer field lies within the southwest portion of the site which is currently used by area youth groups and soccer clubs for practice. A historic subsurface sanitary wastewater leach field that is no longer in use exists below the soccer field which will be removed as part of planned development of the site. The abandonment of the sanitary wastewater system will be performed in accordance with the “Guidelines for Abandoning Subsurface Sewage ‘Treatment Systems (SSTS)” published by Westchester County. A plan sheet entitled “Existing Conditions” is provided as Attachment B to the FEAF which depicts site conditions. A) IMPACT ON LAND Overall, the Project incorporates various measures identified in the NYSDEC Stormwater Management Design Manual (July 2024) (“Stormwater Manual”) as proper approaches for stormwater management and water quality protection. This includes, for example, using a “cluster” design so that approximately 14.3 acres of the eastern portion of the Property (including various streams and wetlands) will be preserved in perpetuity as undisturbed conservation area. Avoiding development in this environmentally sensitive area fulfills the Manual’s guidance to “steer[] development to areas of the site that are less sensitive to land disturbance or have a lower value in terms of hydrologic function. . . . sensitive areas can be set aside as natural open space areas.” See Stormwater Manual, at 5.1.5 (“Open Space Design”). It also allows the Applicant to limit much of
its development footprint to previously disturbed areas and create a large conservation area, which is consistent with the Stormwater Manual’s guidance to “delineate and define natural conservation areas” in order to preserve “natural terrain,” wetland and other sensitive areas on the Property. Jd., at 5.1.1. (“Preservation of Undisturbed Areas”). There is also ample space on the Project Site to incorporate into the Project through the Planning Board’s site plan review green infrastructure and other runoff-reduction techniques consistent with the guidance in the Design Manual. /d., at 5.3 (“Runoff Reduction Techniques”). This includes, for example, cisterns, infiltration and bioretention, all of which could be employed at the Project Site given the proposed layout of the Project. Grading / Cut and Fill Overall, more than 1,000 tons of natural material will be excavated for the Project, moved around the site, or removed to off-site locations for use at other project sites controlled by the Applicant. These activities will result in the disturbance of existing vegetation, thereby resulting in increased erosion potential for the site. Treatment by herbicides will not be performed for the Project. Initially, the Applicant proposed conducting earthwork for the Project in one phase. A summary of an initial Earthwork Analysis was completed for the Project is tabulated below:
DESIGN REGION TOPSOIL SITE EARTHWORK AREA | STRIP |REPLATE| EXCESS | CUT FILL NET (SF) (CY) (CY) (CY) (CY) (CY) (CY) SITE | 1,260,667 | (20,676) | 19,871 805 | (197,514) | 178,506 | (19,008) SW pasins | 160,072 | (5,929) | 6,734 (805) | (7,188) | 25,606 | 18,418 TOTAL | 1,420,739 | (26,605) | 26,605 0 (204,702) | 204,112 | 590 Subsequently, the Applicant refined the site plan to reduce the overall Project disturbance from 1,420,739 square feet to 1,290,683 square feet. This was accomplished by reorganizing the site plan and shifting the amenities further towards the northern end of the development footprint, as well as corresponding changes to grading and infrastructure. A revised Earthwork Analysis for the Project is below:
DESIGN REGION TOPSOIL SITE EARTHWORK AREA STRIP | REPLATE | EXCESS CUT FILL NET (SF) (CY) (CY) (CY) (CY) (CY) (CY) SITE 1,130,611 | (20,283) 13,239 7,044 | (154,798) | 161,111 | (6,313) Sw BASINS 160,072 | (5,929) 6,734 (805) (8,364) 9,256 (892) TOTAL | 1,290,683 | (26,212) 19,973 6,239 | (161,986) | 174,067 | (7,205)
While, the Project will be designed to have a balanced amount of cut and fill which will result in generating no excess soil material, the Project is projected to result in a slight shortage of soil thereby needing no material to be exported from the site. Current projections show a shortage of 7,205 CY for site earthwork. However, there is an excess of 6,239 CY of topsoil from stripping, which will be used in non-structural fill areas of the site to offset and balance the overall site earthwork. This then results in a net shortage of 966 CY. Despite the shortage, the goal is to balance all materials on the site. Where that is not achievable, material will be imported as necessary. All soil will be imported from a known source and will be clean natural soil that has not been exposed to contamination. Given the above quantities and the need to conduct development activities in a staged sequence necessary to avoid potential project impacts related to land disturbance, the construction duration will extend beyond a year’s time. In addition, in conjunction with a request of the Watershed Inspector General’s Office (WIG), the Applicant refined the Project phasing to break up the grading into phases. As illustrated on the Preliminary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, last dated October 11, 2024, the Applicant projects it could implement clearing and grading in three phases, thereby further reducing the potential for adverse water quality impacts when compared to conducting such work in a single phase. With respect to tree removal during the grading process, a preliminary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan has been developed for the Project Site in accordance with the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control. This plan specifically considers the initial phase of the Project, where the trees will be cleared, and large areas will need to be managed to prevent erosion and sediment transport. As part of this plan, large sediment basins will be constructed along with diversions such as swales and dikes installed which will ensure that all cleared / disturbed areas are captured. In addition, extensive perimeter controls will be employed to ensure that no sediment escapes the disturbed area. Steep Slope Disturbance Of the 50.51-acre Project Site, approximately 29 acres will be disturbed and developed for the Project. Approximately 8 acres of the disturbance area would consist of slopes greater than 15%, of which approximately 1.64 acres are 25% slopes or greater. During the review process, the Applicant prepared several maps of the Property identifying the location and extent of these steep slope areas. This includes a map, entitled the “Overall Existing Steep Slopes Disturbance Map,” showing three classifications of existing conditions on the Property: (i) 15-25% slopes, (ii) 25-35% slopes, and (iii) slopes greater than 35%. Overall, a total of 8.32 acres of disturbance would occur within areas where these slopes are currently located. As the map shows, approximately 6.68 acres of the disturbance would occur in areas that currently consist of 15-25% slopes, 0.82 acres of the disturbance would occur in areas that currently consist of 25-35% slopes, and the remaining 0.82 acres of slope disturbance would occur in areas that currently consist of slopes 35% and greater, most of which is associated with the soccer field sidelines and areas of prior disturbance close to Catherine Street. These slopes — approximately 0.77 acres — are not naturally occurring features, but rather, follow the outline of the soccer field
and other cleared areas on the Property created as a result of historic disturbance at the Project Site. The Applicant’s engineer submitted the Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) in August 2023, entitled Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan. The Preliminary SWPPP identified Project Site conditions, potential sources of stormwater impacts associated with the Project, as well as the Applicant’s regulatory obligations from the State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”), New York City Department of Environmental Protection (“NYCDEP”) and Town to ensure impacts are avoided or reasonably minimized. The Preliminary SWPPP also identified potential measures that would be utilized during construction to avoid or minimize stormwater impacts. In addition, the Preliminary SWPPP set forth installation and maintenance practices to undertake during construction to ensure stormwater management would remain effective. At the request of an interested agency (the Watershed Inspector General (“WIG”)), the Applicant subsequently prepared a Preliminary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (“E 8 S Control Plan”), to demonstrate the various measures that will be implemented into the Project to control stormwater runoff velocity and ensure sediment and other materials would not reach streams or other waterbodies flowing to off-site water sources, including the New York City Watershed (“Watershed”). The E & S Control Plan identifies the various measures — consistent with the best practices successfully utilized throughout the Watershed — that the Planning Board and Applicant can select during the site plan review process to ensure that sediment or other materials are not transported to watercourses or other sensitive areas on the Property during disturbance of the approximately 8-acres of steep slopes. This includes various protections consistent with the design standards in the Stormwater Manual to stabilize slopes during construction that will be incorporated into the Final SWPPP, which, as a matter of course consistent with the permitting process for all applications in the Town and Watershed, will be completed during the site plan review process before the Planning Board, as well as during the permitting processes before the NYSDEC and NYCDEP. Specifically, these measures available to the Applicant during construction include: silt fencing and haybales to control and contain sediment within disturbed areas; sediment fencing around temporary soil stockpiles to prevent movement of soil; temporary vegetative cover applied in accordance with NYS Erosion and Sediment Control standards; permeable barriers around drainage inlets to reduce sediment in runoff; erosion blankets and seeding to stabilize slopes 3:1 or greater; hydroseed and mulch; and sediment basins to collect sediment from runoff to be removed once the site is stabilized. In general, grading throughout the Project Site would be limited to a maximum of 2H:1V, which is consistent with standard practices throughout the State. Grading of the steep slope areas would occur early in the construction process in order to accommodate the subsequent construction of homes, meaning that the period of potential risk associated with slope disturbance would be relatively short. Throughout construction, slopes would be continually stabilized using one, or a combination of, the aforementioned measures from the NYS Erosion and Sediment Control Manual. The perimeter of all areas of disturbance would be defined by sediment fences and other protective barriers to prevent the potential transport of sediment laden surface runoff from reaching
sensitive areas on the Project Site. As the E&S Control Plan and the “Overall Existing Streep Slopes Disturbance Map” illustrate, the steepest slopes on the Project Site are located to the southwest where the soccer field is located. Sediment and other materials in stormwater would have to flow hundreds of feet and breach multiple layers of controls to reach any wetland, stream or other feature that could discharge it into the Watershed or other sensitive areas. Based on this material, it is reasonable to conclude that the risk of adverse water quality, pollutant loading or runoff velocity impacts associated with Project construction on slopes is not significant. Again, it should also be noted that the Project incorporates various design measures identified in the NYS Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater Manual as proper approaches for stormwater management and water quality protection during and post-construction — e.g., the condensed development footprint and the preservation of 14.3 acres of the eastern portion of the Property (including various streams and wetlands) as undisturbed conservation area. The Applicant followed this guidance by reducing the number of units from 130 to 118, condensing the development footprint and agreeing to conserve over 14 acres of sensitive environmental area on the Project Site in perpetuity through a conservation easement. Such measures fulfill the NYSDEC’s guidance in the Stormwater Manual to “steer[] development to areas of the site that are less sensitive to land disturbance or have a lower value in terms of hydrologic function. .. . sensitive areas can be set aside as natural open space areas.” See Stormwater Manual, at 5.1.5 (“Open Space Design”). It is also consistent with the NYSDEC’s guidance in the Stormwater Manual to “delineate and define natural conservation areas” in order to preserve “natural terrain,” wetland and other sensitive areas on the Property. ld., at 5.1.1. (“Preservation of Undisturbed Arcas”). Wetland and Watercourse Conditions Portions of the northeastern stormwater basin and a southwest section of the southern access driveway/road (including fill placement) will encroach within a Town freshwater wetland adjacent area (100-foot buffer) denoted on the survey as Wetland H, which is a small forested wetland fed by hillside runoff. The disturbance is necessary to create a pocket wetland stormwater management system. The total area of disturbance to Wetland H and its buffer necessary to create the wetland stormwater management feature is 1.84 acres of buffer encroachment and the alteration of 0.07-acres of the existing Wetland. As set forth in the Wetland Functional Analysis prepared by Ecological Analysis, LLC, last revised May 15, 2024, the primary benefits and function of these wetlands are ground water recharge and flood attenuation. Nonetheless, the 1.84 acres of buffer encroachment and 0.07-acre alteration of Wetland H will be mitigated on-site as enhancement of an existing waterway and creation of wetlands. Therefore, the proposed buffer encroachment and minimal (.07-acre) wetland disturbance is not anticipated to significantly impact the function and benefit of the wetlands on site. The Applicant will file an application for a Town Wetlands Permit including a mitigation plan for Town Planning Board review and approval. In addition, the Applicant will obtain a General Nationwide Permit for the alteration of 0.07-acres of Wetland H. The applicant will also require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACOE”) for minor fill associated with creating the wetland stormwater management feature
on the 0.07-acre portion of Wetland H. The Applicant has contacted the USACOE to make them aware of the project and the status of the SEQRA review. The USACOE is also listed as an involved agency on the EAF. The Project has the potential to create turbidity in on-site and off-site downgradient waterways, as well as result in erosion, sedimentation (including siltation) within streams and on- site wetlands, and water quality impact potentials for on-site or off-site downgradient streams. These potential impacts will be avoided by implementation of the various measures identified in the Preliminary (and subsequent Final) SWPPP discussed above. A detailed construction sequence will be contained in the final SWPPP to guide the sequence of construction activities, which will focus on implementation of several components aimed at continuously avoiding erosion, sedimentation, and water quality impact potentials for the Project. In particular, these materials demonstrate that throughout Project construction, stormwater will be conveyed and collected via swales and curbs to inlets and then piped to the stormwater practices. The system will be comprised of water quality practices and attenuation. Runoff reduction will be addressed through the implementation of rainwater harvesting which will store the initial runoff volume for reuse as irrigation for the project and/or sub-surface infiltration into the soil. Additional water quality treatment will take place in two Pocket Wetlands which the NYSDEC identifies in the Stormwater Manual as standard acceptable practices. In the same practices, additional volume is provided for attenuation of storm events up to the 100-year storm. In each of the storm events, the peak flow at the given design points does not exceed the existing peak rates. All the above noted Plans, and especially the Final SWPPP, will address potential impacts during and after construction, including use of both temporary and permanent state-of-the-art controls (including two sedimentation basins) and practices necessary to avoid such impact potential. The Plans will be reviewed by the Town Planning Board and Town Engineer as part of the Site Plan Approval process, as well as by the NYCDEP as the Project lies within the Watershed. The Town of Yorktown Engineer will sign-off on the SWPPP for implementation prior to commencing any construction activities. Further, the NYSDEC will review a Notice-of-Intent for coverage under the Construction General Permit (CGP) and grant acknowledgement of coverage under the General Permit (GP-0-20-001). Given the above, potential impacts to surface waters will be mitigated on-site. After construction completion, application of pesticide, herbicides, and other chemicals as part of lawn care and landscaping will be applied by a qualified and permitted firm experienced with New York State Integrated Pest Control Management practices. These practices will serve to avoid potential impacts to people, property, and the environment. Accordingly, the Town Board has concluded that the Action will not result in any significant adverse impacts with respect to Land. 10
B) IMPACT ON WATER Soil, Stormwater and Erosion Control Plan The Applicant undertook geotechnical explorations on-Site, which have identified certain areas of the site (particularly the eastern, downhill areas) where groundwater is shallow. See Letter Report on Subsurface Soil and Groundwater Investigation, prepared by Carlin-Simpson & Associates, LLC, included as Attachment O to the FEAF. There are also other areas on-site (uphill areas) where groundwater is deeper. The Applicant also submitted a Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) to describe the Project’s pre- and post-development stormwater management improvements and its sediment and erosion control improvements to be utilized during construction. The SWPPP establishes that the Applicant’s proposed permanent improvements, and the interim improvements to be utilized during construction, have been designed in accordance with the requirements of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) SPDES General Permit No. GP-0-20-001, effective January 29, 2020, and the Town’s “Tier 3” Requirements contained in Chapter 130 “Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control” of the Town Code. The SWPPP establishes that development of the Project will employ a variety of practices to enhance stormwater quality and reduce peak rates of runoff associated with the proposed improvements. As set forth above in the sections summarizing grading, slope disturbance and wetland/watercourse impacts, the Project will incorporate numerous erosion and sediment controls and other measures consistent with the Stormwater Manual, as well as demonstrate compliance with NYSDEC, NYCDEP and Town standards, to ensure Project construction will not result in a significant impact upon groundwater or other water resources in the area. This includes various protections consistent with the design standards in the Stormwater Manual to stabilize slopes during construction that will be incorporated into the Final SWPPP, which, as a matter of course consistent with the permitting process for all applications in the Town and Watershed, will be completed during the site plan review process before the Planning Board, as well as during the permitting processes before the NYSDEC and NYCDEP. Specifically, these measures available to the Applicant during construction include: silt fencing and haybales to control and contain sediment within disturbed areas; sediment fencing around temporary soil stockpiles to prevent movement of soil; temporary vegetative cover applied in accordance with NYS Erosion and Sediment Control standards; permeable barriers around drainage inlets to reduce sediment in runoff; erosion blankets and seeding to stabilize slopes 3:1 or greater; hydroseed and mulch; and sediment basins to collect sediment from runoff to be removed once the site is stabilized. Similarly, as summarized above, the Applicant and the Planning Board have various design measures to ensure the Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts to groundwater or other water resources in the area post-construction. This includes infiltration with pre-treatment, as well as bioretention practices, to ensure pollutants in runoff are sufficiently captured and treated. It also includes designing outlets to maintain the hydrology of the existing design points that were identified. The existing culverts that cross the aqueduct property have been identified as the design points serving as the basis for the drainage analysis. Accordingly, the drainage analysis shows that 11
the peak rate of runoff will be reduced at the discharge point for each storm analyzed. See Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan, included with the FEAF. In addition, rock outlet protection will be designed at each outlet to ensure non-erosive velocities at the discharge points. All of these measures are consistent with the Stormwater Manual, and must comply with NYSDEC, NYCDEP and Town permitting standards. In addition, consistent with all projects subject to the General Permit and in the NYC Watershed subject to NYCDEP jurisdiction, prior to the issuance of state and local permits a stormwater pollutant loading analysis will be prepared for cach drainage area under existing and proposed conditions, The analysis will confirm the loading rates of several pollutants including total phosphorus (TP) and fecal coliform (FC). Total Phosphorus loading rates and removal efficiencies will be calculated using the East of Hudson Watershed Corporation publication “Stormwater Retrofit Project Design Manual Project Years 6-10”. The Fecal Coliform loading rates will be calculated in accordance with Table 2.6 of the publication “Fundamentals of Urban Runoff Management” dated August 1994. The Pollutant Loading Coefficient Method will be utilized to calculate the estimated loads. Again, there are a variety of stormwater management practices available to the Applicant to incorporate into the final SWPPP which will provide treatment for stormwater pollutants. Practices utilized throughout the NYC Watershed, such as infiltration practices, bioretention / filtration practices, extended detention basins, vegetated swales, as well as the preservation of existing buffers and filter strips, can be utilized for the Project. Below is a summary of the removal capability of Standard Stormwater Management Practices (SMPs) as outlined in the Stormwater Manual, which are available to be incorporated into the Project during site plan review before the Planning Board and the NYCDEP permitting process to ensure the Project will not result in significant adverse water quality impacts as a result of phosphorus and fecal coliform loading: Infiltration Practices o Solids (TSS) - >80% Removal o Phosphorus (TP) - >40% Removal o Nitrogen (TN) - >30% Removal o Metals — 30-60% Removal o Pathogens (including FC) — 35-70% Removal Bioretention Practice o Solids (TSS) - >80% Removal o Phosphorus (TP) - >40% Removal o Nitrogen (TN) - 15-30% Removal o Metals — >60% Removal o Pathogens (including FC) — >70% Removal Extended Detention Basin o Solids (TSS) - >80% Removal o Phosphorus (TP) - >40% Removal o Nitrogen (TN) - >30% Removal o Metals — 30-60% Removal 12
o Pathogens (including FC) — 35-70% Removal Vegetated Swales o Solids (TSS) — 30-80% Removal o Phosphorus (TP) — 15-40% Removal o Nitrogen (TN) — 15-30% Removal o Metals — 30-60% Removal o Pathogens (including FC) — <35% Removal In addition to, but not in lieu of the standard practices, premanufactured treatment devices (proprietary products) can also be used which are listed by the NYSDEC per manufacturer and product name. These products vary by manufacturer and provide different levels of pollutant removals. Accordingly, the Town Board has determined that the Action would not result in any significant adverse impact upon water resources in the Town. C) IMPACT ON AIR The Project does not include any proposed air emission sources. Accordingly, the Town Board has determined that the Action would not result in any significant adverse impact to air resources in the Town. D) IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS Animal Habitat Based on a review of the NYSDEC Hudson Valley Natural Resource Mapper, there are no known important areas of rare terrestrial animals on the Project Site. See Appendix A to Wildlife Habitat Assessment, prepared by Ecological Analysis LLC, dated Jan. 22, 2024, included as Attachment F to the FEAF. Considering this indication, the Applicant contacted the NY Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) with a request for the Program to provide a detailed review of their files for the project site. On December 8, 2022, a letter of determination was received from the NYNHP which indicates that the Program has no record of rare or state-listed animals and plants, or significant natural communities at the Project Site, or in its immediate vicinity (Attachment F to the FEAF). In addition to the NYNHP file search, a search of the site and adjoining areas was performed using the NYSDEC Hudson Valley Natural Resource Mapper. Based on the resource mapper, the Project Site does not contain any areas of known important rare terrestrial animals. Further, the Project Site and vicinity are not mapped as Bat foraging area and no Hudson Valley Core Forests or Forest Linkage Zones exist for the site. Forest Core and Linkage areas are regarded as important habitat areas that sustain and allow sensitive wildlife to exist and move or disperse across the landscape. 13
In addition to reviewing state resource mappers, Ecological Analysis, LLC prepared a Wildlife Habitat Assessment of the Project Site. Ecological Analysis confirmed that the Project Site does not contain protected wildlife species or habitat. In addition, Ecological Analysis concluded that the Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts to area-wide plant and animal habitat, particularly since a large portion of the Project Site will remain as wooded area and/or wetland. (See Attachment F to the FEAF, Wildlife Habitat Assessment at 8). While no Bat foraging areas are mapped for the site and vicinity, the Applicant has consulted with the NYSDEC to confirm whether there is a need to implement tree cutting restrictions during certain periods of the year. By email, dated February 1, 2024, the NYSDEC confirmed that there are no records of documented bat roosts on or near the project site and that a time of year restriction on tree removal is not necessary. A copy of this email confirmation was provided as part of Attachment F to the FEAF. Accordingly, the Town Board has determined that the Action would not result in any significant adverse impact to plant and animal resources in the Town. Tree Inventory / Vegetation A tree inventory and summary data report were completed for the proposed development site by Bartlett Tree Experts of Elmsford, New York. Appendix F of the FEAF contains a document entitled “2300 Catherine Street, Tree Inventory Data, 2023” (dated August 25, 2023), which presents a breakdown of 2,086 trees determined to be in good, fair, moderate and poor condition for the Project Site. A total of 1,283 trees are regarded as being in good and fair condition; 803 trees were determined to be of poor condition, or dead. This data and other tabulated statistics are included in the data summary report to aid in the development of measures to minimize and avoid unnecessary tree impacts. Based on the results of the tree inventory, the Applicant will work with Bartlett Tree Experts and Site Design Consultants to evaluate for implementation of Best Management Practices to avoid, and minimize impacts to on-site trees, specifically trees of good and fair condition situated in the limits of the proposed development. In addition, a Tree Mitigation Plan will be developed as part of obtaining a Town Tree Permit for the removal of regulated trees during the Site Plan review process before the Planning Board. The plan will comply with Town Code, Section 270-10, which provides various methodologies to ensure tree removal can occur without resulting in significant adverse impacts, which include: e Onand off site mitigation e Tree Replacement e Methods to mitigate any potential visual impacts to adjoining properties e Use of native plantings e Replacement of functions of trees and woodlands e Removal of invasive species e Contributions to the Town Tree Bank Fund 14
The Planning Board will work with the Applicant during the Site Plan review process to select the most appropriate combination of these measures for the Project. This process will involve working with the Planning Board to meet the goals that best fit the project and the Town’s needs. The following is directly as listed in the Section 270-10 D (4): (a) Planting replacement trees, understory shrubs and or herbaceous ground cover on-site and/or on Town-owned land, Town right-of-way lands or other public land subject to the owner's permission pursuant to this chapter. (b) Removal of invasive species from the site, and/or on Town-owned land, Town right-of-way lands or other public land subject to the owner's permission. (c) Installation of fencing designed to prevent deer from overgrazing existing or newly-planted or naturally regenerating trees and shrubs ("deer enclosures"), consistent with Town regulations, and so long as wildlife corridors are not obstructed. (d) Planting new trees and/or shrubs along stream corridors on the site, and/or on Town-owned land, Town right-of-way lands or other public land subject to the owner's permission. (e) Implementation of other measures on Town-owned land pursuant to an approved forest management plan. (f) Payment into the Tree Bank Fund. In lieu of replacing a lost protected tree or disturbance to a protected woodland, the payment shall be $100 for every protected tree removed and $300 for every 5,000 square feet of protected woodland disturbed. Accordingly, the Town Board has concluded that the Action will not result in any significant adverse impacts with respect to plants and animals. E) IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES The Action will not affect agricultural land resources in the Town. F) IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES At the request of the Planning Board, the Applicant drafted sectional analysis related to the Old Croton Aqueduct Trail, and spatial and sectional analyses related to the Sylvan Glen Nature Preserve to investigate potential viewshed impacts. The spatial and sectional analyses are included herewith as Attachment H to the FEAF. The analysis demonstrates that there already are several areas of dense and semi-dense development in the viewshed to the Site from the Old Croton Aqueduct Trail and Sylvan Glen Nature Preserve. This includes commercial uses along Route 202, as well as several residential subdivisions in the vicinity. The addition of the Project at the Site, therefore, will not result in a significant adverse impact to the viewsheds from these locations, particularly due to the nature of existing vegetation to remain and the proposed grade relationships between the Project Site and the aesthetic resources in question. However, in an effort to further reduce the potential for aesthetic impacts to users of the Trail, the Applicant proposes vegetation screening along the northern boundaries of the Project Site to supplement the existing buffer to remain. The vegetation will consist of native trees and shrubs of various heights and diameters to screen views of the development as one traverses on the trail to offset potential visual impacts for 15
visitors to the Old Croton Aqueduct Trail and Sylvan Glen Nature Preserve. A vegetative screen will be incorporated into a Landscape Plan which will be provided to the Planning Board for approval during the Site Plan review process. Additionally, Town Staff requested that the Applicant consider potential impacts to Old Crompond Road, which is located to the north of the site. The Applicant provided aerial maps demonstrating that there will be no adverse visual impact from this vantage point due to the topographic relationship between Old Crompond Road and the Project Site, in addition to the existing tree canopy and vegetation to remain between the two. Accordingly, the Town Board has determined that the Action would not result in any significant adverse impact to visual resources in the Town. G) IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES State Historic Preservation Office The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted on October 25, 2022 with a request to conduct a review of their files pertaining to the presence of historical and/or archeological resources for the site and surrounding area. On October 28, 2022, SHPO provided correspondence indicating that based on their review, it is the opinion of the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) that no properties, including archeological and/or historic resources, listed in or eligible for the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places will be impacted by the project. A copy of State’s correspondence is contained as Attachment I to the FEAF. Field Home The on-site Field Home was constructed during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries by Cortlandt dePeyster Field, a prominent businessman and philanthropist, to serve as a home for the poor. Initially, the home was used for summer retreats by episcopal missionaries and priests before becoming a home. The building was used as a residential home up to 1998, and it since has been used as offices for the Field Home Foundation. According to the 2006 Yorktown Reconnaissance-Level Historic Resource Survey, the Field Home Mansion is considered a “notable example of architecture” and a potential candidate for local/National Register designation. Consistent with the prior proposed redevelopment for the Site, the Applicant’s Project would leave the Field Home building in place. Although the Field Home building would not be disturbed in connection with the Project, the Town asked the Applicant to evaluate the integrity of the structure, as well as to identify potential reuses in the event the Town decided to acquire the Field Home Building. During July 2023, the Applicant retained the services of Stephen Tilly, Architect (STA), of Dobbs Ferry, New York, to conduct an investigation of the exterior and interior of the Home and provide a historic analysis (including historic conditions) and an adaptive reuse plan for the Town’s review. A report entitled, “Field Home, Yorktown New York-Reports: Historic Analysis, Conditions & Adaptive Reuse” has been prepared by STA and included with the FEAF. 16
The report notes that while portions of the Field Home display signs of wear and deterioration, all portions of the building are solidly constructed of concrete with wood and steel structure. The original exterior and interior date back to its earliest construction, representing a timeless historical resource determined to be worthy of reuse. The report further notes that the Town of Yorktown is interested in the preservation of the Building. The Town has listed the Field Home as a historic resource within the Town’s Comprehensive Plan due to its “association with Town history.” (2010 Comprehensive Plan at 6- 8). In accordance with this policy and report, there are several potential reuse concepts that the Town could explore. Adaptive use options outlined for the Field Home include: 1) “Work/Live Here” Incubator Work/Live Option — reuse of the entire building to provide duplex units and apartments for startups, artists and light industrial establishments. This option would require the greatest amount of historic renovation including structural treatments, reinforcements and potentially addressing vulnerable joints/planes identified where various structural systems and roofs connect; 2) “Make Here” Mixed Light Industrial/Studio Option — this option focuses on prioritizing incubator and independent workplaces including light industrial workshops and perhaps a child-care facility. The existing floor layouts and access doors throughout serve to facilitate this option; 3) “Work Here” Office Option — This option prioritizes offices and independent work spaces, whereby a variety of sizing in space can serve different occupants. This will involve a considerable amount of building demolition including deeper basement areas, resulting in limited structural repairs overall compared to options 1 and 2. The removal of existing building space by demolition will provide area parking space behind the remaining building and retain the front lawn and small sport courts. The Town also retained the services of Gregory Dietrich Preservation Consulting (“GDPC”) to review STA’s report and to evaluate the options for adaptive reuse of the Field Home Building. GDPC issued a report entitled “Field Home Viability Analysis Letter Evaluation,” dated June 7, 2024. GDPC reviewed STA’s analysis and recommendations and evaluated the history of the building, the building’s potential for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, potential funding sources, and STA’s adaptive reuse options. GDPC concluded that the Field Home Building was not deteriorated beyond repair, but rather, in suitable condition for revitalization through thoughtful maintenance, repair, and stewardship. The report explored the benefits and viability of each of the three Options presented in STA’s report and recommended possible variations and expansions on each Option to maximize potential economic and preservation benefits. GDPC also put forth some additional potential reuses for the Field Home Building, including a hotel; a corporate retreat; a day spa with an onsite café, restaurant, and gym; a center for special events and programs, along with a fully equipped catering hall; or a multiple- dwelling residence under the umbrella of a non-profit organization. GDPC recommended that the optimal reuse scenario should seek to preserve the character-defining features of both the exterior and interior of the entire building, as offered in the variations on Options 1, 2, 3, and their 17
alternatives that look at scenarios which preference retention and preservation of existing layouts and elements over reconfiguration and replacement. The above options represent suitable adaptive reuse of the Field Home, which will attract public and private entities to continue a tradition of supporting residential growth and culture within the local community. The Applicant has indicated that it would offer the Field Home building to the Town for future reuse, and in the event that the Town accepts the offer to acquire the Field Home Building, the Applicant would contribute $150,000.00 to the Town to use towards maintenance while it determines how to reuse the building. Accordingly, the Town Board has determined that the Action would not result in any significant adverse impact to historic or archaeological resources in the Town. H) IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION The Project will require the removal of an existing on-site 7 v. 7 practice field located near the western boundary of the Project Site, which is accessed from Catherine Street. The Town currently leases this field from the Field Home. The lease will expire in January of 2026. The loss of this field (whether through the expiration of the lease or the proposed redevelopment) will result in an impact on existing recreational demands for the field which have been experienced by members of the community for several years. Based on characteristics and demands for the on-site Field Home field, the Applicant, in collaboration with the Yorktown Recreation Department, has proposed use of the upper field at the Hunterbrook Recreation Area as mitigation for the loss of the Field Home field. The Hunterbrook upper field is of similar size with ideal parking and is located in suitable proximity to service existing recreational demands within the vicinity of the existing field. Representatives of the Town Recreation Department have indicated that the upper field, with improvements, can accommodate the loss of the existing Field Home field. The Applicant is proposing to provide $150,000 to the Town for improvements to the Hunterbrook upper field to facilitate the Town Recreation Department’s improvement project. In addition, improvements to the upper field at the Hunterbrook Recreation Area could be derived from a portion of the additional $1,017,702 of annual net surplus tax revenue generated by the Project split between the taxing jurisdictions. Overall, the tax revenue generated by the Project, and the Applicant’s voluntary contribution, will provide sufficient mitigation for the loss of the Field Home field with surplus revenues to service other recreational needs within the Town of Yorktown. In addition, the Applicant is providing various on-site recreational amenities to accommodate the 55+ demographic that will be living in the development. This includes a clubhouse with pool and pickle-ball courts. The adequacy of these amenities to accommodate the added demand on the Town’s recreational resources associated with the addition of 118 age restricted units will be evaluated by the Planning Board during the Site Plan review process in accordance with Section 195-35 of the Town Code. To the extent that the Planning Board finds that these on-site amenities would not wholly accommodate the residents’ demand for recreational space and would result in an increased demand on Town recreational and parkland resources, the Applicant could be required to pay the Town another $472,000 as a “fee in lieu.” 18
Accordingly, the potential total contribution of $622,000 towards the Town’s recreation budget, plus a portion of the $1,017,702 annual tax revenue attributable to the redevelopment, should ensure that any potential impacts to the Town’s open space and recreational resource inventory are not significant. In an effort to mitigate the reduction of existing open space within the limits of the proposed development, the Applicant is offering an approximate 14.3-acre Conservation Easement within the eastern portions of the site. The easement area will encompass the most naturally diverse areas of the site which include wetlands and adjoining buffer habitat areas. The conservation easement area near the eastern boundary of the site is depicted on the Site Plan Set, prepared by Site Design Consultants, last revised February 20, 2024. Accordingly, the Town Board has determined that the Action would not result in any significant adverse impact to open space or recreational resources in the Town I) IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS The proposed Action will not be located within or adjacent to a critical environmental area. Accordingly, the Town Board has determined that the Action would not result in any significant adverse impact to critical environmental areas in the Town. J) IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION To evaluate potential traffic and transportation impacts generated by the proposed development, the Applicant retained the services of Colliers Engineering & Design of Valhalla, New York to complete a Traffic Impact Study (“Study”) for 120 units. Since the completion of the Study, Toll Brothers revised the plan for the proposed Project to minimize environmental impacts associated with the development by reducing density by two units. The document entitled “Traffic Impact Study-Proposed Active Adult Residential Development, 2300 Catherine Street, Town of Yorktown, Westchester County, New York,” has been provided with the FEAF. The Study analyzed current traffic operating conditions (Year 2022 Existing Traffic Volumes) and determined future traffic conditions by utilizing a design year of 2026 for the completion of a traffic generation analysis. To determine area background traffic growth, a 2% annual growth factor was applied to Year 2022 Existing Traffic Volumes to obtain data for the 2026 Design Year, which was then compared with Year 2022 conditions. In addition, Colliers determined Year 2026 No-Build Traffic Volumes by estimating and considering traffic generation for other specific potential or approved development in the area. Then, estimates of related traffic potentials for the Applicant’s Project were developed for peak hour volumes. The resulting site generation traffic volumes were then added to the roadway system and combined with the Year 2026 No-Build Traffic Volumes to determine Year 2026 Build Traffic Volumes. Existing, No- Build, and Build Traffic Volumes were then compared to capacities in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual to determine existing and future Levels-of-Service and operating conditions. Based on the analysis of this data, recommendations for traffic related improvements have been provided to minimize potential impacts of existing and future traffic volumes. 19
The roadways considered under the Study included internal development access roads, NYS Route 35/US Route 202 (Crompond Road), Catherine Street, Jacob Road, Old Crompond Road and Garden Lane. Manual traffic counts were obtained during May 2022 for AM and PM Peak Hour periods at study intersections. Based on traffic counts, the Weekday Peak AM Hour was 7:30 to 8:30 AM, and the Weekday Peak PM Hour was 5:00 to 6:00 PM. Estimates of the amount of traffic generated by the proposed development during Peak Hours were also developed. Additionally, arrival and departure traffic distributions were established to assign site generated traffic to the surrounding roadway network as well as to complete a capacity analysis to determine existing and future traffic conditions at study area intersections for both signalized and un- signalized intersections. Capacity analyses of truck percentages, pedestrian activity, roadway grades and other factors were completed to determine Level-of-Service and average vehicle delays. The following presents a summary of existing and anticipated future Level-of-Service for the intersections evaluated based on the Study completed: 1) US Route 202 (Crompond Road) and Garden Lane: capacity analysis indicates that the existing left-turn from Garden Lane is currently operating at a Level-of- Service “D” and “E” during AM and PM Peak Hours, respectively. Using 2026 Build and No-Build Traffic Volumes, the left turn is expected to operate at Levels-of-Service “D/E and F” during AM and PM Peak Hours, respectively. Based upon a review of the site generated traffic volumes shown on Figures 8 and 9 of the Study, which are based on the more conservative “non age-restricted residential” trip generation data, the Project would add approximately 10 total peak hour trips to this intersection. This intersection is projected to handle in excess of 2100 and 2200 vehicles per hour, during the AM and PM peak hours respectively, under the No-Build conditions, as shown on Figures 6 and 7 of the Study. This represents an increase of less than 0.5%, which is not considered significant. In fact, using the less conservative and more appropriate “age- restricted” trip generation rates, which have been found to be generated by this type of age-restricted development (e.g., the Glassbury Court development), the actual peak hour trip generation would be even lower. Specifically, 5-6 peak hour trips are expected during the peak hour period, which would be even less significant and would not significantly impact the overall operation. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the Project would add to the diminishment of the LOS at this intersection, nor that there would otherwise be any significant adverse impact. A traffic signal would be required to improve these conditions; however, the NYSDOT traffic signal warrants are not satisfied for this location. The intersection of Garden Lane and Route 202 is an intersection that currently experiences delays due to the lack of a turning lane or traffic signal on Route 202. The Project is expected to add minimal traffic to this location. A review of the NYSDOT 8-Hour Traffic Signal Warrant criteria indicates that a traffic signal is not warranted at this location under the No-Build or Build Traffic 20
2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Volumes. A copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis performed for this intersection is included with the FEAF. Catherine Street and Depeyster Drive: capacity analysis indicates that this intersection is operating at an overall Level-of-Service “A” during AM and PM Peak Hours. This intersection is expected to operate at Level-of-Service “B” or better during the AM and PM Peak Hours under future conditions. Catherine Street and Jacob Road: capacity analysis indicates that current conditions are operating at a Level-of-Service “A” during AM and PM Peak Hours. Analysis indicates that this intersection would operate at a Level-of- Service “B” or better during future AM and PM Peak Hours. Catherine Street and Old Crompond Road: capacity analysis indicates that current conditions are operating at a Level-of-Service “B” or better during AM and PM Peak Hours. Analysis indicates that this intersection would operate at a Level-of-Service “B” or better during future AM and PM Peak Hours. Garden Lane and Old Crompond Road: capacity analysis indicates that current conditions are operating at a Level-of-Service “B” or better during AM and PM Peak Hours. Analysis indicates that this intersection would operate at a Level- of-Service “B” or better during future AM and PM Peak Hours. Catherine Street and Existing Site Access: capacity analysis indicates that current conditions are operating at a Level-of-Service “A” during AM and PM Peak Hours. Analysis indicates that this intersection would operate at a Level- of-Service “A” during future AM and PM Peak Hours. The Study resulted in the following findings specific to the Applicant’s Project: The Study recommended that at each proposed site driveway, clearing of vegetation should take place within Catherine Street and along the site frontage to ensure adequate sight distances for entering and exiting vehicles. As this recommendation is specific to the Applicant’s Project and the Project Site, the Applicant would undertake these improvements. The Applicant is also proposing certain offsite improvements to Catherine Street, including construction of a 6” rolled asphalt curb on Catherine Street along the Project Site’s frontage, the e Capacity analysis indicates that traffic generated by the project will not cause any significant changes in Level-of-Service for surrounding intersections. e The Study substantiates that trip generation associated with senior/age restricted housing is generally lower than non-age restricted developments. 21
adjustment of existing catch basins as necessary, and the installation of rip rap behind the new curb as needed at the direction of the Town Highway Superintendent. Additionally, the Study identified the following findings and recommendations for improvements that are not related to the Project and thus would be undertaken by the Town: e Vegetation clearing and pruning should be performed at each of the intersections analyzed along Old Crompond Road to ensure and maintain adequate sight distances. o At the intersection of Jacob Road and Catherine Street, sight distance improvements and the installation of a double yellow centerline, solid white stop line and a double yellow centerline along Jacob Road should be provided, regardless of the proposed project being built. o A painted stop bar should be installed at the intersection of Catherine Street and Old Crompond Road. o Sight distances should be improved (vegetation clearing and pruning) at the intersection of Garden Lane and Old Crompond Road within the right-of-way looking both cast and west. In addition, a “stop” line should be provided on the Garden Lane approach. e An analysis of potential signalization at the intersection of Garden Lane and US Route 202 indicates that under current conditions, signal warrants are not satisfied. Based on the above analysis, similar Levels of Service and delays will be experienced at the area intersections under the future No-Build and future Build Conditions; 2026 Build Peak AM and PM levels will also be similar in that expected Weekday Peak Hour traffic conditions will occur 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM, respectively. Given the Study findings, the proposed active adult residential development traffic is not expected to cause any significant impact in overall operation. Accordingly, the Town Board has determined that the Action would not result in any significant adverse traffic and transportation impacts in the Town. Kk) IMPACT ON ENERGY The amount of electricity demand generated by the proposed development is 1,345 to 2,549 megawatt-hours (mWhs) annually. Both New York Con-Edison and the New York State Electric & Gas Corporation service the Town of Yorktown. Given the recognized need to provide services to area demands for the Town, including allowances for new land use development, the service providers are expected to meet the demand for electricity demanded by the proposed development. It is important to note that the Applicant plans to utilize state-of-the-art lighting and equipment (i.e., lighting fixtures and appliances) which has and continues to meet the goal of State energy 22
efficiency programs, as well as provide suitable construction materials manufactured to reduce energy waste and thereby conserve energy. Accordingly, the Town Board has determined that the Action would not result in any significant adverse impact to energy resources in the Town. L) NOISE AND ODOR IMPACT The operation of heavy equipment and trucks for hauling earth and housing construction materials during construction development hours will occasionally result in exceedances of existing noise levels for immediately surrounding area properties. Also, building construction activities including carpentry and masonry trades will generate noise, but to a much lesser degree than the operation of heavy equipment and trucks. As with typical housing construction, these activities will be staged at varying durations and locations within the development during noted hours of construction. As such, noise will not always be generated on a continuous basis, thereby serving to minimize potential noise (nuisance) impacts. As development construction continues, beyond site preparation and utility installations, the use of heavy equipment and material transport trucks will be reduced and both indoor and outdoor home site construction activities will generate much less noise levels compared to heavy equipment and transport truck traffic. It is important to note that all heavy equipment and material transport trucks will operate with muffler devices to further minimize noise potential. Backup safety peepers on equipment and vehicles will be activated to a much lesser degree than that of equipment and vehicle operations. Existing remaining forested vegetation along the northern, eastern limits of the development will serve to buffer and distance construction noise to a significant extent. Overall, the timing and various types of construction noise will be reduced over the three-phase period the development is proposed to be completed. There will be temporary minor noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed Project. All construction-related activity during the construction period, including rock removal, will be conducted in accordance with all applicable regulations, including the Town’s Noise Ordinance. It is not anticipated that the Project will result in significant odor or noise impacts upon occupancy of the residences. Odor and noise levels will be typical of residential subdivisions in the area. In addition, the Applicant will limit the hours of operation on outdoor recreational facilities in the community, such as pickleball, so that noise generated by these activities will not be significantly above the ambient noise levels in the area. Accordingly, the Town Board has determined that the Action would not result in any significant adverse noise or odor impacts in the Town. M) IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH There is no anticipated affect upon public health and safety, as there is no significant risk of releases of hazardous or solid wastes or similar substances. 23
N) IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Pattern of Development in the Neighborhood The proposed development would be consistent with the existing pattern of development in the area along Catherine Street. The Project Site is across Catherine Street from the Glassbury Court at Hunterbrook development, which is also a 55+ community. This community consists of 64 townhouse units, covering approximately 45-acres with two curb cuts along Catherine Street, which is also proposed by the Field Home development. Similar to the proposed development, Glassbury offers various on-site recreation amenities for its residents, such as a clubhouse and pool. The east side of Catherine Street is also developed with several senior living health facilities and related uses, covering approximately 48.06-acres. This includes the Yorktown Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, a three-story residential and out-patient health center. It also includes the Yorktown Assisted Living Residence, an 85-bed senior living community on approximately 27.0-acres. In addition, the Field Home Building is used as offices for the Field Home Foundation, a private entity focused on improving the lives of older adults and their caregivers. In addition, the Project Site was previously approved to be developed with an independent living faciality consisting of 102 apartments. __ Fiscal Analysis In addition, tax revenues generated by the Project are expected to meet the demand for Town services including schools which are least demanded by 55+ housing developments. The proposed Project will result in an additional demand for community services including Town and County. During May 2022, the Applicant retained the services of Cronin & Cronin, Law Firm, PLLC to prepare a real estate property tax projection evaluation for the Field Home project. The evaluation was based on its physical condition on May 1 with a valuation date of July 1 of the previous year (fiscal period January 1* through December 31* 2023). All estimates were based on current New York State law; the tax projection evaluation did not include any exemptions the subject property may be eligible to receive. An Assessment Equalization Rate of 1.93 (dated 2022) was utilized for the tax projection. Further, an anticipated annual tax rate of 2 to 5 percent was considered for the Town, County, School and Special District tax jurisdictions evaluated (considering a 2% tax cap); each Townhouse unit was assumed to be on its own tax lot. The average sale price determined by the Applicant for the assessment was $862,995. Two parcels which comprise the property site were considered, 35.12-1-2 and 35.08-1-45. The projected project build date was 2023 for the proposed 118 units (age-restricted, 3-bedroom townhouse units) on the 50.51-acre site. Section 508 of the New York Consolidated Laws, “Tax Law” was considered for the assessment. A report entitled “Real Estate Property Tax Project Report,” prepared by Cronin & Cronin, PLLC is provided under Attachment M to the FEAF which provides additional assumptions and applicable New York State laws considered. 24
The following three properties were used in the Assessment Analysis, which are in the same area as the subject property site: Comp 1: Comp 2: Property Address: Glassbury Court: 2265 Dalton Drive Tax Map # 35.12-1-1.27-54 Property Type: Condo Assessment: 7,100 Full Market Value: $334,905 SF: 2,265 Value per SF: $148 Taxes 21/22: $8,074 Taxes per SF: $3.56 Property Address: Glassbury Court: 1806 Summerhill Court Tax Map # 35.12-1-1.19-37 Property Type: Condo Assessment: 6,800 Full Market Value: $320,754 SF: 2,265 Value per SF: $142 Taxes 21/22: $7,733 Taxes per SF: $3.41 The annual tax projections assessed by Cronin $ Cronin, PLLC, with and without the project, are as follows: Total Projected : Projected Tax Burden Year | Assessed Value Combined Est. Taxes Est is sve Tax Rate Unit as Fully Constructed: 2023 895,939 1,440.422 | $1,290,529.83 $10,936.69 Portion Total Projected Current Tax Est. Annual Est. Annual Assessed Value Rate Taxes Per Unit Town/County 895,939 439.267740 $393,557.10 $3,335.23 School 895,939 1,001.154 $896,972.73 $7.601.46 Total 895,939 1,440.422 $1,290,529.83 $10,936.69 A summary of the Income Approach Analysis completed by Cronin & Cronin, PLLC, for generating the above tabulated projected taxes, is as follows: 25
TAX MAP # 35.12-1-2 & 25.08-1-45 ADDRESS: 2302 Catherine Street LAND ACRES: 50.51 LAND SQ. FT.: 2,200,215.6 VALUATION DATE 2021/22 July 1* TENANT/TYPE Condos Units: 118 Rental Rate: $4,500 Gross: $6,372,000 TOTAL UNITS 118 POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME $6,372,000 VACANCY 5% EFFECTIVE GROSS 6,053,400 EXPENSES 25% NET OPERATING INCOME 4,540,050 CURRENT TAXES 184,806 TOTAL CAP RATE INCLUDING | 9.78 TAX FACTOR FULL VALUE 46,421,718 26
EQUALIZATION RATE 0.0193 NEW AV 895,939 VALUE PER UNIT 393,404 Presented below is a detailed summary of Annual Property Tax Revenues compared to Total Annual Public Cost jurisdictions and resulting total annual net surpluses. Total Annual Public Revenues TOTAL TOWN SERVICES: (General Fund, Highway Fund, + $271,685 ($163,676) $108,010 all Special Districts) COUNTY SERVICES: . (All Westchester County Operations) $121,874 ($109,151) $12,724 SCHOOL SERVICES: (Yorktown School District) $896,969 $0 $896,969 TOTALS: $1,290,529 ($272,826) $1,017,702 TOTALANNUAL NETSURPLUS $1,017,702 (PUBLIC) REVENUE Average NetSurplusPerNewHome (Average of 118 Units) $8,625 Based on the above assessment, a considerable amount of taxes will be generated by the proposed project which will off-set the cost of the tax jurisdictions considered. As such, potential fiscal impacts are expected to result in a positive impact for the Town, County and School district whereby an annual net surplus of $1,017,702, representing $8,625 per unit, will be realized with the Project to offset the additional demand for community services attributable to the addition of 118 age-restricted residential units at the Property. 27
Accordingly, the Town Board has determined that the Action would not result in any significant adverse impacts to the growth and character of community or the neighborhoods in the vicinity of the Project Site. WI. CONCLUSION The Town Board has conducted an independent and thorough review and analysis of the entire record and the potential environmental effects from the proposed Action, including the Zoning Map Amendment, the Project and the associated conceptual subdivision and site plan. It has reviewed a Part 1 and Part 2 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), prepared by the Applicant and its consultants, as well as the supporting materials, presentations and the like. The Town Board has completed a careful and thorough review of the identified areas on the Environmental Assessment Form. Based upon all of the information generated for the proposed Project and its own careful and thorough independent review and public discussion of the potential environmental effects, the Town Board has determined that the potential small and larger impacts outlined in Part 2 of the EAF, individually as well as cumulatively, will not be significantly adverse. The Project must still undergo Site Plan review before the Planning Board, during which process the Planning Board maintains authority to review and approve the Site Plan for the Project. Although the Action is classified as a Type L there is only a presumption that an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) is required. Where, as here, the Record contains a well- documented basis to conclude that no significant adverse environmental impacts would occur if the Action is approved, the issuance of a Negative Declaration is justified. In this instance, the Town conducted a comprehensive evaluation of all potential environmental impacts associated with the Action, including referring the matter to the Planning Board for over a year-long review, as well as holding several public hearings where the public and involved and interested agencies could identify potential areas of concern to evaluate. As discussed in detail above, the Applicant produced volumes of reports, analyses and plans, containing empirical data, expert opinion and other objective bases, allowing the Town Board to evaluate all areas of potential concern raised during the SEQRA review process. Members of the public also submitted materials to assist the Town Board in this endeavor. The Town Board, with the assistance of its professional staff and expert consultants, took a “hard look” at all areas of environmental concern, and has determined that it has all of the technical information it requires to reach a determination concerning the potential impact of this Action on the environment in accordance with its duties as Lead Agency under SEQRA. As a result of its review of this Record, the Town Board has determined that a Negative Declaration is warranted. The Action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and any effect will be mitigated to the greatest extent practicable. Therefore, the preparation of an EIS is not required. If Conditioned Negative Declaration, provide on attachment the specific mitigation measures imposed. N/A 28
Date: To: CC December 11, 2024 David Cooper, Zarin & Steinmetz Edward A. Lachterman, Town Supervisor Gennelle MacNeil, Town Comptroller John Tegeder, Planning Director Adam Rodriguez, Town Attorney file 29 Dimar duct Diana L. Quast, Town Clerk Master Municipal Clerk