Draft FEIS Jan 2013 Revised Chapter 3 - Response To Comments

3.
0
Comments and Responses
3-1
(A s revised 1/ 4/ 13)
3.0
3.1
3.1.1
Project Description
Comment
Page 2-17 states that If Continuum at Irvington pursues and receives approval for IDA financing, the facility in Irvington will be able to service a broad spectrum of the communitys service needs. Is it currently anticipated that the project sponsor will be pursuing such funding? How would this funding impact rents or taxable status? (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p.1)
Response
The Continuum Company has not yet made a determination as to w hether it intends to pursue IDA financing. If it chooses to do so, the benefits of IDA financing are dependent on negotiations betw een the village and the developer as to w hether the developer w ill be entitled to a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes). During the time prior to full operation of the business, a village and a developer often agree on an amount the developer w ill pay to a village before payment of property taxes. This payment provides both the village and the developer certainty relating to revenues to be paid to the village. There w ould be no impact on rents. The financing w ould require Continuum to have 20% of the units set aside for individuals at or below 50% of Westchesters median income.
3-2
3.1.2
Comment
What is the height of the existing main house? (Page 2-2) (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p.1)
Response
The existing main house has a height of 55 feet.
3.1.3
Comment
What is the coverage of the proposed action, broken down by buildings, driveways and outdoor parking areas, courtyards, patios, etc.? (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 1)
Response
Building Drivew ay Outdoor Parking Walks/ Curbs Patios Walls Total I mpervious FEIS (N ew Estate) 1.03 ac; 22.2% 0.77 ac; 16.6% 0.04 ac; 0.8% 0.18 ac; 4.0% 0.28 ac; 6.0% 0.05 ac; 1.1% 2.35 ac; 50.7% A lternative (Existing H ouse) 0.97 ac; 20.9% 0.77 ac; 16.6% 0.04 ac; 0.8% 0.18 ac; 4.0% 0.34 ac; 7.3% 0.05 ac; 1.1% 2.35 ac; 50.7%
3.1.4
Comment
Page 2-7 says there will be "surface parking for 25 cars" and "parking for an additional 25 cars" below Building 5. Yet, the site plan (Exhibit 2-3) shows 26 surface spaces and 23 spaces under Building 5. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 1)
Response
The new plan included in this FEIS has 50 parking spaces, including 37 spaces under the memory care building, 11 spaces around the main entry drop off, and 2 spaces beneath the southeast assisted living w ing. This is a reduction of 14 at-grade spaces, compared to the DEIS plan.
3-3
See Exhibit 13 Underground Parking Layout, w hich illustrates the conceptual layout of the 37 underground parking spaces w hich includes (34) 8.5 x 20 perpendicular spaces and (3) 9 x 22 valet parking spaces.
3.1.5
Comment
On page 2-9, what does this sentence mean: "Enriched housing programs may be located in a congregate setting with sleeping arrangements similar to an adult home?" (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 1)
Response
The sentence refers to the NYS DOH requirements for Adult Home residents. Adult Home is the most stringent of regulations to follow from a retention standard. Enriched housing allows a resident to age in place longer in our residence, as opposed to moving to a Skilled Nursing Facility sooner.
3.1.6
Comment
At the top of page 2-10, it says "an enriched housing operator is only required to provide one meal per day which is a hot congregate meal and the operator must be sure that there is sufficient food available in the apartment for the other two meals." Yet, at the top of 2-11, it reads: "Continuum Living at Irvington will provide three nutritious meals per day to the residents. Each meal will be served in a dining room with wait staff to provide the meals to residents." Explain the apparent inconsistency. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 1-2)
Response
New York State DOH requires that the operator, at a minimum, provide one hot meal per day. The proposed facility will be providing three nutritious meals served in a dining room with a variety of options.
3-4
3.1.7
Comment
On page 2-11, it says that other than from 9 to 5, "there will be a manager on duty who will be available for emergency situations." Is one manager adequate for 150 residents, most of whom are not independently mobile? (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 2)
Response
The applicant has indicated that there would never be more than one manager on duty at any time this person will be responsible for the overall decisions. This does not mean there will only be one employee in the building this will just be the one who can make the final decisions. The applicant will always have adequate staff in the building including nursing staff 24 hours per day/7 days per week to care for residents based upon the needs and the requirements by NYS DOH. Based on the applicants experience, one manager, full time nurses and other staff will be more than adequate to serve resident needs.
3.1.8
Comment
At the last public hearing Continuums representatives presented optional plans illustrating the impact of preserving the historic structure vs. a tear-down scheme. They described a scenario where if the house were re-used as part of the development complex, the new structures would need to be built higher, and therefore have more visual impact than if the historic building was rehabilitated. As an architect, I was left confused by their rationale, and their argument was not convincing. (Correspondence #10, Earl Ferguson, 4/ 3/ 12, p. 2-3)
Response
The existing house has steps that raise its first floor level above the ground level. In order to avoid internal ramps and steps, the proposed building in the DEIS w as designed to w ork off the ground level of the existing building. That problem w ould not exist w ith the new building in the DEIS (A lternative 7A ). With the proposed grading in the plans in this FEIS, few er levels are raised to match the main building elevation. N ote, how ever, that the FEIS Plan calls for removal of the existing main building, thereby eliminating this problem.
3-5
3.1.9
Comment
It says in their written document that the 4.6 acres, the site currently has, 3.62 acres of impervious surface. When you look at that picture that they show of the existing conditions it is kind of hard to believe that 3.62 out of 4.6 are covered with impervious surface. So, I am not sure that's an accurate number. I think there needs to be a closer examination of exactly, what is being covered now and what is being covered on the build off. (Ms. Anne Achenson, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 59-60)
Response
The current property is 4.63 acres w ith an estimated 1.06 acres of impervious area, stormw ater runoff from w hich is currently undetained and untreated. Under proposed conditions, there w ill be an approximate increase of 1.3 acres of impervious area to a total on-site impervious area of 2.35 acres across the 4.63 acre property, w hich w ill be treated by green infrastructure measures and detained in underground detention pipes prior to being released at a controlled rate of flow . The stormw ater management analysis includes the entire study w atershed w hich extends to the upstream properties up to M ain Street, totaling approximately 10.28 acres in total. Refer to Response 3.1.3 for a breakdow n of proposed impervious coverage on the 4.63 acre site.
3.1.10
Comment
It is my understanding that this sale is contingent upon approval and it is probably important for people here to understand that FEE has been here for about sixty years and hasn't paid any taxes. It stands to gain quite a bit by selling at the price they are willing to continue it or would, if the ZBA grants a variance. If they don't, they probably would have to sell for what it is zoned for. (Mr. Frank Scalli, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 71)
Response
Comments noted. The site is zoned for multifamily development. A s indicated in the A lternatives section of the DEIS and in Chapter 1.0 of this FEIS, the site could be redeveloped for apartments, a private school or offices w ithout a change in the zoning.
3.1.11
Comment
Green building technology and bicycle parking. We commend the applicant for including a number of green building features into the proposed development, including rain gardens,
3-6
permeable paving surfaces and a green roof above the memory care facility. We encourage the applicant to consider using as much green building technology as possible in the development. We also encourage the applicant to consider providing bicycle parking for employees, particularly since the Old Croton Aqueduct trailway abuts the site. (Correspondence #26, Westchester County Planning Board, 5/4/12, p. 4)
Response
The follow ing green infrastructure measures are part of the Stormw ater M anagement Plan: rain gardens, stormw ater planters, permeable paving, and green roofs. The applicant has agreed to provide bicycle parking for employees and a bicycle rack has been provided at the drop-off circle near the front door as show n on FEIS Exhibit 2, Layout Plan.
3.1.12
Comment
Provisions for recycling and composting. The draft EIS correctly identifies the source separation requirements for recyclables. The applicant should be made aware of the recently expanded County recycling program that now includes plastics with numbers 1 through 7 and sufficient space for the storage of these recyclables should be provided. New County regulations for plastic recycling may be found at http://environment.westchestergov.com. In addition, because the proposed development will feature foodservice amenities for residents, we urge the applicant to consider using a food composter on site to recycle food waste. This will help greatly in reducing the waste stream from the site into the waste management system. (Correspondence #26, Westchester County Planning Board, 5/4/12, p. 4)
Response
The applicant has been made aw are of the new County regulations for plastic recycling. A ccording to the applicant, there are no plans for using a food composter on site to recycle food w aste. While the applicant considered the suggestion by the Westchester County Planning Board, it w as determined that using a food composter w ould not w ork for this site given the topography and the overall site design.
3.1.13
Comment
Has there been any consideration given to possible elopements by those in the dementia units? Will the Village be implementing some sort of amber alert system to respond to these issues? (Correspondence #28, Barry Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 12. Similar comments from: Barry Graubart, public hearing 4/ 4/ 12, p. 54; Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/ 18/ 12, p. 7)
3-7
Response
A ccording to the applicant, based on the Chief Operating Officers experience at other facilities, they have never had an elopement issue from the dementia units. This w ill be a secured unit, and there w ill be no w ay for a resident to leave the unit w ithout an escort. To provide a further safeguard, the applicant w ill develop a policy w ith the local authorities to have in place if such a happening occurs. This may include some form of amber alert system.
3.1.14
Comment
Has Continuum put forth a plan describing the nursing staff? My understanding is that as an enriched assisted living facility, they are not required to have a nurse on-site. Can we hear from Continuum the specifics of when they will have a nurse on-location and whether that nurse will be an RN, LPN or other? (Correspondence #28, Barry Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 12)
Response
The applicants proposed staffing plan requires 24/ 7 coverage of the facility by an RN or LPN (Registered N urse or Licensed Practical N urse). In addition, there w ill be multiple CN A s (Certified N ursing A ssistants) on site 24/ 7. CN A s provide assistance w ith A DLs (activities of daily living), w hich include bathing, dressing, grooming, and escorting a resident.
3.1.15
Comment
Typically minor annoyances, like snowstorms, can become major events requiring emergency support if workers are unable to get to the facility. Considering they expect to operate with a very light overnight staff, what plans are being developed to ensure that an overnight storm does not leave them without resources to care for the residents? Beyond acts of nature, an outbreak of a communicable disease or food-borne illness could require significant emergency resources from the Village. What mitigation plans will be put into effect to minimize the impact on Village services should this occur? (Correspondence #28, Barry Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 12. Similar comments from: Barry Graubart, public hearing 4/ 4/ 12, p. 55; Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/ 18/ 12, p. 7)
Response
A ccording to the applicant, the project w ill include a back-up generator that w ill pow er the entire building. There is also ample food in the building for 3 days (per N YS Department of H ealth requirements). If a storm is anticipated, a M anager on Duty w ill stay overnight to ensure the residents are w ell cared for. Once the design is finalized, an emergency evacuation plan w ill be
3-8
prepared in coordination w ith local emergency service providers and the County Office of Emergency M anagement.
3.1.16
Comment
Section 3.8.1 provides demographic information for the Village. Yet it is focused on those 65 and over, while the project sponsors specifically indicate that their target market is those aged 82-85. Can we see demographic data for the target group, particularly a breakdown of households with a householder living alone aged 82-85? (Correspondence #28, Barry Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 12)
Response
The applicants market analysis is included on the follow ing page and is summarized below .
A B C D
Table 3.1-1 Assisted Living Market Depth Analysis Westchester County Year of Analysis 2014 Total H/H Age 75+Income Qual $25,000+ Total H/H Age 75+ One Person 72% Adjustment for Frailty Levels 63.50% Competitive Adjustments Net Qualified Households Likely to Move 5% Adjusted for Market Area Draw 60% Adjusted for Occupancy 95% TOTAL UNIT POTENTIAL
25,806 18,580 11,799 1,337 10,462 523 872 918 918
Source: Market Report by Brecht Associates, Inc. Notes: The source of the data for frailty levels used in this methodology is based on the 2005 Panel of the Survey [1] of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). The SIPP defines a disability as meeting any one of a [2] variety of criteria, including having difficulty with ADLs and IADLs. This is stating that of the age and income qualified households 63.5% will have difficulty with ADLs. The source utilizes households $25,000 and greater. This amount was determined based upon the minimum rental of $3,000 per month. 70% paid by current income and 30% paid by savings. This breakdown is based upon industry experience. The source for 5% likely to move and % who will move from Market Area are based on the experience and judgment of the experts at Susan Brecht and Associates. The source for 95% occupancy is an industry standard. Competitive Adjustments currently built and anticipated assisted living buildings in a 5 mile radius Market Area Draw based on industry standards % of households anticipated
3-9
3.1.17
Comment
Within the DEIS I do not see any plans for the disposal of medical waste, nor for the disposal of medications. Those would be important to understand for a facility of this type and size. (Correspondence #28, Barry Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 12. Similar comments from: Barry Graubart, public hearing 4/ 4/ 12, p. 55)
Response
A ccording to the applicant, medical w aste disposal w ill be picked-up on a w eekly or as needed basis. The applicant w ill contract w ith a licensed outside vendor for these services.
3.1.18
Comment
In numerous places in the DEIS report the proposed facility is benchmarked against Atria Briarcliff, Atria Woodlands (Ardsley) and Atria on Hudson (Ossining). I would like the DEIS report to note the differences between these facilities and the one proposed by Continuum which obviate the rationale for comparison. All of the other Atria facilities include numerous units for Independent Living while the proposed Continuum facility does not. Independent living units are Senior Housing apartments intended for empty nesters. For example, Atria Woodlands has 100 Independent units and 75 Assisted Living units. In addition, each of these facilities is built on a much larger parcel of land. For example, Atria on Hudson has 125 units on 10 acres of land, Atria Woodlands has 8 acres. Lastly, each of these facilities is not set in the heart of the Village. For example, Atria Briarcliff is set back in woods. (Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/ 18/ 12, p. 3 and p. 7)
Response
The Briarcliff and Ossining assisted living projects are similar to the Continuum project in terms of unit count and program. The A rdsley project has significant operational differences w ith independent living and assisted living. The Briarcliff project, like the proposed Irvington project, is located in the edge of the dow ntow n area. Briarcliff and Ossining are both assisted living and dementia care and are licensed by N YS Department of H ealth. Ossining offers an independent option, but the beds are still governed by the N YS DOH . A rdsley is a mixed use senior housing development. There is a large independent section (100 units) that is not licensed and has no nursing care. Therefore, the
3-11
residents only receive hospitality services. The remainder of the building (75 units) are a mix of assisted and dementia care and are licensed by the N YS DOH .
3.1.19
Comment
Will workers for the facility be coming early in the morning and for overnight type shifts a t night? What type of access from the facility to the aqueduct will there be? I am concerned of potential safety compromises.
(Correspondence #45, Scott Snyder, 3/7/12, p. 1)
Response
The proposed shifts (subject to change w ith Irvington traffic needs) are: 7am-3pm 3pm-11pm 11pm-7am The 81 full time equivalent positions (FTEs) w ill include approximately 44 day shift employees, 22 evening shift employees and 10 night shift employees. A pproximately 5 administrative employees w ould w ork betw een 9am and 5pm. The aqueduct w ill have an access gate on the site so the residents w ill have the opportunity to w alk the path as the residents of Irvington are able to. A t this time there are no plans to secure or lock the access gate.
3.1.20
Comment
Is the 50 car parking lot backing up to the aqueduct lit up overnight? (Correspondence #45, Scott Snyder, 3/7/12, p. 1)
Response
Unlike the DEIS plan and the existing conditions, the plan proposed in this FEIS does not have a parking lot along the aqueduct. A s indicated on Exhibit 14, the access drive for the below building parking area along the aqueduct w ill be lighted. H ow ever, the light fixtures w ill be shielded, w ith light directed tow ard the memory care building, thereby avoiding light spillage onto the trail. A dditionally, the buildings are set back 50 feet from the A queduct allow ing a denser vegetative buffer to be planted in the buffer area. The light source itself w ould not be visible from the w est.
3-12
3.1.21
Comment
The "rendering photographs" from the aqueduct viewpoint depicts a picture with very few trees between the facility and the aqueduct. Is this accurate or will there be a buffer of trees? (Correspondence #45, Scott Snyder, 3/7/12, p. 1)
Response
The plans presented in this FEIS provide a 50 foot area along the A queduct, w hich is sufficient for planting and screening. This is an increase of 15 feet compared to the buffer in the DEIS plan, w hich provides sufficient room for planting and screening. See Exhibit 3, Conceptual Landscape Plan, w hich illustrates the planting strip w ith the provision of evergreen trees at a closer 12 spacing to provide for increased screening.
3.1.22
Comment
It is noted in Continuum's Ad and the DEIS report that Continuum will have a full time nurse on staff to help assess the residents during emergencies prior to call. However, these are empty promises. My understanding is that for the most part, the State of New York does not have exhaustive mandatory staffing guidelines for ALR's. New York State ALR regulations appear to only require sufficient staff for an enriched ALR. This information is contrary to the assumptions made in the Community Services analysis. There appears to be an assumption in the DEIS report that there will be skilled staff at the facility 24hours a day. This is not what is required and the Village should not assume otherwise. Even if Continuum indicated they will staff 10 nurses a day, there is no guarantee they will always maintain that staff. If the property is sold, we have no guarantee of what staff the new owner will maintain either. The regulations also appear to suggest that the nurse may be on call and off site. In fact it appears that the nurse can get permission to be at another job while he/she is on-call. (Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 6)
Response
A ccording to the applicant, the staffing plan requires 24/ 7 coverage of the facility by an RN or LPN (Registered N urse or Licensed Practical N urse). In addition, there w ill be multiple CN A s (Certified N ursing A ssistants) on site 24/ 7.
3-13
3.1.23
Comment
Enriched vs. Enhanced-It appears that Continuum is seeking to have the ALR certified as an Enriched ALR which provides that they can have Alzheimers/Dementia residents. However it appears that, Continuum can petition to become an Enhanced (individuals may be chair-fast or may rely on medical equipment) or a Special Needs ALR. This action would again change the acuity level of the individuals presenting further impacts to Village services. Even if Continuum commits to not doing this, we have no idea if a new buyer would. Training-Also, in most states, direct-care staff members can be hired without any previous training or experience in assisted living or related fields, although state laws generally include standards for training provided after a staff members hiring. State law usually mandates minimum topics to be covered but leave training specifics to individual facilities. We have no idea what training will be, whether it will be maintained or if new owner will follow the same level of training. Medications-State assisted living laws increasingly authorize non-nurses to perform tasks that generally, outside of an assisted living facility, are reserved for nurses. Medication administration is the most common of these tasks. Medication errors are one of the most common problems in ALRs. I did not see a section that details the plan for disposal of Medical waste and Medications. I would like DEIS report address this in detail. Medical Waste or Medications dumped in to the water supply would be extremely dangerous. (Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 6. Similar comments from: Patricia Graubart, public hearing 5/2/12, p. 50)
Response
Enriched vs. Enhanced Continuum is pursuing an enriched housing licensing w ith a small number of enhanced beds. This w ill not be done to become a medical facility (as the applicant w ill not have doctors on staff to take care of the residents), but in order for the residents to age in place. If there is a skilled need for a resident they w ill have to be moved to a Skilled N ursing Facility w here the resident can receive the appropriate level of care. The applicant w ill be pursuing a Special N eeds A LR certificate. This is mandatory for a dementia unit. The applicant w ould not be able to operate a dementia unit w ithout this certificate. Training There are training requirements under N YS DOH requirements. A ccording to the applicant, they w ill meet or exceed these training requirements. M edications - Under N YS DOH requirements, the applicant is required to train staff to pour and distribute medications. A ny employee that is certified to administer medications w ill be able to apply for this position (M edication M anagement A ide). M edical Waste Disposal The applicant w ill have medical w aste disposal picked-up on a w eekly or as needed basis. The applicant w ill contract w ith an outside licensed vendor for these services.
3-14
3.1.24
Comment
In addition, Continuum asserts in their ad that this facility will bring business to the downtown. However, Continuum notes in their ad that the units will not have kitchens since they will provide 3 meals a day. The facility will have a full service cafeteria, bar & bistro, nail and hair salon, laundry, media room, medical examination rooms, sundries shop and physical therapy section. In our meeting with Continuum, Ms. Brake said "there is no reason for people to leave." This will be the creation of the Village within the Village! There will be no need for the residents to shop or eat in town! In fact, even the residents of Irvington may be unable to visit stores in the Village due to lack of parking. Has anyone consulted with the Chamber of Commerce to address impact of lost business since parking may be limited in town, especially on the weekend due to visitors at the facility? Dobbs Ferry and Tarrytown may benefit as residents are frustrated in approaching Irvington's Main Street further damaging the tax base in the Village. This should be in the DEIS report. Continuum also asserts that visitors to the facility will frequent town shops. I would like the report to detail the reality of this. Will they bring their dry cleaning, NO, will they order a pizza, NO, will they have their nails or hair done, NO, will they be buying a house, NO, will they buy a children's gift, NO, will they hang out at a roof top bar, NO, will they go to the Hardware store, NO, will they go to the Saloon, NO. What will be the impact on the tax base if our stores close up shop since we as a Village are throwing them under a bus! (Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 10-11)
Response
A ccording to the applicant, the development w ill be supportive of the dow ntow n Irvington livelihood. A long w ith daily bus trips to tow n, its employees, and families of residents w ill be spending time and money in the local shops and restaurants. The assisted living facility w ill also be involved w ith many community events and local activities that it w ill sponsor. Some of these include, but are not limited to, sports team sponsorships, Chamber of Commerce, Kiw anis Club, etc. A ccording to the applicant, they w ill be happy to be a part of and sponsor, and host these clubs. H osting events at the proposed main building is not being considered at present.
3-15
3.1.25
Comment
There were considerations that the emergency exit would be to the aqueduct or through 14 South Broadway, of which I am a Co-Op owner. So, I would like clarity about that, I think there needs to be some sort of exploration into an emergency exit. I don't think 14 South Broadway would ever be amenable to having it being used as an emergency exit. (Barbara Scott, public hearing 5/2/12, p. 51)
Response
The site plan(s) presented does not require or assume an emergency exit through 14 South Broadw ay.
3-16
3.2
3.2.1
Land Use and Zoning

Comment
The applicant proposes that indoor and outdoor recreation for residents and their guests be a permitted use on assisted living sites. We agree with this, however, we believe specific minimums should be established to ensure quality of design, to enhance the living experience of the potential new village residents and to support the applicants claim that new residents will minimally utilize villages recreation facilities. (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p.1-2)
Response
The assisted living facility proposed by the applicant contains 168 beds. The current site plan provides for approximately 10,000 s.f. of passive outdoor recreation space for its residents, w hich amounts to approximately 50 s.f. of passive outdoor recreation space per resident. A dditionally, the site plan provides for approximately 13,000 s.f. of interior common space for use by the residents. This includes dining areas, activity rooms, lounges, and shops, health and personal service areas. It amounts to approximately 70 s.f. of interior common space per resident. The proposed zone text amendment has been modified to reflect that for any assisted living facility at least 70 s.f. of interior common space and at least 50 s.f. of passive outdoor recreation space be provided for each resident. The proposed zoning is discussed in Section 1.4 of this FEIS and included in Appendix 6.2. It is also provided immediately following Chapter 1.0.
3.2.2
Comment
We believe the zoning should include a requirement for 24 hour, on-site security or building manager and state licensing for eligibility for the special permit (section 224-17(E) (1)(f)[3] ). The applicant proposes to meet these criteria. (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p.2)
Responses
Comment noted. The proposed zone text amendment has been revised to incorporate these criteria.
3-17
3.2.3
Comment
The phrase Other typical accessory uses permitted in 224-17(E) (1) (f) [2] [j], should be expanded upon as to what uses this may entail or be removed. (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p.2)
Response
The proposed zone text amendment has been revised to incorporate these criteria.
3.2.4
Comment
Under the off-street parking requirement (224-17(E) (1) (f) [5]), it is proposed that the Planning Board be given the responsibility to require unimproved parking spaces be paved via written notice. The Building Inspector could also be given the ability to require these parking improvements. (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p.2)
Response
Comment noted. The Planning Board w ill retain responsibility to require parking, but w ill take into account the recommendation of the Village Building Inspector.
3.2.5
Comment
While the use itself might be considered appropriate in an area that includes multi-family development and nearby business uses, based on the Table 3.6, multiple bulk dimensions are not consistent with those required for similar permitted uses such as multi-family housing. Additional planning rationale and justification should be provided for decreasing setbacks, including the setback to the aqueduct, and increasing permitted building coverage from the existing requirements for similar uses. (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p.2)
Response
The critical setbacks from South Broadw ay and from the A queduct have been increased in the FEIS plan to meet or exceed the requirements of the Village Zoning Ordinance. The setback along the A queduct has been increased from 35 feet in the DEIS plan to 50 feet in the FEIS plan. The setback along South Broadw ay has been increased from 100 feet in the DEIS plan to 131 feet in the FEIS plan. A lthough the setbacks have been increased, there are certain improvements proposed, including a drivew ay in the 50 foot area along the A queduct and a retaining w all, small parking area and the site access road in the Broadw ay setback. H ow ever, it is noted that the building mass and open space treatment along South Broadw ay has been modified to further enhance the
3-18
view s from this roadw ay, w ith an open space w indow that provides a view of the developments landscaped courtyard. The setbacks from the northerly and southerly property lines, w hich are the side yard setbacks, have been reduced from the 100 foot specified in the existing zoning in order to fully address the more critical setback from the east and w est, w here building visibility had been cited as a major concern. The setback along the northerly property line w as 78 feet in the DEIS plan, w ith the parking setback at only 15 feet in the DEIS plan. The building setback has been reduced to 45 feet in the FEIS plan but the surface parking lot has been removed thereby allow ing additional area for tree planting and a vegetative buffer adjacent to the Irvington Estates parking area. The setback along the southerly property line has been reduced from 71 feet in the DEIS plan to 63 feet in the FEIS plan. With respect to the 100 foot rear yard setback, based on the applicant satisfying the 125 foot Broadw ay buffer and the programmatic needs of the assisted living community, it is virtually impossible for the applicant to design a building that satisfies this requirement. By providing for a 125 foot Broadw ay buffer, The Village has determined that it is of the utmost importance to protect the scenic quality of Route 9/ Broadw ay. The applicant has designed its facility to respect the Broadw ay buffer. H ow ever, placing the facility 131 ft. back from Broadw ay required that the facility encroach into the 100 foot rear yard setback in order to meet the applicants programmatic needs. It must be noted that the Village has determined that a 50 foot A queduct buffer is adequate to protect scenic qualities of the Croton A queduct. The proposed facility respects the 50 foot buffer, except for the placement of the at grade emergency access road and a retaining w all w ithin the buffer. Regarding encroachments into the Broadw ay and A queduct buffers, the emergency access road and the retaining w all that encroach into the A queduct buffer w ill be appropriately screened and not visible from the aqueduct. With respect to the Broadw ay Buffer, there are existing drivew ays and retaining w alls that encroach into the Broadw ay buffer all along Broadw ay. The applicant has minimized encroachments into the Broadw ay buffer to the greatest extent practicable. The proposed tw o story memory care building is w ithin the existing setback for the adjacent cooperative building, roughly at the site of an existing FEE parking lot and accessory structure. Extensive plantings w ill be provided along the common property line to mitigate visual impacts in this setback area. The other side yard setback area, in the southern portion of the site, w ill also have additional plantings provided to help screen the proposed building. See Exhibits 1 and 3 for details, including proposed landscaping.
3-19
3.2.6
Comment
What is the justification for limiting assisted living facilities to only those sites which front on Route 9/ Broadway and which are within 1500 feet of Main Street? (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p.2)
Response
This location, w ithin close proximity to M ain Street, allow s employees and visitors to w alk to and from the train station. Employees and visitors also have convenient access to Bee Line bus service along Route 9/ Broadw ay. The Village of Irvington could decide to include assisted living developments as a Special Permit use in any area zoned for multifamily development, or it could limit this Special Permit use to certain multifamily districts that have access to Bee Line bus service, w hich exists on Route 9, and w here nearby stores, restaurants and other uses provide services for employees and family members visiting project residents. A short trip to a nearby restaurant, for example, is an advantage for the family of a project resident, particularly if the facility is immediately proximate to the dow ntow n area. If the Village decided to allow this Special Permit use in other multifamily districts, the already built-up nature of the other districts w ould have to been considered. There are three multifamily districts in the Village in addition to the subject area, w here the FEE site is available for reuse. The multifamily area at the corner of Sunnyside Lane and Route 9 is fully developed w ith apartments. The multifamily area along South Buckhout Street is also fully developed w ith apartments. The fourth multifamily-zoned area at Clinton A venue and Route 9 is fully built up area, but w ith a variety of housing types. It is conceivable that the low er density single and tw o family portions of this area could be redeveloped for additional multifamily use, as currently permitted, or for an assisted living project, if the proposed zoning w ere amended to allow it by Special Permit in that locale, A lthough on Route 9, the Clinton A venue area is not close to stores and restaurants, so that Special Permit criteria w ould have to be changed as w ell, if the Village decided to do so.
3.2.7
Comment
What is the justification for proposing to allow 30% maximum building coverage for assisted living residences in the MF zone when only 22.2% building coverage is proposed? (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p.2)
Response
The revised plan reflects a building coverage of 18.8%. Therefore, the proposed zone text amendment has been amended to reflect a new building coverage of 20% to provide flexibility in design. The basis for the proposed coverage and site design is provided in Chapter 1 of this FEIS.
3-20
3.2.8
Comment
The recommendations within the Villages Land Use Plan are not necessarily inconsistent with the applicants proposal. The need for a change to the plan depends, in part, on the interpretation of the current language. Page 82 of the Comprehensive Plan states, It is expected that the present uses and present intensity of uses shown in dark blue on the Future Land Use Map will continue. The second to last paragraph regarding educational, religious uses and public facilities could be amended to site the potential benefit to the Village of a tax paying entity proposing to develop or redevelop any of these sites if the current educational religious or public use ceases to exist. The applicant should provide rationale for their proposal to request amendments to this language. (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p.2)
Response
See Comment and Response 3.2.14 w here the Village A ttorney suggests that a change to the Village Comprehensive Plan may not be necessary. A s indicated by the Village A ttorney, the language on page 27 of the Plan in its discussion of the FEE site, states that if future reuse of the property w ere consistent w ith other goals in the Plan, including the provision of senior housing, the use w ould be consistent w ith the Comprehensive Plan. N otw ithstanding the above, if the Village w ere to decide to change the Comprehensive Plan, consistency may only require a modification to the land use plan map, changing it from the use that reflected the previously existing educational use on the FEE site to multifamily, w hich is the category permitted in the Zoning Ordinance.
3.2.9
Comment
What would the size and layout of the facility be if it met the 50 foot Aqueduct buffer and the 125 foot Broadway buffer? (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 2)
Response
The applicant has produced a fully compliant plan that meets the 50 foot A queduct buffer and the 125 foot Broadw ay buffer. That plan results in an approximately 29, 190 s.f. building that cannot meet the programmatic needs of the applicant.
3-21
3.2.10
Comment
What would the size and layout of the facility be if it met the coverage and setback limitations for office and school uses in the MF District (i.e. 15% coverage and 100 foot side, rear, and front yard setbacks)? (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 2)
Response
100 foot side, rear and front yard setbacks. See Exhibit 35, Full Compliance Site Plan The applicant has prepared a fully compliant plan, w hich is approximately 29,190 s.f. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, this building w ould not meet any of the programmatic needs for an assisted living facility and could not be developed by the applicant. The applicant has also prepared a plan that is compliant w ith the multi-family design standards w ith respect to maximum coverage of 15%, side yards of 50 feet, a rear yard defined by the required A queduct buffer of 50 feet and a front yard as defined by the Broadw ay buffer of 125 feet. That plan resulted in an approximately 60,700 s.f. building. Once the necessary space is allocated for amenities, circulation, and other required common space, the number of residential units w ould be limited to no more than 25. A mong other issues, this footprint does not support double loaded corridors the extensive amenities provided, and w ould not achieve the design guidelines or meet program requirements for the proposed use. Furthermore, a fully compliant plan w ould have resulted in a significant reduction in density. Pursuant to SEQRA Regulations 617.9(b)(5)(v), an EIS must address reasonable alternatives to the action that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor. A potential project w ith a significant reduction in unit count w ould not be economically viable in the applicants opinion and is, therefore, not w ithin the objectives of the applicant.
3.2.11
Comment
What would the size and layout of the facility be if it met the setback limitations for three-or-more-family dwellings (100 foot front, 50 foot side, and 30 foot rear yard setbacks)? (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 2)
Response
The applicant has prepared a plan that follows the multi-family design standards with respect to maximum coverage of 15%, side yards of 50 feet, a rear yard defined by the required Aqueduct buffer of 50 feet and a front yard as defined by the Broadway buffer of 125 feet. See Exhibit 37, Assisted Living Alternative. The resulting design proposes a 60,700 square foot (twice the allowable coverage of 30,350 s.f.) in a two story structure not more than 35 feet in height. Once the necessary space is allocated for amenities, circulation and other required common space, the
3-22
number of residential units would be limited to no more than 25. Parking and site circulation for operations and emergency purposes as well as parking have been designed to meet the required setbacks. The resulting design forces the development to the center of the property as well as significant massing along the Broadway and northern property lines.
3.2.12
Comment
What are the reasons for the special permit requirement that such use must be located on Broadway and within 1500 feet of Main Street? (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 2)
Response
See Response to Comment 3.2.6. A location on Route 9 facilitates access to existing bus service. A location close to restaurants and shops w ould be convenient for employees and families of residents at the proposed development.
3.2.13
Comment
On page 3-8, in the second paragraph, you should correct the fifth line to read: "singlefamily residential properties to the east, to the west, and to the south of the site. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 2)
Response
Change made to the DEIS by reference.
3.2.14
Comment
In the discussion of consistency with the Village of Irvington 2003 Comprehensive Plan, which begins on page 3-8, you should refer to page 27 of the Comprehensive Plan, which identifies the FEE property and states that updating of the zoning of this and other sites should "advance and [be] consistent with public goals," which it later describes as "providing a benefit to the community such as ... senior housing." (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 2)
Response
This comment from the Village A ttorney clarifies consistency w ith the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
3-23
3.2.15
Comment
On page 3-9, in the first (partial) paragraph you should include a page cite for the quotation "Many parcels . . ." (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 2)
Response
The page citation is page 81 of the Village of Irvington 2003 Comprehensive Plan, M arch 2003. Change made by reference.
3.2.16
Comment
On page 3-11, you should indicate that the language of the zoning amendment will be modified if and when the use and parameters are agreed on. The same language should be added to page 2-4. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 3)
Response
Change made by reference. The final zoning language w ill be determined at a later stage in the process w hen the Village Board of Trustees review s the precise w ording and the lot and bulk controls it plans to consider. N ote that the applicant has provided a new draft of its proposed zoning that amends certain lot and bulk controls, including setbacks and coverage, to be consistent w ith the plan proposed in this FEIS, w hich has reduced coverage and provides greater setbacks from the A queduct and South Broadw ay. The proposed zoning is discussed in Section 1.4 of this FEIS and included in A ppendix 6.2, and follow ing Chapter 1.0.
3.2.17
Comment
The proposed development is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons: a. The overall size, coverage, mass and scale of the buildings in the proposed development are out of character with the surrounding land uses and the small town, open space character of the village. b. The proposed development does not protect or enhance the villages existing built character and scale. To the contrary, the proposed development is too massive and dense and does not fit within the scale and character of its site and surrounding land uses.
3-24
c.
The proposed intrusion into the Broadway buffer and Old Croton Aqueduct Trailway buffer will detract from the small town, open space character of the village. In addition, permitting such an intrusion would set a precedent for other property owners along Broadway to request reductions to the scenic buffers.
(Letter #6, Patrick N atarelli, 4/ 4/ 12, p. 7. Similar comments from: Correspondence #23, Ron Cohen, M D and A my D. M artini, 3/ 20/ 12, p. 1; Patrick N atarelli, public hearing 4/ 4/ 12, p. 43)
Response
In the applicants opinion, the proposed development is not out of character w ith the existing pattern of development to the north of the subject site, including Irvington Estates and the commercial uses at or near the intersection of M ain Street sand Route 9. A lthough this area, as the main intersection in the Village, has a more intensive development pattern than other more outlying parts of Irvington, it still maintains the small tow n character that extends along South Broadw ay and dow n to M etro N orth and the H udson River. N ote that the Broadw ay and A queduct setbacks have been increased in the FEIS plan. The South Broadw ay setback has been increased from 100 to 131 feet. The A queduct setback has been increased from 35 to 50 feet. H ow ever, w ithin the areas, there are roadw ays, retaining w alls and a small parking area. A number of comments have been raised w ith regard to the proposed developments consistency w ith Comprehensive Plan objectives relating to building size, mass and its effects on South Broadw ay and the Old Croton A queduct. A s previously noted, the applicants FEIS plan addresses these concerns by increasing setback area, redesigning the South Broadw ay frontage, and placing approximately 25% of the program space and most of the off street parking below grade. The assisted living building along South Broadw ay, as show n in the DEIS Plan, has been removed in the FEIS plan. The view along South Broadw ay now includes a w indow into the sites central open space area. The FEIS responses further state the applicants opinion that assisted living on the subject site w ould provide a transition from low er density uses to the south of the site to the adjacent multifamily cooperative development to the immediate north and to the Village M ain Street commercial area just beyond those apartments. It is also noted that the proposed development is directly adjacent to a multifamily development, Irvington Estates, w hich has a greater intensity of development than the proposed assisted living. Irvington Estates is four stories (three residential over garage parking), compared to the 2-3 story proposed assisted living development. Its aqueduct setback is 41 feet compared to the applicants proposal of 50 feet, and its South Broadw ay setback is 80 feet compared to 131 feet in the applicants assisted living proposal. The follow ing tables illustrate the intensity of development on the adjacent Irvington Estates site compared w ith the Continuum proposal.
3-25
Irvington Estates* Areas Lot Area Building Coverage Pavement, Walks, Courts Total Impervious Open Space *Areas approximate, based on Westchester GIS
Continuum % of site 100% 20% 39% 59% 41% Acres 4.63 SF 201,683 44,867 58,488 102,366 98,317 % of site 100% 22% 29% 51% 49%
Acres 2.33
SF 101,495 20,125 39,350 59,475 42,020
Areas approximate, Based on Stormwater Management Report No deductions for pervious pavement materials taken.
Bldg distance from Broadway Bldg distance from the Aqueduct Building Height
Irvington Estates North bldg. = 86 ft. South bldg. = 93 ft. North bldg. = 41 ft. South bldg. = 44 ft 40 feet
Continuum 100 feet 34 feet 31 feet
See also response to 3.2.10.
3.2.18
Comment
The proposed density of 26 units per acre is inconsistent with the recommended density range of 3 to 13 units per acre shown on the Westchester County Planning Boards Westchester 2025 map. (Letter #6, Patrick N atarelli, 4/ 4/ 12, p. 7. Similar comments from: Patrick N atarelli, public hearing 4/ 4/ 12, p. 42; Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/ 18/ 12, p. 5)
Response
Comment noted. H ow ever, an assisted living facility--w hich is designed for seniors 82 years of age and older-- should not be judged by the same density standards as used for multifamily housing, w hich can serve families of all types. A ssisted living is a low er impact use w hich generates less overall additional residents, less traffic and no school aged children.
3-26
3.2.19
Comment
The proposed zoning amendments to the MF zone would permit coverage, reduced setbacks and excessive building bulk that would be greater than those permitted for any other special exception use within the MF zone. The existing zoning and special exception requirements of the MF zone were established to conform to the policies stated in the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, and the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance are inconsistent with those policies and the regulations of the zoning ordinance. (Letter #6, Patrick N atarelli, 4/ 4/ 12, p. 7. Similar comments from: Patrick N atarelli, public hearing 4/ 4/ 12, p. 15)
Response
Comments noted. The plan included in this FEIS has less coverage and increased setbacks from the A queduct and South Broadw ay than the DEIS plan. A lthough there are some improvements proposed in these areas (pavement, retaining w alls), the setbacks meet or exceed Villages buffer requirements. The bulk of the building has been significantly reduced, w ith program space and parking in the FEIS plan located below grade. See Response 3.2.14. N ote that the Village Board could decide to amend the Comprehensive Plan if it deems such an amendment necessary and appropriate.
3.2.20
Comment
The subject site is a transition zone from the low density residential and permanent open space land uses south of the site and the high density village center uses north of the site. The proposed development will be too large and out of character for the site and inconsistent with its transition zone location. (Letter #6, Patrick N atarelli, 4/ 4/ 12, p. 7. Similar comments from Patrick N atarelli, public hearing 4/ 4/ 12, p. 39 and 43)
Response
In the applicants opinion, the proposed use as w ell as the buildings design provides a transition betw een Irvington Estates and the Village dow ntow n to the north and the single family areas to the south. Irvington Estates includes four story residential buildings w ith 78 dw elling units on 2.33 acres. A s indicated in Response 3.2.17 its buildings are taller and its critical setbacks from the aqueduct and from South Broadw ay are less than the proposed assisted living. Its building coverage is 20% of the site area. It represents a significantly greater development that the proposed assisted living development. The FEIS plan has been modified to reduce the building mass and coverage, and to increase the critical A queduct and South Broadw ay setbacks. In
3-27
addition to the increase in the South Broadw ay setback from the 100 feet in the DEIS plan to the 131 feet in the FEIS plan, the layout along this roadw ay frontage has been changed. The DEIS had a long three story assisted living building located above parking, and extending parallel to South Broadw ay. The FEIS plan eliminates that building and includes an open space w indow that provides a view of a proposed landscaped courtyard. The mass of the proposed development is further reduced w ith significant program space and 39 of the 50 parking spaces located below grade in the FEIS plan.
3.2.21
Comment
The FEE property is the last multifamily zoned property in the village where there is the likelihood of redevelopment in the foreseeable future. It is an excellent site for multifamily residences and the Village should encourage its development as such. (Letter #6, Patrick N atarelli, 4/ 4/ 12, p. 8. Similar comments from: Correspondence #29, Petition submitted by w w w .ProtectIrvington.N Y.org; Patrick N atarelli, public hearing 4/ 4/ 12, p. 42; Barbara Scott, public hearing 4/ 4/ 12, p. 46; Patrick N atarelli, public hearing 5/ 2/ 12, p. 30-31; M s. M .J. Wilson, public hearing 5/ 2/ 12, p. 51)
Response
A s a good site for multifamily housing, it is also considered by the applicant to be a good site for assisted living.
3.2.22
Comment
If at some point the Village determines that it is in its best interest to permit an assisted living use in the Village, then the Village should take the initiative in deciding what locations and regulations should be considered to ensure that such a development is consistent with the goals and policies established in the comprehensive plan, and that the zoning requirements that are developed for the use are consistent with and further the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. (Letter #6, Patrick N atarelli, 4/ 4/ 12, p. 8. Similar comments from: Patrick N atarelli, public hearing 5/ 2/ 12, p. 43-44)
Response
The Village has not taken this initiative, but now has the opportunity to evaluate this use on the subject site. See also Response 3.2.6 w ith regard to the potential for multifamily development and assisted living in other areas zoned for multifamily use.
3-28
3.2.23
Comment
Overall the proposed development violates all four main goals of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan for the Village. On these grounds it is obvious that the application should be denied. (Correspondence #8, Rita M cConn-Stern, 3/ 26/ 12, p. 6. Similar comments from: Correspondence #29, Petition submitted by w w w .ProtectIrvington.N Y.org)
Response
In the applicants opinion, the four goals of the Comprehensive Plan are not violated by the proposed development. See also Response 3.2.46. 1.With regard to the scale and character, the applicant documented that the scale of the FEIS plan is consistent and more responsive to its surroundings than the buildings and the development pattern to the north, including Irvington Estates and the commercial development at or near the intersection of M ain Street and Route 9. 2. In terms of open space, a w ooded open area is provided along the expanded 131 foot Route 9 setback. This area and other setback areas w ill be supplemented w ith additional landscape plantings. Building mass in this area has been significantly reduced and eliminated, w ith an open space w indow provided to the developments landscaped courtyard. The plan presented in this FEIS exceeds the required buffer from South Broadw ay and meets the required A queduct buffer. H ow ever, the plan does include paved areas and retaining w alls in these areas. The trees that still need to be removed from the interior of the site w ill be replaced w ith proposed on-site landscaping and w ith an off-site tree planting program. See Exhibit 3 for details. 3. There w ill be no adverse impact on the health or safety of the Village; to the contrary the proposed development w ill enhance the quality of life for Irvington seniors w ho move to the assisted living or memory care units, as w ell as families and friends w ho w orry about the care of seniors. 4. Finally, w ith regard to managing grow th, the process--w hich includes this SEQRA review , along w ith subsequent Village Board and Planning Board review --enables Village officials to manage grow th and development w hile recognizing the impacts of a proposed senior use not currently available in the community.
3.2.24
Comment
The FEE property sits in the middle of a block of property that has high density of buildings on a very busy thoroughfare. It is zoned now as multifamily, but if the zoning can be changed, then FEE will realize a much higher figure in purchase price. The benefit/risk ratio in that change in zoning is skewed highly in favor of the FEE, and Continuum. The profit margin in a facility of this size is significant, where
3-29
the cost of monthly care for a resident ranges from $5k -10k, depending the level of services required and is NOT covered by Medicare. The risk is an irreparable undesirable impact on the Village of Irvington and its residents. I urge the Mayor, Planning Board and Trustees not to "SELL OUT" our "most desirable Village in Westchester" as to make the highest purchase price possible for FEE and as a marketing tool for a Continuum to maximize their profit, while the residents of Irvington will pay the ultimate cost. (Correspondence #8, Rita M cConn-Stern, 3/ 26/ 12, p. 6)
Response
Contrary to the above, the Village Board w ill make its decision on the proposed zoning based upon the merits of the application from a community planning perspective, consistent w ith its analysis of environmental impacts, pursuant to SEQRA .
3.2.25
Comment
To provide for an oversized development footprint, the applicant is proposing legislation to reduce the Broadway buffer for the site by 20% from 125 ft. (which it indicates is over protective) to 100 ft. and reduce the Croton Aqueduct buffer which the property borders along its westerly line by 40% from 50 ft. to 30 ft. for any structures. It would also remove the buffer protection entirely with respect to emergency access driveways. (DEIS ch. 3.1.9.2, page 3-11). The size and layout of the proposed project if these requirements were met and whether such a build out is feasible are not addressed. The DEIS does not adequately identify and analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed reductions and fails to demonstrate that the adverse impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent practical. (Correspondence #9, Irvington Environmental Conservation Board, 4/ 3/ 12, p. 2)
Response
N otw ithstanding the inclusion of paved areas and retaining w alls, the FEIS plan has been designed to meet or exceed the Route 9 and A queduct buffer areas. In the DEIS plan, the buffer area along the A queduct w as 35 feet; this has been increased to 50 feet in the FEIS plan, w hich is sufficient for landscaping sand screening In the DEIS plan, the buffer along South Broadw ay w as 100 feet; in the FEIS plan, it is 131 feet. M oreover, the design treatment for the Route 9 frontage has been changed in the FEIS plan, eliminating the building in the DEIS that w as parallel to the roadw ay, and replacing it w ith an open space view of the proposed landscaped courtyard. See Responses 3.2.9, 3.2.10 and 3.2.11.
3-30
3.2.26
Comment
Good zoning practices should not prohibit property improvement, discourage economic development, nor deny an owner a reasonable return on their investment. Irvingtons Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations are intended to encourage harmonious development through adaptive re-use and rehabilitation of the existing building stock in the historical Main Street district. Conservation and preservation need not encumber rightful and fair use of property. However, the FEE building can successfully be rehabilitated for adaptive reuse and the proposed development can include alterations and additions compliant with applicable zoning laws and building codes. (Correspondence #10, Earl Ferguson, 4/ 3/ 12, p. 3)
Response
The DEIS and FEIS presented plans w ith and w ithout adaptive reuse of the main building. The FEIS plan w ith the removal of the existing building is the applicants proposed plan. Refer to Exhibit 1, Illustrative Site Plan and Exhibits 20 and 21 for illustrations of the proposed estate house.
3.2.27
Comment
Should a tear-down development at the site receive approval, it would not be in accord with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, and it would represent continued poor precedent for future development in the historic downtown area. If protective measures are not enforced, there will be continued erosion of the historic character of the Village, leading to detriment of the neighborhood and entire community. (Correspondence #10, Earl Ferguson, 4/ 3/ 12, p. 3)
Response
Comment noted. The Village Planning Board w ill determine w hether to recommend a plan w ith or a plan w ithout the main building as part of its Environmental Findings Statement. The applicants proposed plan calls for removal of the main building and its replacement w ith a similar building on that portion of the site. See Chapter 1 of this FEIS for a discussion of the rationale for the removal of the existing main building in contrast w ith its adaptive re-use for senior housing.
3.2.28
Comment
How we balance goals of preservation and the need to meet modern demands for more urban density development will set the trend for our future. As a community, we must direct
3-31
development to be harmonious with public purpose. I encourage our review boards to reasonably control development that fosters preservation of the inherent character of our neighborhoods and original historic buildings in Irvington. (Correspondence #10, Earl Ferguson, 4/ 3/ 12, p. 3)
Response
Comment noted. The recommendation on the reuse of the main building, or its demolition w ill be determined as part of the Environmental Findings Statement that the Planning Board w ill consider and adopt, as the last step in its environmental review of the proposed project. H ow ever, the applicants plan in this FEIS calls for a new main building, replacing the existing structure.
3.2.29
Comment
The massive structure will require a change in zoning laws as it is contrary to current Irvington Village zoning code for size, parking, coverage, height, setback, floor-area ratio and more. (Correspondence #11, Barry Graubart, 3/ 13/ 12, p. 5. Similar comments from: Correspondence #27, Cindy and Steven Kief, 4/ 23/ 12, p. 1.; Correspondence #28, Barry Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 9-10; M s. Kathy H ow ard, public hearing 4/ 4/ 12, p. 34 and 35)
Response
Comment noted. The building proposed in this FEIS has been designed to respond to this concern. N ote that the Village Zoning Ordinance does not contain regulations for assisted living facilities. The applicants proposed zoning in this FEIS is a modification of the zoning presented in the DEIS. It reflects changes made to the size of the building, its coverage and the South Broadw ay and A queduct setbacks.
3.2.30
Comment
The project, as currently proposed, seems grossly out of proportion to the property and is not consistent with the values put forth in the 2003 Comprehensive Plan. It is also unclear to me how an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan can be put forth for the benefit of one entity. (Correspondence #12, Patricia Graubart, 3/ 18/ 12, p. 1)
3-32
Response
See Response 3.2.14. A n amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, if deemed necessary, w ill require a decision by the Village Board upon deliberation of the projects merits. It is not unusual for a comprehensive plan amendment to be considered as part of an application for rezoning.
3.2.31
Comment
Approval of this project it would appear will require zoning law changes and numerous variances. (Correspondence #12, Patricia Graubart, 3/ 18/ 12, p. 1)
Response
The proposed development w ould require a zoning text change, but it w ould not require zoning variances. A ll lot and bulk controls required for the proposed plan w ould be incorporated into the text change.
3.2.32
Comment
The application by The Continuum Company to build an assisted living facility on the site of the FEE property at 30 South Broadway, if approved, would have substantial negative impact on our village. The proposed coverage of the site alone would forever change the Villages existing character and charm, and fly in the face of the intent of the Village Comprehensive Plan, which states as one of its four main goals as Preserving and enhancing the Villages existing built character and scale. (Correspondence #13, M ary Beth Dooley, 4/ 2/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Correspondence #41, Janet Silberman, 4/ 4/ 12, p. 1; Correspondence #43, Barbara Scott, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 1.)
Response
The proposed FEIS plan is consistent w ith the scale of the adjacent Irvington Estates development. Just north of Irvington Estates, the character changes from residential to commercial w ith stores, restaurants and auto related uses at or near the M ain Street intersection.
3.2.33
Comment
The applicant states that the proposed development addresses the need for senior housing as outlined in the Village Comprehensive Plan. However, under the heading Land Use and
3-33
Development Controls, the Comprehensive Plan clearly states its intention to Encourage senior or affordable housing using the Villages special permit mechanism. This existing below-marketrate housing provision should be amended to permit affordable housing in a range of zoning districts. Senior affordable housing is not assisted living housing and the terms should not be used interchangeably. (Correspondence #13, M ary Beth Dooley, 4/ 2/ 12, p. 1)
Response
A ssisted living is clearly a form of senior housing.
3.2.34
Comment
I want the character of the Village to stay the same or change for the better for them. Altering a neighborhood through modification of building codes, zoning laws to suit a Corporation will destroy the Village I come to know and call home. The Continuum Company complex, the size of a Marriott Courtyard and Holiday Inn Express, planned for 30 South Broadway will require the significant modification of Village building codes and zoning laws. (Correspondence #14, Osman Tugal, 4/ 3/ 12, p. 1)
Response
In mature communities like Irvington, modifications to the zoning code or area variances are relatively common, particularly for redevelopment and infill projects or facilities that are somew hat unique, such as assisted living buildings. N o w aivers from the building code have been requested. While the project does involve zoning modifications, there w ould be no significant impact on community character as a result of these changes. The site is located in a developed area near the Villages core. It is also directly adjacent to a multistory, multifamily building w ith a similar scale and a large surface parking lot. In addition, the plan proposed in this FEIS significantly reduces the mass of the building, increases its critical setbacks, and enhances its open space buffer treatments. The increased setback distance and vegetation along the South Broadw ay and Old Croton A queduct property lines, w hich w ould potentially present the most exposure to the public, reduces the potential for visual impact that w ould affect public perception of overall community character. The South Broadw ay setback has been increased from 100 feet in the DEIS plan to 131 feet in the FEIS plan. The Old Croton A queduct setback has been increased from 35 feet in the DEIS plan to 50 feet in the FEIS plan. The gross building area over elevation 164 has been reduced by over 25,000 square feet in the FEIS plan, w ith portions of the program and the parking placed underground. With this approach, the coverage has been reduced from 22.2% in the DEIS plan to 18.8% in the FEIS plan. The project also employs a residential architectural design to further blend appropriately w ith the community.
3-34
3.2.35
Comment
I am strongly opposed to the planned Continuum complex because the project Significantly and detrimentally alters the Village of Irvington Requires significant building code changes Requires significant zoning law changes Signals other Corporations that Irvington is easy target and will modify its zoning laws and building codes to meet corporate building needs (Correspondence #14, Osman Tugal, 4/ 3/ 12, p. 1)
Response
A change in zoning does not provide an indication that such zoning modifications can be readily obtained. A ny such change w ould require a rigorous and comprehensive review , including public hearings, recommendations from the Planning Board and SEQRA compliance.
3.2.36
Comment
The degree of coverage exceeds anything in my recollection, and the placement of this heavy coverage in a prominent location are problematic, and contrary to our laws. The entire arrangement smacks of spot zoning. The project would not differ considerably in impact from say, a 120 room hotel. If the developer is keen to execute a project such as this in Irvington, there are available much more compatible locations. (Correspondence #21, Francis Goudie, 3/ 20/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Barbara Scott, public hearing 4/ 4/ 12, p. 45; M s. Patricia Graubart, public hearing 5/ 2/ 12, p. 45-46)
Response
The coverage for the building proposed in this FEIS is significantly less than the DEIS plan, i.e., 18.8% in the FEIS compared to 22.2% in the DEIS. The prominent view s from South Broadw ay and the A queduct have been addressed w ith setbacks that are 50 feet from the A queduct and 131 feet from South Broadw ay. The FEIS plan has changed the design approach for the South Broadw ay frontage, eliminating the long assisted living w ing that w as parallel to the roadw ay. This w ing w as three stories in height above a partially exposed parking garage. The new FEIS plan eliminates this long building and includes an open space w indow that provides view s into the projects landscaped courtyard. See Response 3.2.42 regarding spot zoning.
3-35
3.2.37
Comment
The objections I have to the facility proposed are: Exponential increase in density Large height, FAR and volume exceptions to currently permitted building (Correspondence #20, Francis Goudie, 3/ 18/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Correspondence #21, Francis Goudie, 3/ 20/ 12, p. 1; Correspondence #29, Petition submitted by w w w .ProtectIrvington.N Y.org; Patrick N atarelli, public hearing 4/ 4/ 12, p. 39-41)
Response
Comments noted. The plan proposed in this FEIS responds to these concerns by placing a significant portion of the building and parking below grade. This allow s for increased buffers and open space treatment along the South Broadw ay and Old Croton A queduct frontages.
3.2.38
Comment
The objections I have to the facility proposed are: Out-of character institutional apparatus adjacent to residences (Correspondence #20, Francis Goudie, 3/ 18/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Correspondence #21, Francis Goudie, 3/ 20/ 12, p. 1.)
Response
The building proposed in this FEIS has been designed to have a residential character. See Exhibits 15-18 and 20-21.
3.2.39
Comment
We have enough nail salons, hair dressers and pizza parlors. It's time for Irvington to try something new. (Correspondence #22, John Tunis, 3/ 19/ 12, p. 1)
Response
Comment noted.
3-36
3.2.40
Comment
I also think that the building footprint as described devours all of the open space that I can tell on the plot. I don't know if there is a certain FAR equivalent calculations that were done for a place of this type. But it strikes to me that the outline on the proposed building is huge and in fact, in the proposal itself in paragraph 1.4.6, the developable area is described as 3.57 acres and in table 1.2, the building is described -- the proposed building will result in 4.4 acres of total impervious surfaces, meaning everything is being covered with impervious surfaces. (Ms. Eleanor Alford, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 57)
Response
On the 4.6 acre site, the proposed development leaves 50% of the site as open space. The reference to 4.4 acres of impervious area refers to the entire drainage basin, w hich is much larger than this site alone.
3.2.41
Comment
I'd like some explanation just to -- little more to understand what is meant in paragraph 1.4.7, that says -- talking about the setbacks from the aqueduct. There also needs to be an understanding on the relationship of residential community located downgrade of the site and on the western side of the aqueduct. A little more about that as we go. What do you mean by understanding of the residential community? (Ms. Eleanor Alford, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 57-58)
Response
The Continuums representative have met w ith the neighbors in the tw o areas cited in this comment and has discussed issues of concern, including visual impacts and stormw ater management.
3-37
3.2.42
Comment
Are we opening ourselves up to some potential spot zoning issues? (Mr. Pat Natarelli, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 74. Similar comments from: Correspondence #27, Cindy and Steven Kief, 4/ 23/ 12, p. 1; Correspondence #28, Barry S. Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 3; Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/ 18/ 12, p. 5.)
Response
In response to comments as to whether the proposed zone text amendment is considered spot zoning, the New York Court of Appeals has defined spot zoning as the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area, for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of other owners. Rodgers v. Tarrytown, 302 N.Y. 115 (1951); see also, Boyles v. Town Board of the Town of Bethlehem, 278 A.D.2d 688 (3d Dept 2000). The Rodgers Court went on to state that: spot zoning is the very antithesis of planned zoning. If, therefore, an ordinance is enacted in accordance with a comprehensive zoning plan, it is not spot zoning, even though it (1) singles out and affects but one small plot or (2) creates in the center of a large zone small areas or districts devoted to a different use. Id. The real test for spot zoning is whether the zoning change is other than part of a well-considered and comprehensive plan calculated to serve the general welfare of the community. Collard v. Incorporated Village of Flower Hill, 52 N.Y.2d 594 (1981). The proposed zone text amendment would allow for assisted living communities by special permit in the Multi-Family (MF) zoning district. The Villages 2003 Comprehensive Plan specifically identifies the FEE property as one of the few remaining unsubdivided parcels in the Village that could be further developed. The Comprehensive Plan further provides that the local ordinances require updating to address development of the FEE property, among others, so that over time private property development and conservation, advance and are consistent with public goals. The Comprehensive Plan further provides that: [t]he specific issues for implementation discussed below suggest changes to local land use regulations so that new houses and roads either mesh with the established settlement character or provide a benefit to the community, such as permanently preserved open space or affordable housing or senior housing. Village of Irvington 2003 Comprehensive Plan, p. 27. (emphasis added) In this case, the proposed zone text amendment providing for assisted living communities by special permit in the MF district is in harmony with the Villages 2003 Comprehensive Plan. First, the average age of residents in the proposed assisted living community is 82 years old. Therefore, the assisted living facility will certainly qualify as senior housing. Next, and most significantly, the FEE site is specifically targeted in the 2003 Comprehensive Plan for senior housing. Furthermore, the assisted living community will benefit the community as a whole, not just an individual or group of individuals, by providing tax revenue without school children and
3-38
providing local merchants with new residents and their visitors who will patronize commercial establishments along Main Street. There is a notable and well acknowledged social need and community benefit to this use. Finally, as discussed above, the proposed assisted living facility is a residential use that is consisted with and in harmony with the surrounding residential land uses.
3.2.43
Comment
Consistency with County Planning Board policies. The proposal contains both consistencies and potential inconsistencies with the County Planning Board's long-range planning policies and strategies set forth in Westchester 2025-Context for County and Municipal Planning and Policies to Guide County Planning, adopted by the County Planning Board on May 6, 2008, amended January 5, 2010, and the strategies in Patterns for Westchester. The proposal would re-use an existing site near a downtown center, where the existing infrastructure can support growth and where public transit and access to downtown amenities can be effectively provided. However, several more specific aspects of the proposal require further discussion: SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT While the draft EIS describes the proposed development as serving "as a transitional use between the abutting single-family residential community and the higher density residential uses to the north and east," the development is shown to have a higher number of dwelling units per acre than all surrounding properties. In addition, the proposed zoning amendments would permit building setbacks for the site that are significantly less, and a building coverage that is significantly higher, than in place on surrounding properties. Because the Irvington Zoning Ordinance does not contain regulations permitting or regulating assisted living facilities, the applicant has proposed zoning standards based on the proposed development, which as noted above, would be larger than the existing regulations permit on surrounding parcels. For example, the new regulations would allow assisted living facilities to have side yard setbacks of 25 feet; multi-family uses must have a setback of 50 feet. Building coverage would be permitted at 30%; multi-family uses are limited to 10%. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance requires a "Broadway Buffer" of 1 00 feet and a "Croton Aqueduct Buffer" of 30 feet for all properties abutting these rights of way. The proposed amendments would change these requirements for assisted living facilities so as to require a Broadway Buffer (for structures less than six feet in height) of 40 feet and a zero-foot Croton Aqueduct Buffer (only for emergency access driveways). The proposed locational requirements for assisted living special permit uses will essentially limit the location of assisted living facilities to the subject site. We note that the multi-family alternative presented in the draft EIS indicates that 24 to 26 multi-family units could be constructed on the site versus 121 units in the proposed development. The Village will need to consider these factors in the context of local planning policy.
3-39
SCENIC FUNCTION OF BROADWAY AND OLD CROTON AQUEDUCT the 2003 Irvington Comprehensive Plan contains specific policy objectives regarding the scenic qualities of Broadway and the Old Croton Aqueduct. The comprehensive plan specifically calls for "deepening the buffer requirement on properties that can be developed in the future." The proposed assisted living regulations, which would decrease the required buffer setbacks for both Broadway and the Old Croton Aqueduct, may impact the scenic functions of these corridors. The Village will need to consider potential impacts, the relationship to Comprehensive Plan recommendations and any precedent that may be set. (Correspondence #26, Westchester County Planning Board, 5/4/12, p. 2-3)
Response
The FEIS addresses the Countys concern about the scale of the building by placing significant portions of the program and the parking below grade. This reduces the square footage above elevation 164 by more than 25,000 square feet. The critical setbacks from South Broadw ay and the Old Croton A queduct are significantly increased in the FEIS plan, and design of the frontage along Route 9 has been modified to eliminate the long building, w hich, in the DEIS Plan w as three stories over parking, and w as parallel to the roadw ay. The FEIS plan replaces that building w ith an open space w indow that provides a view of the facilitys courtyard. Irvington Estates, the multifamily development to the north of the Project Site has a greater coverage than the proposed development plans 18.8%. Irvington Estates has 73 units on its 2.3 acres, a density of nearly 32 units per acre. Building heights are three stories over parking garages. M any of its impacts are greater than those of the assisted living development. N ote also that the proposed zoning has been revised to reflect the changes in setbacks, coverage, etc as provided in the FEIS plan.
3.2.44
Comment
Affordable affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH). The proposed assisted living would be constructed on one of the few remaining MF - multi-family zoned sites not currently developed with multi-family housing. We recommend that the final EIS acknowledge this and discuss how the use of this site for assisted living may impact future opportunities to develop multi-family housing in Irvington. Further, while Irvington does have an affordable housing ordinance in place that promotes the construction of affordable AFFH units, the draft EIS does not discuss how that ordinance should be amended to address assisted living facilities. The Village ordinance requires that no less than 10% of all dwelling units in a residential development created by site plan or subdivision approval be set aside as affordable AFFH. Is that requirement to be applied to assisted living developments?
3-40
We recommend that the final EIS include a discussion of the Village affordable housing regulations and the inclusion of affordable AFFH units so that the Village may determine how the affordable housing ordinance should apply to the proposed development. Because of the cost factor involved with assisted living, one option that we recommend be considered is to require construction of standard affordable AFFH units that are not age restricted as a 10% portion of the development. (Correspondence #26, Westchester County Planning Board, 5/4/12, p. 3-4. Similar comments from: Patrick N atarelli, public hearing 4/ 4/ 12, p. 42)
Response
Use of this site for assisted living w ould preclude future opportunities to develop multi-family housing on the site. H ow ever, at this time, there are no know n plans or proposals to develop multi-family housing on this site. Some of the other M F sites w ithin the Village could conceivably be redeveloped and may represent future opportunities to increase the Villages supply of affordable housing. The Village Board is also empow ered to establish new zoning districts or remap the M F district on other sites, such as in the w aterfront area, that could provide sensible locations to address its fair housing obligations. A rticle XXVIII Fair and A ffordable H ousing of the Irvington Zoning Code does not apply to assisted living facilities. A rticle XXVIII is applicable to for purchase and rental dw elling units. Dw elling units are defined in the Irvington Zoning Code as A building or entirely self-contained portion thereof containing complete housekeeping facilities for only one family, including any domestic servants employed on the premises, and having no enclosed space other than vestibules, entrance or other hallw ays or porches or cooking or sanitary facilities in common w ith any other dw elling unit. A boardinghouse, convalescent home, dormitory, fraternity or sorority house, hotel, inn, lodging house, nursing or other similar home or other similar structure shall not be deemed to constitute a dw elling unit. It is clear that the intent of the foregoing definition is to exclude congregate living facilities. The assisted living facility proposed by the applicant is similar to a convalescent home and/ or a nursing home. Therefore, A rticle XXVIII of the Irvington Zoning Code, w hich provides for affordable housing, is not applicable to the applicants proposed assisted living facility. It should be noted that, in the event the applicant pursues IDA financing, the IDA w ill require a mandatory 20% affordable requirement.
3.2.45
Comment
Five acres were just sold on 119 to build an assisted living facility. It is our understanding that Greenburgh has approved a 60 bed unit. How is it possible that Greenburgh sees fit that 5 acres should only yield 60 beds, yet Continuum proposes 168 beds on 4.6 acres? (Correspondence #27, Cindy and Steven Kief, 4/ 23/ 12, p. 2. Similar comments from: Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/ 18/ 12, p. 1)
3-41
Response
The Tow n of Greenburgh is currently review ing a proposal for a 90 unit assisted living project on a five acre site on Old White Plains Road. The proposed Brightview Senior Living is a 90 unit project, not 60 units. It requires a zoning change, site plan approval and a SEQRA review . It has not been approved.
3.2.46
Comment
Regarding the process, prior to reviewing the DEIS, I re-read the Village of Irvington 2003 Comprehensive Plan. Its an impressive document and I am appreciative of the efforts that must have been required to pull it together. In reading the plan, it clearly identifies four core goals: 1. Preserving and enhancing the Villages existing built character and scale. 2. Protecting the health, safety and quality of life of Village residents. 3. Controlling and managing growth in the Village. 4. Protecting and enhancing the Villages green spaces, natural resources, open space areas and scenic corridors There is a strong argument to be made that the proposed Continuum project would violate all four of these goals: 1. Preserving and enhancing the Villages existing built character and scale: the proposed implementation for this tenet of the Comprehensive Plan was to amend coverage provisions and laws governing frontage for new construction. In fact, the Comprehensive Plan speaks of Increasing the buffer zone along Broadway and the Aqueduct for new lots and requiring screening for new intrusions into the new buffer on existing lots, consistent with public safety. Instead, the size and scale of this project wholly overwhelm the lot for which it is intended, with setbacks reduced, not increased. Proposed coverage is a multiple of what present zoning law allows for and this massive structure, and its large brick retaining wall, will become an eyesore that will greet visitors arriving to Irvington from the south. 2. Protecting the health, safety and quality of life for Village residents: the proposed facility raises strong health risks, most notably due to increased stress on IVAC, potentially meaning that emergency resources will not be there for Village residents when they need them. There are similar concerns for the fire department, both in terms of the height of and access to the structures and in terms of potential evacuation plans for a large population of high-needs residents, many of them infirm. The project raises many health, safety and quality of life risks beyond IVAC. There is traffic impact on a roadway which serves as the alternate when the Saw Mill River Parkway floods. The impact on the fire department to service a facility with challenging topography and which houses many high-needs individuals is a safety concern for the Village as well.
3-42
3. Protecting and enhancing the Villages green spaces, natural resources, open space areas and scenic corridors. The comprehensive plan calls for efforts to Enhance the scenic corridors along Broadway and the Old Croton Aqueduct Trail by implementing landscaping requirements for developed properties and deepening the buffer requirement on properties that can be developed in the future. Yet this plan proposes amending setback requirements to allow building closer to the aqueduct and to Broadway. It replaces open spaces with massive structures and other impervious surfaces, creating a new high density area. (Correspondence #28, Barry S. Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 1-3. Similar comments from: Barry Graubart, public hearing 4/ 4/ 12, p. 45; Barry Graubart, public hearing 4/ 4/ 12, p. 48-51; Correspondence #36, Barry Graubart, 5/19/12, p. 3; Patricia Graubart, public hearing 5/2/12, p. 47)
Response
1. The FEIS plan addresses the concern regarding the scale of the building by placing approximately 25,000 square feet of program space and 39 off street parking spaces below grade. Scale and green/ open space concerns have also been addressed by increasing the critical setbacks from South Broadw ay and the Old Croton A queduct. The A queduct setback area w as 35 feet in the DEIS plan. It the FEIS plan, this is increased to 50 feet, w hich provides sufficient area for planting and screening. The South Broadw ay setback is increased from 100 feet in the DEIS plan to 131 feet in the FEIS plan. A dditionally the long, three story over parking, assisted living w ing that w as parallel to South Broadw ay in the DEIS plan has been eliminated. The new plan has an open space w indow along South Broadw ay that provides view s of the proposed landscaped courtyard. Irvington Estates, the multifamily development to the immediate north of the project site, has a greater coverage (i.e., xx %) than the projects 18.8% as proposed in the FEIS. It is also three stories over parking. A lthough Irvington Estates has 73 units compared to 121 units proposed by the Continuum on the subject site, the comparisons must recognize the low impact factors associated w ith assisted living. It is noted that the proposed zoning included in this FEIS reflects the scaled-back characteristics of the FEIS pan as cited above. 2. In terms of health and safety concerns, as indicated in Section 1, the facility w ill be staffed w ith professional medical staff and caregivers w ho w ill serve as the first line of response for health concerns at the facility. The applicant w ill also contract w ith a private ambulance service for routine doctor visits and non emergency situations, thus further avoiding unnecessary IVA C and 911 calls. For those incidents w hich require 911 calls, IVA C w ill be reimbursed for the call through the persons insurance. In order to mitigate the impacts of the additional service calls, the applicant has proposed the follow ing program.
3-43
1) It w ill employ a nurse on site at all times (24 hours per day, 7 days per w eek) in an effort to directly reduce the number of unnecessary 911 calls. 2) It w ill make a substantial monetary contribution of $32,000 annually to be used to employ a full time EM T at IVA C. Based on an ongoing dialogue w ith A l Kim, Director of Stellaris, an EM T in Westchester County makes approximately $15/ hr (or $31,200 annually). This full time position w ill be employed for 40 hours per w eek or 160 hours per month. Based on this calculation, if the highest end of the estimate of 911 calls is assumed (10 calls per month) and the average call takes a total of 5 hours of time, the net effect w ould be 50 hours of EM T time per month to attend to calls from the proposed facility. The balance (160 hours per month, less 50 hours per month attending to Continuum) leaves 110 hours per month of time that the EM T can dedicate to other calls at IVA C. Based on this calculation, this addition to IVA C far exceeds the impact of the calls projected at the proposed assisted living facility and w ould be of benefit to the Village. 3) It w ill cater events at IVA C and promote and sponsor annual fundraisers as w ell. A ppropriate access for emergency vehicles has also been provided around the entire building, ensuring that the fire department apparatus can be deployed effectively. While flooding is becoming regrettably more frequent, diversions from the Saw M ill River Parkw ay are temporary impacts and a regional issue. The proposed development represents a negligible amount of the regional Saw M ill River Parkw ay and Route 9 traffic demand. 3. With regard to managing grow th, this SEQRA process has enabled the Planning Board to consider the changing demographics in the community and the need for senior housing in general and how portions of the need can be accommodated on the subject site. 4. In terms of open space, it is noted that the site is zoned for multifamily development and a number of additional uses could be permitted under the existing special permit regulations in the M F district. The w ooded open space area along South Broadw ay w ill be maintained w ith the building setback 131 feet from the roadw ay. M oreover, the FEIS plan has a design that provides an open space w indow into the development central open space, enhancing view s from South Broadw ay.
3.2.47
Comment
My initial impressions of the DRAFT DEIS report is that it appears materially incomplete and heavily biased in favor of the proposal that is not the most reasonable alternative to address senior housing in the Village. There is a lot of speculation and very little factual back-up for the assumptions made.
(Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 1)
3-44
Response
The DEIS w as the applicants document. The Village Planning Board deemed it complete because it addressed all of the issues required in the adopted DEIS scope. In contrast, this FEIS is the Village Planning Boards document. It w ill provide the basis for the Planning Boards Environmental Findings Statement, w hich it w ill adopt pursuant to SEQRA . The Findings w ill then provide the basis for the Planning Boards recommendation to the Village Board of Trustees on the proposed zoning for the site, as w ell as subsequent as subsequent actions by the Planning Board if the Village Board approves the zoning amendment.
3.2.48
Comment
The project basically calls for creating a Village within the Village. The proposed facility is so grossly disproportionate to the allocated parcel. There are alternative parcels available in the Village that is more appropriate from a size and location perspective. In addition, the proposal calls for a different land use characterization from the surrounding district.
(Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 1) Response

Comments noted. H ow ever, the proposed land use designation w ould not change. The zoning amendment calls for a proposed special permit, w hich w ould allow assisted living facilities w ithin the existing M F District.
3.2.49
Comment
I would like the DEIS to address whether this is indeed a COMMERCIAL enterprise and not a residential enterprise. We have a CORPORATION running a TRANSITIONAL living enterprise to maximize profits. The individuals do not buy property; they have a one-year contract with a month to month arrangement, like an office lease. The facility could be sold at any time displacing all the individuals. The goal of this project is not to provide senior living to Irvington, the goal of this project is to provide a sizable Return on Investment for Continuum (and a handsome sale price to FEE). The size of the facility is geared toward maximizing profits. The decision to just have ALR beds is to maximize profits. The high number of Alzheimers units is geared to maximize profits. The exorbitant monthly rates are to maximize profits. Why are we obviating all of our laws and regulations for the benefit of a Corporation?
(Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 3 and 4. Similar comments from: Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 4)
3-45
Response
Comments noted. In zoning terms, assisted living is typically considered to be a multifamily residential use, not a commercial use. In terms of ow nership structure, much residential real estate is controlled by commercial interests (e.g., rental apartment complexes) and most ow nership unit projects (e.g., condominiums, single-family home subdivisions) are developed by commercial enterprises w ith a profit motive. Ensuring profitability is necessary for projects to be constructed and for them to be properly maintained and sustained as long-term resources.
3.2.50
Comment
Efforts must be made to reduce the size of the building. Provide plans for buildings and layout that meet the 125-foot Broadway buffer, the 50-foot Aqueduct buffer, the 15% coverage limit, the 35-foot height limit, and the 100-foot front, rear, and side yard setbacks required for special permit uses in the Multifamily Residence District. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 1)
Response
The applicant produced a plan that is compliant w ith the M F district bulk and area regulations, including maximum coverage, setbacks, and buffers. Exhibit 37 show s a plan that meets the multifamily zoning requirements. That plan resulted in an approximately 60,700 s.f. building. Once the necessary space is allocated for amenities, circulation, and other required common space, the number of residential units w ould be limited to no more than 25. The plan proposed in this FEIS addresses the Broadw ay and A queduct buffer requirements. The building coverage has been significantly reduced from 22% to 18%. The South Broadw ay setback has been increased from 100 to 131 feet in the FEIS plan. The A queduct setback has been increased from 35 feet in the DEIS plan to 50 feet in the FEIS plan. A s detailed above, the plan meets the setback for those perspectives that have the most exposure to public view . H ow ever, application of all of the existing building requirements, including the 100-foot side yard, coverage and height, w ould constrict the available building envelope to such a degree so as to limit the ability to construct a building that could accommodate the proper programmatic and operational characteristics necessary for an assisted living facility. The applicant has also prepared a fully compliant plan, w hich is approximately 29,190 s.f. See Exhibit 35. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, this building w ould not meet any of the programmatic needs for an assisted living facility and could not be developed by the applicant.
3-46
3.2.51
Comment
Provide plans for buildings and layout that meet the other requirements of the Zoning Code for the Multifamily Residence District, i.e., No building shall exceed 180 feet in length, and Inner courts are prohibited. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Patricia Graubart, public hearing 5/2/12, p. 47)
Response
The inner court has been eliminated in the plan proposed in this FEIS. A dditionally, the applicant has revised the proposed zone text amendment to address the outer courts by giving the Planning Board approval authority over outer court dimensions. The length of building requirement has been addressed by the design of the structure proposed in the FEIS, w hich limits building length prior to an angle or other break in the structure. Furthermore, the applicant has revised the proposed zone text amendment to allow a maximum building length of 260 feet for assisted living facilities. The proposed DEIS long building along South Broadw ay has been modified significantly in the FEIS plan, w ith an open space w indow provided along that frontage that opens to a view of the projects landscaped courtyard. H ow ever, it is noted that from a programmatic perspective, it is important that connectivity is maintained throughout the assisted living facility so that senior services can be provided to all parts of the assisted living development w ith going outdoors betw een separate buildings.
3.2.52
Comment
Provide corrected numbers for coverage of buildings, driveways, parking lots, and other impervious surfaces. Make sure elevations and plans match. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 1)
Response
The proposed site coverage (in acres) for the FEIS site plan is as follow s: Building (at-grade): 0.93 Drivew ays: 0.77 Emergency A ccess: 0.15 Outdoor Parking: 0.05 Walks: 0.36 Patios: 0.06 Total 2.32
3-47
It should be noted that the Stormw ater M anagement analysis included an approximate 2% increase in impervious area to account for modest layout clarifications and modifications during site plan approval.
3.2.53
Comment
Clarify the height of the proposed buildings throughout the site. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 1)
Response
The memory care building is tw o stories. The assisted living buildings are tw o to three stories. The existing main building is 55 feet tall. The proposed main building in the FEIS plan is 41 feet tall. With this plan, a portion of the assisted living building near the aqueduct w ould change from three to tw o stories.
3.2.54
Comment
Zoning laws were created for a purpose and I urge you to uphold that purpose. I sincerely hope that you will not permit this project to come to fruition. Please quelch this potential disaster for our beautiful village. (Correspondence #41, Janet Silberman, 4/4/12, p. 1-2)
Response
Comment noted.
3.2.55
Comment
Why does close vicinity to Main Street m a t t e r t o the facility as was stated b y their representatives? There are services, like a beauty salon, f o r the residents on the premises and I am sure any outings that residents might m a k e will be facilitated by a shuttle. 1 do not see walking outings to main street being a major possibility due to the steep hills and/or the rocky bumpy aqueduct trail to traverse. Do the residents of the facility drive? (Correspondence #45, Scott Snyder, 3/7/12, p. 1)
3-48
Response
The proximity to M ain Street w ill be a benefit to family members w ho w ant to take project residents out for lunch or dinner or to do some shopping. Occasionally, this w ould also occur w ith staff led trips. Very few seniors, typically 82 years of age or older, w ould drive or w alk on their ow n.
3.2.56
Comment
Not only does this proposal require an amendment to our 2003 Comprehensive Plan and Village statutes, but it also violates our long-standing limitations on size, setback, coverage, height, allowance of inner courtyard and off-site parking to name a few. The gravity of it shocks the conscience! (Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 4. Similar comments from: Patricia Graubart, public hearing 5/2/12, p. 48)
Response
Comment noted; how ever, the plan proposed in this FEIS has been designed to address these concerns. The inner court has been eliminated. The A queduct and South Broadw ay setbacks have been increased, meeting or exceeding Village requirements. Coverage has been reduced. Off street parking, most of w hich is now below grade, meets industry standards for assisted living.
3-49
3.3
Community Character and Visual Analysis

Comment
There is very little room for vegetated buffers betw een the development and the aqueduct due to the setback and the emergency access w ay in the setback area. Planting w ill be challenging in the area because of the potential for root structures or tree canopy to conflict w ith the access. This reduces the ability to mitigate the impacts resulting from the proposed reduction in setback from the aqueduct from 50 feet to 30 feet. It appears from the analysis that the view looking east from the aqueduct w ill present the most dramatic change from existing conditions to proposed. (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p.2)
3.3.1
Response
The setback has been increased from 35 feet in the DEIS plan to 50 feet in the FEIS plan, w hich provides sufficient room for planting and screening. See Exhibit 3, Conceptual Landscape Plan, w hich illustrates the planting strip w ith the provision of evergreen trees at a closer 12 spacing to provide for increased screening.
3.3.2
Comment
You should add to the exhibits perspective renderings from Sycamore Lane. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 3)
Response
See Exhibit 28, w hich illustrates the perspective rendering from Sycamore Lane.
3.3.3
Comment
There is no reference in this chapter to Exhibit 3-13a. I realize it was added later, but there should be some reference to it in the text. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 3)
3-50
Response
This previously provided photo simulation, w hich show s the DEIS plans view from Irvington Estates is included in this FEIS by reference. See also Exhibit 21 for a view of the FEIS plan.
3.3.4
Comment
I would like the DEIS report to address the detrimental effects this facility could have on the characteristic and historic appeal of the Village. This will impact purchases of home property in Irvington & current resident home value. As residents drive up to the Village, this massive proposed facility & retaining wall will be the first thing they see. This could potentially dissuade buyers. In addition, if potential buyers will know that this precedent setting zoning change was made, they may wonder how safe their home will be (as the current residents feel now). (Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 4. Similar comments from: Mr. Steve Keif, public hearing 5/2/12, p. 42-43)
Response
The plan proposed in this FEIS addresses the comment related to the view from Route 9. The long building parallel to Route 9 has been eliminated. The setback has been increased, and an open space w indow has been provided, providing view s of the projects landscaped courtyard.
3.3.5
Comment
With respect to the height and mass of the proposed buildings, the Boards impression was that they would dominate the tree line and sky line along Broadway and Station Road and would thus have an adverse impact on the overall character of the Village. (Correspondence #5, Board of A rchitectural Review , 3/ 30/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Correspondence #23, Ron Cohen, M D and A my D. M artini, 3/ 20/ 12, p. 1; Correspondence #28, Barry Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 12)
Response
The southern portion of building proposed in this FEIS w ould be visible from Station Road in the leaf-off condition. During other times of the year, the building w ill be largely blocked by existing vegetation. The view s from South Broadw ay w ill be limited given the increased setback and the new design in the FEIS plan, coupled w ith the topography and the existing and proposed vegetation.
3-51
M oreover, it is noted that the character of the area already changes in this locale, heading for Irvington Estates and the commercial uses just beyond that apartment development, at the corner of Route 9 and M ain Street area.
3.3.6
Comment
The Board also viewed the mass and height of the proposed buildings as "crowding" the openness feeling along the aqueduct and thus would detract from the current character of the aqueduct. (Correspondence #5, Board of A rchitectural Review , 3/ 30/ 12, p. 1)
Response
The plans presented in this FEIS have increased the setback area along the A queduct to meet the Villages 50 foot requirement. The setback in the DEIS plan w as only 35 feet, and as such it did not provide sufficient space for the landscaping and screening as provided in the FEIS plan. A lthough there is a roadw ay w ithin the setback area, the applicant contends that the experience along the A queduct w ill not change from the current character. Directly to the north of the project site, the buildings at Irvington Estates are closer to the A queduct w ith little buffer. Further north, this section of the A queduct traverses dow ntow n Irvington.
3.3.7
Comment
The Board felt that the number of buildings and the size of the buildings seem too dense for the useable land and the project lacks the characteristic surrounding open space so prevalent with large buildings and developments in Irvington. (Correspondence #5, Board of A rchitectural Review , 3/ 30/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Correspondence #27, Cindy and Steven Kief, 4/ 23/ 12, p.1.)
Response
The FEIS plan increases critical Broadw ay and A queduct setback areas and reduces building coverage. It also locates 39 of the 50 parking spaces below grade. The plan proposed in this FEIS significantly reduces the mass of the building, increases its setbacks, and enhances its open space buffer treatments. The increased setback distance and vegetation along the South Broadw ay and Old Croton A queduct property lines, w hich w ould potentially present the most exposure to the public, reduces the potential for visual impact that w ould affect public perception of overall community character. The South Broadw ay setback has been increased from 100 feet in the DEIS plan to 131 feet in the FEIS plan. The Old Croton A queduct setback has been increased from 35 feet in the DEIS plan to 50 feet in the FEIS plan. The gross building area over elevation 164 has been reduced by over
3-52
25,000 square feet in the FEIS plan, w ith portions of the program and the parking placed underground. With this approach, the coverage has been reduced from 22.2% in the DEIS plan to 18.8% in the FEIS plan. The project also employs a residential architectural design to further blend appropriately w ith the community.
3.3.8
Comment
The area of 40 So. Broadway was described in "Wolferts Roost" as the site of the first colonial schoolhouse, and the text of the Little Red School House says that this place was the site of an Indian Massacre and in the Revolutionary War soldiers were buried on the site. I have recently restored the house to its original appearance, and it remains an attractive entrance to the Village driving from the south on Route 9, framed at its southern border by the Brook and a sweeping lawn, and on its north side a steep hillside of trees with no sight of any of the FEE buildings, as Mr. Reed the founder of the FEE was careful to avoid when he built on the property. The Continuum proposal will result in 2, 3 & 4 story building up to 35' feet in height arising on a site that is already elevated by +-50 feet ( I believe midpoint of roof = 35' high). The rendering showing in the DEIS application looking north is taken from above the intersection of Harriman Road and the Visual Impact is obtrusive. Furthermore removal of 79 trees will have a strong negative visual impact on this area. To realize in full the visual impact on the Village of Irvington one needs to look at the approach from the South Broadway/Station Road intersection. I want Continuum to provide a rendering looking north from this aspect. One can deduce with available information however that the view approaching the Village will be seen as a large mass of buildings on top of a steep hillside. The submission cites a need for an Assisted Living Facility for the residents of Irvington. There is no significant population of residents 82 years in the Village that would justify planning permission for such a large facility. Furthermore there is a very nice Assisted Living Facility in the adjoining village of Ardsley 3 miles away. This purported benefit to Irvington is negligible or nonexistent, and merely a sales tool. (Correspondence #8, Rita M cConn-Stern, 3/ 26/ 12, p. 4-5. Similar comments from: Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/ 18/ 12, p. 5)
Response
The need for assisted living throughout Westchester County is evident from the demographic trends included in the DEIS. See Response 3.1.16. The revised plan included in this FEIS removes the previously proposed building mass along South Broadw ay and provides an open space w indow of the projects landscaped courtyard. In addition, the South Broadw ay setback has been increased from 100 feet in the DEIS plan to 131 feet in the FEIS plan.
3-53
A photo-simulation from Station Road is presented as Exhibit 29.
3.3.9
Comment
In partial mitigation, the DEIS states that columnar shade trees spaced 25 on center along west property line will be used to screen the proposed development from the view of persons who may use the aqueduct and will be limbed up to maintain a clear height for emergency vehicles. (DEIS ch. 26, page 2-8, and ch. 3.1.92, page 3-15). A row of twenty-five foot spaced columnar plantings is not adequate to screen the proposed buildings or other structures from the view of persons who may use the aqueduct. Furthermore, such a row of single species tree plantings will significantly change the mixed woodland nature of the view from the west across the Aqueduct towards the development. (Correspondence #9, Irvington Environmental Conservation Board, 4/ 3/ 12, p. 2)
Response
In order to maximize year round screening, seventeen evergreen trees are proposed along the Broadw ay buffer and tw enty-eight evergreen trees are proposed along the A queduct buffer that w ill grow into continuous screens over a period of years. A long the north and south borders, there is a mix of deciduous and evergreen plants to create a naturalized landscape setting in harmony w ith the existing conditions. A total of 145 deciduous and evergreen trees are proposed as part of the overall landscaping of the site. See FEIS Landscape Plan, Exhibit 3.
3.3.10
Comment
The four-story, 121-unit structure will tower roughly 100 above Broadway. It will change the character of Irvington in ways that cannot later be undone. (Correspondence #12, Patricia Graubart, 3/ 18/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Correspondence #11, Barry Graubart, 3/ 13/ 12, p. 5; Ms. Jaime Wilson, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 52)
Response
The plan presented in this FEIS addresses this comment. In the DEIS, the plan proposed a long, three story building over parking, parallel to South Broadw ay. That building has been eliminated. The setback has been increased to 131 feet. A nd finally the FEIS plan provides an open space w indow along South Broadw ay that opens up to a view of the projects w elllandscaped courtyard.
3-54
3.3.11
Comment
There are a myriad of negative environmental impacts which would likely result from such a development. Some of these impacts would include light pollution and reduction of Broadway Corridor and Aqueduct buffers. (Correspondence #13, M ary Beth Dooley, 4/ 2/ 12, p. 1)
Response
Lighting fixtures are designed w ith optical characteristics to direct all lighting dow nw ard and to avoid light spillage across property lines. N otw ithstanding the proposed paved areas and retaining w alls, the Broadw ay and A queduct buffers have been respected in the FEIS plan. Refer to FEIS Exhibit 14, Site Photometric Plan.
3.3.12
Comments
It's in the middle of a residential community and would change the character of surrounding neighborhoods and the center of Irvington. (Correspondence #19, M ark J. Polisar, 3/ 18/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Correspondence #27, Cindy and Steven Kief, 4/ 23/ 12, p. 1; Correspondence #31, Ellenor A lcorn, 5/ 2/ 12, p. 1.)
Response
The site is in a multifamily zoning district at the edge of the Village dow ntow n area.
3.3.13
Comments
The lighting required of such a facility would be visible from all the surrounding neighborhoods. (Correspondence #19, M ark J. Polisar, 3/ 18/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: M s. A ngela Wilson, public hearing 3/ 7/ 12, p. 69)
Response
Lighting fixtures are designed w ith optical characteristics to direct all lighting dow nw ard and to avoid light spillage across property lines and to minimize visibility from the surroundings. Refer to FEIS Exhibit 14, Site Photometric Plan.
3.3.14
Comment
The objections I have to the facility proposed are:
3-55
Diminishment of open space and quiet near the Aqueduct Trailway (Correspondence #20, Francis Goudie, 3/ 18/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Correspondence #21, Francis Goudie, 3/ 20/ 12, p. 1.)
Response
The setback from the A queduct has been increased from 35 to 50 feet w ith the plan included in this FEIS. This area provides sufficient space for additional vegetation to screen the view from the trail. With regard to potential noise near the aqueduct, the degree to w hich the project w ill raise noise levels w ill depend on the final selection and location of equipment. Section 3.8 of the October 4, 2011, Lally A coustical Consulting Report identifies this as a concern that must be addressed during design. Recommendations for noise control treatments and noise mitigation measures w ill typically consist of low -noise equipment selection, acoustical barrier / enclosure construction, or duct attenuators. Prior to final site plan review , the applicant w ill conduct a study of the revised plans and acoustical data and identify conceptual acoustical treatments that w ould be required to comply w ith Code.
3.3.15
Comment
More 24-hour lighting than most developments for environmental discussions with the community and it was brought up only once. I am just curious on how that would affect the neighborhood and Broadway in general. (Mr. Seth Bacharach, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 59)
Response
See Response to Comment 3.3.14 above. The increased setbacks w ith the FEIS plan address this concern. Lighting fixtures are designed w ith optical characteristics to direct all lighting dow nw ard and to avoid light spillage across property lines. M ost interior lighting w ould be off or dimmed at night, similar to any residential use.
3.3.16
Comment
I have a beautiful view of that building now and I'd like it to stay that way, personally. (Ms. Leah Bacharach, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 63)
3-56
Response
Comment noted.
3.3.17
Comment
I have a large concern about as my children grow up, what the clientele and what the population is going to be like on Broadway. I understand there is going to be a beauty parlor and all these things, but they are also going to be part of our community. While I would like to embrace that I also have concerns about how that is going to affect business on Main Street and just families and -- just the environment of how Main Street feels right now. (Ms. Leah Bacharach, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 63)
Response
The seniors w ho reside at the proposed development, their families and the staff w ill be an asset to the Village of Irvington
3.3.18
Comment
There are just many, many things wrong with this. What is this thing going to look like? There are some renderings there which were tough to see, but a rendering doesn't have any -- it's an approximation, it is a visual approximation and it is a visual approximation presented by the people who want you to approve their plans. There is nothing about sound in that rendering; there is nothing about smell in that rendering. (Mr. Frank Scalli, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 72)
Response
The accuracy of the photo-simulations has been described at a number of Planning Board meetings w ith the applicant show ing the existing condition photographs that provided the basis for the simulations. With regard to smell impacts, odor causing activities w ill be indoors. Service and delivery vehicles w ill enter the building designated for deliveries and service vehicles. Loading and unloading w ill occur inside the building. A ll deliveries and removal of refuse w ill be scheduled by the applicant to limit the frequency and duration of deliveries and pick-ups.
3.3.19
Comment
This is a gateway to Irvington, the gateway to Irvington is going to be bus loads of orderlies and bedpan emptiers and our children traveling past them on their way to school, I don't know if that is desirable.
3-57
The question may not be which configuration is preferable as presented by the proponents, but if at all this is worthy. (Mr. Frank Scalli, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 73)
Response
N o response w arranted.
3.3.20
Comment
The building that is being proposed is going to be conservatively closer to Broadway than what it is there now. I would like to see what, if any, is going to be the impact on the buffer areas around the site, especially from both, the Old Croton Trailway and the Aqueduct, because those are the public areas and I want to make sure that those areas are protected and that the visual impact is kept to a minimum here. I don't think that the rendering really shows that there, because what happens with those renderings, with those photographs, what happens is, it shows the trees as they exist today, it doesn't take out the trees that are not going to be there when the building is constructed on, that's what happens with those kinds of photographic renderings. (Mr. Pat Natarelli, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 74-75)
Response
In order to maximize year round screening, seventeen evergreen trees are proposed along the Broadw ay buffer and tw enty-eight evergreen trees are proposed along the A queduct buffer that w ill grow into continuous screens over a period of years. A long the north and south borders, there is a mix of deciduous and evergreen plants to create a naturalized landscape setting in harmony w ith the existing conditions. A total of 145 deciduous and evergreen trees are proposed as part of the overall landscaping of the site. See FEIS Landscape Plan, Exhibit 3. A lso see Exhibits 24-29.
3.3.21
Comment
One of the nice things about the village and the community of Irvington is that people like to walk everywhere. I don't like the idea of my children on their own walking, passing this facility with staff people walking in-and-out. (Ms. Jennifer Barnett, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 77)
3-58
Response
N o response w arranted.
3.3.22
Comment
It is certainly necessary to have places for the elderly to live, and it makes a lot of sense for Irvington to have a development of some kind for this purpose. That might even be a great spot for it, though it's quite a steep lot. But to tear down what is a functioning and historic building, and take down so many trees, and change the character of the southern approach to Main Street in that way would be drastic. In hindsight it might be very severely regretted because it will never go back to the way it is now-the only path would be for more changes of a similar nature to occur, both based on this precedent, and as a logical consequence. That particular verdant part of Broadway would soon become a memory, and eventually not even that. (Correspondence #34, Lauri Denyer Marder, 4/18/12, p. 1)
Response
Comment noted
3.3.23
Comment
I add my voice to the chorus of those who ask that this decision be very carefully considered, and that if construction is approved that it be approved with the proviso that there be very little destruction of what is of real and lasting value- historic buildings and trees, and that the future generations of Irvington residents and passersby, perhaps unknowingly, have you to thank for it. (Correspondence #34, Lauri Denyer Marder, 4/18/12, p. 1)
Response
A lthough the applicants plans in this FEIS call for the removal of the existing building, the Planning Board w ill further consider its demolition or adaptive reuse as part of the Environmental Findings Statement.
3-59
3.3.24
Comment
In section 3.2.5, provide more details of the evening lighting plan. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 3)
Response
See Exhibit 14 for illustration of selected light fixtures and their locations together w ith a photometric diagram illustrating lighting levels. The details and heights of the fixtures as show n on Exhibit 14 correspond to the information as described in the legend and tables of Exhibit 14. Lighting fixtures are designed w ith optical characteristics to direct all lighting dow nw ard and to avoid light spillage across property lines. M ost interior lighting w ould be off or dimmed at night, similar to any residential use.
3.3.25
Comment
Discuss projected impacts of lighting plan on Irvington Estates and Jaffray Park and details of mitigation. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 3)
Response
Lighting plan and fixtures have been designed so that there is no light spillage over the property line, all lighting is directed dow nw ard w ith full cut-off features and lamps are shielded to avoid visibility from off-site properties. M ost interior lighting w ould be off or dimmed at night, similar to any residential use.
3.3.26
Comment
I ask that you consider carefully the height and volume limits for new construction, and the area to be paved. (Correspondence #39, William Romaine, 3/12/12, p. 1)
Response
The plan proposed in this FEIS responds to this concern. It places 25 % of the building area and 39 of the 50 parking spaces below grade. The South Broadw ay setback has been increased from 100 feet in the DEIS plan to 131 feet in the FEIS plan. The Old Croton A queduct setback has been increased from 35 feet in the DEIS plan to 50 feet in the FEIS plan. The gross building area over
3-60
elevation 164 has been reduced by over 25,000 square feet in the FEIS plan, w ith portions of the program and the parking placed underground. With this approach, the coverage has been reduced from 22.2% in the DEIS plan to 18.8% in the FEIS plan. The project also employs a residential architectural design to further blend appropriately w ith the community.
3.3.27
Comment
Though the current multifamily zoning does not allow an assisted living facility, it does allow h o sp i t al s , research and clevelopmer1t facilities, and certain office uses by special permit. Zoning is an imperfect tool and sometimes precludes certain uses that might be more appropriate than other permitted uses. The waterfront is an exar:1ple of where multiple efforts at zoning haven't been able to fully encompass the agreed-upon concepts of w h a t people think should happen. (Correspondence #40, Michael Bradley, 3/25/12, p. 1)
Response
Comment noted. The proposed zoning text amendment, w hich w ould allow assisted living in a multifamily zoning district by Special Permit, is a discretionary action by the Village Board of Trustees.
3.3.28
Comment
This project will in no way benefit the residents of Irvington. I am quite knowledgeable about the present financial problems of government on every level. However, financial circumstances do not warrant forever destroying the desirability of our community. Surely a use for the property can be found that will increase the tax base without creating such disruption to our quality of life. (Correspondence #41, Janet Silberman, 4/4/12, p. 1)
Response
Tax revenues w ith very few service requirements w ould be one benefit of the proposed development. Others include the provision of a facility for older seniors w ho need assistance and those suffering w ith dementia.
3-61
3.4
3.4.1
Topography and Soils

Comment
All proposed grading should be provided. (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 1)
Response
See revised Site Grading and Drainage Plan, Exhibit 7.
3.4.2
Comment
The location, height and details of all proposed walls and fences, including the proposed materials should be shown. Top and bottom wall elevations should be shown at all changes in elevation of the retaining wall. (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 1)
Response
See revised Site Grading and Drainage Plan, Exhibit 7.
3.4.3
Comment
There appears to be a proposed retaining wall above the existing wall and slope. The existing wall and slope should be evaluated by the design engineer for stability. The vehicular fire truck load should be included in the evaluation. (Correspondence #2, Hahn Engineering, 3/27/12, p. 2)
Response
The proposed retaining w all adjacent to the existing w all and slope is provided as a contingency to allow for the additional loads from the emergency access road should the existing retaining w all foundation not be adequate. During Site Plan A pproval, the existing and proposed w alls w ill be further evaluated to determine if the proposed w all is necessary to supplement the existing retaining w all.
3-62
3.4.4
Comment
A drop curb and flat grate should be shown at the location of the entrance of the emergency access road. (Correspondence #2, Hahn Engineering, 3/27/12, p. 2)
Response
Comment noted. There w ill be flush curbs at the drivew ays for access to the emergency access road, w hich w ill have catch basins connecting to the proposed underground storm system. Flush curbs and drain inlet locations are show n on FEIS Site Layout Plan. The drain inlets are detailed show ing a flat top in FEIS Site Details.
3.4.5
Comment
The peak elevations and floor elevations of all buildings should be shown on the Layout Plan to determine the maximum height above the lowest level of the fire department vehicle. Proposed grading must also be shown. (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 2)
Response
The finished floor elevations of the main and low er level of all buildings are show n on FEIS Layout Plan, Exhibit 2. Site contours are show n on FEIS Site Grading and Drainage Plan, Exhibit 7. Representative peak roof elevations have been taken from the architectural plans and are show n in selective locations.
3.4.6
Comment
The capability of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus should be reviewed by the fire department. (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 2)
Response
On January 12, 2012 representatives from Divney Tung Schw albe met w ith the Village Building Inspector and Village and County Fire Chiefs. A t this meeting, the requirements for accommodating fire department aerial apparatus w ere discussed and have been incorporated into the site plan as depicted on FEIS Layout Plan, Exhibit 2. This site plan w ill be review ed w ith the Fire Department during the site plan approval process.
3-63
3.4.7
Comment
There is no reference in the text to Exhibit 3-24, the Topographic Survey. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 3)
Response
Comment noted.
3.4.8
Comment
The Topography section of the DEIS indicates that steep slopes account for 26.1% (or 1.21 acres) of the 4.6 acres of the property. Using proper standards to account for the steep slopes at either 0.75 (for those of 10-15%) or 0.5 (for those >15%), we arrive at a usable area of roughly 4.1 acres. Yet the proposal suggests that there will be 4.6 acres of impervious substance on the property. How can the impervious substance area exceed the total land area? According to the DEIS section 3.3.2.6 Increase in Impervious Surfaces, The 4.6 acre site currently includes 3.62 acres of impervious area. Development of the proposed project would result in an increase in impervious surface of about 0.78 acres resulting in 4.4 acres of impervious surfaces. I find it difficult to believe that 3.62 acres of the current 4.6 acre site are impervious area. I have walked the property multiple times and have viewed the birds-eye view using Bing Maps. And while dirt and grass are not always pervious surfaces (they could be sitting atop solid rock, for example), in this case the developer when discussing rock removal and blasting suggests that there is significant soil and dirt before you hit any bedrock. As such, I find it somewhat incredulous that the proposal would only increase the impervious surface area by 0.78 acres. I note that I raised these specific questions with Continuum at a meeting held at the FEE site on March 17. At that time, the Continuum consultant, John Saccardi acknowledged that the numbers didnt add up. He thought that there might have been some confusion in the document between items referring to the 4.6 acre property and those that may refer to the overall 10 acre basin which includes the site. He indicated that he would research that issue further and we asked him to send us an updated analysis once that was complete. To-date, weve not received any clarifying information. All of these apparent inconsistencies and/or inaccuracies call into question the validity of the current section on topography. And since consultant John Saccardi acknowledged that the information just didnt add up, it seems unfathomable that this process could move forward based on incorrect information.
3-64
In addition, since the focus of almost all of the discussions are on alternate option 7, it would suggest that the topography study be performed in detail using that alternate option. I strongly urge the Planning Board to reject the Topography section of the DEIS and require that a new draft be submitted with corrected information. (Correspondence #28, Barry S. Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 5-8. Similar comments from: Barry Graubart, public hearing 4/ 4/ 12, p. 51-53; Barry Graubart, public hearing 5/ 2/ 12, p. 22-23 and p. 27; M r. M orton, public hearing 5/ 2/ 12, p. 52)
Response
The current property is 4.63 acres w ith an estimated 1.06 acres of impervious area, stormw ater runoff from w hich is currently undetained and untreated. Under proposed conditions, there w ill be an approximate increase of 1.3 acres of impervious area to a total on-site impervious area of 2.35 acres across the 4.63 acre property, w hich w ill be treated by green infrastructure measures and detained in underground detention pipes prior to being released at a controlled rate of flow . The stormw ater management analysis includes the entire study w atershed w hich extends to the upstream properties up to M ain Street, totaling approximately 10.28 acres in total. Refer to Response 3.1.3 for a breakdow n of proposed impervious coverage on the 4.63 acre site.
3-65
3.5
3.5.1
Flora and Fauna

Comment
Page 3-39 states an additional 20% of the 79 trees within the limits of disturbance may be preserved and says a detailed tree preservation plan and modified grading plan will be required to protect the trees within or near the area of disturbance. When will this work be completed and submitted? Trees to be preserved will need to be incorporated into the conceptual landscaping plan and materials will need to be submitted to the Tree Preservation Committee to obtain permits for removing trees which are classified by the Chapter 202 of the Village Code as protected. (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p.3)
Response
See FEIS Conceptual Landscape Plan, Exhibit 3, for illustration of trees to be protected and trees to be removed. A fter an evaluation of tree conditions and possible grading modifications, it is possible that some of the healthier trees near the limit of disturbance may be preserved. This w ill be investigated during the site plan approval process at w hich time a formal application w ill be made to the Tree Preservation Committee. The Conceptual Landscape Plan show s an X through the existing trees to be removed along w ith the identification number assigned to all the surveyed trees. This identification number corresponds to the Tree # in the Tree Inventory and Recommendations report attached herein w hich identifies the types and sizes of all trees including those to be removed. A ll surveyed trees, their locations and their numbers are show n on the site survey, Conceptual Landscape Plan, and Erosion & Sediment Control Plan.
3.5.2
Comment
Page 3-38 states that "Trees adjacent to the Limit of Disturbance whose root zones will be impacted more than approximately 30% may also need to be removed." The FEIS should state how many trees this might be and what types? (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 3)
Response
See FEIS Conceptual Landscape Plan, Exhibit 3 for trees planned to be removed as part of the site development w ith an indication of additional trees w hich may be impacted by field conditions. The intent of the referenced note is to acknow ledge that based upon ongoing design, revisions, and/ or site limits or excavation changes made during pre-construction additional trees may be
3-66
impacted beyond the 30% critical root zone loss benchmark. A t that point, further removals may be recommended.
3.5.3
Comment
Page 3-38 also states: "In addition, approximately 27 other trees are recommended for 'removal by the arborist.'" The FEIS should state why. I read the Tree Report and Survey, and it seems it might be because they are in poor condition, but it is hard to match the numbers up. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 3)
Response
Removal of each of these trees w as recommended on an individual basis, w ith an assessment of observed physiological health, structural integrity, and the expected impacts of construction (if any). Each tree w as judged on the combination of these factors; or w here necessary, on an extreme negative rating on any individual factor. Removal w as therefore recommended w here either survivability or safety w ere judged to be compromised in a trees current state, or as a result of near future conditions. Trees w ith this designation shall be removed by a qualified arborist by hand to minimize potential for damage to remaining trees and roots. Roots are not to be removed w hen in close proximity to trees being retained. Stumps may be ground w ith small machines designed specifically for that purpose. In total, 129 trees are scheduled to be removed. Of these, 47 are in poor condition or w orse and are unlikely to survive in the near term. A ccording to the arborists report and per conventional arborist standards, there are no trees classified as Good Condition on the site, w hich means that the trees surveyed are in less than good condition. That is they are either in Fair, Poor, Critical or Dead condition. The trees removed w ill be replaced w ith 145 new evergreen and deciduous trees as show n on Exhibit 3, Conceptual Landscape Plan.
3.5.4
Comment
No mitigation is proposed for the 79+ trees likely to be removed. Such measures should be included in the FEIS. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 3)
Response
The mitigation includes a landscaping plan and an extensive tree planting program. See Response to Comment 3.16.1. 129 trees are scheduled to be removed. Of these, 47 are in poor
3-67
condition or w orse and are unlikely to survive in the near term. A ccording to the arborists report and per conventional arborist standards, there are no trees classified as Good Condition on the site. The trees removed w ill be replaced w ith 145 new evergreen and deciduous trees as show n on Exhibit 3, Conceptual Landscape Plan.
3.5.5
Comment
The DEIS indicates that 79 of the 189 trees on the proposed project site with a diameter of 8 inches or greater are located within the limits of disturbance and will be removed as part of the site development. Of the 79 trees to be removed, there are 13 large or noteworthy trees. (DEIS ch. 1.3, page 1-4; ch. 3.1.4.2, page 3-34). On the basis of these figures alone, approximately 42% of the trees located on the site are proposed to be removed. In fact, the actual or likely tree loss will be far greater. According to the DEIS, an unspecified number of trees adjacent to the [limits of disturbance] whose root zones will be impacted [by] more than approximately 30 percent may also need to be removed and, in addition, approximately 27 other trees are recommended for removal by the arborist. (DEIS ch. 3.4.3.1, page 3-38). The DEIS refers to the long-term, adverse impact from the removal of the 79 trees in the area of disturbance, which it indicates, without explanation, should not be considered to be significant. It also states that the adverse impact of the tree loss will be mitigated by the proposed landscaping plan, which will include an extensive planting program consisting of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs, and the overall design of the site which includes open space buffers along the east, west and south sides of the property (DEIS ch. 5. 1, page 5-1), but does not address the significance and cumulative impact of the loss of the additional 27 trees that have been recommended for removal and the likely loss of an unspecified number of trees adjacent to the limits of disturbance whose root zones will be adversely impacted. Each of the trees to be removed as well as all trees likely to be adversely impacted need to be identified by species, size and condition and their locations need to be clearly shown. Specific mitigation measures also need to be identified and the applicant needs to make a sufficient showing that the proposed mitigation measures will mitigate the adverse impacts to the maximum extent practical. Without the missing information being supplied, it is impossible to fully assess the potential adverse environmental impacts from the removal of the trees or to determine whether the impacts will be adequately mitigated. (Correspondence #9, Irvington Environmental Conservation Board, 4/ 3/ 12, p. 1-2. Similar comments from: Ms. Anne Achenson, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 60-61)
3-68
Response
M any of the trees on the site have been damaged over time and or are diseased such that they no longer represent significant landscape assets. The replanting of 145 new healthy trees of mixed species and sizes w ill provide a long-term landscape setting w ith a 35-50 year lifespan. A ll trees have been tagged and can be keyed to the landscape plan or the arborists report to note w hether a tree is to be removed or to remain. Details relative to the species, size, and condition of all trees to be removed are provided in A ppendix 6.3, Tree Inventory and Recommendations. This survey lists the identified trees w ithin the limits of disturbance w hich are likely to be removed during construction. N o trees in healthy condition beyond the field-identified limits of disturbance w ould be disturbed. Proposed measures to protect the trees to remain include delineating the limits of disturbance w ith snow fencing or similar methods. Trees near w orking areas may be w rapped at the base by snow fencing to avoid accidental damage to trunks and roots. There should be no disturbance of any kind w ithin the projected root zone of these trees or w ithin the drip line of the tree foliage. Snow fencing or other highly visible means of marking should be placed around the maximum area of the root system to prevent the destruction of roots by exposure or through the compaction of soils. Construction crew s w ould be notified to exclude all equipment from these protected areas. If necessary, trees w ould be protected by tree w ells in fill areas, and retaining w alls in cut areas.
3.5.6
Comment
The DEIS states that [t]he lack of any wetland areas on or near the property severely restricts the attractiveness of the available habitat and results in low biodiversity and ecological value and that [t]he lack of significant on-site habitat and connections to other nearby intact habitats results in a low diversity of bird species. Both statements are incorrect. The proximity to Barney Brook and the observation of the significant presence of migratory birds in its environs clearly indicate that the contrary is the case. The adjacent Croton Aqueduct is also a wildlife corridor. (Correspondence #9, Irvington Environmental Conservation Board, 4/ 3/ 12, p. 3)
Response
The recommendations and prior responses outlined in the DEIS and the this FEIS are based upon the N atural Resource A ssessment Report completed in A ugust of 2011. The field data collected for the N atural Resource A ssessment w as completed on A ugust 12, 2011. Field data included actual species observed to be present, plus an assessment of habitats and plant communities present on the property and the immediate adjacent area. Based upon analysis of existing field
3-69
conditions, interpretations w ere made on the overall ecological value and condition of the property and attractiveness to support faunal species. The field observations of individual species, analysis of existing habitats and their connectivity to other habitats w as collected on A ugust 12, 2011. This information gathered in the field served as the basis for the conclusions and recommendations outlined in the N atural Resource A ssessment Report. Barney Brook is a considerable distance to the south and is separated from the subject parcel by roads, houses, athletic fields and cleared areas. There is no direct habitat linkage between this wetland resource and the subject parcel. The Natural Resource Assessment Report (NRAR) examined the type of habitats present on the property and also on adjacent parcels to determine the landscape connectivity especially the link between wetlands and upland areas. The majority of wildlife species utilize wetlands for life cycles needs. No wetland areas were observed to be present on the parcel or within parcels immediately adjacent to the property. Connectivity is a fundamental concept in ecology and patches of specific habitats (one being some type of wetland) that are highly connected imply that animals can easily move between these habitats. Species of wildlife have difficulty reaching or leaving poorly connected patches of habitats. Connectivity is also influenced by the degree to which the structure of the landscape helps or hinders movement due to dispersal barriers. Road networks, houses, commercial buildings, cleared areas all increase the mortality risk and are therefore less attractive to sustain populations of wildlife. The subject parcel is indicative of a site that exhibits significant dispersal barriers. As also noted in the NRAR fragmentation from nearby developments, and the Route 9 road system result in creating an island effect essentially cutting off potential for corridors and wildlife movement through the landscape. Also contributing to the lack of biodiversity includes a lack of vertical stratification of plant species, which is often seen in typical forested environments. Because of the lack of habitat available and location of the property in context to the surrounding environments few wildlife species were observed on the property. In addition, few wildlife species are expected to use the property. Several nut producing trees were observed on the property but the habitats have been altered and impacted for several decades. The lack of water and distinct habitat connections contribute to the lack of diversity. The lack of a forest duff layer, the presence of rotting logs, stone walls and outcrops, as well as the well-drained dry soil conditions, result in few microhabitats for wildlife such as woodland salamanders, small mammals and forest invertebrates. We concur that the Croton Aqueduct serves as a wildlife corridor and this was stated in the NRAR. The report stated the Croton Aqueduct may provide a limited corridor for wildlife movement, but due to lack of available habitat its attractiveness is limited.
3-70
Due to the location of the property, it is very feasible that the property may be used by migratory bird species. Migratory species tend to concentrate near large bodies of water. The Hudson River and Long Island Sound both serve as a significant landscape feature and birds tend to concentrate within areas along these water bodies. More recent research indicates that birds may not be particular about where they stop-over during migration. It is expected that birds would utilize locations like the Barney Brook and related forested areas that provide better habitat. The NRAR also addressed the use of the parcel as a potential stop-over for migratory bird species. However, the lack of significant on-site habitat, and connections to other intact habitats nearby reduces the attractiveness of the site for resident breeding bird species. Those species that may utilize the site are species that are more adaptable to fragmented habitats and urban environments such as common backyard bird species.
3.5.7
Comment
There are a myriad of negative environmental impacts which would likely result from such a development. Some of these impacts would include tree loss, open space reduction, and loss of wildlife. (Correspondence #13, M ary Beth Dooley, 4/ 2/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Correspondence #34, Lauri Denyer M arder, 4/ 18/ 12, p. 1)
Response
See Response to Comment 3.5.6.
3.5.8
Comment
The landscaping is nice, I'd like to also know what protective measure, is here if the landscaping were in. (Ms. Jaime Wilson, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 51-52)
Response
The landscape w ill be planted in soil and nutrient beds to enable its root structure to become w ell established. On a regular basis, all vegetation w ill receive maintenance, nutrient supplements, pruning, and irrigation.
3.5.9
Comment
I'd like to have some attempt for there to be an analysis of the amount of trees that are being removed and the amount of natural services that are removed, what dollar value
3-71
might that be speculated at, so therefore what the -- what increase -- what the cost of the increased infrastructure would be. (Ms. Angela Wilson, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 67)
Response
A detailed tree inventory and identification of trees to be removed is included in A ppendix 6.3. A s show n on the Conceptual Landscape Plan, Exhibit 3, zero good trees, one dead, tw o critical, 44 poor and 82 fair trees w ould be removed. On a qualitative basis, the magnitude of new trees and vegetation provided is at such a scale it w ill mitigate the loss of existing vegetation.
3.5.10
Comment
You really have to start tagging the trees that will be saved in the buffer areas around the property. (Mr. Pat Natarelli, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 75)
Response
See FEIS Conceptual Landscape Plan, Exhibit 3, for illustration of trees w ithin buffer areas to either remain or be removed. A ll trees have been tagged and can be keyed to the landscape plan or the arborists report to note w hether a tree is to be removed or to remain. Details relative to the species, size, and condition of all trees to be removed are provided in A ppendix 6.3, Tree Inventory and Recommendations. This survey lists the identified trees w ithin the limits of disturbance w hich are likely to be removed during construction. N o trees in healthy condition beyond the field-identified limits of disturbance w ould be disturbed. Proposed measures to protect the trees to remain include delineating the limits of disturbance w ith snow fencing or similar methods. Trees near w orking areas may be w rapped at the base by snow fencing to avoid accidental damage to trunks and roots. There should be no disturbance of any kind w ithin the projected root zone of these trees or w ithin the drip line of the tree foliage. Snow fencing or other highly visible means of marking should be placed around the maximum area of the root system to prevent the destruction of roots by exposure or through the compaction of soils. Construction crew s w ould be notified to exclude all equipment from these protected areas. If necessary, trees w ould be protected by tree w ells in fill areas, and retaining w alls in cut areas.
3-72
3.5.11
Comment
Discuss and illustrate the changes to the tree canopy on the site; w hich trees (location, size and type) are being removed, w here and w hat size and type are the replacement trees? (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 3)
Response
See FEIS Conceptual Landscape Plan, Exhibit 3, for illustration of trees to either remain or to be removed. See FEIS Conceptual Landscape Plan, Exhibit 3, for illustration of new vegetation species and sizes and representation of the canopy.
3.5.12
Comment
The representatives stated significant landscaping" will be placed o n the site. What d o e s this mean? I would like to see this be defined with numbers of large trees, numbers of medium trees etc ... Continuum representatives also used terms like "probably" as opposed to specifically defining items. This ambiguity concerns me because it leads to no accountability. (Correspondence #45, Scott Snyder, 3/7/12, p. 1)
Response
See Exhibit 3 w hich show s the landscaping plan for the site plan included in this FEIS. A dditional plan details w ill be provided as part of the site plan approval process if the Village Board approves the zoning text amendment that allow s assisted living.
3.5.13
Comment
A lot of emphasis was placed o n the internal gardens of the facility by the Continuum representatives. That is nice for the residents, but it does nothing for the residents buffering the estate. (Correspondence #45, Scott Snyder, 3/7/12, p. 1)
Response
The plan included in this FEIS eliminates the enclosed inner court and replaces it w ith an open space area that w ould be visible from Route 9.
3-73
3.6
Traffic and Parking / Emergency Access and Circulation

Comment
In projecting the 2011 count volumes to the 2015 Build year the analysis uses an annual background growth rate of one percent. This is acceptable. The study also indentifies three other projects in the planning stage whose generated traffic is included in the 2015 No Build and Build traffic conditions. Instead of estimating the traffic from these projects, the analysis assigns a one percent growth for four years, for a total traffic growth of eight percent from 2011 existing conditions to the 2015 No Build condition. This may be acceptable. The applicant should provide information on the No-Build projects; including location of these projects, size, estimated traffic generation and year of completion so that the acceptability of the additional one percent traffic growth rate can be confirmed. (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p.3)
3.6.1
Response
A s noted in the Traffic Impact Study, an additional 4% background grow th factor w as utilized to account for other potential development traffic grow th in the area. This w ould account for other development grow th in the area including the Stop & Shop Renovation/ Expansion, M ercy College Expansion, Walgreens and Rivertow ns Square. Excerpts from those studies show ing location and trip generation are included in A ppendix G of the revised Traffic Impact Study (FEIS A ppendix 6.1). The follow ing Table is a comparison of the increase in traffic along U.S. Route 9 in the vicinity of the site utilizing the additional 4% background grow th utilized in the Traffic Impact Study compared to site specific trip generation. Table 3.6-1 Potential Traffic Growth U.S. Route 9 I n V icinity of Site D riveway A dditional 4% Background Grow th AM PM SA T +51 +45 +48 Other Development Traffic PM SA T +49 +17
AM +26
A s can be seen by the above Table, the additional 4% background grow th method w hen compared to the other development traffic is acceptable.
3-74
3.6.2
Comment
The estimates of traffic to be generated by the proposed project are based on the trip generation rates contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook for Assisted Living Developments, Land Use Code (LUC) 254. These are the proper rates to use. However, in the b(unnumbered) table in Section 3.5.4 of the DEIS, the estimates of generated trip volumes are based on 121 units, while the ITE trip generation rates are expressed as trips per bed. According to Table 2.3 of the DEIS, 47 of the 121 units will be two-bed units, for a total of 168 residents (beds). The estimates of generated trips, therefore, should have been based on 168 beds rather than 121 units, which would increase the generated traffic volumes by 39 percent. This would affect all of the Build condition calculations and should be revised. This miscalculation would also impact project parking demand and therefore the analysis in Section 3.5.12 should be recalculated as well. Any changes to the conclusions or mitigations resulting from these calculations should be included in the FEIS. Our traffic engineer will then comment further on the adequacy of these conclusions and mitigations. (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p.3)
Response
Comment noted. The estimates of the generated trips have been updated based on 168 beds (ITE Land Use Code 254). The Build Condition and analysis has also been updated in the revised Traffic Impact Study (FEIS A ppendix 6.1). The ITE average peak parking demand rates (ITE th Parking Generation 4 Edition, 2010) are based on number of units. Therefore, based on ITE data, the average peak parking demand w ould be 50 spaces (121 units x 0.41) as noted in the DEIS Section 3.5.12.
3.6.3
Comment
Section 3.5.4 of the DEIS includes the results of traffic counts at the Atria Briarcliff Manor Facility, reporting weekday A.M and P.M. peak hour trip generation rates slightly higher than the ITE rates. The text does not indicate whether these rates were trips per unit or trips per bed. As in comment 13 above, this could make a difference in the comparable trip generation rates and the generated traffic volumes. (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p.3)
Response
The observed H ourly Trip Generation Rates at the A tria Briarcliff M anor facility noted in DEIS Section 3.5.4 w ere based on the number of units; 0.20 (A M ) and 0.26 (PM ). Based on the number of beds, the rates w ould be 0.17 (A M ) and 0.22 (PM ). A s noted in Response 3.6.2, the estimates of the generated trips have been updated to reflect the number of beds (ITE Land Use Code 254).
3-75
3.6.4
Comment
Section 2.7.4 of the DEIS states that there will be approximately 49 day shift employees at the proposed facility. This number is considerably higher than the 11 entering trips shown in the Table in Section 3.5.4. Justification for this low number of trips or adjustment of the total number of trips generated should be provided. (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p.3)
Response
The ITE Trip Generation Rates utilized takes into consideration visitor, employee and delivery trips. (See Responses 3.6.2 and 3.6.3). It should be noted that there are tw o morning shifts (7:00A M 3:00PM and 9:00A M 5:00PM ). The evening shift is from 3:00PM to 11:00PM w ith the night shift from 11:00PM to 7:00A M . There w ill be approximately 44 employees w orking the 7am to 3pm shift and five employees w orking 9am to 5pm, for a total of approximately 49 daytime employees. The 11 entering trips are based on ITE Trip Generation Rates and confirmed by actual traffic counts conducted at the A tria Briarcliff. This methodology has been review ed and confirmed by the Villages traffic engineer. A s detailed in the Traffic Impact Study, many employees w ill likely use public transportation and, to a lesser extent, carpooling. See also Response 3.6.36.
3.6.5
Comment
In Table 1 in Appendix B of the Traffic Impact Study the volume/capacity (v/c) ratio is listed in the Overall Intersection line. Actually this number is not the v/c ratio for the overall intersection, but rather the highest v/c ratio of all of the lane groups in the intersection. A note to this effect should be included with Table 1. Given, that this table contains the overall Findings of the projects traffic study, this table should be provided in the body of the FEIS in its entirety. (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p.3-4)
Response
Comment noted. The Levels of Service Summary Table (Table N o. 1) has been updated in the revised Traffic Impact Study (FEIS A ppendix 6.1). The Level of Service Summary Table is also show n on the next page.
3-76
3.6.6
Comment
For the Intersection of U.S. Route 9 with Main Street and Fieldpoint Drive, the DEIS text on page 3-44 describes the southbound approach as having a separate left turn lane and a shared thru/right turn lane, and this lane configuration is carried through the capacity analyses. Actually the southbound approach consists of three (narrow) lanes, a left turn lane, a through lane and a right turn lane. This should be clarified, and the capacity analyses re-run. It may result in reduced delays and possible improvement in Level of Service to both the southbound approach and the overall intersection. (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p.4)
Response
The U.S. Route 9/ M ain Street/ Fieldpoint Drive intersection has been updated in the revised Traffic Impact Study to reflect three southbound lanes (FEIS A ppendix 6.1).
3.6.7
Comment
Turning maneuvers for the emergency vehicles which are likely to serve this site should be obtained from the adjacent communities (i.e.Tarrytown) and adequate turning maneuvers verified. (Correspondence #2, Hahn Engineering, 3/27/12, p. 2)
Response
On January 12, 2012 representatives from Divney Tung Schw albe met w ith the Village Building Inspector and Village and County Fire Chiefs. A t this meeting, the requirements for accommodating fire department turning movements w as discussed and have been incorporated into the site plan as depicted on FEIS Layout Plan, Exhibit 2. Using these requirements, the site circulation has been designed to accommodate vehicles w ith a 53-0 (O.D.) turning radius w hich w as provided by the Village Building Inspector as sufficient to accommodate vehicles from nearby fire departments.
3.6.8
Comment
The signage locations for the emergency access road should be shown. A gate should be shown, if proposed. (Correspondence #2, Hahn Engineering, 3/27/12, p. 2)
3-78
Response
The requested information is show n on FEIS Layout Plan, Exhibit 2.
3.6.9
Comment
The fire truck exiting maneuvers should also be shown. It appears the portico share is too low to allow the fire truck to pass without obstruction. (Correspondence #2, Hahn Engineering, 3/27/12, p. 2)
Response
Portico clearance has been modified to permit fire truck to pass.
3.6.10
Comment
The emergency access road must be accessible for all weather conditions. Therefore, the means and methods for clearing snow from the driveway and emergency access road should be provided. (Correspondence #2, Hahn Engineering, 3/27/12, p. 2)
Response
Property management operations of the site w ill include the emergency access road along w ith the primary access and circulation roads to the property.
3.6.11
Comment
The proposed grass surface is not acceptable. If pavers are proposed then a detail must be provided. As required in the State Fire Code, the driving surface must be capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds. (Correspondence #2, Hahn Engineering, 3/27/12, p. 2)
Response
See FEIS Site Details Exhibits 10 and 11, for detail of stabilized emergency access road surface treatment.
3-79
3.6.12
Comment
The horizontal geometry shown on the Emergency Access drawing (Exhibit 3-42a) has been revised to provide an outside radius of 53 feet, however the remaining site drawings do not reflect the change (i.e., Exhibit 3-42, 3-43, etc). The drawings should be revised accordingly and items such as the proposed pad-mounted transformer should be relocated as necessary. (Correspondence #2, Hahn Engineering, 3/27/12, p. 2)
Response
See FEIS Layout Plan, Exhibit 2, reflecting the required fire truck maneuvering geometry, as w ell as the fire truck maneuvering plans in Exhibit 6.
3.6.13
Comment
The tree canopies should be reviewed to insure that the fire truck may pass beneath. (Correspondence #2, Hahn Engineering, 3/27/12, p. 2)
Response
The vegetation show n on the FEIS Landscape Plan Exhibit 3 is provided w ith additional planting area and as a result has addressed this concern.
3.6.14
Comment
Access parallel to the building, within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet, must be provided in accordance to the State Fire Code. Building 6 does not appear to be within the required distance. (Correspondence #2, Hahn Engineering, 3/27/12, p. 3)
Response
Separation has been provided in areas w here the building is 3 stories. In areas surrounding the M emory Care Building, due to site constraints and reduced building height, the separation is somew hat less but sufficient to provide reasonable firefighting access, but access parallel to the building w ithin a minimum of 15 feet is provided.
3-80
3.6.15
Comment
The comparison of the estimated traffic based on ITE trip generation rates to the actual traffic counts at the Atria in Briarcliff showed the numbers at the Atria/Briarcliff to be higher, yet the level of service remains the same. Does the LOS remain the same if the Atria numbers are adjusted to reflect that the proposed Continuum facility would have 15% more units than the Briarcliff Atria? (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 3-4)
Response
A s noted in Response 3.6.2, the Traffic Impact Study has been updated to reflect the number of beds (ITE Land Use Code 254). See also Response 3.6.3 regarding the A tria at Briarcliff M anor facility rates. The LOS does remain the same if the A tria numbers are adjusted to reflect that the proposed Continuum facility w ould have 15% more units than the Briarcliff A tria.
3.6.16
Comment
Does the Atria in Briarcliff have shared suites? If not, the numbers would have to be adjusted even higher, because even though the proposed facility would have 121 rooms, it would have 150 residents. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 4)
Response
The A tria at Briarcliff M anor facility has 118 units and 142 beds (see Responses 3.6.3 and 3.6.15). It should be noted that the Traffic Impact Study has been updated to reflect the number of beds (see Response 3.6.2).
3.6.17
Comment
Page 3-51 states that the parking rate being used to determine the number of parking spaces is the ITE rate of .41 spaces per unit, yet the proposed zoning amendment would require only .3 spaces per unit. (The site plan shows 49 spaces, which is one less than what is the required by the .41 rate.) (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 4)
Response
A s noted in DEIS Section 3.5.12, the ITE parking rate of 0.41 (based on number of units) w as conservatively used. Utilizing the 0.30 rate observed at the A tria at Briarcliff M anor facility, the
3-81
parking demand w ould equate to 36 spaces (121 units x 0.30). Utilizing the observed parking rates at the A tria at Briarcliff M anor facility by beds w ould equate to 42 spaces (168 beds x 0.25). The off street parking requirement, at 0.4 spaces per unit, has been increase from 0.3 in the originally proposed draft zoning amendment.
3.6.18
Comment
Page 3-50 states that the parking counts at the Atria facilities in Briarcliff and Ardsley were taken "on a typical weekday during midday hours." Wouldn't more parking be necessary on Saturdays or Sundays, when the most guests would be visiting? That there is more traffic on Saturdays is reflected in the Site Generated 'Traffic Volumes chart on page 3-42. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 4)
Response
A s noted in Response 3.6.17, the ITE Weekday parking rate is higher that the observed A tria at Briarcliff M anor facility. The average ITE Saturday peak parking demand is 0.40 and the average ITE Sunday peak parking demand is 0.34.
3.6.19
Comment
There should be a text reference to Exhibits 42a and 42b. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 4)
Response
Comment noted. DEIS Exhibit 3-42a is the Emergency A ccess Plan and DEIS Exhibit 3-42b illustrates Drivew ay Profiles. Change made to the DEIS by reference.
3.6.20
Comment
Discussion needs to be included about the school bus schedules in the area and coordination of the beginning and end of work shifts to avoid the school bus traffic. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 4. Similar comments from: correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/ 18/ 12, p. 9)
3-82
Response
Continuum Living at Irvington The Continuum Living at Irvington w ill have multiple shifts, i.e., 7A M to 3PM , 9A M to 5PM , 3PM to 11PM and 11PM to 7A M . Peak hours w ould occur at 7:00A M and 3:00PM . Shift changes have been taken into consideration in the trip estimates. Irvington Union Free School District Based on the Irvington Union Free School District w ebsite, the school hours are listed below : Dow s Lane Elementary School M ain Street School Irvington M iddle School Irvington H igh School (K-3) (4-5) (6-8) (9-12) 8:00 A M 8:50 A M 8:35 A M 7:50 A M to 2:20 PM to 3:15 PM to 3:20 PM to 2:35 PM
The impact of school traffic is factored into the analysis since the existing traffic volumes included existing school traffic. Generally, the arrival time of employees (primary shift) does not conflict w ith the morning school hours. H ow ever, there is a shift change at 3:00 PM w hich does conflict w ith the above schools schedule. The applicant w ill w ork w ith the Village and School District to minimize any conflicts. See also Responses 3.6.4, 3.6.35 and 3.6.36.
3.6.21
Comment
The proposal is less than forthcoming in the description of the facility, the number of residents, required services and staffing as it reflects on traffic patterns. It is important to realize this IS NOT a Retirement Facility but an Assisted Living Facility. The Chief Operating Officer for the Continuum Facility Meredith Blake says "Our residents will be between 8285 years of age. The decision to move to an assisted living will generally be precipitated by an incident (eg mom fell and broke her hip where will she go when she gets out of hospital)", I would also add it will happen when there is a deterioration in health with age such that they are no longer able to perform the normal activities of daily living. It is not unusual for elderly couples to enter such a facility, when one of them needs this level of care, but they don't wish to be separated. As a former Assoc. Prof Surgery Einstein College of Medicine and 22 years experience in intensive care as well as caring for elderly parents, I feel qualified to review the residents' requirement. They state that the average age of residents will be 82 years. Such folk are elderly, fragile, with co-existing medical conditions such heart failure, respiratory failure, diabetes, osteoporosis, mild dementia etc. These residents will not only require 24 hr residential facilities, but also the support services to support various aspects of daily living, such as assistance with bathing, dressing, medications, incontinence care etc. The
3-83
facility will also have to provide mental and social stimulation within the facility. They will also have to provide transport for offsite doctors' visits, church, outings to stores etc. Those residents with more severe dementia will be in the special locked unit because of their tendency to wander and will require 24 hr supervision. This usually is described in gentler terms to admitting family members calling it a Memory Care Unit. Table 1 analyzes the potential number of residents based on the number of units proposed. While the proposal states 1 bedroom apt. 440 sq ft is for one person, this size could also provide accommodation for married couples. With respect to shared units, the cost of accommodation in these facilities is significant, and some residents find it economically necessary to share accommodation. Thus the total number of residents in the facility can range from 121 to 216+! With the growing number of elderly in Westchester currently there are almost 80,000 over the age of 65, there is little doubt that in time such facility would be filled. Table 2 outlines the types of personnel and services required for such a facility. Review of these tables indicates that it is a gross over simplication to analyze traffic flow onto Broadway into trips ranging from. 17-40 at peak hours. There has been a large increase in traffic over the years on Broadway. The block of Broadway between the Station Road and Main Street is a high density area with a busy restaurant, stores, apartment buildings, town house developments, and private house. There are frequently illegal U-turns at the intersection of Sycamore Lane. The driveway at 30 So. Broadway is where two north bound traffic lanes merge lanes. With this background, looking at the numbers of personnel, services, and visitors that this development will create, it is patently obvious that it will cause an unreasonable increase in traffic flow on already compromised main road. Furthermore this problem will be accentuated in time of flooding on the Saw Mill River. TABLE Potential number of residents projected from no. of units Assisted living MIN MAX 9 Studio Apts 9 Alcove Studio 24 Shared Studios 24 One bedroom 15 Two bedroom TOTAL Memory Unit 32 Studio Apts. 8 Shared studios Total 335 sq ft 400 sq ft 530 sq ft 440 sq ft 750 sq ft 81 9 9 24 24 15 168+ 9 9 48 48 30 +
250 sq ft 500 sq ft 40
32 8 48
32 16
Potential number of residents in facility 121-216+
3-84
Table 2 Projected staff, services and visitors required in the assisted living facility: Staff: Administration Head Sales Accounts Human Resources R.N. and Support Staff Housekeeper Cleaning & Laundry personal Dietician Chef Kitchen supervisor and staff Dining room personnel Shop assistant Hairdresser Maintenance Staff Security Staff 24 hr Driver for transport van Aides to provide assistance to 81-168 residents with assistance in the activities of daily living Aides to provide assistance and 24hr supervision to 40-48 residents with dementia (Correspondence #8, Rita M cConn-Stern, 3/ 26/ 12, p. 3-4. Similar comments from: Ms. Jaime Wilson, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 54)
Response
The facility w ill be licensed to have no more than 168 beds. The estimates of the generated trips have been updated based on 168 beds (ITE Land Use Code 254). The Build Condition and analysis has also been updated in the revised Traffic Impact Study (FEIS A ppendix 6.1). The trip generation rates utilized takes into consideration visitors and employee trips (see also Responses 3.6.2, 3.6.3 and 3.6.4). N o operational problems are anticipated at the drivew ay. Based on observations, there is adequate pavement w idth along U.S. Route 9 at the drivew ay, w hich can be used for left turns into the drivew ay. N orth of the drivew ay, there is a lane drop (by striping) on U.S. Route 9 northbound to develop a left turn lane at M ain Street. The Traffic Impact Study accounts for existing and future traffic volumes as w ell as the existing geometry in the vicinity of the proposed drivew ay. The drivew ay is projected to operate at an acceptable Level of Service D or better during peak hours. (See revised Traffic Impact Study FEIS A ppendix 6.1.)
3-85
3.6.22
Comment
It will create a traffic and parking nightmare for the entire community, impacting school transportation, commuter access to train stations and traffic to the Main Street business community. (Correspondence #11, Barry Graubart, 3/ 13/ 12, p. 5)
Response
A detailed Traffic Impact Study and parking evaluation w as conducted as part of the DEIS and has been revised as part of the FEIS (A ppendix 6.1) (see Response 3.6.2). A s noted in the DEIS and revised Traffic Impact Study, the Continuum Living at Irvington w ill not significantly affect the area roadw ay in the vicinity of the site. Similar Levels of Service and delays w ill be experienced under the Future Year 2015 N o-Build and Future Year 2015 Build Conditions. A s noted in DEIS Section 3.5.12, the ITE parking rate of 0.41 (based on number of units) w as conservatively used. Utilizing the 0.30 rate observed at the A tria at Briarcliff M anor facility, the parking demand w ould equate to 36 spaces (121 units x 0.30). Utilizing the observed parking rates at the A tria at Briarcliff M anor facility by beds w ould equate to 42 spaces (168 beds x 0.25).
3.6.23
Comment
There are a myriad of negative environmental impacts which would likely result from such a development. Some of these impacts would include increased traffic and traffic safety hazards. (Correspondence #13, M ary Beth Dooley, 4/ 2/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Correspondence #27, Cindy and Steven Kief, 4/ 23/ 12, p. 1.)
Response
A s noted in Response 3.6.22, a detailed Traffic Impact Study w as conducted as part of the DEIS and has been revised as part of the FEIS (A ppendix 6.1). See Response 3.6.2. A s noted in the DEIS and revised Traffic Impact Study, the Continuum Living at Irvington w ill not significantly affect the area roadw ay in the vicinity of the site. Similar Levels of Service and delays w ill be experienced under the Future Year 2015 N o-Build and Future Year 2015 Build Conditions.
3.6.24
Comment
I am strongly opposed to the planned Continuum complex because the project Detrimentally changes and increases the traffic pattern on Broadway
3-86
Increases the need for parking on South Broadway, Harriman Road and side streets Sycamore Lane, Dogwood Lane
(Correspondence #14, Osman Tugal, 4/ 3/ 12, p. 1)
Response
A s noted in Responses 3.6.22 and 3.6.23, the Continuum Living at Irvington w ill not significantly affect the area roadw ay in the vicinity of the site. Similar Levels of Service and delays w ill be experienced under the Future Year 2015 N o-Build and Future Year 2015 Build Conditions. In addition, as noted in Responses 3.6.17, and 3.6.22, adequate on-site parking w ill be provided.
3.6.25
Comment
Altering zoning and putting in a project that would cause this much traffic on an already busy street does not seem to be in keeping with the values we associate with Irvington. (Correspondence #15, David & Linnea Beckw ith, 3/ 19/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Correspondence #20, Francis Goudie, 3/ 18/ 12, p. 1; Correspondence #21, Francis Goudie, 3/ 20/ 12, p. 1.)
Response
See Responses 3.6.22, 3.6.23 and 3.6.24.
3.6.26
Comment
Given its size, the facility will likely house and employ some 200 residents and staff. That staff, visiting physicians, visitors, delivery trucks and more will result in a significantly increased traffic, relative to that of the current property. Among other things, those looking to go northbound, towards I-287 will either make an illegal left turn, or be routed through Station Road or Harriman Road, while making u-turns. (Correspondence #17, Jared Zerman, 3/ 20/ 12, p. 1)
Response
Left turns exiting the site drivew ay are permitted for northbound traffic. A s noted in Responses 3.6.22, 3.6.23 and 3.6.24, the Continuum Living at Irvington w ill not significantly affect the area roadw ay in the vicinity of the site. Similar Levels of Service and delays w ill be experienced under the Future Year 2015 N o-Build and Future Year 2015 Build Conditions.
3-87
3.6.27
Comment
There is little doubt that the increased traffic will impact school transportation, commutes to both Irvington and Ardsley train stations and general traffic from the Harriman Main Street corridor. Let's also consider the additional traffic likely to result from the new Walgreens, and any potential expansion of the Mercy site. (Correspondence #17, Jared Zerman, 3/ 20/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Correspondence #27, Cindy and Steven Kief, 4/ 23/ 12, p. 1; Correspondence #29, Petition submitted by w w w .ProtectIrvington.N Y.org)
Response
Other potential developments in the area (Stop & Shop Renovation/ Expansion, M ercy College Expansion, Walgreens and Rivertow ns Square) have been included in the Traffic Impact Study. See Response 3.6.1. A s noted, in Responses 3.6.22, 3.6.23, 3.6.24 and 3.6.26, the Continuum Living at Irvington w ill not significantly affect the area roadw ay in the vicinity of the site. Similar Levels of Service and delays w ill be experienced under the Future Year 2015 N o-Build and Future Year 2015 Build Conditions.
3.6.28
Comment
There is also the issue of child safety. While we increasingly encourage more students to walk to our schools (see Irvington's recent Safe Routes to School grant), students will be unable to walk along the west side of Broadway from Station Road to Main Street during construction. Meanwhile, the east side of the street there has no sidewalk. (Correspondence #17, Jared Zerman, 3/ 20/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Correspondence #23, Ron Cohen, M D and A my D. M artini, 3/ 20/ 12, p. 1; Correspondence #24, Regina Eisenberg, 3/ 19/ 12, p. 1; Correspondence #28, Barry Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 11)
Response
During construction, there w ill be a flagman at the drivew ay to direct the flow of Continuum Living at Irvington traffic. This w ill provide safe access to the site and at the same time insure pedestrian safety.
3.6.29
Comment
I urge you to oppose this project. The map of our town means that Route 9 is a critical roadway for all those in our community. It is the only route available for north-south traffic, and already
3-88
during morning and afternoon rush hours, it is clogged with traffic, NO WHERE WORSE than along the span directly in front of the FEE property. (Correspondence #17, Jared Zerman, 3/ 20/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Correspondence #24, Regina Eisenberg, 3/ 19/ 12, p. 1)
Response
A detailed Traffic Impact Study and parking evaluation w as conducted as part of the DEIS and has been revised as part of the FEIS (A ppendix 6.1). See Response 3.6.2. A s noted in the DEIS and revised Traffic Impact Study, the Continuum Living at Irvington w ill not significantly affect the area roadw ay in the vicinity of the site. Similar Levels of Service and delays w ill be experienced under the Future Year 2015 N o-Build and Future Year 2015 Build Conditions.
3.6.30
Comment
I am in favor of the senior residence provided it does not cause the horrible traffic issues that now affect Ardsley since they put in their senior residence home. I have lived in the area since 1975 and 9A was a non issue for years. I have to believe that it is the assisted living facility that is the major cause of the traffic tie up now. While people maybe seeking to go to the new stores in Yonkers, I don't believe that is the major problem. The traffic starts by that senior residence so in my mind it is related to the people from there. I don't want the same thing to happen in Irvington. (Correspondence #18, M iriam Sivak, 3/ 19/ 12, p. 1)
Response
A s noted in Response 3.6.29, the Continuum Living at Irvington w ill not significantly affect the area roadw ay in the vicinity of the site. Similar Levels of Service and delays w ill be experienced under the Future Year 2015 N o-Build and Future Year 2015 Build Conditions. Further, consultants for the applicant spoke w ith the A rdsley Village M anager, George Calvi, to inquire about traffic impacts from the Woodlands facility. A ccording to M r. Calvi, there has been no perceivable traffic impact ow ing to the opening of the Woodlands. N or has M r. Calvi ever fielded a single complaint they w ere generating traffic. H e w ent on to say that many of the employees take the bus to w ork,
3.6.31
Comments
Its driveway opens onto one of the busiest spots in Irvington. (Correspondence #19, M ark J. Polisar, 3/ 18/ 12, p. 1)
3-89
Response
The drivew ay is projected to operate at an acceptable Level of Service D or better during peak hours, w hich is similar to the existing level of service. See revised Traffic Impact Study FEIS A ppendix 6.1. A s noted in Response 3.6.30, the Continuum Living at Irvington w ill not significantly affect the area roadw ay in the vicinity of the site. Similar Levels of Service and delays w ill be experienced under the Future Year 2015 N o-Build and Future Year 2015 Build Conditions.
3.6.32
Comment
The flyer compares the facility to having 2 hotels in Irvington. Maybe in terms of number of beds but my suspicion is none of the residents will be driving so parking and congestion will not be such an issue. (Correspondence #22, John Tunis, 3/ 19/ 12, p. 1)
Response
Comment noted. The anticipated trip generation for an assisted living facility is significantly less than the trip generation for a hotel. A s noted in Response 3.6.30, the Continuum Living at Irvington w ill not significantly affect the area roadw ay in the vicinity of the site. Similar Levels of Service and delays w ill be experienced under the Future Year 2015 N o-Build and Future Year 2015 Build Conditions.
3.6.33
Comment
With 121 units, the facility will likely house at least 150 residents, with another 50 staff. Visiting physicians, visitors, delivery trucks and more will result in a steady stream of traffic in and out. Those looking to go northbound, towards I-287 will either have to make an illegal left turn, or be routed through Station Road or Harriman Road, while making u-turns on Sycamore or in front of 14 S. Broadway. There is little doubt that the increased traffic will impact school transportation, commutes to both Irvington and Ardsley train stations and general traffic from the Harriman Main Street corridor. When we consider the additional traffic likely to result from the new Walgreens, and any potential expansion of the Mercy site. (Correspondence #24, Regina Eisenberg, 3/ 19/ 12, p. 1)
3-90
Response
See Responses to Comments 3.6.26 and 3.6.27.
3.6.34
Comment
More and more individuals that I have moved into such facilities drive, and keep a car at the facility. The requisite resident parking, combined with the staff parking at the proposed facility is certain to be much more than the 50 parking spaces proposed by the developers. Then add the spaces for the visitors children, Geriatric Care Managers, other advisors who may visit the resident. Heaven forbid the visitors come at the time a shift change. The Board should take a look at the Classic Residence in Yonkers they have limited parking, and when a shift is changing there is usually a significant traffic jam. Everyone wants a parking space so that the traffic backs up to Riverdale Avenue. (Correspondence #25, Patricia L. M ulvey, 3/ 24/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: M s. Jennifer Barnett, public hearing 3/ 7/ 12, p. 77)
Response
A s noted in Response 3.6.17, a conservative parking rate w as utilized. See also Responses 3.6.18 and 3.6.24.
3.6.35
Comment
Afternoon traffic in Irvington is heavy. It has taken up to 10 minutes to get from Willow Street & Station Road, through the traffic past the proposed property to the Main Street light some afternoons. Probably because of the back up from the schools north of Main Street. Either way it wastes a huge amount of time. The traffic letting out onto Route 9 from an Assisted Living Facility shift change hasnt been properly considered. Its going to be extremely difficult to negotiate the increased traffic from the Assisted Living Facility. (Correspondence #25, Patricia L. Mulvey, 3/24/12, p. 1)
Response
Shift changes have been taken into consideration in the trip estimates. See Response 3.6.4. In addition, as noted in Response 3.6.22, the Continuum Living at Irvington w ill not significantly affect the area roadw ay in the vicinity of the site. Similar Levels of Service and delays w ill be experienced under the Future Year 2015 N o-Build and Future Year 2015 Build Conditions.
3-91
3.6.36
Comment
What are the peak hours? Do you want to share it with us? (Unidentified speaker, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 21)
Response
Continuum Living at Irvington The Continuum Living at Irvington w ill have multiple shifts, i.e., 7A M to 3PM , 9A M to 5PM , 3PM to 11PM and 11PM to 7A M . Peak hours w ould occur at 7:00A M and 3:00PM (See Response 3.6.4). Shift changes have been taken into consideration in the trip estimates. Irvington Union Free School District Based on the Irvington Union Free School District w ebsite, the school hours are listed below : Dow s Lane Elementary School M ain Street School Irvington M iddle School Irvington H igh School (K-3) (4-5) (6-8) (9-12) 8:00 A M 8:50 A M 8:35 A M 7:50 A M to 2:20 PM to 3:15 PM to 3:20 PM to 2:35 PM
The impact of school traffic is factored into the analysis since the existing traffic volumes included existing school traffic. Generally, the arrival time of employees (primary shift) does not conflict w ith the morning school hours. H ow ever, there is a shift change at 3:00 PM w hich does conflict w ith the above schools schedule. The applicant w ill w ork w ith the Village and School District to minimize any conflicts. In order to provide a conservative evaluation of traffic conditions along U.S. Route 9, the peak hours chosen for analysis w ere based on the existing roadw ay conditions; Weekday Peak A M H ighw ay H our (7:30A M 8:30 A M ), Weekday Peak PM H ighw ay H our (4:45 PM 5:45 PM ), and Saturday Peak H our (11:30 A M 12:30 PM ). The traffic associated w ith the Continuum Living at Irvington w as then added to the higher peak hour. See also Response 3.6.42.
3.6.37
Comment
I just wanted to see -- I know one of the points is the whole traffic and the shift changes and the other. I was just wondering if there has been anything to address during the construction period, how we will avoid traffic and are they also going to do it you know, not during the commuting hours, school hours. (Mr. Barry Graubart, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 46)
3-92
Response
3.6.38
Comment
There are four schools that stagger their times so our child can get to school on time. We are not jeopardizing that with extra traffic; one crossing guard. Are we going to add crossing guards here and at these other places now that we are going to have all this extra traffic? Because it would be incumbent upon this village to do so, because we will have all this extra traffic and people who don't know their way around and they will be trying to find their way and making all these illegal u-turns. You can only turn right onto Sycamore, you can't turn left, I've seen people do it, and Ive seen kids run across the street. I do not know how you can mitigate that unless you have more crossing guards and they are there earlier or other times. (Ms. Jaime Wilson, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 51)
Response
The Village and the School District can address the needs for crossing guards based on Existing and Future conditions. The Continuum Living at Irvington w ill not change the number of crossing guards since it w ill result in a traffic increase of less than 2% along U.S. Route 9.
3.6.39
Comment
Construction, coming to working for God knows how long, we can't park, we cannot have enough parking. What happens if this happens over the winter like now, if we in our village have enough trouble parking, where are four hundred people going to park? What's going to happen when people are running to take the train during this peak/off peak hours as well, I mean, what is going to happen? (Ms. Jaime Wilson, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 52-53. Similar comments from Mr. Barry Graubart, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 52)
Response
A ll construction employee parking w ill be on-site. See Response to Comment 3.14.12.
3-93
3.6.40
Comment
I am very concerned as you mentioned, there are no sidewalks on the other side, on the east side of Broadway. Children would walk up the street to -- up Broadway to school and back. It seems to me that the off peak shift change hours are exactly the time the school is in and out, when the school is dismissed I would say 3:00, 3:30ish. Whatever time that shift changes are intending to take place would be exactly when the children are walking out of school. That's when you have the most walkers, there are a few children that walk up Broadway on the way to school in the morning but there are tons of children who walk down Broadway. (Ms. Lisa Markowitz, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 55. Similar comments from: Ms. Jaime Wilson, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 66; Ms. Jennifer Barnett, public hearing 3/17/12. P. 77; Correspondence #32, Patrician Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 9)
Response
The sidew alks are provided on the w est side of U.S. Route 9. The drivew ay w ill be controlled by a Stop sign and w ill thus, operate as any other intersection or drivew ay w ith respect to pedestrian activity. The drivew ay is projected to operate at an acceptable Level of Service D or better during peak hours. (See revised Traffic Impact Study FEIS A ppendix 6.1.)
3.6.41
Comment
That hairpin turn is a misery, there are no sidewalks on the other side of the street, and again, would that be addressed. (Ms. Lisa Markowitz, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 55)
Response
Sidew alks are provided on the w est side of U.S. Route 9. The drivew ay has been designed to accommodate delivery vehicles including emergency vehicles. The drivew ay is projected to operate at an acceptable Level of Service D or better during peak hours. (See revised Traffic Impact Study FEIS A ppendix 6.1.)
3-94
3.6.42
Comment
I have heard reference to about peak highway traffic. I would like to make sure that studies pay attention to peak Irvington traffic, and particularly Broadway. (Ms. Angela Wilson, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 66-67)
Response
Traffic counts w ere conducted betw een the hours of 6:30 A M and 9:00 A M to determine Weekday Peak A M H our, betw een the hours of 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM to determine the Weekday Peak PM H our and betw een the hours of 11:00 A M and 2:00 PM to determine the Saturday Peak H our at the study area intersections (Irvington). The resulting Peak H ours based on the existing traffic volumes analyzed in the Traffic Impact Study, w ere 7:30A M 8:30A M (Weekday Peak A M H ighw ay H our), 4:45PM 5:45PM (Weekday Peak PM H ighw ay H our) and 11:30A M 12:30PM (Saturday Peak H our). See also Response 3.6.36.
3.6.43
Comment
Besides the Broadway traffic being a challenge, that section between Broadway going south, down a little bit about Sycamore, a little below Sycamore, at any given moment can be chaotic. The people going back and forth getting coffee, getting bagels, dropping off dry cleaning, there is this whole of hot spot, there is no parking, there is sidewalks that need to be done, people turning where they are not supposed to be turning. Whenever I approach that intersection I would just sort of have to like expect -- be aware of the unexpected if I am going to navigate through it safely, and I'd like to make sure that the unique characteristic of that particular intersection stays in this little town as well. (Ms. Angela Wilson, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 69-70)
Response
Based on the anticipated trip generation for the Continuum Living at Irvington and as analyzed in detail in the DEIS Traffic Impact Study and revised Traffic Impact Study (FEIS A ppendix 6.1), the Continuum Living at Irvington w ill not significantly affect the area roadw ay in the vicinity of the site. Similar Levels of Service and delays w ill be experienced under the Future Year 2015 N oBuild and Future Year 2015 Build Conditions.
3.6.44
Comment
Also the traffic situation with the turning lanes, how are the turning lanes going to be
3-95
handled going north on Broadway into the site, coming out of the site or turning on the way out onto Broadway. There is going to be issues there. We are going to have to know more alternatives for a particular direction. We have a staggered direction there with this a single turn lane, that doesn't mean this driveway directly. So, you are going to have to offset a traffic light just a little bit further up, near Broadway and Main Street. You really have to take a look more closely at what the traffic impacts will be at that traffic intersection. (Mr. Pat Natarelli, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 75-76)
Response
A s noted in Response 3.6.21, no operational problems are anticipated at the drivew ay. Based on observations, there is adequate pavement w idth along U.S. Route 9 at the drivew ay, w hich can be used for left turns into the drivew ay. The Traffic Impact Study accounts for existing and future traffic volumes as w ell as the existing geometry in the vicinity of the proposed drivew ay. The drivew ay is projected to operate at an acceptable Level of Service D or better during peak hours. (See revised Traffic Impact Study FEIS A ppendix 6.1.)
3.6.45
Comment
NYS DOT review. South Broadway (US Route 9) is a State highway. The Village should forward a copy of the application to NYS DOT to identify any required permits for the proposed development and to evaluate potential traffic impacts. (Correspondence #26, Westchester County Planning Board, 5/4/12, p. 4)
Response
Since the project w ill require highw ay w ork permits, N YS DOT is an involved agency under SEQRA and has been notified of the proposed project.
3.6.46
Comment
Controlling and managing growth in the Village: Transportation is one of the key elements laid out for managing growth in the 2003 plan. Yet this plan will add significant traffic to one of our most congested locations. The DEIS forecasts 40 trips per hour during Saturday peak periods and conservatively forecasts 17-27 per hour during weekday peak periods. Those weekday forecasts are based upon fairly rosy assumptions (use of public transit and not starting or ending shifts during school or rush hour) which are unenforceable. Even if those assumptions were somehow met, they will bring added pressure to a location already projected to reach level E by 2015, according to the Traffic Impact Analysis. Of course that does not take into effect
3-96
increased traffic from other area development. Even more critical, the analysis suggests no awareness of the specific realities of that location: a. When the Saw Mill River Parkway is shut down due to flooding (an event that occurred at least eleven times in the past year, according to County legislator Mary Jane Shimsky), traffic is diverted onto Rte 9, bringing Broadway to a crawl. Phelps Memorial Hospital CEO Keith Safian has been quoted as stating that these floods prevent his employees from getting to work. How will Continuum staff get to & from work when Rte 9 is backed up? If there is an overnight weather situation, will the skeleton crew night staff be able to properly support the facility during daytime hours? More importantly, would IVAC or the Fire Department be able get there in an emergency? b. The driveway at 30 S Broadway is located at the exact spot where the two northbound lanes merge into one. This is already a difficult spot for traffic, compounded by illegal uturns at the intersection of Sycamore, and in the driveway at 14 S Broadway. What is the traffic plan for this exit? Will drivers be prevented from making left turns, so that northbound traffic is routed via Station Road and Sycamore Lane? If left turns are permitted, will there be the installation of a traffic signal? How will that impact traffic, as there are already two signals just south of that spot and another just north at Main Street?
(Correspondence #28, Barry S. Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 1-3)
Response
The Continuum Living at Irvington trip generation rates w ere based on acceptable ITE trip generation data, w hich w as also compared to a similar facility. See Responses 3.6.2, 3.6.3, 3.6.4. A s noted in Response 3.6.2 and 3.6.6, the Traffic Impact Study has been revised. With the corrected geometry at U.S. Route 9/ M ain Street/ Fieldpoint Drive (Response 3.6.6), there are no projected Levels of Service E . (See revised Traffic Impact Study - FEIS A ppendix 6.1). A s noted in the DEIS and revised Traffic Impact Study, the Continuum Living at Irvington w ill not significantly affect the area roadw ay in the vicinity of the site. Similar Levels of Service and delays w ill be experienced under the Future Year 2015 N o-Build and Future Year 2015 Build Conditions. a) During a w eather event some traffic w ill use U.S. Route 9 in lieu of the Saw M ill River Parkw ay. H ow ever, even during these w eather events , the Continuum Living at Irvington w ill result in a traffic increase of less than 2% along U.S. Route 9. Thus, the response time for emergency vehicles to any location along U.S. Route 9 w ill remain essentially the same during these w eather events. b) Left turns exiting the site drivew ay are permitted for northbound traffic. The drivew ay is projected to operate at an acceptable Level of Service D or better during peak hours. (See revised Traffic Impact Study FEIS A ppendix 6.1.)
3-97
3.6.47
Comment
While section 3.5.1, Description of Existing Roadway Network, makes note of some of the unique characteristics of the roadways adjacent to the property, the issues that those roadways present are not addressed in the remainder of that document. (Correspondence #28, Barry S. Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 10)
Response
A description of the Existing Roadw ay N etw ork is contained in Section C of the revised Traffic Impact Study (FEIS A ppendix 6.1).
3.6.48
Comment
We know that when the Saw Mill River Parkway is shut down due to flooding (which occurred eleven times during 2011), Broadway is the alternate route. Yet the traffic study does not address this at all. Id like to see a traffic impact analysis of Broadway during such flooding. (Correspondence #28, Barry S. Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 10. Similar comments from: Barry Graubart, public hearing 4/ 4/ 12, p. 54)
Response
See Response 3.6.46.
3.6.49
Comment
Will vehicles be permitted to make left turns out of the property? The driveway sits directly at the spot where the two northbound lanes merge into one and there is no room for turns. Vehicles would have to cross a double-yellow to do so, while oncoming traffic is often coming at a high speed. This is why there is no left turn permitted out of Sycamore Lane. Do you expect to require a traffic light at that location? If so, what will be the impact to traffic flow to having four traffic lights in less than a quarter mile (Station Road, Harriman, Continuum, Main Street) and what will the cost be to install that light? If there is no light there, how will you avoid sideimpact accidents, considering the specifics of that site? (Correspondence #28, Barry S. Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 10)
Response
Left turns exiting the site drivew ay w ill continue to be permitted for northbound traffic. A s indicated in the revised Traffic Impact Study (FEIS A ppendix 6.1), the drivew ay is projected to operate at a Level of Service D during the Weekday Peak A M H ighw ay H our (5 exiting left
3-98
turns and 5 exiting right turns), is projected to operate at a Level of Service C during the Weekday Peak PM H ighw ay H our (10 exiting left turns and 10 exiting right turns) and is projected to operate at a Level of Service D during the Saturday Peak H our (15 exiting left turns and 15 exiting right turns). A s noted in the Traffic Impact Study, for unsignalized intersections it is not uncommon for the side road (minor movements) to operate w ith delays w hile the major movements operate at better Levels of Service during peak hours. Based on the projected Levels of Service, it is not anticipated that drivers w ill make a right turn in lieu of making a left turn. In addition, the operation of the Continuum drivew ay w ould be similar to the adjacent Irvington Estates drivew ay w here left turns are permitted; Weekday Peak A M H ighw ay H our (16 exiting left turns and 11 exiting right turns), Weekday Peak PM H ighw ay H our (5 exiting left turns and 5 exiting right turns) and Saturday Peak H our (16 exiting left turns and 5 exiting right turns). Based on the above, left turns w ill not have to be prohibited at this location. See Responses 3.6.21 and 3.6.44.
3.6.50
Comment
The traffic plan does not specifically address truck deliveries, shuttle buses or other commercial vehicles. Have there been estimates made for how these vehicles will visit and whether they will be scheduled so as to not conflict with peak traffic periods or school transportation? Continuum has talked about a shuttle bus through the community. Have they detailed the route(s) and frequency of these shuttles? (Correspondence #28, Barry S. Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 10)
Response
All deliveries and removal of refuse by private carting companies will be scheduled by the applicant to avoid peak traffic times (including school bus times). Service and delivery vehicles w ill use the main entry roadw ay, travel along the easterly portion of the roadw ay and enter the building designated for deliveries and service vehicles. Loading and unloading w ill occur inside the building. These vehicles w ould not use the emergency access road. A ll deliveries and removal of refuse w ill be scheduled by the applicant to limit the frequency and duration of deliveries and pick-ups to w ithin the allow able hours specified in the N oise Code. With regard to the shuttle bus, there w ill be a daily excursion for residents for shopping and entertainment purposes.
3-99
3.6.51
Comment
What is the maximum number of employees who would be waiting at the bus stop at Broadway and Main Street? (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 2)
Response
The number of employees using mass transportation in lieu of driving/ carpooling has not been established. H ow ever, it is reasonable to assume that there could be 5 employees w aiting for the bus in either direction at any one time. This number is based on the estimate of transit users (25) divided by the number of buses north or south (5 buses total) on Broadw ay betw een hours of 3:00 PM and 4:00 PM .
3.6.52
Comment
Provide revised traffic generation counts to reflect the number of beds, rather than the number of rooms. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 2)
Response
A s noted in Response 3.6.2, the estimates of the generated trips have been updated based on the number of beds (168 beds). See Responses 3.6.2 and 3.6.3.
3.6.53
Comment
Discuss traffic patterns exiting the facility, especially additional traffic on Station Road and Sycamore Lane, that will be caused by cars wishing to travel north but that are unable to make a left turn onto Broadway. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 2)
Response
Left turns exiting the site drivew ay w ill continue to be permitted for northbound traffic. A s indicated in the revised Traffic Impact Study (FEIS A ppendix 6.1), the drivew ay is projected to operate at a Level of Service D during the Weekday Peak A M H ighw ay H our (5 exiting left turns and 5 exiting right turns), is projected to operate at a Level of Service C during the
3-100
Weekday Peak PM H ighw ay H our (10 exiting left turns and 10 exiting right turns) and is projected to operate at a Level of Service D during the Saturday Peak H our (15 exiting left turns and 15 exiting right turns). A s noted in the Traffic Impact Study, for unsignalized intersections it is not uncommon for the side road (minor movements) to operate w ith delays w hile the major movements operate at better Levels of Service during peak hours. Based on the projected Levels of Service, it is not anticipated that drivers w ill make a right turn in lieu of making a left turn. In addition, the operation of the Continuum drivew ay w ould be similar to the adjacent Irvington Estates drivew ay w here left turns are permitted; Weekday Peak A M H ighw ay H our (16 exiting left turns and 11 exiting right turns), Weekday Peak PM H ighw ay H our (5 exiting left turns and 5 exiting right turns) and Saturday Peak H our (16 exiting left turns and 5 exiting right turns). Based on the above, left turns w ill not have to be prohibited at this location.
3.6.54
Comment
Discuss the number of parking spaces and whether there are adequate parking spaces to account for the additional bed count and any additional employees identified. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 2)
Response
A s noted in Response 3.6.2, the ITE average peak parking demand rates (ITE Parking Generation, th 4 Edition, 2010) are based on the number of units. A s noted in DEIS Section 3.5.12, the ITE parking rate of 0.41 (based on number of units) w as conservatively used. A s required by the Planning Board for the DEIS, a parking survey w as conducted at the A tria, Briarcliff M anor facility. Utilizing the 0.30 rate observed at the A tria at Briarcliff M anor Facility, the parking demand w ould equate to 36 spaces (121 units x 0.30). Utilizing the observed parking rates at the A tria at Briarcliff M anor Facility by beds, 0.25 w ould equate to 42 spaces (168 beds x 0.25). See also Responses 3.6.17, 3.6.18, 3.6.24 and 3.6.34.
3-101
3.6.55
Comment
Discuss whether there are adequate parking spaces to accommodate overlap in shift changes. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 2)
Response
A s noted in Response 3.6.17, the ITE parking rate of 0.41 (w hich takes into account shift changes) w as conservatively used. Utilizing the 0.30 rate observed at the A tria at Briarcliff M anor facility, the parking demand w ould equate to 36 spaces (121 units x 0.30). Utilizing the observed parking rates at the A tria at Briarcliff M anor facility by beds w ould equate to 42 spaces (168 beds x 0.25). See also Response 3.6.18. Based on the above, adequate on-site parking w ill be provided.
3.6.56
Comment
Prepare a chart showing the number of cars at each of the intersections of Broadway and the site entrance, Broadway and Main, Broadway and Sycamore Lane, Broadway and Station Road, Broadway and Harriman, and Broadway and Sunnyside for the peak am and pm hours without the proposed facility and after it is fully operational. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 2)
Response
A Table (Table N o. 2) has been added to the revised Traffic Impact Study (FEIS A ppendix 6.1) comparing the Existing and Future Traffic Volumes at each of the study area intersections. The Traffic Volume Comparison Table is also show n on the follow ing page.
3-102
3.6.57
Comment
Another concern raised is that traffic on Broadway and on Station Road would be badly affected, but the t raffic data (and a little common sense) don't show that at all. F o r instance, Station Road at Broadway now operates at a level of service "A" and will continue to do so if the project is built. (Correspondence #40, Michael Bradley, 3/25/12, p. 1)
Response
It should be noted that w hile the overall Level of Service at the U.S. Route 9 and Station Road intersection is a Level of Service A , the Station Road approach is operating at a Level of Service D .
3.6.58
Comment
I am greatly concerned about the traffic that will be generated on Broadway as well as on Harriman/ Cyrus Field Road. There will be a substantial increase in vehicles using Cyrus Field Road for Parkway access. This will result in increased noise and pollution. The aesthetics of our community will be compromised. (Correspondence #41, Janet Silberman, 4/4/12, p. 1)
Response
A s show n in the revised Traffic Impact Study (FEIS A ppendix 6.1), it is expected that 10% of the Continuum Living at Irvington traffic w ould utilize H arriman Road. This w ould equate to 3 vehicles during the Weekday Peak A M H ighw ay H our, 4 vehicles during the Weekday Peak PM H ighw ay H our and 6 vehicles during the Saturday Peak H our. A s show n on the Level of Service Summary Table (Table N o. 1), the U.S. Route 9/ H arriman Road intersection w ill operate at an overall Level l of Service B .
3.6.59
Comment
Will the "emergency access road" also be used by service vehicles? Will these vehi cl es come and go early and late and create noise and light pollution? (Correspondence #45, Scott Snyder, 3/7/12, p. 1)
3-104
Response
Service and delivery vehicles w ill use the main entry roadw ay, travel along the easterly portion of the roadw ay and enter the building designated for deliveries and service vehicles. Loading and unloading w ill occur inside the building. These vehicles w ould not use the emergency access road. A ll deliveries and removal of refuse w ill be scheduled by the applicant to limit the frequency and duration of deliveries and pick-ups to w ithin the allow able hours specified in the N oise Code.
3.6.60
Comment
Will an additional traffic l i g h t need to be created at the base of the driveway on Broadway? (Correspondence #45, Scott Snyder, 3/7/12, p. 1)
Response
A traffic signal is not proposed at the site drivew ay. Left turns exiting the site drivew ay are permitted for northbound traffic. The drivew ay is projected to operate at an acceptable Level of Service D or better during peak hours (See revised Traffic Impact Study FEIS A ppendix 6.1).
3.6.61
Comment
The applicant shall submit a HIGHWAY WORK PERMIT APPLICATION OF RNON-UTILITY WORK (PERM 33). It must be signed by the applicant and the name/address provided in the upper left hand corner. The remaining information will be completed at a later date. The applicant shall submit a PERMIT AGREEMENT FOR HIGHWAY WORK PERMITS DESIGN REVIEW (PERM 5.1) which must be completed by the applicant. The Application No. and PIN will be filed in by the Regional Traffic Safety & Mobility Group. The applicant should be aware that the $2,000 fee referenced thereon shall be the minimum cost for the Departments review time and in non-refundable. Hereafter, all Department employees assigned the responsibility of reviewing any documents, plans, maps, etc., which are directly related to the subject proposal, shall charge their review time to this project. The applicant will then be billed periodically by the Department for the actual cost of the review and processing of the respective project. Such billings which exceed the minimum $2,000 initial fee must be paid immediately upon receipt or the Highway Work Permit shall not be issued, or shall be revoked.
3-105
Planning Documents 1 set of plans in paper and PDF format, 1 copy of drainage study/SWPPP in PDF format, 1 copy of Synchro analysis of affected intersections on disc, 1 copy of the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) in PDF format. The Traffic Impact Study shall include traffic signal analyses for the nearly signalized intersections. (Correspondence #46, New York State Department of Transportation, Region Eight, 3/26/12, p. 1)
Response
A ll required documentation as required by N YS DOT is being submitted for the H ighw ay Work Permit.
3.6.62
Comment
Due to the massive nature of the project and the extensive excavation, the construction period will be extremely detrimental to Village commerce as well as vehicular & pedestrian traffic. There will be trucks or trailers delivering or removing equipment and materials for a protracted length of time. While currently estimated for 15 months, there is a high potential it could go longer as most complex projects are. This will extend through at least one, maybe two school years where traffic could be affected. The DEIS report does not address these traffic details unique to the location. (Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 8)
Response
The 15 month period is the projected length of the entire project. The majority of exporting material w ould be approximately three months. There w ill be other construction activities and deliveries throughout the first 12 months, but typically at the end of the project all the materials are on site w here truck traffic is minimal. It is also believed that the close proximity of the N YS Thruw ay (Rt. 87) w ill minimize the distance of truck travel for the project.
3.6.63
Comment
The fear is that cars will divert to Sycamore and Station Road to avoid the primary construction site. How will the Village protect the residents, especially since this is a safe route to school and there are no sidewalks? Residents who selected this location due to proximity to Village stores and railroad will be in danger. What would the cost of putting sidewalks on Sycamore and Station Road? Will the Village offer busing to those of us that live proximate to the school? These costs should be estimated in the DEIS report. (Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 8)
3-106
Response
Except for construction vehicles entering and exiting the site there w ill be no construction w ork on U.S. Route 9. During construction, there w ill be a flagman at the drivew ay to direct the flow of Continuum Living at Irvington traffic. This w ill provide safe access to the site and at the same time insure pedestrian safety.
3.6.64
Comment
When there is the slightest change (cars, rain) it is very difficult to get down the hill from the Middle/High School. Even with a minimum of additional traffic, this intersection is obstructed. Will an officer be engaged to manage traffic at the bottom of the hill during construction and thereafter. (Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 9)
Response
There are no plans by Continuum Living at Irvington to provide for an officer either during or after construction. See also Response 3.6.38.
3.6.65
Comment
Will a "no truck" sign go up on the Harriman side of Sycamore? There is currently a "no truck" sign at the Sycamore Lane entrance on Broadway. Who will enforce this? What would the cost of another sign be? This should be in the DEIS report What additional signage will go up to warn of the Station Road tunnel? What is the cost of this? (Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 9)
Response
The applicant is not proposing additional signing along Station Road or Sycamore Lane.
3.6.66
Comment
Has anyone reached out to Westchester Bee Line Bus to determine impact on bus schedule? Will cars be diverted around Sycamore and Station Road so the buses can get through? I did not see this addressed in the DEIS report. (Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 9)
3-107
Response
The Continuum Living at Irvington project w ill result in a traffic increase of less than 2% along U.S. Route 9. Thus, this Project w ill have a minimal impact on bus operations and cars w ill not be diverted due to bus traffic.
3.6.67
Comment
The general traffic section appears very superficial and has little relevance to the actual location of the facility. The traffic estimate assumes that most employees will take public transportation. I would like to see some hard statistics as to the basis for this assumption. You could have 50+ employees entering the facility every am and pm. The traffic estimates in and out of the facility also do not consider the impact of deliveries, mail/packages, third parties (including but not limited to therapists, private duty nurses, home health staff, durable medical equipment, pharmacy, moving trucks, physicians/dentists, landscaping, other services etc.) on traffic. The section also does not detail the path and schedule of the shuttle bus and impact on traffic. Since the bus cannot turn left on Broadway, what will its path be. Will it have to go down Sycamore Lane since it wont fit thru the Station Road tunnel? Will the residents have to deal with a shuttle bus coming through the neighborhood all day? The report does not address visitor parking and the potential that street parking and municipal lot parking will be taken up by visitors on the weekends. This would block residents from access to Main Street stores. The DEIS report should note the impact. (Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 9-10)
Response
The ITE Peak H our Trip Generation Rates utilized takes into consideration visited, employee and delivery trips. See Responses 3.6.2 and 3.6.3. Left turns entering and exiting the drivew ay are permitted. A s noted in Response 3.6.17, the ITE parking rate of 0.41 (w hich takes into account shift changes) w as conservatively used. A s required by the Planning Board for the DEIS, a parking survey w as conducted at the A tria, Briarcliff M anor facility. Utilizing the 0.30 rate observed at the A tria at Briarcliff M anor facility, the parking demand w ould equate to 36 spaces (121 units x 0.30). Utilizing the observed parking rates at the A tria at Briarcliff M anor facility by beds w ould equate to 42 spaces (168 beds x 0.25). See also Response 3.6.18. A dequate on-site parking w ill be provided.
3-108
3.6.68
Comment
The corner of Sycamore does not allow for a left hand turn, as trying to do so is treacherous. The danger does not diminish 30 feet away at the site of FEE, particularly since you are turning left over the double yellow line at the point of a merge. What part of the study has been done to address this danger? Will consideration be given to placement of a light or police officer? The impact and cost of this should be addressed in the DEIS report. Due to the danger in turning left, the tendency will be for drivers to go right. As a result, to go north, drivers would have to go down Station Road and up Main Street or up Harriman and down Sycamore. This process will end up increasing traffic to both the Station Road and Sycamore Communities. Has the impact of additional safety measures to the residents of Sycamore Lane and Station Road been considered (construction of sidewalks, traffic safety, and signage?) (Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 10)
Response
A traffic signal is not proposed at the site drivew ay. Left turns exiting the site drivew ay w ill continue to be permitted for northbound traffic. A s indicated in the revised Traffic Impact Study (FEIS A ppendix 6.1), the drivew ay is projected to operate at a Level of Service D during the Weekday Peak A M H ighw ay H our (5 exiting left turns and 5 exiting right turns), is projected to operate at a Level of Service C during the Weekday Peak PM H ighw ay H our (10 exiting left turns and 10 exiting right turns) and is projected to operate at a Level of Service D during the Saturday Peak H our (15 exiting left turns and 15 exiting right turns). A s noted in the Traffic Impact Study, for unsignalized intersections it is not uncommon for the side road (minor movements) to operate w ith delays w hile the major movements operate at better Levels of Service during peak hours. Based on the projected Levels of Service, it is not anticipated that drivers w ill make a right turn in lieu of making a left turn. In addition, the operation of the Continuum drivew ay w ould be similar to the adjacent Irvington Estates drivew ay w here left turns are permitted; Weekday Peak A M H ighw ay H our (16 exiting left turns and 11 exiting right turns), Weekday Peak PM H ighw ay H our (5 exiting left turns and 5 exiting right turns) and Saturday Peak H our (16 exiting left turns and 5 exiting right turns). Based on the above, left turns w ill not have to be prohibited at this location. The drivew ay w ill be controlled by a Stop sign and w ill thus operate as any other intersection or drivew ay w ith respect to pedestrian activity. The drivew ay has been designed to accommodate delivery vehicles including emergency vehicles. Sidew alks are provided on the w est side of U.S. Route 9.
3-109
3.6.69
Comment
I'd like to have a more detailed look on the impact of what you call your peak -- your a.m. peak and your p.m. peak traffic. I know it is really convenient for whoever does the traffic analysis to come -- to printout these nice little schematics, but without at lot of work they are really not understandable to me. I'd like to have information presented in a tabular form that says things like, these are the number of cars and the length of wait at say Broadway and Main Street light under current conditions and what they wait and what the number of cars would be under peak conditions, and I'd like that presented for all the intersection -- all the intersections, I guess the main intersections in Irvington. Harriman, Main Street, High School Drive. (Ms. Patricia Graubart, public hearing 5/2/12, p. 48)
Response
The DEIS Traffic Impact Study and revised Traffic Impact Study (FEIS A ppendix 6.1) contains Existing and Future Traffic Volumes Figures and the results of the analysis (Levels of Service and delays) are summarized on Table N o. 1. In addition as noted in Response 3.6.56, a Table (Table N o. 2) has been added to the revised Traffic Impact Study comparing the Existing and Future Traffic Volumes at each of the study area intersections.
3-110
3.7
3.7.1
Utilities
Comment
The 75 anticipated full time staff members, in A ppendix 7.10, Section A , Utilities, should be consistent w ith the 81 members mentioned in Chapters 1 and 2. (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 3)
Response
The Utility Report, found in A ppendix 7.9, Section A has been revised to be consistent w ith the anticipated 81 full time equivalent staff members as noted in the DEIS Chapters 1 and 2.
3.7.2
Comment
The actual demand from existing Continuum Care facilities should be provided for comparison, which includes the number of units. (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 3)
Response
This is the first assisted living facility by the applicant. A s a result, using the common accepted practice, estimates for the TCC Irvington project w ere based on unit flow values cited in the N YSDEC Design Standards for Wastew ater Treatment Works, 1988.
3.7.3
Comment
Additional hydrants should be located around the building. Also, the proposed hydrant should be relocated on the opposite side of the drive to keep the hose from blocking vehicular access and egress. (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 3)
Response
See FEIS Site Utility Plan, Exhibit 8, for hydrant and siamese connection locations.
3-111
3.7.4
Comment
Existing flow and capacity of 8 inch clay sewer pipe not known. The flow in the existing sewer main located on Broadway should be determined by metering or other methods to determine actual flows for duration of time. (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 3)
Response
The flow capacity of the existing 8-inch sanitary main on Broadw ay at the project connection point w as estimated to be 1270 GPM 1. The proposed facility peak flow sanitary load is estimated to be 44 GPM or 3.5% of the pipe capacity. The superintendent of water and sewer has indicated the sanitary sewer main has adequate flow capacity to accommodate the proposed facility sanitary load. Divney Tung Schwalbe visually inspected the sewer manholes on Broadway in the morning of September 29, 2011 and no signs of flow problems were observed. The 8-inch main was flowing less than half full. It appears the 8-inch sewer main has adequate capacity to accommodate the project.
3.7.5
Comment
The sewer inflow and infiltration offset is 3 to 1 which is typically required by the Westchester County Department of Environmental Facility. Therefore, for every gallon of sewage generated, 3 gallons of inflow and infiltration must be removed from the existing sewer system. This should be included in the report. (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 3)
Response
3.7.6
Comment
Details of all utilities should be provided. (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 3)
Capacity calculated as flow depth using Mannings Equation for pipe flow.
3-112
Response
See FEIS Site Details Exhibits 10 and 11.
3.7.7
Comment
The minimum clearance between the water main and sewer main should be ten (10') feet horizontal and eighteen (18") inches vertical. (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 3)
Response
The required clearance is provided. See FEIS Site Utility Plan, Exhibit 8.
3.7.8
Comment
The actual flows from existing Continuum Care facilities should be provided for comparison, which includes the number of units. (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 3)
Response
This w ill be the first TCC-A LU of this type. A s a result, using the common accepted practice, estimates for the TCC Irvington project w ere based on unit flow values cited in the N YSDEC Design Standards for Wastew ater Treatment Works, 1988.
3.7.9
Comment
Our power on Sycamore and Dogwood goes out constantly. The last time it went out Con-Ed came to my door and they said, every single time they get a call from Sycamore and Broadway, the guy said, my stomach turns. So, how are you going to handle it now? (Ms. Jaime Wilson, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 65)
Response
The applicant has contacted Con Edison to determine available capacity relative to the proposed project. If it is determined that upgrades are required to service the proposed project, the developer w ould be responsible for the necessary connections or upgrades. The proposed
3-113
assisted living facility w ill have an on-site generator w ith sufficient capacity to pow er the proposed facility.
3.7.10
Comment
County sewer impacts. The development will increase sewage flows from this site into the existing infrastructure. The increased flow will add to the volume of sewage flow requiring treatment at the Yonkers Joint Wastewater Treatment Plant operated by Westchester County. As a matter of County Department of Environmental Facilities' policy, we recommend that the Village implement, or require the developer to implement, measures that will offset the projected increase in flow. The best means to do so is through reductions in inflow/infiltration (I&I), normally at a ratio of three for one. The draft EIS did not include a discussion of this mitigation. We recommend the final EIS provide specific details on how implementation of these improvements is to be accomplished. For example, will the applicant be required to place funds into a dedicated account for I&I work based on a per gallon cost of removal of flow through I&I? How will I&I projects to be identified? Who will conduct the work and in what timeframe? (Correspondence #26, Westchester County Planning Board, 5/4/12, p. 4)
Response
The applicant w ill meet the County H ealth Department requirements for sanitary sew er connection and w ill review this matter w ith the Village during site plan approval. This specific mitigation measure w ill be determined as part of the site plan approval process in conformity w ith the Village and Westchester County Inflow and Infiltration Program objectives.
3.7.11
Comment
Your document says that the water demand will be sixteen thousand gallons a day and the sewage will be seventeen thousand six hundred a day, I don't see how -- where the other one thousand six hundred gallons a day is coming from. (Ms. Patricia Graubart, public hearing 5/2/12, p. 48-49)
Response
The w ater demand accounts for an additional 10% traditional consumption that w ill not enter the sanitary sew er system. To clarify, the w ater demand is 10% greater than the estimated sanitary sew er load.
3-114
3.8
3.8.1
Stormwater
Comment
A site map/ construction draw ing(s) show ing all the proposed drainage infrastructure should be provided. It should include, but not be limited to the dimensions, material specifications and installation details for each post construction management practice and entire drainage infrastructure. (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 3)
Response
The stormw ater management measures proposed are accepted N YSDEC measures as outlined in the N ew York State Stormw ater M anagement Design M anual, A ugust 2010. Construction specifications and details w ill be provided in contract documents to be submitted as part of the Building Permit set.
3.8.2
Comment
Area C is shown to drain to Design Point DP-3, however DP-3 is actually a design line, not a design point. In locations where a design point cannot be used, a design line may be used, however it appears that this area can, and should be, broken into separate areas. (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 4)
Response
The subw atershed map and drainage areas have been updated to reflect changes to the Proposed A ction. The design points remain the same, but the boundaries have been adjusted to allow for modifications in the layout.
3.8.3
Comment
A description of flows that includes all over bank flood protection and extreme flood protection should be included. (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 4)
3-115
Response
Refer to Stormw ater M anagement Report Section V. Water Quantity Control, Table N o. 5 for description of overbank flood protection and extreme flood protection.
3.8.4
Comment
The total area contributing to each proposed rain garden should be described. The total contributing area to each rain garden should not exceed 1,000 sf, without incorporating elements of bio-retention practices. (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 4)
Response
Refer to Stormw ater M anagement Report Section V. Water Quantity Control, Table N o. 3 for the impervious area contributing to each proposed rain garden. A s the areas w ill exceed 1,000 sf, elements of bio-retention practices have been included in the design. The depth of the planting soil w ill be 2.5 as opposed to 1 for typical smaller rain gardens, and conveyance to the gardens via overland flow w ill be pretreated using curb cut and/ or gravel diaphragms for sediment removal.
3.8.5
Comment
It appears that all trees within the area of disturbance are to be removed. If not, the trees to be protected should be shown and a detail provided. (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 4)
Response
A ll trees located w ithin the area of disturbance are to be removed.
3.8.6
Comment
Inspections of the Erosion and Sediment Control Devices will be required throughout the project. The following should be included in the SWPPP. "The applicant shall notify the Village of Irvington Building Inspector at least 48 hours before any of the following as required by the Stormwater Management Officer: Start of construction Installation of sediment and erosion control measures Completion of site clearing
3-116
Completion of rough grading Installation of Stormwater Management Facilities Completion of final grading Close of the construction season Completion of final landscaping Successful establishment of landscaping in public areas."
(Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 4)
Response
Tab 2, Construction A ctivity Description, of the Stormw ater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), includes the requested w ording as provided by H ahn Engineering. Refer to Section 2.e. Erosion and Sediment Control, pages 2-4 through 2-5.
3.8.7
Comment
Proposed location, size, design and use of all temporary structures, storage areas, and staging areas to be used during the course of construction should be shown. (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 4)
Response
See Exhibit 30, Preliminary Construction Logistics Plan. A dditional detail w ill be provided during the site plan approval process.
3.8.8
Comment
The notes in Table 3, Appendix 7.10, are incomplete. (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 4)
Response
Refer to Stormw ater M anagement Report Section V. Water Quantity Control, Table N o. 3 for revisions and clarifications.
3.8.9
Comment
The third paragraph, line 10, states "The final watershed...discharges via existing underground storm drainage system to the Old Croton Aqueduct (DP4)". This should be confirmed since it appears
3-117
that the runoff is channeled and directed south at the aqueduct, and eventually ends up in the Barney Brook. (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 4)
Response
Under existing conditions there is a drain inlet in the black-top parking lot that ultimately discharges to the Old Croton A queduct. From there the stormw ater runoff ultimately discharges to the Barney Brook. Refer to Stormw ater M anagement Report Section I. Site Planning, page I-2 for further clarification.
3.8.10
Comment
The actual amount of increased impervious area should be used in lieu of repeating "less than 1 acre increase." (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 5)
Response
Comment noted, in the revised Proposed A ction, the amount of increase impervious area has increased to an estimated 1.3 acres.
3.8.11
Comment The breakdown of the watersheds should be delineated on Exhibit 3-48.

(Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 5)
Response
In the revised Proposed A ction, the w atershed boundaries have been adjusted to reflect the proposed layout. See Exhibit 38, Watershed Comparison M ap. Refer to Developed Drainage Conditions for further clarification.
3-118
3.8.12
Comment
As required by Section 9.3 of the NYSDEC Stormwater Design Manual, the SWPPP must clearly state that the redevelopment conditions meet the application criteria in Section 9.3.1 in order to utilize alternative sizing and selection of Stormwater Management Controls defined in Chapter 9. (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 5)
Response
Refer to Stormw ater M anagement Report Section I. Site Planning, for a description of the redevelopment planning strategies, employing the application criteria of Section 9.3.1 of the N YSSWDM .
3.8.13
Comment
This section must clearly show how the project complies with Section 9.3.1 of the NYSSMDM. At this time, it is unclear why additional measures (such as infiltration) cannot be provided. (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 5)
Response
Refer to Stormw ater M anagement Report Section I. Site Planning, for a description of the redevelopment planning strategies, employing the application criteria of Section 9.3.1 of the N YSSWDM . The project w ill employ both a combination of redevelopment and new construction strategies, and w ill include green infrastructure techniques and alternative measures to meet w ater quality requirements.
3.8.14
Comment
It should be noted that the minimal RRv is 3,000 cf and that the desired RRv is 100% of the WQv. (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 5)
Response
Comment noted, refer to Stormw ater M anagement Report Section III. Runoff Reduction, Redevelopment RRv Calculations for clarification.
3-119
3.8.15
Comment
Descriptions for each practice and area, that include volumes and areas, should be provided. (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 5)
Response
Descriptions are provided in the Stormw ater M anagement Report Section V. Water Quantity Control, revised Table N o. 3.
3.8.16
Comment
The increase in water run-off. There has been a tremendous increase of runoff into Barney Brook as it passes on the south side thru my garden since I have lived there. The property lies at the lowest point on Broadway and hence receives water run-off from Station Road, So. Broadway, and Harriman Road, and from the FEE property. Two factors have increased the flow into the Barney Brook, one from the development over the years on Broadway and Harriman Road. The resulting run-off comes down through my driveway, and causes major problems e.g. at one time after a heavy rainfall it resulted in subsidence of the driveway, and my car fell through the driveway up to the door handles, (Chief Mondelli was present and his officers were most helpful), the driveway had to be totally rebuilt. The second factor relates to the run-off onto my property from the Memorial Park & Station Road. Some years ago there was major subsidence from the runoff from the underground streams in the Park and Station Road. The village at this time directed the excess flow into the Brook on my property, by putting in a very large culvert directing excess flow on my property. This was done in my absence (I was in the UK at the time for family illness), they took out trees, cut my fence, and on my return to Irvington continually ignored my request to the Village Engineer for a meeting, as Mr. John Didyo who was on the Village Board at that time can attest to. Furthermore, because Station Road is at a higher elevation than my property, during heavy rain, water cascades from Station Road in to the Barney Brook as it runs through my property. As the years passed the level of Barney Brook with runoff water has continued to rise. Over time I have lost the following due to the rising water:
1. Two wooden bridges that crossed the brook 2. Willow tree, Verbena tree, Flowering Cherry Trees
3.
Beds of lilies and other perennials lining the banks of the brook
I have had to try to shore up the bank with little effect, and with the runoff the bank is continually eroded. In heavy rain the water level has risen with time and now it come across the lawn and will soon reach the edge of the driveway.
3-120
Finally I also receive the runoff from the FEE property from the steep tree-covered hillside on the north side of my property. This has caused erosion of soil from the hillside which has resulted in major problems from falling trees. The first one happened 37 years ago, the week I moved into the house a tree fell and crushed my car. Over the years a number of trees have fallen e.g. one occasion 4 trees came down. Most recent was 2 years ago when one fell damaging a car and the roof of the house which cost several thousand for repair. It is timely that the Village ensures no more run off into Barney Brook from development and furthermore takes steps to deal with this problem on my property. DEIS submission from Continuum states that the proposed plan will add 0.78 acres of additional impervious surface resulting in 4.4 acres of total impervious surface in a site of 4.6 acres. Considering that 26.1% of the property is covered by steep slope that leaves only 3.42 acres of usable land it is inexplicable how they came up with 4.4 acres of impervious surface. Did the Village Consultant's review ALL calculations prior to the acceptance of the DEIS. If the Village goes ahead with this proposed I want a 10 year indemnity clause for damages to my property from increased run-off and assurance from the Village that the Storm water Management Plan will decrease any run-off to my property. (Correspondence #8, Rita M cConn-Stern, 3/ 26/ 12, p. 1-3. Similar comments from: Pierre Follari, public hearing, 5/ 2/ 12, p. 7; Correspondence #42, Village of Irvington Environmental Conservation Board, 4/ 4/ 12, p. 2; Patricia Graubart, public hearing 5/ 2/ 12, p. 50)
Response
The current property is 4.63 acres w ith an estimated 1.06 acres of impervious area, stormw ater runoff from w hich is currently undetained and untreated. Under proposed conditions, there w ill be an approximate increase of 1.3 acres of impervious area to a total on-site impervious area of 2.35 acres across the 4.63 acre property, w hich w ill be treated by green infrastructure measures and detained in underground detention pipes prior to being released at a controlled rate of flow . The stormw ater management analysis includes the entire study w atershed w hich extends to the upstream properties up to M ain Street, totaling approximately 10.28 acres in total. The portion of the property that discharges via sheet flow dow n the steep slope tow ards the neighboring properties adjacent to Barney Brook is part of DP 3. Under existing conditions, an estimated 4.11 acres contribute, of w hich 0.54 acres is impervious, to this design point, comprised of the southern portion of the FEE property and the neighboring properties at the Barney Brook. Under proposed conditions, this subw atershed area is reduced to 2.60 acres, of w hich only 0.26 acres is impervious. The result of this change is a reduction of over 40% of the peak rate of runoff tow ards discharge point DP 3 and a reduction of runoff volume from over 51% in the 1-year storm event and 23% in the 100-year storm event. These substantial reductions should mitigate the current erosion occurring at the dow nstream properties adjacent to the Barney Brook under existing conditions. Furthermore, at the remaining
3-121
design points, the peak rate of flow has been reduced from existing conditions w hich should further mitigate current existing conditions at the Barney Brook. Refer to the Stormw ater M anagement Report for a detailed description of the stormw ater management plan for the site. In addition, refer to the Stormw ater M anagement Catchment A reas, for a detailed explanation of the areas tributary to each proposed stormw ater management measure illustrating the diversion of storm w ater aw ay from the rear yards of properties along Station Road.
3.8.17
Comment
The DEIS states that [t]he 4.6 acre site currently includes 3.62 acres of impervious area. Development of the proposed project would result in an increase in impervious surface of about 0.78 acres resulting in 4.4 acres of impervious surfaces. (DEIS ch. 3.3.3.6, page 3-30; see also Table 1.2, page 3-3 and ch. 6.3, page 6-2). The DEIS further states that the increase in impervious surfaces (including roads, driveways and buildings) ... will alter the existing on-site drainage patterns and that [a]ltered drainage patterns will be mitigated by the implementation of a stormwater management plan. However, the DEIS neither identifies the significant increase in impervious surface as a long term, adverse impact nor addresses in specific terms any other aspects of its mitigation. (Correspondence #9, Irvington Environmental Conservation Board, 4/ 3/ 12, p. 3)
Response
See Response to Comment 3.8.16 w hich addresses clarifications to the study w atershed area versus of 10.28 acres to the property area of 4.63 acres. The impact of the approximate increase of 1.3 acres of impervious area are proposed to be mitigated by the use of green roofs, porous pavement, stormw ater planters, rain gardens, hydrodynamic separators and underground detention pipes. The use of these measures is employed to mimic as best as possible the current hydrology of the site, resulting in a reduction of peak rate of discharge at each design point and the treatment of on-site impervious areas that w ere previously untreated.
3.8.18
Comment
There are a myriad of negative environmental impacts which would likely result from such a development. Some of these impacts would include storm water management issues due to increased impervious surfaces and slope de-stabilization. (Correspondence #13, M ary Beth Dooley, 4/ 2/ 12, p. 1)
3-122
Response
See Response to Comment 3.8.17 w hich addresses proposed mitigation of stormw ater management impacts of the proposed action.
3.8.19
Comments
The surface area to be covered by such a large facility could create significant drainage problems for the surrounding neighborhoods which are all downhill from the site. (Correspondence #19, M ark J. Polisar, 3/ 18/ 12, p. 1)
Response
See Response to Comment 3.8.16 and 3.8.17 w hich addresses mitigation of stormw ater management impacts of the proposed action to the neighbors dow nstream of the project site.
3.8.20
Comment
Other issue is stormwater on Station Road. Those of us who live directly on Barton Brook, there is never anything that happens, not even a shed that gets built in Irvington that does not fed the runoff into Barton Brook. The neighbors really need to fully understand exactly how the water will be managed, exactly how the water will be channeled, exactly where the water is going. (Ms. Lisa Markowitz, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 55-56)
Response
See Response to Comment 3.8.16 and 3.8.17 w hich addresses mitigation of stormw ater management impacts of the proposed action to the neighbors dow nstream of the project site.
3.8.21
Comment
If the applicants could think a little bit more environmentally about how they'll handle the stormwater and rain gardens, it will be probably much better for stormwater management if they connected the rain gardens and have them slopping down towards Broadway with weirs or something like that, so that when we get the big storms, the rain gardens won't be blown out. Any rain garden would be connected to the other ones. Now, before you give the opportunity to create more of a wetland-fake, you know,
3-123
engineered wetland-type of thing that would manage the stormwater better. (Ms. Anne Achenson, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 60-61)
Response
A s per the N YSDEC N ew York State Stormw ater M anagement Design M anual, the rain gardens include an overflow riser to safely convey all storms greater than the w ater quality event, the 90% storm event, tow ards the underground detention pipes. The integrity and stability of the rain gardens w ill be maintained in all storm events, w hile the rate of runoff from the site w ill be controlled to be below existing conditions w ith the use of the underground detention pipes.
3.8.22
Comment
I would like to make sure that if they guarantee -- if it goes through, that they guarantee that the pervious pavement of the parking lot will be readily maintained. Pervious pavement often -- overtime if it is not properly taken care of the amount of permeability is reduced, so therefore, the stormwater management value that it provides gets reduced over time if it is not properly taken care. (Ms. Angela Wilson, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 68)
Response
A maintenance schedule is included in the SWPPP w hich The Continuum Company w ill follow to properly maintain all proposed stormw ater measures including but not limited to porous pavement, green roofs, stormw ater planters and rain gardens.
3.8.23
Comment
I like the fact that there will be a green roof and that there will be rain gardens and that the stormwater will be handled on-site. But, I would like to see also where the stormwater is going to go once it leaves the property. Is it going to go south or is it going east towards Broadway, how is it going too picked up and how is it going to be handled? (Mr. Pat Natarelli, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 75)
Response
The site has been modeled to generally maintain the existing subw atershed boundaries as exists today. Of the four design points, tw o discharge into the existing underground storm piping in
3-124
South Broadw ay, one discharges to the Old Croton A queduct and one discharges via sheet flow to the Barney Brook. A ll design points ultimately discharge into the Barney Brook. Through the use of green roofs, porous pavement, stormw ater planters, rain gardens, hydrodynamic separators and underground detention pipes, the stormw ater runoff from the site w ill be treated and w ill be detained to peak rates of flow below existing conditions.
3.8.24
Comment
Storm water Management is another potential area of concern. The project calls for the removal of at least 79 and as many as 100 trees from the property. This will clearly have an impact on water management. In addition, the plan calls for use of rain gardens but gives no indication of how these will be maintained. Anyone familiar with the use of rain gardens knows that, unless carefully maintained both during and after storms, these will simply dry up within a year or two. Typical landscapers are not equipped to maintain a rain garden, so Id be interested in what the specific plans are for ongoing rain garden maintenance. (Correspondence #28, Barry S. Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 10)
Response
A s previously described, a maintenance schedule is included in the SWPPP w hich The Continuum Company w ill follow to properly maintain all proposed stormw ater measures including but not limited to porous pavement, green roofs, stormw ater planters and rain gardens. The proper maintenance of these measures w ill not only ensure their successful operation, but w ill maintain their aesthetic benefit to the project site. With regard to tree removal, in total, 129 trees are scheduled to be removed. Of these, 47 are in poor condition or w orse and are unlikely to survive in the near term. A ccording to the arborists report and per conventional arborist standards, there are no trees classified as Good Condition on the site. The trees removed w ill be replaced w ith 145 new evergreen and deciduous trees as show n on Exhibit 3, Conceptual Landscape Plan.
3.8.25
Comment
Complete stormwater system design, pursuant to Hahns memo of March 27, 2012, so Hahn can determine whether additional drainage infrastructure will be required. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 2)
Response
Refer to Responses 3.8.8 through 3.8.15 responding to H ahn Engineerings memo of M arch 27, 2012.
3-125
3.9
Community Facilities and Emergency Services

Comment
Section 3.9.2.2: What was the conclusion of the site engineers meeting with the Irvington Fire Chief? Did the Chief make any recommendations or did he have any concerns? Did the Fire Chief approve of the proposed location of the new hydrant? (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p. 4)
3.9.1
Response
On January 12, 2012 representatives from Divney Tung Schw albe met w ith the Village Building Inspector and Village and County Fire Chiefs. Principal concerns of the fire department w ere related to fire vehicular maneuvering and access and have been addressed in the FEIS Layout Plan, Exhibit 2. See FEIS Site Utility Plan, Exhibit 8, reflecting the location of hydrants anticipated to be required. This site plan and site utility plan w ill be review ed w ith the Fire Department during the site plan approval process.
3.9.2
Comment
Based on the chart on page 3-69 the greatest volume of calls will be for ambulance service. Was the Ambulance district consulted on the proposed project to see if they can handle the increase in call volume? It should be noted that the proposed mitigation of tax revenue for emergency services does not benefit ambulance service, therefore mitigation for the increase in call volume to ambulance services needs additional mitigation. (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p. 4)
Response
The ambulance district w as consulted on the proposed project. The applicant had meetings w ith IVA C to ascertain the impact of the estimated increase in calls once the proposed building gets built. Based on those meetings the applicant submitted a proposal dated 7/ 15/ 2012, w hich addresses the personnel and monetary questions posed by IVA C. Continuum and IVA C are in the process of discussing this proposal to help alleviate any increased call volume that IVA C w ill incur. See Section 1.7 of this FEIS for additional information regarding the applicants proposal to IVA C.
3-126
3.9.3
Comment
Will local emergency service providers or the County Office of Emergency Management have a copy of the emergency evacuation plan? Efforts between emergency service providers and on site staff should be coordinated. (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p. 4)
Response
Once the design is finalized, an emergency evacuation plan w ill be prepared in coordination w ith local emergency service providers and the County Office of Emergency M anagement.
3.9.4
Comment
The Police Chief did answer all of the questions posed to him, but was not asked whether he believed the Continuum project would have any impacts on the Police Department. This information is important. The Police Chief has been asked to review this chapter of the DEIS, so perhaps he will answer that question. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 4. Similar comments from: Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/ 18/ 12, p. 7)
Response
The applicant and the applicants consultants have had discussions w ith Police Chief M ichael P. Cerone and are taking the Police Departments suggestions and implementing them into the plans including details relative to emergency access, circulation, and safety.
3.9.5
Comment
Although the Fire Chief did not respond to Continuum's letter, the letter does not pose the question what the impacts would be on the Fire Department. This information must be provided. Again, the Fire Department has been asked to review this chapter of the DEIS. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 4)
Response
The Fire Department has w orked closely w ith the applicants civil engineer and the FEIS plan reflects those discussions. The applicants civil engineer has met w ith Fire Department representatives on several occasions to review the site plan and details relative to emergency access and on-site circulation for emergency vehicles. Design of the emergency access road and turning radius for Fire Department vehicles have been thoroughly review ed w ith representatives
3-127
from the Irvington Fire Department and Westchester County. Guidance and direction provided by the Irvington Fire Department is reflected in the FEIS site plan.
3.9.6
Comment
Additionally, the DEIS states at page 3-68 that the "Applicant's site engineer met with the Irvington Fire Chief on January 12, 2012 to review the site plan and emergency access." It does not state, however, what the Fire Chiefs opinion was on the proposed emergency access. This information must be provided. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 4-5)
Response
See Response to Comment 3.9.5. The emergency access road has been designed in accordance w ith Village Fire Department requirements as illustrated in the fire truck maneuvering plans in Exhibit 6.
3.9.7
Comment
There is no analysis at all of the impacts on the Volunteer Ambulance Corps. An increase of 6 to 15 calls a month could be problematic for a corps which, according to the IVAC Board member who spoke at the March meeting, is stretched thin already. The impact on ambulance services is one of the most significant of this proposal, and must be addressed in much more detail. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 5)
Response
The analysis on impact to the A mbulance Corps is in the DEIS and estimates that there w ould be an increase in calls by 6 to 10 per month. N ot 15. The estimated number of ambulance calls per month has been established by comparing the actual number of calls per month from the A tria Briarcliff M anor. A ccording to information provided by the Briarcliff M anor Fire Chief, M ichael King, the A tria Briarcliff M anor has an average of 11.58 calls per month. A s per M r. King many of the calls occurred during the evening and w eekends, w hen A tria Briarcliff is not staffed by an RN or an LPN . In addition, w e feel that many of these calls w ere non-emergent and could have been serviced by a private ambulance service. The A tria Briarcliff M anor has 200 licensed beds and does not have a nurse on site 24 hours/ day. The proposed Continuum Living at Irvington w ill have 168 beds and a nurse w ill be on site at all times. A s such, the applicant anticipated an average of 6 to 10 calls per month from the proposed project. In order to mitigate the impacts of the additional service calls, the applicant has proposed the follow ing program:
3-128
1) It w ill employ a nurse on site at all times (24 hours per day, 7 days per w eek) in an effort to directly reduce the number of unnecessary 911 calls. 2) It w ill make a substantial monetary contribution of $32,000 annually to be used to employ a full time EM T at IVA C. Based on an ongoing dialogue w ith A l Kim, Director of Stellaris, an EM T in Westchester County makes approximately $15/ hr (or $31,200 annually). This full time position w ill be employed for 40 hours per w eek or 160 hours per month. Based on this calculation, if the highest end of the estimate of 911 calls is assumed (10 calls per month) and the average call takes a total of 5 hours of time, the net effect w ould be 50 hours of EM T time per month to attend to calls from the proposed facility. The balance (160 hours per month, less 50 hours per month attending to Continuum) leaves 110 hours per month of time that the EM T can dedicate to other calls at IVA C. Based on this calculation, this addition to IVA C far exceeds the impact of the calls projected at the proposed assisted living facility and w ould be of benefit to the Village. 3) It w ill cater events at IVA C and promote and sponsor annual fundraisers as w ell. The email correspondence from the Briarcliff M anor Fire Chief is provided on the follow ing page.
3-129
3.9.8
Comment
The statement on page 3-69 that the "annual tax revenues to the Village ... $163,890 should off-set any increased costs for community facilities and services that may result from the proposed project," is not an adequate response to the mitigation issue. At the bare minimum, more money is not going to provide more volunteers to the IVAC. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 5)
Response
See Response to Comment 3.9.7 w ith regard to mitigation proposed to address Village ambulance service impacts.
3.9.9
Comment
Describe the level of 24-hour security, referred to on the bottom of 3-69. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 5)
Response
There w ill be employees on site 24 hours a day, 7 days a w eek, including nurses. Overnight the building w ill be secured and locked. There w ill be a number of Certified N ursing A ssistants throughout the building. They w ill have phones that are connected to the front door if someone needs to get in after hours.
3.9.10
Comment
A number of issues arise in connection with the Emergency Evacuation Plan. First, how would it be accomplished if the emergency occurred at night, when only one manager is on duty? Second, how would so many people, most of whom are not independently mobile, get evacuated? If it is a Village-wide emergency, there may not be adequate services. Input from the Village Fire Inspector, who works for the County and is familiar with such situations, would be helpful. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 5)
3-131
Response There will be a number of employees in the building overnight with a supervisor. There will never be a time that there is not a Manager and/or Supervisor in the building. Staffing
levels w ill include approximately 44 day shift employees, 22 evening shift employees and 10 night shift employees. A pproximately 5 administrative employees w ould w ork betw een 9am and 5pm. A ccording to the applicant, they w ill have training for all staff to handle an evacuation. Continuum w ill contract w ith a Fire Protection Company to train staff in case of a fire. With this training, Continuum w ill have fire drills w ith employees and residents. A ccording to the applicant, they w ill ensure that the Fire Department is involved w ith the training plan and w ith the training if they w ould be able to.
3.9.11
Comment
The impact on IVAC and emergency response will not be insignificant. IVAC is already operating in a lean mode and the additional stress will certainly have an impact on the community as a whole. (Correspondence #12, Patricia Graubart, 3/ 18/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from Correspondence #14, Osman Tugal, 4/ 3/ 12, p. 1)
Response
3.9.12
Comments
The town does not currently have the staffing in our ambulance corps to respond to the number of calls expected from such a facility. (Correspondence #19, M ark J. Polisar, 3/ 18/ 12, p. 1)
Response
3-132
3.9.13
Comment
The objections I have to the facility proposed are: Burdens upon emergency service providers (Correspondence #20, Francis Goudie, 3/ 18/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Correspondence #21, Francis Goudie, 3/ 20/ 12, p. 1; Correspondence #23, Ron Cohen, MD and Amy D. Martini, 3/20/12, p. 1; Ms. Angela Wilson, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 69; Ms. Jennifer Barnett, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 78; Correspondence #27, Cindy and Steven Kief, 4/ 23/ 12, p. 1; Correspondence #28, Barry Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 11)
Response
See Response to Comments 3.9.6 and 3.9.7.
3.9.14
Comment
When you talk about on-site, the ambulatory care, do you provide that as a facility or is the town and the paramedics -(Unidentified speaker, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 23)
Response
The applicant w ill contract w ith a private ambulance service for all non-emergency transport service, w hich may include ambulatory care and medical office visits.
3.9.15
Comment
When my mother worked at a 911 in the dementia unit in a similar facility, the alarms were going off all the time. (Unidentified speaker, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 24)
Response
The applicant w ill have a staff consisting of RN s LPN s, N urses A ides all of w hich are trained to analyze any situation that arises. Only in the case of a true medical emergency, w ill 911 be called. The applicant w ill employ a private ambulance service to transport all but the most urgent medical conditions to the local hospital.
3-133
3.9.16
Comment
The Continuum Company has stated incorrectly, "that IVAC has sixty members, of which thirty-seven are certified New York State EMTs, who respond to over four hundred calls a year". Although -- and that's in quotation marks. Although these were our statistics a few years ago for our corps, we are presently trying to cover the same or greater number of call volume with fewer than seven full shift EMTs, seven partial shift EMTs, and seventeen other members who serve as drivers and ambulance aides. (Ms. Nancy Adler, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 47-48. Similar comments from: Correspondence #44, Nancy Adler, 3/7/12, p. 1)
Response
Comment noted.
3.9.17
Comment
In addition to these severe shortages, IVAC has also had an increase in our mutual aid calls to surrounding villages because of similar staffing problems. With so few EMTs added to the problem of aging ambulances which need increasing amount of service, IVAC will be very challenged in any situation that may require a second ambulance response. (Ms. Nancy Adler, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 48. Similar comments from: Correspondence #44, Nancy Adler, 3/7/12, p. 1)
Response
In order to mitigate the impacts of the additional service calls, the applicant has proposed the follow ing program: 1) It w ill employ a nurse on site at all times (24 hours per day, 7 days per w eek) in an effort to directly reduce the number of unnecessary 911 calls. 2) It w ill make a substantial monetary contribution of $32,000 annually to be used to employ a full time EM T at IVA C. Based on an ongoing dialogue w ith A l Kim, Director of Stellaris, an EM T in Westchester County makes approximately $15/ hr (or $31,200 annually). This full time position w ill be employed for 40 hours per w eek or 160 hours per month. Based on this calculation, if the highest end of the estimate of 911 calls is assumed (10 calls per month) and the average call takes a total of 5 hours of time, the net effect w ould be 50 hours of EM T time per month to attend to calls from the proposed facility. The balance (160 hours per month, less 50 hours per month attending to Continuum) leaves 110 hours per month of time that the EM T can dedicate to other calls at IVA C. Based on this calculation, this addition to IVA C far exceeds the
3-134
impact of the calls projected at the proposed assisted living facility and w ould be of benefit to the Village. 3) It w ill cater events at IVA C and promote and sponsor annual fundraisers as w ell.
3.9.18
Comment
Nursing home patients, particularly those with dementia, are much more likely to require more time-consuming care because of confusion, serious medical conditions, more fragile constitutions, and possible fractures. The Continuum Company has estimated an increase of approximately, fifteen calls per month for IVAC, based on their experience at the Ardsley Atria and its impact on that community's ambulance corps. Assuming that this is accurate and not an underestimate, it is still safe to say that a comparable increase in call volume to IVAC could put a substantial strain on volunteers, who must often leave their jobs to answer calls. (Ms. Nancy Adler, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 48-49. Similar comments from: Correspondence #44, Nancy Adler, 3/7/12, p. 1)
Response
There seems to be some confusion concerning the difference betw een an independent living community, such as the nearby A tria Woodlands in A rdsley and an assisted living building, such as A tria Briarcliff M anor and A tria Ossining. The follow ing is a brief description of the major differences concerning the tw o different types of senior residences as it relates to emergency services. I ndependent Living D escription A tria Woodlands in A rdsley N Y is a combination of Independent (100 units), A ssisted (50 units 80 beds), and Dementia Care (25 units 40 beds) residences. A n independent living building is not able to market themselves as an A ssisted Living building (per the A LR regulations by N YS DOH ). They are unable to provide health, w ellness, and/ or personal care to any of the residents. Since A tria Woodlands has a small amount assisted living beds in their facility they are able to market themselves as an assisted living building that offer supportive services. The independent units, w hich are the largest majority of their unit count (57%), are characterized by larger apartments w ith full kitchens, more closet area and more living space. Common spaces for independent living communities include traditional senior housing spaces plus additional spaces such as fitness components and arts and crafts rooms w hich are more geared to a more active population. A ctivity programming includes less frequent events, more focused on offsite activities. The programming for an independent building is more social based than need based, as opposed to an assisted living w hich is more need based. In the event health care services are required by an independent living resident, they w ill have a third party licensed home health care agency or private duty aides to provide care for its residents on an as-needed basis. These aides are contracted directly w ith the family and they do
3-135
not have any affiliation to the building or operating entity at all. N ot all the residents are enrolled w ith a home care agency or employ a private duty aid; therefore, no care aide is able to assist a resident in need if they are not receiving services. In A tria Woodlands, approximately 33% of the independent residents have a private duty aid. Since the building does not provide, arrange, or maintain any health care needs of the residents, they are forced to call 911 for all emergent and non-emergent episodes. Assisted Living D escription On the other hand, a licensed assisted living residence, such as A tria Briarcliff M anor (118 units 103 A ssisted and 15 M emory Care 200 beds) - and A tria Ossining (122 units - 100 A ssisted and 22 M emory Care 185 beds), is a fully licensed building w herein each resident is a part of the care program that is managed by the facility. The staff includes RN s (Registered N urses), LPN s (Licensed Practical N urses), CN A s (Certified N ursing A ssistants), and medication management aides. There are a number of individuals from the w ellness team on staff at the facility 24/ 7 every day of the w eek. What happens in a 911 Emergency? Situation: Resident Falls I ndependent Living The resident presses their buzzer and the call goes to the front desk (security guard) Security guard w ill alw ays call 911, w hether it is an emergency or not. Since the building has no health care component all falls and incidents require a 911 emergency call for assessment. A s is the case at the A tria Woodlands, this event occurs on average 15 times per month. Assisted Living The resident presses the call button around their neck The nurse and aide on staff w ill come to the resident aide and w ill assess the situation. If the resident appears to have a broken limb the N urse and aide w ould stabilize the resident and then w ould call 911. Because there are nurses and aides on staff that are able to tend to each resident the number of calls to 911 are minimized. For each incident that occurs, an evaluation is done by the N urse on staff, if the resident is cognitively aw are, then 911 is not called; if the resident appears disoriented then 911 is called. In addition, there are generally defibrillators in all assisted living facility in w hich all the staff w ill be trained to use. In case of cardiac arrest, an assisted living residence is trained and equipped to manage the situation prior to calling 911. While staff levels and protocol may vary from one facility to another, professional staff at the proposed assisted living in Irvington w ill w ork diligently to provide assistance for the residents and minimize unnecessary outside calls for emergency response. The applicant is currently engaged in conversations w ith IVA C to mitigate potential concerns assuming the w orst case scenario w ith respect to ambulance calls based on information received from other municipalities w ith assisted living facilities.
3.9.19
Comment
Even more alarming is the thought if our crews are spending large amounts of time answering calls at this facility, we may be unavailable for response to any other calls
3-136
within our village. (Ms. Nancy Adler, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 49. Similar comments from: Correspondence #44, Nancy Adler, 3/7/12, p. 1)
Response
3.9.20
Comment
Because our funds are limited to donations and insurance reimbursement we collect from patients, insurance carriers -- and the patients' insurance carriers, we would request that Continuum Company provide some of the things that we will be needing to rely towards help. In conclusion, although IVAC welcomes the challenge of caring for this patient population, our limited resources cannot be diverted by the needs of Continuum group's facility to the detriment of the rest of our village residents. (Ms. Nancy Adler, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 49-50. Similar comments from: Correspondence #44, Nancy Adler, 3/7/12, p. 1)
Response
Besides cash donations described in Response 3.9.7 directly from the applicant on an annual basis, the applicant w ill cater events at IVA C and promote and sponsor annual fundraisers and membership drives for the benefit of IVA C. A dditionally, IVA C has acknow ledged that there w ill be revenue generated from the calls through insurance payments from the recipient of the cares insurance company.
3.9.21
Comment
What happens when there is an emergency in this facility and the Saw Mill is closed, what is going to happen? You will not be able to get there or get someone out and we wouldn't be able to get to our homes also. (Ms. Jaime Wilson, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 54. Similar comments from: Correspondence #28, Barry Graubart, 4/22/12, p. 11)
Response
Continuum w ill have a generator that w ill pow er the entire building. There w ill also be ample food in the building for 3 days (per N YS Department of H ealth requirements). If a storm in anticipated a M anager on Duty w ill stay overnight to ensure the residents are w ell cared for. In
3-137
addition, the applicant has submitted an Emergency Disaster Plan w hich they w ill continue to w ork on w ith the Irvington Police, Fire, and IVA C to ensure resident safety. Further, there are other routes by w hich emergency services are able to access Route 9 and get to 30 South Broadw ay w ithout using the Saw M ill Parkw ay.
3.9.22
Comment
In addition, I understand that this facility would be one of only two buildings in the Village that require a special response plan to be developed by the fire department. Emergency response to this multi-story facility, perched on a hill, with many special needs residents is not something we can take lightly. Why are we exposing the Village to added risks for such limited benefits to the community? How might this impact our insurance costs over time? (Correspondence #28, Barry Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 11-12. Similar comments from: Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/ 18/ 12, p. 4)
Response
A s described by the applicant, the benefits to the community are great: The proposed assisted living residence w ill create jobs, produce significant tax revenue, and become an integral part of the community. M any elderly residents of Irvington w ill live at the building rather than moving out of the Village to other assisted living facilities. Keeping families together in is one of the great social benefits of having an assisted living facility in the community. The proposed development addresses all public safety requirements and all construction w ill be in compliance w ith local and State building codes. A ppropriate access for emergency vehicles has also been provided around the entire building, ensuring that the fire department apparatus can be deployed effectively. In addition, the building represents only a tiny fraction of the existing development that is protected by the Village emergency services. It is not accurate to state that the fire department has to develop an emergency response plan. In order to satisfy N ew York State Department of H ealth regulations, the applicant must develop an emergency evacuation plan w hich the fire department must review and approve. Therefore, it is not anticipated that adding an A ssisted Living Facility to the community w ould significantly increase the municipalitys overall risk and have any direct impact on insurance costs.
3.9.23
Comment
The project proponents tout as a benefit of the project that it will not bring new children into our schools. At the same time, they suggest that many or most of the residents will come from Irvington, as a way of staying in the community when it becomes economically difficult to continue to pay property taxes for their home. Yet, if an elderly homeowner sells their home in order to move into the assisted living facility, isnt the likely buyer of that home a family whose
3-138
children will enter our schools? So, whether we use this property for new single- or multifamily home development, or shift our existing residents out of their homes to here, it will have the same relative impact on our schools. (Correspondence #28, Barry Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 12. Similar comments from: M s. Kathy H ow ard, public hearing 4/ 4/ 12, p. 36)
Response
This is correct; how ever that elderly resident from Irvington w ho moves into the assisted living project w ould probably be relocating anyw ay, selling their house to new residents w ho could have school age children.
3.9.24
Comment
There needs to be a much more extensive description of fire truck access. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 2)
Response
See FEIS Site Details, Exhibits 10 and 11 and FEIS fire truck maneuvering plans on Exhibit 6.
3.9.25
Comment
For much of its length, the driveway would not accommodate both a fire truck or ambulance and vehicles traveling in the opposite direction. Discuss whether/how this condition can be mitigated. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 2)
Response
The entrance and circulation drivew ays w hich are designed for tw o-w ay operation can accommodate fire trucks and ambulances traveling in opposite directions. The fire emergency access road, w hile not intended for regular utilization, w ill have a w idth of 20-0 , w hich if in highly unusual circumstances requires fire truck and ambulance to pass in opposite directions, there w ould be sufficient clearance for that occurrence.
3-139
3.9.26
Comment
Discuss snow removal methods and exactly where the snow will be plowed to. Discuss impacts on maneuverability of emergency vehicles. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 2)
Response
Property management operations of the site w ill include maintaining the emergency access road along w ith the primary access and circulation roads to the property. A s show n on FEIS Layout Plan, Exhibit 2, both primary circulation roads and the emergency access road have sufficient clearance for snow storage along both edges of its travel w ay to avoid impeding the maneuvering of emergency vehicles.
3.9.27
Comment
Propose and discuss thoroughly alternatives to using the Irvington Volunteer Ambulance Corps for emergency calls. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 2. Similar comments from: Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 6)
Response
Continuum w ill use the 911 for all emergency calls. The applicant w ill contract w ith a private ambulance company for all non emergency calls.
3.9.28
Comment
The PI folks assert that the $500,000 annual total tax payments to the village and school district by the project will be used up, and more, by its need for Village services, but this isn't detailed, nor supported by the DE IS. For instance, people have said that the project would overwhelm the Irvington Ambulance Corps, but the DEIS figures show tha t similar-sized facilities elsewhere in Westchester need 6-7 ambulance visits per month. (Correspondence #40, Michael Bradley, 3/25/12, p. 1)
3-140
Response
The above statement is correct. The estimated annual tax revenues w ill be distributed betw een the Village, School District, County and other taxing jurisdictions and it w ill not be used up by any additional need for additional Village Services. IVA C is not funded by Village taxes. The currently anticipated number of calls is estimated to be betw een six and ten per month.
3.9.29
Comment
But let's say some Irvington residents do decide to enter the facility. More than likely those that move would have to use their primary asset, their home, to pay for entry into Continuum. As a result, new residents would move in to their homes, further increasing the population of Irvington. These new Village residents would use Village services further draining them. Has this been considered in the DEIS report? (Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 7)
Response
The elderly Village resident w ho moves into the assisted living development w ould likely be relocating anyw ay, w ith their house sold to a younger family.
3-141
3.10
3.10.1
Noise
Comment
This chapter did not address noise from ambulances or from alarms; it addressed the noise only from building equipment. That noise should be addressed. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 5)
Response
The Village of Irvington N oise Code (Chapter 148) does not appear to identify any specific limits for ambulance noise. Section 148-4.B.1 Horns, signaling devices, etc exempts emergency vehicle noise. The building w ill have fire alarms and alarms on the memory care unit. Fire alarms w ill be tested monthly and go off very infrequently. The alarm system in the memory care unit w ill be heard inside the building, and it w ill not be audible from outside the building. It is not designed for the neighbors to respond, but for building staff to be alerted to a potential resident at risk. A mbulances w ould not need to use sirens on-site but the need for sirens off-site w ould be determined by IVA C personnel.
3.10.2
Comment
In this chapter, you identify a number of items that will have a dBA of 45 or less, which is permissible under the Code, but what is the level when there are several pieces of equipment with a dBA of just under 45? (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 5)
Response
The additive effect of equipment must be considered for Code compliance. The degree to w hich this w ill raise levels w ill depend on the final selection and location of equipment. Section 3.8 of the October 4, 2011, Lally A coustical Consulting Report (see DEIS A ppendix 7.12) identifies this as a concern that must be addressed during design.
3-142
3.10.3
Comment
What is the ambient noise level at the site now. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 3)
Response
N oise monitoring w as conducted at the northw est corner of the Continuum site for a 24-hour th th period on September 19 20 , 2011, w ith an LEQ of 47.3 dBA over the entire measurement period. Results in individual one-hour periods fell betw een LEQ 44-50 dBA and L90 39-49 dBA . This location w as chosen as it is likely to represent the quietest portion of the site due to distances for roadw ays. (See DEIS A ppendix 7.12)
3.10.4
Comment
The DEIS states that [w]ithout ... additional acoustical treatments ..., resulting noise levels from the [cooling tower] would approximate 60 dBA at the nearest property line to the west .... [which] exceeds the project criterion of less than 45 dBA and would furthermore be clearly audible. It also points out that noise emission from the mechanical room ... [which will] house chillers, pumps, boilers, and at least one air-handling unit ... is a potential concern and that an emergency generator as well as electrical transformers and equipment may be a potential noise concern. On the subject of mitigation, it states that acoustical treatments, where required, will be coordinated and finalized during the design process, but neither the design nor the proposed means of mitigation are discussed in any detail. (Correspondence #9, Irvington Environmental Conservation Board, 4/ 3/ 12, p. 3)
Response
Recommendations for noise control treatments and noise mitigation measures w ill typically consist of low -noise equipment selection, acoustical barrier / enclosure construction, or duct attenuators. Prior to final site plan review , the applicant w ill conduct a study of the revised plans and acoustical data and identify conceptual acoustical treatments that w ould be required to comply w ith Code.
3.10.5
Comment
No provision is made with regard to the scheduling of deliveries and removal of refuse by private carting companies. (Correspondence #9, Irvington Environmental Conservation Board, 4/ 3/ 12, p. 3)
3-143
Response
The Village of Irvington Noise Code (Chapter 148) does not identify any specific limits for refuse collection. Section 148-4.B.6 Deliveries and pickups provides allowable hours for refuse collection with no specific limits on noise emission. All deliveries and removal of refuse by private carting companies will be scheduled by the applicant to limit the frequency and duration of deliveries and pick-ups within the allowable hours specified in the Noise Code. Truck access for deliveries and removal of refuse by private carting companies will occur in the designated loading area within the building.
3.10.6
Comment
The DEIS estimates that 9,200 cubic yards (approximately 500 truckloads) of excess material will be removed from the site. (DEIS ch. 3.3.2.3, page 3-29). Although the document acknowledges that short-term construction related impacts may include localized noise from machinery and construction traffic (DEIS ch. 1.3, page 1-5), the impacts are not adequately identified and analyzed and no mitigation measures are proposed. (Correspondence #9, Irvington Environmental Conservation Board, 4/ 3/ 12, p. 3)
Response
A Construction N oise A ssessment has been prepared and is included in this FEIS as A ppendix 6.5. Based upon the FTA s General A ssessment methodology, the anticipated property noise level w ould be w ell below the daytime impact criteria. The assessment also identifies several measures that may be considered to limit construction noise transmission. The Village of Irvington N oise Code (Chapter 148) does not identify any specific limits for construction impacts. Section 148-4.B.8 Construction work appears to provide allow able hours for site w ork w ith no specific limits on noise emission. The impact to the area w ill be temporary and during normal w orking hours (7:00 A M to 3:30 PM ). A ll equipment used w ill follow DEP guidelines regarding noise mitigation. A ll equipment w ill be maintained so that they operate at the normal manufacturers operating specifications. A ll construction equipment operated on site w ill be equipped w ith the appropriate manufacturers noise reduction muffler.
3.10.7
Comment
According to section 3.10.2.1, Proposed Mechanical Equipment, of the applicants DEIS, a sound level of 45 dBA would be achieved at all property lines, conforming with the
3-144
Village Code. As the enclosures show, 45 dBA is not de minimus. The World Health Organization has set the European target limit for outdoor night noise levels at an annual average 40 dBA and recommends this guideline for new projects. How much more would the applicant have to spend to achieve a 40 or 35 dBA sound level? (Correspondence #16, William Romaine, 3/ 22/ 12, p. 1)
Response
The applicant undertook a comprehensive M echanical Environmental N oise Design Review and recommendation process (see DEIS A ppendix 7.12 and DEIS section 3.10). This design review and the recommended treatments w ere based on Village Code requirements, w hich reflect a sound level of 45 dBA .
3.10.8
Comment
And I didn't have any response to my query about noise pollution and how often alarms may go off, local building alarms, in particular with the memory unit that it would end up happening fairly regularly in a building like this with a residence like that. Also, I guess we heard about the likelihood of the ambulance sirens being increased. (Ms. Eleanor Alford, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 58)
Response
3.10.9
Comment
Discuss whether any equipment, or the combination of all equipment, will exceed the Village Code limits. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 3)
Response
3-145
3.10.10
Comment
Provide information on the noise levels at the residential building immediately to the north. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 3)
Response
For existing noise levels, noise monitoring w as conducted at the northw est corner of the th th Continuum site for a 24-hour period on September 19 20 , 2011, w ith an LEQ of 47.3 dBA over the entire measurement period. Results in individual one-hour periods fell betw een LEQ 44-50 dBA and L90 39-49 dBA . (See DEIS A ppendix 7.12) For future project noise levels, see Response to Comment 3.1.2.
3-146
3.11
3.11.1
Economics
Comment
From what year is the tax information provided in Table 3.13? (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p. 4)
Response
The tax information provided in Table 3.13 w as obtained from Westchester County for the 20102011 tax years.
3.11.2
Comment
In view of earlier concerns that we expressed regarding the methodology of this analysis, we believe the assessor should review the projected tax revenue from the project to determine if the numbers provided are realistic and provide some idea of how the project might be assessed. (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p. 4)
Response
The applicant has contacted Edye M cCarthy, the Greenburgh Tow n A ssessor. The basic methodology used and the comparable developments w ere discussed. Typically, projects are assessed much later in the development process. The applicant w ill meet w ith the tow n assessor to further discuss the information necessary to determine the final assessment for the project.
3.11.3
Comment
As discussed above, what would the impacts to local tax revenue be if Continuum at Irvington pursues and receives approval for IDA financing? (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p. 4)
Response
The Continuum Company has not yet made a determination as to w hether it intends to pursue IDA financing. If it chooses to do so, the benefits of IDA financing are dependent on negotiations betw een the village and the developer as to w hether the developer w ill be entitled to a PILOT
3-147
(payment in lieu of taxes). During the time prior to full operation of the business, a village and a developer often agree on an amount the developer w ill pay to a village before payment of property taxes. This payment provides both the village and the developer certainty relating to revenues to be paid to the village.
3.11.4
Comment
There are several methods for calculating municipal costs of new development. Given that Irvington is largely built out and, given the fact that the project sponsor contends many services will be provided on site, the argument can be made that many of the anticipated impacts will be net positive. However, we suggest that the EIS include some analysis of what costs to municipal services might be in order to provide a realistic net revenue estimate. (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p. 4. Similar comments from: Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/ 18/ 12, p. 2)
Response
The following analysis was developed by the applicant, who consulted with the Planning Consultant in terms of methodology and assumptions. The total proposed General Fund budget for the Village of Irvington for 2012 is in excess of $15 million. Of that total, the budgeted amount for community service lines, including police, fire, safety, parks, recreation, library, seniors, refuse collection and recycling, is $6,300,184. Approximately 45% of these community service lines is budgeted for police protection. The balance of the budget is allocated to a broad range of functions and services, including costs for the Village Board, Village administration, Village Planning Board, etc., as well as debt service and other marginal costs. The 168 persons who will reside in the proposed development represent approximately 2.5% of the Village population. If it were assumed that these seniors would utilize Village services at the same rate as the general population, the per capita cost would be approximately $940 per person. ($6,300,184 x 2.5% divided by 168 beds.) However, a senior development designed for persons 82 years or older, with a significant memory care wing will have different service needs than a population outside a managed facility. As a result, a modified per capita cost analysis has been prepared to estimate the Village costs that might be required to serve the proposed development. Since the residents of the proposed development will remain on-site for most of their time, using the extensive services and facilities provided there, adjustments to the per capita service cost have been made accordingly. Moreover, certain components of normal community service will be provided by the project itself or in conjunction with a third party contractor. For example, the proposed development will use a private carter for trash collection and recycling. The elderly project residents will seldom use the Village library or parks, since most of their needs will provided by the amenities provided in the proposed development. Although police services will not be the same as policing for the general population, Irvington police do accompany IVAC
3-148
when an ambulance is called to a specific location. The assumed 6-10 IVAC calls per month would result in 72-120 police visits to the facility per year. Given the above, police, fire and senior services are factored at 100% of the Village-wide per capita cost. Library services are factored at 50% of the Village-wide per capita cost. Other services (i.e., parks, recreation) are factored at a conservative 10% of the Village-wide per capita cost. Note that ambulance service, which is not part of the Village budget, will also be addressed with private resources retained by the project. See Response 3.9.7. Applying the various percentages to each Village budget line, table below shows an anticipated cost of $99,331 for the entire development, which comes to $591 per person or $821 per unit. These estimates yield a total annual village service cost of $99,331, which compares to the $163,980 in projected Village tax revenue from the development. Table 3.11-1 Irvington Budget Analysis 2012 Per Capital Assumed Percentage for an Approx. Village Budget Share (2.5 %) Assisted Living Use Service Cost $2,835,800 $70, 895 100% $70,895 $240,170 Fire $6,847 100% $6,847 $33,700 Safety $195,998 $4,900 100% $4,900 Parks $340,800 $8,520 10% $852 Recreation $962,949 $24,074 10% $2,407 Library $713,594 $17,890 50% $8,920 Seniors $180,387 $4,510 100% $4,510 Refuse Collection $611,384 $15,285 0% $0 Recycling $185,402 $4,635 0% $0 $6,300,184 $157,556 $99,331 * Assumed percentage of utilization for the project. Based on the above analysis, there would be approximately $65,000 in excess revenue per year above the projected Village service costs. Based on discussions with the Village Planning consultant, for purposes of this type of analysis, the $65,000 could be utilized to cover any additional administrative cost needed to serve the project each year. It is noted, that this analysis does not include the projected $350,000 in school district revenues per year from the proposed development with no school age children and associated costs. Community Service Police
3-149
3.11.5
Comment
I would like to formally assert that my property value would be irretrievably diminished with the Continuum's project as neighbor to 14 South Broadway. As an elevenyear resident of Irvington and 14 South Broadway, I have experienced a disproportionate decrease in the value of my coop to other real property due to the economic world crisis. These circumstances are largely not under our control. However, the Continuum project will serve to further diminish the value catastrophically. (Correspondence #43, Barbara Scott, 4/22/12, p. 1)
Response
Comment noted. Impacts on property values are not generally subject to SEQRA .
3.11.6
Comment
If the Planning Board decides not to require an appraisal of the facility, it is important to know what year the taxes on page 3-78 were for and whether there were challenges to those taxes. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 6)
Response
Tax data show n on page 3-78 of the DEIS w as obtained from Westchester County for the 20102011 tax years and w as intended to show a reasonable estimate of projected tax revenue for the proposed assisted living facility based on the actual taxes paid by other similar projects in various municipalities. The data provided is the actual tax data and it is not know n w hether there w ere challenges to those taxes. Whether the taxes reflect a fair assessment or w hat the parties agreed w as fair pursuant to a PILOT agreement, they are the actual taxes paid and reflect a reasonable estimate of the tax to be generated by the proposed project.
3.11.7
Comment
The proposed assisted living facility in Irvington will pay village and school taxes but will not add any students to our schools. Having a tax-paying business on that property will be a big plus for the village budget. (Correspondence #7, M ary E. M erryman, no date, p. 1)
Response
Comment noted.
3-150
3.11.8
Comment
An assisted living facility would bring jobs and business to our village. Even if many workers come from outside of Irvington (train and bus being very convenient), they will patronize Irvingtons restaurants, pizzerias and delis. (Correspondence #7, M ary E. M erryman, no date, p. 1)
Response
Comment noted.
3.11.9
Comment
Family and friends of people living in the facility would also spend money at village businesses when they come to visit. (Correspondence #7, M ary E. M erryman, no date, p. 1)
Response
Comment noted.
3.11.10
Comment
The project could place undue strain on Village services. (Correspondence #11, Barry Graubart, 3/ 13/ 12, p. 5)
Response
See Response 3.11.4. IVA C is a Village service that w ould be adversely affected. H ow ever, the proposed mitigation addresses staffing and financial issues expressed by IVA C. See Response 3.9.7. Since the police department accompanies IVA C to 911 calls, that service w ould be affected as w ell.
3.11.11
Comment
The Village has fairly rigid zoning laws, which have been in place for decades. While it is tempting to look favorably at the potential tax revenue from this project, I am equally concerned by its potential impact on (and cost of) Village services, traffic, the environment and our quality of life. (Correspondence #12, Patricia Graubart, 3/ 18/ 12, p. 1)
3-151
Response
Comments noted. See Response 3.11.4 above for an analysis of fiscal impacts. Environmental impacts are discussed throughout the DEIS and FEIS.
3.11.12
Comment
I am strongly opposed to the planned Continuum complex because the project: There is a strong probability the Continuum Company will ask for favorable tax treatment for the next 10-15 years they will pay no more while the resident home owners continue to pay more and more taxes Leads to reduction in residential home values resulting reduced tax base. (Correspondence #14, Osman Tugal, 4/ 3/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Correspondence # 32, Patricia Graubart, 4/ 18/ 12, p. 3)
Response
There is no evidence that suggests that any of the assisted living developments in Westchester County have had a negative effect on property values. See Response 3.11.19 regarding the applicants proposal to ensure certainty in future taxes.
3.11.13
Comments
Given that the village needs money, and this is (at least for now) a for-profit company, there is concern that people may be willing to bend the rules to get the tax money for Irvington in the short-term, potentially harming Irvington in the long-term. (Correspondence #19, M ark J. Polisar, 3/ 18/ 12, p. 1)
Response
Comment noted.
3.11.14
Comment
One subject the flyer did not mention is taxes. I would hope a facility like this could generate tax revenue and perhaps help our schools. (Correspondence #22, John Tunis, 3/ 19/ 12, p. 1)
3-152
Response
The property taxes generated for the Village w ill cover costs necessary to serve the development. Since the project generates no children, the school distinct w ill benefit from all the tax revenues provided w ithout incurring additional costs.
3.11.15
Comment
I am grateful to have that extra tax money, but you know what, one of my neighbors says, oh, I hear our taxes will go down, that means our property value will go down too. (Ms. Jaime Wilson, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 54)
Response
A s indicated in Response 3.11.4, the projected revenues w ill be sufficient to cover Village costs to serve the development. There w ill be no school age children generated by this development. N otw ithstanding the surplus in projected revenues over costs, the DEIS does not state that this project w ill reduce Village taxes.
3.11.16
Comment
I also would like to have a better understanding of the true cost of the services that this facility of this scope would require as well as it is still an uncertain science, but the national environment does provide allow equal system services. (Ms. Angela Wilson, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 67)
Response
See Response 3.11.4 for an analysis of Village costs to serve the development.
3.11.17
Comment
Concerns regarding Continuum to apply for 501-c tax exempt status Concerns regarding Continuum requesting and receiving a tax cap
3-153
Too much risk regarding the ultimately tax revenue for this type of project. (Correspondence #27, Cindy and Steven Kief, 4/ 23/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Correspondence #29, Petition submitted by w w w .ProtectIrvingtonN Y.org; Barry Graubart, public hearing 4/ 4/ 12, p. 56)
Response
See Response to Comment 3.11.19 below .
3.11.18
Comment
The DEIS touts tax revenue of $163k to the Village, highlighted in table 3-14. Yet with all five Board of Trustee members stating at the most recent BoT meeting that they could not support this project in its current scope, its likely that the actual tax revenues would be lower than that. In addition, in several spots within section 3.8 Community Facilities, it describes mitigation of potential expenses by simply stating The annual tax revenues to the Village of Irvington to be generated by the proposed development should off-set any increased costs for community facilities and services that may result from the proposed project. Yet we cant keep spending the same $163k to mitigate multiple issues, multiple times each year. Has there been any effort to document the specific costs of the additional Village services required (IVAC, Fire, Police, crossing guards, traffic signals, sidewalk construction, etc) to actually determine whether this will end up having a negative impact to Village budgets? (Correspondence #28, Barry Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 13. Similar comments from: M s. Kathy H ow ard, public hearing 4/ 4/ 12, p. 34 and 35)
Response
A ccording to the applicant, they have had several meetings w ith IVA C to discuss the proposed project and the anticipated increase in call volume. Continuum and IVA C are in the process of discussing the proposal from Continuum to IVA C to help alleviate any increased call volume that IVA C w ill incur. A lso see Response to Comment 3.11.4.
3.11.19
Comment
The other major economic concern, of course, is whether tax revenues will be sustainable, and whether they would grow over time, as those of a typical homeowner would. At a meeting at FEE, when asked about taxes, I believe that the Continuum attorney, Anthony Veneziano, replied that they might be willing to commit to a 15-year agreement not to file a cert, but at a capped or fixed tax rate. This makes no sense to me. Any new permitted use should include legally binding commitments that the property owner or any subsequent buyer would not seek a
3-154
capped rate nor seek any form of abatement. It should also ensure that the owner and any subsequent buyer could not convert the property to 501c3 tax- exempt status. (Correspondence #28, Barry Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 13)
Response
In response to this concern, and in connection w ith obtaining benefits from the Westchester County Industrial Development A gency (the IDA ), the applicant has agreed to enter into a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreement w ith the IDA and the Village to ensure that taxes based on fair value are paid over 15 years. Without a PILOT agreement in place, the applicant, like any other property ow ner, has the right to challenge the property taxes imposed by the Village. With respect to 501(C)(3) status, the applicant has provided the Village w ith documentation stating that in order to qualify for the 501(C)(3) tax exemption, the user must be not-for-profit and the use must be considered a Charitable Use as defined by the Internal Revenue Code. While an entity can establish itself as a not-for-profit corporation in accordance with New Yorks not-for-profit law, tax exempt status will only result if the use is charitable. For example, private golf clubs are typically incorporated as not-for-profit corporations. However, they do not enjoy tax exempt status because the use is not charitable. Uses such as schools and churches are examples of charitable uses. A n assisted living use is not a charitable use and, therefore, w ould not qualify for a tax exemption.
3.11.20
Comment
In reality, any use of that property is likely to bring comparable tax benefits to the Village. Development of townhouse condominiums or other multifamily units for which it is currently zoned will provide new revenues. And multifamily development would have significantly lower risk of those revenues later being capped or reduced. (Correspondence #28, Barry Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 13)
Response
While many of potential uses of the site may bring comparable tax benefits to the Village, a tow nhouse, condominium, of other multi-family development w ould also generate school age children w ho w ould obviously attend the Irvington School system. This w ould, in effect, negate a portion of the potential tax benefits to the Village. The final sentence of this comment is incorrect. Ow ners of multi-family development units, like any other Village property ow ner, can challenge their taxes at any time.
3-155
3.11.21
Comment
Provide a market analysis for the proposed assisted living facility. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 4. Similar comments from: Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 7)
Response
The target population for the proposed project w ill be a relatively frail, elderly population requiring assistance w ith, on average, tw o to three A ctivities of Daily Living. It is anticipated that approximately 80% of the population w ill live, or their families w ill live w ithin a 15-mile radius of the site. This percentage is based on a w idely used industry standard, as w ell as based on years of operational history and marketing success. The balance is expected to come from other locations w ithin Westchester County and N ew York City, as w ell as outside the immediate metropolitan area. There is a large and grow ing elderly population in Westchester County, an in the service area in particular. In Westchester County, those over age 55 account for 27% (256,286) of the population w ith 14.6% over 65 (138,323) and 7.1% over 75 (67,513). The 2011 figures have increased from the 2000 census numbers of 23.4% (215,614) over 55, 14.0% (128,964) over 65, and 6.7% (62,179) over 75. The 2016 projections for this area show continued increase w ith a projected population of 30.0% (288,531) over 55, 16.1% (154,951) over 65, and 7.2% (69,238) over 75. M oreover, the rate of grow th for the elderly population (55+) in this service area is projected to continue to grow from 2010-2016 at a rate of 2.4%, as compared to the total population w hich is projected to grow at a rate of 0.3% during the same period. The elderly population in need of a supported residential setting such as is being proposed is evident in the service area and is grow ing. A n important statistic in determining demand for assisted living is the size of the population number of elderly people w ith the need for assistance w ith daily living. A ccording to Claritas, Inc., the number of non-institutionalized elderly over age 65 in Westchester County w ith mobility and self-care limits is estimated to be 79,952. Claritas is an industry demographic company that compiles nationw ide demographic data on the senior population. The above table in 3.1.16 further breaks dow n the demographic data taking into account the target population, affordability, and need.
3.11.22
Comment
Provide information (size, location, and clientele) on other assisted living facilities, existing or proposed, within 10 miles of the proposed facility. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 4)
3-156
Response
Westchester County All Communities Offering Assisted Living and Alzheimer Facilities Independent Living Assisted Living 50 75 48 90 49 20 182 24 84 104 40 125 61 65 10 100 1,127
Building Atria on the Hudson, Ossining Atria Briarcliff Manor Atria Woodlands, Ardsley Brighton Gardens of Stamford, CT Classic Residences in Yonkers Crestview Manor, Hawthorne The Esplanade, White Plains Fountains at Rivervue, Tuckahoe Greens at Greenwich, CT Kendal on Hudson, Sleepy Hollow Mews, Greenwich, CT Osborn, Rye Seabury at Fieldhome, Somers Springvale Inn, Croton-on-Hudson Sunrise of Crestwood, Yonkers Sunrise of Fleetwood, Mount Vernon Westchester Meadows, Valhalla Willow Towers, New Rochelle Total Operating
198 150
Alzheimer 24 15 25 24 36 18 24 28 42
204
20 18 20 20 314
552
Planned / Proposed/Under Construction Assisted Living Continuum Living at Irvington The Club at Briarcliff Manor Kensington Ambassador at Scarsdale Engel Berman Development (White Plains) Engel Berman Development (Armonk) Total Planned Total Beds 552
121 18 87 138 136 140 640 1,767
48 12
60 374
3-157
3.11.23
Comment
Discuss the monthly cost to reside at the proposed facility, and compare to cost at the Atria in Ardsley and in Briarcliff. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 4. Similar comments from: Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 7)
Response
M onthly costs are as follow s: Table 3.11-2 M onthly Costs Atria Atria Ossining Briarcliff M anor N/ A $5,595 $6,055 $7,595 N/ A $4,995 $5,995 N/ A
Pricing M atrix Assisted Living: Shared Studio One Bedroom Tw o Bedroom M emory Care: Shared Studio
Continuum at I rvington
Kensington at White Plains
Atria Ardsley
$3,000 $4,600 $5,600 $7,500
$4,888 $5,100 $6,644 $8,643
N/ A $5,800-6,200 $6,400-6,900 $7,900
$5,500 $7,000
$6,000 $8,995
N/ A $7,995
$7,100 $8,300
N/ A $8,595
3.11.24
Comment
Discuss the possibility of the proposed facility becoming a not-for-profit assisted living facility or nursing home or similar use. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 4)
Response
Continuum has clearly stated that it has no intention to become a not for profit or a Skilled N ursing H ome. The applicants business plan is for private pay A ssisted Living and M emory Care. Its financial partners, banking relationships, and loan covenants w ould not allow it to change this model.
3.11.25
Comment
PI suggests that the Continuum tax revenues would vanish when it's converted to non-
3-158
profit status, which is "not uncommon" (which is not at all the same as "common"). I dont believe this to be so- it seems to me the trend is in the other direction (e.g. HIP) - but if PI has examples of this happening, they should provide them. If i n fact this is actually a valid concern, then the village should attempt to negotiate some guarantees. (Correspondence #40, Michael Bradley, 3/25/12, p. 2)
Response
3-159
3.12
3.12.1
Cultural Resources
Comment
This chapter should include as resources the Tiffany window and other elements of the building mentioned in the Alternatives Chapter on page 4-27. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 6. Similar comments from: Correspondence #22, Barbara Denyer, 4/ 15/ 12, p. 3)
Response
A s indicated in the DEIS, if the main house is demolished, selected features w ould be preserved and incorporated into the new building. This may include fireplace mantels, decorative paneling, stained glass w indow s or other selected elements of the existing structure.
3.12.2
Comment
It was the unanimous opinion of our Board that the Dunham/FEE building should be preserved and incorporated into any development plan for the property. The board felt that the structure makes an important contribution to the historical character of our Village. We believe that demolition of the building would irreparably harm a part of Irvington history and its charm. Consequently, we urge the Planning Board to insist upon an adaptive reuse approach to any redevelopment of the property. (Correspondence #4, Irvington H istorical Society, 3/ 21/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Correspondence #22, Barbara Denyer, 4/ 15/ 12, p. 1 and p. 3-4)
Response
Comment noted. The Planning Board w ill address this issue as part of its Environmental Findings Statement.
3.12.3
Comment
In Continuums DEIS Part 3.12, page 3-82 and 3-83 summary of the Phase 1A Literature Review and Sensitivity Analysis documented in Appendix 7.13 related to Cultural Resources, they made a good case regarding the historical importance of the architecture and grounds. The original house and landscape were designed by persons well recognized in their fields. It is a fact that the highly renowned Isaac H. Green was the architect of the house and library addition. The landscape architecture was designed by Charles Eliot, planner of the Boston Park system and son
3-160
of the President of Harvard University, and Frederick Law Olmsted, chief designer of Central Park in New York City. The original mansion was designed and constructed in the popular 19th Century Colonial Revival Shingle style. The extant interior details inside the house include a sweeping staircase, classical architectural details and windows fabricated by Louis Comfort Tiffany. (Correspondence #10, Earl Ferguson, 4/ 3/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Correspondence #22, Barbara Denyer, 4/ 15/ 12, p. 3)
Response
Dr. Carroll Dunham began the construction of his home, which he called Hillside, in 1887. The house was designed by Isaac H. Green, who was a prolific self-trained architect of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Dr. Dunham selected Green based on his familiarity with his work for other members of the Dunham family. Robert Nunns, a Long Island builder, who often worked with Isaac H. Green, received the contract to build the house, which was designed in the Shingle Style. As an aside, buildings in the Colonial Revival Style are based on classical models, were generally painted white, and employed design elements such as fluted columns and symmetry, whereas the Shingle Style derives from another architectural aesthetic, with a focus on asymmetry and varied building materials, particularly wood shingles, often unpainted or stained in dark colors. Photographs are available that record the original appearance of Hillside, allowing us to judge the impact of the changes made to the integrity of the house. As stated in the Phase 1A report, significant changes have been made to Greens design, including changes to the two screened piazzas, one of which was removed to accommodate the library addition, while the one on the west end of the house was enclosed and converted to a staff dining area by FEE. The open porch along the west side of the library addition has been enclosed, and a class room constructed. FEE also built a large mailroom and storage area, a brick addition, on the east side of the house adjacent to the driveway. Changes have also been made to the interior, including a sprinkler system in 1963, and the installation of a large, industrial kitchen following a fire in 1983. But most important, in terms of the integrity of the Isaac H. Green building, in 1982 the entire structure was clad in light gray vinyl siding that simulates wood shingle. The New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has found several single-family residences of Isaac H. Green to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria C, as examples of the collective works of [a] regionally renowned architect and as distinctive examples of popular late-nineteenth and early twentieth century eclecticism derived from the English and American Colonial sources However, and importantly, the SHPO goes on to specify that to be eligible for National Register listing the houses should . . . retain a high degree of integrity in design and detail both exterior and interior (Curry/Warren NRHP 2005:F-21). While many elements of the Isaac H. Green design have been maintained, the decision to cover the building in light gray vinyl siding has rendered the building ineligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The comments include the statement that the window in the entrance hall was the work of Louis Comfort Tiffany. Although we have not undertaken any independent research on the window,
3-161
we have been informed by the project sponsor that Lawrence Zinzi, identified in an email as a Tiffany expert, states that the window is not the work of Louis Comfort Tiffany. With respect to the landscape of Hillside, the original design was by Charles Eliot, with additional landscape designs and planting plans provided by Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. and the Olmsted firm. Examining the plans and photographs of Eliots landscape design, the job descriptions and a series of photographs by the Olmsted firm, it is possible to have a clear image of the grounds at the time when Dr. Dunham owned by property. Comparing the plans and photos also enables us to clearly understand the extent to which the bones of the landscape may still present, but also the extent to which the plantations, groves, thickets and the 1245 plants used to create the landscape effects are entirely gone. As is the case with the house, the landscape at Hillside was designed by known landscape architects. Certainly the bones of the Eliot design are present, in the entrance drive, the entrance pillars, and the large turnaround and green sward in front of the house. In addition, some of the walls from the Eliot/Olmsted designs are extant, as are a series of walls, steps, walkways and a road in the steep southern portion of the site. Some of the mature trees on the site date to the Eliot/Olmsted era, but the shrubbery, rose garden, formal garden, and enclosed rambles no longer exist. Looking at the current condition of the site, it is unlikely that in its current condition the landscape at Hillside is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The following are photographs illustrating the earlier design of Hillside and its landscape and the current condition of the site.
3-162
3.12.4
Comment
The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation has found several single family residences of Isaac H. Green to be eligible for listing on the National Historical Places under Criteria C as examples of the collective works of a regionally known architect and as distinctive examples of popular late nineteenth and early twentieth century eclecticism derived from the English and American Colonial sources. And, as Continuums DEIS section 3.12.1 describes, there are several National Register buildings and sites located adjacent or in the general vicinity of the FEE property. (Correspondence #10, Earl Ferguson, 4/ 3/ 12, p. 1)
Response
Comment noted.
3.12.5
Comment
Kings Highway, now known as Broadway, borders the FEE property where it began as an American Indian foot path. Today one can still see the inscribed milestone marker #27 in the stone retaining wall where it was placed to mark the distance from New York by Benjamin Franklin during his tenure as Postmaster General of the Northern Colonies from 1753 to 1774. (Correspondence #10, Earl Ferguson, 4/ 3/ 12, p. 2)
Response
The marker w ill be restored and made more prominent as part of the proposed site plan.
3.12.6
Comment
The property is bordered on the west by the 1838 Old Croton Aqueduct listed on The National Register which is now used as a permanent trail park connecting neighboring villages. (Correspondence #10, Earl Ferguson, 4/ 3/ 12, p. 2)
Response
Comment noted.
3-166
3.12.7
Comment
The applicants DEIS part 3.12.2.2 cites changes to Greens design, including changes to screened piazzas and other alterations that developed over the life of the original building. Continuums claim that since the building has been altered, and portions clad in vinyl siding, that it is not eligible to be considered historically important is simply not consistent with the criteria used by the National Trust and the NY State Historic Preservation Office for determining historical significance of a property. In part 3.12.3 of the DEIS, Continuum states that neither the house nor the grounds are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and therefore the development of the site can proceed without further consideration of cultural resources . (Correspondence #10, Earl Ferguson, 4/ 3/ 12, p. 2)
Response
While it is true that H illside has retained much of its architectural integrity, the fact that the house has been clad in vinyl siding molded to resemble shingles has profoundly impacted its architectural integrity. Despite the comment of M r. Ferguson concerning the criteria used by the N ational Trust and the N ew York State H istoric Preservation Office for determining historical significance of a property, the fact that the house has been clad in vinyl siding w ould, in fact, be taken into consideration w hen making a determination of N ational Register eligibility. In determining a structures eligibility for listing on the N ational Register of H istoric Places, the installation of vinyl siding w ould be considered an adverse impact. It is probable, based on the installation of the vinyl siding on H illside , that the N ew York State, H istoric Preservation Office w ould not consider H illside eligible for listing on the N ational Register of H istoric Places.
3.12.8
Comment
I believe that the building still retains a high degree of historical integrity in design and detail and many elements of Isaac H. Greens design have been maintained. Later alterations made are not irreversible, vinyl siding can be removed, and the building can be preserved through rehabilitation and adaptive reuse. Furthermore, even if the property is never listed on the National Register, it nevertheless has important historical significance to our Village both in respect to the architectural heritage and its association with persons of historical importance. The property strongly contributes to the historic character of our neighborhood, and should not be demolished. (Correspondence #10, Earl Ferguson, 4/ 3/ 12, p. 2)
Response
Comment noted. The proposal is for the existing building to be replaced (see Exhibit 1, Illustrative Site Plan and Exhibits 20 and 21). The Planning Board w ill further address the issue of the existing main building as part of its Environmental Findings Statement.
3-167
3.12.9
Comment
The charm and historic character of our village can be lost through demolition, inappropriate alterations, and insensitive new development. An incremental loss of buildings or sites that significantly contribute to the integrity of our historical heritage will have a devastating effect over time. (Correspondence #10, Earl Ferguson, 4/ 3/ 12, p. 3)
Response
Comment noted.
3.12.10
Comment
The historical and cultural significance of the house, named Hillside by its builder, Carroll Dunham Jr. (Dunham Senior built the Tiffany Houses in Matthiessen Park) is considerable. The architect, Isaac H. Green, was an important force in the latter part of the 19th century for his work in the New York area, especially on Long Island. Some of his buildings have been placed on National Register of Historic Places. The landscape architect was Charles Eliot, a protg of Frederick Law Olmstead. (Correspondence #13, M ary Beth Dooley, 4/ 2/ 12, p. 1-2)
Response
While it is true that H illside w as designed by Isaac H . Green and that a number of his houses have been placed on the N ational Register of H istoric Places, it does not necessarily follow that H illside is eligible for such listing. The house has retained much of its architectural integrity, how ever, the fact that the house has been clad in vinyl siding molded to resemble shingles has profoundly impacted its architectural integrity. In determining a structures eligibility for listing on the N ational Register of H istoric Places, the installation of vinyl siding is generally considered to create an adverse impact. It is unlikely that in its current condition the N ew York State Office of Parks, Recreation and H istoric Preservation (OPRH P) w ould consider H illside eligible for listing on the N ational Register of H istoric Places. Research indicates that the landscape of H illside w as designed by Charles Eliot, and that follow ing his death Frederick Law Olmsteds (Olmsted is spelled w ithout an a ) firm w as consulted. Correspondence and job files indicate that betw een 1903 and the 1920s, the landscape changes at H illside w ere under the supervision of Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. and the Olmsted firm. The bones of the Eliot/ Olmsted landscape are still visible at H illside , but the carefully selected plant material is entirely gone. When considering the integrity of the landscape, it has been compromised by the loss of the southern portion of the site, the loss of plant material and the construction of a modern house in the southern central portion of the site. In its current
3-168
condition, it is unlikely that the OPRH P w ould consider the landscape eligible for N ational Register listing.
3.12.11
Comment
The cultural and architectural significance of the house may qualify it for landmark status and potentially, for federal and state financial incentives and or grants to offset cost of restoration. (Correspondence #13, M ary Beth Dooley, 4/ 2/ 12, p. 2)
Response
See Response to Comment 3.12.10. Significant alterations to the house have profoundly impacted its architectural integrity. It is unlikely that in its current condition the N ew York State Office of Parks, Recreation and H istoric Preservation (OPRH P) w ould consider the house eligible for listing on the N ational Register of H istoric Places.
3.12.12
Comment
There is nothing subtle about the impact of the proposed design on view s from the A queduct corridor, w ith or w ithout plantings. A t present (photos 9 and 10 in Chapter 3 of the project plan), the view above the existing brick w all bounding the FEE site is one of open sky; in fact this happens to be an exceptionally w ide open, airy section of the A queduct, adjoining the w ellknow n Station Road crossing. As shown in the perspective renderings on pp. 74-77 of Chapter 3, the new buildings would not on1y jut w e l l a b o v e t h e b r i c k w a l l b u t appear to loom over the Aqueduct a complete change in the character of the walker's experience here. There is no apparent justification for building closer than the setback required in the zoning code regulations. The proposed construction is too visible, too massive, and too close to the Aqueduct property line, impacts that can and should be lessened with a scaling back and redesign of the site plan. (Correspondence #37, Friends of the Old Croton A queduct, Inc., 5/ 23/ 12, p. 1)
Response
The plan proposed in this FEIS responds to this concern. It places 25 % of the building area and 39 of the 50 parking spaces below grade. The South Broadw ay setback has been increased from 100 feet in the DEIS plan to 131 feet in the FEIS plan. The Old Croton A queduct setback has been increased from 35 feet in the DEIS plan to 50 feet in the FEIS plan. H ow ever, paved areas and retaining w alls are show n in these setback areas. The gross building area over elevation 164 has been reduced by over 25,000 square feet in the FEIS plan, w ith portions of the program and the parking placed underground. With this approach, the coverage has been reduced from 22.2% in
3-169
the DEIS plan to 18.8% in the FEIS plan. The project also employs a residential architectural design to further blend appropriately w ith the community.
3.12.13
Comment
The current code requires a 50-ft. buffer from the Aqueduct property line for this project; the applicant p r o p o s e s that the Village reduce it to 30 f t. f o r any structures. (See top of p. 3-15, and Article XII, Section 224-51C of the zoning code.) This proposal appears to be for a blanket reduction in the Aqueduct buffer to 30 ft. for all Irvington projects. A 50-ft. buffer helps to preserve the character of the Aqueduct in the face of constant new development proposals. Aqueduct awareness, heritage tourism i n general, and the trail's popularity and use are greater than ever. The Village should be commended for having this regulation i n its zoning code; to weaken it would be a great mistake. (Correspondence #37, Friends of the Old Croton A queduct, Inc., 5/ 23/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from M s. Sara Kelsey, public hearing 5/ 2/ 12, p. 27-28)
Response
A lthough, the plan proposed in this FEIS has the 50 foot aqueduct buffer, an access road and retaining w alls are located w ithin it.
3-170
3.13
3.13.1
Phase 1 Environmental Assessment

Comment
Page 3-93 states that based on the age of the existing structures and visual inspection lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials may be present on the site. What are the potential public impacts that may result during demolition of structures which contain such materials and what mitigations, if any, are necessary. (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p. 4)
Response
There w ill be no impact. It is not unusual for the age of this building to potentially have these types of materials that need to be abated. The building w ould be fully inspected and a standard remediation plan w ould be put in place, indicating w here the materials w ould be disposed by licensed N YS professionals and in accordance w ith all local code requirements.
3.13.2
Comment
Section 3.13.2, starting on page 3-93, lists a number of recommended actions in connection with pollutants, contaminants, asbestos, etc. The Planning Board should decide whether it wants all or some of these studies done before it makes its SEQRA determination. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 6)
Response
The various reports and inspections cannot take place until the buildings and site are closer to construction w hich is standard in a development project. This w ill be undertaken as part of the site plan approval process.
3-171
3.14
3.14.1
Construction
Comment
Is construction lighting anticipated? If so, how will adjacent properties be impacted? (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p. 4)
Response
N o. A ll w ork w ill be conducted in the daytime.
3.14.2
Comment
What is the maximum number of construction workers anticipated to be on project site at one time? Was this number utilized in the traffic analysis? (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p. 5)
Response
The maximum number of w orkers on site w ould be betw een 30 to 50 w orkers. Since construction traffic is temporary, it is not specifically evaluated in the Traffic Impact Study. H ow ever, a peak hour traffic analysis w as conducted for the facility for; 24 Weekday Peak A M vehicles, 37 Weekday Peak PM vehicles and 55 Saturday Peak vehicles, w hich w ould be similar to the above 30 to 50 w orkers. In addition, during construction, there w ill be a flagman at the drivew ay to direct construction traffic. This w ill provide safe access to the site.
3.14.3
Comment
The 11x17 drawings are not to the scale provided. This should be addressed. (Correspondence #2, H ahn Engineering, 3/ 27/ 12, p. 5)
Response
Comment noted. FEIS plans are provided w ith a graphic scale. Full-size scaled draw ings w ill be made available to the technical staff.
3-172
3.14.4
Comment
Mitigation measures in section 3.12.3 should include limitation on work hours. (Earlier text indicates no work on Saturday, even though the Village permits construction work on Saturdays.) (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 6)
Response
The applicant intends to w ork during the allow able Village w ork hours but w ill w ork w ith the Village Planning Board to make any necessary adjustments to minimize impacts w here practicable.
3.14.5
Comment
Exhibits 3-49 and 3-50 (Construction Logistic Plans) are not referenced in this chapter. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 6)
Response
Comment noted. Change made by reference.
3.14.6
Comment
I didn't receive the letter they send stating that they were creating three hundred and fifty to four hundred jobs, you can't get it both ways, sir. Are you creating three hundred and fifty to four hundred jobs? How many are you creating at one time? (Ms. Jaime Wilson, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 53-54)
Response
A s stated in the DEIS, construction of the proposed project w ill result in the direct employment of 175 construction jobs (in total person years). A person year of employment is the equivalent of one employee w orking one year. The 175 jobs w ill not be concurrent as noted and includes various support groups such as material delivery suppliers, offsite fabricators, etc. The estimate is that 30 to 50 w orkers w ill be onsite at one time.
3.14.7
Comment
On the many different construction sites I've been on, the developers often get
3-173
surprised. They think the rock is softer than it is and they run into problems. They think the fill or the ground is stronger than it is and they run into problems. So, if there is going to be that much heavier equipment up there, I would like to make sure if there is, that's if this goes through, if there is I would like to make sure that it can support the aggressive equipment and aggressive construction practice that will be required to do this. (Ms. Angela Wilson, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 68)
Response
A geotechnical report prepared by Whitestone A ssociates Inc. dated 8/ 26/ 11 provides correct information regarding soil and rock conditions. See DEIS A ppendix 7.3. There is no concern regarding the existing soils supporting the proposed construction equipment and activities.
3.14.8
Comment
The plan calls for 9,200 cu yds of dirt to be removed from the property during construction. Once excavated, that will result in roughly 19,000 cubic yds of dirt to be removed, or about 900-1,000 dump trucks full. Since its likely the dirt will have to be brought north, do they expect these trucks to be making left turns onto Broadway? If so, how will they avoid disrupting traffic? If not, and they make right turns, how will they get to the north? They cant fit through the Station Road tunnel and if they turn left onto Harriman, they cant get back via Sycamore, which has no trucks permitted. (Correspondence #28, Barry S. Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 10-11. Similar comments from: Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/ 18/ 12, p. 8)
Response
Left turns exiting the site drivew ay are permitted for northbound traffic. In addition, during construction, there w ill be a flagman at the drivew ay to direct construction traffic. This w ill provide safe access to the site.
3.14.9
Comment
How will parking be addressed during the construction period? The plan touts the many (175) construction jobs provided under this project. While not all of these would be concurrent, where do they expect workers to park during construction? Will they be parking on Broadway? On the residential side streets? On Main Street? (Correspondence #28, Barry S. Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 10-11)
3-174
Response
The 175 jobs w ill not be concurrent as noted and includes various support groups such as material delivery suppliers, offsite fabricators, etc. The estimate is that 30 to 50 w orkers w ill be onsite at one time w ith many carpooling. There w ill be designated areas on site that w ill be provided for construction employee parking w here offsite parking w ill not be anticipated.
3.14.10
Comment
Provide more detail about construction impacts, especially dust. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 3. Similar comments from: Patricia Graubart, public hearing 5/2/12, p. 50; Mr. Morton, public hearing 5/2/12, p. 52)
Response
A s previously noted, the impacts w ould be temporary and during normal hours of operation (7:00 A M to 3:30 PM ). The various measures w ould be more defined in the final project specifications. The concern of dust control are typically during dry periods (June through A ugust 3 months) and w ould be addressed by w atering dow n of the site as required, silt fencing to protect earth from leaving the site, truck w heel w ash dow n areas, anti-tracking stone at the construction entrance and all trucks leaving the site w ill be required to have covers.
3.14.11
Comment
Discuss expected rock removal, including quantity and methods and length of time required for removal. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 3; Mr. Morton, public hearing 5/2/12, p. 52)
Response
A ccording to the geotechnical investigation of the site, significant rock removal is not anticipated. The proposed method w ould be mechanically drilling and chipping w ithout the use of blasting.
3.14.12
Comment
Discuss where vehicles, construction and other, will be parked during construction. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 3)
3-175
Response
Vehicles, construction and other, w ill be parked on-site during construction. There w ill be a designated area on site that w ill be provided for construction employee parking. See Exhibit 30, Preliminary Construction Logistics Plan, w hich indicates the location of this parking.
3.14.13
Comment
What would the impact of this project combined with the other local construction projects (e.g. Mercy, Bridge Street, Tappan Zee Bridge, new Assisted Living facility on 119, Walgreens in Dobbs) be on the Village. This should be in the DEIS report. (Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 4 and p. 8)
Response
Given the unknow n timing for these projects, an answ er cannot be provided in this EIS. The anticipated construction period for the Continuum project is 15 months, presumably in 2013 and 2014.
3.14.14
Comment
The report also includes a very superficial report on the total construction plan with phasing and sequencing, construction equipment and staging areas, materials storage and stockpiling areas; blasting impacts, traffic pattern rerouting. I think the report should include real details so that the Village knows what to expect. (Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 8 and p. 9)
Response
The site logistics plan depicted many of the items of concern. These areas are typically fenced in and protected. There w ill be no blasting. A dditional detail w ill be provided during the site plan approval process.
3.14.15
Comment
I understand the excavation will require the removal of 9700 cubic yards of dirt to be replaced with a 5-11 ft of concrete as a retaining wall. If a typical truck carries 15-20 cubic yards of dirt, less for single axel, that is close to 600 truckloads of dirt. It is noted in the report "to remove fill from the site, approximately two trucks will run 16 trips per day for approximately 30 days. The total fill to be removed is approximately 9,200 cubic yards." How will this be managed? What if there are delays as soil tends to double in size when it is disturbed? Is the Village supposed to
3-176
shut down for a couple of months?? What danger will be presented if these trucks want to turn left out of FEE?? This should be addressed in the DEIS report. During the entire construction period, approximately 175 construction workers will be on site. Where will the 175 construction workers park? This should be in the DEIS report. (Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 8-9)
Response
There w ill be approximately 30 to 50 employees on site at one time w ith many of them carpooling. A dequate parking w ill be provided onsite. The 175 jobs w ill not be concurrent and includes various support groups such as material delivery suppliers, offsite fabricators, etc. In addition, during construction, there w ill be a flagman at the drivew ay to direct construction traffic. This w ill provide safe access to the site. Based on the preliminary cut and fill analysis for the FEIS plan, the estimated additional excess material from the proposed action is 14,000 cubic yards more than the DEIS plan.
3.14.16
Comment
To address potential exposure to pollution the report notes that they are relying on the "maintenance of the construction vehicles." That does not give me a lot of comfort. I w ould like the DEIS report to address this. (Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 9)
Response
The impact to the area w ill be temporary and during normal w orking hours (7:00 A M to 3:30 PM ). A ll equipment used w ill follow DEP guidelines regarding noise mitigation. A ll equipment w ill be maintained so that they operate at the normal manufacturers operating specifications. A ll construction equipment operated on site w ill be equipped w ith the appropriate manufacturers noise reduction muffler.
3.14.17
Comment
You stated about construction, we don't anticipate for it to be significantly adverse, rather the impacts will be temporary and unavoidable. Right, I know that, but I think -- I want to see something spelled out as to how you will mitigate the impacts, you know, something more in depth than deal with it, it is temporary it will go away. (Patricia Graubart, public hearing 5/2/12, p. 49)
3-177
Response
Construction mitigation is provided in Section 3.14 of the DEIS. See also the revised Preliminary Construction Logistics Plan (FEIS Exhibit 30).
3-178
3.15
3.15.1
Alternatives
Comment
A table similar to Table 3.6 should be provided for this alternative so the Planning Board can understand what modifications to the zoning will be necessary for both development scenarios. (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p. 5)
Response
DEIS A lternative 7a is no longer being considered. See Chapter 1 of this FEIS and A ppendix 6.2 for proposed zoning modifications needed for the plan proposed in this FEIS
3.15.2
Comment
Would proposed zoning presented earlier in the DEIS need to be amended if the applicant moves forward with this alternative? (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p. 5)
Response
See Response to Comment 3.15.1 above.
3.15.3
Comment
Based on the description of this alternative, the western edge of the new building would be proposed 40 feet further east than the existing house. If the proposed main house in this alternative is moved 40 further east, why is the western edge of the entire development not moved 40 feet (or perhaps the remaining 20 feet needed to meet existing zoning setback requirements) further way from the aqueduct? Is it possible to maintain 50 foot setback from the aqueduct under this alternative? (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p. 5)
Response
The FEIS plan maintains the 50 foot aqueduct setback.
3-179
3.15.4
Comment
What is the square footage of the proposed main house in Alternative 7a as compared to the existing buildings square footage? (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p. 5)
Response
The proposed main house in the FEIS revised plan w ould have approximately the same footprint as the existing buildings footprint. Within the existing main house, how ever, there is some floor area that w ould not be usable. Therefore, the new main house results in approximately the same overall square footage but w ith more usable area, w hich could result in a reduced building height elsew here on the site.
3.15.5
Comment
Is the historic post mile marker impacted by this alternative development? Mitigations discussed for the proposed project should be incorporated into this alternative, if implemented. (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p. 5)
Response
The historic marker w ill be enhanced by the applicant as an A lbany Post Road landmark.
3.15.6
Comment
The economic impacts of Alternative 7A assume the same impacts as the proposed project. Is it possible that the construction of a new building would impact the assessed value of the site? (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p. 5)
Response
DEIS A lternative 7A is no longer being considered. See Response to Comment 3.11.2 re assessed valuation.
3.15.7
Comment
Exhibit 4-13 should have a key so it is clear which color represents the Alternative and which is the proposed plan. (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p. 5)
3-180
Response
Separate graphics for both the proposed action and the alternative are included in the FEIS. The circulation around the site, including the emergency access, is the same under both the proposed action and the alternative.
3.15.8
Comment
What is the rationale for the five foot widening (from 15 feet to 20 feet) of the emergency access, the two foot widening of the surface parking lot and the reduction in the size of the center island in this alternative plan? This reduces the already limited amount of space for planting and buffering around the perimeter of the site and increases impervious surfaces. (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p. 5)
Response
The Village of Irvington directed these changes to the emergency access, drivew ay and parking geometry in order to accommodate their emergency response vehicles, specifically fire trucks. The Village requested that the drive up to the drop-off circle and the circle itself be 26-feet w ide w ith a minimum 53 outer diameter radius. The emergency access road w as w idened to 20-feet per the Villages request and off-set from the building footprint by 15-feet to meet fire code requirements.
3.15.9
Comment
This alternative does not include a Noise section. The FEIS should discuss potential noise impacts for this alternative; particularly whether the increased setbacks will reduce noise levels at property lines or if the removal of the existing building would increase noise impacts during construction. (Correspondence #1, Turner M iller Group, 3/ 26/ 12, p. 5)
Response
The DEIS A lternatives are no longer being considered and w ill not be developed further. Prior to final site plan review , the applicant w ill conduct a study of the FEIS plan and acoustical data and identify conceptual acoustical treatments that w ould be required to comply w ith Code.
3-181
3.15.10
Comment
There is no discussion of alternate 7b, although, from Exhibit 4-4, it appears as if that alternate has far less coverage than the proposed action or the preferred alternative. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 6)
Response
A lternative 7A w as the alternative plan called for in the DEIS scope. A lternatives 7B and 7C w ere simply designed to graphically illustrate the design/ thought process that led to A lternative 7A . A s such, they w ere presented in the DEIS as free-hand sketches. They w ere not developed or draw n in detail, because they both show ed serious site or program issues that w ere evident in the sketch form show n in the DEIS.
3.15.11
Comment
The Board thought that the 7a alternative plan did little to mitigate the height, mass, density and surrounding open space concerns that we have with the proposed plan. We also felt that the demolition of the Dunham/Fee building as proposed in 7a would have an irreversible and detrimental impact on the historical character of Irvington. (Correspondence #5, Board of A rchitectural Review , 3/ 30/ 12, p. 1)
Response
A lternative 7A in the DEIS reduces building height and creates opportunities for greater setbacks, particularly along the sites northern border w ith Irvington Estates. It also allow s for a reorientation of the memory care building, reducing its length along the aqueduct. The plans in this FEIS respond to the above comments by providing a new estate house that is not as tall as the existing building, but is fully code compliant and suitable for seniors.
3.15.12
Comment
Recognizing the importance of sustainable development and adaptive re-use of community resources and the historical significance of the existing residential dwelling on the property, our Board does not agree that applicants preferred alternative ... plan, Alternative 7a, and the demolition of the of the 125-year-old building (DEIS ch. 4.7.2, page 4-21) offers any significant mitigation of the adverse environmental impact of the project or benefit to the community. As the applicant acknowledges, impacts to vegetative cover and area wildlife would be the same and the total site population and [the number of] employees, site access, circulation and parking and other elements of the proposed project remain the same (DEIS ch. 4.7.2, page 4-26). The applicant also acknowledges that under
3-182
Alternative 7a building coverage [is only] slightly less, the proposed project plan and the net impervious surface area is not measurably different and that the stormwater management [plan] would be the same. (DEIS ch. 4.7.2, page 4-26). Any reduction in grading and other offsets, in our Boards view, would be minimal and demolition of the existing house and the construction of a new building, as the applicant acknowledges, would increase demolition and construction activity. (Correspondence #9, Irvington Environmental Conservation Board, 4/ 3/ 12, p. 4)
Response
3.15.13
Comment
The planned action calls for adaptive re-use of the existing house; however after additional consideration the applicant has stated that the existing building is larger than needed to meet all of the needs of the program and has offered a preferred alternative plan (alternative plan 7a in the DEIS) in which the existing house would be demolished. The applicant states many reasons for this preference but fails to outline how this approach would significantly benefit the Village of Irvington. (Correspondence #13, M ary Beth Dooley, 4/ 2/ 12, p. 1)
Response
3.15.14
Comment
Demolition of an existing building is considered significantly less green than retro-fitting an existing building in terms of the amount of CO2 emissions during demolition. According to a report published in 2011 by The National Trust for Historic Preservation, ...it takes 10 to 80 years for a new building that is 30 percent more efficient than an average-performing existing building to overcome, through efficient operations, the negative climate change impacts related to the construction process. (Correspondence #13, M ary Beth Dooley, 4/ 2/ 12, p. 1)
Response
Comment noted.
3-183
3.15.15
Comment
I know that the original house is an inconvenience for a developer, but I think that the residence is the essence of the village character and that what we stand to lose here is the residential nature of our village center and so, I think preserving a historic building at the very least is and should be a very high priority and the second option is not at all a good idea. (Ms. Eleanor Alford, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 56-57)
Response
Comment noted. The applicant has proposed plans w ith and w ithout adaptive reuse of the main house.
3.15.16
Comment
For Alternative 2 (Multifamily Development Under Existing Zoning), discuss impacts of including 10% affordable housing units, as required by Irvington Code. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 3)
Response
Since this alternative included 24 to 26 multifamily units, the 10% affordable requirement w ould result in three of those units being affordable, as per Village requirements. With one exception, the impact factors addressed in the DEIS w ould not change as a result of the affordable units, since they are based on the total number of units. The exception w ould be the estimated tax generation w hich w ould be expected to be slightly less w ith the three affordable units assessed somew hat low er than the market rate units.
3.15.17
Comment
Discuss the alternative of Multifamily Development Under Existing Zoning that incorporates the existing main structure. This alternative should include the affordable housing units required by the Irvington Code. (Correspondence #38, Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney, for the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, 5/12/12, p. 3-4)
3-184
Response
If 10 of the permitted 24 to 26 multifamily units w ere located in the main building, the site plan alternative for DEIS alternative 2 (Exhibit 4-1) w ould be modified to eliminate the multifamily structure w ith 8 units that is show n in the vicinity of the main building. In addition, the parallel building along the southerly property line could be reduced from 8 to 6 units. These changes w ould result in a modest increase in open space compared to DEIS alternative 2.
3.15.18
Comment
FEE wants to sell its property, which currently pays no taxes to the village, and if the Continuum project is rejected they will likely sell to a developer for a multifamily housing project ( such as next-door Irvington Estates) - potentially a dense one to take advantage of the County affordable-housing obligation. That might be fine, but it will likely result in a lower tax benefit to the village than Continuum, and a large number of additional schoolchildren. And it will likely result with much of the same effects (traffic, e.g., or removal of trees- although many of these are immature) as Continuum. (Correspondence #40, Michael Bradley, 3/25/12, p. 2)
Response
Comment noted.
3-185
3.16
3.16.1
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Comment
On page 5-1, it is not accurate to say that the removal of approximately 78 mature trees is not a significant impact. (Correspondence #3, M arianne Stecich, Village A ttorney, 3/ 23/ 12, p. 6)
Response
Comment noted. Please refer to the additional mitigation proposed in this FEIS (FEIS Layout Plan Exhibit 2, and FEIS Landscape Plan Exhibit 3).
3.16.2
Comment
The other thing I wanted to make sure, is the village consultant was somewhat familiar with assisted living and the -- basically the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resource we are making to this facility, because we can get whatever information that you know, Continuum is giving to us. (M s. Kathy H ow ard, public hearing, 4/ 4/ 12, p. 37)
Response
Comment noted. The Village planning consultant has prior experience w ith assisted living projects.
3-186
3.17
Purpose and Need These comments were raised with reference to the Purpose and Need chapter of
the DEIS.
3.17.1
Comment
The DEIS should provide data on the total number of assisted living units and continuing care facilities in the town of Greenburgh and all of its villages (Hastings-on-Hudson, Dobbs Ferry, Ardsley, Irvington, Tarrytown, and Elmsford), the village of Sleepy Hollow and the city of White Plains, as all these municipalities are within the service area of the village. (Letter #6, Patrick N atarelli, 4/ 4/ 12, p. 1)
Response
The follow ing table, w hich is also presented in response 3.11.22, provides a listing of the total number of assisted living units and continuing care facilities. While the comment asks for the facilities in Greenburgh, the follow ing table provides a list of facilities located in Greenburgh and elsew here in and near Westchester County. The number of independent living units is included in this list w here the independent living units are part of a continuing care facility.
3-187
Table 3.17-1 Westchester County All Communities Offering Assisted Living and Alzheimer Facilities Independent Living Assisted Living 50 75 48 90 49 20 182 24 84 104 40 125 61 65 10 100 1,127
Building Atria on the Hudson, Ossining Atria Briarcliff Manor Atria Woodlands, Ardsley Brighton Gardens of Stamford, CT Classic Residences in Yonkers Crestview Manor, Hawthorne The Esplanade, White Plains Fountains at Rivervue, Tuckahoe Greens at Greenwich, CT Kendal on Hudson, Sleepy Hollow Mews, Greenwich, CT Osborn, Rye Seabury at Fieldhome, Somers Springvale Inn, Croton-on-Hudson Sunrise of Crestwood, Yonkers Sunrise of Fleetwood, Mount Vernon Westchester Meadows, Valhalla Willow Towers, New Rochelle Total Operating
198 150
Alzheimer 24 15 25 24 36 18 24 28 42
204
20 18 20 20 314
552
Planned / Proposed/Under Construction Assisted Living Continuum Living at Irvington The Club at Briarcliff Manor Kensington Ambassador at Scarsdale Engel Berman Development (White Plains) Engel Berman Development (Armonk) Total Planned Total Beds 552
121 18 87 138 136 140 640 1,767
48 12
60 374
3-188
3.17.2
Comment
Information should be provided from any studies that have been conducted to estimate the number of assisted living units needed in Westchester County. (Letter #6, Patrick N atarelli, 4/ 4/ 12, p. 1)
Response
A lthough this response is provided as 3.1.16 above, it is also provided below in response to the comment raised on purpose and need. The applicants market analysis is summarized below .
A B C D
Assisted Living Market Depth Analysis Westchester County Year of Analysis 2014 Total H/H Age 75+Income Qual $25,000+ Total H/H Age 75+ One Person 72% Adjustment for Frailty Levels 63.50% Competitive Adjustments Net Qualified Households Likely to Move 5% Adjusted for MA Draw 60% Adjusted for Occupancy 95% TOTAL UNIT POTENTIAL
25,806 18,580 11,799 1,337 10,462 523 872 918 918
Source: Market Report by Brecht Associates, Inc. Notes: The source of the data for frailty levels used in this methodology is based on the 2005 Panel of the Survey [1] of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). The SIPP defines a disability as meeting any one of a [2] variety of criteria, including having difficulty with ADLs and IADLs. This is stating that of the age and income qualified households 63.5% will have difficulty with ADLs. The source utilizes households $25,000 and greater. This amount was determined based upon the minimum rental of $3,000 per month. 70% paid by current income and 30% paid by savings. This breakdown is based upon industry experience. The source for 5% likely to move and % who will move from Market Area are based on the experience and judgment of the experts at Susan Brecht and Associates.. The source for 95% occupancy is an industry standard.
[1] The data was collected from June to September 2005. The SIPP contains questions about the ability to perform a number of activities, with follow-up questions designed to measure severity. The relevant SIPP data was published in Americans with Disabilities :2005(p70 117) Table D1: Prevalence of Disability by Sex and Age - All Races by the U.S. Census Bureau and issued in December 2008. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/sipp/disable05.html [2]
ADLs are defined as difficulty getting around inside the home, getting in or out of a bed or chair, taking a bath or shower, dressing, eating, and getting to or using the toilet. IADLs include difficulty going outside the home alone, keeping track of money, preparing meals, doing light housework, taking prescription medicines appropriately, and using the telephone.
3-189
Competitive Adjustments currently built and anticipated assisted living buildings in a 5 mile radius Market Area Draw based on industry standards % of households anticipated
3.17.3
Comment
Current information also needs to be provided about any assisted living facilities or continuing care facilities that are now before any local board in the municipalities listed above, or that have received approval, a building permit or are under construction in the above listed communities. (Letter #6, Patrick N atarelli, 4/ 4/ 12, p. 2)
Response
3.17.4
Comment
For those of us who live in and love Irvington, it would be comforting to know that should we require an assisted living facility for our grandparents, parents, spouses or ourselves, we would not have to leave our village with its support network of friends, community and churches. (Correspondence #7, M ary E. M erryman, no date, p. 1)
Response
Comment noted.
3.17.5
Comment
The proposed location also does not make sense for what the builder themselves describe as a self-contained community. According to Continuum, the facility will have food services, a bar & bistro, arts and crafts center, housekeeping, a sundries shop, movie theater, hair/nail salon, wellness care etc. The residents and employees will not become members of the Irvington community. With food service and salons on-site, they will not be shopping in our Main Street stores, eating in our restaurants nor using our hair and nail salons. It contributes nothing to the revitalization of our downtown. (Correspondence #12, Patricia Graubart, 3/ 18/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Correspondence #28, Barry Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 13; Correspondence #29, Petition submitted by w w w .ProtectIrvingtonN Y.org)
3-190
Response
The on-site facilities are designed to serve most of the daily needs of residents. Families and employees w ill likely utilize Village restaurants, shops, gasoline stations, etc. When family members visit their parents, it is common for them to go out for lunch and dinner.
3.17.6
Comment
The flyer states that the facility will bring no business to our village. I could not disagree more. Those 121 residents will have loved ones who visit regularly, lets say each resident has 6 visitors per month, a conservative number that is 8,712 new visits to Irvington annually. The staff will most certainly shop and eat in town as well. (Correspondence #22, John Tunis, 3/ 19/ 12, p. 1)
Response
Comment noted
3.17.7
Comment
Some village residents may find employment at the facility. Some may want or need the services for themselves or family members. (Correspondence #22, John Tunis, 3/ 19/ 12, p. 1)
Response
Comment noted
3.17.8
Comment
As a resident who has an elderly parent living independently I have seen several similar facilities. I could not imagine a more perfect setting for this type of residence than our town. Easy access by train, a safe pedestrian town, ambulance and EMT less than a minute away. A contained and safe campus. I give Continuum credit for finding this spot and trying to make this work. (Correspondence #22, John Tunis, 3/ 19/ 12, p. 1)
Response
Comment noted
3-191
3.17.9
Comment
The builder describes this project as a self-contained community. Thus, we expect that the residents and employees will not become members of the Irvington community. They will have food services and other amenities on-site, and it seems they will not be patronizing our Main Street businesses. How will this project then contribute to the revitalization of our downtown? (Correspondence #23, Ron Cohen, MD and Amy D. Martini, 3/20/12, p. 1)
Response
3.17.10
Comment
In a school district that is heavily dependent on tax revenue to maintain the quality of education, while it might sound initially appealing to have a residence that would not attract families with children, it does attract 168 new voters who are likely to vote against the school budget. Our property values are determined based on the performance of our school district. The most recent Trustee election indicated that even after a larger than usual voter turnout, the margin was a mere 200 votes. Do we really want to put our educational system at risk, thereby ultimately decreasing our home values and impacting every resident in the community? (Correspondence #27, Cindy and Steven Kief, 4/ 23/ 12, p. 2. Similar comments from: Cindy Kief, public hearing 5/ 2/ 12, p. 9-10)
Response
There is no basis to indicate that assisted living residents w ill vote against school budgets.
3.17.11
Comment
Continuum admittedly has not been in the assisted living business before. Whats the contingency plan if it fails? Do we just get stuck with a vacant, eye-sore on Broadway? Do they sell to a larger corporation who changes the business model? What guarantees does the village have that Continuum can perform? (Correspondence #27, Cindy and Steven Kief, 4/ 23/ 12, p. 2. Similar comments from: M s. Kathy H ow ard, public hearing, 4/ 4/ 12, p. 37; Barbara Scott, public hearing 4/ 4/ 12, p. 45; Pierre Follari, public hearing 5/ 2/ 12, p. 8; Cindy Kief, public hearing 5/ 2/ 12, p. 9-10)
3-192
Response
Continuum has developed millions of square feet of residential, hospitality, retail and office property. M eredith Brake, Continuum Living's Chief Operating Officer is the former CFO and President of Sterling Glen Senior Living, a highly regarded and successful developer/ ow ner/ operator of A ssisted Living Facilities in N ew York, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. M eredith and her senior management team have extensive experience opening and operating A ssisted Living Facilities. Together, the Continuum Living team represents a highly experienced team of developer/ ow ner/ operators. With respect to any potential failure prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, it is important to note that any lender w ill not only require a significant (30-35%) equity investment by the property ow ner, but w ill also require completion guarantees to protect the lenders position. While the initial lease up period is the most challenging, the demand for this type of facility in Westchester County is significant. For example, w ith respect to dementia care, w hich represents 1/ 3 of the proposed community, only 1% of the demand is being met in Westchester County. A s w ith any operating business funded by a Lender, if the business fails, the Lender w ill have the option to (A ) modify the terms of the loan, (B) foreclose on the property and sell it to another A ssisted Living company or (C) continue to ow n the property and hire a new management company to operate it until they are ready to sell it, (D) Require the Ow ner to bring in a new management company to operate the building. In all of the scenarios above, the building w ill remain operational. Since there is going to be tremendous demand for assisted living and dementia care services as the population continues to age, it is highly unlikely this building w ill ever be a vacant structure. If the applicant sells or is forced to sell the facility, all licensing requirements and conditions of the special permit approval w ill remain in effect and w ill have to be adhered to by the purchaser. If the project is a complete failure the options range from demolition to any other permitted use in the zone.
3.17.12
Comment
This proposed facility will do nothing to help the 65+ residents who wish to remain in Irvington but want to reduce their cost of living. It seems that this facility will not serve a wide swath of the community, but rather will include residents from across Westchester and New York City. (Correspondence #28, Barry S. Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 4. Similar comments from: M s. Kathy H ow ard, public hearing 4/ 4/ 12, p. 36; Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/ 18/ 12, p. 5)
Response
The residents at the assisted living facility w ill probably be 82 years of age and older. Some w ill come from Irvington; others w ill come from surrounding communities.
3-193
3.17.13
Comment
While I dont look forward to the construction phase, I do look forward to having this assisted living facility next-door. This site has been of interest to other organizations, and to me, an assisted living facility is the type of organization I would willingly like to see outside my window. Knowing how much Continuum wants to be a part of our Irvington community, I also look forward to an opportunity to volunteer at this facility for any needs they may have. Assisted living facilities are a new venture today and there will be a growing need for more of them as our baby boomers age into this need and look for a facility to their liking. We have many models of this type of facility around us and they have worked hard at being partners with the community they reside in. (Correspondence #30, Sharon Brennen, 5/4/12, p. 1)
Response
Comment noted.
3.17.14
Comment
How many times have they built a facility like this, how are they capitalizing it, where is the money coming from, where is their equity coming from. What's the impact -- the size of the environmental impact, what is the impact on the neighborhood? Do they do a market study, do they have a certificate of need. Is there a need for these beds? You have know more about what is going on and the experience of the developers, the fact that they've never have done a facility like this in the past. It seems to me like this is their first project, they are multi-family guys, and you know, they said when things have gone wrong they move out. So, if that happens to us we are stuck right in the center of town where we've got this facility that's as they said could be half built or could be not-for profit, or whatever could happen to it could be bad. (Peter Blass, public hearing 5/2/12, p. 11-13. Similar comments from: Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 2; Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 5; Pat Natarelli, public hearing 5/ 2/ 12, p. 28-30)
Response
In 2009, based on the view that the assisted living and memory care market w as underserved, The Continuum Company conducted market studies to determine the need for assisted living and memory care residences in the metropolitan region. These studies w hich w ere reaffirmed by
3-194
a leading market research company, Brecht A ssociates, led The Continuum Company to focus its efforts in Westchester County and in particular, Irvington, N ew York w here the demand for these beds far outw eighed the supply. In January 2011, The Continuum Company entered into a contract w ith The Foundation for Economic Education to purchase the subject property in Irvington. Since that time, The Continuum Company has entered into contracts on tw o other properties in Westchester and one in Trumbull, Connecticut. The Continuum Company expects its first residence to open in Trumbull in the spring of 2014. A fter studying both successful and unsuccessful business models of assisted living competitors, The Continuum Company determined a key to success w as combining real estate development know ledge w ith operational expertise from the onset of the project. For that reason, The Continuum Company hired M eredith Brake, w ho w as formerly the President of Sterling Glen Senior Living (SGSL), in 2010 to serve as Chief Operating Officer. During her nearly 10 years at SGSL, M rs. Brake's accomplishments include, among others, overseeing the grow th of SGSL from 0 to 9 properties in less than 14 months, and successfully managing all aspects of the preopening of 6 independent and assisted living properties including M arketing/ Outreach, Operations, Recruitment/ Team Building, and Training/ Development. In addition, she successfully integrated 5 existing properties into the SGSL portfolio w hile building strong, lasting relationships w ith the Department of H ealth in N ew York, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. Further, M rs. Brake has been an active participant in creating new assisted living residence regulations for N ew Yorks Department of H ealth (DOH ). The equity for this project w ill be provided by The Continuum Company and one or more equity partners. The Continuum Company w ill provide a completion guaranty for the project. The environmental impact and impact on the neighborhood has been addressed throughout this document.
3.17.15
Comment
There was a 9.2 million dollar settlement for construction defect on this property, and this is just another example of issues with this company and when you look at their website and the properties that they are touting as success, one of them is the South Beach Condominium, where you have construction defect issues. One of them is the Manhattan Club, which is also -- litigation is pending and possible certification for a Class Action. You have the Cosmopolitan Casino that is listed on their website as a success, where they defaulted on hundreds of millions of dollars on loans, abandoned the project and Deutsche Bank ended up completing it for double the initial budget. (Patricia Graubart, public hearing 5/2/12, p. 14. Similar comments from: Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 2; Correspondence #36, Barry Graubart, 5/19/12, p. 1)
Response
Please see the specific responses below to each of the projects:
3-195
(i) South Beach Condominium The Continuum on South Beach remains one of the most recognized successful condominium projects in south Florida history. In fact, property values have more than tripled since the completion of the project in 2002. The construction defect law suit w as the result of w ork performed by the general contractor w ho the developer fired prior to completion of the project and after repeated notifications to the general contractor of such defects. The law suit has been settled and repairs are currently underw ay. The construction defect law suits are not uncommon for large scale developments particular in the State of Florida. With that said, the defects never rendered the condominiums uninhabitable and despite such defects, the condominium continues to set sales records based priced per square foot. (ii) M anhattan Club The M anhattan Club w as developed by the ow ners of The Continuum Company in 1998. The Continuum Company has no responsibility for the day to day operations of the business. M ore significantly, the law suit w hich w as filed on behalf of 5 individuals in 2011 w as dismissed in federal court in 2012. One individual recently filed a case in N ew York Supreme Court alleging similar allegations. This case is currently pending. (iii) Cosmopolitan Casino - The Cosmopolitan today is a key attraction in Las Vegas and w idely recognized for its design and amenity offering. During the height of the financial crisis, Deutsche Bank and the developer reached a settlement in w hich the developer and Deutsche Bank agreed that Deutsche Bank w as to complete the project. While the terms of the settlement are subject to a confidentiality agreement, it can be clearly stated that the developer did not abandon the project.
3.17.16
Comment
I bel i ev e t h ese concerns w ill be addressed as the project moves along in a thorough and w hat has been, from the beginning, an open and transparent Village application process. I s u p p o r t the efforts of Continuum to build an ALF on the property adjacent to w here I live. Continuum has sought out the concerns of nearby residents, has be w illing to listen to diverse view s, and has been forthright in their responses to our questions. As prospective neighbors, they have kept us informed of changes to the original plans and sought our comments and suggestions. They have show n a desire for the project to become an integral part of the village. I bel i ev e this w ill meet a grow ing important need and that the Continuum A ssisted Living Facility w ill be a responsible and contributing member of our Village. I look forw ard to having them as my neighbor. (Correspondence #35, Elizabeth Rossi, 4/27/12, p. 1)
Response
Comments noted.
3-196
3.18
3.18.1
Procedural
Comment
It would also appear that The Planning Board has not followed the appropriate SEQR regulations. I have attached the relevant sections of the SEQR regulations which appear to have been overlooked by the Planning Board, thereby reducing the Board's ability to take required "Hard Look" at this project. A review of the SEQR regulations attached hereto indicates that the following procedures outlined in the SEQR regulations have not been properly followed. The Planning Board has not involved other agencies (including the Board of Trustees) and more importantly the Public in the SEQR process, and thereby was unable to focus on the impacts and alternatives which required in Depth Analysis in the DEIS. A project such as this which includes a major zoning change, violates the goals of the Village comprehensive Plan and poses significant unmitigated environmental impacts to the entire Village, but more importantly to the residential neighborhoods that border this property on ALL sides. The Board of Trustees and all other involved agencies should have participated in the SEQR process from day one, including Village residents. Please advise at your earliest convenience what steps were taken to inform the Village residents about this project. (Correspondence #8, Rita M cConn-Stern, 3/ 26/ 12, p. 5. Similar comments from: M s. Patricia Graubart, public hearing 5/ 2/ 12, p. 45)
Response
Contrary to the assertions in this comment, the Planning Board has fully complied w ith all SEQRA requirements. The Village Board is an Involved A gency, but not the Lead A gency in the process. The Village review of the proposed development follow ed applicable local law and the procedures set forth by the N ew York State Environmental Quality Review A ct (SEQRA ). The Planning Board, at the request of the Board of Trustees, determined the action to be a Type I action and declared its intent to be lead agency. It circulated a notice of intent to be lead agency to all involved agencies, including the Board of Trustees and no agency objected. On July 6, 2011, the Planning Board assumed lead agency status and issued a Positive Declaration, requiring the preparation of a DEIS, by the applicant. It held multiple scoping sessions, public meetings and public hearings on the DEIS. The DEIS w as accepted as complete, pursuant to SEQRA , by the Planning Board February 1, 2012. A lthough not required under SEQRA , the Planning Board held a public hearing on M arch
3-197
7, 2012, w hich remained open at continued hearings on A pril 4 and M ay 2 . Public comment w as received at the hearings, and the record for w ritten comments w as extended until M ay 23, 2012. Once the Planning Board, as Lead A gency, completes the SEQRA process and adopts an Environmental Findings Statement, the Village Board w ould then be in a position to review the proposed zoning pursuant to Village Law . A fter public hearing and deliberation, the Village Board must either adopt its ow n Environmental Finding Statement, or it can adopt the Planning Boards Findings. During the SEQRA review process, the Village Board and all other involved agencies received a copy of the DEIS and this FEIS, and had the ability to submit comments to the Planning Board as it saw fit.
th
nd
3.18.2
Comment
Is Zoning Board approval required for commercial construction projects in Irvington? (Correspondence #11, Barry Graubart, 3/ 13/ 12, p. 5)
Response
N ot unless the projects require use or area variances from the Zoning Code.
3.18.3
Comment
The project could adversely impact the environment. (Correspondence #11, Barry Graubart, 3/ 13/ 12, p. 5)
Response
The DEIS and this FEIS address project impacts, mitigation and alternatives consistent w ith SEQRA requirements. The SEQRA regulations call for balancing adverse and beneficial impacts in the decision-making process.
3.18.4
Comment
Village residents need to understand the scope of the project, the process for project review and the impact on the community. A project of this scope does not deserve a quiet and quick evaluation. (Correspondence #11, Barry Graubart, 3/ 13/ 12, p. 5. Similar comments from: Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/ 18/ 12, p. 2)
3-198
Response
The review of the Continuum project, as documented throughout this FEIS, has not been quiet or quick. See Response 3.18.10 and 3.18.1.
3.18.5
Comment
I think the entire community would like to understand why this project is even being considered at all since it is so out of line with anything that has been considered in the past. I urge you to reject this plan, which is clearly not consistent with the values of the Village of Irvington! (Correspondence #12, Patricia Graubart, 3/ 18/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Correspondence #27, Cindy and Steven Kief, 4/ 23/ 12, p. 2; Patricia Graubart, public hearing 5/ 2/ 12, p. 15)
Response
Comment noted
3.18.6
Comment
As I understand it, this development would require an amendment to the Zoning Code to provide for assisted living communities as a permitted use within the MF zoning district. The submitted DEIS outlines other potential uses for the site to review comparative impacts of these uses. However, the alternative uses sited are within the scope of existing code permitted uses. Since the proposed use by Continuum would require special permit, I believe that other potential uses outside existing code permitted uses should be explored. (Correspondence #13, M ary Beth Dooley, 4/ 2/ 12, p. 2)
Response
Single family use w as included by the Planning Board as an additional use to be explored as part of the DEIS scoping process.
3.18.7
Comment
One might reasonably argue that other uses not currently examined could have far less impact than the proposed development and might indeed benefit the Village overall. For example, a plan that would allow the existing buildings to remain and perhaps be restored would be an ideal use. An inn or bed and breakfast perhaps, with catering facilities for special events including weddings or corporate parties could be a wonderful addition to the village. Events would mostly occur on weekends, minimizing impacts. The carriage barn could be re-used as a small caf, open to the public and accessible on foot from the aqueduct or by car, with ample parking
3-199
already provided. The existing buildings would need refurbishing, but this could be done using sustainable building methods. (Correspondence #13, M ary Beth Dooley, 4/ 2/ 12, p. 2. Similar comments from: Correspondence #27, Cindy and Steven Kief, 4/ 23/ 12, p. 2)
Response
H ospitality and commercial uses w ere not included as alternative in the DEIS scope that w as adopted by the Planning Board.
3.18.8
Comment
It violates current zoning laws in a number of ways, but may not get to the zoning board. (Correspondence #19, M ark J. Polisar, 3/ 18/ 12, p. 1)
Response
The proposal is for a change in the multifamily zoning to allow assisted living by special permit. It includes proposed modifications to lot and bulk controls. A s such, there w ould be no need to go before the Zoning Board of A ppeals for variances.
3.18.9
Comment
The notification of my neighborhood by certified mail was spotty at best, with the letter dated Feb 24, postmarked Feb 29, and received by me on March 5th, only two days prior to the planning board meeting that the letter was announcing; inefficient at best, deceitful and irresponsible at worst. Several of my neighbors never got the letter at all. (Correspondence #19, M ark J. Polisar, 3/ 18/ 12, p. 1)
Response
N otices to individual property ow ners are not required for a public hearing on a DEIS.
3.18.10
Comment
In general, I have faith in the boards and committees to "do what's right" for Irvington. Given how far this project has gotten without broad knowledge in the community, I am less certain of that. (Correspondence #19, M ark J. Polisar, 3/ 18/ 12, p. 1)
3-200
Response
Comment noted. A lthough the project has been on the Planning Board agenda for several months prior to the public hearing on the DEIS, relatively few resident attended the meetings. The three public hearings on the DEIS w ere, how ever, w ell attended. A s indicated at the second hearing, the SEQRA review process is follow ed by a Village Board process on the proposed zoning change. If the zoning change is granted, a special permit and then a site plan review process follow s.
3.18.11
Comment
I am writing to you today to make you aware of my concerns regarding the above project. At the DEIS hearing, the proponents attorneys and engineers advocated for zoning law changes which were inconsonant with the needs and wishes of the citizens of Irvington. I understand well your desire to increase the tax rolls here, given the many constraints on the village budget. To change our laws in order to specifically permit the institutional construction sought by the applicants would be shortsighted, and overlooks the reality that nearly any of-right construction on the FEE parcel would return the property to the tax rolls without the many adverse effects of a large scale assisted living facility. (Correspondence #20, Francis Goudie, 3/ 18/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Correspondence #21, Francis Goudie, 3/ 20/ 12, p. 1.)
Response
Comments noted. Fiscal considerations are only one of very many impacts being evaluated by the Planning Board as part of the SEQRA review process.
3.18.12
Comment
The objections I have to the facility proposed are: Special treatment of one entity at the expense of all (Correspondence #20, Francis Goudie, 3/ 18/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Correspondence #21, Francis Goudie, 3/ 20/ 12, p. 1.)
Response
There has been no special treatment. This has been a rigorous process that w ill continue, follow ing all of the requirements of SEQRA .
3-201
3.18.13
Comment
It is my hope that the Board will not move hastily on this poorly placed proposal. While there may be a location for such a facility in Irvington, the FEE property is not the right one. The damage that could be done by changing the laws to permit this construction would be permanent and irreversible. (Correspondence #20, Francis Goudie, 3/ 18/ 12, p. 1. Similar comments from: Correspondence #21, Francis Goudie, 3/ 20/ 12, p. 1; Correspondence #25, Patricia L. Mulvey, 3/24/12, p. 1; Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/ 18/ 12, p. 1; Correspondence #43, Barbara Scott, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 1.)
Response
The Planning Board has been carefully considering this proposal. The Village Board w ill do the same.
3.18.14
Comment
I have read the flyer from protectirvingtonny.org. While some of their points are valid, I feel many of their facts are either exaggerated or inaccurate. I am currently in favor of the assisted living facility and feel that the village should cooperate and guide the development to a mutually beneficial completion. (Correspondence #22, John Tunis, 3/ 19/ 12, p. 1)
Response
A s explained at the public hearings on the DEIS, this FEIS is the Planning Boards documents. A lthough originally drafted by the applicant, its language has been revised to reflect the position and responses of the Planning Board.
3.18.15
Comment
This project appears to bypass Irvington's existing process to ensure that development appropriately balances the needs of our community. We are actually pro-development and believe that our elected officials generally need to do a better job of building a commercial presence in Irvington that can bolster our tax base and provide relief from increasingly pressured residential taxpayers, while at the same time enhancing the quality of our community. That said, a significant project of this kind requires transparency, due diligence and the opportunity for the community to consider the pros and cons and to comment.
3-202
We are deeply concerned about both this project and the apparent back of transparent process on behalf of Village taxpayers. We would appreciate your letting us know your views on this issue. (Correspondence #23, Ron Cohen, MD and Amy D. Martini, 3/20/12, p. 1)
Response
This project has been the subject of several public meetings, a scoping session and three public hearings, all as part of the DEIS process. The DEIS is only a first step in a very long process that w ill continue w ith many more meetings and hearings by the Planning Board and the Village Board of Trustees.
3.18.16
Comment
We were never notified, I got a notice in the mail yesterday, the letter was written February 24th, post-marked the 29th, I received it yesterday, the Lassards received theirs the day before and we could literally see that plot right here, across the street. So, first of all, I am so disappointed that they hadn't considered any types of notice whatsoever. (Ms. Jaime Wilson, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 50-51. Similar comments from: Ms. Jaime Wilson, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 54; Mr. Seth Bacharach, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 58-59)
Response
The notice of public hearing on the DEIS w as provided in according w ith SEQRA regulations. Individual notice to project neighbors is not required. Such notices w ill, how ever, be provided by the Village Board as part of a public hearing on the proposed zoning.
3.18.17
Comment
I have a question for the Board Village, is this the kind of development that we can expect in Irvington if any other non-profit properties come up on the market? (Ms. Eleanor Alford, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 58)
Response
This comment should be addressed to the Village Board at its public hearing on the application.
3-203
3.18.18
Comment
I would like to know what the timeline of this process is and I would like to know if possible, for someone tonight to explain to the people who are here what is the anticipated timeline. Because it seems like that there are a lot of people who are not familiar with this process. (Ms. Angela Wilson, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 66)
Response
A fter its review of comments on this FEIS, the Planning Board w ill issue an Environmental Findings Statement on the project, w hich w ill complete its SEQRA review . The Village Board w ill then consider the proposed zoning amendment, w hich requires a public hearing. Prior to a decision on the zoning, the Village Board must adopt its ow n Finding Statement, or it can adopt the Planning boards Statement if it so chooses. If the zoning is approved, the applicant w ould have to file and receive a Special Permit from either the Village Board or the Planning Board. If granted, site plan approval w ould be required from the Planning Board, along w ith associated review s and approvals from Village, County and State A gencies.
3.18.19
Comment
My only concern about closing it is that I see like everyone has seen, that a lot of the work has been done, either at the library or whatever. But, they didn't present a representation -- a three-dimensional representation up here of the scale of this thing in a three-dimensional block form that I think -- it is not exactly what we requested, but at least this should give the public a little better idea of the scale and bulk of what they are proposing. (Mr. George Pommer, public hearing 3/7/12, p. 79)
Response
Three scale models have been provided and w ere available for use by the Planning Board and for public inspection.
3.18.20
Comment
It seems to me that the first decision whether the Village should change zoning laws to allow for assisted living should be examined on its own merit, and not in the context of the sale of a specific property. If that determination is made, and our zoning laws are modified to allow that
3-204
as a permitted use within the Village, then it would make sense for site-specific analysis to take place. I dont understand why the Planning Board is being required to go through the extensive SEQRA review without the Board of Trustees (with the guidance of the Planning Board) first making those changes to zoning law. Many of the key issues related to whether the intended use is an overall benefit to the community are beyond the scope of what typically is addressed through the SEQRA/DEIS process. For example: If the Village determines that providing economical ways for empty nesters to remain in the community is a goal worth pursuing, what type(s) of housing (smaller townhouse condos, rental units, independent senior living, etc) might best address that need? Will the beds at a local facility likely be filled by current Village residents, as the project developer suggests? o If so, is it not likely that the homes those residents vacate would be then purchased by families (obviating the benefit of creating housing with no impact on schools)? o If not, then what is the specific benefit to housing an assisted living facility right near our downtown? Will the jobs created by operation of the facility likely be filled by Village residents? Do the jobs match the skills of our residents?
Instead, the Village has tasked the Planning Board with the large burden of a comprehensive SEQRA review for a use that is not currently permitted under Village law. (Correspondence #28, Barry S. Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 4-5. Similar comments from: Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/ 18/ 12, p. 4 and p. 7; Patricia Graubart, public hearing 5/ 2/ 12, p. 15; Barry Graubart, public hearing 5/ 2/ 12, p. 17-18)
Response
The Planning Board is also looking at those issues. The SEQRA law calls for the kind of comprehensive review that the Village is undertaking w hen an applicant proposes a zoning change. If the Village Board segmented the review of the zoning from the analysis of the site, it w ould be contrary to SEQRA . The list of issues raised can be considered by the Village Board as part of its deliberations after the Planning Board completes its SEQRA review and makes a recommendation to the Village Board as required by law . Within this context, how ever, it should be noted that assisted living is not an empty nester product; it serves a completely different demographic group. The applicant has not stated that the proposed development w ould be filled w ith Irvington residents, but most w ould come from the Village and surrounding areas. Similarly, the employment opportunities w ould likely be filled by persons from a larger geographic area than any one community alone.
3-205
3.18.21
Comment
Regarding employee traffic, Continuum have made many claims verbally and in their newspaper ads, for example, that they will not start or end any shifts during morning commute, school commute or evening commute hours. Regarding employee shifts and other verbal promises from the buyer, would the Planning Board recommend that these promises be included as legally binding conditions of any special permit that is granted? What would be the enforcement mechanisms of such a commitment? My understanding is that Mercy College currently has many conditions attached to its use permits, but that they fail to comply with them. How might we ensure that these promises become firm commitments, with substantive penalties for failure to comply by Continuum or a future owner? (Correspondence #28, Barry S. Graubart, 4/ 22/ 12, p. 10-11. Similar comments from: Barry Graubart, public hearing 4/ 4/ 12, p. 55-56; Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/ 18/ 12, p. 8 and p. 10)
Response
This type of assurance w ill be made a condition of the special permit approval, subject to enforcement by the Village.
3.18.22
Comment
Is it common for the person submitting the proposal to draft the FEIS report? (Unidentified speaker, public hearing 4/4/12, p. 16)
Response
A lthough the FEIS is the municipalitys documents, the first drat is almost alw ays prepared by the applicant.
3.18.23
Comment
Would it be possible if we are going to be having a work session on this that the public comment period be extended beyond this work session. (Ms. Mary Beth Dooley, public hearing 4/4/12, p. 31)
Response
The public comment period w as extended until M ay 23, 2012.
3-206
3.18.24
Comment
Then the other question is how the change or the amendment in the zoning works? Like if someone wants to use any property, for example this property outside of the scope of the existing zone, do they have to propose this use to the board? Or can the board you know, in its wisdom take this opportunity for example and have as part of this application, commentary about uses that may come up in this process that could well be suited in the future or What I am saying is given the comparative uses that we looked at in the DEIS, there were I believe three or four existing permits, or existing uses permitted under the zone, and then the proposed used for the assisted living facility. What I am only suggesting is can the board in its discretion decide to look at a variety of other uses that may not already be permitted. (Ms. Mary Beth Dooley, public hearing 4/4/12, p. 31-32)
Response
A n applicant can propose a zoning change, or a change can be proposed by the Village Board or the Planning Board.
3.18.25
Comment
During the past year, I have attended several meeting with Continuum and have asked many questions concerning their proposal. I have also listened to the controversy around the village concerning this project and investigated information on my own. I also feel confident that many of the concerns that have been mentioned will be addressed as the project moves forward through the Planning Board and with the Board of Trustees. I also agree that the process Continuum has followed has been an open one since its introduction to our community about a year ago. (Correspondence #30, Sharon Brennen, 5/4/12, p. 1)
Response
Comment noted.
3-207
3.18.26
Comment
I would like to give my support to this project and Continuum in general. They have answered questions from us individually and as a group time and time again and have been open to listening to concerns and working with our community at 14 south to mitigate these concerns. (Correspondence #30, Sharon Brennen, 5/4/12, p. 1)
Response
Comment noted.
3.18.27
Comment
Since Continuum is not in the health care or assisted living business, is this an investment property for them? What if Continuum turns around and sells the property in a year or 5 years or 10 years. What would the impact be on the Village? My understanding is Continuum is seeking to build 3 other facilities. Has the Village consulted with Continuum to determine if these facilities are going to be built? Where, what is the size and what is the parcel like? What happens if Irvington is the only Village that says yes? The report should address the risks associated with this project and association with Continuum. (Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 2-3)
Response
Continuum has advised the Village that this site is not view ed as an investment property. Continuum w ill have ow nership interest in both the real estate and M anagement Company. These are not investments in someone else's business. With that said, even if Continuum w ere to sell the property in 5- 10 years, the site w ould still be subject to any approved special permit, w hich runs w ith the land, thereby binding any subsequent ow ners to the terms of the special permit. Furthermore, if Continuum sells the property, it w ill be to another assisted living company w ho w ill ow n and operate it. The new ow ner w ould take the property subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the approvals granted by the Village. Continuum has contracts on multiple properties throughout the N Y M etropolitan A rea on w hich they plan to build assisted living and dementia care facilities. It is unknow n as to w hether these additional facilities get built because they are subject to zoning approvals. They are located in Westchester, Connecticut and Long Island on parcels deemed by Continuum to be adequate to contain their model facility. Since each building is financed as a standalone property, and the loans w ill not be cross collateralized, the success or failure to build or operate additional buildings has no bearing on the viability of the Irvington Facility. Finally, SEQRA does not require the Village to assess and make a judgment w ith respect to the viability of an applicant. Continuum is no different than any other applicant. Therefore, the FEIS
3-208
w ill be limited to the potential environmental impacts associated w ith the project proposed by the applicant.
3.18.28
Comment
I request that the Planning Board either conduct a thorough analysis of the business practices, operating history and financial position of Continuum or, preferably, hire a professional to do so on its behalf. (Correspondence #36, Barry Graubart, 5/19/12, p. 1. Similar comments from Correspondence #36, Barry Graubart, 5/19/12, p. 5)
Response
This is not w ithin the scope of SEQRA .
3.18.29
Comment
Protect Irvington intimates that the project sponsors have been trying to swiftly sneak the project through the approval process in the dead of n i g h t , b u t i n f a c t I h a v e been aware of this project for months, through several means and the sponsors organized a number of small-scale briefings for people in the neighborhood some time ago. (Correspondence #40, Michael Bradley, 3/25/12, p. 2)
Response
Comment noted.
3.18.30
Comment
At the moment, I feel like this is a potentially worthwhile project that could boost the v i l l a g e tax base with minimal impact. I can even imagine it becoming a boon for Irvington families with elderly parents who want a facility like this close by. It may be too large for the site, or not, and the details on its size, design, and operation should be scrutinized and carefully negotiated. I respect, however, the opinion of anyone who decides that the project i s inappropriate based on a study of the facts. But I do not a g r e e with those who attack the project with fear-mongering, exaggeration, and innuendo, and I urge you to withhold judgment and look at the DEIS before signing anything. (Correspondence #40, Michael Bradley, 3/25/12, p. 2)
3-209
Response
Comments on the use are noted. The plan proposed in this FEIS addresses the comment about size of the protect itself.
3.18.31
Comment
I would like the DEIS report to address the precedent setting impact of this decision on the Village for future requests before the Planning Board. Will this decision basically obviate the long-standing rules & laws that have existed in the Village? Should other residents expect a Home Depot or other massive structure in the other parcels of land available in the Village? Will we see McMansions invade Irvington similar to what has happened in other Towns & Villages? (Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 3-4. Similar comments from: Patricia Graubart, public hearing 5/2/12, p. 14-15; Barbara Scott, public hearing 5/2/12, p. 16)
Response
Zoning changes are discretionary actions by the Village Board of Trustees. Each one is evaluated on its ow n merits.
3.18.32
Comment
I would like to remind the Planning Board that they have a fiduciary duty to the residents and shopkeepers of Irvington who have made a huge investment in this community. The information I have attached is for reference of my comments and should not be relied on for the evaluation as the Board has the responsibility to do a proper due diligence of this proposal. The Board should engage the proper non-biased experts and consultants to evaluate this. (Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 11)
Response
The Planning Board understands its responsibilities.
3-210

Draft FEIS Jan 2013 Revised Chapter 3 - Response To Comments

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Draft FEIS Jan 2013 Revised Chapter 3 - Response To Comments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3.

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

25,806 18,580 11,799 1,337 10,462 523 872 918 918

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Land Use and Zoning

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

SF 101,495 20,125 39,350 59,475 42,020

Continuum 100 feet 34 feet 31 feet

See also response to 3.2.10.

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

(Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 1)

Comments and Responses

(Correspondence #32, Patricia Graubart, 4/18/12, p. 1) Response

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Community Character and Visual Analysis

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

Comments and Responses

A photo-simulation from Station Road is presented as Exhibit 29.

Comments and Responses