Article 78 Exhibits 26 To End

\
DRAFT

A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE VILLAGE OF CROTON-aN-HUDSON

GATEWAY OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT BY EXPANDING THE AREA OF, AND MODIFYING THE REGULATIONS FOR, THE HARMON/SOUTH RIVERSIDE GATEWAY AREA

Section 1 Section 230-20.2.A.(1) of the Code of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson is hereby

amended to read as follows:

(1) Harmon/South Riverside, consisting of lots on the east and west sides of South

Riverside Avenue between Croton Point Avenue and a point approximately 200 feet north of Oneida A venue. A list of the specific parcels included in the Harmon/South Riverside area is set forth in the Table of Zoning Map Amendments located at the end of this chapter which table and map are hereby amended to include the parcels described in the schedule hereto. This area is an important link to the train station via Croton Point Avenue and to the Harmon neighborhood. It also provides a connection with the historic Van Cortlandt Manor to the south.

Section 2 Section 230-20.3 of the Code of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson is hereby amended to

read as follows:

Section 230-20.3. Use regulations for all Gateway areas, and special area, bulk and parking regulations for the Harmon/Soutb Riverside Gateway area.

A. The uses permitted in the Gateway District areas shall correspond to the permitted

and special permit uses set forth in the underlying-zoning district. In addition, the following uses, when not otherwise authorized in the underlying zone, shall be permitted:

(1) Permitted Principal Use. In the Harmon/South Riverside area mixed use shall be a permitted principal use subject to the parameters and requirements set forth below:

a. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter to the contrary, for

the purposes of this Article (IVA), mixed use shall mean a combination of residential dwelling units and other permitted and/or special permit uses provided, however,

1. At least 50 percent of the area of the first floor of any mixed use

building must be used for non-residential use. Residential uses may not be located in the portion of a building's first floor which is immediately inside the building's front facade, it being the intention of this law tbat first floor front building facades, and the building areas immediately inside first floor front bul (ding facades, wiJJ be used for non-residential purposes. It is the further intention of this law that any first floor residential space will be located "behind" first floor non-residential space as viewed from the street/sidewalk adjacent to the building front. For the purpose of this subparagraph buildings located on street comers shall be deemed to have building fronts on each of the intersecting streets which form the street comer.

-1-

ii, There shall be no percentage restrictions on the amount of

residential versus non-residential space on the second floor of a mixed use building.

Ill. The third floor of a mixed use building may only be used for

residential dwelling unit purposes.

b. Notwithstanding any provisions of Section 230-20.4 or any other

provisions of this Chapter to the contrary, the following area and bulk regulations shall apply to mixed use buildings in the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway area. To the extent that contrary area/bulk regulations are not specified in this subsection, they shall be as otherwise provided in this Code:

1. Maximum floor area ratio (FAR) shall be .8.

ii. Maximum height shall be 35 feet/3 stories. Provided, however, the

third story must be constructed within the roofline of the building.

iii. The minimum front yard setback shall be 15 feet. The maximum

front yard setback shall be 20 feet. In accordance with the general provisions of this Chapter, comer lots shall be deemed to have front yards on each of the intersecting streets which form the comer.

iv. The Planning Board shall have the authority in conducting Site

Plan review to reduce or waive side yard setback requirement(s) of the underlying zone provided there is otherwise adequate access to parking areas.

v. With the exception described below, pre-existing buildings which

do not meet the front yard setback required herein (15-20 feet) or any of the other area requirements of this Chapter (e.g. rear yard setback) shall not be permitted to have an FAR of .8 nor to add third story residential occupancy. They shall be governed by the FAR and story limitations of their underlying zone. Provided, however, pre-existing buildings which are otherwise area-compliant, but whose front yard setback is between ten and twenty feet (instead of the required fifteen to twenty feet) shall be permitted to have an FAR of .8 and third story residential occupancy.

c. Design Regulations. In addition to any other design regulations provided

in this Code, the following design guidelines shall apply to mixed use buildings in the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway area:

i. The street level facade of the front of any building shall consist of

at least 60 percent transparent glass to facilitate visibility into the building's first floor commercial premises and a retail streetscape look. For the purpose of this subparagraph buildings located on street comers shall be deemed to have building fronts on each of the intersecting streets which form the comer.

ii. Mixed use buildings in the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway area

shall be subject to such additional design guidelines as may be adopted by resolution of the Board of Trustees from time to time.

-2-

d. Parking. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code to the

contrary, for mixed use buildings in the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway area there shall be provided for each residential dwelling unit: one parking space plus one additional parking space for each bedroom in the unit in excess of one bedroom. (Examples: studio apartment - 1 space; 1 bedroom apartment - 1 space; 2 bedroom apartment - 2 spaces). The parking for non-residential space shall be as otherwise required by this Chapter.

(2) Special Permit Uses.

In addition to the special permit uses permitted in the underlying zoning district, the following uses, when not otherwise authorized in the underlying district, shall be permitted by special permit granted by the Village Board of Trustees in all Gateway District areas:

(a) Fanners' market, greenmarkets or garden centers.

B. Prohibited uses. Notwithstanding uses otherwise permitted by the underlying zoning

district, the following uses shall be prohibited in all the Gateway District areas:

(1) Commercial parking lots.

(2) Automobile storage lots.

(3) Drive-through windows for commercial establishments.

(4) Automobile or other vehicle dealerships.

(5) Fast food restaurants.

Section 3 Section 230-20.4 of the Code of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson is hereby amended to

read as-follows:

A. Maximum allowable floor area ratio. With the exception of mixed use

development in the Harmon/South Riverside area, the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) standards that shall be adhered to for new development shall be the FAR listed for the underlying zone or the following, whichever is more restrictive.

Section 4 There is hereby added to Section 230-42.1 of the Code of the Village of Croton-on-

Hudson a new Section G to read as follows:

G. The provisions of this Section 230-42.1 shall not apply to properties located in the

Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay area. Regulations governing Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay area "mixed use" buildings (as defined in Section 230-20.3A(1)a.) are contained in Article IVA of this Chapter.

-3-

Section 5 Section 230-17 A( 1) of the Code of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson is hereby amended

to read as follows:

A Permitted uses. No building or premises shall be used and no building or part of

building shall be erected which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose, except the following:

(1) Any use permitted in a Commercial C-I District, as set forth in Section

230-16A, and subject to the regulations therefore, but for properties not within the Harmon/South Riverside area of the Gateway Overlay District no retail stores shall be permitted except by special permit ofthe Village Board of Trustees. Such retail stores in all former C-l Districts prior to the date of the adoption of this section shall be deemed to have special permits; however, any retail store with a current special permit requiring periodic renewal shall continue to require renewal in accordance with its terms.

Section 6

This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State.

-4-

LIST OF PARCELS included in Harmon
South Riverside Gateway Overlay Zone
SECTION BLOCK LOT
79.13 1 5
79.13 1 6
79.13 1 7
79.13 1 9
79.13 1 60
79.13 1 61
79.13 1 62
79.13 1 63
79.13 1 64
79.13 1 65
79.13 1 66
79.13 1 68
79.13 1 69
79.13 1 70
79.13 1 71
79.13 1 72
79.13 1 73
79.13 1 74
79.13 1 75
79 .. 13 1 76
79:13 1 77
79.13 1 78~
79.13 1 83
79.13 1 64
79.13 1 85
79.13 1 86
79.13 1 87
79.13 1 88
79.13 1 89
79.13 1 90
79.13 2 5
79.13 2 6-
79.13 2 18
79.13 2 19
79.13 2 20
79.13 2 21
79.13 2 22
79.13 2 22.1
79.13 2 23
79.13 2 24
79.13 2 25
79.13 2 26
79.13 2 27
79.13 2 28
79.13 2 29
79.13 2 30
79.13 2 31
79.13 2 32
79.13 2 33 Village of Croton-on-Hudson, NY

South RiversidelHarmon Gateway Overlay District Proposed Zoning Amendments

Environmental Assessment Form Report

Prepared on Behalf of:

Village of Croton-on-Hudson .

Board of Trustees

Saccardi & Schiff, Inc.

DRAFT: September 3, 2009

Revised: October 15,2009

Harmon Gateway Overlay District Amendments

EAF Part 3 (10/15/09)

Also in July 2008, RBA Group prepared Croton-Harmon Traffic Study, the goal of which was to improve circulation in the vicinity of the Croton-Harmon train station.

The proposed zoning amendments are under review by the Village of Croton-on-Hudson Planning Board, and have been reviewed by the Village of Croton-on-Hudson Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC). The WAC found the action to be consistent with the L WRP policies (see correspondence in Appendix E).

In addition, Westchester County Planning has commented on the proposed zoning amendments. As described in the letter from the County Planning to the Village dated July 28, 2009, the proposed gateway zoning amendments are consistent with Westchester 2025, the County's planning guidance document (see Appendix E).

As described in the Introduction, the Village Board of Trustees has had discussions and received input from the Croton Planning Board and the public, and a revised draft law is now being considered in response to those comments. The initial discussion of each impact in accordance with the July 2009 draft law remains in this report, and potential impacts of the current (October 2009) revisions are discussed at the end of each section, as applicable.

a. Land Use and Zoning

Existing Conditions

Existing zoning in the study area is C-2 (General Commercial), with the southern portion of the study area also covered by the existing South RiversidelHarmon Gateway Overlay District. This is described on Exhibits 1 and 2 (Location Map and Zoning) and on Exhibit 3, Existing Land Use and Zoning. C-2 district regulations allow a maximum building floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5 within a maximum of two stories.

The commercial "Gateways" are the major entry points to the Village from surrounding roads. The South RiversidelHarmon gateway is the entry point to the Village from Route 9, the train station and Croton Point Ave.

Within the gateway overlay area, gateway regulations limit parcels to a maximum FAR of 0.35 for single use buildings and 0.40 for multiple use buildings (and multiple use buildings require a special permit). The Code states that, with certain exceptions", uses within the gateway area shall correspond to permitted and special permit uses in the underlying zoning district.

The primary land uses in the study area include retail, office, auto-related business, restaurants, and personal service establishments. Several mixed use buildings (mix of commercial and apartments) are currently in use in the study area.

Adjacent land uses (outside the Study Area) to the east, along Young Avenue, are primarily single family residential, along with Good Shepherd church. Adjacent land

2 See Village Code Section 230-20.3


8


EAF Part 3 (10/15/09)

There are two areas where tax parcels were not in the original Study Area that was previously delineated. One area is the few lots on the west side of Croton Point Avenue, south of the gas station (see Croton Point Avenue frontage parcels on Table 2). This area is already within the Harmon Gateway district and is currently developed with structures .

. The other area is the few lots in the C-2 zone on Wayne Street and Clinton Street (see Clinton/Wayne Street parcels on Table 1). These are the only parcels in the C-2 zone that were not in the Harmon Gateway District and also not included in the original Study Area (they are not on South Riverside, which was the emphasis of the study, and the majority of these are village owned). Although not included in the original Study Area specifically, due to the small amount of potential development area these parcels comprise, it is not anticipated that potential impacts of redevelopment on these lots would be significant.

Scenario #1: Likely Anticipated Level of Development

(42 residential units/9,498 sf commercial)

This scenario assumes that a certain level of redevelopment would occur in the near term, including the significantly underutilized or vacant parcels of land in the study area as they exist (as of August 2009). As with all of the scenarios, this assumes new development proposals that would be brought before the Village Planning Board by private parties/land owners (no publicly-owned properties). This scenario assumes that 9 of the 36 parcels in the study area (all vacant or underutilized) will be redeveloped as mixed-use buildings using the maximum potential development under the proposed amendments to the gateway overlay zoning. It assumes combination of parcels that are directly adjacent to each other.

The one exception to this is parcel 12, which is an existing, partly vacant building and is assumed not to be re-constructed, but for the existing vacancies to be filled within that structure.

This scenario includes redevelopment of the following underutilized lots on the east side of South Riverside A venue:

• Former Nappy Auto (parcel 29)

• Former Croton Dodge (combined parcels 8, 9)

• Former Riverside Four Restaurant (parcels 3,4), nowproposed as Anton's Restaurant

• Umami Restaurant (parcel 2)

On the west side of South Riverside A venue:

• Vacant lots (combined parcels 27, 26) ~ former auto storage between the gas stations south of Benedict Blvd.

• Underutilized/vacant building (parcel 12) north of convenience . store (no new construction - keep existing structure, fill vacancies)

The parcels described above are identified on Exhibit 6, Scenario #1, and a summary of the build-out under this scenario (using July 2009 proposed law) is included in Table 3A below:


18


EAF Part 3 (10115109)

Table3A Scenario #1-

Potential Uses (wlthSbared Parking)
Parcel Noo- Non-. Residential Residential Total Total
Resideoti Residential Units] Parklng! parking parking
alspace parkiag' required required
(sri (gross with shared
maximum) parking as
proposed io
July200~
2 (Umami) 1389 5 6 12 17 11
3-4 (Antons) 1769 6 8 16 22 14
8-9 (Dodge) 2304 9 10 20 29 19
29 (Nappy) 1399 5 6 - 12 17 11
26-27 (Storage lot) 1797 7 8 16 23 15
12j (Ex. bldg) ±S40 sf 3~ 4 S' l l" 7'
totals ±9,498 sf 35 42 84 119 77
I .. Taken from Table 2 In property utilization study prepared by Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. In July 2008, except for data for parcel 12.

2 As per proposed zoning amendments (in July 2009), for each residential unit/one non-residential parking space can be eliminated.

) For parcel 12, assumes proposed re-use of existing structure (±1,6S0 sf footprint), meeting of requirements of proposed amendments, with exception of parking (waiver of parking requirements for this lot is permitted in existing Code)

Since the October 2009 revisions/amendments to the draft law no longer give credit for shared parking and the residential parking requirement relates to bedroom count, the potential impact of this scenario would be different. If a 50150 split of one and two bedroom units is assumed, the residential parking would be 1.5 times the number of residential units (42 units x 1.5 = 63 spaces). Combining that with the non-residential parking (35) would bring the total parking to 98 spaces for this scenario as modified to the October draft of the proposed zoning amendments and assuming an equal mix of tand 2-bedroom units (see Table 3B below). If all the residential units were] -bedroom or studio, parking requirement would be 77 spaces for Scenario #1.

Saccard! & Schiff, Inc.

19


EAF Part 3 (10/15/09)

Table3B Scenario #1- Potential Uses

(No Shared Porking(l space per bedroom)
Parcel Non- Non- Residential Residential Total parking
Residenti Residential Unitsl Parkin~ required
al space parklng" (l.S/unit)
(5£)1
2 (Umami) 1389 5 6 9 14
3-4 (Antons) 1769 6 8 12 18
8-9 (Dodge) 2304 9 10 IS 24
29 (Nappy) 1399 5 6 9 14
26-27 (Storage lot) 1797 7 8 12 19
12' (Ex. bl4g) ±840 sf 3] 4 6 9
totals *9.498 sf 35 42 63 98
.. Taken from Table 2 in property utilization study prepared by Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. ID July 2008, except for data for parcel 12. Assumes 50% one-bedroom and 50% two-bedroom units for parking calculations.

2 As per proposed zoning amendments (October 2009), 1 parking space .for each one-bedroom unitl2 1 parking spaces for each two-bedroom unit (average 1.5 spaces/unit). No shared parking.

3 For parcel 12, assumes proposed re-use of existing structure (±1,680 sf footprint), meeting of requirements of proposed amendments, with exception of parking (waiver of parking requirements for this lot is permitted in existing Code)

Saccardl & SchW', Inc.

20


EAF Part 3 (10/15/09)

Scenario #2: Theoretical Maximum (100% build-out: all individual lots) (125 residential units/28,996 sf commercial)

This scenario assumes that the entire study area could be redeveloped with new mixed use structures. As a theoretical maximum, this scenario assumes that all of the privatelyowned vacant parcels (36 parcels listed) would be redeveloped with mixed-use buildings using the maximum potential development and be required to meet the on-site parking requirements as per the proposed gateway overlay zoning amendments. It assumes the level of redevelopment as described in Table 4A (using only individual parcel development) of the property utilization study prepared by Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. dated July 2, 2008 and parameters of the July 2009 proposed draft law. This describes 100% build-out, where new mixed use development would occur not just on the unused or vacant parcels of land, but on all of the parcels.

,

As with all of the scenarios, this one assumes new development proposals brought before the Village Planning board by private parties/land owners, as well as the assumptions described at the end of this section. Likelihood of Scenario #2 (or #3) occurring, even over a period of time, is not high. These scenarios envision redevelopment of the entire study area, with new construction (including demolition/replacement of all existing structures) at the maximum possible level of development.

The parcels are identified on Exhibit 7, Scenario #2, and a summary of build-out under this scenario (using July 2009 proposed law) is included in Table 4A below:


22


EAF Part 3 (JOI15109)

Table4A Scenario #2-

Potential Uses (with Shared Parkin!!)
Parcel Non- Non- Residential Residential Total parking Total
residential Residential Units' Parking' required . parking
space (sf)t parking' (gross required
maximum) w/shared
parking as
proposed' in
July 2009
1 800 3 3 6 9 6
2 1389 5 6 12 17 11
3 687 2 3 6 8 5
4 1082 4 5 10 14 9
5 1218 4 6 12 16 10
6 1210 4 6 12 16 10
7 795 3 3 6 9 6
8 1559 6 7 14 20 13
9 745 3 3 6 9 6
10 793 3 3 6 9 6
11 1237 4 6 12 16 10
12 199 1 0 0 I 1
13 599 2 2 4 6 4
14 262 1 1 2 3 2
15 1016 4 5 10 14 9
16 518 2 2 4 6 4
173 371 1 1 2 3 2
18 2026 7 10 20 27 17
19 686 2 3 6 8 5
20 476 2 2 4 6 4
21 528 2 2 4 6 4
22 194 1 0 0 1 1
23 120 0 . 0 0 0 0
24 767 3 3 6 9 6
25 909 3 4 8 11 8
26 1479 5 7 14 19 12
27 318 1 1 2 3 2
28 1511 5 7 14 19 12
29 1399 5 6 12 17 11
30 945 3 4 8 11 7
31 839 3 4 8 11 7
32 399 I 1 2 3 2
33 961 3 4 8 11 7
34 ' 352 1 1 2 3 2
35 384 1 2 2 3 2
36 223 I 2 2 3 2
totals 28,996 sf 101 125 units 246 347 225 I Taken from Table 2 in property utilization study prepared by Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. in July 2008

2 As per proposed zoning amendments (July 2009), for each residential unit/one non-residential parking space can be eliminated.

3 Note: Parcel 17 has no street frontage


23


EAF Part 3 (10/15/09)

Since the October 2009 revisions/amendments to the draft law no longer give credit for shared parking, and the residential parking requirement reJates to bedroom count, the potential impact of this scenario would be different. If a 50/50 split of one and two bedroom units is assumed, the residential parking would be 1.5 times the number of residential units (196 spaces, rounding up to use two-bedroom units when odd number exists). Combining that with the non-residential parking (101 spaces) would bring the total parking to 297 spaces for this scenario as modified to meet the October draft of the proposed zoning amendments and assuming an equal mix of 1- and 2-bedroom units (see Table 4B below). If all the residential units were I-bedroom or studio, parking requirement would be 226 spaces for Scenario #2 (101 non-residential + 125 residential = 226 spaces).

SflCcardi & Schiff, Inc.


EAF Part 3 (10/15/09)

Table 4B Scenario #2-

Potential Uses_lli_o Sbared Par.ki,,!! 1 space per bedroom)
residential Residential Units' Parking1,1 required
~ace (sf)1 _parkingl O,S/unit)1
1 800 3 3 5 8
2 1389 5 6 9 14
3 687 2 3 5 7
4 1082 4 5 8 12
5 ]218 4 6 9 13
6 1210 4 6 9 13
7 795 3 3 5 8
8 1559 6 7 11 17
9 745 3 3 5 8
10 793 3 3 5 8
11 1237 4 6 9 13
]2 199 1 0 0 1
13 599 2 2 3 5
14 262 1 1 2 3
15 1016 4 5 8 12
16 518 2 2 3 5
17J 371 1 1 2 3
18 2026 7 10 15 22
19 686 2 3 5 7
20 476 2 2 3 5
21 528 2 2 3 5
22 194 1 0 0 1
23 120 0 0 0 0
24 767 3 3 5 8
25 909 3 4 6 9
26 1479 5 7 11 16
27 318 1 ] 2 3
28 1511 5 7 11 16
29 1399 5 6 9 15
30 945 3 4 6 9
31 839 3 4 6 9
32 399 1 1 2 3
33 961 3 4 6 9
34 352 1 1 2 3
35 384 1 2 3 4
36 223 1 2 3 3
totals 28,996 sf 101 125 units 196 297
I .. 'taken from Table 2 In property utilization study prepared by Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. to July 2008 2 Rounded up to two-bedroom units if odd number of residential units is provided

3 Note: Parcel 17 has no street frontage

Saccordi & Schiff, Inc.

25


EAF Part J (10115109)

Scenario #3: Theoretical Maximum (100% build-out with some combined parcels) (126 residential units/28,115 sf commercial)

This scenario assumes that the entire study area could be redeveloped with new mixed use structures, with combination of some adjacent lots. As a theoretical maximum Gust as with Scenario #2), this scenario assumes that all of the privately-owned vacant parcels (36 parcels listed) would be redeveloped with mixed-use buildings using the maximum potential development and meeting the on-site parking requirements as per the proposed gateway overlay zoning amendments (outlined in July 2009 draft law). It assumes the level of redevelopment as described in Table 2 of the property utilization study prepared by Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. dated July 2, 2008. This describes 100% build-out, and further assumes some parcels would be joined and developed together on a unified site plan.

As with all of the scenarios, this one assumes new development proposals brought before the Village Planning Board by private parties/land owners, as well as the assumptions described at the end of this section. The combined parcels are identified on Exhibit 8, Scenario #3, and a summary of the build-out under this scenario (using July 2009 proposed law) is included in the Table 5A below:


27


EAF Part 3 (10/15/09)

Table SA Scenario #3-Potential Uses

with Shared ParkiD2}
Parcel Non- Non- Residential Residential Total Total parking
residential Residential Units' Parking' parking required
space (sl)l parking! required w/sbared
(gross parking as
maximum) proposed
(July2009i
1 800 3 3 6 9 6
2 1389 5 6 12 17 11
3-4 1769 6 8 16 22 14
5 1218 4 6 12 16 10
6 1210 4 6 12 16 10
7 795 3, 3 6 9 6
8-9-10 3098 11 13 26 37 24
11 1237 4 6 12 16 10
12 199 1 0 0 1 1
13 600 2 2 4 6 4
14-15-16 1797 7 8 ]6 23 15
17-18 2397 9 11 22 31 20
19 686 2 3 .6 8 5
20-21-22 1199 4 5 10 14 9
23-24-25 909 3 8 16 19 11
26-27 1797 7 8 16 23 15
28 1511 5 7. 14 19 12
29 1399 5 6 12 17 11
30-31 1785 6 8 16 22 14
32 399 1 1 2 3 2
33 961 3 4 8 11 7
34-35.36 960 3 4 8 11 7
TOTALS 28,115 sf 98 126 units 252 350 224
j .. Taken from Table 2 m property utilization study prepared by Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. In July 2008 2 As per proposed zoning amendments (July 2009). for each residential unit/one non-residential parking space can be eliminated.

Since the October 2009 revisions/amendments to the draft law no longer give credit for shared parking and the residential parking requirement relates to bedroom count, the potential impact of this scenario would be different. If a 50/50 split of one and two bedroom units is assumed, the residential parking would be 1.5 times the number of residential units (193 spaces, rounding up to use two-bedroom units when odd number exists). Combining that with the non-residential parking (98 spaces) would bring the total parking to 291 spaces for this scenario as modified to meet the October draft of the proposed zoning amendments and assuming an equal mix of 1- and 2-bedroom units (see Table 5B below). If all the residential units were l-bedroom or studio, parking requirement would be 224 spaces for Scenario #3.


18


EAF Parl3 (10/15/09)

Table5B Scenario #3-Potential Uses

~o Shared Parkin2l1 space p« r bedroom)
residential Residential Units! Parking! required
space (sl)! parking! (1.5/unit)l
] 800 3 3 5 8
2 1389 5 6 9 ]4
3-4 1769 6 8 12 18
5 1218 4 6 9 13
6 1210 4 6 9 13
7 795 .. 3 3 5 8
8-9-10 3098 11 • 13 20 31
11 1237 4 6 9 13
12 199 1 0 0 1
13 600 2 2 3 5
14-15-16 1797 7 8 12 19
17-18 2397 9 11 17 26
19 686 2 3 5 7
20-21-22 1199 4 5 8 12
23-24-25 909 3 8 12 15
26-27 1797 7 8 12 19
28 1511 5 7 11 16
29 1399 5 6 9 14
30-31 1785 6 8 12 18
32 399 ] 1 2 3
33 961 3 4 6 9
34-35-36 960 3 4 6 9
TOTALS 28,115 sf 98 126 units 193 291
I .. Taken from Table 2 m property utilization study prepared by Saccardi & Schiff Inc. 10 July 2008 2 Rounded up to two-bedroom units if odd number of residential units is provided


29

Harmon Gateway Overlay District Amendment»

EAF Part B (JOflS/09)

Design regulations for the South RiversidefHarmon gateway overlay would remain the same as in the existing code, but would be extended to the entire study area. This includes requirements for open space, landscaped areas, buffers of trees, signage, glare, lighting and building orientation (Section230-20.5). Design guidelines specific to South Riverside/Harmon (Section 230-20.6) will also be extended to the entire study area. These guidelines are specific to the Harmon area, intended to enhance the small-scale character of the district and improve connections between the train station and the South RiversidelHarmon shopping area.

Land uses adjacent to the study area (primarily residential to the east and west) will still be adjacent to a C-2 district, but with the gateway overlay extended, the specific gateway regulations will apply to the all of the parcels described in the draft law (see Tables 1 and 2). This means that the more stringent landscape, buffer and screening requirements with the gateway overlay would be required of any new mixed use development, and this should be a beneficial impact to adjacent residences.

As described previously, the adoption of the Hannon gateway amendments is a zoning change, and does not propose any new development. However, in order to analyze a level 'of potential impact, assumptions were made and three development scenarios were evaluated. Using the assumptions and scenarios described previously, if developed with mixed use as described in Scenario # 1 (likely Anticipated Level of Development), the study area could contain approximately 9,498 sf of new commercial uses and 42 residential units. This level of development includes several parcels that are adjacent to the existing single family homes on Young Avenue, as well as some adjacent residential structures on Wayne Street.

If developed with mixed use structures as described in Scenario #2 or #3 (100% build-out scenarios), the study area could contain approximately 28,115 to 28,996 sf of new commercial uses and ±125 -126 residential units.

According to the study prepared by Danth, Inc. (July 2008), the Harmon area could support up to 16,000 sf of commercial space, but only 2,000 sf of the current space meets the quality standards that attract tenants. Therefore, approximately 14,400 sf of new commercial space could be supported if the size, price and quality of the space were right. There is also demand for an additional 3,000 sf of small professional office or studio space. Therefore, the level of commercial development estimated in Scenario #1 could be absorbed in the existing demand, and 42 new apartments would be located within the Harmon area. This scenario is considered to be a realistic, as a likely build-out over time.

With Scenarios #2 and #3 (the 100% build out scenarios), the level of commercial development would be double what the Danth study estimated could be absorbed, therefore, these scenarios could create land use impacts and would very likely draw demand from other commercial areas in the village, counter to the objectives of this proposed action, Similarly, these two scenarios estimate up to 126 apartments, three times the amount in Scenario # 1. Likelihood of Scenarios #2 or #3 occurring, even over a period of time, is not high. These scenarios envision redevelopment of the entire study area, with new construction (tear down of all existing structures) at the maximum possible level of development.


34


EAF Part 3 (10115109)

Designating gateway overlays and forming those districts was one of the goals outlined in the Village's 2003 Comprehensive Plan. The potential impacts of the South Riverside/Harmon Gateway District were evaluated in the DGEIS prepared by the Village. This proposed action. amending the adopted regulations, is proposed to modify those existing gateway regulations to encourage improvements to the Harmon area, as described here.

Saccardl & Schiff, Inc.

35


EAF Part 3 (10115109)

b. Aesthetic Resources

Existing Conditions

The proposed South RiversidelHarmon Gateway area comprises approximately 3 blocks of South Riverside Avenue, adjacent Clinton Street and portions of Wayne Street, as well as a portion of Croton Point Avenue, and is built up with primarily two-story, small-scale commercial structures (see Exhibit 5, Parcel Identification with Photographs). There are a few vacant parcels (without buildings), but most of those are paved, used for parking or storage. The existing buildings are comprised of a mix of architectural styles and materials, including brick, stucco, and wood frame. Although generally one and two story, some three story buildings are found in the block of South Riverside between Benedict Boulevard and Clinton Street. The west side of this block, in its existing condition, is more pedestrian friendly, with wide sidewalks, street furniture, street trees, fewer curb cuts, storefronts with glass windows, etc.

Many other portions of the South Riverside frontage are less pedestrian-friendly, with large expanses of asphalt and frequent curb cuts, parking lots in front of the buildings, and fewer street trees. The study area ,also contains overhead utility lines, and has limited landscaping. These features, as described in the Gateway Districts DGEIS (2003) remain today, and detract for the aesthetic quality of the area.

Some views to the Hudson River are available in a few places along South Riverside, but wide open views to the river are primarily blocked by existing buildings. One can see partial views of the river if looking west from South Riverside Avenue down Croton Point Avenue.

Van Cortlandt Manor, a national historic landmark, is located outside, of the South Riverside/ Harmon gateway district to the south.

Potential Impacts-Aesthetic Resources:

"

The Proposed Action proffdes amendments to the existing South Riverside/Harmon gateway

district. The new amendments that would supplement the existing code include visual/aesthetic considerations including the requirement for 60% of the commercial facade to be glass (to encourage retail, and pedestrian activity) and to encourage the parking in the rear of buildings, allowing wider sidewalks and potentially street furniture, street trees, etc. along the sidewalk. The building height is not proposed to be changed from that in the existing code, therefore that aspect of the streetscape will not be impacted beyond what could be constructed today:

The intent of the proposed action is to encourage development whereby the design standards are intended to maximize visual appeal and pedestrian experience. The DGEIS prepared for the original gateway overlay design regulations (now adopted into the Code) described the visual character of the area and the intent to improve the aesthetics of the gateway. The visual features analyzed in the DGElS included curb cuts, open space, signage, lighting, building orientation, sidewalks. Design regulations for these features have been implemented into the code, and none of those regulations are proposed to be amended with the Proposed Action.


36


EAF Part 3 (10/15/09)

As described previously, the adoption of the Harmon gateway amendments would not create any new development. However, using the assumptions and scenarios described previously, if developed with mixed use as described in Scenario #1 (likely Anticipated Level of Development), the study area could contain approximately 9,498 sf of new commercial uses and 42 residential units. This level of development includes several parcels that are adjacent to the existing single family homes on Young Avenue, as well as some adjacent structures on Wayne Street. The new development described in Scenario #1 would likely comprise 3 story (with maximum height 35 feet)' buildings on the vacant and underutilized sites. This includes lots 3-4 (Anton's restaurant), lots 8-9 (former Croton Dodge) and lots 27-28 (auto storage adjacent between Oil City and Gulf).

If developed with mixed use as described in Scenario #2 or #3 (100% build-out scenarios), the study area could contain approximately 28,115-28,996 sf of new commercial uses and ]25-126 residential units.

The original gateway overlay design regulations (now adopted into the Code) were intended to create a more attractive setting for the gateway area to the Van Cortlandt Manor (through landscaping, sidewalk improvements, etc.), and the current proposed amendments are also intended to enhance the Harmon area visually, and are estimated to create a positive impact on the neighborhood and entrance to the historic site.

The proposed amendments are intended to keep the scale of new development within existing maximums. There is no change proposed in existing screeninglbuffering requirements for this gateway area. Where commercial or mixed use is adjacent to residential uses, landscape buffers are required. The intent is for the front (and comers, if applicable) of the commercial and mixed use buildings to be for pedestrian circulation and shopping, and the rear for parking, with a minimum of curb cuts onto the street. This would be an overall positive impact to the study area and the village.


37


EAF Part 3 (10/15/09)

c. Traffic and Parking

Existing Conditions

The RBA Group has prepared a traffic and parking study to accompany this EAF Part 3 Report, which is included in its entirety in Appendix B (two reports, dated September and October 2009), and summarized below.

The study area is approximately V4-mile west of U.S. 9 and the Croton-Harmon train station (which serves both Metro-North and Amtrak passengers) and around Yz~mile west of the Hudson River. Due to the proximity of the train station to the proposed study area, there is a steady stream of traffic along South Riverside Avenue during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. In addition, there are numerous pedestrians who walk to, from, and through the study area during these periods. Despite the surge of traffic during the peak commuter periods, however, traffic volumes along the local streets are generally light because most vehicles travel along U.S. 9, rather than the local streets.

Traffic Volumes: Existing traffic volumes along South Riverside Avenue are highest during the weekday AM peak period and typically higher south of Benedict Boulevard than north of Benedict Boulevard. Based on 2008 data from the Croton Harmon Parking Facility study, the highest traffic volumes in the proposed rezoning area were 1,030 vehicles per hour (vph - 222 northbound, 808 southbound) during the weekday AM peak hour.

Existing Parking: An inventory of on- and off-street parking supply in the study area was conducted in July 2009. Based on the inventory, there were approximately 280-300 existing off-street parking spaces in the area. In addition, there were approximately 27 on-street parallel parking spaces.

Potential Impacts-Traffic and Parking

Traffic and parking conditions were examined for Scenarios # 1 through #3, as described previously in this EAF and in the report in Appendix B. One of the assumptions in all of the scenarios is that 50 percent of the ground floor would be dedicated to non-residential uses. However, the Proposed Action code recommendations are that "at least 50 percent" of the ground floor be commercial, such that all of the ground floor could be commercial. Thus, The RBA Group developed a Scenario #5 for the traffic and parking study, in which the entire first floor of the development was commercial, with residential units being built on the second and third floors. This is referred to as: Scenario #5: Ground Floor 100% Commercial Development (98 residential units; 53,348 square feet of commercial space).

Trip Generation: The number of trips generated by each redevelopment scenario were calculated using rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 7tb Edition. The proposed action would allow a combination of residential and commercial space, and it was assumed that the commercial space would include office, restaurant, and general retail uses. The distribution of office to restaurant to retail space was calculated based on existing uses and projected demand as provided in


38


EAF Part 3 (10/15/09)

the Village's Harmon Zoning Change Recommendations and the Commercial District Retail Study. The resulting commercial distribution used was 34 percent office, 30 percent restaurant, and 36 percent general retail space.

Trip' generation was calculated for the weekday AM and PM and Saturday peak hours of the adjacent street network, and a 15 percent reduction in residential trips due to the proximity of the study area to the transit station was also applied. The resulting numbers of entering, exiting, and total trips are provided in Table 1 in Appendix B. It is expected

. that the greatest number of trips will be generated for Scenario #2, for which the square footage of commercial development would be highest. The trip generation for this scenario is greatest (220 vehicles - 123 in, 97 out) for the Saturday peak hour during which retail and restaurant uses would be most utilized. However, trip generation for the scenario is also high (192 vehicles - 112 in, 80 out) during the weekday PM peak hour when background traffic volumes along South Riverside Drive would be higher. For this reason, it is anticipated that the weekday PM peak hour would be the critical traffic period in the study area.

Since it was found from the trip generation calculations that the commercial, retail and restaurant trips are the most critical, trip generation volumes were developed for Scenario #5. Since restaurant space generates more traffic than any other retail use, the amount of proposed restaurant space was capped at the existing plus latent demand, and the proportion of office and retail space was adjusted accordingly. The resulting entering, exiting, and total number of trips that would be generated for Scenario #5 would be 15 to 50 percent greater during the peak hours than for the same peak hours for Scenario #2. To determine whether adequate traffic and parking capacity would be provided as currently recommended in the proposed action, traffic volumes for the original and new scenarios were evaluated further.

Traffic Analysis: A comparison of the No Build and Build analysis results indicates that there would be little impact to traffic conditions on the study area roadways due to the proposed zoning amendments. For Scenario #1, there would be no need for mitigation, as there would be no degradation in traffic operations from the No Build to Build conditions. During the weekday AM peak hour, for Scenarios #2, #3, and #5, traffic operations for the southbound movement at the intersection of South Riverside A venue and Benedict Boulevard would deteriorate slightly. However, should mitigation be determined necessary, this could be implemented as part of individual site plan reviews that will occur for actual construction projects proposed. If required, the conditions could be mitigated by adding a second southbound approach lane (i.e., implementing a southbound left-turn/through lane and a southbound through/right-turn lane) at the intersection. This would require the removal of 6 on-street parking spaces, but should be compensated for by a surplus of parking spaces created by the redevelopment.

Parking Generation: Parking generation totals were calculated by land use for the weekday and Saturday peaks using the ITE Parking Generation Manual, Jrd Edition (Parking Generation Manual). The maximum numbers of parking spaces required are provided in Table 3 in The RBA Group's September 2009 report in Appendix B. Parking is most needed on a weekday. Scenario #2, which allows the greatest commercial usage,


39


EAF Parl3 (10115109)

requires the most parking (344 spaces). Similar to the trip generation for the various scenarios, assuming that all of the ground floor is commercial space as in Scenario #5 results in significantly greater parking demand. The number of parking spaces needed based on the July 2009 zoning amendment's assumptions is sufficient to accommodate calculated parking needs for Scenarios # J, #2, and #3. Any parking deficiencies with any given project proposed would be addressed in site plan review of those individual projects. A complete shared parking analysis was undertaken to evaluate whether proposed (July 2009) zoning amendments' parking assumptions were adequate (see September 2009 report by The RBA Group in Appendix B). "

This September 2009 report is summarized below. However, the October 2009 revisions to the draft law '(current proposed action) no longer reduce the parking requirement for shared parking. A parking study amendment to the September 2009 report by The RBA Group is also included in Appendix B (dated October 2009). This addresses changes to the proposed law in October 2009.

Shared Parking: For mixed-use development, such as that which may be proposed in the study area, it is possible that the parking demands for individual land uses will peak at different times such that the total parking required is actually less than the sum of the maximum parking demand for each individual land use. To provide a more realistic assessment of the parking that is needed in the proposed rezoning area, a shared parking analysis was conducted for each potential redevelopment scenario using the July 2009 draft law. The weekday AM and PM shared parking calculations for Scenarios # 1, #2, #3, and #5 are provided in Tables 4 through 11 in September 2009 RBA Group report in Appendix B. The peak shared parking demand for all scenarios would occur in the evenings - 6 to 7 p.m. on weekdays and 7 to 8 p.m. on Saturdays. In all cases, the critical parking demand would be on the weekends.

Based on this shared parking analysis, the total number of parking spaces actually required in the study area would be 106 for Scenario #1 (6 fewer than the 112 calculated with the proposed rezoning assumptions), 314 for Scenarios #2 and #3 (33 to 36 fewer than the approximately 350 spaces calculated with the rezoning assumptions), and 346 (only 1 less than the 347 parking spaces calculated with the rezoning assumptions) for Scenario #5.

A detailed examination of the shared parking residential versus commercial demands as conducted by the RBA Group in their September 2009 report suggests that the parking demand assumptions could be modified. One' modification would be to revise the proposed parking assumptions. To do this, the Village code could be modified to require 1.2 parking spaces per residential unit and 1 parking- space per 300, 65, and 350 square feet of retail, restaurant, and office space, respectively. To implement shared parking, it is suggested that the calculated parking requirements be reduced by 5 percent. With these changes, it is anticipated that sufficient parking will be provided on-site during all time periods and times of day for Scenarios #1, #2, and #3. Based on parking analyses, it is suggested that in any case, a parking study be conducted as part of individual site plan reviews for any development that includes commercial uses on the entire ground floor or office space of the second floor. Different splits of retail, restaurant, and office space can affect parking demand greatly.


40

Harmon Gateway Overlay District Amendments:

EAF Part 3 (10/15/09)

The RBA Group's Parking Study Amendment (October 2009) in Appendix B, reflects the modifications to the draft law in October 2009. These revisions to the proposed law include modifications to parking requirements as described earlier. Trip generation is the same as documented in the September 2009 RBA Group report. Also, Peak period parking demand would be the same as that documented in the September 2009 RBA Group report.

Parking supply analysis was modified in the October 2009 RBA Group report, based on change in the parking requirements and removal of shared parking condition previously proposed. This includes and RBA recommended change of 1.5 parking spaces per residential unit regardless of the number of bedrooms, which would accommodate peak parking demands assuming an unlikely buildout with all restaurants and one bedroom units in the mixed use buildings. However, the residential parking ratio in the proposed zoning (1 space per unit plus 1 additional space for each addition bedroom in excess of one) would be a sufficient minimum zoning standard for the range of uses anticipated, with final reviews subject to site plan approval.

Any applicants seeking redevelopment with mixed use on parcels in the gateway area would have to demonstrate how they would meet parking requirements, and accommodate that parking on the site. Regarding collective parking scenarios described in some of the previous materials, these were not analyzed as part of any potential development scenarios in this EAF since they had many assumptions about common ownership of properties, which are not considered likely to occur.


41


EAF Part 3 (10/15/09)

d. Growth and Character of Community i. Schools

Existing Conditions

Croton Harmon School District school facilities are all located in the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, and the district consists of 95% of the Village of Croton-onHudson, as well as portions of the Towns of Cortlandt and Yorktown. School taxes are collected by the municipalities for the school district (in this case, school taxes are collected by the Town of Cortlandt).

A total of 17867 students in the district attend one of the three schools: Carrie E. Tompkins Elementary school (grades K-4), Pierre Van Cortlandt Middle School (grades 5-8) and Croton-Harmon High School (grades 9-12). Current enrollments (2008) at these facilities are listed below":

Carrie E. Tompkins Elementary: 657 students Pierre Van Cortlandt Middle School: 568 students Croton-Harmon High School: 561 students

Croton-Harmon School District has a new Superintendent of Schools for the 2009- 2010 school year, Dr. Edward Fuhrman. A demographic study has been undertaken by the school district (prepared by Ross Haber Associates, Inc., June 2009). This study included' a census study (surveys completed by residents) and enrollment projections. The five-year projections indicate that overall enrollment will continue to grow, although at a slower' rate than the previous five years. Enrollment projections indicate the total enrollment in the district to increase to a peak of] 801 student in 2010-11, then decrease again to 1791students through the year 2012-13, after which it may increase again to a total enrolment of 1806.9

There are 9 school age children living in the South RiversidefHarmon study area (at four separate addresses), ranging from kindergarten to 8th grade."

Potential Impacts to Schools

Although the zoning amendments will not create any new development, three potential development scenarios were analyzed to give estimates of impact of both a likely build-out and a theoretical maximum build-out for the area, using all new, mixed-use development. Detailed descriptions of these scenarios are included in the previous sections (see Land Use and Zoning).

7 District also contains approximately 104 students that attend private schools (according to a letter to the community from Superintendent of Schools, 4/2/09). According to the June 2009 Demographic Study, 98 students in the district attend private and parochial schools.

8 Telephone communication with Croton Harmon School District business office, August 2009

9 Table 4, Demographic Study for Croton-Harmon Union Free School District, Ross Haber Associates, Inc., June 2009.

10 Communication with Ross Haber Associates, 10/612009.


42


EAF Part 3 (10115109)

Scenario #1 - (Likely Level of Development):

In order to estimate the number of potential public school children that would be added to the district with Scenario #1 (42 residential units). standard planning multipliers were used. According to Rutgers University, Center for Urban Policy Research, approximately 4 to 12 new students (K-12) would be generated by 42 apartments. This assumes one-bedroom apartments, which are the most likely to occur ill this area (see Table 8 below). If an equal mix of 1 and 2 bedroom units were used, the Rutgers multipliers indicate that the 42 apartments in Scenario #1 could generate approximately 7 to 18 students.

Scenarios #2 and #3 - (100% build-out: theoretical maximum):

According to the same source, a range of approximately 10 to 38 new students (K-12) would be generated by ±125-126 apartments, assuming all one-bedroom units (see Table 8 below). If an equal mix of 1 and 2 bedroom units were used, the Rutgers multipliers indicate that the 126 apartments could generate approximately 20 to 52 students. It is noted that the full implementation of these two scenarios is highly unlikely, as described previously.

The South RiversidelHarmon area contains some apartments now, and 9 students living there attend the public schools. The school district also _ provided actual numbers of students that reside in Bari Manor, for comparison. According to Ed Fuhrman!', Superintendent of Schools, 25 school-age children live in the 82 apartments in Bari Manor. Of this total, 11 students are in grades K to 4; 4 students are in grades 5 to 8; 9 students are in grades 9-12 and one is "ungraded" (special education).

Any new school children generated by private development in the Harmon area would not be generated all at once, and any new school population would be spread out over the 13 grade levels. (School taxes are discussed below);

. TableS

Estimated Number or School Children

- # units Multiplier Total school children
JSchool children/unit) _generated
Scenario #1: Likely Level of 42 x 0.30 I 12 children
Development x 0.082 4 children
Scenarios #2 and "#3 (100% build-out: 126 x 0.30 38 children
theoretical maximum} x 0.082 10 children Source: Rutgers University, Center for Urban Policy Research, Residential Demographic Multipliers (June 2006)

"One-Bedroom rental apartment units, $500-1 ,OOO/month

2 One-Bedroom rental apartment units, more than $1,OOO/month

. .

II Phone conversation with Mr. Edward Fuhrman, 9/14/09

Saccardi & Schiff. Inc.

43


EAF Part B (10/15/09)

ii. Taxes

To estimate taxes generated, the specific new uses, number and size of residential units and market value of new mixed use buildings are required. In speaking with the Village of Croton Tax. Assessor and the Town of Cortlandt Tax assessor'", these factors, would be required to provide an estimate of future tax revenues. Since the proposed action is a zoning amendment and not a specific project, the potential redevelopment scenarios analyzed in this EAF will again be used to the extent possible. The VIllage taxes are roughly one-third of the taxes on any give mixed use property, with the Town of Cortlandt collecting the other two-thirds, for the school

district, town and county. -

The Harmon Business Development Committee's report in August 2008 summarized their presentation on the Harmon zoning recommendations, including a preliminary discussion of potential impact on village taxes. Since future market values are not known, the current redevelopment scenarios are analyzed below, using the same assumptions for a tax analysis that were used in the HBDe report. F or the fiscal 2008-09 year, the HBDC report indicated that the total village property taxes on these 36 parcels in the South Riverside/Harmon Gateway study area (which total approximately 328,019 sfin area) was about $145,490~

Table 9

Tax Estimates_(ViII!J__g_e and School Tal(es)
Existing Scenario #12 Scenario #2 Scenario #3
Condition 1
Commercial Area (sf) 53,817 9,4g8 28996 28115
Residential, units NA 42 125 126
Residential (sf) 9,716 42,000 125,000 126,000
Total Area (sf) 63,533 51,498 153,996 154,115
Average property tax per sf
t08~09 rates) $2~29 $2.29 $2.29 $2.29
Annual Total: Village Property $117,930.42
Tax Revenue $145,490.57 ($263,420 total') $352,650.84 $352,923.35
Annual Total: School Tax $200,327.22
Revenue 3 $247,075 - ($447,402 totae) $599,044.44 $599,507.35
I- . - Prom.Harmon Zonmg Cbange Recommeodnhons (HBDC, August 2008) 1 Scenario '# 1 assumes redevelopment on 9 parcels of 36, and was combined with revenues for exlsting.developrnent to compare with fuJI build-out scenarios 2 and 3.

3 Scheel tax rate extrapolated from HDBC report

The tax revenue for Scenario # 1 indicates only the new mixed use development. Since Scenario #1 assumes redevelopment on 9 parcels of 36, therefore the numbers in this column of the table were only partial revenues, so they were added to existing revenues to come up with a total to compare with full build-out scenarios 2 and 3.

Scenarios #2 and #3 indicate full build-out of the study area, including a very large increase in residential space which would result in greatly increased tax revenues. It

12 Phone communication, 2009

Soccardi & Schiff, Inc.

44


EAF Part 3 (10//5/09)

should be noted that in any case, potential build-out of the subject area, would be a .gradualprocess over time, and each site plan would be reviewed by the planning board for conformance to all the regulations. It is noted again that the full implementation of these two scenarios is highly unlikely.

It is anticipated that the school tax revenue in all redevelopment scenarios would offset the costs of potential new students (estimated as anywhere from 4 to 38 students using all I-bedroom units) to the district, especially considering the gradual increase in the school population. The estimated cost figure of $14,500 per new student was used (utilizing the out-of-district tuition rates", with rates for various age groups blended to arrive at an average) 14. Using thesefigures, costs would range from $58,000 to $174,000 for Scenario #1 (from 4 t012 school children) compared to school taxes of $200,347 generated. Costs would range from $145,000 to $551,000 for Scenario #3 (from 10 to 38 school children) compared to school taxes of $599,507 generated. If an equal mix of 1- and 2-bedroom units was used, the number of school children could increase as well. Using the same analysis, in Scenario # 1, more than 14 additional students would be the point where costs would not be completely covered by taxes generated. In Scenarios #2-3, more than 42 additional students would be the point where costs would not be completely covered by taxes generated. It is noted again that the full implementation of Scenarios #2 and #3 is highly unlikely.

iii. Community Services

The South RiversidelHarmon Gateway study area is an established commercial district, with water, sewer, police, fire and waste disposal services available at the present time. The village's infrastructure in this area of the Village is in good condition. Water main was recently replaced and the sanitary sewer is contained in a large main which runs under South Riverside and has ample capacity for expansion".

Potential Impacts

Since no new development is proposed, no direct impacts on community services and facilities will be created by the zoning amendments. Based on the good condition and capacity of the village infrastructure inthis area, some build out with the new zoning amendments is not likely to raise costs for infrastructure or services. In the longer term, new mixed use development permitted with an increase in FAR in this area could bring some incremental leveJ of impact, gradually over a period of time, if

IJ The NYS Department of Education has a calculator in determining each school district's out of district tuition rates. This formula was the only standard calculation formula that the Department was able to point to for use in determining the financial impact of additional students in the absence of knowing the grade distribution, district' class size targets, and special needs of individual students. See also http://www.counsel.nysed.govlDecisions/volume43/dI5026.htmlregarding tuition calculations.

14 Estimated blended figure from school district, p. 34, Harmon Zoning Change Recommendations (HBDC, August 2008)

15 P. 34, Hannon Zoning Change Recommendations (HDBC 8/26/08)

Saccardl & Schiff, Inc.

45


EAF Parl3 (10/15/09)

maximum theoretical build-out were achieved. 1t is noted again that the full implementation of Scenarios #2 and #3 is highly unlikely. In all cases, infrastructure needs will be looked at for individual projects as site plans for those applications are reviewed.

For example, population increase with the three potential development scenarios could range from 7lto 84 people (Scenario #1 =likely level of development) to up to 210 to 251 people (Scenarios #2 and #3-100% build-out) if all parcels in the entire district were redeveloped with mixed use, with the breakdown of residential units (all one-bedroom units) and assumptions described in that theoretical maximum (see Table 10 below, and descriptions of scenarios under Land Use and Zoning).

s rna e opu anon
# units' Multiplier Total population
(people/unit) 2enerated
Scenario # 1: Likely Level of 42 x 1.99 I 84 people
Development x 1.672 71 people
Scenarios #2 and #3 (100% build-out: 126 x 1.99 I 251 people
theoretical maximum x 1.672 210 people Table to

Eli ted P I

Source: Rutgers University, Center for Urban Pohcy Research, Residential Demographic Multipliers (June 2006)

"One-Bedrocm rental apartment units, $500-1,OOO/month 2 One-Bedroom rental apartment units, over $l,OOO/month

If an equal mix of 1- and 2-bedroom units was assumed, population could increase to up to 91 people with Scenario #1 and up to 271 people for Scenario #2-3. However, the likelihood of the theoretical maximum development (Scenarios #2 and #3) being

. achieved is not considered high, and any level of redevelopment is anticipated to be gradual over time, not causing significant impacts to infrastructure.

Saccard; & Schiff, Inc.

46

August 20, 2003

.,.~.

State Environmental Quality Review Positive Declaration

Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Generic EIS.

Determination of Significance

Project Name: Gatewav Overlay District Ordinance

This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617.7 of the implementation regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environrtrellta:l Conservation Law.

The Village of'Croton-on-Hudson, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared.

Name of Action:

Gateway Overlay District Ordinance

SEQR Status:

Type 1

x

Unlisted

Description of Action:

The Village of Croton-on-Hudson is proposing the adoption of a gateway overlay zoning district to establishstandards that upgrade the image and ~ction of gateway areas, strengthen the overall visual id.en~ity of the Village, and improve linkages to adjacent residential neighborhoods. The Village's January 2003 Comprehensive Plan, which was recently approved by the Board of Trustees, identified three gateway areas in the Village, which share the following defining characteristics: .

1. Vehicular entry points in Croton-on-Hudson from Route 9/9A

2. Commercial or office uses oriented toward automobile traffic

3. Opportunities for development

The component is described more fully through the following documents on file with the Village Board of Trustees.

• FuJl EAF Part 1

• January 2003 Village of Croton-on-Hudson Comprehensive Plan

Location:

Croton-on-Hudson's three gateway areas are described below and shown in Figure 1: Gateway Districts.

1

Contact Person:

Richard Herbek, Village Manager

L Hannon / South Riverside, running along Croton Point Avenue between Route 9 and South Riverside Avenue, and along South Riverside Avenue between Croton Point Avenue and Benedict Boulevard, The area is an important link to the train station via Croton Point Avenue and to. the Hannon neighborhood. It also provides a connection to the historic Van Cortlandt Manor to the south.

2. MunlcipQI Place Shopping Area, consisting of lots on the north and south sides of Municipal Place between Route 9 and Maple Street, and the commercially-zoned portion of the block on the east side, of Maple Street. The Municipal Place Shopping Area is an important entrance to the Village from Route 9. It connects to the Upper Village via Maple Street and to the surrounding neighborhoods.

3. North End of the Village along Albany Post Road (9A), consisting of the eight lots between Routes 9 and 9A. and Village boundary and Warren Road. This area marks the entrance to the Village from the north along Routes 9 and 9A.

Reasons Supporting this Determination:

The Village Board of Trustees has determined that the Proposed Action may have a significant effect on the following:

• . SocioeconomicfNeighborhood Character

For further information:

Address:

Kellerhouse Municipal Building One Van Wyck Street Croton-on-Hudson, NY 1052.0

2

Telephone:

(914)-271-4848

14-12-11 (3/99)-9c

SEQR

State Environmental Quality Review

Notice of Completion of Final EIS

Project Number N/A

.....:....:!..:....!.------

Date: 2/23/04

This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaini~g to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law.

AD Draft or 0 Final (check one) Environmental Impact Statement has been completed and

accepted by the Croton-on-Hudson Board of Trustees as lead agency,

for the oro Dosed action described below.

IThe FGEIS was accepted by the Board as complete on Tuesd~y Februa~1}'_ 17th and will be circulated on Monday, February 2,3, I If a Draft EIS:-Comments on the Draft EIS are requested and will be accepted by the

contact person untl! _

Name of Action:

'The adoption as a local law of gateway overlay district regulations

I----,,.---~---- .. ---------.-------------- .. -------.,-- .. _" .. , .. " ... - .'" __ ,


The proposed action designates three areas of the village as gateways, or major entry points into the village, and sets out

regulatiOns and guidelines pertaining to permitted uses, bulk, and design within 1tJe gateway areas. -

Location: (Include street address and the name of the municipality/countY. A location map of appropriate scale is also recommended.)

The locations of the three gateway districts are shown on the attached map. Village of Croton-on-Hudson

Stanley H. Kellerhouse Municipal Building One Van Wyck Street

Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520

.:

SEQR Notice of Completion of Draft I Final EIS

Page 2 of2

Potential Environmental Impacts:

Of the impact categories considered in the DGEIS. the proposed gateway legislation could have impacts on the following areas:

Transportation, Historic, Cultural and Visual Resources, and Socioeconomic and Neighborhood Character.

• Transportation: The proposed gateway overlay regulations will reduce the maximum permitted FAR within the gateway districts. In the long-term, the lower density will reduce the totallraffic generated by Mure development in these areas, and therefore have a beneficial Impact on traffic generation within the gateway areas.

• Historic, CuHural and Visual Resources: The gateway overlay legislation proposes new regulations and design guidelines for the .gateway areas. These lneludeprovielons for density and bulk, landscaping and open space, new Sidewalks, streetscepe improvements, slgnage, lighting and stone walls. Together, the proposed regulations and overfay design guidelines win have a significant beneficial impact on the visual character of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson.

• Socioeconomic and Neighborhood Char:acter. The proposed overlay will have a number of impacts on socioeconomics and nelghl;!orhood character within the gateway areas. By permitting farmers. mar:kets, 9reenmark~l!:i and garden centers as special permit uses, the proposed legislaUon helps ilddress an Identified need In Croton b.ut also ensures that such futore uses are held to

a high standard. Oertain usss will be prohibited, such as fast-food restaurants, commercJal parkfng tots ami automobfle .

dealershfps. While any such exIsll1l9 uses wilj be permUted as prior non-Gonrorming uses, the prohibition will prevent 1M expansion of such exls1lng uses. This restriction may have an economic impact on the uses that are madenoll:COnformlng, but not to the extent thai it changes the eXisting. use of the property or eliminates all economic value. The prohibition of uses will have a correspondingly beneflciallmpact on neighborhood character. The proposed size Ilmifallonl;! (~JOOO square. feet for any single commercial use and 20,000 square feet for any single building) and reduced FAR willlirni1 the potential to develop large-~e reta.it and will encourage developmenlthat ·is consistent with the goals set out In Croton's 2003 Comprehensive Plan: to preserve and enhance the small-scale, historic qualities of the vlllag9. Atlhe same time, the proposed size limitation will still accommodate a wide range ofeomrnercial uses and potential tsnants. The size limitation is consistent with a survey of eXIsting businesses in theg~leway areas as well as of other economieally vllal Westchester towns .such as Mount Kisco. Combined With the proposed design guidelines; the proposed gateway legislal.ion will have beneficial Impacts on both socioeconomics and neighborhood

character wlt.hln the gateway are·as. .

A copy of the Draft I Final EIS may be obtained from:

Contact Person: Richard F. He.rbek Village Manager

IKalierhouse Municipal Buildina. One Van Wvck Street. Croton-on-Hudson. NY 10520 Address'[

~---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Telephone Number: 914-271-4848

A copy of this notice must be sent to: -

Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233~1750

Chief Executive Officer, Town/CityNillage of . ....;.C...::.o.c..;.rt;..;;.;la.;..;.nd.;...t;__ _

Any person who has requested a copy of the Draft I Final EIS

Any other involved agencies

Environmental Notice Bulletin, Room 538,.50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12233-1750

Copies of the DraWFinal EIS must be distributed according to 6NYCRR 617.12(b}.

I

..

_.

'iI'

Village of Croton-on-Hudson

HARMON ZONING AMENDMENTS PARKING STUDY AMENDMENT

October 2009

Prepared by:

iiRalJ

Introduction

In September 2009, draft Part 3 of the Environment Assessment Form (EAF) report for the Village of Croton-on-Hudson's South Riverside/Hermon Gateway Overlay District Proposed Zoning Amendments was prepared based on a draft law that was developed in July 2009. Since then, the Village Board of Trustees has met with the Croton Planning Board and the public to discuss the EAF report and proposed zoning changes. With their input, the Village Board has prepared a revised/amended draft law.

Included in the October 2009 revised/amended draft law are a couple of modifications to the proposed parking requirements. One is that, instead of automatically requiring 2 parking spaces per residential unit for mixed use developments, the law would require 1 parking space per residential unit plus 1 additional parking space for each bedroom in excess of one (e.g., a studio or one-bedroom dwelling would require 1 parking space, while a two-bedroom dwelling would require 2 parking spaces). In addition, no allowance for shared parking is provided in the revised/amended law (i.e., it is no longer proposed that 1 of 2 residential spaces be counted toward commercial parking requirements).

In an effort to determine the impacts of the updated draft law on EAF report, it was assumed that, for each scenario in the original report, the number of residential units would be the same, with half being one-bedroom and half two-bedroom, such that the required number of parking spaces would average 1.5 per dwelling unit. It was also assumed that the average square footage for each dwelling unit (regardless of the number of bedrooms) would remain 1,000 square feet. Therefore, the areas of the residential and commercial components for all scenarios would remain the same as in the original draft EAF.

Trip Generation

Trip generation for the scenarios analyzed in the September 2009 Harmon Zoning Amendments Traffic and Parking Impacts was calculated by dwel1ing unit (not number of bedrooms) for the residential land uses and by square footage for the commercial land uses. Since neither the num bers of proposed dwelling units nor the square footages of the commercial land uses have changed, the numbers of trips that would be generated with the revised/amended zoning law. are the same as those documented in the September 2009 draft EAF report. The highest number of trips would be generated by Scenario #2: The Theoretical Maximum (No Combined Lots) scenario. These would be 220 (123 entering, 97 existing) during the Saturday peak hour.

Parking Generation

Parking generation for the scenarios analyzed in the September 2009 Harmon Zoning Amendments Traffic and Parking Impacts was modified to better reflect prevailing parking conditions in the Village of Croton-on-Hudson. Instead of developing restaurant parking demands based on characteristics for "quality restaurants", they were developed based on characteristics for "high-turnover sit-down restaurants", which require less parking, thereby better reflecting the current zoning codes that have proven to be reasonable for the area. It should be noted that the weekday and Saturday peak parking demands for all land uses were

calculated using the average rates for Mondays through Thursday and the average rates for Saturdays as published in the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Parking Generation manual. The revised maximum numbers of parking spaces needed based on the manual are provided in Table 1.

TABLE 1
Maximum Number ofParkin_gSl!_aces Required by Land Use
Time Residential Retail Restaurant Office
Rezoning Scenario Period (LUC 221) (LUC 820) (LUC932) (LUC 701) TOTAL
Scenario #1 - Likely WKDY 51 10 29 10 100
SAT 52 13 39 0 104
Scenario #2 - Theor Max WKDY 150 28 88 28 294
(No Combined lots) SAT 153 37 118 0 308
Scenario #3 - Theor Max WKDY 152 27 86 27 292
(Some Combined lots) SAT 155 36 114 0 305
Scenario #5 - Ground Floor WKDY 118 58 111 59 346
100% Commercial SAT 120 73 149 0 342 Parking Supply

With the revised/amended draft law, it would be required that there be:

• 1 parking space per residential dwelling unit, plus

• 1 parking space for each bedroom in excess of one,

• 1 parking space per 250 square feet ofretaillcommercial (including restaurants), plus

• 1 parking space pet 4 seats of restaurant, and

• 1 parking space per 300 square feet of office/daycare development.

To develop the basic scenarios in the EAF, it was originally assumed that the breakdown of nonresidential development would be half retail/commercial and half office/daycare, such that the non-residential land uses in the study area would require an average of 1 parking space per 275 square feet and the total parking requirements would be as provided in the October 2009 revision to the draft EAF report - 98, 297, and 291 for Scenarios #1, #2, and #3, respectively, assuming the 50/50 mix of one- and two-bedroom residences and 77, 225, and 224 for the scenarios, respectively, assuming one-bedroom residences only.

To develop more realistic trip and parking generations for the scenarios, as discussed in the September 2009 Harmon Zoning Amendments Traffic and Parking Impacts, however, it was decided to distinguish the commercial land uses by general retail, restaurant, and office space based on the demand for each identified The C-roton-On-Hudson Harmon Commercial District Retail Study. The total parking requirements for Scenarios #1, #2, #3 with this breakdown, as based on the proposed zoning code, are as shown in Table 2 - 115, 349, and 346 spaces, respectively, assuming non-residential development plus the 50/50 mix of one- and two-bedroom residences; 94, 286, and 283 spaces, respectively, assuming non-residential development plus only one-bedroom residences. When compared to the numbers in Table I, the Village code parking requirements for the non-residential uses plus the either the 50/50 mix of one- and two-

TABLE 2
Required Number of Parking Spaces per Village Code
Rezoning Scenario Residential Retail Restaurant Office
Time Period (LUC221) (lUC 820) (LUC931) (LUC 710) TOTAL
Scenario #1 - Likely Ibdm 42 12 29 11 94
1 & 2 bdms ·63 12 29 11 115
Scenario #2 - Theor Max 1bdm 125 42 86 33 286
(No Combined lots) 1 & 2 bdms 188 42 86 33 349
Scenario #3 - Theor Max 1bdm 126 41 84 32 283
(Some Combined Lots) 1 & 2 bdms 189 41 84 32 346
Scenario #S - Ground Floor t bdrn 98 87 109 69 363
100% Commercial 1 & 2 bdms 147 87 109 69 412 bedroom dwelling units and for one-bedroom units only are all within a reasonable 55-space range of the parking needs provided in Table 1. Assuming the non-residential plus 50150 mix of one-and two-bedroom residential development, the Village code requirements would be slightly higher than calculated demand (i.e., there would be a surplus of 15 to 55 spaces). Assuming the non-residential plus only one-bedroom residential development, the Village code requirements would be less than calculated demand (i.e., there would be a deficit of8 to 10 spaces). It should be noted that the Village code parking requirements may result in fewer parking spaces than needed for individual land uses, too (particularly the residential and restaurant for which deficits in parking demand as calculated by the code would be as much as 29 and 40 spaces for the examined scenarios). These variations, with changes in the breakdown of non-residentialand residential development, can also significantly alter parking supply and demand calculations.

Shared Parking

Although no allowance for shared parking is explicitly provided in the revised/amended draft law, an updated analysis was conducted to determine whether proposed parking supply requirements when accounting for shared parking would provide sufficient capacity for potential land uses. Shared parking analyses were conducted for Scenarios #1, #2, #3, and #5 based on the revised/amended draft law parking requirements. As discussed in the September 2009 Harmon Zoning Amendments Traffic and Parking Impacts, Scenario #5 was developed to assess the impacts of more than minimal commercial development in the mixed use buildings. The assumptions for the various scenarios, as detailed in the September 2009 Harmon Zoning Amendments Traffic and Parking Impacts, are provided here for clarity. The average number of seats per square foot of restaurant space was derived from information provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation manual.

Scenario #1: Likely Anticipated Level of Development 42 residential units

3,419 square feet of retail

2,850 square feet/67 seats of restaurant 3,229 square feet of office

Scenario #2: Theoretical Maximum -100% Build Out with No Combined Parcels 125 residential units


8,699 square feetJ204 seats of restaurant 9,859 square feet of office

Scenario #3: Theoretical Maximum - 100% Build Out with Some Combined Parcels 126 residential units



Scenario #5: Ground Floor 100% Commercial Development 98 residential units



As shown in Tables 3 through 10, proposed parking requirements would be sufficient to accommodate the total parking demand for all scenarios on both weekdays and weekends assuming the non-residential plus 50/50 mix of one-bedroom and two-bedroom development (for which the residential requirement averages 1.5 parking space per dwelling unit). However, the proposed parking requirements would not be sufficient to accommodate total parking demand assuming the non-residential plus only one-bedroom development (for which the residential requirement averages only 1 parking space per dwelling unit); during the Saturday midday and evening periods, when the combination of residents who are home and shoppers in the area would be highest, all scenarios would be at or above capacity, with a deficit in parking of 1 to 16

spaces, depending on the scenario. .

Conclusion

Because residential development would comprise approximately 50% of the trip generation for any of the' mixed-use scenarios examined, and because the parking requirement for nonresidential plus only one-bedroom development is consistently lower than the calculated demand, it is recommended that the residential parking requirement in the revised/amended draft law be modified. Instead of requiring 1 parking space per dwelling unit plus one parking space for each bedroom in excess of one (such that the required number of parking spaces for one-bedroom residential unit is I). it is recommended that the code require 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit, regardless of the number of bedrooms. This is a reasonable rate of residential parking demand based on information published in the Parking Generation manual. Since this would be the equivalent of assuming a 50/50 mix of one- and two-bedroom development as based on the proposed code, the results of the recommended change to the code for the various scenarios examined are provided in the "1 & 2 bdms" column in Tables 3 through 10. Depending on the scenario, parking would be at 81 to 90% capacity, resulting in a surplus of 18 to 65 spaces. This surplus would be available to accommodate the potential underestimation of parking demand (especial1y restaurant, as discussed previously) in the area. It could also accommodate increases

in demand that could be achieved with modifications of the breakdown of residential, retail, restaurant, and office development that were examined in Scenarios #1, #2, #3, and #5. Because parking supply and demand vary significantly with changes in various land use breakdowns, it is recommended that a parking study be conducted with any proposed site plan to ensure that the parking provisions provide sufficient capacity.

TABLE 3
Scenario Ill-likely
Weekday Shared Parting AnalV$l:s
lime Residential Commercial Total %:of Available Spaces
of Retail Restaurant Office Parking P repose ~ law
Day % of Parking Spaces %ofParking Spaces % of Parking Spaces % of Parking Spaces Spaces 1& 2 bdms, 1bdm,
Spaces Used Used Spaces Used Used Spaces Used Used Spaces Used Used utilized 115 Spaces 94S1l"ces
12AM 100 59 0 0 0 59 51% 63%
lAM 100 59 0 0 0 55 51% 63"~
lAM 100 59 0 0 0 59 51% 63"Ao
'lAM 100 59 0 0 0 59 51% 63"h
4AM 100 59 0 0 0 59 51% 63%
'SAM 96 57 0 0 0 57 5O'J(p 61%
GAM 92 54 0 24 7 s 1 6 54% 66%
7AM 68 40 5 1 42 13 56 6 6Q 52% 64%
SAM 41 25 18 2 54 16 86 9 52 45% 55%
9AM 34 20 38 4 73 22 97 10 56 49% 60%
lOAM 32 19 53 6 81 24 100 10 59 51% 63%
llAM 31 19 86 9 100 29 98 10 67 58% 71%
12PM 30 18 100 10 100 29 87 9 66 57"A. 70%
lPM 31 19 98 10 100 29 7S 8 66 57% 70%
2PM 33 20 91 10 51 15 84 9 54 47% 57'J6
3PM 37 22 86 9 40 12 81 9 5i 45% 55%
4PM 44 26 81 9 40 12 75 8 5S 48"~ 59"Ai
5PM 59 35 57 6 79 23 43 5 6!i 60% 73%
6PM 69 41 69 7 81 24 18 2 74 64% m
7PM 66 39 82 9 62 18 0 56 5m 7r:t'h
SPM 75 44 70 7 63 19 0 7~ 6.1% 74%
9PM 77 46 42 5 60 18 0 ss 6r:t''(' 73%
10PM 92 54 10 1 46 14 0 69 60% 73%
liPM 94 56 0 42 13 0 69 6r:t'Ao 73% TABLE 4
Scenario 111- Likely
Saturday Shated PirkinllAnalvs!s
lime Residential Commercial Total % of Available Spaces
of Retail Restaurant Office Parking Proposed law
Day %of Parking Spaces % of Parking Spaces %ofParking Spaces % of Parking Spaces Spaces 1 &2 bdms, 1bdm,
Spaces Used Used Spaces Used Used Spaces Used Used Spaces Used Used utilized 115 Spaces 94 Spaces
.l2AM 95 57 0 0 0 57 Srt'A> 61%
lAM 95 57 0 0 0 57 sos 61%
lAM 95 S7 0 0 0 57 50% 61%
3AM 95 57 0 0 0 .'17 Srt'A> 61%
4AM 95 57 0 0 0 57 Srt'A> 61%
SAM 100 60 0 0 0 611 52% 64%
GAM 98 59 0 15 6 0 65 57",(, 69"A>
7AM 94 57 13 2 23 9 0 ~ 59% 72%
SAM 89 54 27 5 39 16 0 75 65% 80'..6
9AM 59 36 61 10 56 22 0 Gil 59% -72%
lOAM 71 43 75 12 100 39 0 94 82% 100""
_llAM 67 41 90 14 100 39 0 94 82% 10rt'),
12PM 66 40 100 15 100 39 0 94 82% 10rt'''
1PM 64 39 99 15 100 39 0 93 81% 99"Ai
2PM 64 39 98 15 53 21 0 75 65% SooA.
3PM 69 42 8!! 14 29 12 0 68 59% 72%
4PM 73 44 68 11 36 15 0 70 61% 74%
5PM 78 47 56 9 42 17 0 73 63"Ai 78%
6PM 80 48 73 11 53 21 0 80 7r:t'Ao 85%
7PM B3 50 52 8 100 39 0 97 84% :tn~;$
8PM 84 51 53 8 42 17 0 76 66% 81%
9PM 87 53 44 7 29 12 0 72 63% 77%
lOPM 89 54 29 5 30 12 0 71 62% 76%
UPM 95 57 0 40 16 0 73 63% 78% TABLES
Scenario #2 - Theoretlcal Maximum (No Combined Lots)
Wee'kday Shared ParkingAn~lvs!s
lime Residential Commercial Total % of Available Spaces
of Retail Restaurant Office parking PrOIl_osed Law
Day % of Parking Spaces %ofParklng Spaces %01 Parking Spaces % of Parking Spaces Spaces 1&2bdms, t bdrn,
Spaces--Used Used Spaces Used Used Spaces Used Used Spaces Used Used Utilized 349 Spa(e's: 286Sp3ce-s
12AM 100 173 0 0 0 173 50",(, 6Q%
1AM 100 173 0 0 0 173 5Oli\ 60"~
2AM 100 173 0 0 0 173 S<l% IiO%
3AM 100 173 0 0 0 173 So% IiO%
<lAM 100 173 0 0 0 173 50",(, 60"-'
SAM 96 166 0 0 0 166 411% 5_8%
6AM 92 159 0 24 22 6 2 IS!! 52",(, -64%
7AM 68 118 5 2 42 37 56 16 j73 SCi% 6O"Ai
SAM 41 71 18 6 54 48 86 25 .150 43% Q%
9AM 34 59 38 11 73 65 97 28 163 47% S7%
,lOAM 32 56 S3 15 81 72 100 28 171 49% ~
llAM 31 54 86 2S 100 88 98 28 195 5.6% 6S%
tiPM 30 52 100 28 100 88 87 2S 193 55% b7%
IPM 31 54 98 28 100 88 75 21 191 5.S% 6~
2PM 33 57 91 26 51 45 84 24 152 44% ,53%
3PM 37' 64 8li 2S 40 36 87 2S 150 43% 52%
4PM 44 76 81 23 40 36 75 21 15€ 4$% 55$
5PM 59 102 57 16 79 70 43 13 201 58% 70",(,
6PM 69 120 69 20 81 72 18 6 21E 62% 76%
7PM 66 114 82 23 62 55 0 192 SS%- Gm
8PM 75 130 70 20 63 56 0 206 59% m
9PM 77 133, 42 12 60 53 0 198 57% 69%
10PM 92 159 10 3 4S 41 0 203 S8% 7:1%
11PM 94 163 0 42 37 0 200 S7% 70"" TABLE 6
5cenarlo#2- Theoretlcal Maximum INa Combined Lots)
Saturday Shared Parklnll. Analysis
lime ReSidential Com:meroal Total % of Available Spacla"
of Retail Restaurant Offloo Parking PrOPC)sed Law
Day % of Parking Spaces % of Parking Spaces %olParking Spaces %ofParking Spaces Spaces 1 &2 bdrns, 1bdm,
Spaces Used Used Spaces Used Used Spaces Used Used spaces Used Used Utlllled 349 Spaces_ 286 Spaces
12AM 95, 168 0 0 0 168 48'14 '59""
lAM ss 168 0 0 0 168 48% 59%
2AM 95 168 0 0 0 168 48% ssm
3AM 9S 168 0 0 0 168 48";$ S9%
4AM 9S 168 0 0 0 168 48"" 59%
S(\M 100 176 0 0 0 176 50% 62%
&AM 98 173 0 15 18 0 191 55% 67"~
'lAM 94 166 13 5 23 28 0 199 S7% 1P'A.
SAM 89 157 21 10 39 47 0 214 61%' 7;5%
gAM 59 104 61 23 56 67 0 194 56% 68%
lOAM 71 125 7S 28 100 118 0 271 18% $%
llAM 67 118 90 34 100 118 0 270 77!Jii 94%
12PM 66 117 100 37 100 118 0 272 78% 95%
IPM 64 113 99 37 100 , 118 0 268 77% 94%
2PM 64 113 98 37 53 63 0 213 61% 74%
31'M 69 122 sa 33 29 35 0 190 54% 66%
4PM 73 129 68 26 3S 43 0 198 57% 69",(,
'51'M iB 138 56 21 42 50 0 209 .W't6 73%
Sf'M 80 141 73 28 53 63 0 232 '6&% 81%
,7PM 83 147 52 20 100 118 0 28S $2% 100',1,
8PM 84 148 S3 20 42 50 0 218 62% 76%
9pM 87 154 44 17 29 3S 0 20E 59':" 72!:6
IOPM 89 157 29 11 30 36 0 204 S8% 71%
lIPM 95 168 0 40 48 0 21E 62"16 76% TABLE 7
Scenario 113 - Theoretlcal Maximum (Some Combined lots)
Weekd'ilV Shared Pa'~lngAnaJysls
Time Residential (ommerd~1 Total % of Av~lJable 5p,ices
of Retail Restaurant Office Parking Prop_osed Law
Day % of Parking Spaces %ofParking Spaces % of Parking Spaces % of Parking Spaces Spaces 1&2 bdms, Ibdm,
Spaces Used Used Spaces Used Used Spaces Used 'Used Spaces Used Used I:ItUl~e,d S<l6Spaces 283 Spares
VAM 100 175 0 0 0 175 Si% 62%
lAM 100 175 0 0 0 175 51% 62"..<\
2AM 100 175 0 0 0 175 51% 62"~
~M 100 175 0 0 0 175 51% 62%
~AM 100 175 0 0 0 175 51% 62%
SliM 96 168 0 0 0 168 49% 59',(,
SAM 92 161 0 2~ 21 6 2 1~ 53% 65%
7AM 68 119 5. 2 42 37 56 16 174 liO% 61%
SAM 41 72 18 5 54 47 86 24 148 43"h 5,2%
9AM 34 60 38 11 73 63 97 27 161 47% S7:%
lOAM 32 56 53 15 81 70 100 27 168 49"..<1 59%
llAM 31 55 86 24 100 86 98 27 192 55% 68%
12PM 30 53 100 27 100 86 87 24 190 55% 67%
IPM 31 55 98 27 100 86 75 21 189 55% b7'J(,
2PM 33 58 91 25 51 44 84 23 15Q 43% 5.3%
3PM 37 65 86 24 40 35 87 24 148 43% 52%
4PM 44 77 81 22 40 35 75 21 155 45% 5~
5PM 59 104 57 16 79 68 43 12 200 S8% 71%
6PM 69 121 69 19 81 70 18 5 215 62% 76%
7PM 66 116 82 23 62 54 0 193 56% 68%
8PM 75 132 70 19 63 55 0 206 ' 60% 73l'&
9PM 77 135 42 12 60 52 0 19!1 58% 7O'l'
lOPM 92 161 10 3 46 40 0 204 59% 72%
11PM 94 165 0 42 37 0 20 58% 71% TABLE 8
- Scenario #3 - Theoretical Maximum (Some Combined lots)
Saturday 5 h ared ParklllC Ana lysiS
Time Residential Coinl11erd~1 Total % of Available Spaces
of Retail Resta.uraot Office Parking IllllpOsetUaw
Day % of Parking Spaces % of Parking Spaces % of Parking Spaces % of parking Spaces Spaces 1&2bdms, Ibdm,
Spices Used Used Spaces Used Used Spaces Used Used Spaces Used Used Utilized 3<l6Spams 283'Spaces
llAM 9S 170 0 0 0 170 49% 6IJ%
lAM 95 170 0 0 0 17C 49% 60%
lAM 9S 170 0 0 0 l7C 49"..(. 60%
lAM 9S 170 0 0 0 17C 49"..6 60""
''!AM 95 170 0 0 0 17C 49% 60%
SAM 100 179 0 0 0 179 52% &3'>6
SAM 9B 175 0 15 18 0 193 56% 68"..<\
7AM 94 168 13 5 23 27 0 200 58% 71%
BAM B9 1S9 21 10 39 45 0 214 62% 76%
gAM S9 106 61 22 56 64 0 192 55% 68%
lOAM 71 127 75 27 100 114 0 268 77"" 95%
11Af)o1 67 120 90 33 1£Xl 114 0 267 TI% 94%
12PM 66 118 100 36 100 114 0 268 77% 95%
IPM 64 115 99 36 lOQ 114 0 265 77% 94%
L.PM 64 115 98 36- S3 61 0 212 61% 75%
3PM 69 123 88 32 29 34 0 189 55% 67""
4PM 73 131 68 25 36 42 0 198 57"A> 7016
5PM 78 140 56 21 42 48 0 209 roO" 74,%
'6PM 80 143 73 27 S3 61 0 231 67"..6 82:%
"PM B3 148 52 19 100 114 0 281 81% 99%
8PM B4 150 S3 20 42 48 0 218 63% 77%
9PM 87 156 44 16 29 34 0 206 60% 73%
!1(lPM 89 159 29 11 30 35 0 205 59% 72%
l'lPM 95 170 0 40 46 0 216 62% 76% TABLE 9
Scenario #S - Ground Floor 100"..6 Commercial
Weekday Shared Parking Analysis
11 me Residential Commercial Total % of Available Spaces
of Retail Restaurant Office Parking Proposed Law
Day %ofParking Spaces %ofParklng Spaces %ofParklng Spaces %ofParking Spaces Spaces 1&2bdms, Ibdm,
Spaces Used Used Spaces Used Used Spaces Used Used Spaces Used Used Utilized 347 Spaces 298 Spaces
12A1'II1 100 136 0 0 0 136 39% 46%
.lAM 100 136 0 0 0 136 39% 46",(,
2AM 100 136 0 0 0 136 39% 46%
3AM 100 136 0 0 0 136 39% 46%
4AM 100 136 0 0 0 136 39% 46%
5AM 96 131 0 0 0 13~ 38% 44%
GAM 92 125 0 24 27 6 4 156 45% 52%
7AM 68 93 5 3 42 47 56 34 IT. 51% S9"Ai
BAM 41 56 18 11 54 60 86 51 178 51% 6O"A,
_ 9AM 34 47 38 23 73 82 97 58 21q 61% 70%
lOAM 32 44 53 31 81 90 100 59 224 65% 75%
1lAM 31 43 86 50 100 111 98 58 262 76% 88%
12PM 30 41 100 58 100 111 87 52 262 76% 88%
IPM 31 43- 98 57 100 111 ~ 45 256 74% 86'}!
2PM 33 45 91 53 51 57 84 50 205 59% 69"16
3PM 37 51 86 50 40 45 et 52 198 57% 66%
4PM 44 60 81 47 40 45 7S 4S 197 57% 66%
5PM 59 Bl 5] 34 79 88 43 26 229 66% 77",1,
GPM 69 94 69 41 81 90 18 11 236 68% 79",1,
7PM 66 90 82 4B 62 69 0 2Q'J 60% 69%
BPM 75 102 70 41 63 70 0 213 61% 71%
9PM 77 105 42 25 60 67 0 197 57% 66%
10PM 92 125 10 6 46 52 0 183 53% 61%
11PM 94 128 0 42 47 0 175 50% 59% -- TABLE 10
Scenario lIS- Ground Floor l00"A, Commerdal
Saturday Shared Parki ng Analysis
TIme Residential Commercial Total % of Available Spaces
of Retail Restaurant Office Parking Proposed Law
Day %ofParklng Spaces %ofParking Spaces %of Parking Spaces % of Parking Spaces Spaces 1&2bdms, Ibdm,
Spaces Used Used Spaces Used Used Spaces Used Used Spaces Used Used Utilized 347 Spaces 298 Spaces
12AM 95 132 0 0 0 132 3B"..Ai 44%
lAM 95 132 0 0 0 132 38% 44%
2AM 95 132 0 0 0 132 3B".-b 44%
3AM 95 132 0 0 0 134 3B"..6 44%
4AM 95 132 0 0 0 132 3B"A, 44%
5AM 100-- 138 0 0 0 138 40% 46%
GAM 9B 136 0 15 23 0 159 46% 53",(,
7AM 94 130 13 10 23 3S 0 175 50% 59%
BAM 89 123 27 20 39 59 0 202 58% 68%
9AM 59 82 61 45 56 _84 0 211 61% 71%
lOAM 71 9B 75 55 100 149 0 302 87"A, 101%
llAM 67 93 90 66 100 149 0 308 89% 103%
l2PM 66 92 100 73 100 149 0 314 9O'J6 105%
IPM 64 89 99 73 100 149 0 31_1 90% 104%
2PM 64 89 98 n 53 79 0 Z4Q 69% 81%
3PM 69 96 88 65 29 44 0 205 5!l"h 69%
4PM 73 101 68 50 36 54 0 205 59",(, 69",6
SPM 78 108 56 41 42 63 0 212 61% 71%
6PM 80 111 73 54 53 79 0 244 70% 82%
7PM 83 115 52 38 100 149 0 302 87",(, 101%
8PM 84 116 53 39 42 63 0 218 63",(, 73%
9PM 87 121 44 33 29 44 0 198 57"..6 66%
lOPM 89 123 29 22 30 4S 0 190 55% 64%
llPM 95 132 0 40 60 0 192 55% 64% Village of Croton-on-Hudson Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan

April 20, 2009

'Prepared by

The Village of Croton-on-Hudson Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning Committee for

Village of Croton-on-Hudson Board of Trustees

Board Members 2006-2009

Board Members 2009-2010

Gregory Schmidt, Mayor

Leo Wiegman, Mayor

Thomas Brennan

Ann Gallelli

Ann Gallelli

Ian Murtaugh

Susan Konig

Demetra Restuccia

Richard Olver

Richard Olver

Charles Kane

leo Wiegman

Village of Croton-on-Hudson Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan 2009 www.crotononhudson-ny.gov

I. Introduction & Mission Statement

The following Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan for the Village of Croton-on-Hudson provides advisory recommendations to improve bicycle and. pedestrian' safety and conditions, and to promote nonmotorized means of travel in the Village of Croton-on-Hudson and its environs. It was developed through outreach conducted in 2006 and 2007 by the Village's Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning Committee (BPe) that identified critical issues and preliminary suggestions for improvements, as well as through input of Village staff, Board of Trustees, and a traffic consultant hired to examine the Village's most trafficked district. An accompanying report with a listing of issues and opportunities has also been prepared.

A Mission Statement for-the BPC was developed at one of several public workshops held to collect concerns and ideas about bicycle safety and promotion and improving conditions for pedestrians using village roadways. The following Mission Statement guides the actions and recommendations of this

Master Plan. .

To maintain and improve the quality of life and safety of those who walk, ride bicycles and rely on non-motorized means of travel in the Village and its immediate environs while preserving the organic network of Village roadways and historic Village sidewalk system, and to promote a long range plan for access improvements for commuters, shoppers, students, and biking enthusiasts, both for the health and welfare of our citizens, workers and visitors, and for the environmental and economic

health of our Village.

II. The Future Vision.

The future vision of the BPC for the Village of Croton-on-Hudson is one where residents and visitors have safe access to our Village's destinations on foot, by bicycle, or by rollerblading. Shopping and service destinations should be accessible by sidewalks, and with adequate bicycle parking facilities available, and should be-safely linked to public transit, including the Croton-Harmon Station. Bicycle facilities should be available for commuters, including both seasoned cyclists and those with less experience or riding skill, and families should be able to use all roads for shared rides. The vision includes a 21st century mindset for travel in the village and region where health, environmental and energy conservation objectives merge. Environmentally friendly and recycled products can increasingly be used for roadway improvements. The vision includes a much higher proportion of residents commuting to the Croton-Harmon station, traveling to school, shopping, and traveling between neighborhoods, and accessing parks using non-motorized means. This vision is summarized in the committee's motto, "greater connectivity through safe access."

III. Master Plan Recommendations

The master plan recommendations include both short term actions such as enforcement and low budget improvements to the Village's roadways to improve pedestrian and bicycling safety, as well as long term measures including capital improvements funded through state and other grants as well as Village


1

funding, and facllitating roadway improvements through the site planning process and through regular events and educational programming, such as Bike Week, which was begun in September 2008. The map on. the following page shows existing and suggested bicycle routes for the Village of Croton-onHudson, with roadway improvements proposed for the Croton Point Avenue and Riverside Avenue corridors, and designation of preferred routes only for other streets where roadway widths and other factors may preclude construction or marking of bicycle facilities.

Critical safety locations identified by area residents in the Master Plan outreach process have been inventoried in an Issues and Opportunities Database (available upon request). The recommendations are described below, organized by the five functional areas addressed in the Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning Committee's outreach meetings. These subject areas include commutation, school access, neighborhood connectivity, recreation, and educational/promotional efforts. .Recommendations represent advisory options for short and long term improvements that can be implemented over the long term, subject to funding availability and further detailed studies in some cases.

A. Commutation

Bicycle and pedestrian issues affecting commuters in the Village of Croton-on-Hudson primarily relate to access to the Croton Harmon Metro-North Railroad Station. Village residents benefit from express train service on Metro-North, although regional transit access also brings regional traffic to our local roadways. As a result, the station area has unique challenges related to pedestrian and bicycle safety that can potentially be addressed through . roadway improvements, enforcement, and local policies related to parking.

One of the hot spots for conflicts between pedestrians and motorists is the southbound Route 9 highway exit ramp, where expanded crossing guard coverage has assured pedestrian safety during certain peak commutation periods. other crossings of South Riverside Avenue at Benedict Avenue and Croton Point Avenue experience heavy traffic that can be intimidating for those accessing shopping at Shop rite Plaza, or the Harmon residential area. Physical improvements implemented by the Village in this corridor have included replacement of bike tire-unfriendly storm grates, installation of pedestrian activated crossing signals, and improved roadway markings. Other solutions raised during BPC outreach meetings included use of variable message signage at the southbound highway ramp to say "Yield to Ped" or some other such message to alert motorists to the fact that this is a heavily used pedestrian route. Improved lighting is recommended, particularly below the_highway overpass but throughout the corridor in general, along with signage promoting sharing of the road with cyclists and pedestrians. The main capital improvement envisioned for this' area as part ofthe master planning process is construction of a multi-use path with dedicated lanes for cyclists and pedestrians for two-way travel, to be constructed on the north side of Croton Point Avenue to avoid conflicts with multiple highway access points on the south side of the avenue. Bicycle lane markings, or newly installed sidewalk, are recommended for the south side of Croton Point Avenue subject to available right-of-way width, and topographic constraints. Sidewalk neck-downs and other design solutions to promote traffic calming are also recommended, along with a traffic speed hump at the entrance to Croton Point Park, a critical station access roadway crossing for pedestrians that is in a location where motorists accessing work sites regularly exceed the posted 2S mile per hour speed limit.

Another key issue for this corridor is pedestrian access to Shop Rite plaza, now provided only by walking down the entrance roadway to this major shopping destination. The possibility of formalizing hillside paths now informally utilized, through openings of the barrier on Croton Point Avenue at certain points and working with property owners to allow workers and shoppers better site access. In the long term,

Village of Croton-on-Hudson BIcycle/PedestrIan Master Plan 2009 www.crotononhudson-ny.gov

2

the site plan approval process may prove to be beneficial in facilitating a reconfiguration of site access, with one-way in/one-way out drives allowing installation of much needed sidewalks within this privately owned site.

A 2008 consultant study led by The RBA Group confirmed the recommendations described above and used traffic simulation and modeling to project future conditions with and without major improvements. New traffic signals at the highway access points on Croton Point Avenue are also recommended in the RBA Group plan, Focusing bicycle access on the north side of Croton Point Avenue would address several levels of cycling proficiency and optimizes use of limited existing right-of-way width. In addition, changes to the Route 9A northbound cloverleaf entrance ramp are proposed to make this highway entrance at its intersection with Croton Point Avenue more of a right turn, to limit the possibility of vehicular-pedestrian conflicts there. (See Figure 1, Croton Point Avenue/South Riverside Avenue Conceptual Plan, at the end of this plan report.) ,

The outcome of a 2008 state grant application will determine the extent of improvements that can be implemented around the Harmon Station without primarily relying on Village 'funding. Should state grant monies not be available, a staged approach to implementing the improvement program for Croton Point Avenue should be considered, starting with low budget measures such as improved crosswalk markings and raised pavement traffic calming improvements, Variable Message Sign warnings, increased enforcement, lighting improvements, and signed and marked bicycle lanes. In the long term, roadway reconstruction is recommended to create the two-way, multi-use path on the north side of Croton Point Avenue and potential sidewalk on the south side ofthe roadway. Traffic lights and sidewalk neckdowns that restrict motorist movements around key pedestrian crossings should also be implemented as part of long term capital improvements, relying on a mix of state or federal grants and local funding. The possibility of creating a highway exit that extends directly into the station parking lot is something that can considered as a long term strategy should federal funding be available, though spacing between the existing and new ramps would require engineering studies and capital intensive improvements.

To improve crosswalk safety, particularly in the AM commuting period at the southbound Route 9 exit ramp, recommended options include increased enforcement (possibly with posting of police cars periodically from 7:10 to 7:40 similar to use of posted police vehicles at the upper station parking lot) and the previously mentioned use of a variable message sign at the exit ramp with the words "Yield To Ped."

Lastly, at a policy level, the Village can consider promoting cycling and walking to the train station with an incentive program called "Bike Checks." Under such a program, cyclists could get vouchers for vehicle parking during weekends or days of inclement weather, based on the number of times they cycle to the station.

Recommended pedestrian amenities should also focus on improving the environment for transit users in this corridor. One specific need is for a bus shelter to serve Westchester County Bee-Line buses at the intersection of Croton Point Avenue and South Riverside Avenue, where a bus stop currently exists with no provisions for shelter or seating. Although specific location or design solution is not proposed at this time due to right-of-way width constraints at this location that limit options for where a new bus shelter can be installed, in the long term the Village should work with the County's Bee-Line bus system and local property owners to achieve a solution to this issue.

Longer term solutions for improving safe access and connectivity to the Harmon Station include potential construction of a new path alongside Route 9A just north of Croton Point Avenue could also be explored as a different way of connecting Municipal Place or the Harmon neighborhood to the station area. Another potential long term project involving major capital costs that could be explored with New

Village of Croton-on-Hudson BicyCle/Pedestrian Master Plan 2009 www.crotononhudson-ny.gov

3

York State Department of Transportation would be a direct highway ramp to the station that would remove this area's major conflict points between pedestrians and regional traffic accessing the station. A lack of compliance by some motorists with stop signs (e.g., at the Route 9 southbound exit ramps), illegal parking, and speeding are problems that need to be addressed through immediate and mid-term actions over the next three-to-five years, as well as potential long terms measures that might have longer implementation timeframes such as a new highway exit ramp or multi-use path alongside the highway that would extend the "Crossining" path that now connects to Ossining over the Croton River.

6. Explore pedestrian improvements for transit users in this corridor, such as bus shelters, and

other methods of facilitating intermodal transit. .

Summary: Commutation Recommendations

1. Address safety issues at southbound Route 9 highway exit ramp on Croton Point Avenue.

2. Address safety issues for pedestrian access to the ShopRite Plaza at Croton Point Avenue and South Riverside Drive.

3. Provide east- and west-bound bicycle access with a multi-use path on the north side of Croton Point Avenue and redesign the northbound Route 9 cloverleaf entrance ramp.

4. Consider a staged approach to implementing the improvement program for Croton Point Avenue starting with low budget measures such as improved crosswalk markings, raised pavement traffic calming improvements, or enhanced rush hour enforcement.

5. Explore a "Bike Checks" incentive program, in which bicycle commuters earn points toward a vehicle parking pass for use in inclement weather or on weekends.

7. Examine longer term solutions for a reflowing the vehicle traffic access from Route 9 and 9A to the train station such as a new highway exit ramp or multi-use path alongside the highway that would extend the "Crossining" bike/ped path further north from Croton Point Avenue up to Elliott Way.

B. School Access

One of the goals of the BPC is to help create safer routes for school children. By implementing traffic calming and physical improvements, and undertaking educational and enforcement programs, the Village can encourage its households and their children to bike and walk to school safely. Along with benefits related to the health of students and environmental benefits from removing cars from the roads during rush hour periods, this could also have significant benefits related to reduced traffic in the vicinity of schools, since many parents drop-off their children by car. Generally, children in 4th grade and higher should be able to ride to school (the minimum age for "walkers") but should be required to take a safety course with the Police Department first. Safe routes to school and helmet use should also be promoted.


4

I

lVS "IVllddV ... <IN

til o ~ - ---;:)-~

9 .isoo 0

lN3W '€!'

ii: '3:lVld311 I')

~ lSO:> ~ \

o liNn I"~

~ ~----~-~~~---r--+-~

w u u

~ ~----+--+--+-~--'_--I

til I;z W ::s ::s o u

'0'311'0'

u. o

3~'o'

~ ~-----+--~--+-~~-+--~ <t

II)

~ ~-----+--~--+-~~-+--~

0.. 0.. <t

Zo ~----~~n+--4---r--+--;

lV3H "

<t 0

~ ~-s-'-'-V-M+-4r~--+-~r--+--~ o

u ~----+-~~--+-~--~-1

I- ~OOIl ~

f5 ~

Uffi ~-----+--e:~1r--+---r--+--~ 1I00'~

.<t

fu ~-N-O-II-V-Q+I~--~--+-~r--+--~

II: 'Nno~ I ~

~ ~--~~~~~~--+-~r--+---I

~ tn ~ b

c.. ~ ii: tii

u :z:

til '"

w :It

C ;:;

'llS1d

lH~11

ci :z:

:r .. ..

'" "

'ON 55Vl:!

!t ,~

o Z

;z; ,

I

'lN301 '~Q1B

J" "

t'j

z w u

l!l

~ o til III o

Q Z <

Z o

~ ld

II: 0.. III C

..J ,.....

;: "" II)

e ~ ~

"" t=

-!:-!;;+, -~-41 --+ ~

ZO t'i 0

=-u "' ~-+~~~~r--r-4--+--+--t--r~--'_-+--+-~--1

<

II)

z

o

t= r--+--+-~g~~~--+--+--~~~~4-~--+-~--1 -e

;z: o

§

::> u ~ < u

w ::> ~ ~ :>

t!> ;z

§

:::l III

Iii

o u

... z UI :o!

'" U

j

IL

~

,.. ... 0 tz

'" ..

.. ..

o o

~

l'-' ,.J

II)

o CJ

... .

... .

U1 ,_

Z

'" :Ii

'"

1)

'" e,

:Ii

...I <I:

Io I-

til I-

, ~ .;

c w

t;

w e, til %

Iii

o o

.'

LlJ a,

>I-

" ill 1--+---1-I--I--I---l ~ ~

?J!. ~

'ii

"

" "

~·1

t5 ...

"

31_-1--+---1

I

~ ~

t I-+-+--I

D.

~

!;j zl---+-4--I-+--~-+-4--~~

II> .,

J j

,:

z,

O'!, ~.~

,,~

~1

.. .. = u

;;

-

o w ;z:

S

o UJ IU I1J e,

Ul ;z:

o r_J

, N -Q o

+

..... a o

f..o

M o

o o

I"

-I'J N

~~d

___ I

Ii;

o u

Ul I-

\.J

UJ o,

>I-

-

OJ .... ;z:

1\ ~

I, .. R

II

... .

o U'\ ...-4

...

N

... .

LI'I ...... ...-4

... tI'\

>- 1---+--r-+-4-~~

!i:: ~

w ;511 0.. go g ::;;E-<

p.

~ r--+--~+-4-~~ ::t:

l-

e.!)

Z

z

:5 I--I--+-+-I--I---+l u z o u

"

1i

Q

..;

,.'\

, H-,·IH+-.I-I~I--1.-I-~"'-+- t-I-' -I- -f-.:, 'r+- -H-+-+- J. 1_- t- - -1-1- ---I-

'-HH--H-- H--I-H'-I-4-+-I-i~'

u, o

~ r- -4 __ ~ __ 4---~--i----i

« III

~ ~ r------4--~--~--~~---

c, o, « o r------+--~--+---~~--~ :z: «

1.,,3H

,."S -IVlfddV J.3N

39V

--I-

r.. -,

'ON S5.,,':>

'lN301 '!'lOla

'901d

J.H911

snVM

I:a ILl Z o N

o

.~

Q ILl

t;

ILl II. III Z

o I 01.

I

"'I

c -0 I

01

I

'·0 ~ '·0

01 biN

I ..... 10

1""1'

or- I

...... 0-10 1'-1 .....

o I

I

P'l I 0 010 N I

N I No- 11"\ I ..... 11"110

I

IZ ..

>- :a 0:: In c( :> :s -.

~ ~

III

Q 1---4l1 --I--H Z

c(

o '" CTI

... o

""

I:a Z

:5

ILl

!3 c(

> ...J

g

~

21'

o o .:t

"' 11"\

t-+-I-f-I--I-I'-I""'

, I',

!-

VI I-;z:

UJ :E ;:;;; o u

:z: o

~

...J :::l U ...J ..:

U

Lo.l :::l ...J < >

o z

''1'5 '.) -ilflIddV l~ .L3N I ~

%

-ONO:! ;J ON '<:..,

J.SO:! '~' J.INn r,\

3!lV

'!)81d

'"

t:

'" "

'ON SSV1:J

'lN301 '!l018

ii

,1

VI

~'~-----+---r--+--i---t--,

~

:::l Ol

~----+-~~~~~~,

~

o til til UJ U U ..:

u, o

...J ~----~--+--4~-r--+--; ..:

VI

..:

0::

0. 0. <

c ~----~--+--4--~--+-~ :z:

<

I-- ~----~'--~--+--4---+--~

VI o

u ~----~--~~--1-~--~

I-z UJ

:E ~-----+--+-~--~--~-1 UJ

u

S ~----~---r--+---r--t---I

0.

UJ 0::

~ ~--~x~---r--+---r--t--~ o ~

i= fI) :!:

0. 5 n: iii u z

VI '"

UJ ~

C 0

lSO;) lN3W -3Jltld31l

V31lV

lH!l11

lV3H

S11VM

;lOOH

1l001J

NOI!Va -NnOJ

VI ;z: o

t

UJ 0. VI Z

'r

" Of

01

t

~ I.

-o I OI_

I

~:51

011' '0 10

o

;.:.,

.~.

"'

.

"' .

II) II.l ~ ..J ..:: ;>

Q Z

:i

..J

~

....

C I1J ...

~

Il. III Z

Iii

o u

= ...

e, III

" ...

... z o

'" ...

T

;

!E

III

~ ~ ..:: ~ ~ Cl

1-4---~/~~~--~~---11 ~ <

II)

o I---tl-----I-=-- -Ii z

..::

Il.

X

II) a:

I1J z

:;: o

i ,r

_j

. .

. ~,

o z

::5

1-1--

III III Z

o -'

II) :5 III III Z

o It!

:::! 0 ~ Z

III j

I1J II.l

::l ::l ..J _,

:;:: :;::

_, ..J

;: g

~ ...

i-'

Lj- _"".

i-

H-f-I-IH-+-t-I-I--1--

"~"-i i

z

2

ln..

n:: o VI LLI o

o

... -e .... o I-

z o

§

::l

:l

c:( U

LLI ::l _,

c:( >

<.!l

"Z

s

_,

s

Dl

VI Z o

t3

--+--1--4' ::l

o LLI o

~-+-+--1 ~r--r~r--r~r--r~~'__'-+-_'-+--4 c:(

Vl

z

a

E

I---+--+-~ gr--r--t--+--+--t--r_'--+--+--+-~--I

c:(

::

-< ..

.. "' o

o

... z ur ::& ... U

j

.. ... 0:

...

s

o ..

.. z ...

• ..

u

j ::;

..

::a, ... 0 !:z

(J) IZ LLI

== == a

o

_,

« !!!

. «

a::

n.. 0.. «

o z c:(

IUl a o

IZ w

a ~----~--+-~---r--i--; o c:(

~ ~-N-O-I!-V-a~,~~--+--r-;---i

a:: -xnos '"'"l

~ ~--~~~~~--;---r--i--~

z ;:

a ..

t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

u z ...

VI '" "

W ::&

o C

..

i

ci z

III <.!l Z

§

::> rn

>a:: a

"VI

Ul W U U c:(

u, a

lVS 'oJ 'IVllcldV ""~ .L3N ~

% "aNO:! .L3N

J.SO:l J.N3111 '3::1Vld3~

J.50J J.INrl

V311V

39V

"981d

1H911

!V3H

SllVM

.:IOOll

IlOOl~

Y-

"ON

SSV1::1

"!N3CI "9018

Ul Z o i: u w n.. til Z

LI.. a

"I) W I-c o

I I

'"

u

a' 0,

,

~I

"-' CJI

~

o a

o o

l('\ o o

o q

~

w o

-

~

UJ >

-

~

...

...

o z

j

'" ...

Z LU :e

'" >

o

'" e,

:Ii

til t!)

Z

o

..J

::J al

III ::J ..J ..: ::-

..J ..:

b

...

Q III

t

LLI 0. til Z

Iii

o u

til ...

::;; a:

LJJ 0.

III 0.. >...

(J ~

rei >~

"

.,; .e

I

Z

~ ~_~ __ ~~ __ I--~ 0

;::

s :::i <C I-

~----+--+--~_r~--~I ~ U

I-

is ~ ~

<c II>

::;; ::

~ .~

til

Q ~--II----+----II z

<c

:I:

I"... Q

os

I-

z:

o

'"

...

co ..

1---1---1---1.-"- ~ j ]

Ul 1- Z W ::s ::s o o

lYS -JVllddY .l3N

% 'ONO:> ~3N

--

'ON SSV1:J

'.LN301 -sma

-I---

Ul ~ ~-----4--~---r---r--;--§ J.50:> ~

::l J.N3W ......

III '3:>1Ild311 ,,~

~ 150:11 ~~\

o L1NA .

~ ~-----+--~--+-~~-i--~

~ Y31111~·

.< ~ ~_'"1~ __ ;- __ r--t--~

u, o

~ ~-----4-r>--~~~~---r--~--i

!!! ':>ald~:;:; ~

~ ~~~--~~~~~~.~--~--'_--1

g: 1H!l11 -~J

< ~ ~~

o ~----~~~ ~~~--~--7-~

Z lV3H 1- \\

<

tii 51111"" -~t;,~

8 ~-----4--~~-~j~---r--;---i

f- '

iii ~OOll'~ ~~

a ~-----+~+-~~~--;---; u -«

~ ~-N-O-ll-V-04--;~-·~-4---r--;---i

0:: -NROJ .\.~;.

3:>11

1I001J

Ul Z o

t

w a. Ul

s

o

IJ.. o

z o

~

.... ;::J

~

-e o

w ;::J ....

1« :>-

t.!l z

C

==

::l

II:!

OJ '" <

co .Jt

u. o

~

< :e :e ;::J Ul

~

I

o

III I-

o UI

t;

UI 11. III :z:

~.

fi.,

Iii

o u

UI 11. >I-

'\ ... ~

I"J

,

:

>-

§ ~] ~ ~~

11.

~ ~-4--1--4--r-+~1 :J:

I-

(!J :z: :z:

ffi L__J--~4--r~--t u

z

o

u

\'\1 I\) z

~ ~ ~ L--I---I-+-f--t--t

::;:

It:

e

Z

01 01

I 1"1 I N I 01

I

N: g [:

g : '0 t.

1 0 ~

lOp

1"1, f·

: i g '.

1'-1 ..... 01

, l'

M 'g.. ,

~i ~~r

..

\ ,

r:<:

....... '

c z

:5

11. :J:

III It: w Z ~ o

:.: .. DId C

...

..

:z:

o

II:

u,

LU :l ..J

:;

..J -c Io I-

u

z

1-"-I---J~+-+-t4 J j '#. ?fl.

In

~ ~-----+--.~~~-+--'_--1

§ J.SOO

~ -30'0!;~~~

ci Z

'YS -JYllddY J.3N

% 'ONOO UN

_·,I-t-f--I++-+-+--iH

.,
~"
~
i-.
' ..
..l"
,Q'
II)
I-
Z \l::
LtJ '"
::;: \4
::;:
0 \
u
" ';f
q
'e ,~
'\:> q:
:t
<2.. r.~
,.
..... ~
\;
~
~
1.,9 ,
"'
~
:!.
~
~
(
'b.
t
'"
'1
~
)
~ H
~ , ..
o ..
Z~
.;; .S
.J:l ..
",p, ..
~Vl a
0
~g a
'"
..:
p.
o t
o
<16
0'
~, ci
z
"
'" tp
tl.!l .,
p.. <: ~
., 0
.,""
~- Ul
ij"g 0
~8
filJ:j ~
f~ ::;
Il:
::;; ~
~
a ~
Ul ~ J.SOO

o J.INn

~ ~-----~---~~---r--+---I

LtJ U U ~ ~-----~--+-~~-r--i--i u,

·0

J ~-----+--+-~---r--t--i -c In

~ ~-----+--+-~---r--t--i

a. a. «

c ~----~--+--i---r--t-_, z «

I- ~----~--+---~---r--t--; VI o

u ~----~--f--f---r--t-_, Iz LtJ

~ ~-----+--+-~---r--+--i u

:J~--I--+-r--+--+--i

a. LtJ a::

~ ~--~-+--+-~---r---r--i z o j::

a.

ii:

U VI LtJ C

'0'311'0'

3!lY

'!lS'd

J.H!l1l

J.V3H

S'WM

"0011

11001"

:r

~

"' :c

'ON 55Vl:l

·J.N301 ~ '!la18 .......

'4) ~
~ '-\-
<,
.~ 'vi
~ r')
1:..
z
0
j::
«
..J
::l
U
..J
«
U
w
::l
J
«
>
t.!l
Z
c
::!
::l
m \:'
II) <.l.
Z. \- 'ot
0 ~
j::
U
LtJ
a.
VI \..
z
-
u..
0 \

,

(j

o

..

\

'\

', . .

. '

. .

"

'l

-.

:1 : 0

1\ N, 0

_- a I QllA 10 -_.1 10

; I .... 1 I

I 1 .- I

:"1 10 - I 0-, a

1'-1..':.1 0 I

I trllQ i ... 0 10

". ~.

f" I

r," N I t"I 1Il1..-

1.;1 11'\: 0

" ~ i

~ ~~ I ""."

' ..

ell

..

ell

..

ell

..

__

E

It: ... UI

II

z o

~

9

~

o U·

ell

..

III

~

C

ell

..

III ~ t: .~ ~

.~ bI' II.

"""

1'aJ

I _

I

i i

..

!

a z

j

01 01

I >0,

NI '

0.1 ~

,~ o o

'0 r;,.. 0

1'-. ~

U

I"l 0 O. 0 f'J'

N N

IfI ....

tI'\ 0

I

~

o 1&1

t

1&1

!li

z.

o o o

,-I;;

o I.)

"

c z

:s

IF) I!) Z C ::!

IF) J I!) m Z

C <!S -' 0 :; Z

In :s

bJ 1&1 J J -' -'

~ ~

" r -

.. ..

i 1--1-+--1

1 fl

Cl

t 1-+-+---1

!

-1-"-1---11--+-+--+-1 J j *- ~

.... N o

I

I-

1-:

I.

r

I.

....

~1--+--I--+-+-+-'r-t--I--t-1

f

I i

1'16 -1'IlIdd'l .1.3"

-+-H--H-H-:--++++-I-i

III Z o i=.

u 1>1 0.. III Z

-H--Il--H~,...j-.J-+-

III IZ III ::E ::E o U

Village

Planning Board

Stanley H. Kellerhouse Municipal Building One Van Wyck Street

Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520-2501 .

Chairman

CHRIS KEHOE

Members

MARK AARONS FRANCES ALLEN VINCENT ANDREWS ROBERT LUNTZ

Attorney

JAMES STA UDT

Vii/age Engineer

DANIEL O·CONNOR. P.E.

Secretary

SYLVIA MILLS

MEMORANDUM

TO:

Mayor Wiegman Village Trustees

FROM:

Chris Kehoe

Planning Board Chairman

DATE:

October 28. 2009

RE:

Harmon Rezoning

The Planning Board discussed the proposed' Harmon Rezoning at our meeting on October 13. 2009. We had a full Planning Board and Village Attorney James Staudt was also present. We reviewed the new draft local law that incorporated. I believe, eight changes that were discussed by the Village Board at a work session on September 24. 2009. We also discussed the draft revised EAF prepared by Saccardi & Schiff. The majority of the members of the Planning Board support the proposed rezoning however there were several issues that came up during our discussion that the Board wishes to bring to the Village Board's attention:

• The revised EAF now shows 49 parcels in the proposed Harmon Gateway and includes parcels on Clinton & Wayne as well as parcels on Croton Point Avenue. The original EAF included 36 parcels. There was confusion why these additional parcels were not analyzed in the first EAF.

• It was not clear to the Board how the Annual Total: School Tax Revenue as show_n in Table 9 (Tax Estimates) for Scenario #1 was calculated and how it relates to the existing condition. i.e. should it be added to the existing condition total?

• The Board wanted more clarity with respect to whether the proposed Return on Investments (ROI's) took into account the impact of future increased

assessments of the revitalized parcels. (

• There are still concerns about how the parking is calculated specifically with respect to the new proposed calculation of 1 parking space per bedroom which is a reduction from the existing code which requires 2 parking spaces per unit and whether the proposed parking number is sufficient.

• The majority of Board members questioned the concept of permitting 50% of the first floor of buildings for residential development and felt that the addition of the .third floor was a sufficient incentive to encourage commercial revitalization;

• The Board also revisited the concept of the "one developer" scenario where buildings on the east side of Riverside would possibly be rebuilt as part of one development proposal with parking in back. The Board discussed reciprocal

Tel: 914-271-4783

www.crotononhudson-ny,gov

1 Fax: 914-271-3790

access eosernents and wanted to ensure thor a provision Gould bernooe waiving certain requirements such as perimeter parking ,lot landscaping fa ni, the combined rear parking possible. In cdditlon. the Boord would like to exp' other creative solutions or tools that could be used tosteerlndivlduol develer ofsuch porcels to develop the parcels in a way' that would move taw are "one developer" result. Tax incentives and. rental arrangements: for the ber Of the Village were discussed OS a way to em::ourag,e a "municipal lot" cone behind the east side parcels on Riverside Drive.

CKJsmm

Tel: 914~271-4783

www.crotononhudson-ny.gov

Fax: 914~271~:

Web-Based Email:: Print

http://emaiJ.secureserver.netlview_print_nrulti.pbp?uidArray=64S21···

Print I Close Window

Subject Re: Public Hearing Comments

From: "Leo Wiegman" <lwJegman@crotononhudson-ny.gov> Date: Wed, Nov 04, 20095:01 pm

To: rs@rschuylertaw.com

Dear Ms Schuyler, Thank you for these written comments and appendices. We will review them carefully.

Leo A W. Wiegman, mayor Croton-<>n-Hudson, New York www.crotononhudson-nv.gov Iwiegman@Crotononhudson-ny.gov

-.---- ... , "~---------

Copyright © 2003-2010. All rights reserved.

lofl

2/5/20101:26 PM

Web-Based Email :: Print

hUp:l/email.secureserver.netlview _print _ multi.php?uidArray= ) 5961 ....

Print I Close Window

Subject Public Hearing Comments From: rs@rschuyleriaw.com Date: Wed, Nov 04, 20094:44 pm

To: Iwlegman@crotononhudson-ny.goy

r---------..-----~_,-.----

--------_ .. _. __ ._ ...• _-------,

Mr. Mayor:

As I stated I would do on Monday evening, I have attached the comments I prepared for the public hearing. I did not actually deliver the comments contained in the first section of my written comments. The appendices are for the board's reference. Thank you for your attentiveness to me and the other speakers.

Regards,

Roseann Schuyler

Copyright © 2003-2010. All rights reserved,

] of]

2/5/2010 1:26 PM

INTRopualON

My name is Roseann Schuyler; I live at 41 Olcott Avenue.

I came to know about the zoning amendments proposed in the local law we're discussing tonight about a year ago, when I was appointed to the Village's Zoning Board of Appeals, and it became my obligation to become informed regarding zoning issues in the Village.

However, before I get into the substance of my remarks tonight, I would like to make it clear that I am not speaking as a member of the Zoning Board, but rather in my capacity as a private citizen - a Croton resident, a taxpayer and an attorney, licensed to practice in the State of New York.

BRIEF OVERVIEW

If I were to summarize my impressions regarding this proposed law and the process that has been followed to get to this point, I would be compelled to say that there are inadequacies in the substantive analysis of this proposed law that not only render it inadvisable as a matter of public policy, but also that it is the result of procedural inadequacies that render the Board's actions in conducting its review unlawful, and which, if this law is approved, will undoubtedly leave the Village vulnerable to legal challenge and, as a result, incur costs unaccounted for in any of the cost/benefit analyses underlying this plan - costs which will inevitably be borne by the current taxpayers of this village.

SUBSTANTIVE INADEQUACIES OF THE PLAN

As an initial matter, and as an example of one of several inadequacies in this proposal, the Board's inadequate school tax calculation must be addressed. I would first note that the Board's analysis of the potential impact on the schools in its EAF states, on page 43, that it

assumes development of one bedroom apartments, which it states, "are the most likely to occur in this area." The Board's assumption of one bedroom apartments apparently justifies its use of a "Residential Demographic Multiplier" of 0.08 to 0.3 children to residential unit yielding its conclusion that the most likely new development will bring between 4 and 12 additional schoolchildren to the area. I would also note that this assumption stands in rather stark contrast to the assumption made by the Board in its parking analysis, which assumes a 50/50 build out of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments. If the same 50/50 build out applicable to the parking analysis was applied to the school tax analysis, the use of the same Residential Demographic Multiplier indicates that between 7 and 18 students would be brought to the area through such development. The EAF also states that under the most likely scenario, more than 14 new students would mean a net tax loss for the Village. So, simply by changing the assumptions used, in order to eliminate the EAF's internal inconsistency regarding its school tax and parking analyses, it is easily demonstrated that the potential impact on school taxes could very likely present a net tax increase to Village taxpayers.

The problems with the school tax analysis don't end there, however. The Board's EAF states, on page 44, that development of the most likely scenario resulting from these code amendments would yield approximately $200,327 in annual school tax revenue. This projected school tax revenue would support the addition of up to 13 additional students, using the Board's own estimate of S 14,500 as a per-pupil cost. The EAF uses as a local point of comparison the number of students in Bari Manor, another large rental development - though I would note that Bari Manor is not an example of mixed-use development. The EAF states that there are 25 students in the 82 apartments in Bari Manor, leading to a student to dwelling unit ratio of 0.3, which is equal to the upper end of the Board's own generic

2

Residential Demographic Multiplier. So, on this basis, using this local ratio, it should be expected that 13 students will live in the 42 new apartments generated in this "most likely scenario." If the Board's analysis is accurate, that would mean that the addition of 13 new students is just barely covered by the total tax revenues generated by these nine properties. But the Board's numbers are not accurate. The $200,327 amount is the wrong number - since the nine properties currently generate school tax revenue, it is not the $200 thousand dollar number, but only the net increase over current collected revenues that have to support the entire increase in schoolchildren living in the area. My own analysis, which is based on the numbers provided by Saccardi & Schiff, the Village's consultant on this proposal, and which is footnoted in my written comments, a copy of which I will leave for the Board, indicate that anything over nine students will result in a net tax increase for Village taxpayers.'

If I were given unlimited time here tonight, I could address the other substantive flaws in this proposal. However, I am sure other speakers will cover many of them, so the topic I'd like to address here tonight is the procedural deficiencies of the Board's analysis of this plan, and the grounds on which it is likely that a citizen of Croton could base legal challenges to this proposal - legal challenges that in my opinion, the Village is likely to lose.

PROCEDURAL FLAWS WITH THE PROPOSAL

There are several bases on which a legal challenge may be brought against the Board's review of this proposal under SEQRA and other laws. I'll address these in turn, with specific references to the Board's own documents.

In the Board's EAF Part I analysis, section A, question 5 asks whether the project is "substantially contiguous to, or contains a building, site or district listed on the State or the 1 See the attached Exhibit A.

3

National Registers of Historic Places." The Board's answer is "no", and the Board explained, "None on site or contiguous, but Van Cortlandt Manor, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is located to the southeast." I would first note that by answering no to this question, the Board avoided the legal requirement to conduct a much more detailed and rigorous analysis of potential environmental impacts. Second, the term, "substantially contiguous to" has been interpreted both administratively and judicially as meaning "near, or in proximity to," and not, as the Board has interpreted it, "on site or contiguous." In other words, the Board's answer to this question is just wrong.

A second basis for a legal challenge to this proposed law rests on the Board's eleventh hour addition of 13 parcels to the affected area, which was done without any additional environmental assessment. With respect to the new parcels, located along Croton Point Avenue and Wayne Street, there has been no review or analysis of potential environmental impacts, and thus, the Board's review is facially deficient, and a fairly striking example of the Board's failure to observe SEQRA's core principles. SEQRA's core principles include knowledgeable decision making on the part of the lead agency. As the court stated in The Matter of Nash Metalware v. Council of New YorR, the core principle involved in SEQRA analysis is "that an agency making a decision where there are possible material environmental impacts, does so with full knowledge of such possibilities, and when exercising its discretion in doing so, takes responsibility for such action." Simply stated, without any further analysis, the Board can have absolutely no idea what possible material environmental impacts may occur. How can the Board possibly claim it has acted responsibly? I would further note that

22006 NY Slip Op 52485U.

4

the Board obtained the approval of the Westchester County Planning Board to the original proposal regarding the zoning amendments, which did not include the Wayne Street and Croton Point Avenue parcels, but not to the final proposal, which affects 33% more parcels and contains new provisions. As such, the Village has not met its obligations under General MuniCipal Law section 239(m).3

A third basis for a legal challenge to the proposed law is that the Board has undertaken an unlawful segmentation of the environmental review of this proposal. In the EAF Part I, section B, question 1, the Board states (and repeats this statement at other places in the EAF, in words to the same effect), that Hit is noted that the proposed action is a zoning amendment, not a construction project; therefore, many responses are not applicable." The environmental assessment that the Village has conducted based on that statement is improper and unlawfully segmented, because, and this is what segmentation means, where the development that will follow or is dependent upon such a zoning amendment is not so speculative as to make it impossible to assess the potential environmental impacts, the impacts of that development must be considered. In this case, the development that will result from this proposal cannot be so speculative, since the Board readily identifies what it calls a "most likely scenario" of development of nine parcels in the project area in the EAF Part III. Yet, because the Board has chosen to define its project as mere code amendments, it stated in its EAF Part II that this proposed action will have absolutely no environmental impact on land, including the question of whether it will result in a physical change to the project site. The Board's analysis also declares that there will be absolutely no environmental impact

3 Matter of Lamar Adv. of Penn LLe v. ViII. of Marathon, 2005 NY Slip Op 961 s. ~ tl U

5

on surface or groundwater quality or quantity; no impact on drainage flow or surface water

runoff; no impact on air quality, no impact on historic resources, no impact from

objectionable odors, noise or vibration, and no impact on public health - though I would note

that several of the parcels included in the Board's "most likely scenario" have for years hosted

automobile related uses. I would be interested in knowing exactly what evidence the Board

has in its possession such that they are justified in answering no to questions related to

whether the proposed action could cause a risk of the release or the burial of hazardous

substances, as is asked in Part II, question 18. The very first hazardous substance listed in that

section is oil.

Also of particular note is the Board's answer to Question 11 in the EAF Part II,

concerning impacts on aesthetic resources. Question 11 asks whether the project

components will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be

important to the area, and the Board's answer is no. Yet, in regard to the river views available

from the vantage point of South Riverside and Croton Point Avenue, which is included in the

project area, Trustee Gallelli once offered sworn testimony, a copy of which I've attached to

my comments', that said:

"From South Riverside Avenue, approaching the intersection with Croton Point Avenue, vehicles or pedestrians have a clear view across the Exxon Station to the marshes and the Hudson River. This is a view available to the passengers in many hundreds of vehicles every day of the week ... [Ilt is plain that a canopy ... would seriously obstruct and interfere with the Significant river views enjoyed from South Riverside Avenue."

Ms. Gallelli's comments were made in opposition to permitting the Exxon Station, now Gulf,

4 See Ann H. Gallelli Affidavit, 11118-9, In the Matter of the Application of Exxon Corp., Index No. 18187/90, (Nov. 20, 1990).

6

to erect the canopy over its gas pumps. And while the Gulf parcel is not included in the Board's "most likely scenario" of development, it is most certainly part ofthe area to be affected by the zoning amendments under consideration. Thus, any chance that this Village might have to reclaim the full sweep of this view would likely be lost forever, in favor of the development of a much larger, more solid, more permanent three story structure on that parcel. But more importantly, the scenic view that once was important to Ms. Gallelli is not, in fact, gone. I walked to the corner of South Riverside and Croton Point Avenue recently, and I looked to the southwest. I can assure you, ladies and gentlemen, that the view has not changed; the river is still there; it is still visible and it is still beautiful and important to this community. On this basis alone, the Board's assessment is incomplete as a matter of law.

The Board's segmentation of the review of this proposal violates section 617 .7 (c)(2) of the New York Code, which requires that the lead agency must consider reasonably related . long term, short term, direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, including other simultaneous or subsequent actions which are (I) included in any long-range plan of which the action under consideration is a part; (li) likely to be undertaken as a result thereof; or (iii) dependent thereon. Compared ~ this standard, the Board's environmental assessment of this proposed action is facially deficient. A successful legal challenge on this basis would require the Board to begin its assessment of environmental impacts anew - after spending in excess of $30,000 taxpayer dollars on consultants hired to draft these flawed documents. How much more will a proper analysis cost the taxpayers?

Another basis for a legal challenge to the proposed law is that, under section 23(2)(f) of the Municipal Home Rule Law, a mandatory referendum must be held regarding any local law

7

that "abolishes, transfers or curtails any power of an elective officer." The code amendments being considered here do just that, in that these amendments would abolish the Village Board's power to approve special permits for mixed-use commercial/residential development in the targeted area. For those members of the public here tonight who are not completely familiar with this law, please understand that the type of development being discussed here tonight is absolutely permissible under the current Village code; the difference is that now, such development can only occur with the grant of a special permit, which is issued by the Village Board. The proposed code amendments would permit such development as of right, as long as the parking, open spaces and facade design requirements are met, as well as the front and side yard setback requirements - except in cases of existing buildings, which in some cases would not require the same front yard setback, or in cases where the planning board decides to waive side yard setback requirements or parking requirements, as it will be permitted to do under these code amendments. The Board has been asked repeatedly by citizens opposed to this proposal to conduct a referendum, and the Board has always said that one is not required, but the law says otherwise.

CONCLUSION

In doslnq, I must return to a point I made earlier in my remarks concerning the tax benefits associated with this proposal. I would note first, that whether the proposal would generate a small tax benefit for the Village or a net tax loss, nowhere in any document discussing this proposal has the cost of protracted land use litigation even been considered. Yet the chance of encountering these costs is very real, and in recent years our Village has,

51983 N.Y. Op. Atty. Gen. 1116, 1983 WL 167417 (N.Y.A.G.).

8

unfortunately, been forced to pay for a significant amount of otherwise avoidable land use litigation. I would also note that at the last Village Board meeting, Trustees Gallelli and Olver both felt it necessary to address the public at length regarding the difficulty the Village Board expects to encounter in the upcoming tax year. Whether that difficulty will result in a decrease in Village services, or an increase in Village taxes remains to be seen. However, in my opinion, ifthe Board insists on moving forward and adopting this proposed law, with all ofthe attendant problems and costs that I and others have identified, I would consider such action to be not only the height of irresponsibility, but also a complete breach of your duty as trustees to the taxpayers of this Village. I would urge the members of the Board to reconsider the positions you have all stated in favor of this proposal.

I will leave a copy of my remarks for the Board, and will make them available to any member of the public who also wants a copy. I thank the Board for its time.

9

~ X

ZIU -01-(0' OJ 0 . mOC

E.cLL

O-

tic/) w

OJ

.!::! • (f)LL

:gOO

r:: .Q~ 0.."-

·C .

o r::

UlLL OJ~

o

Q _

_ .....

OJ • o C ~LL IU_

0..

IX)

';":NM~&o

C C C C r::

LLLLLLLLLL

w C LL

.!:

N

o

cO w

..-

0)

M .....

~

II o ('II

en LO

..-

.....

w ~

12-12-79 (3/99)-9c

State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE OECLARA TION

Notice of Determination of Non-Significance

Project Number

Date: November 16, 2009

SEQR

This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law.

The Croton-an-Hudson Village Board ofTrustees as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant environmental impact and a Draft Impact Statement will not be prepared.

Name of Action:

Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District: Proposed Zoning Amendments

SEQR Status:

Type 1 Unlisted

o [Z]

Conditioned Negative Declaration: DYes

[Z] No


The Proposed Action* involves certain revisions to the Village of Croton-on-Hudson's Zoning Code to expand the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District, and to modify the existing Gateway regulations in this area to encourage commercial development by facilitating market rate mixed use of properties.

(See attachment for list of proposed revisions to the Code.)

* Although classified as an Unlisted Action, the Lead Agency has followed Type 1 procedures

Location: (Include street address and the name of the municipality/county. A location map of appropriate scale is also recommended.)

Harmon/So.Riverside gateway dist.Croton-on-Hudson,Westchester County,NY(map/parcellist att).

SEQR Negative Declaration

Page 2 of2

Reasons Supporting This Determination:

(See 617.7(a)-(c) for requirements of this determination; see 617.7(d) for Conditioned Negative Declaration)

The Lead Agency hereby determines that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. (See attachment for reasons supporting this determination). The Village of Croton-on-Hudson Board of Trustees is familiar with and has reviewed the criteria contained in Part 617 .7c of the SEQRA regulations in order to reach the determination(s) contained herein.

If Conditioned Negative Declaration, provide on attachment the specific mitigation measures imposed, and identify comment period (not less than 30 days from date of publication In the ENB)

For Further Information:

Contact Person: Janine King, Assistant Village Manager

Address: 1 Van Wyck St, Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 (this is also lead agency address)

Telephone Number: 914-271-4848

For Type 1 Actions and Conditioned Negative Declarations, a Copy of this Notice is sent to:

Chief Executive Officer, Town I City I Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York

Other involved agencies (If any) (none)

Applicant (If any)

Environmental Notice Bulletin., 625 Broadway Albany NY ·12233-1750 (Type One Actions only)

o 100'

I I

(C-~ General Commercial

l~ Light Industrial

~o!» One Family Residence ~18l Two Family Residence = Zoning District Boundary

~ SRlHGD, South RiversidelHarmon Gateway District ~ Proposed Expansion of Gateway District

)~ 'f/' )

HARMON GATEWAY OVERLAY ZONING AMENDMENTS Croton-on-Hudson, New York

SOURCE: Village of Croton-On-Hudson GIS

Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. - Planning and Development Consultants

ATTACHMENT TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay Zoning Amendments Croton-on-Hudson,}{Y

DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:

The Proposed Action involves certain revisions to the Village of Croton-on-Hudson's Zoning Code to expand the Harmon/South' Riverside Gateway Overlay District, and to modify the existing Gateway regulations in this area to encourage commercial development by facilitating market rate mixed use of properties ..

Proposed revisions to the Code include' expansion of the Harmon/South Riverside/ Gateway , Overlay Area; and

For mixed use development in the Harmon/South Riverside gateway district:

• Increase FAR (floor area ratio) in mixed use buildings from 0.4 FAR to 0.8 FAR;

• Permit mixed use without a special permit in the overlay district;

• In mixed use buildings, residential would be permitted on the third floor (within the roof 1ine);

• Front setback from street shall be 15-20 feet;

• In mixed use buildings, at least 50% ground floor must be commercial and face street front, at least 60% of front facade facing street must be glass; second floor either residential or non-residential permitted, 3rd floor residential only);

• Parking requirements for mixed use: 1 space per residential unit plus 1 additional space for each bedroom in excess of 1; plus same parking requirements as existing code for non-residential space;

• Comer lots shall be deemed to have two fronts;

• Planning Board may waive side yard setback requirements providing there is otherwise adequate access to parking areas;

• Pre-existing buildings proposed for mixed use may not utilize 0.8 FAR or add third story occupancy unless otherwise area compliant and have 10-20 feet front yard;

• New retail uses in C-2 zone in gateway district shall not require special permit as part of

mixed use; -

• Mixed use buildings shall be subject to additional design guidelines as adopted by Village Board.

• Front setback requirements will encourage parking in the rear of buildings.

BACKGROUNDIHISTORY OF PROPOSED ACTION:

The Vi11age of Croton-on-Hudson has proposed certain revisions to its zoning code to expand the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District, and to modify the existing gateway regulations in this area to encourage commercial development by facilitating market rate mixed use of properties. The concept of the Gateway Overlay districts was described in the Village's Comprehensive Plan Update (January 2003) and the existing Gateway Overlay district regulations were a direct outcome of that Comprehensive Plan update, and have been in the

village code since 2004, after study of the proposed amendments by the village starting in 2003. SEQR Findings in March 2004 supported the Gateway Overlay District legislation.

The proposed action/zoning amendments (first draft set forth in July 2009) evolved from recommendations by the Harmon Business Development Committee (HBDC), a citizen committee appointed by the Village Board in 2007 with the goal of coming up with recommendations to address the increasing vacancies, enhance streetscape of Harmon, improve pedestrian circulation, and gain flexibility for property owners on South Riverside A venue. All of the Committee's recommendations are proposed to encourage redevelopment and reduce vacancies that exist in the Harmon commercial area. Rationale and background behind these recommendations that lead to the proposed action are described in "Harmon Zone Change Recommendations" (8/26/08) put together by the HBDC. This rationale includes the examination of what factors might encourage or discourage a property owner from investing in a commercial lot in the Harmon area. The preliminary findings were set forth by the HBDC to the Village Board in July 2008, and a public presentation of the findings of the HBDC was made in October 2008.

Another public input session was held on the topic at the Harmon Firehouse on June 3, 2009, and subsequently, the draft legislation was compiled. The Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) for the Proposed Action, Parts 1 and 2 were circulated by the Village Board on July 13,2009 at which time the Board also became Lead Agency for this action. The draft EAF Part 3 Report was submitted on September 3, 2009, based upon the July 2009 draft law. Subsequently, the Village Board of Trustees had discussions and received additional input from the Croton Planning Board and the public, and prepared an amended law which was revised in response to those comments, which is now the Proposed Action. The draft EAF Part 3 report was revised based upon this revised law and the Part 3 was issued by the Lead Agency on October 19, 2009. The proposed law was discussed and public input was received at multiple Planning Board and Village Board sessions in the summer and fall of 2009. A noticed public hearing on the proposed zoning revisions was held on November 2,2009.

REASONS SUPPORTING DETERMINATION:

The Board of Trustees, as Lead Agency, has determined that the adoption of-the local law to amend the Gateway Overlay Zoning District by expanding, and modifying the regulations for, the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Area, will have no significant adverse environmental impacts and a full environmental impact statement will not be required for this zoning amendment. The Board has assessed all relevant potential impacts in making this decision. This assessment relies upon its review of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (Parts 1 and 2) and the Environmental Assessment Form Report (part 3) prepared by the Board with the assistance of Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. including Traffic and Parking Study and Parking Study Amendment prepared by The RBA Group and Village of Croton Coastal Assessment Form. The Board also reviewed Planning Board comments, and comments from the public at a series of public meetings (from 2007 to 2009), extensive study by Harmon Business Development Committee CHBDC) including their findings summarized in a report dated August 26, 2008, along with a property utilization study prepared by Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. in July 2008, and the Hannon Commercial District Retail Study prepared by Danth, Tnc. in July 2008, and its review of the record.

2

The Village of Croton-on-Hudson has been considering possible ways to encourage revitalization and lessen commercial vacancies in the Harmon area for quite some time, starting in 2007. Existing zoning in the study area is C-2 (General Commercial), with the southern portion of the study area also covered by the existing Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District. The commercial "Gateways" are the major entry points to the Village from surrounding roads. The Harmon/South Riverside gateway is the entry point to the Village from Route 9, the train station and Croton Point Avenue. The primary land uses in the study area include retail, office, auto-related business, restaurants, and personal service establishments. There is also a vacant automobile dealership and some vacant storefronts. Several mixed use buildings (mix of commercial and apartments) are currently in use in the study area.

The overall intent of the proposed zoning amendments is to encourage commercial development activity and improve the walkabilty of the area. The stated purpose of the Gateway Overlay District(s) in the Comprehensive Plan is to "establish standards that upgrade the image and function of the gateway areas, strengthen the overall visual identity of the Village and improve pedestrian linkages to adjacent residential neighborhoods". The proposed action is intended to encourage development as well as maximize visual appeal and enhance the pedestrian experience. Part of the intent is for the front (and comers, if applicable) of the commercial and mixed use buildings to be for pedestrian circulation and shopping, and the rear for parking, with a minimum of curb cuts onto the street. This would be an overall positive impact to the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway area and the village.

At its August 5, 2009 meeting, the Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC) found the proposed action to be consistent with the policies of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (L WRP). The Westchester County Planning Board has reviewed the proposal, and has found the proposed action to be consistent with Westchester 2025, Context for County and Municipal Planning and Polices to Guide County Planning adopted by the County Planning Board on May 6, 2008. The proposed action was referred to the Village Planning Board in July 2009, and it was discussed at several of their meetings, which culminated in written comments to the Mayor and Village Trustees dated 10/28/09, received prior to the public hearing.

As to the potential impact areas identified in the EAF part 2, with the exception of those listed in items 1 through 4 below, the board has reviewed each in light of the criteria set forth in 617.7(c) of the SEQR regulations and determined that potential impacts would be small or non-existent, and the proposed action would have no significant adverse impacts relating to these areas. These areas of potential impact listed in the EAF Part 2 include: impact on land, impact on water, impact on air, impact on plants and animals, impact on agricultural land resources, impacts on historic and archeological resources, impact on open space and recreation, impact on Critical Environmental Areas, impact on energy, noise and odor impacts, and impact on public health.

With regard to the potential impact areas described in areas 1 through 4 below (land use and zoning, aesthetic resources, traffic and parking, and growth and character of community), the Board prepared an EAF Part 3 to take a more detailed look at potential impacts. For the reasons stated below, the Board has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact as to those potential areas of impact.

3

1. The proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact on Land Use and Zoning.

a. Land Use: The adoption of the Harmon gateway amendments is a zoning change, and, as such, in and of itself does not propose any new development. Any applicants for new development in the area would be required to submit a site plan application to the Village Planning Board and address site-specific impacts in accordance with SEQRA. However, in order to analyze a level of potential impact for the proposed zoning, assumptions were made and three development scenarios were evaluated. If developed with mixed use as described in the EAF Part 3 Report Scenario # 1 (Likely Anticipated Level of Development), the study area could contain approximately 9,498 sf of new commercial uses and. 42 residential units. The Board finds that this level of commercial development estimated in Scenario # 1 could be absorbed in the existing market demand and 42 new apartments could also be absorbed within the Harmon area. This scenario is considered to be realistic, as a reasonably likely build-out over time. The basis and reasoning for this conclusion are spelled out in more detail in the HBDC report and the EAF Part 3 Report.

The EAF indicated that if scenarios #2 and #3 were to occur (100% build out scenarios, which envision redevelopment of the entire study area), the level of commercial development and residential development would be much higher than there would be market demand for. These scenarios (#2 and #3) could create land use impacts and, if economically feasible, would very likely draw demand from other commercial areas in the village, counter to the objectives of this proposed action.

However, the Board hereby determines that for this and the other potential impact areas considered in this document, scenarios #2 and #3 (and, with regard to parking, scenario #5) are improbable to occur, and that the proper scenario to judge impacts against is scenario #1. Full implementation of scenarios #2 and #3 is highly unlikely, even over a period of time. These scenarios envision redevelopment of the entire study area, with new construction (including demolition/replacement of all existing structures) at the maximum possible level

. of development permitted by the proposed regulations. As a theoretical maximum, these scenarios make the unrealistic assumption that all of the privately-owned vacant parcels would be redeveloped with mixed-use buildings using the maximum potential development and be required to meet the proposed on-site parking requirements. In addition, it is not physically possible to attain this 100% build out on every single tax lot due to lot size, shape, configuration, lot frontage, etc.

Existing land uses adjacent to the parcels which will now be added to the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Area will still be adjacent to a C-2 zoning district. However, with the gateway overlay extended, the specific gateway regulations will apply to the all of the parcels described in the law. This means that the more stringent landscape, buffer and screening requirements required in

4

the gateway overlay area would be required of any new mixed use development, and this should be a beneficial impact to existing single family residences adjacent to the C-2 zone and also in the gateway area.

Designating gateway overlays and forming those districts was one of the goals outlined in the Village's 2003 Comprehensive Plan. The potential impacts of the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District were evaluated in the DGElS prepared by the Village. This proposed action, amending the adopted regulations, is proposed to refine and expand those existing gateway regulations to encourage improvements, commercial activity and vitality to the Harmon area. The proposed action is consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and the Harmon Business Development Committee (HBDC). Accordingly, the Board finds that no significant adverse impacts to land use will result.

b. Zoning: The EAF Part 3 provides a comparison of existing zoning regulations in the C-2 zone with the gateway overlay to proposed zoning regulations for mixed use development (see EAF Part 3 Report, Table 7). This includes the proposed revisions to FAR, special permit requirement, front yard setback, comer lots, limitations on uses by floor (residential/commercial), percent glass on front facade, maximum building height (residential permitted within 3rd story roofline) and off-street parking. Design regulations for the Harmon/South Riverside gateway overlay district would remain the same as in the existing code, but would be extended to the entire study area, as described in the EAF Part 3. In addition, part of the proposal is for the Village Board to have the ability to impose additional design guidelines for this area. The increase in FAR to 0.8 and allowing residential use in a third story would only be available to mixed use developments where the proposed site plan met all other regulations in the code, including parking requirements. In other words, if a mixed use building is proposed using a 0.8 FAR, but parking requirements for this level of development cannot be achieved on that lot, then it would not meet the code, and a less dense development would result. Accordingly, the Board finds that no significant adverse impacts to zoning will result from the proposed action.

c. Refinements have been made to the area proposed to be added to the gateway district during the review process. For consistency with previous studies, the EAF Part 3 Report used the same Study Area and the same parcel identification (36 parcels) as the maps in the Property Utilization Analysis and the Harmon Zoning Change Recommendations reports. Fourteen of these parcels were already in the Gateway Overlay District and 22 of the study area parcels were proposed to be added. Almost all of the study area parcels front on South Riverside A venue, since that was the main focus ofthe study.

In October 2009, some inconsistencies were identified with the study area and the gateway district, and parcels were added to the list of affected parcels to be included with the proposed zoning changes. This included: the only five parcels remaining in the C-2 (General Commercial) District, which are located on Clinton

5

and Wayne Streets; three parcels at north end of the study area (these were included in the original study area as part of the adjacent professional office, but not called out separately), and five parcels that are currently in the Gateway' District, but were not in the original Study Area (not in the study area since they front on Croton Point Avenue, not South Riverside Avenue).

As a result of these additions and comments at the public hearing, the Board decided not to include the five parcels on Clinton and Wayne Streets since they do not relate directly to South Riverside A venue and are primarily municipally owned. The 3 parcels at the north end were always. in the study area, but are very small, and effectively were considered in the analysis as part of the professional office they are adjacent to. The 5 parcels on Croton Point Avenue are already in

. the Gateway district. Therefore, the proposed zoning regulations would apply to these parcels. The lots are already developed with primary structures (one contractor's office, one deli and one multi-family structure) and the potential impact of their redevelopment with the proposed regulations was reviewed by the Board after their addition to the list. Since these parcels are developed, they are not considered to have significant additional redevelopment potential within the proposed regulations, and therefore potential impacts of the additional 5 parcels on Croton Point Avenue are not found to be significant.

Therefore, after consideration of the analysis, public comment and the record, the Board finds that there will be no significant adverse impacts to land use or zoning .from the proposed action.

2. The proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact on Aesthetic Resources.

The original Gateway Overlay design regulations (now adopted into the Code) were intended to create a more attractive setting for the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway area (through landscaping, sidewalk improvements, etc.) as an entry to the Van Cortlandt Manor, which is located to the south and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The current proposed zoning amendments are also intended to enhance the Harmon area visually, and are designed to create a positive aesthetic impact on the existing neighborhood and entrance to the historic site (Van Cortlandt Manor).

The proposed zoning amendments will keep the scale of new development within existing maximums for building height. There is no change proposed in existing screening/buffering requirements for this Gateway area or to the maximum height permitted for buildings in this zone. Where commercial or mixed use is adjacent to residential uses, landscape buffers are required. The intent is for the front of the commercial and mixed use buildings to be for pedestrian circulation and shopping, and the rear of properties for parking, with a minimum of curb cuts onto the street. The Board finds that these features will have an overall positive aesthetic impact to the Gateway area and the village. In addition, part of the proposal is for the Board to have

6

the ability to impose additional design guidelines for this area. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to aesthetic resources will result from the proposed action.

3. The proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact on Traffic and Parking.

a. Traffic volumes: Due to the proximity of the train station to the area, there is a steady stream of traffic along South Riverside A venue during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. However, traffic volumes along the local streets are generally light because most vehicles travel along U.S. 9, rather than the local streets. Existing traffic volumes along South Riverside A venue are highest during the weekday AM peak period and typically higher south of Benedict Boulevard than north of Benedict Boulevard. A comparison of the No Build (i.e., existing zoning) and Build analysis (i.e., proposed zoning: scenario # 1) results indicates that there would be little impact to traffic conditions on the study area roadways due to the proposed zoning amendments. For scenario #1, there would be no need for mitigation, as there would be no degradation in traffic operations from the No Build to Build conditions. There is currently no site plan proposal pending for development of any property in conformity with the proposed regulations. The Board has no reason to conclude that such an application would result in a traffic impact. However, any such application would be subject to its own SEQR review, and if impacts were identified in that review, mitigation measures would be implemented as part of individual site plan reviews for that construction project proposed. Accordingly, the Board finds that no significant adverse traffic impacts will result from the proposed action.

b. Parking: One of the objectives of the zoning amendments is to avoid situations where parking is inadequate such that it flows on to adjacent residential streets. In all cases analyzed, the critical parking demand would be on the weekends. Based upon the EAF Part 3 analysis, the Board finds that the residential parking ratio in the proposed zoning (1 space per dwelling unit plus 1 additional space for each additional bedroom in excess of one), combined with the commercial parking requirement is a sufficient minimum zoning standard for the range of uses anticipated, with final reviews of parking subject to site plan approval. There is currently no site plan proposal pending for development of any property in conformity with the proposed regulations. The Board has no reason to conclude that such an application would result in a parking impact. However, any such application would be subject to its own SEQR review, and if impacts were identified in that review, mitigation measures would be implemented as part of individual site plan review. Any applicants seeking redevelopment with mixed use on parcels in the gateway area would have to demonstrate how they would meet parking requirements, and how they would accommodate their parking demand on the site. No change to commercial parking ratios are proposed. Therefore, the Board finds that no significant adverse impacts to parking will result from the proposed action.

7

4. The proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact on Growth and Character of Community.

a. Schools:

Although the zoning amendments, in and of themselves, will not create any new development, potential development scenarios were analyzed to give estimates of impact. There are currently 9 children in the study area that attend CrotonHarmon schools. As detailed in the EAF Part 3 Report, approximately 4-12 new school age children are anticipated in the gateway area with the "Likely Development" scenario #1 given the likely type of units and bedroom composition. Any new school children generated by private development in the Harmon area would not be generated all at once, and any new school population would be spread out over the 13 grade levels. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to schools will result.

b. Taxes:

Generation of taxes wiIJ depend on the level of development; but any new development above what is in the gateway area now is expected to generate increased tax revenues sufficient to offset the cost of increased municipal services required. It should be noted that in any case, potential build-out of the subject area would be a gradual process over time, and each proposed site plan would be reviewed by the planning board for conformance to all applicable regulations.

Based on the analysis outlined in the EAF Part 3 Report, it is anticipated that the school tax revenue would offset the costs of potential new students to the district (estimated as anywhere from 4 to 12 students using scenario #1), especially considering the gradual increase in the school population that is likely. Comments were made at the public hearing about the school tax analysis that was conducted, so an additional analysis was conducted by the Board's consultant using a different methodology, but arriving at substantially the same conclusions as in the EAF Part 3. Using the Croton-Harmon Union Free School District Official Budget Document, Appropriations and Revenues for the 2009-20/0 school year, the total budget for the school year divided by the number of students arrives at a figure of nearly $23,900 per student. This number, however, includes both .capital and administrative costs, which would not be affected by the increase of a modest number of additional students. Utilizing the budget's' program costs ($30,425,740), divided by the total enrollment (1,786 students) equals $17,036 per student. Additionally, the budget revenues are comprised of property taxes and other revenues, with a non-property tax total of $6,884,385, representing 16 percent of the total revenues. Hence, the property taxes required to meet the program costs of each new student is $14,310 ($17,036 x .84) a number very similar to the $14,500 utilized in the EAF Part 3 Report analysis. It is noted that the costs used are average costs for all students, including special needs students.

Therefore the Board finds that no significant adverse impacts to taxes will result from implementation of the proposed action.

. 8

Article 78 Exhibits 26 To End

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Article 78 Exhibits 26 To End

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

\

You might also like

Article 78 Exhibits 26 To End

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Article 78 Exhibits 26 To End

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

﻿\

You might also like

\