You are on page 1of 128

200 S. Greeley Avenue, Chappaqua, New York 10514 ● Ph.

(914) 238-4772 ● Fax (914) 238-5177 ●

TOWN OF NEW CASTLE

SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS STATEMENT CHAPPAQUA CROSSING

ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT

Final Draft

SEQRA Action Type: Date: Lead Agency: Contact:

Type I October 14, 2013 New Castle Town Board Jill Simon Shapiro, Town Clerk Town of New Castle 200 South Greeley Avenue Chappaqua, New York 10514 Telephone: (914) 238-4772

Table of Contents
I.  II. III. IV. V.  VI. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3  Project Site Description ......................................................................................................... 4 Project History ........................................................................................................................ 6 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 12 Retail Zoning Legislation .................................................................................................... 17  Consideration of Environmental Impacts ........................................................................ 19 A.  B.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G.  H.  I.  J.  K.  VII. VIII. IX. X.  XI. Land Use and Zoning ..........................................................................................................19  Socioeconomic and Fiscal Conditions ...............................................................................24  Land, Water and Ecological Resources .............................................................................26  Community Facilities & Services ........................................................................................30  Historical & Archaeological Resources .............................................................................32  Visual Resources ...................................................................................................................33  Utilities....................................................................................................................................34  Traffic .....................................................................................................................................35  Air Quality and Noise ..........................................................................................................42  Community Character ..........................................................................................................43  Construction ..........................................................................................................................46 

Measures for the Minimization or Mitigation of Adverse Environmental Impacts................................................................................................................................... 47  Significant Adverse Impacts ............................................................................................... 71 Conclusions and Certification of Findings Required by SEQRA ................................. 72 Figures .................................................................................................................................... 74  Appendix A- 2011 Findings Statement ............................................................................. 79

Page 2 of 79

I.

Introduction

This Supplemental Findings Statement by the Town Board of the Town of New Castle (the “Town Board”) is prepared pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law Article 8, and its implementing regulations codified at Title 6 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (“N.Y.C.R.R.”) Part 617 (the “SEQRA Regulations”). The Town Board has served as Lead Agency for this SEQRA review. In April, 2011, the Town Board adopted a Findings Statement (“2011 Findings Statement”), approved a Commercial Rezoning and East Village Project (“CR&EV Project”)and amended the Town Development Plan Map for the 113.7-acre former Reader’s Digest Association, Inc. corporate campus (now known as Chappaqua Crossing) in the Town of New Castle (the “Project Site”), rezoned the Project Site from a primarily commercial site with B-RO-20 zoning on 87.3 acres, to a mixed-use commercial and residential site with a new 30.6 acre Multifamily Planned Development District (“MFPD District”) and a smaller, 70.8 acre, BRO-20 District and approved a Preliminary Development Concept Plan for the MFPD District (“MFPD PDCP”). The CR&EV Project includes 662,000 square feet of commercial space in the B-RO-20 District with no limitations on the number of commercial tenants or square footage to be occupied by any such tenant and 111 housing units with no age restrictions, including 91 units of market-rate housing and 20 units of affordable housing that will affirmatively further fair housing. The affordable housing units will be compliant with a 2009 Stipulation and Order of Settlement and Dismissal in the case of United States of America ex rel. Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York, Inc. v. Westchester County, New York, U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y., Case No. 06 I Civ 2860 (DLC) (the “Stipulation”), requiring Westchester County to take actions necessary to produce 750 Stipulation-compliant units of fair and affordable housing in communities falling within certain criteria based upon minority census population figures. The Town of New Castle is one of the 31 municipalities that fall within the specified census population figures. The 2011 Findings Statement documented the history and importance of commercial development at the Project Site and the Town’s obligations to provide affordable and multifamily housing. After extensively discussing the potential environmental impacts associated with the CR&EV Project, the 2011 Findings Statement concluded that consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives available, the CR&EV Project was one that avoided or minimized adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures that the 2011 Findings Statement and the FEIS on which it was based identified as practicable. The 2011 Findings Statement is attached as Appendix A. This 2013 Supplemental Findings Statement concerns proposed Zoning amendments, Town Development Plan amendments, modifications to the Town Board approvals of the CR&EV Project and MFPD PDCP, and related land use approvals (“Retail Zoning Approvals”) sought by SG Chappaqua B, LLC (the “Applicant”) to allow for retail development on an approximately 23.9 acre portion of the Project Site.

Page 3 of 79

This 2013 Supplemental Findings Statement considers the relevant environmental impacts, facts, and conclusions in the Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement (“SFEIS”) conditionally accepted on September 3, 2013 and delivered in final form for filing, distribution and publication on September 10, 2013. The SFEIS supplements and incorporates by reference the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“SDEIS”) declared complete on April 2, 2013. The SDEIS incorporates by reference the 2011 Findings Statement, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) accepted by the Town Board in March 2011, and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”) accepted by the Town Board in May 2009 on which the 2011 Findings Statement was based. 1 Having reviewed the SDEIS and SFEIS which are incorporated by reference into this Findings Statement, the Town Board makes the findings and conclusions set forth below based on those documents and the administrative record before it. Specifically, this 2013 Supplemental Findings Statement incorporates as conditions those mitigative measures that the SDEIS and the SFEIS identified as practicable.

II.

Project Site Description

The Project Site is the historic approximately 114-acre former corporate campus of the Reader’s Digest Association, Inc. (now known as Chappaqua Crossing) located at 480 Bedford Road in the Town of New Castle, New York. The Project Site is located generally east of the Metro-North Harlem Division Rail Line and Saw Mill River Parkway, north of Roaring Brook Road, and west of Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and Cowdin Lane. The Project Site is on the eastern side of the Town of New Castle, and the northernmost portion of the Project Site is approximately 300 feet from the town line that borders the Village/Town of Mount Kisco. The Project Site consists of one tax lot (Tax Lot No. 93.9-11).2 Figure A: Project Site shows the Project Site’s existing conditions including the general site layout, zoning lots, and tax lots. The Project Site is characterized as a corporate campus facility bordered by a mix of landscaped and vegetative cover types. Wooded areas, meadow, and lawn are present along the perimeter of the Project Site, accompanied by wetland areas and associated buffers that
The Town Board was acting as Lead Agency for the environmental review under SEQRA of the Applicant’s (1) July 9, 2007 Petition to change the zoning of a portion of the Project Site consisting of approximately 64.3 acres (“Proposed Rezoned Portion”) from B-RO-20 and R-1A to MFPD in order to construct 278 units of age-restricted housing and workforce housing on the Proposed Rezoned Portion (“2007 Petition”); and (2) August 27, 2007 Application for Area Variance to remove restrictions on the number of commercial tenants at the Project Site and the area that could be occupied by such tenants, restrictions that had been imposed at the request of the Applicant in 2005 (“2007 Area Variance Application”). As detailed in the 2011 Findings Statement, the 2007 Petition and 2007 Area Variance Application, as modified, became the CR&EV Project approved by the Town Board in April 2011.
1 2 There are four lots containing three single-family dwellings (Tax Lots 93.9-1-7, 93.9-1-8, 93.9-1-9, and 93.9-1-10) located immediately adjacent to and south of the Project Site, as well as an undeveloped two-acre lot located across Roaring Brook Road from the Project Site, near the intersection of that road and the Harlem Division Rail Line (Tax Lot 92.12-2-1). These five tax lots are currently located in the R-1A District and total approximately six acres. See Figure A: Project Site.

Page 4 of 79

constitute approximately 60 percent of the perimeter of the property. Areas that have been developed include the existing office buildings, support and accessory buildings, and ongrade parking areas. The Project Site is landscaped with a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, flowering trees, shrubs, and manicured lawn areas. Heavily wooded areas dominate the western, northern, and northeastern sides of the Project Site, as well as the southern portion along Roaring Brook Road. The terrain can be characterized as undulating, with existing development present at various elevations to correspond with the topography. The Project Site is immediately surrounded by mixed institutional uses, residential areas and large, regionally significant transportation corridors. Horace Greeley High School is located across Roaring Brook Road from the southern end of the Project Site, with the Chappaqua School District administrative offices building also located across Roaring Brook Road adjacent to the high school entrance. These educational facilities are busy with schoolrelated traffic during weekdays and host many events on weekends as well. The neighborhoods beyond on the southern side of the Project Site and on the eastern side are characterized as residential areas with one- or two-story homes on properties of one or more acres. Crabtree’s Kittle House, an existing restaurant located less than one mile from the Project Site, is located within this area and features regular restaurant service and special event catering. Like the Project Site, these areas are characterized by varying topography with existing mature vegetation and lawn areas. The Metro-North Harlem Division Rail Line right-of-way, an active rail line with peak-hour train passing every 15 minutes, and the divided, four lane Saw Mill River Parkway border the Project Site to the west. Beyond this transportation corridor, further west, are areas of open space and residential neighborhoods characterized by heavily wooded areas and varying topography. The Project Site is improved with approximately 700,000 square feet of office space and associated uses that were constructed and utilized by Reader’s Digest beginning in 1939. The Project Site includes the main building complex, with the signature white cupola that sits atop the center of the oldest building (known as the 200 Building)the eastern most building known as the 100 Building, and other buildings and is clearly visible from the Saw Mill River Parkway and Roaring Brook Road to the west. Accessory buildings totaling approximately 29,000 square feet and located in the center and eastern section of the Project Site include an auditorium, a former single-family house utilized for office purposes (Bedford Valley House), a maintenance garage, a former single-family house utilized as a corporate guest house, and a gate house. Approximately 1,680 parking spaces in ten ongrade lots are located primarily east and north of the main building. The Project Site has three access points: the main entrance located on Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) on the southeast side of the Project Site; the employee entrance located on Roaring Brook Road just off the Saw Mill River Parkway exit on the southwest side of the Project Site; and an access drive located on Roaring Brook Road at the center of the south side of the Project Site that is closed off and utilized only for emergency access. The Project Site is unique as it encompasses the Town’s only B-RO-20 (Research and Office Business) District. 70.8 acres of the Project Site are zoned as B-RO-20; 30.6 acres are zoned MFPD and 12.3 acres are zoned as R-1A. See Figure B-Project Site Zoning

Page 5 of 79

III.

Project History

The prior history of the Applicant’s submissions and the environmental review process that culminated with the Town Board’s adoption of the 2011 Findings Statement and approval of the CR&EV Project and the MFPD PDCP are fully set forth in Appendix A. In 2012, the closing of the D’Agostino supermarket in the Chappaqua hamlet created a need in the hamlet for a full service grocery store. At the same time, notwithstanding the removal of the limitation on the number and size of tenants that may occupy the 662,000 square feet of office space, the Applicant has encountered difficulties leasing that office space. Given the Applicant’s experience and the general lack of demand in the commercial real estate market for large office and research facilities, the Town Board recognized that, to retain the commercial use of the historic Reader’s Digest Site as part of a viable community and real estate tax base, its commercial uses would need to be augmented by retail uses and the existing facilities would need to be adaptively reused to preserve the historic features while supporting the continuing office and research uses and meet community needs. Proactively responding to these circumstances, the Town Board, by Resolution adopted July 24, 2012, initiated consideration of and set a Public Hearing for September 24, 2012 on a proposed local law that would amend the Town Development Plan concerning commercial development policies and would amend New Castle Town Code Chapter 60 to adopt new zoning text provisions to establish an Office Park Retail Overlay District (“OPROD”) but would not map the district, instead it would set procedural standards that would apply to the future mapping of an Office Park Retail Overlay District in a Research and Office Business District and set substantive standards that would apply to any development proposed within a mapped Office Park Retail Overlay District (“Proposed Local Law”). The Proposed Local Law would provide the opportunity for the development of a retail zoning district on a planned basis in part of the Project Site, the Town’s only mapped Research and Office Business District (“Office Park District”). The retail zoning district would be anchored by a full service grocery store, provide for other retail uses that would provide a complementary and mutually sustaining tenant mix appropriate for the comfort and convenience of community residents and occupants in the underlying Office Park District, and facilitate the provision of daily needs products and services, such as groceries and basic retail, in an otherwise underserved market to support and enhance the Town’s commercial real estate tax base. The Town Board determined that the adoption of the Proposed Local Law is subject to environmental review under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), that it would involve no other agencies, and that therefore the Town Board would be the Lead Agency for such environmental review. The Town Board also determined that the adoption of the Proposed Local Law would change the allowable uses within a zoning district affecting 25 or more acres of the district and thus constitutes a Type I action under SEQRA. The Public Hearing on the Proposed Local Law was opened on September 24, 2012, continued on October 30, 2012 and adjourned on that date.

Page 6 of 79

Shortly after the initial Public Hearing on the Proposed Local Law, under cover letter from John Marwell, Esq. dated October 15, 2012 (“October 2012 Marwell Letter”), the Town Board received an “SEIS – Proposed Project Petition and the Application of SG Chappaqua B, LLC” dated October 11, 2012, with Exhibits 1 through 12 (“Petition”), from the Applicant seeking (i) amendment and adoption of the Proposed Local Law and application of the Office Park Retail Overlay District zoning to a portion of the Project Site consisting of approximately 23.9 acres (“Proposed Retail Zoned Portion”), (ii) approval of a Preliminary Development Concept Plan for the Proposed Retail Zoned Portion (“Proposed Retail PDCP”), (iii) amendment of the MFPD PDCP and of the conditions therein adopted April 11, 2011, and (iv) amendment of the Town Zoning Map to map the Proposed Retail Zoned Portion (collectively, “Petition Proposed Action”). Collectively, the Petition Proposed Action and the Proposed Local Law would allow for the substitution of 120,000 square feet of existing but underutilized office space for 120,000 square feet of retail space, including a full service grocery store, as the anchor tenant, and companion retail uses at the Project Site, associated parking, relocation and improvement of the south driveway connecting to Roaring Brook Road and the adaptive reuse of the existing 200 Building and other improvements to house a full service grocery store and ancillary retail uses. The residential component of the Petition Proposed Action proposes no changes to the number of residential units or bedrooms in the previously approved CR&EV Project. Under cover of the October 2012 Marwell Letter, the Town Board also received a “Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement” dated October, 2012, with Appendices 1 through 8 and Full Size Drawings SP-0.0 through SP-8.6, on the Petition Proposed Action (“Draft SEIS”) which also incorporated by reference the 2011 Findings Statement, the Final Environmental Impact Statement accepted by the Town Board in March, 2011, and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement accepted by the Town Board in May, 2009, acting in each case as Lead Agency for the environmental review under SEQRA of the Applicant’s 2007 Petition and 2007 Area Variance Application, which, as modified by the Town Board, became the approved CR&EV Project. The Draft SEIS addressed the environmental impacts of specific aspects of the Petition Proposed Action and Proposed Local Law that were not part of the CR&EV Project and thus were not considered in the 2011 Findings Statement or the FEIS accepted in March 2011 and DEIS accepted in May 2009. On October 16, 2012, the Town Board passed a resolution by which it determined that the Petition Proposed Action was subject to SEQRA, classified the Petition Proposed Action as a Type I action, and designated itself as Lead Agency for the environmental review of the Petition Proposed Action after issuing lead agency letters and waiting the requisite period of time. That Resolution also set a Public Hearing for October 30, 2012 to consider the Petition. The Public Hearing on the Petition Proposed Action was opened on October 30, 2012 and adjourned on that date. The Town Board with the assistance of the Town’s staff, consultants, special counsel and counsel proceeded to review the Draft SEIS and assess its completeness. On December 18, 2012, the Town Board passed a resolution requesting the Applicant to revise the Draft SEIS to include additional information and analyses and directed staff to deliver to the Applicant
Page 7 of 79

a Consolidated Summary of Completeness Review Comments dated December 18, 2013 detailing the information requested (“Completeness Comments Memorandum”). Thereafter, Town staff, consultants, special counsel and counsel met and otherwise communicated with representatives of the Applicant to review the Completeness Comments Memorandum. By Resolution adopted January 22, 2013, the Town Board, as Lead Agency for the environmental review of both the Proposed Local Law and the Petition Proposed Action (1) consolidated those proposed actions into a single proposed action for purposes of facilitating and coordinating their environmental review under SEQRA (“Consolidated Proposed Action”); (2) determined that the Consolidated Proposed Action is a Type I action and may include the potential for one or more significant adverse environmental impacts and thus made a Positive Declaration under SEQRA; and (3) directed Town counsel to draft and submit to the Town Board proposed amendments to the Proposed Local Law which, if adopted by the Town Board, would incorporate the legislative revisions and limits on development proposed in the Petition Proposed Action. Under cover of letter from John Marwell, Esq. dated February 26, 2013, the Town Board received Applicant’s proposed revisions to the Draft SEIS dated February, 2013 (“Revised Draft SEIS”) intended to address the Town Board’s request for additional information. The Town Board reviewed the Revised Draft SEIS, received and reviewed written comment from Town staff and the Town’s consultants, special counsel, and counsel as set forth in a Chappaqua Crossing DSEIS Completeness Review memorandum from the Town Planner to the Town Administrator dated March 22, 2013 and the documents referred to in that memorandum (“DSEIS Completeness Review Memorandum”), and directed Town staff to deliver the DSEIS Completeness Memorandum to the Applicant and request that the Applicant address the matters contained therein. On March 29, 2013, and April 2, 2013, the Town Board received Applicant’s additional proposed revisions to the Draft SEIS dated March, 2013 (“Further Revised Draft SEIS”) intended to address the matters set forth in the DSEIS Completeness Review Memorandum. By Resolution dated April 2, 2013, the Town Board, acting as Lead Agency for the Consolidated Proposed Action, having considered the Further Revised Draft SEIS, the DSEIS Completeness Review Memorandum, and oral comments from Town staff and the Town’s consultants, special counsel, and counsel and other advice, information and impressions available to them, determined that the Further Revised Draft SEIS was adequate with respect to its scope and content for purposes of commencing the public review under SEQRA in accordance with NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Rule 617.9 (6 (NYCRR §617.9) (“DSEIS”) and scheduled a Public Hearing for April 23, 2013. The Town Board also issued a Notice of Completion of the DSEIS and a Notice of Public Hearing on the DSEIS dated April 2, 2013 under NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Rule 617.9 and Rule 617.12 (6 NYCRR §617.9 and §617.12), setting a public hearing on the DSEIS for April 23, 2013.

Page 8 of 79

Subsequently, the DSEIS was filed, distributed and published in accordance with NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Rules 617.9 and 617.12 (6 NYCRR §617.9 and §617.12). Copies of the DSEIS were made available for public review at the New Castle Town Hall and the Chappaqua Public Library and posted on the Town’s web site. CD-ROM copies of the DSEIS were distributed to involved and interested agencies and other interested parties. The Notice of Completion was published in the Environmental Notice Bulletin on April 17, 2013. The Town Board received a draft of a redrafted Proposed Local Law to incorporate the legislative revisions and limits on development proposed in the Petition Proposed Action (“Proposed Redrafted for Consolidation Local Law”) and on April 2, 2013, the Town Board adopted a resolution setting a public hearing on the Proposed Redrafted for Consolidation Local Law for April 23, 2013. Also, on April 2, 2013, the Town Board received a Memorandum from the Town Planner, dated April 2, 2013, regarding “Amendments to the 1989 Town Development Plan in relation to the Town’s proposed local law allowing retail development in the B-RO-20 Zoning District” setting forth the rational for various amendments to the Town Development Plan and proposed text for the same (“Town Development Plan Amendments”). By Resolution adopted on April 2, 2013, the Town Board also set a Public Hearing for April 23, 2013 on the Town Development Plan Amendments. The Town Board held Public Hearings on the further revised Draft SEIS, the Consolidated Proposed Action the Proposed Redrafted for Consolidation Local Law and the Town Development Plan Amendments on April 23, 2013 and April 29, 2013, closed the Public Hearing on the DSEIS on April 29, 2013, set a period for written comments on the DSEIS (“Comment Period”), and adjourned the Public Hearings on the Consolidated Proposed Action, Proposed Redrafted for Consolidation Local Law and Town Development Plan Amendments on April 29, 2013. Public Hearings on the Consolidated Proposed Action, Proposed Redrafted for Consolidation Local Law and Town Development Plan Amendments were subsequently renoticed and reopened on July 30, 2013, continued on September 3, 2013 and closed on September 3, 2013. The Town Board on May 13, 2013 and May 14, 2013 received correspondence from the Office of the Watershed Inspector General and the Riverkeeper requesting that the Town Board extend the comment period to enable public comment on the Consolidated Proposed Action’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) and Invasive Species Management Plan (“ISMP”). By resolution dated May 17, 2013, the Town Board directed the Applicant to submit a SWPPP and ISMP as an Appendix to the DSEIS (“SWPPP/ISMP Appendix”) and, for the limited purpose of allowing public comment on the SWPPP/ISMP Appendix, extended the written comment period on the DSEIS, scheduled to close on May 17, 2013, to a date thirty (30) days after the date the SWPPP/ISMP Appendix was filed with the Town Board and made available for public review in accordance with 6 NYCRR 617.12.

Page 9 of 79

The Applicant submitted the SWPPP/ISMP Appendix, and the SWPPP/ISMP Appendix was made available for public review, and notice of its submission was published in the Environmental Notice Bulletin on June 12, 2013, and the public comment period was extended to and closed on July 12, 2013. Prior to the close of the extended public comment period, the Town Board received comments from the Office of the Watershed Inspector General dated July 12, 2013, from the Riverkeeper dated July 12, 2013 and from the New York City Department of Environmental Protection dated July 11, 2013 on the SWPPP/ISMP Appendix. By Resolution dated July 23, 2013, the Town Board retained AKRF, Inc. to review the SWPPP and ISMP to be incorporated as part of the Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement and advise the Town Board on the adequacy of those Plans’ response to the July 12, 2013 comments from Riverkeeper and the Watershed Inspector General and comments from the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, dated July 11, 2013, on the SWPPP/ISMP Appendix to the DSEIS. The Town Board had also previously retained AKRF, Inc for economic consulting services relating to the impacts of the proposed retail development at Chappaqua Crossing on businesses in the Town’s hamlets and AKRF, Inc prepared a “Chappaqua Crossing Competitive Effects Analysis” dated July 25, 2013 that was accepted by the Town Board to be incorporated as an Appendix to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. From June 19, 2013 to July 19, 2013, the Town Board received components of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (“FSEIS Components”) from the Applicant. The Town Board reviewed the FSEIS Components and received and reviewed written comments on them from Town staff, Town consultants, special counsel, and counsel and the Town staff, Town consultants, special counsel and counsel met with and otherwise communicated those comments (“Town Comments”) to the Applicant regarding the FSEIS Components. The Applicant revised the FSEIS Components to address the Town Comments and on August 29, 2013, the Applicant submitted a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement dated August 2013 (“August 2013 FSEIS”). The Town Board reviewed and considered the August 2013 FSEIS, memoranda from AKRF, Inc. dated August 26, 2013 and September 3, 2013 commenting on the Applicant’s Invasive Species Management Plan and Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan respectively, and oral comments from the Town staff, Town consultants, special counsel and counsel and other advice, information and impressions available to them. On September 3, 2013, the Town Board adopted a resolution determining that the August 2013 FSEIS was complete and constituted the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on condition that the following requirements (“Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Conditions”) were satisfied:

Page 10 of 79

“1.

Town staff, Town consultants, special counsel and counsel shall confirm that the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement incorporates a detailed vegetation inventory of Wetlands 5 and 6 in order to quantify the spatial extent of invasive species colonization, the presence of additional invasive plants not yet included in the ISMP, and the extent of native vegetation to be preserved (‘Vegetative Inventory”). This should include a baseline map showing the areas dominated by invasive species and specific protocol(s) for measuring the success/failure of achieving the proposed management goals for each species (“Baseline Map”). “(a) Specifically, the Applicant’s consultant, William Kenny Associates LLC (WKA) will conduct a vegetation inventory within the southern portion of the meadow using the line intercept inventory methodology. Six transects of 100-feet in length will be established within the southern portion of the meadow. Along the transect, the cover intercept (i.e. the distance the plant spans along the transect) and average height will be recorded for each plant. From these data, the density of plants along the transect will be calculated. The line intercept method is a field standard in vegetation inventory and widely used in a variety of habitats. In addition to conducting a vegetation inventory along each of the six transects, WKA will flag and map invasive monocultures within the meadow in order to generate the approximate area of coverage within treatment areas. All work shall be accomplished as set forth in a memorandum from the Town’s consultant, AKRF, Inc. to the Town Planner dated August 26, 2013.”

“(b)

On September 10, 2013, the Applicant submitted a Vegetative Inventory and Baseline Map and Town staff, Town consultants, and counsel reviewed those documents and confirmed that the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Conditions had been satisfied. On September 10, 2013 the Applicant prepared and provided the Town Board with digital and printed copies of the August 2013 FSEIS which included the final revisions to the ISMP and discussion of invasive species in sufficient number to enable the Town Board to discharge its obligations under NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Rule 617.9 and Rule 617.12 (6 NYCRR §617.9 & §617.12) to file, distribute and deposit copies of the completed Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Subsequently, the FSEIS was filed, distributed, and published in accordance with the above cited SEQRA Regulations. Copies were made available for public review at the New Castle Town Hall and the Chappaqua Public Library and posted on the Town’s web site. CDROM copies of the FSEIS were distributed to involved and interested agencies and other interested parties. The Notice of Completion was published in the Environmental Notice Bulletin on September 18, 2013. Thereafter, additional correspondence dated October 2, 2013, was received from the Office of the Watershed Inspector General, Riverkeeper and the New York City Department of
Page 11 of 79

Environmental Protection. That correspondence was reviewed by the Town Board and addressed as part of this Findings Statement.

IV.

Project Description

The Petition Proposed Action would apply an Office Park Retail Overlay District to approximately 23.9 acres or 33% of the B-RO-20 District portion of the Project Site. As part of the Petition Proposed Action, the B-RO-20 District portion of the Project Site would be modified from the CR&EV Project’s 70.8 acres to 71.9 acres. The retail area would include a full-service grocery store to be located in the existing and adaptively reused 200 Building and a rebuilt 100 Building, new retail stores and parking to be constructed within and extending east of the existing south parking area, and a relocated south driveway connecting to Roaring Brook Road. The grocery and retail stores would total approximately 120,000 square feet in size. This proposed retail floor area would be offset by removal of 120,000 square feet of existing office space that due to its age and configuration has proved difficult to lease. Approximately 542,000 square feet of office space would remain. Approximately 600 parking spaces would be provided within the retail area. Two of the existing single-family lots along Roaring Brook Road and owned by the Applicant would be incorporated into the site to provide a landscaped buffer for the retail areas. These two single family lots would remain within the R1-A Zoning District as single family residences. The residential component of the Petition Proposed Action is substantively the same as the CR&EV Project, with no proposed increase in the number of residential units or bedrooms. (See Figure C: Petition Proposed Action Project Overlay). The fourth floor of the existing 200 Building contains approximately 14,500 square feet of office space, accessible via a single central elevator and two sets of fire stairs along the east wall. The disposition of the fourth floor of the 200 Building is dependent on the size and layout of the grocery store. The fourth floor could be used by the grocer for office space, accessed via a relocated elevator and fire stairs from within or adjacent to the grocery selling floor. The fourth floor could also be used by another office tenant for office space, accessed via relocated fire stairs and an elevator in the 200 Building north pavilion, which would also be used for office space. Another option would be to close off and seal the fourth floor space, with no elevator access. The Petition Proposed Action would modify the CR&EV Project as follows: A. The addition of a retail area to be housed in both existing and newly constructed buildings in the southern portion of the Project Site The Office Park Retail Overlay District is proposed within a generally level portion of the Project Site that contains a portion of the existing vacant office building and parking lots. The project includes the adaptive reuse of the 200 (Cupola) Building and the demolition and reconstruction of the 100 Building to house the full-service grocery store that would be the anchor for the retail uses on the site. The first and second floors of the 200 (Cupola) Building would be combined to create a double-height selling space for the grocery store. The west
Page 12 of 79

façade and the upper portions of the east façade would be retained. The use of the fourth floor of the 200 (Cupola) Building would be either usable office space or unused space pending on the grocery tenant. The lower floor of the 200 (Cupola) Building would be utilized for grocery support, including storage, refrigeration and preparation space. The 100 Building would be demolished and a replacement building would be constructed in its place to extend the double height grocery floor and the architectural character of the 200 (Cupola) Building. A fully contained interior loading dock would be located within the lower floor of the reconstructed 100 Building to serve the grocery store. Access to the loading dock would be from a widened internal driveway and the main Site entry drive from Bedford Road. Levels below main floor of 100 and 200 Buildings are to be used for the loading dock and other grocery-support space (e.g., storage, refrigeration, preparation); internal loading and grocery-support space of the lower floor shall not be counted towards the 120,000 square footage of retail permitted within the B-RO20 district. A number of freestanding buildings would be built to house “individual” and “connected” retail stores in the OPROD. These new buildings would contain between 10 and 14 retail tenants. The one-story buildings would be designed utilizing materials and detailing to complement the existing 200 (Cupola) Building and the reconstructed 100 buildings, featuring brick piers, storefront glass, gables, dormers and hipped roofs. These buildings and their associated parking would be located primarily within the existing south office parking lot. The eastern section of this area would extend approximately 200 feet to the east of the existing lot. Approximately 600 parking spaces would remain within the retail area, at a ratio of 5 spaces per 1,000 square foot of retail use. The new parking areas would be regraded and paved with new tree planting islands and full cutoff LED light standards. Shopping cart corrals, located in proximity to the grocer, would be provided in addition to the required parking spaces. B. Modifications to office parking areas including relocation and landbanking and the establishment of a relocated south driveway. The addition of the retail area in the south portion of the Project Site would displace existing office parking that would be relocated to the north within the Project Site. As part of the Petition Proposed Action, a total of 1,685 office parking spaces are to be retained, reconfigured or constructed within the office area of the B-RO-20 District to the west and east of the existing office buildings and through the extension of the existing north lot. Given the current tenancy of the office use on the site, the Applicant is proposing to landbank several portions of this parking. There are three existing entries to the Project Site - the main or east driveway from Bedford Road (NYS Route 117), the west driveway from lower Roaring Brook Road, and the south driveway also from Roaring Brook Road which is approximately 300 feet west of the Horace Greeley High School entry driveway.
Page 13 of 79

In recent years, the south driveway has been gated and used only for emergency purposes or overflow parking for High School events. The Petition Proposed Action includes relocating it to be located directly opposite the High School entry drive and signalizing it. C. Re-establishment of the Project Site’s internal “loop road” to facilitate movements to and from the existing west and east entries and the new south entry to all areas of the Project Site. The existing vehicular gates would be removed at the east and west entries and the re-established loop road would connect directly from the west entry to the retail area and the newly proposed south driveway. D. Adjustments to the residential East Village layout due to the change in the East Village access. The internal loop road to the East Village Residential area would be relocated to facilitate internal circulation within the Project Site. The access drive would be shifted approximately 30 feet to the east and the multi-family buildings and townhouses would be shifted accordingly. E. Internal adjustments to roadways and walks. The internal roadway system would be adjusted so as to facilitate movements to and from the existing west and east entries and the proposed new south entry to all areas of the Project Site. Walkaways would be extended or provided to fully connect the retail, office and residential areas within the Project Site. A walkway extending generally parallel to the east entry drive would provide pedestrian access from Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) to the existing office building as well as to the proposed retail uses and the residential uses on the site, including the residential clubhouse. A walkway is also proposed at the beginning of the intersection of the re-established loop road and the east entry drive extending to Roaring Brook Road which would connect to a proposed crosswalk leading to the Horace Greeley High School. F. Reduction in the town house unit size due to the shift in the residential access drive. The townhouses in the East Village are arranged in clusters, four of which extend towards the east from the residential access drive. Within these four clusters there are two groupings of three to four attached townhouses. In conjunction with the proposed 30 foot shift in the internal loop road, each townhouse would be reduced in width by approximately four feet so that the eastern edge of the townhouse clusters remains in the same location as the CR&EV Project.

Page 14 of 79

G. Adjustment in the MFPD District line and area The shift of the East Village access drive and units results in adjustment of the MFPD District line. As such, the B-RO-20 District would increase from 70.8 acres to 71.9 acres and the area within the MFPD District would be reduced from 30.6 acres to 29.5 acres.; and H. Stormwater quality and quantity control. Stormwater management systems have been designed to provide water quality and quantity controls to existing and newly created impervious areas such that the runoff leaving the site from improved areas would be less than or equal to existing conditions for all storm events up to and including the 100-year frequency. I. Signage for proposed additional retail uses. The addition of retail uses to the existing and approved office uses and residential uses would require signage at the three Project Site entries, within the Project Site itself, and on the retail buildings. This signage is intended to provide direction and information to visitors, occupants and residents. Freestanding ground signs area proposed at the east, south and west entries that would list the different uses within the Project Site and certain retail or office tenants. The retail uses would have wall signs and/or hanging signs mounted at specifically designed locations on the architectural facades. Directional signs would be provided along interior roadways. All signs would be illuminated. J. New off-site traffic improvements; The CR&EV Project included the Applicant’s constructing and/or funding the construction of a right-turn land from southbound Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) onto Roaring Brook Road and upgrading the existing traffic signal in order to improve traffic flow at that intersection. As part of the Petition Proposed Action, a left-turn lane from northbound Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) onto Roaring Brook Road and new signalized intersection with turning lanes at the Project Site’s newly relocated south entry drive (across from Horace Greeley High School) are being proposed to be constructed or funded. K. Amendments to the conditions of the approved East Village MFPD PDCP. The Petition Proposed Action incorporates amendments to certain conditions of the approved East Village MFP PDCP. The conditions to be amended are included in the following table:

Page 15 of 79

Condition 3(g) Condition 9 Condition 14(g) Condition 14(j) Condition 16 Condition 14 (oo) Condition 14(gg) Condition 14 (kk)

SEQRA and Application Review Fees Adaptive Reuse of Buildings 100 and 200 Exterior Lighting Plan Individual Outdoor Unit Access MFPD Approval Expiration Landscape/Vegetated Buffer in North Village Area Tree Replacement Ratio Disturbance to Wetlands and/or Wetland Buffers

Condition 3(g) requires the Applicant to pay in full all costs and fees incurred by the Town in connection with the SEQRA or application review process for the CR&EV Project prior to the earlier of the Applicant’s submission of an application for site plan approval for the MFPD Parcel or the issuance of a building permit for a residential unit within the Project Site. Pursuant to the terms of a Settlement Agreement between the Applicant and the Town dated December 11, 2012 the Applicant has paid $905,000.00 to the Town to satisfy this obligation in full. Condition 9 provides that the historic Rotunda Building (“Buildings 100 and 200”) shall be retained and the Guest House shall be adaptively reused. The Petition Proposed Action would amend that condition to provide that “The historic Rotunda Building (Building 200) and the Guest House shall be retained and/or adaptively reused.” Condition 14g provides for the development and implementation of an exterior lighting plan in accordance with the proposed lighting plan in the DEIS and FEIS. The Petition Proposed Action would amend that condition so as to require a lighting plan that is in accordance with the SEIS-Proposed Project’s proposed lighting plan which includes the addition of retail uses on the Project Site. Condition 14j requires that individual outdoor unit access pursuant to Town Code Section 60-410H (2) (g) (formerly Town Code Section 60-417.271) be provided unless waived by the Planning Board. The Petition Proposed Action would eliminate the requirement for individual outdoor unit access. Condition 16 provides that approval for the establishment of the MFPD District shall expire unless (i) within 12 months of the date of Town Board approval, the Applicant has received site plan approval and final subdivision approval, if appropriate from the Planning Board for the development of the MFPD Parcel; and (ii) work has begun on the Project Site within 18 months of Town Board MFPD District approval and is prosecuted to conclusion with reasonable diligence. The Petition Proposed Action would extend the time period to receive the required Planning Board approvals. The Town Board has previously granted extensions of both these time periods to the Applicant and has amended the Town Code to enable the Applicant to seek additional extensions. Condition 14oo provides for an appropriate landscaped/vegetated buffer, including a raised and landscaped berm, to be constructed and/or maintained with supplemental landscaping in areas adjacent to neighboring residential properties to minimize visibility of the Project
Page 16 of 79

Site buildings. Given that the North Village residential development proposed by the Applicant was not approved as part of the CR&EV Project, the Petition Proposed Action would eliminate the reference to a raised and landscaped berm as no longer being necessary. Condition 14gg provides for a tree replacement to removal ratio of at least 3:1. According to the Petition Proposed Action, that ratio was based on the number of trees to be replaced for the entire proposed project, including the North Village which was not approved as part of the CR&EV Project. The Petition Proposed Action would revise the condition to require tree replacement mitigation in accordance with the Town’s Tree Preservation Law. Condition 14kk provides for no direct disturbance to Wetlands 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6 or 7 or their respective buffer areas and requires a wetland permit for any disturbance to Wetland 8 or its buffer area. However, the Petition Proposed Action proposes certain traffic mitigation measures the construction of which may potentially disturb the buffer area of Wetland 7 and also impact Wetland 8. Accordingly, the Petition Proposed Action would delete the prohibition on disturbance to Wetland 7 or its buffer area from the condition and further amend the condition to require a wetland permit for any disturbance to Wetlands 7 or 8 or their buffer areas. To the extent that the proposed amendments discussed above raise issues of environmental concern, those issues have been analyzed in the SDEIS and SFEIS. V. Retail Zoning Legislation

The Town Board is considering two local laws, the Proposed Local Law and the Proposed Redrafted for Consolidation Local Law, each of which would amend both the Town Development Plan concerning commercial development policies and the New Castle Town Code Chapter 60 regarding retail development in a Research and Office Business District. Both local laws would adopt new zoning text provisions to establish an Office Park Retail Overlay District (“OPROD”) but would not map the district, but set procedural standards that would apply to the future mapping of an Office Park Retail Overlay District in a Research and Office Business District and set substantive standards that would apply to any development proposed within a mapped Office Park Retail Overlay District. Both local laws would provide the opportunity for the development of a retail zoning district on a planned basis as part of the Project Site, the Town’s only mapped Research and Office Business District (“Office Park District”). The retail zoning district would be anchored by a full service grocery store, provide for other retail uses that would provide a complimentary and mutually sustaining tenant mix appropriate for the comfort and convenience of community residents and occupants in the underlying Office Park District and facilitate the provision of daily needs, products and services, such as groceries and basic retail, in an otherwise underserved market to support and enhance the Town’s commercial real estate tax base. Zoning and planning approvals of any OPROD and related project improvements would involve, under both local laws, a two-step review process:

Page 17 of 79

(1)

Town Board rezoning of a specific portion of the underlying Office Park District to OPROD and approval of a Preliminary Development Concept Plan (“PDCP”) for the development of the rezoned area; Planning Board approval of a final detailed site plan, together with other related land use approvals, and if appropriate, Planning Board approval of an integrated operations plan for the OPROD and the underlying Office Park District.

(2)

Under both local laws, the standards for development within an OPROD are the same as those applicable to development in the underlying Office Park District without regard to the OPROD except that: (1) (2) (3) An OPROD shall only be established within an Office Park District; The maximum size of an OPROD shall be 35% of the size of the underlying Office Park District; The Proposed Local Law, but not the Proposed Redrafted for Consolidation Local Law, imposes limits on (a) the maximum aggregate building footprints in an OPROD (20% of the total building footprint(s) in all of the underlying Office Park District, including the OPROD, subject to increase by the Town Board to 25%); (b) the maximum building footprint occupied by a single use (40% of the total building footprint(s) in all of the OPROD; and (c) the maximum building footprint occupied by any three uses in an OPROD (60% of the total building footprint(s) in all of the OPROD). Both local laws limit the maximum aggregate floor areas in an OPROD to 20% of the total floor area in all of the underlying Office Park District, including the OPROD, but, under the Proposed Local Law, the maximum aggregate floor area percentage may be increased to 25% by the Town Board; The Proposed Local Law, but not the Proposed Redrafted for Consolidation Local Law, limits (a) the floor area occupied by a single use in an OPROD to a maximum of 40% of the total floor area in all of the OPROD; (b) the floor area occupied by any three uses in an OPROD to a maximum of 60% of the total floor area in all of the OPROD; Under the Proposed Local Law, the minimum floor area occupied by a single use in an OPROD shall be 5000 square feet, and under the Proposed Redrafted for Consolidation Local Law, the minimum floor area occupied by a single use shall be 1,500 square feet but in

(4)

(5)

(6)

Page 18 of 79

no case shall there be more than four stores, each having a floor area under 5,000 square feet. (7) An OPROD must contain a full service grocery store which, under the Proposed Local Law, must occupy at least 50,000 square feet but not more than 60,000 square feet, and, under the Proposed Redrafted for Consolidation Local Law, must occupy at least 36,000 square feet but no more than 66,000 square feet.

Both local laws establish detailed design guidelines, signage requirements, parking and loading requirements, and operational characteristics for retail development in the OPROD. In each case, the design guidelines require that buildings and improvements be consistent with and complement one another and the design of other buildings and improvements in the balance of the underlying Office Park District and otherwise be consistent with a number of other guidelines. These guidelines address such topics as historic architectural character, the use of similar building materials, forms, colors and scale; fenestration, and the concealment of mechanical equipment, utilities and refuse areas. The Proposed Redrafted for Consolidation Local Law further requires that signage in the OPROD be consistent in design and presentation with the underlying Office Park District. The Proposed Local Law mandates that any reduction in parking granted by the Town Board be kept available by land banking in areas or structures shown on an approved site plan. Both local laws would amend the schedule of regulations for business and industrial districts to add OPROD and to define permitted principal and permitted accessory uses. Permitted principal uses include retail stores and shops, but not including a public garage; post office, package center, copy center and the like, but not personal service; financial institutions; restaurants, by special permit, (limited to 1 per 150,000 square feet of floor area in the OPROD under the Proposed Local Law), health clubs and fitness centers, tutoring services and the like, but not personal service, carry out restaurants (by special permit), structurally mounted wireless telecommunication services facility (minor) and utility structures for transmission, storage and/or treatment of water and sewage. VI. Consideration of Environmental Impacts The FSEIS considers the potential impacts of the Petition Proposed Action, the Town Development Plan and Zoning amendments required to implement the Petition Proposed Action, the Consolidated Proposed Action and the Proposed Redrafted for Consolidation Local Law in the following areas: Land Use and Zoning; Socioeconomic and Fiscal Conditions; Land, Water and Ecological Resources; Community Facilities and Services; Historic and Archaeological Resources; Visual Resources; Utilities; Traffic, Transportation, and Parking; Air Quality and Noise; Community Character; and Construction. A. Land Use and Zoning

In the 2011 Findings Statement regarding the CR&EV Project, the Town Board supported commercial use at the Project Site and elimination of the restrictions on the number of tenants and the amount of space that they could lease with hopes to further the goal of
Page 19 of 79

reutilization of the office space at the Reader’s Digest Campus. However, the change to allow multiple commercial tenants has not resulted in a substantial enhancement of the viability of commercial development at the Project Site. In the two years since the removal of the tenancy restrictions, difficulties have persisted in renting the commercial space. In addition, certain projections and forecasts underlying the policies that formed the basis of the 1989 TDP have not been realized and the physical, economic and environmental standards and conditions affecting the use of property throughout the Town have changed. The TDP defines the term “office business, research and industrial development” as a “specific type of commercial development that features a sizable building in which corporate office, research and/or light industrial activities take place, along with necessary parking facilities, usually in a self-contained campus-like setting.” The TDP states that for “at least 30 years, the Town has pursued a policy of encouraging this kind of development, a result of its positive experience with a major corporate office of this type – Reader’s Digest – and its desire to expand the Town’s tax base, particularly its nonresidential tax base” and concludes that “for the most part, this policy has served the town well.” The TDP did not contemplate the eventual downsizing of Reader’s Digest and its ultimate departure from the community. The Town Board finds that Reader’s Digest’s departure from the community tied with the economic challenges experienced during the last several years provides a basis to re-examine and refine the TDP’s approach to the only B-RO-20 Zoning District remaining in the community. This re-examination and redefinition is further supported by a 2010 Westchester County Department of Planning report entitled “Land Use in Westchester: A Detailed Look at Existing Conditions and Development Trends,” which included a qualitative discussion of major land use trends observed in Westchester County since the previous land use report, “Patterns for Westchester” was published in 1996. The 2010 report addressed the Reader’s Digest Campus at some length, stating: “The Reader’s Digest corporate campus is an example of a major corporate campus in the County that is experiencing a change in use from a single-tenant corporate campus. Located in the Town of New Castle and opened in 1939, the Reader’s Digest site spans 120 acres. The company shed over 1,000 jobs at its corporate campus, and in 2005, sold its landholdings and continued to lease just 250,000 of a total of 700,000 square feet of office space on the property. In addition to subdividing the remaining 450,000 square feet of office space …The redevelopment of the Reader’s Digest campus may involve shifting uses from commercial offices to residences…” This analysis was based on studies which document the decline of the single tenant office park. At the present time the Reader’s Digest Corporation has completely vacated the Project Site. The Applicant’s unsuccessful efforts to reutilize the existing Reader’s Digest Campus office space further underscores the importance of broadening the types of commercial uses permitted at the Project Site. Introducing retail uses in the B-RO-20 District of the Project Site will strengthen and enhance the viability of continued commercial uses at the Project Site and the related benefits of a more robust and diversified Town tax base. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Use The site plan for the Petition Proposed Action includes the addition of a retail area in the southern portion of the Project Site, modification to office parking area, adjustments to the residential East Village layout, site-wide changes to roadways, stormwater management
Page 20 of 79

systems and signage. These changes are physically compatible with surrounding land uses in that the changes are occurring internally to the Project Site. The OPROD is proposed within a generally level portion of the Site that currently contains an existing vacant office building and parking lots. The location of the OPROD on this portion of the Project Site maintains the appropriate setbacks. The Project Site is immediately surrounded by mixed institutional uses, residential areas and large, regionally significant transportation corridors. Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and Roaring Brook Road are identified as major roadways in the Town’s 1989 Development Plan. Horace Greeley High School and the Chappaqua Central School District offices are located across Roaring Brook Road from the southern end of the Project Site. These educational facilities are busy with school-related traffic during weekdays and host many events on weekends as well. The neighborhoods beyond on the southern side of the Project Site and on the northern and eastern side are characterized as residential areas with one- or two-story homes on properties of one or more acres. Crabtree’s Kittle House, an existing restaurant located less than one mile from the Project Site to the east features regular restaurant service and special event catering. Like the Project Site, these areas are characterized by varying topography with existing mature vegetation and lawn areas. The Metro-North Harlem Division Rail Line right-of-way, an active rail line with peak-hour trains passing every 15 minutes, and the divided, four lane Saw Mill River Parkway border the Project Site to the west. Beyond this transportation corridor, further west, are areas of open space and residential neighborhoods characterized by heavily wooded areas and varying topography. 2). Amendment of Town Development Plan Policies for the Project Site The Petition Proposed Action differs from the CR&EV Project, which allowed 662,000 square feet of commercial space in the B-RO-20 District, in that the Petition Proposed Action proposes to introduce 120,000 square feet of retail space (consisting of a full service grocery store anchor tenant and companion retail uses) in the B-RO-20 District by removing 120,000 square feet of existing office space so that no more than 662,000 square feet of commercial use (542,000 square feet office use and 120,000 square feet of retail use) will be realized on the Project Site. Thus the amount of non-residential use allowed by the Petition Proposed Action would be consistent with that of the CR&EV Project. The residential component of the Petition Proposed Action proposes no change to the number of residential units or bedrooms in the CR&EV Project. The April 11, 2011, Findings Statement regarding the CR&EV Project specifically stated that the “FEIS concludes that the Proposed Action and Modified Project…would be materially inconsistent with the Town Development Plan (“TDP”) with respect to the proposed rezoning of a substantial portion of the Project Site from commercial to residential use.” At that time the Town Board found that the significant adverse environmental impact was mitigated by reducing the area of the Project Site that was sought by the Applicant to be rezoned from commercial to residential use. In addition, the CR&EV Project Findings concluded that “because the Town Development Plan strongly encourages the continued commercial zoning of the Project Site, the Town Board took steps to strengthen the longterm viability of commercial development at the Project Site by removing the restrictions on the number of commercial tenants allowed in the B-RO-20 District.”
Page 21 of 79

The Petition Proposed Action that will allow the establishment of retail commercial use on the Project Site is consistent with the TDP’s strong encouragement for the continued commercial zoning of the Project Site. However, it is inconsistent with aspects of the TDP in that (1) the existing B-RO-20 (office business, research and industrial development) zoning of the subject property does not allow for the mixture of commercial uses as currently presented in the Petition Proposed Action (introduction of retail use); and (2) a new retail zoning district would be established outside the Chappaqua and Millwood hamlets. Concurrent with its consideration of the Petition Proposed Action, and based upon its reexamination of the TDP’s approach to the B-RO-20 Zoning District, the Town Board is considering amending the Town Development Plan to eliminate its inconsistencies with the Petition Proposed Action. In particular, these proposed amendments to the Town Development Plan would (a) allow certain retail uses on land zoned for office/research office parks (B-RO-20 Zone) subject to certain limitations and approval of a preliminary development concept plan; (b) repeal the policy that new commercial facilities that have market areas extending substantially beyond the Town’s boundaries should not be permitted; (c) modify the blanket prohibition on the establishment of new business centers outside the existing hamlets by providing that “new business centers should not be established in any other section of New Castle unless a market analysis establishes such a need and the operations of such new business centers are not contrary to surrounding uses”; (d) affirm that a mix of residential and non-residential uses should be permitted in the B-RO-20 office/research district by stating that the overall purpose of the policies guiding development in business districts should be to “carefully examine” rather than just “reduce” the “scale and intensity of commercial use so as to better balance traffic generation, road capacity and parking demands, as well as to maintain visual compatibility with the residential character of the Town”; (e) correct a reference to a projected IBM Hudson Hills Facility that was never constructed; and (f) delete the recommendation that “the Town should actively seek to limit State and County roadway improvements designed to increase the capacity of existing roads to carry additional through traffic outside the Town’s two hamlets”. With the adoption of these amendments, the Petition Proposed Action would be consistent with the Town Development Plan. Another motivational factor for consideration of retail commercial use is that in 2011/2012 the Town of New Castle experienced the loss of its only full service grocery store east of the Saw Mill River Parkway. Recent analysis by HR&A Advisors (February 2013) noted that because of the area’s strong north-south arterial connections and lack of lateral roadways combined with the abundance of area-defining bodies of water, drive-time trade analysis in relation to retail service markets is a more representative means to define the service area of retail uses as opposed to the geographic boundaries utilized by the TDP. HRA defined the primary service area as being within a 10 minute drive-time and the secondary trade area as the area outside of the 10 minute drive-time but within the 15 minute drive-time. This analysis identified an underserved market which would benefit from the addition of the retail that would be provided as part of the Petition Proposed Action, in that the retail commercial use would add to the comfort and convenience of occupants at the Project Site, as well as residents of the community by providing daily needs products and services. This is currently a missed opportunity to help stabilize and strengthen the Town’s relatively small commercial real estate tax base.
Page 22 of 79

To better understand the potential impacts on existing businesses in the Chappaqua and Millwood hamlets, the Town Board retained AKRF, Inc. who prepared a “Chappaqua Crossing Competitive Effects Analysis” inventorying existing retail uses in the hamlets, and analyzing retail capture rates and the potential for retail overlap and competition between hamlet and Project Site businesses. This analysis found that there is a fairly vibrant retail environment within both hamlets, with low vacancy rates and a range of retail product and service offerings. However, with the exception of personal and laundry services, the retail inventory is limited when compared to the consumer expenditures; and expenditures are ‘leaking’ to locations in Mount Kisco, Pleasantville, Ossining and elsewhere. The retail categories with the highest “leakage” are generally within retail categories where products are offered in larger formats (e.g. grocery stores, general merchandise stores). The AKRF study concluded that the Petition Proposed Action presented an opportunity to capture exported consumer dollars, and from a tax base perspective better capitalize on Town-generated commercial demand. For consumers, the Petition Proposed Action could provide retail offerings as part of larger-format stores that compliments existing retail offerings. The proposed mix of retail commercial uses would further the Town’s goals to reduce its carbon footprint by reducing the drive time the underserved market area would need to travel if they are currently seeking goods and services from other communities. Given the identification of an underserved market area, retail development at the Project Site would reduce the necessity to drive to other communities. Along those lines, consideration of off-site traffic improvements at the intersection of Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and Roaring Brook Road at Horace Greeley High School/as well as relocating the South Entrance will further promote sufficient and improved traffic operations within the surrounding area. Dimensional and design guidelines presented in both the Proposed Local Law and the Redrafted for Consolidation Local Law would direct architectural improvements to be visually compatible with other permitted uses in the B-RO-20 Zoning District and surrounding area (influences of the historic Georgian-style 200 Building and residential East Village buildings) in order to support the appearance of a unified mixed-use campus. The Petition Proposed Action would adaptively reuse the iconic 200 (Cupola) Building. In summary, the current circumstances surrounding the use of land within the B-RO-20 Zoning District have changed dramatically from what was forecast in 1989. The Town is proposing to address these challenges as directly as possible, but in a thoughtful deliberate manner by changing the zoning to accommodate a full service grocery store and companion retail uses and establishing a regulatory structure for retail development that will mitigate any impacts related to the inconsistency of retail use at Chappaqua Crossing with the 1989 Town Development Plan as well as mitigating impacts on existing retail businesses in the Town. The Town Board is also considering changes to the TDP that would eliminate any inconsistencies between it and the Petition Proposed Action. In undertaking these efforts, the Town would be taking proactive steps to ensure the continued commercial use of the Project Site to preserve and enhance the Town’s limited commercial tax base. Preliminary Development Concept Plan The Petition Proposed Action physically differs from the CR&EV Project in that it calls for the addition of a retail area in the southern portion of the Project Site, modifications to office parking areas, adjustments to the residential East Village layout, site-wide changes to
Page 23 of 79

roadways, stormwater management systems and signage, and new off-site improvements. These changes are further detailed in Section IVV (page 12-1515) of this 2013 Supplemental Findings Statement. The physical changes are depicted on the DSEIS Preliminary Development Concept Plan (“DSEIS PDCP”) which is depicted in Figure D: DSEIS PDCP. The DSEIS PDCP will be refined further as retail demands and other factors, including environmental factors (stormwater control, tree and wetland mitigation, etc.) are addressed through the Town Board’s consideration of a PDCP and the Planning Board’s site plan approval processes. The Town Board finds that:   Addition of retail use would help the Town better realize its goal to maintain commercial use at the Project Site to preserve and enhance the Town’s limited commercial tax base. Maintaining a threshold of no greater than 120,000 square feet of retail and 542,000 square feet of office use for a total of 662,000 square feet of commercial use will maintain consistency with the findings of the CR&EV Project and will mitigate any significant environmental impact from the addition of retail use as a type of commercial use at the project site. Requiring that retail use at the Project Site be anchored by a full service grocery story of 36,000 to 50,000 square feet and establishing a minimum floor area of 1500 square feet for any single use and limiting to four the number of stores that may have a floor area under 5000 square feet will provide for the comfort and convenience of occupants in the Office Park District and occupants in the community, facilitate the provision of daily needs products and services and mitigate the impacts on businesses in the Town’s hamlets. The proposed amendments to the Town Development Plan discussed above, are consistent with the evolution of the use of the Project Site and the need to maintain and expand the Town’s commercial tax base as detailed in the CR&EV Project Findings Statement. The Town’s adoption of these proposed amendments would eliminate any inconsistencies between the Petition Proposed Action and the Town Development Plan. On any PDCP proposed by Applicant for approval by the Town Board, Applicant must identify any changes from the SDEIS PDCP, and any environmental impact arising from any such change that is not adequately addressed in the DSEIS/FSEIS will require further environmental review. Socioeconomic and Fiscal Conditions

B.

The April 2011 Findings Statement did not identify any significant adverse impacts with respect to socioeconomic and fiscal conditions. The largest change from the CR&EV Project to the Petition Proposed Action is in relation to the change in assessed value due to the exchange of 120,000 square feet of office use to retail use. The converted 120,000 square feet of commercial office to 120,000 square feet of commercial retail space is expected to result in a higher assessed value, as compared to 120,000 square feet of office space under the CR&EV Project. The increase in assessed value is a result of the higher
Page 24 of 79

rents in combination with lower expenses and a lower capitalization rate for retail use as compared to office use. The total projected revenue from commercial taxes is anticipated to range from $3,016,148 (66,000 SF grocer) to $3,060,708 (50,000 SF grocer) to $3,052,354 (36,000 SF grocer) depending on the floor area of the proposed grocery tenant. It was determined that the Petition Proposed Action would generate approximately $671,000 to $716,000 in tax revenue more than the CR&EV Project. The Petition Proposed Action is expected to provide for additional types of employment opportunities on the Project Site. While the potential for a greater number of office jobs exists (480) in relation to the CR&EV Project, it is unlikely to occur due to the vacancy of the buildings because of among other things the difficulties in leasing the old, irregular floor plates. The Petition Proposed Action’s retail space would offset the removal of a comparable amount of vacant office space and provide jobs (300) that would not otherwise be available due to the underutilization of the vacant office buildings. The introduction of commercial retail use as part of the Petition Proposed Action provides an opportunity to capture a significant portion of spending that is being spent outside of New Castle. The Town of New Castle commissioned a market analysis of the Chappaqua and Millwood Hamlets in relation to the Petition Proposed Action at Chappaqua Crossing (Chappaqua Crossing Competitive Effects Analysis, prepared by AKRF, July 25, 2013). That analysis found that there is a fairly vibrant retail environment within both hamlets, with low vacancy rates and a range of retail product and service offerings. However, with the exception of personal and laundry services, the retail inventory as a whole is limited when compared to the consumer demand within stores’ primary and secondary trade areas. The retail categories with the highest “leakage” are generally within retail categories where products are offered in larger formats (e.g. grocery stores, general merchandise stores). The analysis concluded that the Petition Proposed Action presented an opportunity to capture exported consumer dollars, and from a tax base perspective better capitalize on Town-generated commercial demand. For consumers, the Petition Proposed Action could provide retail offerings as part of larger-format stores that complement existing retail offerings. To ensure that the Petition Proposed Action does not negatively impact retail uses within the Chappaqua and Millwood Hamlets, the New Castle Town Board has proposed size restrictions in the proposed OPROD legislation. The Proposed Local Law requires that the minimum floor area occupied by a single use be 5,000 SF. The Proposed Redrafted for Consolidation Local Law requires that the minimum floor area occupied by a single tenant be 1,500 square feet, but in no case shall there be more than four retail tenants each having a floor area under 5,000 square feet. The intent is to embrace the fact that a majority of retailers in both the Chappaqua and Millwood Hamlets are less than 3,000 square feet and that the current supply of space in the hamlets does not meet the site-selection criteria of tenants that may be looking for space larger than 3,000 square feet and would otherwise be looking outside of the hamlets for a location. The size-range restriction for a grocery store limits the possibility of attracting a smaller fullservice grocery store. The intent is for the grocery use to serve as a major anchor at the Project Site, and in this respect setting a minimum square footage requirement above 36,000 square feet is appropriate. A larger grocery store will draw from a greater geographic area.
Page 25 of 79

The draw from a greater geographic area would benefit other Chappaqua Crossing retailers and new/additional consumer visits to Chappaqua also could benefit existing Town retailers. As the analysis indicates, the primary trade area could vary substantially depending on the store’s size and brand. As such, the Town Board finds that a premium quality grocery store, unique to the immediate area and distinct from other formula grocers, will capture more of the current leakage (of sales) than a traditional grocer whose formula is already found within a short driving distance from the Project Site. By contrast, the Town Board has concerns related to the impact of a too large anchor (i.e. greater than 50,000 square feet). Allowing the grocer to use 50% or more of the total available retail space may prevent the most desirable complementary and mutually sustainable tenant mix for the comfort and convenience of occupants in the underlying Office Park District and occupants and residents in the community as a whole. Moreover, by limiting the grocer to a range of 36,000 SF to 50,000 SF allows the maximum tax revenue to be captured. In addition, the retail tenants on the Project Site should be encouraged to join the Chappaqua-Millwood Chamber of Commerce. This will foster communication between retailers to promote both existing and new Town retail. In addition, support should be provided to existing retailers in identifying niche markets, repositioning, product and marketing to the existing and new customer base. C. Land, Water and Ecological Resources

Site Disturbance and Stormwater Management The Petition Proposed Action would result in approximately 49 acres of disturbance. This is an additional site disturbance of 24 acres over the 25 acres of disturbance proposed in the CR&EV Project. The proposed area of disturbance includes approximately 17 acres of existing pavement and buildings. The additional proposed site disturbance is due to the construction of part of the retail component in the southern portion of the Project Site and the addition of parking in the central and northern portions of the Project Site. It should be noted that the amount of land disturbance would be reduced from 49 acres to 45 acres in areas where land-banked parking is proposed. It is also important to note that the type of disturbance to occur in areas of existing pavement and buildings is vastly different from disturbance of naturally vegetated areas and therefore the impact is lessened. The potential impacts related to clearing of land not previously disturbed for the Petition Proposed Action would include the removal of existing vegetation and associated habitat; the loss or migration of topsoil; a change in the surface drainage flow patterns; and erosion and sedimentation of the exposed soils. Approximately 32 acres of land disturbance will occur to areas not previously disturbed. The DSEIS included information pertaining to stormwater management and the invasive species management plan. The information in the DSEIS was reorganized and supplemented with additional analysis per comments stemming from the New York State Attorney General Watershed Inspector General, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection and the Riverkeeper as the currently submitted SWPPP/ISMP Appendix. The SWPPP/ISMP Appendix includes a description of the proposed stormwater management measures which have been preliminarily designed in accordance with the NYSDEC New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual (“NYSSMDM,” August 2010). The stormwater management measures have been proposed such that the future redeveloped conditions of the site generally maintain the current hydrology of the site.
Page 26 of 79

Proposed green infrastructure techniques and standard stormwater management practices will improve the stormwater quality conditions of the existing untreated runoff from the site under current developed conditions while treating the runoff from the new impervious area under redeveloped conditions. All construction activity is proposed to be undertaken consistent with an approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the NYSDEC General Permit GP-010-001 requirements and the New York City Watershed Rules and Regulations (1996) and will meet the Enhanced Phosphorus Removal Standards due to the Project Site’s location within the East of Hudson Watershed. Additional comments were received from the Watershed Inspector General, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection and the Riverkeeper in relation to the stormwater pollution prevention plan (“SWPPP”) as contained within the SWPPP/ISMP Appendix and its ability to fully evaluate and mitigate increases in water pollution within the New Croton Reservoir drainage basin that will likely be caused by the Petition Proposed Action. The Town Board has looked closely at the relationship of the new development and redevelopment on the Project Site in relation to its impact to water quality and quantity. As the final layout of the Project Site is developed through the Town Board’s PDCP and the Planning Board’s site plan approval processes, the SWPPP and any changes to it that the PDCP may dictate will be refined and brought up to meet permit standards consistent with the NYS DEC General Permit GP-010-001, the New York State Stormwater Design Manual (2010), also known as the “Blue Book” and the New York Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control (2005), as well as the New York City Watershed Rules and Regulations (1996). In addition to compliance with the New York City Watershed Rules and Regulations, the SWPPP must be reviewed and approved by the NYCDEP. Phosphorus (P) reductions shall be conducted to the maximum extent practicable and quantified separately for areas of new development and areas of redevelopment on the Project Site. Finalization of the SWPPP shall include, among other things, direction of stormwater runoff through a series of sequential treatment practices (in-series), direction of all impervious surfaces to treatment practices, revision of the pollutant loading analysis to ensure no net contravention to water quality occurs, exploration of off-site reductions in stormwater pollution, within the same watershed area, if they cannot be accomplished on-site, development of an erosion and sediment control plan for each phase of construction which shall be no greater than five (5) acres, and inclusion of a soil restoration plan. Wetlands and Invasive Species The CR&EV Project included a pedestrian walkway extending from the residential East Village to Roaring Brook Road opposite the Horace Greeley High School. This walkway would have resulted in the disturbance of 3,030 square feet of the 14,336 square foot Wetland 8. However, thet Petition Proposed Action differs from the CR&EV Project in that it includes a relocation of the existing road and provision of a new walkway to be located directly opposite the Horace Greeley High School entry drive instead of the CR&EV pedestrian walkway. This driveway is intended to provide access to the retail area and to the internal “loop road” connecting to the office and residential uses on site. The relocated
Page 27 of 79

driveway would impact approximately 62% (8,880 square feet) of a Town-regulated wetland and 32% (27,800 square feet) of a Town-regulated wetland buffer associated with Wetland 8. The primary function of Wetland 8 is modification of groundwater discharge, stormwater storage and wildlife habitat potential. The remaining undisturbed wetland area adjacent to the relocated driveway would continue to provide area for groundwater discharge and some stormwater storage. However, in accordance with the Town Code, the Applicant has proposed wetland mitigation through a combination of enhancements west of Wetland 8 along with enhancements to an existing wetland, Wetland 5 and Wetland 6 (a man-made pond located within Wetland 5), in the eastern portion of the Project Site. The Applicant has committed to 18,000 square feet of mitigation within the southern portion of Wetland 5, equaling a replacement ratio of 2:1 for direct wetland impact. The enhancements would be applied to approximately 25,000 square feet of Wetlands 5 and 6. The Wetland Mitigation Plan proposes to maintain the existing meadow habitat and native shrubs. Existing invasive herbs and shrubs would be removed in accordance with the Invasive Species Management Plan (“ISMP”) contained within the SWPPP/ISMP Appendix. This is consistent with the Town of New Castle’s protocol for wetland mitigation and monitoring. The protocol contains specific performance standards that need to be met, including 85% successful establishment of mitigation plantings and no greater than 10% invasive species. The protocol includes a 10-year monitoring plan. The Applicant has also proposed 42,000 square feet of wetland buffer enhancement along the western edge of Wetland 5, equaling a replacement ratio of 1.5:1 for wetland buffer area. This enhancement would consist of establishing a woodland buffer between Wetland 5 and the upland meadow habitat. Additional mitigation is required to fully mitigate the impacts to Wetland 8 (wetland and wetland buffer). Mitigation should include the addition of an understory shrub layer to the remaining section of Wetland 8, with a 50% coverage requirement. The Applicant, through the Town Board PDCP and Planning Board Site Plan approval processes, shall analyze and assess the efficacy of creating a new forested wetland west of Wetland 8. This location is in the same landscape position as Wetland 8 and has an existing over-story of hydrophytic trees. This new wetland creation is in addition to the wetland enhancement through invasive species removal of Wetlands 5 and 6 so that the overall acreage related to wetland creation and invasive species management equals or exceeds a mitigation ration of 3:1 (26,640 SF:8,880SF). Per the Town’s wetlands consultant, AKRF, mitigation credit shall only be given to any wetland creation area and only to those portions of the enhancement areas undergoing direct invasive plant removal. Only the aerial footprint of invasive species within Wetland 5 and 6 which will be removed should be counted as “mitigation” acreage, not the entire areas which shall be verified by the Town’s Environmental Coordinator or the Town’s Wetlands consultant prior to removal of the invasive species. As such, more detail of the vegetation inventory will be required as part of the Town Board PDCP and Planning Board site plan approval processes. Removal of invasive species should occur under the direction of field ecologists, given the similarities between native and non-native plant material. Through these processes the applicant shall synthesize the wetland mitigation in a wetland management
Page 28 of 79

plan which includes the ISMP, a more detailed planting plan, a discussion of alternative management techniques, specific details regarding the methods of species eradication, herbicide application, soil restoration, etc. in accordance with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and United States Army Corps of Engineers guidance documentation regarding Invasive Species Control/Management Plan Guidance. In addition, the wetland mitigation plan shall include construction of a split-rail fence or similar barrier to discourage dumping within Wetland 5 and 6. Grading and Excavation The Petition Proposed Action will result in construction and grading activities on a total of approximately 49 acres of the site. This is construction and grading of 24 acres more than the 25 acres proposed under the CR&EV Project. A cut and fill analysis was conducted for both the CR&EV Project and the Petition Proposed Action which revealed that the CR&EV Project would result in a total estimated cut and fill of 60,000 cubic yards of soil and the Petition Proposed Action would result in a total estimated cut and fill of 94,000 cubic yards. Site grading is proposed to be balanced by the site excavation as much as possible to minimize the import and export of material. This balanced cut and fill approach would significantly minimize the potential for any adverse impacts from truck trips to remove material from the Project Site during construction. The Applicant is also intending to use the Project Site’s existing level areas for new building pads and/or parking areas where possible to reduce the amount of additional grading that would otherwise be required. Additional changes to the Project Site’s topography would be associated with grading for new building pads and stormwater basins in the southern portion of the Project Site. The potential impacts on site topography identified under the CR&EV project will be less than the impacts presented under the Petition Proposed Action as no rock exists in the southern portion of the site and rock removal in the northern parking lot was determined to be rippable and will be removed without blasting. The construction schedule has been designed to limit the open areas of disturbance at any one time and in accordance with the preliminary SWPPP. Selective clearing and grubbing would be performed as needed and kept to a minimum. As soon as grading operations for an area are completed, they would be initially stabilized (using mulch, mating, and/or a temporary vegetative cover) or permanently landscaped in order to minimize erosion and dust. The measures outlined by the Applicant in the Petition Proposed Action and summarized above would mitigate to the extent practicable the grading and excavation that would be required and therefore would not present a significant impact as long as the work is performed consistent with the New York State Stormwater Design Manual (2010), also known as the “Blue Book” and the New York Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control (2005). Tree Removal Approximately 21 of the 26 acres of the woodland area on the Project Site would be left undisturbed, as the majority of the new construction under the Petition Proposed Action is concentrated in the southern and eastern portions of the Project Site, either within or
Page 29 of 79

adjacent to existing building footprints, parking areas or mowed lawns. Where feasible, trees close to the limit of disturbance determined to be in good condition will be flagged for protection. Small trees in proposed areas of disturbance will be evaluated for potential relocation on the Project Site. Areas of new development would be landscaped to maintain a similar character through the use of the same or similar plant species, spacing, composition and arrangement with enhancements responding to proposed environment. The Petition Proposed Action would result in the removal of 872 trees, including 201 specimen trees measuring 24 inches DBH or more. The CR&EV Project required the removal of 219 trees, including 40 specimen trees. The total diameter size of the trees to be removed equals approximately 14,500 inches. The minimum required tree replacement in inches, based on replacement of 50% of the total diameter of the trees to be removed, is approximately 7,250 inches. The Applicant has demonstrated that the 7,250 inches in tree replacement can be met on site. Per the ultimate site layout dictated through the Proposed Retail PDCP, the Applicant has agreed to plant the 7,250 inches in tree replacement on site or make an equivalent payment (or partial payment) to the Town’s Tree Bank Fund. In addition, off-site planting in the vicinity of the Project Site should also be considered. D. Community Facilities & Services

The Petition Proposed Action would introduce new retail uses to the Project Site that were not previously considered. The New Castle Police Department, Chappaqua Volunteer Ambulance Corps, and Chappaqua, Millwood and Mount Kisco Fire Departments were all provided with information related to the Petition Proposed Action. The greatest change from the CR&EV Project is the potential impacts related to the 120,000 square feet of retail uses exchanged for the existing 120,000 square feet of offices use. As the residential component of the CR&EV Project is not affected, there are no significant adverse impacts to community facilities and services related to schools, recreation facilities and public libraries. Emergency Services Overall, both office use and retail use fall under the general category of commercial use. As such the provisions regarding building access, height and the provision of adequate water supply as discussed under the CR&EV Project remain similar in the Petition Proposed Action as the retail component would be located within new, existing or reconstructed structures, which would have building heights equal to or below those existing on the Project Site. The design and operation of residential buildings and accessory uses including access roads, paths, and parking areas shall satisfy or exceed all applicable Town Code, New York State Energy Conservation Code, New York State Building Code, and fire safety requirements and/or other construction and design standards. Given that the proposed retail at Chappaqua Crossing would increase the number of visitors at the Project Site, this could create the potential for an increased demand in police services. Surrounding shopping centers of comparable size and retail store programming were assessed in relation to the number of calls to emergency responders over a five year period. The types of calls varied but generally included motor vehicle accidents, responses to alarms, reports of suspicious people or animals, lost and found, larcenies and other types of
Page 30 of 79

disturbances. The average annual call volume (140 Police, 6 Fire and 11 EMS) totals less than 3% of the total 2012 call volume for the Town of New Castle service providers ( 6,300 total calls). The Petition Proposed Action would place a limited additional demand on the Chappaqua Fire Department and Ambulance Services due to the increase in the number of visitors on the Project Site. Similar to the CR&EV Project, proper access for fire-fighting and Ambulance equipment and personnel shall be provided. Hydrants shall be installed in number and location and with such water pressure as may be determined to be adequate through the Town Board’s PDCP and the Planning Board’s site plan approval processes in consultation with the Town Engineer and the Chappaqua Fire Department. Both Fire and Ambulance services indicated that the current traffic conditions to access the site which consist of a lack of turn lanes and short traffic light cycles at the intersection of Bedford Road and Roaring Brook Road create significant delays during school hours. In addition the road conditions along Roaring Brook Road also contribute to delays. As part of the Petition Proposed Action, a left-turn lane from northbound Bedford Road onto Roaring Brook Road and a new signalized intersection with turning lanes at the Project Site’s relocated south entry driveway (across from Horace Greeley High School) provide several alternatives for emergency service providers to access the interior of the property. Ultimately, the Petition Proposed Action may result in an increase in demand for police services resulting from a frequency of shoplifting and fraud related incidents on the Project Site, as compared to the CR&EV Project. Based upon the Applicant’s analysis, the average demand for police services due to calls such as larceny at the surrounding shopping centers was 12. This call volume represents less than 1% of the total annual call volume of the New Castle Police Department and as such this is not seen as a significant impact of the Petition Proposed Action. Solid Waste and Recycling The Project Site is currently served by a private carting company for the removal of refuse and recycling materials associated with the commercial office facility. The Petition Proposed Action would maintain the same total amount of commercial floor area. A private carter would continue to be responsible for refuse and recycling removal for all commercial uses on the Project Site, including new retail uses. The net additional solid waste and recyclable generation by the Petition Proposed Action is estimated to be 12 tons per month. In accordance with the Town Code Chapter 73, “Refuse Collection Law of the Town of New Castle,” the private carting company would be required to collect from bulk refuse containers only between the hours of 6:30AM and 7:00PM Monday through Saturday, except in times of emergency. The grocery refuse and recycling would be stored within an enclosed loading area located at the lower level of the reconstructed 100 Building. The refuse and recyclable material generated by the other retail uses would be stored within enclosed dumpsters or compactors until they are picked up at the designated loading areas located at the rear of each retail space. Screening for all exterior dumpsters and compactors will be required as part of the Town Board PDCP and Planning Board site plan approval processes. Such design must be consistent with the architectural styling of the Project Site. All food-related refuse would be
Page 31 of 79

held inside the retail and restaurant space or in covered dumpsters or compactors until they are picked up by the private carter. E. Historical & Archaeological Resources

The retail use is intended to affect two existing portions of the existing main office building on the site. The 100 Building is the southern-most structure on the Project Site and attached to it to the west is the existing Georgian-style 200 Building (also known as the Cupola Building). The lower level of the 100 Building was constructed in 1953 with the second level of the 100-Building being added in 1980. The 200 (Cupola) Building was constructed in 1939 and has been identified as being eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. Even though it is not formally listed in the National Register, the 2011 Findings Statement identified the Rotunda Building as locally important historic buildings. The Petition Proposed Action proposes to retain and renovate the 200 (Cupola) Building and incorporate it into the proposed retail component at Chappaqua Crossing. The Applicant has taken care to design the retail use in the 200 (Cupola) Building in a manner that will retain the building’s signature elements and character that make it important as a local landmark, but at the same time modifying its obsolete layout in order to introduce a new use to a space that is no longer functional. The 200 (Cupola) Building would remain as part of the commercial use and would be adaptively reused consistent with the 2011 Findings Statement. The interior of the 200 (Cupola) Building would be renovated to remove the second floor to create a double-height space to be occupied by a proposed grocery store tenant. The west façade (facing the parkway) and the upper portions of the east façade (facing the interior of the site) would be retained, with modification of the window and door openings in the lower portion of the east façade to reflect the new grocery store within. Currently, the two-story, flat roofed, unadorned brick 100 Building has approximately 37,000 square feet of gross floor area and has limited visibility from the interior of the site due to the lower grade where the building is located, and limited visibility from the exterior of the Project Site due to mature landscaping surrounding the building. The deteriorated condition of the 100 Building and the irregular and outdated floor plates make the continued use of this structure for offices challenging for modern office tenants. The addition of the second level in 1980 significantly altered this building from its original construction. This building is proposed to be demolished and a replacement building is proposed to be constructed in its place that would extend both the double height grocery floor and architectural character of the adjacent 200 Building. The reconstructed 100 Building would feature new architectural elements that would unify it with the existing 200 (Cupola) Building and other proposed structures on the campus. The 200 (Cupola) Building is a highly formal interpretation of the Georgian style with its centered, pedimented gable, hipped roof and symmetrical façade and the new 100 Building would extend the gabled, hipped roof elements along the façade to integrate the architecture in a way that the nondescript existing 100 Building does not. The proposed height of the reconstructed 100 Building would be consistent with the architectural features that exist on the 200 (Cupola) Building. The highest points of the reconstructed 100 Building would not extend above the prominent sloping roof or cupola of the 200 (Cupola) Building.

Page 32 of 79

The proposed new retail structures and modifications to existing structures have been designed to respect the architectural style and material palette of the existing 200 (Cupola) Building. The proposed improvements would be subject to the design guidelines addressing such features as building architecture, materials, and colors; signage; and lighting, among other features as proposed through the Proposed OPROD Legislation. Additionally, the New York State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) will review the Proposed Retail PDCP and associated architectural renovations and provide comments as appropriate. While the modification of the first floor façade and entrance to the 200 (Cupola) Building would have some effect on the historic resources on the Project Site, the impact would not be significant given the retention of the signature design elements that make the building notable and visible from surrounding areas and are further supported by the objective of adaptively re-using an obsolete and vacant building. The design of the first floor façade and entrance to the 200 (Cupola) Building is critical to retaining the architectural styling of the 200 Building. The materials used will be essential in maintaining a unified appearance representative to the Georgian styling. As such, through the Town Board’s PDCP and/or the Planning Board’s site plan approval processes, the architectural renovations must be fully developed and submitted to the Towns(in addition to SHPO) for review as determined necessary by the Town Board. The Petition Proposed Action retail area would be located in the southern portion of the Project Site primarily in areas that previously have been disturbed by the construction of existing buildings, parking lots and with graded lawn areas, along with approximately twoacres of existing wooded area. The Applicant performed a Phase IA Literature Review and Sensitivity Analysis and a Phase IB Archaeological Field Reconnaissance Survey which identified the nature of the area as previously graded and disturbed. As such, it was determined that archaeological testing was not recommended. These Phase I reports resulted in a determination that there is no significant impact from the Petition Proposed Action in relation to archaeological resources. However, if significant cultural artifacts are recovered during construction, those materials shall be processed by a cultural resources consultant and arrangements shall be made to house them in an appropriate location. Views from the main access drive from Route 117/Bedford Road provide an unobstructed view of the 200 (Cupola) Building and will continue to so under the Petition Proposed Action. The new one-story buildings to be placed along this access drive would be designed with materials and detailing to compliment the adaptively reused 200 (Cupola) Building and the reconstructed 100 Building. Through the location of the new retail buildings primarily in areas that are currently parking lots and using the same materials and architectural elements consistent with the exiting 200 (Cupola) Building, and the proposed East Village residential buildings, it is not expected that any adverse impact associated with the view to the 200 (Cupola) Building along the main driveway would occur. F. Visual Resources

The CR&EV Project evaluated the potential visual impacts based on a series of visual simulations that illustrated the proposed architecture, material, colors, landscaping and lighting. The mitigation measures referenced in the 2011 Findings Statement included installation and maintenance of appropriate landscape features to provide vegetated buffers between the Project Site and adjacent neighboring residential properties and between on-site
Page 33 of 79

residential and office uses. For the Petition Proposed Action views to the Project Site from six surrounding vantage points were documented in both winter and summer foliage conditions. The potential visual impacts of the Petition Proposed Action were evaluated under these same series of visual simulations. The results of the visual analysis demonstrated that there would not be any significant adverse visual impacts based on the design of the project; the incorporation of substantial visual buffering which includes the retention and augmentation of a significant vegetated buffer around the perimeter of the Project Site; location of most new retail buildings to be compatible and complementary to the existing 200 Building and the proposed East Village residential buildings; and the use of cut-off light fixtures in the new retail area to reduce the amount of lighting visible from off-site locations. As part of the Town Board’s PDCP and the Planning Board’s site plan approval processes, these elements in addition to the architectural drawings and related details will be reviewed and approved. The existing campus consists of a perimeter wooded area surrounding landscaping and lawns in addition to parking lots adjacent to the existing office building. The focal point of the campus is the existing 200 Building. Under the CR&EV Project, the residential east Village buildings would feature various stylistic elements relating to the architecture of the 200 (Cupola) Buildings. Similarly, the Petition Proposed Action’s retail buildings have also been designed to draw upon the influence of the 200 (Cupola) Building. This will support the appearance of a unified mixed-use campus. The elements which contribute to the unified mixed-use campus will be reviewed and approved as part of the Town Board PDCP and/or the Planning Board site plan approval processes. The visual impacts of the lighting on the commercial portion for the Project Site under the CR&EV Project would be similar to that which exists on the Project Site today. Today, the southern parking area lighting fixtures closest to Roaring Brook Road are visible year round, beneath the canopy of existing deciduous and evergreen trees that line Roaring Brook Road. Under the Petition Proposed Action, the retail parking area and roadways, including the relocated south driveway would be accented with new lighting fixtures. No light spillage is proposed off of the subject property through the use of “cut-off” fixtures, incorporation of LED bulbs and optical systems that will uniformly distribute light downward. The retention and augmentation of a significant vegetated buffer around the perimeter of the Project Site would provide visual buffering from the relocation or reconfiguration of lighting in the central and northern parking areas. The lighting plan accompanying the Petition Proposed Action will be subject to detailed review and approval during the Town Board’s PDCP and the Planning Board’s site plan approval processes. G. Utilities

The 2011 Findings Statement considered the impacts of the CR&EV Project in relation to the existing utility infrastructure (water supply, sanitary sewer, electric, gas, telephone and cable service systems) and found that there would be no significant impact to existing utility systems with the implementation of a number of mitigation measures. The introduction of new retail buildings associated with the Petition Proposed Action has resulted in re-routing of on-site utility systems to more efficiently service all on-site development. Proposed utilities have been routed through the central and southern portions of the Project Site.

Page 34 of 79

Underground utilities would remain to be grouped in common trenches where possible and approved by the respective utility companies. The mitigation measures for the new retail component include testing and inspection of onsite utilities to be dedicated to the Town of New Castle, use of high-efficiency energy star rated appliances, light fixtures, and building mechanicals; site-wide distribution of security, life safety, energy management and CCTV signals within the office building; the use of building system controls and operating strategies designed to minimize consumption of gas and electricity; construction of the new office building to include upgrades to improve energy efficiency and/or be certifiable as LEED Basic for New Construction; use of drip landscape irrigation systems; and the limitation on the use of diesel power generators for back-up power supply will also apply to the Petition Proposed Action. In addition, the buildings must be designed to comply with the New York State Energy Conservation Code and the New York State Building Code. Additionally any new structure exceeding 5,000 square feet of floor space would need to be designed to be at least LEED Silver certifiable in accordance with the New Castle Town Code. Based on these requirements the Town Board finds that the Petition Proposed Action would not result in significant adverse impacts on the analyzed utility services. In addition, the Town Board supports the establishment of a sewer district and the extension of sewer service throughout the Project Site and finds that the sewer piping should be extended into the Roaring Brook Road right-of-way (located at the relocated southern driveway) at the Horace Greeley High School entrance or other appropriate location so that the public sewer service can be extended to adjacent developed properties at some later date without encroachment onto the Applicant’s private property. H. Traffic

Access to the Project Site is currently provided via three existing driveways. The main or east driveway from Bedford Road (NYS Route 117), the west driveway from lower Roaring Brook Road, located east of its intersection with the Saw Mill Parkway, and the south driveway also from Roaring Brook Road approximately 300 feet west of the Horace Greeley High School Driveway. The Petition Proposed Action includes relocating the south driveway to the Project Site eastward to be located directly opposite the High School entry drive. This new driveway would be signalized. The proposed signalization would control the through lanes and the turning lanes and there would be an exclusive pedestrian phase at the proposed crosswalk. The exclusive pedestrian phase would be actuated by a push button and would permit pedestrians to cross Roaring Brook Road with all vehicles stopped. This driveway would provide access to the retail area and to the internal “loop road” connecting to the Chappaqua Crossing office and residential areas. As part of the FSEIS, a capacity analysis and storage/queue analysis was performed at the area intersections for 2015 Build Conditions comparing the CR&EV Project to the Petition Proposed Action. This traffic analysis evaluated the traffic operating conditions related to the following five peak time periods:   Weekday AM School (7:00AM-8:00AM) Weekday AM Commuter (8:00AM-9:00AM)
Page 35 of 79

  

Weekday PM School (2:30PM-3:30PM) Weekday PM Commuter (4:30PM-5:30PM) Saturday Peak Hour (12:00PM-1:00PM)

These same time periods were used for the analyses conducted for the 2011 FEIS. As set forth in greater detail in the 2011 Findings Statement, the traffic analysis associated with the CR&EV Project found that there would be significant adverse traffic impacts at six locations: (1) Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and Roaring Brook Road; (2) Saw Mill River Parkway and Roaring Brook Road; (3) South Greeley Avenue and Quaker Street; (4) Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and Chappaqua Crossings Site Access East Entry; (5) Roaring Brook Road and Chappaqua Crossings Site Access South Entry; and (6) Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and Whippoorwill Road. Impacts at two of these intersections could be mitigated. First, an impact at the intersection of Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and Roaring Brook Road in the weekday morning commuter peak hour would be mitigated by the construction of a southbound turn lane off of Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and by upgrading the existing traffic signal at this location, if approved by the New York State Department of Transportation (“NYSDOT”). Second, an impact at the intersection of Saw Mill River Parkway and Roaring Brook Road in the Saturday peak hour could be mitigated by traffic signal timing changes, if approved by NYSDOT. Impacts at the other four intersections with the CR&EV Project would remain unmitigated, as follows: the intersection of South Greeley Avenue and Quaker Street (north leg) in the weekday morning school peak hour; the intersection of Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and the eastern Project Site access driveway in the weekday morning commuter and weekday afternoon school peak hours; the intersection of Roaring Brook Road and the southern Project Site access driveway in the weekday evening commuter peak hour; and the intersection of Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and Whippoorwill Road in the weekday evening commuter peak hour. Two of the locations where unmitigated significant adverse impacts were expected upon exiting the site are the Project Site driveways. The 2011 Findings Statement found that impact at the intersection of Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and Whippoorwill Road, noted above, could be mitigated by installing a traffic signal at the intersection, but this measure was not considered feasible because the low traffic volume on Whippoorwill Road would not warrant installation of the signal under NYSDOT criteria. The FEIS reflects that the Applicant indicated that the impact at the intersection of South Greeley Avenue and Quaker Street (north leg) could be mitigated by reconfiguring the intersection into a signalized “T” intersection. The Town evaluated this possible reconfiguration several years prior to the FEIS when alternatives for reconstruction of the Quaker Street Bridge were under discussion and determined at that time that the reconfiguration was not a desirable option from a community character perspective. The Town Board reached the same conclusion in the 2011 Findings. The FEIS indicated that the predicted traffic resulting from the CR&EV Project would result primarily from the commercial uses. However, in the 2011 Findings Statement the Town Board determined that the economic benefits to the Town of allowing increased

Page 36 of 79

commercial use at the Project Site – the only remaining major commercial site in the Town outside the hamlet areas – outweighed the negative impacts caused by increased traffic. The FSEIS presents an analysis of the traffic impacts of the Petition Proposed Action as compared to the traffic impacts of the CR&EV Project. This traffic assessment analyzed traffic at 19 intersections over the same five peak periods that were studied in the 2011 FEIS for the CR&EV Project. The results of the traffic study demonstrate that the Petition Proposed Action would result in significant impacts at seven locations. In addition, the intersection at Roaring Brook Road and Horace Greeley High School Access Road, while not expected to experience significant impacts under the Project Scope Criteria, would still experience impacts worth discussing due to its location and potential impacts that were forecast. The FSEIS sets forth information indicating that with the incorporation of certain traffic mitigation, the significant adverse impacts at four (4) of the seven (7) intersections can be avoided. While the information provided by the Applicant in regards to the remaining three intersections indicated that the significant impacts could not be mitigated, the Town (based on information from the Town’s traffic consultant) believes it may be possible to avoid or further reduce the impacts at these intersections by instituting signal timing refinements. In addition, mitigation should be provided by the Applicant at the intersection of Roaring Brook Road and the Horace Greeley High School Access Road. A description of the significant impacts and potential mitigation measures associated with each of the eight intersections is discussed below based on the results of the traffic analyses set forth in the FSEIS. Only two of the eight intersections would have unmitigated impacts: Roaring Brook Road and Chappaqua Crossing East and Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and Whippoorwill Road. It is important to note that the 2011 Findings Statement determined that the traffic impacts of the CR&EV Project primarily resulted from the commercial uses proposed as part of that project. The same is true for the Petition Proposed Action. The Town Board believes that the economic benefits to the Town of allowing increased commercial use at the Project Site – the only remaining major commercial site in the Town outside the hamlet areas – outweigh the negative impacts caused by increased traffic. 1. Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and Roaring Brook Road The CR&EV Project required the Applicant to fund a separate southbound right turn lane on Bedford Road (NYS Route 117). Under the Petition Proposed Action, with the southbound right turn lane, the through movement is projected to change from a LOS B to LOS D during the Weekday Peak AM Highway Hour. The northbound shared left/through movement was projected to change from a LOS D to LOS B which improved the overall intersection LOS from a LOS C to B. Under the Petition Proposed Action, the Applicant proposes to improve the intersection through movement further by funding and installing a separate northbound left-turn lane on Bedford Road (NYS Route 117). NYSDOT land will need to be acquired to implement the southbound right turn lane. In addition utility poles and upgrading of the existing traffic signal hardware and timing plans must be implemented. The Applicant should further evaluate fine-tuning of the traffic signal
Page 37 of 79

timing plan for the weekday peak morning highway hour, to determine if the southbound through movement can maintain the LOS during each peak hour similar to the LOS identified in the CR&EV Project. 2. Roaring Brook Road and Chappaqua Crossing West Entry Access Driveway When compared to the CR&EV Project, this intersection is projected to change from a LOS C to D during the Weekday PM School Hour with the Petition Proposed Action. No mitigation is proposed at this location. The FSEIS examined the possibility of installing a traffic signal at this intersection but this potential mitigation was determined to be infeasible under the NYSDOT criteria given the predicted low traffic volumes. However, the Town’s traffic consultant indicated that additional pavement markings on Roaring Brook Road could help improve the intersection and therefore the Town Board is requiring these improvements to be implemented. 3. Chappaqua Crossing East Entry and Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) When compared to the CR&EV Project, this intersection is projected to change from a LOS C to D during the Saturday Peak Hour under the Petition Proposed Action. The FSEIS examined the possibility of installing a traffic signal at this intersection but this potential mitigation was determined to be infeasible under the NYSDOT criteria given the predicted low traffic volumes. Given that this is the main access driveway into and out of the Project Site and that the Applicant will be required to use this access driveway for all deliveries rather than the south access driveway, the implementation of directional signage and traffic controls at this intersection is important. Moreover, the Applicant should present information regarding all of the development potential at the Project Site (residential and commercial use) to the NYSDOT so that all traffic controls can be examined in relation to mitigating the traffic impacts at this intersection. 4. Saw Mill River Parkway and Roaring Brook Road At this intersection, when compared to the CR&EV Project, impacts were detected during the Weekday PM Commuter Hour, the Saturday Peak Hour, the Weekday PM School Hour with the Petition Proposed Action. Optimization of signal timing will mitigate the impacts during the Weekday PM Commuter Hour and the Saturday Peak Hour. The timing changes must be agreed to and implemented by the NYSDOT. 5. Bedford Road (NYS State Route 117) and Whippoorwill Road When compared to the CR&EV Project, this intersection is projected to change from a LOS C to LOS D during the Weekday AM Commuter Hour and Saturday Peak Hour with the Petition Proposed Action. The FSEIS examined the possibility of installing a traffic signal at this intersection but this potential mitigation was determined to be infeasible under the NYSDOT criteria given the predicted low traffic volumes. No mitigation is proposed at this intersection.

Page 38 of 79

6. Bedford Road (NYS State Route 117) and NYS Route 120 (North) When compared to the CR&EV Project, the eastbound approach at this intersection is projected to change from a LOS C to D during the Saturday Peak Hour with the Petition Proposed Action. This change in LOS could be mitigated with traffic signal timing changes by adding one second to the eastbound phase. The timing changes must be agreed to and implemented by the NYS DOT. 7. Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and NYS Route 128 When compared to the CR&EV Project, the northbound left queue exceeded the storage length by 4 feet during the Weekday Commuter Hour with the Petition Proposed Action. This change in queue could be mitigated with traffic signal timing changes by adding one second to the northbound left turn phase. The timing changes must be agreed to and implemented by the NYS DOT. 8. Roaring Brook Road and Horace Greeley High School (Relocated Project Site access driveway) Under the Petition Proposed Action, the existing south driveway is proposed to be relocated and reopened opposite the Horace Greeley High School driveway. As part of the Petition Proposed Action, this intersection would be signalized and a separate left turn entering lane and separate right turn entering lane (on Roaring Brook Road) is proposed. A traffic signal warrant analysis indicated that the traffic signal was necessary. The capacity analysis conducted by the Applicant projected that this intersection would operate at a LOS D during the Weekday AM School Peak Hour, a LOS B during the Weekday AM Commuter Peak Hour , a LOS C during the Weekday PM School Peak Hour, Weekday Commuter PM Peak Hour and Saturday Peak Hour regardless of signalization. The SDEIS specifically noted that there is an existing eastbound traffic queue on Roaring Brook Road for the right turn into Horace Greeley High School which is caused by the internal circulation of the School. This traffic contributes to the overall area-wide traffic conditions. The retail operations proposed by the Petition Proposed Action will be affected by this traffic and the additional traffic resulting from the operation of the retail development will compound this situation. The Town requested that the Applicant’s traffic consultant and the Town’s traffic consultant examine the internal circulation of the High School. Their analysis concluded that specific improvements could be made to the High School driveway to improve circulation in and out of the High School driveway and along Roaring Brook Road. These improvements are summarized below and are also described more fully in the FSEIS:  Add a travel lane to the existing Horace Greeley High School driveway from Roaring Brook Road to the first access point into the staff parking lot;  Add an inbound thru lane just after the student parking lot to allow drop-off traffic to proceed without conflict associated with staff and student parking.  Shift the roadway eastward just at the Board of Education parking lot to straighten the approach into and out of the school;
Page 39 of 79

 Relocate the existing parking area just south of the main Board of Education parking lot to allow the shift in the roadway and softening of the curve. The relocation can be accommodated as an expansion to the existing Board of Education parking lot.  Removal of the existing sidewalk along the western entry drive to the High School from Roaring Brook Road to the first access point into the staff parking area.  Construct a new sidewalk along the eastern side of the entry driveway to extend from Roaring Brook Road to extend along the staff parking lot around the baseball field.  Establish crosswalks at sidewalk intersections with the parking lots. These improvements would improve the circulation of vehicles in and out of the Horace Greeley High School and therefore would help to mitigate the overall traffic circulation on Roaring Brook Road, Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and the Saw Mill River Parkway. Accordingly, these improvements should be pursued by the Applicant in coordination with the Town and the Chappaqua Central School District in concert with the Town Board’s PDCP and the Planning Board’s site plan approval process. Retail Deliveries The retail component of the Petition Proposed Action would result in additional delivery volumes as compared to the CR&EV Project. Under the CR&EV Project the 120,000 square feet of commercial office space would have resulted in deliveries of packages and office supplies along with office tenants moving in and out. Retail deliveries associated with the Petition Proposed Action would come from a combination of tractor trailers and smaller box trucks, such as those uses by beverage, bread and snack food distributors. Many of these trucks travel on Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) to supply existing retail uses located to the north and south of the Project Site, including the Chappaqua Hamlet. It is required that delivery trucks to the retail tenants would enter and exit the Project Site at the existing Chappaqua Crossing eastern entrance off of Bedford Road (NYS Route 117). Delivery trucks would circulate west from the Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) entrance to the retail service drives. Deliveries to the grocery store tenant would occur at a loading area below the reconstructed 100 building via a service drive located at the southern end of the proposed retail parking. Deliveries to the remaining retail stores would occur behind each store along a dedicated service drive located south of the main entry driveway. After making the deliveries, trucks would circulate through the retail parking drives to the main eastern driveway and onto Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) where they entered the Project Site. It is required that most of these truck trips will be spread throughout the day and no loading/unloading will be allowed before 5 AM. These truck trips were accounted for in the vehicle trip generation rates that were analyzed as part of the FSEIS traffic analysis. Thus, the impact of these truck trips on area operating conditions, as part of the overall vehicle volumes related to the Petition Proposed Action, are discussed above. The site plan should consider measures for safe and efficient entry and exits for WB-50 trucks at the service and delivery vehicle ingress and egress access drive.

Page 40 of 79

Parking The Town Board, as expressed through the CR&EV Project in the April 2011 Findings Statement, was not willing to risk the consequences of underestimating parking demand for the CR&EV Project’s commercially zoned district. At the same time, the Town Board did not favor constructing more parking spaces on the Project Site than would actually be needed since such construction could result in unnecessary environmental impacts. As a result, the Town Board determined that the CR&EV Project would require at least 1,680 parking spaces in the B-RO-20 portion of the Project Site as this is the number of existing parking spaces on the site that area grandfathered under current zoning. The CR&EV Project required maintenance of 1,680 parking spaces on the B-RO-20 portion of the Project Site unless either Planning Board approval was obtained to phase construction of spaces based on an adequate parking management plan, which could include land-banked parking spaces and/or jitney service, among other things, or Zoning Board of Appeals approval is obtained for a variance allowing fewer parking spaces. Based on this analysis, in 2011 the Town Board found that there were no significant impacts related to parking. The Petition Proposed Action proposes to replace 120,000 square feet of office use with 120,000 square feet of retail use at the south end of the Project Site. The Petition Proposed Action would include 600 spaces or 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail use for the proposed retail use on the Project Site. The proposed amount of retail parking would exceed the average peak ratio based on the ITE survey. The CR&EV Project included 1,680 office spaces, up to 480 of which could be land banked for the 542,000 square feet office remaining on the site. The land-banked parking spaces are proposed to be located in the northern parking lot and are proposed to be constructed in stages to match the occupancy and utilization of the office space. The Petition Proposed Action includes less office space than the CR&EV Project, but the total of 1,680 office parking spaces identified in the 2011 Findings Statement would remain with the office use of the B-RO-20 District. The Petition Proposed Action would provide 600 additional parking spaces for the retail component of the project, which is consistent with the parking requirements as set forth in the Proposed Local Law and the Proposed Redrafted for Consolidation Local Law. In addition, several portions of the 1,680 office parking spaces could be land-banked until such time additional office space is leased and the spaces are actually needed. Shared parking between the different uses, such as office, retail and restaurants, is an opportunity, demonstrated through the SDEIS analysis that will be employed in relation to the establishment of retail uses on the Project Site. As a result of the total amount of parking (1,680 +600 parking spaces) to be made available to the commercial uses under the Petition Proposed Action would be sufficient to serve the needs of the Project Site’s commercial uses. A Parking Management Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Board during the site plan approval process which shall include, among other things, a land banking plan for certain parking spaces and clear parameters for the shared use of parking among the office and retail uses, and a sidewalk plan to ensure that pedestrians can circulate within the site (from the residential areas, to the office areas and to the retail areas) and to offsite locations as well.

Page 41 of 79

I.

Air Quality and Noise

Air Quality Within the Project Site, the Petition Proposed Action generated emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, sulfates, and fine particulates were identified as a source of concern due to increased traffic; heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) systems; parking lots and on-site construction activities. Carbon monoxide (“CO”) from Project Site-generated traffic is the primary source of potential impacts at off-site locations because emissions during peak traffic conditions can create locally high concentrations of CO at congested intersections. The Air Quality analysis for the CR&EV Project identified that the increases in traffic volume did not rise to the level where further CO emissions analysis would be warranted. The Petition Proposed Action would have the same source of potential CO emissions during the Peak PM Highway Hour due to the fact that the highest number of vehicles would be exiting the commercial office parking in cold start mode. The traffic volumes are similar under both the CR&EV project and the Petition Proposed Action and therefore the Petition Proposed Action would not result in any significant adverse impacts to air quality from traffic. The primary emission from stationary sources (retail buildings, proposed grocery generator, etc.) at the Project Site would be sulfur dioxide (“SO2”) from the combustion of fuel oil. The minimum distance requirements between the stack and the nearest building of similar height have been accomplished and therefore no air quality impacts will occur for the Petition Proposed Action, as compare to the CR&EV Project. The construction period and phasing for the Petition Proposed Action would be similar to the CR&EV Project. Potential impacts were evaluated and the construction analysis demonstrated that all pollutant emissions would be within thresholds. In addition, mitigation measures to minimize emissions of fugitive dust and emissions from trucks and on site equipment and storage of materials are temporary in nature and would be mitigated through the use of best construction practices. Noise Sources of noise include vehicular traffic, the Metro North rail line, and HVAC systems. Traffic noise and noise from construction activities were evaluated as part of the Petition Proposed Action. The Petition Proposed Action would result in an increase in traffic volumes entering and exiting the Project Site above that of the CR&EV Project. NYS DEC guidelines do not identify a specific threshold for determining noise increase impacts. However they provide information that the human reactions to increases in noise levels under 5 dBA are unnoticed or tolerable. The analysis conducted indicates that noise levels from traffic would be higher as a result of the Petition Proposed Action, but they do not reach the 5 dBA threshold increase at which point noise increases would be considered significant. In addition, given the distances among the proposed retail structures, as well as the distance of the existing off buildings from nearby sensitive receptors, no noise impacts from mechanical units were identified.

Page 42 of 79

Loading for the retail portion of the Project Site would be no earlier than 5:00 am. It is anticipated that the grocery store would generate between two large delivery trucks per day. The collection of refuse may only take place between the hours of 6:30AM and 7:00PM Monday through Saturday (except in emergency situations). Retail loading and refuse pickup for the grocery store would be within an enclosed loading dock below the proposed store. For the free-standing retail structures, loading and refuse pickup would be located along the northern side of the building located over 700 feet from the nearest residential structures on Roaring Brook Road, Cowdin Lane and Bedford Road (NYS Route 117). Emergency generators would be designed with insulated noise reduction enclosures to avoid producing noise levels that would result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels. The emergency generators would be in operation for approximately one hour per week for routine maintenance purposes. The emergency generators will apply with all applicable noise regulations. The final location of the proposed emergency generators would be subject to detailed review and approval during the site plan review process. J. Community Character

The Project Site is immediately surrounded by mixed institutional uses, residential areas and large, regionally significant transportation corridors. Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and Roaring Brook Road are identified as major roadways in the Town’s 1989 Development Plan. Horace Greeley High School and the Chappaqua Central School District offices are located across Roaring Brook Road from the southern end of the Project Site. These educational facilities are busy with school-related traffic during weekdays and host many events on weekends as well. The neighborhoods beyond on the southern side of the Project Site and on the northern and eastern side are characterized as residential areas with one- or two-story homes on properties of one or more acres. Crabtree’s Kittle House, an existing restaurant located less than one mile from the Project Site to the east features regular restaurant service and special event catering. Like the Project Site, these areas are characterized by varying topography with existing mature vegetation and lawn areas. The Metro-North Harlem Division Rail Line right-of-way, an active rail line with peak-hour trains passing every 15 minutes, and the divided, four lane Saw Mill River Parkway border the Project Site to the west. Beyond this transportation corridor, further west, are areas of open space and residential neighborhoods characterized by heavily wooded areas and varying topography. The Project Site also includes a number of existing office tenants. The proposed retail uses would feature a full-service grocery store, as an anchor along with other retail uses that would provide a complementary and mutually sustaining tenant mix in support of the required full service grocery store and/or other uses already permitted in the underlying Research and Office Business District. The addition of retail as a principal use in an Office Park Retail Overlay District includes potential impacts to Community Character which relate to change in campus appearance, different hours of operation, traffic generation (refer back to Section H), signage and lighting needs.

Page 43 of 79

Campus Appearance The focal point of the campus is the existing 200 (Cupola) Building. Under the CR&EV Project, the residential east Village buildings would feature various stylistic elements relating to the architecture of the 200 (Cupola) Building. Similarly, the Petition Proposed Action’s retail buildings have also been designed to draw upon the influence of the 200 Building. This will support the appearance of a unified mixed-use campus. The existing campus consists of a perimeter wooded area surrounding landscaping and lawns in addition to parking lots adjacent to the existing office building. The Petition Proposed Action will introduce 120,000 square feet of retail commercial use on the Project site. The retail uses will be located within existing, reconstructed and proposed new structures located in the southern portion of the Project Site. Modifications to the existing office parking areas and minor adjustments to the residential East Village layout are also proposed. The Petition Proposed Action’s retail development includes utilization of the architectural features of the Project Site’s 200 (Cupola) Building and the CR&EV Project’s residential structures. The 200 (Cupola) Building is to remain and is proposed to be incorporated into the retail portion of the Project Site with the proposed grocery store to be located on the ground level of the structure. The Applicant proposes to adaptively reuse the existing 200 (Cupola) Building in keeping with its Georgian architectural style. The west façade of the 200 (Cupola) Building, which faces the Saw Mill River Parkway, and the upper portions of the east façade of the 200 (Cupola) Building (facing the Project Site interior) would be retained. On the east façade, the first level brick walls would be opened to create storefront glass, positioned between vertical brick piers and a new traditional horizontal cornice. The entry way into the 200 (Cupola) Building from the east must remain substantially similar in material treatment to the existing building so that the adapted building does not look like a modern supermarket with a glass and metal front with a Georgian Style Cupola sitting on top. The applicant proposes to demolish and replace the 100 Building. The new 100 Building and other proposed structures on the campus would feature new architectural elements that would unify the new structures with the existing 200 (Cupola) Building’s Georgian architectural style. The balance of the retail uses within the Petition Proposed Action would be located in a number of one-story free-standing and connected (located adjacent to one another within the same building) retail stores. For the new retail structures, the intent is to recall the historic character of the 200 (Cupola) Building, and also integrate the buildings with more of the residential style approved as part of the CR&EV Project. The new buildings would feature brick piers and storefront glass, similar to the grocery store while having gables, dormers and hipped roofs, common to both the grocery store and residential buildings to be located on the Project Site. As previously discussed, the proposed improvements would be subject to the design guidelines addressing such features as building architecture, materials, and colors; signage; and lighting, among other features as proposed through the Proposed OPRPD Legislation. Details regarding the treatment of these features will be reviewed and approved through the Town Board PDCP and Planning Board site plan approval processes.

Page 44 of 79

The commercial uses on the property are proposed to ensure that the scale of the commercial enterprise (especially that of retail use) are distinguishable from the scale of commercial activity traditionally found in the Chappaqua Hamlet and the Millwood Hamlet. The Applicant conducted a Market Analysis (HRA Study) and the Town commissioned an analysis of the “Competitive Effects” of locating retail use on the Project Site. Both studies indicate that the current supply of space in the hamlets does not meet the site-selection criteria of many tenants that may be looking for space larger than 3,000 square feet. Comparisons of the store sizes within the hamlets show that a vast majority of the stores are less than 3,000 SF. Many of the hamlet spaces have been re-purposed to support retail uses or are otherwise not conducive to attracting larger-scale retail tenants. The size restrictions contained within the Proposed Redrafted for Consolidation local law (1,500 SF minimum floor area for a single tenant and no more than four retail tenants with a floor area under 5,000 SF) will ensure that the scale of commercial retail activity does not conflict with the existing commercial activity within the Chappaqua and Millwood Hamlets. Hours of Operation and Deliveries The Petition Proposed Action will introduce retail uses with hours of operation from 6:00AM to 11:00PM and 11:30PM in the case of restaurants. Loading is not to be permitted earlier than 5:00AM. The hours of operation differ from that of the CR&EV Project in regards to the early morning start and late night ending as compared to commercial office hours which are typically 8:00AM to 6:00PM, with limited evening and weekend hours. However the Town Board finds that these additional hours are consistent with other uses in the vicinity of the Project Site. Deliveries to the retail tenants would be required to enter and exit the Project Site at the existing Chappaqua Crossing eastern entrance at Bedford Road (NYS Route 117), consistent with how current delivery trucks access the existing loading docks for the office buildings. It is anticipated that the grocery store would generate approximately two large trucks per day. Many of the smaller box trucks (beverage, bread, snack food distributors) currently travel on Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) to supply existing retail uses located to the north and south of the Project Site, including those located in the Chappaqua Hamlet. Retail loading and refuse pickup for the grocery store is planned to be within an enclosed loading dock below the proposed store. For the freestanding retail structures, loading and refuse pickup would be located along the northern side of the building, located over 700 feet from the nearest residential structures on Roaring Brook Road, Cowdin Lane and Bedford Road (NYS Route 117). Lighting The visual impacts of the lighting on the commercial portion for the Project Site under the CR&EV Project would be similar to that which exists on the Project Site today. Today, the southern parking area lighting fixtures closest to Roaring Brook Road are visible year round, beneath the canopy of existing deciduous and evergreen trees that line Roaring brook Road. Under the Petition Proposed Action, the retail parking area and roadways, including the relocated south driveway would be accented with new lighting fixtures. No light spillage is proposed off of the subject property through the use of “cut-off” fixtures, incorporation of LED bulbs and optical systems that will uniformly distribute light downward. The retention
Page 45 of 79

and augmentation of a significant vegetated buffer around the perimeter of the Project Site would provide visual buffering from the relocation or reconfiguration of lighting in the central and northern parking areas. The lighting plan accompanying the Petition Proposed Action will be subject to detailed review and approval during the PDCP and site plan review processes. Signage The addition of retail uses on the Project Site requires signage to provide direction and information to visitors, occupants and residents. Signage is proposed at the three site entries, within the site and on the retail buildings. Freestanding ground signs are proposed at the east, south and west entries which would include a listing of the different uses within the Project Site and certain retail and/or office tenants. Retail stores would have wall signs or hanging signs mounted at specifically designed locations on the architectural facades. Directional signs would be provided along interior site roadways. The design of the signage would be consistent with the requirements of the Proposed OPROD Legislation and will complement the existing and proposed architectural character, with consideration of the adjoining residential areas. The Town Board’s Market Analysis recommended imposing a requirement to include signage or other means of way-finding (e.g., information kiosk) that promote the Town’s retail offerings as a whole, including but not exclusive to those uses at Chappaqua Crossing. The messaging would need to be carefully crafted so that it does not discourage trips to Chappaqua Crossing or otherwise lessen the consumers’ experience at Chappaqua Crossing. Even more subtle approaches, such as presenting information on the Town’s history with pictures and directions to locations, can pique interest in new consumers, with some eventually venturing into the Town to explore. Signage and other means of way-finding will be detailed during the Town Board PDCP and Planning Board site plan approval process. K. Construction

The Petition Proposed Action would result in construction activity and phasing additional to that required for the CR&EV Project. As such, the aggregate construction activity at the Project Site would be phased over a five-year period. Construction related to the retail component would be constructed over a 1 ½ to 2 year period. The residential component would be constructed over a 2 ½ to 3 year period dependent on market demand. The north parking area would be constructed over a 6 to 9 month period depending on if the parking spaces are actually needed. The DSEIS for the Petition Proposed Action contains a detailed description of each of the work areas and a map identifying their geographic location. The Petition Proposed Action would result in more construction employees and round trip construction truck trips than the CR&EV Project. Construction-related mitigation measures will be the same as those identified in the 2011 Findings Statement. Ordinary construction truck activity would be limited to the hours of 9:00AM and 2:30PM so as to not conflict with rush hour office or school-related operations. Specialty operations such as concrete placement could at times be scheduled during peak hours. In such circumstances a
Page 46 of 79

uniformed officer would control the entering and existing traffic on Bedford Road (NYS Route 117). At all times, flagmen would be available to ensure safe access for ingress and egress at the Project Site. The average number of daily round-trip truck trips would fluctuate on a seasonal basis from approximately 12 up to 30 during the various phases of demolition and construction. Construction deliveries would enter and leave the Project Site from the Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) Chappaqua Crossing site entrance, and the construction employees would enter the Project Site from either the west entry gate or the Chappaqua Crossing site entrance on Bedford Road (NYS Route 117), thus reducing construction related traffic along Roaring Brook Road. Construction impacts of the Petition Proposed Action will be mitigated through the Applicant’s compliance with Town Code Chapter 108A Erosion and Sediment Control and other construction control activities, including a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, which will be further developed through the Town Board’s review and approval of the PDCP and the Planning Board’s Site Plan Approval process as details of the site development are approved.

VII. Measures for the Minimization or Mitigation of Adverse Environmental Impacts The impact minimization and mitigation measures that shall be incorporated into the Petition Proposed Action area identified in Table 1, below. In addition, because the Petition Proposed Action features certain modifications and refinements to the CR&EV project as a result of the Applicant’s Petition and, in some cases, changes to applicable requirements, those impact minimization and mitigation measures required by the 2011 Findings Statement that continue to be required to be implemented, are also restated in this table. As a result, this table sets forth a master list of the impact minimization and mitigation measures required as part of the CR&EV Project as modified by the Petition Proposed Action. Like the CR&EV Project, as noted, the FSEIS assumed that all aspects of the Petition Proposed Action would be implemented in full compliance with all Federal, State and local laws, regulations, and other relevant requirements, and actions that would be necessary pursuant to these requirements are no in all cases explicitly identified herein. This assumption applies as a requirement of the Petition Proposed Action as well. The measures set forth in Table 1 are discussed in more detail in the DSEIS and the FSEIS for the Petition Proposed Action.

Page 47 of 79

Table 1: Measures for the Minimization or Mitigation of Adverse Environmental Impacts and to Facilitate Implementation of the Petition Proposed Action Primary Environmental Mitigation/Minimization Measure Impact Area3 1. Land Use and Zoning A B-RO-20 District of 71.9 acres shall be designated on the Project Site with no special tenant restrictions as depicted in Figure C. An MFPD District of 29.5 acres shall be designated in the location depicted as the East Village MFPD in Figure C. The East Village MFPD District shall permit a maximum of 111 residential units. The 111 residential units in the East Village MFPD District shall include 60 fee simple townhouses, 31 market-rate condominium flats, and 20 condominium flats that shall be Stipulation-compliant Affordable AFFH Units. The East Village MFPD District shall include no more than 244 bedrooms in the 111 residential units. The creation of the East Village MFPD District shall not include any density bonuses as none were proposed or analyzed in the DEIS or FEIS. The B-RO-20 District area and the East Village MFPD District area shall be divided into two lots. The East Village MFPD District shall be further divided into at least 61 lots. Each of the 60 fee simple townhouses shall be on a separate lot. Unless the Town Zoning Code is amended, a waiver shall be obtained from the Planning Board for any residential construction that does not feature individual outdoor unit access; provided, however, that individual outdoor unit access for units in the three multi-family buildings in the East Village shall not be required. .

2.

Land Use and Zoning

3. 4.

Land Use and Zoning Land Use and Zoning

5. 6.

Land Use and Zoning Land Use and Zoning

7.

Land Use and Zoning

8.

Land Use and Zoning

3

Given the interrelationship between environmental impact areas, many of the measures described in Table 1 address potential adverse impacts in more than one impact area.

Page 48 of 79

Primary Environmental Impact Area3 9. 10. Land Use and Zoning Land Use and Zoning

Mitigation/Minimization Measure CR&EV Project residential units shall require setbacks of 350-400 feet from Cowdin Lane. The East Village MFPD District shall include construction of 20 Stipulation-compliant Affordable AFFH Units. At least 60 days prior to submission of an application for site plan approval for the East Village, SGC shall submit a letter to the County and the Federal Monitor, with a copy to the Town, requesting a determination whether the proposed site plan would result in a minimum of 20 Stipulationcompliant Affordable AFFH Units. The letter shall include a copy of the proposed site plan together with information pertaining to the proposed location of the affordable housing and market units, the number of bedrooms in the affordable housing and market units, and the floor area of the affordable housing and market units. The construction of, and issuance of certificates of occupancy for, all Stipulation-compliant Affordable AFFH Units shall be required prior to or simultaneously with construction of and issuance of certificates of occupancy for any market-rate units. No greater than 120,000 square feet of retail and 542,000 square feet of office use shall be allowed for a total of 662,000 square feet of commercial use. The retail use at the Project Site shall be anchored by a full service grocery story of 36,000 to 50,000 square feet and establishing a minimum floor area of 1500 square feet for any single use and limiting to four the number of stores that may have a floor area under 5000 square feet. The Town Development Plan shall be amended to be consistent with the evolution of the use of the Project Site and the need to maintain and expand the Town’s commercial tax base.

11.

Land Use and Zoning

12.

Land Use and Zoning

13.

Land Use and Zoning

14.

Land Use and Zoning

Page 49 of 79

Primary Environmental Impact Area3 15. Land Use and Zoning

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Any changes from the DSEIS PDCP to a PDCP which is to be approved by the Town Board shall be identified. Any environmental impact resulting from any such change that is not addressed by the Applicant or that is inadequately addressed in the DSEIS/FSEIS will require further environmental review. The grocer shall be limited in size from 36,000 to 50,000 SF.

16. 17.

Socioeconomic and Fiscal Conditions

Land, Water, and Ecological Final stormwater management plans, including the Resources final SWPPP, shall be developed based upon the proposed final site plan to be reviewed by the Planning Board and shall be approved by the Planning Board, prior to the approval of any site plan by the Planning Board and shall be consistent with the NYSDEC General Permit GP-010-001, the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual (2010), the New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control (2005), NYCDEP regulations for the protection of the New York City water supply and its sources, and the NYCDEP Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Stormwater Management Systems (July 2012). Land, Water, and Ecological Stormwater management plan(s) approved by all Resources authorities with jurisdiction, including the Planning Board, NYSDEC, and the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (“NYCDEP”), as appropriate, shall be implemented prior to any construction activities, and a program of maintenance (and, if necessary, repairs) shall be implemented to keep all permanent stormwater structures in good working order. Land, Water, and Ecological A Field Engineer shall be retained during Resources construction activities at the Project Site who shall conduct inspections and take any necessary action so that the construction activities comply with the SWPPP.

18.

19.

Page 50 of 79

Primary Environmental Impact Area3 20.

Mitigation/Minimization Measure

Land, Water, and Ecological The SWPPP shall include specific provisions to Resources address measures to be taken if colloidal soils are encountered during construction that cannot be settled out through typical erosion control measures. Land, Water, and Ecological The SWPPP shall include a specific plan by which all Resources contractors working on the site will provide adequate trash containment services for the construction site to maintain a clean, debris-free work area. No refuse will be disposed of on site. Land, Water, and Ecological The SWPPP shall include a Construction Logistics Resources Plan showing the locations of construction staging, areas for stockpiling of disturbed rock and soils and areas for stockpiling of materials to be removed from the Site, during each phase or sub-phase of construction. Land, Water, and Ecological Stormwater runoff from all new impervious surfaces Resources shall be directed to green infrastructure or standard treatment practices per NYS DEC design requirements (e.g., bio-retention areas, green roofs, porous pavement, etc.) Land, Water, and Ecological The final SWPPP shall depict the nature of the Resources interconnection of practices “in-series” in accordance with NYCDEP’s Watershed Rules and Regulations. Land, Water, and Ecological Soil testing in the areas proposed for the stormwater Resources treatment practices shall be conducted by the Applicant in coordination with the NYCDEP in order for the NYCDEP to witness the soil testing.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

Page 51 of 79

Primary Environmental Impact Area3 26. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Using the soil testing data referenced above and the proposed final site plan to be reviewed by the Planning Board incorporating measures such as a micropool extended detention basin(s), bioretention area(s), sand filters. porous pavement and hydrodynamic separators, the Applicant shall demonstrate with appropriate modeling, to the satisfaction of the Town Board or Planning Board as part of the PDCP or site plan approval processes, that: (i) in both the Chappaqua Brook Sub-Watershed and Bedford Road tributary system, peak rates of runoff from the developed site at each discharge point will be less than or equal to the peak rates under existing conditions for all storm events up to and including the 100-year frequency (FSEIS II.c-37; Preliminary Stormwater Management Report I-27); (ii) there will be a reduction in phosphorus loading under developed conditions as compared to existing conditions (FSEIS II.c-46); (iii) there will be an approximately 1.8 lbs/yr phosphorus reduction that could be credited by the Town towards meeting its targets established by the Croton Watershed Plan (FSIES II.c-46); and (iv) the stormwater treatment practices will mitigate the pollutant loading from each of the identified subwatershed areas on the Project Site to the extent required by all applicable regulations and the above-referenced manuals and guidelines. The SWPPP shall include a full explanation as to how Open Space Design is incorporated into the Project and how it will be maintained and enforced. Specific fertilizer application protocols shall be established to insure that phosphorus is not introduced into area waterways during construction stabilization and long term property maintenance.

27.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

28.

Page 52 of 79

Primary Environmental Impact Area3 29. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

Mitigation/Minimization Measure The areas of site disturbance shall be limited to five acres at any one time during construction to minimize erosion and dust in accordance with NYSDEC General Permit GP-010-001, unless prior written approval is obtained from the Town as operator of the NYSDEC-regulated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System. Mulch, matting, temporary vegetative cover, or permanent landscaping shall be used for stabilization. Clear delineation of new development and redevelopment areas shall be provided. Redevelopment phosphorus reduction techniques shall be quantified and submitted to the Town of New Castle for inclusion in the Enhanced Phosphorus Reduction Program for the East of Hudson Watershed. No direct disturbance to wetlands 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 or their respective buffer areas shall occur; provided, however, that the wetland 7 buffer area may be removed (after issuance of any required wetland permit) to the extent that construction of the southbound right-turn lane from Bedford Road to Roaring Brook Road requires disturbance of this buffer area. To maintain and enhance wetlands 5 and/or 6 and/or their respective buffer areas, which may be adjacent to areas proposed for site disturbance, the ecological integrity of these resources shall be restored by the removal of the invasive plant purple loosestrife and other such invasives as determined by a field ecologist. If direct or indirect impacts are proposed to any wetland area or buffer, such as wetland 8, any such disturbance shall require a wetlands permit, including sufficient mitigation, and potentially other approvals by the Planning Board or other appropriate entity(ies). An invasive plant management plan including wetland monitoring and warranty, approved by the Town’s Environmental Coordinator shall also be implemented.

30.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

31.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

Page 53 of 79

Primary Environmental Impact Area3 32. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Implement 18,000SF of mitigation within the southern portion of Wetland 5 as specified in the FSEIS and DSEIS. . A wetland mitigation plan shall synthesize all proposed wetland mitigation including the detailed Invasive Species Management Plan as approved by the Town’s Environmental Coordinator to inform the final site development review process and other environmental approval processes that may be needed must be submitted, approved and implemented. All invasive species removal and other wetland mitigation efforts shall be consistent with the Town of New Castle’s protocol for wetland mitigation and monitoring. A woodland buffer shall be created and maintained between Wetland 5 and the upland meadow habitat. An understory shrub layer shall be included for the remaining section of Wetland 8, with a 50% coverage requirement to further mitigate the proposed wetland/wetland buffer disturbance. The efficacy of wetland creation immediately west of Wetland 8 as mitigation for the disturbance to Wetland 8 shall be analyzed and assessed as part of the PDCP and/or Site Plan approval processes and to the extent it is feasible, it shall be included as additional mitigation for the proposed wetland disturbance. This location is in the same landscape position as Wetland 8 and has an existing over-story of hydrophytic trees. The baseline vegetative mapping shall be finalized as part of the PDCP and Site Plan approval processes so that it includes specific protocol(s) for measuring the success/failure of achieving the proposed management goals for each species.

33.

34.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

35.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

36.

37.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

38.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

Page 54 of 79

Primary Environmental Impact Area3 39. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Wetland enhancement shall be accomplished via invasive species removal and supplemental planting using a mitigation ratio of not less than 3:1 to offset wetland impacts. Mitigation credit shall only be given to any wetland creation area and only to those portions of the enhancement areas undergoing direct invasive plant removal. Only the aerial footprint of invasive species within Wetland 5 and 6 which will be removed shall be counted as “mitigation” acreage, not the entire acreage of the wetland area as determined in the field by the Town’s Environmental Coordinator or Wetlands Consultant. Additional wildlife and/or vegetative surveys shall be performed, as appropriate, to inform final site development review process and other environmental approvals which may be needed, including information to address replacement ratios, adequacy of sizes of proposed new landscaping, species, and other details. Other measures shall be implemented to reduce loss of functional habitat, including naturalization of exterior side slopes on the proposed water quality basins and locating of meadow ecosystems between improvements and regulated ecosystems such as wetland areas or undisturbed areas. The overall area of the Project Site discharging stormwater off-site to the east of the Project Site shall result in either no increase or a decrease in run-off volumes and peak flow to the Bedford Road tributary as compared to existing conditions. All clearing and grading activities shall be performed consistent with the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual (2010) and the New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control (2005).

40.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

41.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

42.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

43.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

44.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

Page 55 of 79

Primary Environmental Impact Area3 45. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

Mitigation/Minimization Measure During construction, tree protection measures, including creating established construction access roadways with geotextile fabric with 12 inches of woodchips, shall be implemented. Additionally, for each of the trees to be protected, two Jersey barriers shall be placed next to the tree to stop rolling rocks and bumps from construction equipment. If rock blasting is necessary for construction purposes, mats shall be used to prevent blasted material from flying into the trees. Due to the anticipated size of vehicles, vertical 2x4s shall be strapped around the trunks of the trees on the side facing construction to protect the actual trunks of the trees. These types of tree-specific procedures shall be in addition to standard construction best management practices that include hay bales and/or silt fence protocols. In addition, where feasible, trees close to the limit of disturbance that are determined to be in good condition shall be flagged for protection. Small trees in proposed areas of disturbance shall be evaluated for potential relocation on the Project Site in a similar setting. Trees shall be replanted with a replacement of 50% of the total aggregate diameter of trees removed with new trees in accordance with a plan for tree replacement. Tree replacement shall be required onsite unless the Town Board or Planning Board determines that, because of site constraints, it is impracticable or impossible to fully meet the mitigation requirements on-site per Chapter 121 of the New Castle Town Code.

46.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

Page 56 of 79

Primary Environmental Impact Area3 47. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

Mitigation/Minimization Measure The stormwater management controls for the East Village MFPD District parcel shall either be selfcontained on the East Village MFPD District parcel or include any necessary drainage or other easement(s) over the B-RO-20 District parcel to support the residential uses on the East Village MFPD District parcel. If the East Village MFPD District parcel is to utilize the B-RO-20 District parcel for drainage, then a restrictive declaration running in favor of the East Village MFPD District parcel should be secured to preserve this feature on the B-RO-20 District parcel. If any additional parking areas are constructed or redundant stormwater management practices are required by the NYCDEP, compliance with applicable guidelines and rules shall be demonstrated by providing practices such as subsurface infiltration chambers or sand filters that shall not result in additional disturbances to the Project Site. Stormwater management system(s) that are consistent with the stormwater management plans approved by all authorities with jurisdiction, including the Planning Board, NYSDEC, and/or NYCDEP, as appropriate, shall be implemented. Water quality retrofits shall be implemented in the existing parking lots of drainage Area CC-Ex. Where feasible, other areas of existing parking lots shall be upgraded with stormwater retrofits. An integrated pest management approach to pest control shall be applied to the Project Site. On-site walking trails shall be established and maintained. As proposed by the Applicant, there shall be cooperation in opening on-site trails for public use and in connecting on-site trails to the prospective trail along the sewer trunk line providing bicycle and/or pedestrian access to the Chappaqua Hamlet.

48.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

49.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

50.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

51. 52. 53.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources Land, Water, and Ecological Resources Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

Page 57 of 79

Primary Environmental Impact Area3 54. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Subject to the terms of the Agreement dated December 11, 2012, adequate park land and/or recreation facilities shall be provided in accordance with Town Code requirements and as approved by the Planning Board. Recreational facilities for the residential development in the East Village MFPD District shall be constructed and maintained offering social, health, fitness, recreational, and social amenities, including but not limited to fitness center, outdoor pool, meeting and social rooms, and concierge services. Retail operating hours shall commence no earlier than 6:00 AM and cease no later than 11:00 PM, except in the case of restaurants where the latest such an establishment can close is 11:30 PM. The design and operation of residential buildings and accessory uses including access roads, paths, and parking areas shall satisfy or exceed all applicable Town Code, New York State Energy Conservation Code, New York State Building Code, and fire safety requirements and/or other multifamily dwelling construction and design standards, including ensuring the size of any elevator is sufficient to accommodate standard-length ambulance gurneys. Proper access for fire-fighting equipment and personnel shall be provided. Hydrants shall be installed in number and location and with such water pressure as may be determined to be adequate by the Planning Board based upon the recommendations of the Town Engineer and the Chappaqua Fire Department A private solid waste carter shall be used for the commercial uses on the B-RO-20 portion of the Project Site. All grocer refuse and recycling shall be stored within an enclosed loading area located at the lower level of the reconstructed 100 Building.

55.

Community Facilities and Services

56.

Community Facilities and Services

57.

Community Facilities and Services

58.

Community Facilities and Services

59.

Community Facilities and Services Community Facilities and Services

60.

Page 58 of 79

Primary Environmental Impact Area3 61. Community Facilities and Services Community Facilities and Services

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Refuse and recycling for all retail uses (except for the grocery use) shall be stored within enclosed dumpsters or compactors. Dumpsters and compactors located to the exterior of the buildings shall be screened consistent with the architectural styling of the Project Site as approved through the Town Board PDCP and Planning Board site plan approval processes. The collection of refuse may only take place between the hours of 6:30 AM and 7:30 PM Monday through Saturday except in emergency situations. The historic Reader’s Digest Rotunda Building (200 Building) and the Guest House shall be retained and adaptively reused. The Applicant shall undertake the proposed improvements to the Project Site in accordance with the design guidelines addressing building architecture, materials, and colors, signage and lighting among other features as proposed through the Proposed OPROD Legislation. The Applicant shall submit for comment and review the Proposed PDCP and associated architectural renovations to the New York State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) and the Town as determined by the Town Board. If significant cultural artifacts are recovered during construction, those materials shall be processed by a cultural resources consultant, and arrangements shall be made to house them in an appropriate location.

62.

63.

Historic and Archaeological Resources Historic and Archaeological Resources

64.

65.

Historic and Archaeological Resources

66.

Historic and Archaeological Resources

Page 59 of 79

Primary Environmental Impact Area3 67. Visual Resources

Mitigation/Minimization Measure An exterior lighting plan for residential and commercial portions of the site that is in accordance with the proposed lighting plan in the FEIS and DEIS with regards to the residential portion of the site and the FSEIS and DSEIS with regard to the Petition Proposed Action shall be subject to detailed review and approval during the Town Board’s PDCP and the Planning Board’s site plan approval processes and, as approved, implementation by the Applicant. An appropriate landscaped/vegetated buffer shall be constructed and/or maintained with supplemental landscaping in areas adjacent to neighboring residential properties to minimize visibility of the proposed Project Site buildings and shall be subject to detailed review and approval during the Town Board’s PDCP and the Planning Board’s site plan approval processes. Interior landscaped gardens and supplemental landscape shall be constructed and/or maintained, as proposed and approved through the Town Board’s PDCP and the Planning Board’s site plan approval processes. All residential units shall be metered independently to promote water and energy conservation. The costs associated with updating the existing onsite water distribution system and installation of new water lines, portions of which shall be dedicated to the Town, shall be borne by the Applicant or any successor to the Applicant. Existing water mains to be dedicated to the Town shall be inspected and tested prior to dedication and, if necessary, cleaned and relined. As proposed by the Applicant, the installation of the new on-site water distribution mains shall meet or exceed Town standards and the annual operation and maintenance costs for the system shall be supported by an ad valorem assessment.

68.

Visual Resources

69.

Visual Resources

70. 71.

Utilities Utilities

Page 60 of 79

Primary Environmental Impact Area3 72. Utilities

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Pursuant to the Town Code, the King-Greeley Sanitary Sewer District must be expanded to include the Project Site prior to the granting of site development plan approval by the Planning Board. In expanding the sewer district, there shall be compliance with all requirements of the Town Code, the Westchester County Department of Environmental Facilities, and the Westchester County Health Department. The extension of the sewer service near the proposed southern access driveway shall be extended into the Roaring Brook Road right-of-way or other appropriate location so that the public sewer service can be extended without encroachment onto the Applicant’s private property. The existing on-site sewage collection system shall be extended and upgraded, with portions of the system being dedicated to the Town sewer system. All new sewer mains installed in the Project Site shall be sized to accommodate peak sewage flows and should meet Town and regulatory construction standards. As proposed by the Applicant and in connection with the proposed sanitary sewer district expansion and connection, reasonable off-site sewer improvements to accommodate and offset the project’s increase in effluent shall be funded and/or constructed in accordance with Westchester Department of Environmental Facilities guidelines and requirements. High-efficiency Energy Star-rated consumer appliances, light fixtures, and building mechanical systems shall be incorporated into the project and the project should meet the Town’s Energy Star requirements for new residential buildings consistent with Town Code, as applicable.

73.

Utilities

74.

Utilities

75.

Utilities

76.

Utilities

Page 61 of 79

Primary Environmental Impact Area3 77. Utilities

Mitigation/Minimization Measure There shall be site-wide distribution of security, life safety, energy management, and CCTV signals via cables run either in underground conduits or via cable tray systems within the existing office buildings. Controls and operating strategies shall be incorporated into the project to minimize consumption of gas and electricity as proposed by the Applicant in the DEIS and SDEIS. Residential buildings, including the residential clubhouse, shall be certifiable as LEED Basic for Homes or LEED Basic for New Construction, as proposed by the Applicant. Construction (i.e. improvements for new tenants) in the main office building (Buildings 100-600) shall include upgrades to improve energy efficiency and/or be certifiable as LEED Basic for New Construction.re Proposed underground utilities shall be grouped in common utility trenches to the extent feasible and as approved by the respective utility companies. Municipal system and infrastructure improvements shall be installed and permitted. Additional details shall be provided through the Town Board PDCP and/or the Planning Board site plan approval processes regarding proposed testing, repairs, and upgrades to the existing water systems and regarding the proposed backflow from stormwater duress. All residential and commercial units shall be metered independently to promote water and energy conservation. Water conservation practices shall be employed, including use of reduced flow plumbing fixtures in all new residential construction as well as future office building renovations in compliance with thenapplicable building code requirements; use of drip landscape irrigation systems; and restriction of irrigation to early morning hours.

78.

Utilities

79.

Utilities

80.

Utilities

81.

Utilities

82.

Utilities

83.

Utilities

Page 62 of 79

Primary Environmental Impact Area3 84. Utilities

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Any on-site diesel generators for backup power supply shall only run in times of power outages and for periodic testing of the generators as recommended by the equipment manufacturer. Maximum baffling and screening shall be implemented. A separate southbound right-turn lane from Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) to Roaring Brook Road shall be constructed no later than the commencement of construction of the CR&EV project or the Petition Proposed Action, whichever occurs first, and shall require the dedication of land from the Project Site along Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) to NYSDOT. A separate northbound left-turn lane from Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) shall be shall be constructed no later than the commencement of construction of the CR&EV project or the Petition Proposed Action, whichever occurs first. The upgrade of the existing traffic signal hardware, utility poles and timing plans shall be undertaken at the existing intersection of Roaring Brook Road and Bedford Road (NYS Route 117). Signal timing changes shall be requested from NYSDOT for Saw Mill River Parkway/Roaring Brook Road and Bedford Road/Roaring Brook Road to mitigate traffic impact. Additional pavement marking on Roaring Brook Road at the intersection of the Chappaqua Crossing West Entry Access Driveway shall be reviewed and approved as part of the Planning Board’s site plan approval process. The intersection of Chappaqua Crossing’s East Access Driveway and Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) shall be identified as the access driveway for all deliveries. Directional signage shall be implemented at this location and throughout the site to control deliveries to utilize this intersection only.

85.

Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

86.

Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

87.

Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

88.

Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

89.

Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

90.

Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

Page 63 of 79

Primary Environmental Impact Area3 91. Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Optimization of signal timing at the intersection of the Saw Mill River Parkway and Roaring Brook Road shall be pursued with NYSDOT by the . If approved by the NYSDOT, these timing changes shall be implemented as part of the PDCP and site plan approval processes. Optimization of signal timing at the intersection of Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and NYS Route 120 (North) shall be pursued with NYSDOT by the . If approved by the NYSDOT, these timing changes shall be implemented as part of the PDCP and site plan approval processes. Optimization of signal timing (addition of at least one second) at the intersection of Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and NYS Route 128 shall be pursued with NYSDOT by the . If approved by the NYSDOT, these timing changes shall be implemented as part of the PDCP and site plan approval processes.. The south driveway to the Project Site shall be relocated directly opposite The entry drive for Horace Greeley High School. This intersection shall be signalized, and include pedestrian crosswalks and signal phasing. The Applicant shall pursue improvements related to the Horace Greeley High School Campus which will alleviate traffic congestion at the intersection of Roaring Brook Road, Horace Greeley High School and the Project Site’s relocated southern access driveway as part of the Town Board PDCP and the Planning Board site plan review processes. Delivery trucks shall only enter and exit the Project Site through the existing Chappaqua Crossing’s East Access Driveway at Bedford Road (NYS Route 117). Deliveries are to be spread throughout the day and no loading or unloading shall be allowed before 5:00 AM.

92.

Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

93.

Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

94.

Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

95.

Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

96.

Traffic, Transportation, and Parking Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

97.

Page 64 of 79

Primary Environmental Impact Area3 98. Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Measures for safe and efficient entry and exits for WB-50 trucks at the service and delivery vehicle ingress and egress shall be identified and detailed through the Town Board PDCP and Planning Board site plan approval processes. The existing vehicular gates at the east and west entry to the Project Site shall be removed. A parking management plan, including land banking, jitney services, shared parking parameters, among other things, shall be prepared as part of the Town Board PDCP and Planning Board site plan approval processes. 1,680 parking spaces (the number of existing parking spaces) shall be maintained on the B-RO-20 portion of the Project Site unless either Planning Board approval is obtained to phase construction of spaces based on an adequate parking management plan or Zoning Board of Appeals approval is obtained for a variance allowing fewer parking spaces. Jitney service between Project Site and Chappaqua business hamlet shall be provided as proposed by Applicant (Planning Board to determine thresholds on B-RO-20 parcel and/or MFPD parcel for provision of jitney service).

99.

Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

100. Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

101. Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

102. Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

Page 65 of 79

Primary Environmental Impact Area3 103. Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

Mitigation/Minimization Measure At or prior to making application to NYS DOT for Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) roadway and intersection improvement permit(s), Applicant also shall ask NYS DOT to examine, consider, and discuss with Applicant and the Town: (i) implementation of traffic controls and other improvements at the intersection of Chappaqua Crossing’s East Access Driveway and Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) considering it as the main entrance to the Project Site for all uses and deliveries (retail, office and residential) on the Project Site, and (ii) other intersection and roadway improvements on the Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) segment between and including the intersection of Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and Roaring Brook Road and the intersection of Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and Annandale Road for the purpose of facilitating through traffic on Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and ingress and egress to and from Chappaqua Crossing’s East Access Driveway and to and from Annandale Road

104. Air Quality and Noise

As proposed by the Applicant, the following measures shall be implemented in the design, renovation, and construction Action on the Project Site to minimize energy use and reduce air emissions: insulation that meets or exceeds the New York State Energy Conservation Code requirements and is installed in compliance with Grade I specifications set by National Home Energy Rating Standards; use of refrigerants in HVAC and refrigeration systems designed to minimize emissions of ozone-depleting gases; light-colored white thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO) roofing materials; use of paints and carpeting containing low VOCs and other off-gassing compounds; compact fluorescent lighting fixtures in frequently used rooms such as the kitchen and living room; double-glazed windows; programmable thermostats; brick and cementitious siding; operable windows; and use of high quality MERV 8 air filters.

Page 66 of 79

Primary Environmental Impact Area3 105. Air Quality and Noise

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Emergency generators shall be designed with insulated noise enclosures and shall comply with all applicable Town noise regulations. The final location of the emergency generators would be subject to detailed review through the Town Board PDCP and/or Planning Board site plan review processes. Any new buildings shall be Georgian-style architecture compatible with the architecture of the Rotunda Building. The Town Architectural Review Board or other entity as determined by the Town Board shall review and approve this aspect of the Petition Proposed Action through the Town Board PDCP or Planning Board site plan approval processes. A signage and way-finding plan shallshall be detailed, reviewed and approved for the Petition Proposed Action through the Town Board PDCP or Planning Board site plan approval processes. A fully contained interior loading dock shall be located within the lower floor of the reconstructed 100 Building to serve the grocery store. There shall be no residential gatehouse on the Project Site. No more than 49 acres of the Project Site shall be disturbed by the construction of the CR&EV Project and the Petition Proposed Action. A soil and materials management plan (“SMMP”) shall be approved by the Planning Board prior to construction to manage fill material and any environmentally impacted soil that may be encountered during construction activities. Demolished building materials shall be removed in a manner consistent with procedures described in the DEIS and SDEIS.

106. Community Character

107. Community Character

108. Community Character

109. Community Character 110. Construction

111. Construction

Page 67 of 79

Primary Environmental Impact Area3 112. Construction

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Detailed investigations for lead paint, asbestos, and other hazardous materials shall be undertaken prior to any building renovation or demolition, and the removal and disposal of any such materials shall be implemented in accordance with applicable governmental regulations. Any remediation shall likely include excavation of soil and a combination of off-site disposal of impacted soil and potential on-site reuse of suitable materials (such as wood and stone) in accordance with the applicable regulations. If rock blasting is necessary, a blasting plan shall be developed that shall include restrictions on the types and methods of blasting and other methods of rock removal that shall be allowed. Any blasting plan shall incorporate all measures described in DEIS Sections III.C.1.d(1)(b), III.K.3.b, and III.K.4.c and must be approved by the Planning Board. With respect to demolition, all masonry and concrete materials from exterior walls, slabs, and foundations shall be broken into smaller pieces with a hydraulic hammer and stockpiled on site to be recycled. Upon completion of demolition, all stockpiled recyclable materials shall be processed through a crusher and reused on site for aggregates and structural fill. In addition, asphalt from all parking areas to be removed shall be stripped and processed on site to be re-used in the creation of new roads and parking areas. A demolition and construction management program shall be implemented and communicated to existing tenants on the Project Site. Demolition shall occur one building at a time.

113. Construction

114. Construction

115. Construction

116. Construction

Page 68 of 79

Primary Environmental Impact Area3 117. Construction

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Construction employees shall be issued temporary access control cards to allow them to enter the Project Site through the west entry gate to reduce construction-related traffic along Roaring Brook Road. Construction deliveries shall enter and leave the site from Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) via Route 172. Construction truck activity shall be limited to between 9:00 AM and 2:30 PM so as not to conflict with rush hour office or school-related operations. When specialty operations such as concrete placement must be scheduled during peak traffic hours, alternative traffic control procedures could be implemented with the oversight of the Town police department. Flagmen shall be available at all times to ensure safe ingress and egress into the Project Site. All construction worker parking and all construction truck staging shall be on site in designated areas. Measures shall be explored to reduce cumulative construction noise levels at affected Cowdin Lane properties to 60 dBA at the property line. Construction shall be conducted consistent with an approved NYS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan developed in accordance with the New York State Stormwater Design Manual (2010) and the New York Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control (2005). Development of an erosion and sediment control plan for each phase of construction (which shall be no greater than five acres) shall be prepared and approved as part of the Planning Board site plan review process.

118. Construction 119. Construction

120. Construction

121. Construction

Page 69 of 79

Primary Environmental Impact Area3 122. Construction

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Best construction practices to be set forth in the Construction Logistics Plan shall be implemented, including wetting soil surfaces, covering trucks and stored materials with tarps to reduce windborne dust, and proper maintenance of equipment. Roadway and haul roads shall be stabilized with tackifiers, geotechnical fabrics and stone ballast as required to minimize dust. Roadways will be washed regularly to prevent dust from being generated by vehicle traffic. Tracking pads will be established where trucking vehicles move from construction areas to established roadways. Wash stations will be installed at the tracking pads, and their utilization will be required prior to leaving a disturbed area. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall include silt fencing, hay bales, inlet protection, temporary sediment traps and outlet protection and control devices, swales, berms, energy dissipaters, wheel wash down areas, anti-tracking pads, mulching, temporary seeding, dust control with misting systems (including during demolition), covering of stockpile materials or stabilization with an established seed bed, and hay bales. These methods shall be regularly maintained and periodically inspected and shall meet the requirements of NYSDEC Standards and Specifications or Erosion and Sediment Control. These measures shall be included in the construction contract. No phase of construction shall exceed five (5) acres and a detailed construction sequence (including all phases) shall be prepared and approved by both the NYC DEP and the Town of New Castle prior to the commencement of any site work

123. Construction

124. Construction

Page 70 of 79

Primary Environmental Impact Area3 125. Construction

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Any groundwater that is encountered during construction shall be captured and diverted via curtain drains along the perimeter of the excavated areas, to be released in a controlled manner to a stabilized vegetated surface or channel for eventual discharge to the on-site wetlands. Turbidity or sediments in the temporarily diverted groundwater shall be controlled by lining the curtain drains with filter fabric and using clean washed pea stone as trench backfill. As soon as grading operations for an area are completed, the area shall be stabilized and landscaped. During earthwork operations, temporary noise attenuation measures, such as acoustic curtains or screens, shall be implemented along the boundaries of major construction areas. Equipment used during construction will be fitted with PM traps and will use low-sulfur fuel. Equipment used during construction will be properly maintained and operated. Energy Star-compliant construction materials will be used. To the extent feasible, construction materials that have been extracted and manufactured within 500 miles of the Project Site will be used.

126. Construction

127. Construction

128. Construction 129. Construction 130. Construction 131. Construction

VIII. Significant Adverse Impacts This Findings Statement considers the potential impacts of the Petition Proposed Action in the following areas: Land Use and Zoning; Socioeconomic and Fiscal Conditions; Land, Water, and Ecological Resources; Community Facilities and Services; Historic and Archaeological Resources; Visual Resources; Utilities; Traffic, Transportation, and Parking; Air Quality and Noise; Community Character; and Construction.

Page 71 of 79

The Petition Proposed Action would result in significant adverse traffic impacts, but it would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts related to Land Use and Zoning; Socioeconomic and Fiscal Conditions; Land, Water, and Ecological Resources; Community Facilities and Services; Historic and Archaeological Resources; Visual Resources; Utilities; Air Quality and Noise; Community Character; or Construction. The FSEIS presents an analysis of the traffic impacts of the Petition Proposed Action as compared to the traffic impacts of the CR&EV Project. This traffic assessment analyzed traffic at 19 intersections over the same five peak periods that were studied in the 2011 FEIS for the CR&EV Project. The results of the traffic study demonstrate that the Petition Proposed Action would result in significant impacts at seven locations. In addition, the intersection at Roaring Brook Road and Horace Greeley High School Access Road, while not expected to experience significant impacts under the Project Scope Criteria, would still experience impacts worth discussing due to its location and potential impacts that were forecast. The FSEIS sets forth information indicating that with the incorporation of certain traffic mitigation, the significant adverse impacts at four (4) of the seven (7) intersections can be avoided. While the information provided by the Applicant in regards to the remaining three intersections indicated that the significant impacts could not be mitigated, the Town (based on information from the Town’s traffic consultant) believes it may be possible to avoid or further reduce the impacts at these intersections by instituting signal timing refinements. Mitigation should be provided by the Applicant at an eighth intersection, the intersection of Roaring Brook Road and the Horace Greeley High School Access Road. A description of the significant impacts and potential mitigation measures associated with each of the eight intersections is discussed in Section V.h of this Findings Statement. It is important to note that the 2011 Findings Statement determined that the traffic impacts of the CR&EV Project primarily resulted from the commercial uses proposed as part of that project. The same is true for the Petition Proposed Action. Ultimately, the Town Board believes that the economic benefits to the Town of allowing increased commercial use at the Project Site – the only remaining major commercial site in the Town outside the hamlet areas – outweigh the negative impacts caused by increased traffic. In addition, the Town Board believes that the identified traffic mitigation, including the improvements to the Horace Greeley High School Access Road, will improve traffic circulation in the area of the Project Site. IX. Conclusions and Certification of Findings Required by SEQRA

Having considered the relevant environmental impacts, facts, and conclusions disclosed in the FEIS, DEIS, FSEIS, which incorporates by reference the DSEIS, and includes the comments on the DSEIS and responses thereto, and having weighed and balanced relevant environmental impacts with social, economic, and other considerations, and in consideration of the preceding written facts and conclusions, the Town Board finds and certifies: (1) that the requirements of SEQRA and the SEQRA Regulations have been met; and (2) that consistent with social, economic, and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives available, the Petition Proposed Action is one that avoids or
Page 72 of 79

minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and that adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures that the FSEIS and this Findings Statement have identified as practicable. Agency: Town of New Castle Town Board Town of New Castle 200 South Greeley Avenue Chappaqua, New York 10514

Signature of Responsible Officer: ____________________________________

Name of Responsible Officer:

____________________________________

Title of Responsible Officer:

____________________________________

Date:

____________________________________

Lead Agency Contact Person for Additional Information:

Jill Simon Shapiro, Town Clerk Town of New Castle 200 South Greeley Avenue Chappaqua, New York 10514 Telephone: (914) 238-4772

Page 73 of 79

X.

Figures

Page 74 of 79

XI. Appendix A- 2011 Findings Statement

Page 79 of 79

TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF NEW CASTLE

FINDINGS STATEMENT CHAPPAQUA CROSSING
ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT

SEQRA Action Type: Date: Lead Agency: Contact:

Type I April 11, 2011 Town Board of the Town of New Castle Jill Simon Shapiro, Town Clerk Town of New Castle 200 South Greeley Avenue Chappaqua, New York 10514 Telephone: (914) 238-4772

Town Board of the Town of New Castle Findings Statement for the Proposed Chappaqua Crossing Project Pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act Table of Contents I. II. III. IV. V. VI. Summary of Findings...........................................................................................................................1 Project Site Description.......................................................................................................................3 History of Commercial Development at the Project Site ..............................................................4 Importance of Commercial Development at the Project Site .......................................................5 The Town’s Obligations to Provide Affordable and Multifamily Housing.................................6 Project History......................................................................................................................................8 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. VII. The 2007 Petition and Variance Application......................................................................8 Initiation of the SEQRA Review..........................................................................................8 The Draft Environmental Impact Statement .....................................................................8 The Public Comment Period ..............................................................................................10 Preparation and Review of the Final Environmental Impact Statement .....................11 The 2010 Modified Project Petition ..................................................................................11 Petition to the County for Extension of the Sewer District ..........................................14

Project Descriptions ..........................................................................................................................14 A. B. C. The Proposed Action...........................................................................................................14 The Modified Project ...........................................................................................................15 The Commercial Rezoning & East Village Project .........................................................15

VIII. IX. X.

Benefits of the Commercial Rezoning & East Village Project ....................................................17 Approvals Required for the Commercial Rezoning & East Village Project..............................17 Significant Adverse Impacts .............................................................................................................18 A. B. C. Inconsistency with Town Development Plan Policies for the Project Site .................18 Inconsistency with Town Zoning ......................................................................................20 Traffic Impacts......................................................................................................................20 i

XI.

Consideration of Other Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action, Modified Project, and Commercial Rezoning & East Village Project.........................................................21 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. Land Use and Zoning ..........................................................................................................22 Socioeconomic and Fiscal Conditions...............................................................................22 Land, Water, and Ecological Resources ............................................................................23 Community Facilities and Services.....................................................................................23 Historic and Archaeological Resources.............................................................................24 Visual Resources ...................................................................................................................25 Utilities ...................................................................................................................................25 Traffic, Transportation, and Parking .................................................................................26 Air Quality and Noise ..........................................................................................................28 Community Character..........................................................................................................29 Construction..........................................................................................................................29

XII. XIII. XIV.

Measures for the Minimization or Mitigation of Adverse Environmental Impacts.................29 Alternatives Considered ....................................................................................................................41 Conclusions and Certification of Findings Required by SEQRA...............................................42

ii

Town Board of the Town of New Castle Findings Statement for the Proposed Chappaqua Crossing Project Pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act This Findings Statement by the Town Board of the Town of New Castle (the “Town Board”) is prepared pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law Article 8, and its implementing regulations codified at Title 6 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (“N.Y.C.R.R.”) Part 617 (the “SEQRA Regulations”). The Town Board has served as Lead Agency for this SEQRA review. This Findings Statement concerns proposed zoning and related land use approvals sought by SG Chappaqua B, LLC (the “Applicant”) to allow for development of the 113.7-acre former Reader’s Digest Association, Inc. (“Reader’s Digest”) corporate campus in the Town of New Castle (the “Project Site”) from a primarily commercial site with B-RO-20 zoning on 87.3 acres, to a mixed-use commercial and residential site with a new Multifamily Planned Development (“MFPD”) District and a smaller B-RO-20 District. This Findings Statement considers the relevant environmental impacts, facts, and conclusions in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) accepted on March 26, 2011, which incorporated by reference the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”) declared complete on May 22, 2009. An errata sheet correcting production errors in the electronic copy of the FEIS was published on the Town’s website on April 6, 2011. Having reviewed the DEIS and FEIS which are incorporated by reference into this Findings Statement, the Town Board makes the findings and conclusions set forth below based on those documents and the administrative record before it. I. Summary of Findings

In 2007, the Applicant submitted a petition to the Town Board for certain approvals necessary to develop the Project Site into a mixed-use commercial and residential site that would consist of approximately 520,000 square feet of existing commercial space and an MFPD District with 278 residential units (collectively, the “Proposed Action”). With the Proposed Action, 64.3 acres of the Project Site would be zoned as an MFPD District and 49.4 acres would remain in the B-RO-20 District. The residential units in the MFPD District would be grouped into two clusters on the northern and eastern portions of the Project Site (the “North Village” and “East Village,” respectively) and would include 222 market-rate age-restricted units (to be occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older and no one under the age of 18), 24 affordable age-restricted units, and 32 affordable workforce units for families. The environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and a number of alternatives were reviewed in the DEIS. Additional alternatives to the Proposed Action evolved, including Alternative I – known as the “Modified Project” – as part of the DEIS review process. In 2010, the Applicant submitted a petition to the Town Board for the Modified Project, which would be a mixed-use commercial and residential development consisting of approximately 662,000 square feet of existing commercial space and an MFPD District with 199 residential units. With the most recent version of the Modified Project, 60 acres of the Project Site would be zoned as an MFPD District, and 53.7 acres would remain in the B-RO-20 District. Like the Proposed Action, the Modified Project’s residential units would be grouped into the North Village and the East Village, with the North Village consisting of 88 condominium flats and the East Village consisting of 51 condominium flats and 60 town houses. Twenty of the condominium flats in the East Village

1

would be affordable units that would affirmatively further fair housing and 31 of the condominium flats and the town houses would be market-rate units. There would be no age restrictions on any of the residential units in the Modified Project. The environmental impacts of the Modified Project and several other alternatives were analyzed in the FEIS. The Applicant indicated it would withdraw its requests for the Proposed Action if the Town Board were to approve the Modified Project. At this time, the Town Board has active requests before it for both the Proposed Action and the Modified Project. During the course of its review of the Applicant’s proposals for the Project Site, one of the Town Board’s primary concerns has been the preservation of the long-term viability of commercial uses at the Project Site, which has a long-standing history as an important commercial presence in the Town of New Castle and which is the sole remaining major commercial property in the Town outside of the hamlet centers. The Town Board has also been concerned with the need to increase the diversity of the Town’s housing stock and to provide housing options to address local and regional housing needs. In addition, the Town Board has been concerned with ensuring any project proposed for the Project Site would be consistent with Town zoning, the Town Development Plan, and other related issues relevant to a new residential development in the Town of New Castle. With these concerns in mind and as set forth in more detail below, the Town Board finds that consistent with social, economic, and other essential considerations from among the Proposed Action, the Modified Project, and the reasonable alternatives thereto which were considered and analyzed in the DEIS and FEIS, the creation of a 30.6-acre MFPD District on the Project Site – corresponding to the proposed East Village area under the Modified Project – will avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable. The creation of this MFPD District (the “East Village MFPD District”), in conjunction with the removal of commercial tenancy restrictions on the B-RO-20 District portion of the Project Site, is referred to hereinafter as the “Commercial Rezoning & East Village Project” or “CR&EV Project.” The CR&EV Project will have the same number of residential units and layout as that of the East Village under the Modified Project, consisting of 111 residential units, 20 of which will affirmatively further fair housing. The CR&EV Project will also include 662,000 square feet of multi-tenanted office space on the 70.8 acres of the Project Site that will remain zoned as a B-RO-20 District. 12.3 acres of the Project Site will remain in the R-1A District. The East Village MFPD District will not include the proposed North Village area, and no residential units in the North Village will be approved. Instead, the current B-RO-20 zoning which applies to the majority of the North Village area will not change so that this area will continue to be available for parking in support of the commercial uses on the Project Site and/or as space for possible future additional commercial development consistent with the B-RO-20 zoning of this area. The decision not to approve the proposed rezoning of the North Village for residential use is made by the Town Board in furtherance of the policy goal of continuing the commercial zoning in this area. The Town Board further finds that adverse environmental impacts of the CR&EV Project will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable by incorporating the conditions listed in Table FS-1. The Town Board hereby determines, based on considerations set forth in more detail below, to take actions to permit the development of the CR&EV Project, including: (1) approval of amendments to the Town’s Zoning Law eliminating restrictions on the number of permissible users of buildings located in the commercial portion of the Project Site, as well as eliminating square footage occupancy limitations in that portion of the Project Site; and (2) approval of the designation of the East Village MFPD District on a portion of the Project Site and of a Preliminary Development 2

Concept Plan for that MFPD District. The CR&EV Project including the East Village MFPD District is depicted in the attached Figure FS-1. II. Project Site Description

The Project Site is the historic approximately 114-acre former corporate campus of the Reader’s Digest Association, Inc. (“Reader’s Digest”) located at 480 Bedford Road in the Town of New Castle, New York. The Project Site is located generally east of the Metro-North Harlem Division Rail Line and Saw Mill River Parkway, north of Roaring Brook Road, and west of Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and Cowdin Lane. The Project Site is on the eastern side of the Town of New Castle, and the northernmost portion of the Project Site is approximately 300 feet from the town line that borders the Village/Town of Mount Kisco. The Project Site consists of one tax lot (Tax Lot No. 93.9-1-1).1 Figure FS-2 (DEIS Figure No. II.B-4) shows the Project Site’s existing conditions including the general site layout, zoning lots, and tax lots. The Project Site is characterized as a corporate campus facility bordered by a mix of landscaped and vegetative cover types. Wooded areas, meadow, and lawn are present along the perimeter of the campus facility, accompanied by wetland areas and associated buffers that constitute approximately 60 percent of the length of the property line. Areas that have been developed include the existing Reader’s Digest headquarters buildings, support and accessory buildings, and on-grade parking areas. The Project Site is landscaped with a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, flowering trees, shrubs, and manicured lawn areas. Heavily wooded areas dominate the western, northern, and northeastern sides of the Project Site, as well as the southern portion along Roaring Brook Road. The terrain can be characterized as undulating, with existing development present at various elevations to correspond with the topography. The surrounding neighborhoods on the eastern and southern sides of the Project Site are characterized as residential areas with one- or two-story homes on properties of one or more acres. Like the Project Site, these residential areas are characterized by varying topography with existing mature vegetation and lawn areas. Horace Greeley High School is located across Roaring Brook Road from southern end of the Project Site, with an associated administrative building located along Roaring Brook Road adjacent to the high school entrance. The Metro-North Harlem Division Rail Line right-of-way and Saw Mill River Parkway border the Project Site to the west. Beyond this transportation corridor, further west, are areas of open space and residential neighborhoods characterized by heavily wooded areas and varying topography. The Project Site is improved with approximately 700,000 square feet of office space and associated uses that were constructed and/or utilized by Reader’s Digest beginning in 1939. The Project Site includes the main building complex, with the signature white cupola that sits atop the center of
The 2007 and 2010 petitions also refer to four lots containing three single-family dwellings (Tax Lots 93.9-1-7, 93.9-1-8, 93.9-1-9, and 93.9-1-10) located immediately adjacent to and south of the former Reader’s Digest campus lot, as well as an undeveloped two-acre lot located across Roaring Brook Road from the former Reader’s Digest campus lot, near the intersection of that road and the Harlem Division Rail Line (Tax Lot 92.12-2-1). These five tax lots are located in the R-1A District and total approximately six acres. See Figure FS-2. The Town Board’s immediate actions will not affect any of these five lots, which will remain in the R-1A District. This Findings Statement should not be viewed as addressing these properties unless such properties are expressly identified and discussed herein, and the term Project Site in this Findings Statement does not include any of these five lots.
1

3

the oldest portion of the building and is clearly visible from the Saw Mill River Parkway and Roaring Brook Road to the west. Accessory buildings totaling approximately 29,000 square feet and located in the center and eastern section of the Project Site include an auditorium, a former single-family house utilized for office purposes (Bedford Valley House), a maintenance garage, a former singlefamily house utilized as a corporate guest house, and a gate house. Approximately 1,680 parking spaces in ten on-grade lots are located primarily east and north of the main building. There are three access points to the Project Site: the main entrance located on Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) on the southeast side of the Project Site; the employee entrance located on Roaring Brook Road just off the Saw Mill River Parkway exit on the southwest side of the Project Site; and an access drive located on Roaring Brook Road at the center of the south side of the Project Site that is closed off and utilized only for emergency access. The Project Site is unique as it contains the Town’s only B-RO-20 (Research and Office Business) District. 87.3 acres of the Project Site are zoned as B-RO-20; 26.4 acres are zoned as R-1A. See Figure FS-2. III. History of Commercial Development at the Project Site

In 1939, Reader’s Digest established its headquarters at the Project Site, initiating a long, respected history in Chappaqua and the Town of New Castle. Reader’s Digest operations at the Project Site expanded through World War II and the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. In the 1970s, at the height of Reader’s Digest’s occupancy of the Project Site, as many as 7,000 Reader’s Digest employees, including seasonal employees, worked there in three continuous shifts. Chartered buses provided transportation for employees to and from the Project Site. For a while, Reader’s Digest occupied as much as 150 acres. By the 1980s Reader’s Digest had expanded the commercial facilities on the Project Site to the 700,000 square feet of commercial space that exists today. By that time, however, Reader’s Digest’s business began to change, and much of its work was outsourced or performed at other Reader’s Digest facilities. By the mid-1980s, the size of the Reader’s Digest property was reduced to the current 114 acres through the subdivision and sale of land along Cowdin Lane. In 2004, the Applicant purchased the Project Site and leased back a portion of the existing building space to Reader’s Digest. After acquiring the Project Site, the Applicant twice sought, prior to the instant petition, to change the permitted uses on the Project Site. First, on April 19, 2005, the Applicant petitioned the Town Board to modify the B-RO-20 District’s single-tenant restriction. The Applicant sought to permit, in addition to Reader’s Digest’s continued occupancy as the anchor tenant, up to three other tenants to occupy up to 171,000 square feet of space within the existing buildings. On June 7, 2005, in response to the Applicant’s submission of a revised petition on June 3, 2005, the Town Board granted the Applicant’s petition and enacted the language requested by the Applicant allowing an anchor tenant and up to three other tenants to occupy the B-RO-20 portion of the Project Site. This tenancy restriction requested by the Applicant remains in place today, but would be eliminated by the CR&EV Project. On January 6, 2006, the Applicant formally submitted a petition (the “Planned Campus Proposal”) seeking to establish and apply to the Project Site a new zoning district, which the Applicant called a “Planned Campus Development Site.” The Planned Campus Proposal would have included existing buildings at the Project Site with 471,000 square feet of commercial floor area not subject to tenant restrictions, and demolition of three existing commercial structures (164,600 square feet of commercial floor area). The proposal also included 348 market-rate two- and three-bedroom dwelling units, 80 percent of which would have been age restricted. The Town Board rejected this

4

proposal on December 12, 2006. In rejecting the Planned Campus Proposal, members of the Town Board discussed concerns regarding potential impacts on schools and traffic, and also the status of the site as the last major piece of commercial property outside of the hamlets and its unique and strategic location near the high school, the Saw Mill River Parkway, and Bedford Road (NYS Route 117). By 2009, the number of Reader’s Digest employees working at the Project Site had decreased to approximately 800. Reader’s Digest used 296,000 square feet of the approximately 700,000 square feet of existing office space, and two leases had been executed with other tenants for an additional 55,000 square feet. At this time there were 1,680 commercial parking spaces on the Project Site, less than the 2,684 parking spaces which would be required under then-existing and current zoning. In November 2009, Reader’s Digest announced its intention to vacate the Project Site entirely in connection with its reorganization under Chapter XI of the United States Bankruptcy Code. By December 2010, Reader’s Digest had vacated the Project Site, and the Applicant reports that three tenants occupy approximately 100,000 square feet of the existing office space. IV. Importance of Commercial Development at the Project Site

For the vast majority of the past 70 years, starting with its initial development in the 1930s as the Reader’s Digest headquarters, the Project Site has been a model corporate campus, supporting the headquarters of an iconic company, providing an easily accessible location for regionally significant private employment, and helping to diversify the Town’s tax base. The Applicant’s submission of proposals for redevelopment of the Project Site, coupled with Reader’s Digest’s diminishing use of and ultimate departure from the Project Site, have compelled the Town to consider how use of the Project Site will evolve both in the short term and long term, and to contemplate the Project Site’s role in the community, including its relationship to surrounding uses. As was noted in “Land Use in Westchester: A Detailed Look at Existing Conditions and Development Trends,” a report prepared in 2010 as a component of the countywide Westchester 2025 planning process, “[d]evelopment on the property will affect the local natural environment and may alter the character of the surrounding community. Careful planning and proper zoning regulations will be required to ensure that the redevelopment of the property progresses according to local residents’ vision for the community.” This report recognizes the importance of the Project Site in the Town and acknowledges that the Town must act carefully to ensure that development of the Project Site takes place in accordance with the long-term interests of the Town. In considering the Project Site’s future, the Town has in mind, as it must in zoning matters, the promotion of health and general welfare. Fundamental zoning principles also require that in determining what type of development is appropriate for the Project Site, the Town must give “reasonable consideration … as to the character of the [Project Site] and its peculiar suitability for particular uses, and with a view to conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout [the] municipality.” N.Y. Town Law § 263. With respect to the appropriate use of land throughout the municipality, one primary concern of the Town Board is preservation of as diverse a tax base as is practicable in light of historical development patterns in the Town. Currently, the Town of New Castle has the largest percentage of land in residential use of any town in Westchester County. Only about 2 percent of the Town’s tax parcels are in commercial or industrial use, and only about 3.25 percent of the Town’s aggregate

5

taxable assessed value is attributable to property in commercial or industrial use. Frey Appraisal & Consulting Services, Inc., “Analysis of Reassessment Procedures and Possible Impacts In the Town of New Castle: An Impact Study on the Possible Results of a Reassessment Project,” at 17 (Nov. 4, 2010) (FEIS Appendix V.3.D); Hudson Valley Property Advisors, LLC, “Letter Analysis for Summit Development,” at 27 and 31 (October 3, 2008) (DEIS Volume 2, Appendix 9). To expand its limited non-residential tax base, the Town historically pursued a policy of encouraging corporate campus-like developments. Citing the Town’s “favorable experience over many years with the Reader’s Digest headquarters,” the Town’s most recent master plan for development – the Town Development Plan dated 1989 – incorporated a policy of “encouraging a limited amount of office business, research and industrial development in carefully selected locations and with high standards of design.” Town Development Plan at 129. The Town Development Plan expressed concern about certain impacts such as traffic caused by commercial campus-like facilities but noted that the Project Site’s location near a limited-access highway helped to mitigate traffic impacts and made the site suitable for commercial use as a corporate campus. (The Project Site is also near the Metro-North Railroad line, which, especially in the long term, has great potential benefits for accessibility to public transit.) The Town Development Plan also discussed the then-planned IBM Hudson Hills corporate campus facility, and its potential ramifications for the Town, and recommended that development of major new office, research, or industrial facilities not be permitted except on sites already zoned for such purposes – namely, the Project Site – until there had been an opportunity to evaluate the actual operation of the IBM facility. Ultimately, however, the IBM facility was not built, and the Project Site remained the only major commercial site in the Town outside the hamlets. Because the IBM facility was not developed, the Project Site’s commercial presence in the community is even more important to the Town of New Castle today than it was in 1989. The Town Development Plan’s policies promoting commercial use at the Project Site are further discussed in Part X.A, below. Therefore, while recognizing that the Town is predominantly residential in nature, the Town Board believes that it is in the long-term interest of the Town to maintain the existing commercial space on the Project Site as well as the viability of the Project Site for additional commercial development. The Town Board believes that the long-standing regional and local commercial importance of the Project Site and its status as the only major commercial property in the predominantly residential Town of New Castle outside the hamlet centers weigh heavily in favor of preserving a significant portion of the Project Site for commercial use. V. The Town’s Obligations to Provide Affordable and Multifamily Housing

At the same time, the Town Board recognizes that it is the Town’s obligation and in the Town’s interest to diversify its housing stock to include more multifamily residential units and to provide for housing options that are affordable and available to a range of socioeconomic groups. On August 10, 2009, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York approved a Stipulation and Order of Settlement and Dismissal in the case of United States of America ex rel. Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York, Inc. v. Westchester County, New York (the “Stipulation”), under which Westchester County agreed, in order to “affirmatively further fair housing,” to develop and carry out an Implementation Plan to provide fair and affordable housing (“Affordable AFFH Units”) in various parts of the County to certain groups that the Court found had not been adequately served by previous County and municipal housing programs. The terms of

6

the Stipulation require the County to take actions necessary to produce 750 Stipulation-compliant Affordable AFFH Units in communities falling within certain criteria based on minority census population figures. The Town of New Castle is one of the 31 municipalities that fall within the specified census population figures. To fulfill the requirements of the Stipulation, Westchester County must develop and carry out an Implementation Plan (the “County IP”). In October 2010, the Federal Monitor overseeing the County’s compliance with the Stipulation approved one component of the County IP – the Affordable Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Units Model Ordinance Provisions (the “Model Ordinance Provisions”). Among other things, the Model Ordinance Provisions require that within all residential development of 10 or more units created by subdivision or site plan approval, no less than 10 percent of the total number of units must be created as Affordable AFFH Units. An advisory comment in the Model Ordinance Provisions states that a municipality should require that a higher percentage of units be set aside as Affordable AFFH Units on sites such as existing office parks where land costs are marginal and significant infrastructure is in place, indicating that an inclusionary requirement of 15 percent is appropriate in such situations. Other affordable housing goals and objectives applicable to the Town Board’s consideration of the proposals for the Project Site include the Westchester County Housing Opportunity Commission’s (“HOC”) Affordable Housing Allocation Plan (the “HOC Plan”). The HOC Plan assigned New Castle a goal of developing 255 new affordable housing units meeting certain affordability criteria (“Affordable HOC Units”) between 2000 and 2015. Between 1990 and 2000, 65 Affordable HOC Units were constructed. However, since 2000, only three Affordable HOC Units have been constructed, leaving 252 Affordable HOC Units to be approved and constructed by 2015 in order for the Town to fulfill its allocation under the HOC Plan. The Town also has an obligation under the New York Court of Appeals decision in Berenson v. Town of New Castle to accommodate local and regional housing needs, including needs for multifamily housing. While it is expected that Stipulation-compliant Affordable AFFH Units would count toward meeting the HOC Plan goals and objectives, Affordable HOC Units included in the Proposed Action would not necessarily be Stipulation compliant. It will be up to the Federal Monitor to determine what units qualify as Affordable AFFH Units and to approve any such units as being Stipulation compliant. The Proposed Action would include 56 Affordable HOC Units (20 percent of the 278 residential units). These units were proposed prior to the Stipulation and were therefore not proposed or designed to be Stipulation compliant. The Modified Project would include 20 Stipulation-compliant Affordable AFFH Units (10 percent of the 199 residential units). All of the Modified Project’s Affordable AFFH Units would be located in the East Village. The CR&EV Project will therefore also include 20 condominium flat Stipulation-compliant Affordable AFFH Units (18 percent of the 111 units). These units may be located in the southernmost “I” building in the East Village or as otherwise required to comply with the Stipulation. In addition, the CR&EV Project’s 31 market-rate condominium flats and 60 town houses will increase the diversity of the Town’s multifamily dwelling unit housing stock.

7

VI.

Project History A. The 2007 Petition and Variance Application

In the summer of 2007, the Applicant submitted a Verified Petition dated July 9, 2007 (the “2007 Petition”) to the Town Board, and submitted a Verified Application for Area Variance dated August 27, 2007 (the “Variance Application”) to the Town of New Castle Zoning Board of Appeals (the “Zoning Board”). The 2007 Petition sought establishment by the Town Board of a Multifamily Planned Development (“MFPD”) District on a portion of the Project Site, as well as Town Board approval of a Preliminary Development Concept Plan for the proposed MFPD portion of the Project Site. The Proposed Action’s MFPD District, if mapped on a portion of the Project Site, would rezone some of that area from commercial to residential use. The Variance Application sought removal of the restrictions on the number of commercial tenants at the Project Site as well as removal of the restrictions on the area that could be occupied by such tenants. As discussed above, see Part III, these restrictions had been imposed at the request of the Applicant in 2005. B. Initiation of the SEQRA Review

On August 14, 2007, the Town Board passed a resolution by which it determined that the Proposed Action was subject to SEQRA, preliminarily classified the Proposed Action as a Type I action, and declared the Town Board’s intention to act as lead agency for the environmental review. By letter dated August 17, 2007, the Town Board circulated its Notice of Intent to be Lead Agency in accordance with SEQRA requirements. On September 18, 2007, the Town Board declared that it had been established as lead agency for the purposes of the review of the Proposed Action under SEQRA. Over the course of the next two months, the Town Board reviewed Part 1 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (“EAF”) as submitted by the Applicant. In addition, the Town Board’s planning consultant prepared Parts 2 and 3 of the EAF for the Town Board’s review. On November 27, 2007, the Town Board adopted Parts 2 and 3 of the EAF and issued a Positive Declaration, declaring that the Proposed Action “may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment.” Also on November 27, 2007, the Applicant formally submitted a Scoping Document For Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (the “Draft Scope”) to the Town Board. Subsequently, the Town Board filed, distributed, and published a Notice of Positive Declaration in accordance with 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.12. On December 5, 2007, a Notice of Positive Declaration and Public Scoping was published in the Environmental Notice Bulletin. The Draft Scope was posted on the Town’s web site. On January 9 and 22, 2008, the Town Board held duly noticed public scoping sessions. The Town Board also received written comments on the Draft Scope through January 25, 2008. The Draft Scope was revised in response to comments received, and on February 26, 2008, the Town Board adopted a Final Scope for the Proposed Action. C. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement

On October 15, 2008, the Applicant submitted a preliminary draft environmental impact statement to the Town Board (the “First Draft DEIS”). The Town Board with the assistance of the Town’s 8

staff, planning consultant, other consultants, and counsel proceeded to review the document and assess its completeness. On January 27, 2009, the Town Board passed a resolution declaring that the First Draft DEIS was incomplete and adopted a document entitled Summary of Completeness Review Comments Prepared by Lead Agency (the “DEIS Completeness Memorandum”) to identify changes that would need to be made to the DEIS in order for it to be complete. On January 28, 2009, the DEIS Completeness Memorandum was transmitted to the Applicant. The Town Board’s advisors subsequently met with the Applicant’s consultant and counsel on February 2, 2009 to discuss the DEIS Completeness Memorandum. Thereafter the Applicant’s consultant and counsel met, spoke, and corresponded with the Town Board’s consultants and other advisors to further discuss the necessary revisions. In particular, by e-mail dated March 30, 2009, the Town Board’s planning consultant informed the Applicant’s consultant that the Town’s Building Department had determined that since the number of required parking spaces required under the Town’s Zoning Law for the Proposed Action would be greater than the number of existing parking spaces, the preexisting condition would be allowed to remain without providing additional off-street parking spaces, but that it would not be acceptable to reduce the number of existing parking spaces (approximately 1,680 parking spaces). The DEIS Completeness Memorandum had also brought this off-street parking issue to the Applicant’s attention. On March 31 and April 3, 2009, the Town Board received the Applicant’s revisions to the First Draft DEIS (the “Revised Draft DEIS” (referred to as the “First Revised Draft DEIS” in the Executive Summary of the FEIS)). The Town Board and its advisors proceeded to review the Revised Draft DEIS and assess its completeness. On April 28, 2009, the Town Board requested that the Town’s planning consultant prepare a consolidated set of comments that the Applicant would have to address before the DEIS could be determined to be complete. The Town Board also indicated that the Revised Draft DEIS was a much improved document and that the Town Board hoped that the remaining completeness issues could be addressed by the Applicant so that a subsequent review would be quick. In discussing the Revised Draft DEIS, the Town Board noted in particular that the DEIS would have to acknowledge that the Town’s Building Department disagreed with the Applicant’s interpretation of commercial parking requirements and had concluded that additional parking spaces beyond the 1,300 proposed by the Applicant would be necessary to serve the commercial uses at the Project Site. On May 1, 2009, the Town Board’s planning consultant provided a consolidated set of comments to the Applicant, and asked that the requested revisions be presented as inserts to the Revised Draft DEIS to expedite the production and review of the next version of the DEIS. The Applicant submitted its revisions to the Revised Draft DEIS (the “Further Revised Draft DEIS Revisions” (referred to as the “Second Revised Draft DEIS” in the Executive Summary of the FEIS)) on May 7, 2009. The Town Board, with its advisors, proceeded to review the Further Revised Draft DEIS Revisions. The Further Revised Draft DEIS Revisions largely addressed the Town Board’s comments on the Revised Draft DEIS, with some exceptions. Between May 8 and May 19, 2009, the Town’s planning consultant communicated to the Applicant’s consultant the remaining issues that would need to be addressed prior to a Town Board determination that the DEIS was complete. On May 19, 2009, the Town Board adopted a resolution accepting the DEIS as complete on the condition that certain specified ministerial tasks were completed by the Applicant and Town staff and planning consultant. The Town Board also announced its intention to hold hearings on the DEIS, the proposed rezoning of a portion of the Project Site to an MFPD District, and the proposed Preliminary Development Concept Plan. The hearings were scheduled for June 23, 2009 and such future dates as to which the hearings would be adjourned. 9

On May 22, 2009, the conditions of the Town Board’s May 19, 2009 resolution having been fulfilled, the DEIS was accepted, and a Notice of Completion of Draft EIS and Notice of Hearing (the “Notice of Completion of DEIS”) were filed and distributed, all in accordance with the requirements of the SEQRA Regulations. Copies of the DEIS were also filed and distributed in accordance with the requirements of SEQRA and the SEQRA Regulations. Hard copies of the DEIS were provided for review at the New Castle Town Hall and Chappaqua Library, and the DEIS was posted on a publicly available web site. The Notice of Completion of DEIS indicated that paper or CD copies of the DEIS were also available on request. On June 3, 2009, a Notice of Completion of Draft EIS and Notice of Hearing were published in the Environmental Notice Bulletin. D. The Public Comment Period

On June 23, 2009, the Town Board held duly noticed hearings on the DEIS pursuant to SEQRA and on the proposed MFPD District and Preliminary Development Concept Plan pursuant to the Town Code. Prior to the June 23, 2009 hearing session, the Town Board received a number of requests from members of the public who asked for additional time to review the DEIS and/or indicated that they were unable to attend the June 23, 2009 hearing session but wished to have the opportunity to present comments at a later date. At the close of the June 23, 2009 hearing, the Town Board decided to keep the hearing record open and continue the hearings on July 28, 2009. On July 28, 2009, the Town Board continued the hearings on the DEIS, proposed MFPD District rezoning, and proposed Preliminary Development Concept Plan. At the end of the hearing session on July 28, 2009, the Town Board closed the hearing on the DEIS but kept the hearing record open on the proposed MFPD District rezoning and Preliminary Development Concept Plan. The Town Board also voted to keep the public comment period on the DEIS open until at least September 18, 2009, to allow for additional review time, based on suggestions from the Town of New Castle Planning Board, Town staff, Town consultants, and other parties, who indicated a longer review period was appropriate given the length and complexity of the document. During the public comment period, the Town Board retained an economic consultant to review portions of the DEIS concerning economic and fiscal matters and to assess assumptions, methodology, and conclusions related to the net fiscal impact on the Town. In addition, the Town Board’s traffic consultant engaged in a substantive review of the DEIS traffic analysis. A draft memorandum providing technical comments on the traffic analysis was submitted to the Applicant on July 22, 2009 in order to provide them to the Applicant as soon as possible. A final version of this memorandum was then submitted to the Applicant on August 17, 2009. In addition to the Town Board’s engagement of outside consultants, the Chappaqua Central School District (“CCSD”) sought additional information from Western Suffolk BOCES Office of School Planning and Research (“Western Suffolk BOCES”) regarding demographic and historical school enrollment trends and projections for future enrollment. Western Suffolk BOCES provided CCSD with the results of its analysis in September. On September 17, 2009, the Town Board voted to extend the comment period on the DEIS for one week, until September 25, 2009. The Town Board indicated that this brief extension was necessary in order for CCSD to submit its comments with the Western Suffolk BOCES September 2009 study. The DEIS comment period was closed on September 25, 2009. The Town Board received more than 150 written comments on the DEIS and Proposed Action and heard approximately 50 speakers at the public hearings.

10

E.

Preparation and Review of the Final Environmental Impact Statement

In August 2009, prior to the closing of the public comment period on the DEIS, Reader’s Digest announced that it would seek to reorganize under Chapter XI of the United States Bankruptcy Code. In connection with its bankruptcy filing, Reader’s Digest subsequently declared in November 2009 its intention to vacate the Project Site by the end of 2010. In light of this new information, the Town’s advisors worked with the Applicant in late 2009 to determine how to address these developments in the FEIS, with particular focus on how the Reader’s Digest decision to leave the Project Site would affect projected traffic conditions both with and without the Proposed Action. In March 2010, the Applicant submitted the First Draft FEIS. The First Draft FEIS addressed the impending departure of Reader’s Digest from the Project Site. Other changes included the addition of two new alternatives (Alternatives F and G) that responded to some degree to certain concerns expressed in comments on the DEIS by the Town Board, Planning Board, and members of the public, including concerns regarding the marketability of age-restricted units and enforcement of age restrictions, concerns regarding potential rejection by the County of the Applicant’s proposal to extend the sewer district to areas of the Project Site not presently within the sewer district, concerns regarding the density of the proposed residential development, and concerns regarding the loss of commercial space on the Project Site. The Town Board, with the assistance of the Town’s staff, planning consultant, and counsel, proceeded to review the First Draft FEIS. On May 5, 2010, a first set of comments on the First Draft FEIS from Town staff and the Town’s consulting engineer was submitted to the Applicant. While the Town Board reviewed the First Draft FEIS, the Applicant developed two additional alternatives. On May 17, 2010, the Applicant submitted a draft conceptual site plan for the first of these alternatives (Alternative H) and indicated that the FEIS would include a full analysis of its environmental impacts and community benefits. On May 27, 2010, the Applicant submitted a draft conceptual site plan for the second of these alternatives (Alternative I). On June 4, 2010, the Town Board provided the Applicant with its preliminary comments on the First Draft FEIS, indicating that additional comments would be forthcoming, pending further Town Board discussion. At the same time, the Town Board submitted to the Applicant a memo prepared by the Town Board’s traffic consultant regarding the FEIS traffic analysis. These documents were formally transmitted on June 8, 2010, under a cover letter from the Town Board’s counsel and special counsel that provided recommendations for the structure and content for the FEIS (the “June 8 Letter”). The June 8 Letter again indicated that additional comments on the FEIS would be forthcoming, pending further Town Board discussion. F. The 2010 Modified Project Petition

Before the Town Board had submitted additional comments on the First Draft FEIS, the Applicant in July 2010 submitted a revised draft of the FEIS (the “First Revised Draft FEIS” (referred to as the “Second Draft FEIS” in the Executive Summary of the FEIS)) with a cover letter dated July 23, 2010. The First Revised Draft FEIS presented and analyzed the impacts of Alternative I (one of the two additional alternatives that Applicant had developed while the First Draft FEIS was under review by the Town) as the “Modified Project.” At the same time it submitted the First Revised Draft FEIS, the Applicant submitted a Modified Project Petition dated July 22, 2010. The Modified Project Petition presented Alternative I as an alternative to the proposal in the 2007 Petition.

11

In the Modified Project Petition, the Applicant indicated that it was prepared to pursue either the Modified Project or the Proposed Action, and that should the Town Board grant the approvals requested in the Modified Project Petition, the Applicant would withdraw the 2007 Petition and the Variance Application. The Applicant stated it believed that the Modified Project was more responsive to comments on the DEIS than any other alternative studied. The Town Board, with the assistance of its advisors, thereafter commenced its review of the First Revised Draft FEIS, which provided the first detailed discussion of the Modified Project (Alternative I). Town staff, the Town’s Board’s planning consultant, other Town Board consultants, and counsel met with and otherwise communicated comments on the First Revised Draft FEIS to the Applicant, including during an all-day meeting on September 13, 2010. In the course of these discussions, the Town Board’s planning consultant reiterated the Building Department’s conclusion that that the commercial parking requirement for the Proposed Action, as well as the Modified Project, would be 1,680 parking spaces, more than the 1,300 and 1,360 commercial parking spaces proposed for the Proposed Action and Modified Project, respectively (but considerably less than what would be required under current Town Code requirements). The Applicant was asked to provide a zoning-compliant site plan or, alternatively, a proposed Parking Management Plan to justify the proposed reduction in required parking spaces that it sought in the Modified Petition. On September 17, 2010, the Applicant submitted a draft Parking Management Plan dated September 16, 2010 (the “Draft Parking Plan”) for preliminary review. The Town Board submitted its preliminary comments on the Draft Parking Plan to the Applicant on September 29, 2010. On October 19, 2010, the Applicant submitted another draft of the FEIS dated October 2010 (the “Second Revised Draft FEIS” (referred to as the “Third Draft FEIS” in the Executive Summary of the FEIS)). The Town Board, with the assistance of the Town’s staff, planning consultant, other consultants, and counsel, proceeded to review the Second Revised Draft FEIS. Copies of the three draft FEISs, as well as copies of comments on the draft FEISs by the Town Board, Town staff, and Town consultants, were posted on the Town’s web site. On September 28, 2010, prior to the Applicant’s submission of the Second Revised Draft FEIS, the Town held a public information meeting at which the Applicant’s counsel and consultants made presentations regarding Alternative I and other issues, including projections for the generation of school children for the Proposed Action and Modified Project (the “September 2010 Public Meeting”). More than 30 people spoke or submitted written comments at the meeting. On November 10, 2010, the Applicant shared with the Town Board an undated document prepared by the Applicant to respond to comments made at the September 2010 Public Meeting, as well as supplementary materials concerning issues addressed at the September 2010 Public Meeting. On November 30, 2010, the Town Board adopted a resolution by which it determined that the Second Revised Draft FEIS did not adequately address certain issues that were among the most important to the Town Board with regard to relevant environmental impacts, including ensuring that the Proposed Action and/or Modified Project would preserve the potential viability of the commercial use of the Project Site; ensuring that the Modified Project would adequately incorporate a range of housing types including multifamily and affordable housing to affirmatively further fair housing in the region; and ensuring that the Modified Project would be consistent with Town zoning, the Town Development Plan, community character, and other issues relevant to the proposed new residential community.

12

On December 10, 2010, the Town Board’s counsel submitted a memorandum to the Applicant’s counsel setting forth the identified deficiencies in the Second Revised Draft FEIS (the “December 10 Memorandum”). Among the shortcomings addressed were the Applicant’s failure to revise the Draft Parking Plan in response to the Town Board comments submitted on September 29, 2010, as well as numerous gaps in the information provided concerning the proposed data processing center use. The December 10 Memorandum once again emphasized the need to include a zoningcompliant site plan showing the required 1,680 parking spaces for the commercial portion of the Project Site. On December 30, 2010, additional comments from the Planning Board and the Board of Fire Commissioners of New Castle Fire District No. 1 were sent to the Applicant. In response to the Town Board’s comments on the Modified Project, including the December 10 Memorandum, the Applicant submitted supplementary information by letter dated January 13, 2011 from its counsel (the “January Submission”). In the January Submission, the Applicant presented for the first time what it believed to be a zoning-compliant site plan for the Modified Project with the required 1,680 parking spaces. This site plan depicted a “landbank” area where 320 of the 1,680 parking spaces could be developed in the future. Portions of this landbank area are located in part of the 6.5 acres that the Applicant had proposed to donate to the Town for municipal use. As a result, in the January Submission the Applicant withdrew its offer to donate the 6.5 acres to the Town, and instead offered them to the Town to use on an interim basis until such time as that area was needed for parking spaces. The Applicant also proposed in the January Submission to withdraw its request for data center-related zoning text amendments that could have reduced the required number of commercial parking spaces on the Project Site. Although the Applicant did not amend or supplement the Modified Project Petition to reflect the changes proposed by the January Submission, the Town Board has treated the January Submission as a further revision to the Modified Project. Because the January Submission and the Second Revised Draft FEIS still did not address a number of the Town Board’s concerns, including those conveyed to the Applicant in the December 10 Memorandum as well as those expressed at the Town Board’s meeting on November 30, 2010, the Town Board directed its advisors to undertake further analyses and to make further revisions to the Second Revised Draft FEIS to address those concerns in order to expedite completion of the FEIS. As a result, another draft of the FEIS (the “Third Revised Draft FEIS” (referred to as the “Fourth Draft FEIS” in the Executive Summary of the FEIS)) was prepared by the Town Board, with the assistance of the Town’s staff, planning consultant, other consultants, and counsel, based on the earlier drafts submitted by the Applicant, but reflecting a number of changes to these drafts. On March 26, 2011, the Town Board adopted a resolution determining that the Third Revised Draft FEIS was complete and constituted the FEIS. Subsequently, the FEIS and a Notice of Completion of Final EIS were filed, distributed, and published in accordance with the SEQRA Regulations. A hard copy of the FEIS was provided to the Applicant, and hard copies were also made available for public review at the New Castle Town Hall and the Chappaqua Public Library. A copy of the FEIS was posted on the Town’s web site. CD-ROM copies of the FEIS were distributed to involved and interested agencies and other interested parties, including the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”). A Notice of Completion of Final EIS was published in the Environmental Notice Bulletin on April 6, 2011. On April 6, 2011, the Town posted an errata sheet to the FEIS on its website, and distributed CD-ROM copies of the errata sheet to the parties that had been sent the FEIS.

13

G.

Petition to the County for Extension of the Sewer District

While the review of the draft FEISs proceeded, the Town Board, in cooperation with the Applicant, took preliminary steps to facilitate the potential extension of the Saw Mill River Sanitary Sewer District. In May 2010, counsel for the Applicant wrote the Town Administrator with a request in furtherance of the Proposed Action and Alternative H that the Town petition the Westchester County Board of Legislators under New York County Law Section 256 and Westchester County Code Section 237.141 to extend the County’s Saw Mill Valley Sanitary Sewer District. In June 2010, the Applicant superseded that request with a similar request in furtherance of the Proposed Action and the Modified Project that the Town petition the County for extension of the sewer district. The Applicant and Town exchanged further information for preparation of the petition, and on July 20, 2010, the Town Board resolved to submit a petition as requested, and then on July 28, 2010, the Town submitted a petition “In The Matter of the Extension of a County Sewer District in the County of Westchester for the Purpose of Treatment and Disposal of Sewage” to the Westchester County Board of Legislators that added a request to extend the sewer district to include the balance of the Project Site. Thereafter, representatives of the Town and the Applicant met with County representatives, and by letter dated November 5, 2010, the Westchester County Department of Environmental Facilities wrote the Town requesting additional information and clarification of some points. The Town and the Applicant gathered that information over the next few months, and the Town responded to the Department of Environmental Facilities by letters dated February 25, 2011. The County cannot act on the petition to extend the sewer district until the Town’s environmental review under SEQRA has been completed. At present, the Town’s petition is still pending before the Board of Legislators. VII. Project Descriptions A. The Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would reduce the size of the commercial portion of the Project Site, which is designated as a B-RO-20 District on the Town Zoning Map, from 87.3 acres to 49.4 acres. See Figure FS-3 (DEIS Figure No. IV-1). Two of the Project Site’s existing commercial buildings would be removed, reducing the commercial space from 700,000 square feet to 520,000 square feet. The Proposed Action would also remove restrictions on the number of commercial tenants in the B-RO20 District as well as the restrictions on the area that could be occupied by such tenants. The number of parking spaces in the B-RO-20 District would be reduced from 1,680 to 1,300. The Proposed Action would also establish an MFPD District of 64.3 acres on the remainder of the main parcel of the Project Site. The Proposed Action would involve construction of 278 dwelling units in the new MFPD District, including 222 market-rate age-restricted units, 24 affordable agerestricted units, and 32 affordable work-force (i.e., non-age restricted) units. These units were proposed to be built in two distinct neighborhoods: (1) a North Village of 170 units featuring two U-shaped and two I-shaped buildings, all of which would be three stories in height with one level of below-grade parking, and (2) an East Village of 108 units featuring a mix of three-story buildings with flats and two-story townhomes. The Applicant would offer two of the four single-family lots on the southern portion of the Project Site to the Town for municipal purposes, while retaining the other two lots to provide a physical and visual buffer. The Applicant would also make certain roadway improvements, including providing a right-turn lane from Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) to Roaring Brook Road and widening of Roaring Brook Road from Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) to the Horace Greeley High School driveway to create a second or turning lane.

14

B.

The Modified Project

The Modified Project as originally described in the Modified Project Petition and First Revised Draft FEIS would reduce the size of the B-RO-20 District from 87.3 acres to 51.6 acres. See Figure FS-4 (FEIS Figure No. III-1). The Modified Project would include 662,000 square feet of commercial space (520,000 square feet of commercial office space and 142,000 square feet of low-intensity data storage/disaster recovery space) in the B-RO-20 District with no limitations on the number of commercial tenants or square footage to be occupied by any such tenant. The number of parking spaces in the B-RO-20 District would be reduced from 1,680 to 1,360 (1,300 spaces for the 520,000 square feet of office space and 60 spaces for the 142,000 square feet of low-intensity data storage/disaster recovery space). As originally proposed, the Modified Project would also establish an MFPD District of 61.6 acres on the remainder of the main parcel of the Project Site. The Modified Project would include 199 housing units with no age restrictions, including 179 units of market-rate housing and 20 Affordable AFFH Units that the Applicant represents would affirmatively further fair housing and be compliant with the Stipulation discussed in Section V above. Eighty-eight of the Modified Project’s housing units would be located in the North Village, while 111 of the units – including the 20 Affordable AFFH Units – would be located in the East Village. As discussed in more detail in Part V, the Affordable AFFH Units would represent 10 percent of the Modified Project residential component, as compared to the Proposed Action, where 20 percent of the total residential units (56 out of 278 total residential units), would be designed to comply with the HOC Plan, but would not necessarily be Stipulation-compliant Affordable AFFH Units. The Modified Project’s 199 residential units would include 60 townhouses in fee simple ownership and 139 flats in condominium ownership. The Modified Project would also increase the area donated to the Town for future municipal use from 2.0 acres in the Proposed Action to 6.5 acres, eliminate gated access to the residential portion of the Project Site, reduce site disturbance and vegetation loss, and require a shorter construction period. As in the Proposed Action, the construction of a southbound right-turn lane from Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) to Roaring Brook Road would be part of the Modified Project. In response to the Town Building Department’s concerns regarding the adequacy of on-site commercial parking in the Modified Project, the Applicant submitted supplementary information in the January Submission. In the January Submission, the Applicant proposed a new parking plan for the commercial portion of the Project Site by proposing to “landbank” 320 parking spaces in the southern portion of the Project Site, including in a portion of the 6.5 acres it had previously proposed to donate to the Town in the Modified Project. In the January Submission, the Applicant instead proposed to offer the 6.5-acre area to the Town for interim recreational uses until such time as the Town determines that the area is needed for additional parking. The Modified Project as modified by the January Submission would reduce the size of the B-RO-20 District to 53.7 acres and create an MFPD District of 60.0 acres. C. The Commercial Rezoning & East Village Project

During the course of its review of the Proposed Action and the Modified Project, one of the Town Board’s primary concerns has been the preservation of the long-term viability of commercial uses at the Project Site, which has a long-standing history as an important commercial presence in the Town of New Castle and which, as the only B-RO-20 District in the Town, is the sole remaining major commercial property in the Town outside of the hamlet centers. The Town Board has also been

15

concerned with the need to increase the diversity of the Town’s housing stock and to provide housing options to address local and regional housing needs. In addition, the Town Board has been concerned with ensuring any project proposed for the Project Site would be consistent with Town zoning, the Town Development Plan, and other related issues relevant to a new residential development in the Town of New Castle. Moreover, as discussed below, the FEIS revealed that both the Proposed Action and the Modified Project would result in a significant adverse environmental impact because both projects would substantially decrease the area of the Project Site in the B-RO-20 District which would be materially inconsistent with the commercial development policy of the Town Development Plan. The Town Development Plan strongly encourages the continued commercial zoning of the Project Site. In addition, the FEIS indicates the Modified Project would cause a significant adverse environmental impact due to the 50-foot height of the proposed buildings in the North Village area because these buildings would substantially exceed the Town’s long-standing policy of limiting residential buildings to 35 feet in height, which is codified in the Town’s Zoning Law. With these concerns in mind the Town Board finds that the removal of all commercial tenant restrictions in the B-RO-20 district is appropriate. The Town Board further finds that in light of its overarching policy concerns regarding preservation of the viability of commercial uses at the Project Site, as well as the significant adverse environmental impacts identified in the FEIS, and consistent with social, economic, and other essential considerations, the creation of an MFPD District which is smaller than that proposed in either the Proposed Action or the Modified Project will avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable. An MFPD District with such a reduced scale, corresponding to the proposed East Village area under the Modified Project, will preserve more B-RO-20 zoned area on the Project Site thus preserving the potential for future parking and/or commercial development in that area. At the same time, the creation of an MFPD District in the East Village area will result in the creation of 111 new multi-family housing units including 20 affordable units at the Project Site. This project – the Commercial Rezoning & East Village (“CR&EV”) Project – consists of the removal of certain restrictions in the commercial area of the Project Site to eliminate the commercial tenancy restrictions and the creation of an MFPD District that corresponds to the East Village of the Modified Project. The CR&EV Project will reduce the size of the B-RO-20 District from 87.3 acres to 70.8 acres. See Figure FS-1. The CR&EV Project will include 662,000 square feet of commercial space in the BRO-20 District with no limitations on the number of commercial tenants or square footage to be occupied by any such tenant. The required number of parking spaces in the B-RO-20 District will be 1,680, the number of parking spaces that currently exist. The CR&EV Project will also establish an MFPD District of 30.6 acres in the area proposed for the East Village area under the Modified Project. The CR&EV Project will include 111 housing units with no age restrictions, including 91 units of market-rate housing and 20 units of affordable housing that will affirmatively further fair housing and be compliant with the Stipulation. The 111 units – including the 20 Affordable AFFH Units – will be located in the East Village. The CR&EV Project’s 111 residential units will include 60 townhouses in fee simple ownership and 51 flats in condominium ownership (20 of which will be Affordable AFFH Units and 31 of which will be market-rate units). The Affordable AFFH Units will represent 18 percent of the CR&EV Project residential component, as compared to the Proposed Action, where 20 percent of the total residential units (56 out of 278 total residential units) would be designed to comply with the HOC Plan and as compared to the Modified Project, where 10 percent of the total residential units (20 out 16

of 199 total residential units) would be Stipulation-compliant Affordable AFFH Units. Approval of the CR&EV Project, although not proposed by the Applicant, constitutes an approval of substantial components of the Modified Project proposed by the Applicant as such components relate to the lifting of commercial tenant restrictions and the creation of an MFPD District in the East Village area. VIII. Benefits of the Commercial Rezoning & East Village Project One aspect of the CR&EV Project – removing restrictions on the number of commercial tenants allowed in the B-RO-20 District – will strengthen the long-term viability of commercial development at the Project Site, supporting the Town policy of encouraging commercial use at the Project Site and strengthening and diversifying the Town’s tax base. The CR&EV Project, which will retain 662,000 square feet of commercial space, will allow even greater potential commercial development at the Project Site than either the Proposed Action or the Modified Project because it will retain 21.4 more acres of the B-RO-20 District than the Proposed Action and 17.1 more acres of the B-RO-20 District than the Modified Project. Some of this area could continue to function as parking to support the existing commercial space on the Project Site and/or could be used for additional commercial development. The CR&EV Project will also provide multifamily housing thereby increasing the diversity of the housing stock in the Town. The CR&EV Project’s 111 housing units will include 20 Stipulationcompliant Affordable AFFH Units that will also count towards fulfillment of the Town’s allocation under the HOC Plan. While the Applicant has proposed to locate all 20 of the Affordable AFFH Units in the Southern-most “I” building in the East Village MFPD District, the Federal Monitor will determine whether such a configuration satisfies the Stipulation. Nothing in this Findings Statement, FEIS, or DEIS shall be deemed to control the location, design, marketing, or any other aspect of the Affordable AFFH Units insofar as any such elements may be found to be inconsistent with the Stipulation and/or any determination by the Federal Monitor. Finally, the CR&EV Project is expected to result in a net fiscal benefit to the Town, its specialized taxing jurisdictions, and CCSD, compared to the existing condition of the Project Site. The Town Board finds that these benefits can be achieved while minimizing environmental impacts to the Project Site and surrounding environment if the conditions identified in Table FS-1 are implemented as part of the CR&EV Project. IX. Approvals Required for the Commercial Rezoning & East Village Project

The establishment of an MFPD District is a two-step process involving discretionary approvals by both the Town Board and the Planning Board. In the first step, the Town Board considers whether to designate an MFPD District on the Town Zoning Map. The designation of an MFPD District requires that the Town Board approve a Preliminary Development Concept Plan and reclassify a specific parcel or parcels of land for development in accordance with that plan. The second step is the Planning Board’s review and approval of a final, detailed Site Development Plan, as well as a subdivision plat, if appropriate. The Town Code prescribes detailed procedures and a timeframe for this decision process. Where necessary to comply with the procedural requirements of SEQRA, those timeframes are adjusted and/or extended. Construction in the East Village MFPD District as part of the CR&EV Project will require these two steps.

17

In addition, the CR&EV Project will require Town Board approval of amendments to current tenant occupancy and square footage requirements for the B-RO-20 District. The CR&EV Project will also require Planning Board approval of various environmental permits and plans. Finally, the CR&EV Project will require approval of the Westchester County Board of Legislators for the expansion of the Saw Mill Valley Sanitary Sewer District to include the East Village MFPD District, as well as other permits and approvals referred to in Table No. II-6 of the DEIS. X. Significant Adverse Impacts

The FEIS considers the potential impacts of the Proposed Action and Modified Project in the following areas: Land Use and Zoning; Socioeconomic and Fiscal Conditions; Land, Water, and Ecological Resources; Community Facilities and Services; Historic and Archaeological Resources; Visual Resources; Utilities; Traffic, Transportation, and Parking; Air Quality and Noise; Community Character; and Construction. The FEIS identifies two significant adverse impacts for the Proposed Action in the areas of traffic and land use and zoning, and three significant adverse impacts for the Modified Project, also in the areas of traffic and land use and zoning. The CR&EV Project would result in significant adverse traffic impacts, but it would not be expected to result in significant adverse land use and zoning impacts. A. Inconsistency with Town Development Plan Policies for the Project Site

The FEIS includes an analysis of the consistency of the Proposed Action and of the Modified Project with the Town Development Plan. This plan is titled the Town Development Plan and is dated November 1989. It includes a “Development Plan Map” that, together with the accompanying text in the report, sets forth the Town’s policy for future development. The Town Development Plan provides a general guideline for the Town’s development and is a fundamental component of the Town’s comprehensive land use plan. Accordingly, the FEIS assesses whether and to what extent the Proposed Action and Modified Project are consistent with the Town Development Plan. The FEIS concludes that the Proposed Action and Modified Project would be consistent with the Town Development Plan in some respects, but that they would be materially inconsistent with the Town Development Plan with respect to the proposed rezoning of a substantial portion of the Project Site from commercial to residential use. This material inconsistency is deemed a significant adverse environmental impact, for the reasons explained below. The Town Development Plan defines the term “office business, research and industrial development” as a “specific type of commercial development that features a sizable building in which corporate office, research and/or light industrial activities take place, along with necessary parking facilities, usually in a self-contained campus-like setting.” The Town Development Plan states that for “at least 30 years, the Town has pursued a policy of encouraging this kind of development, a result of its positive experience with a major corporate office of this type – Reader’s Digest – and its desire to expand the Town’s tax base, particularly its nonresidential tax base” and concludes that for “the most part, this policy has served the town well.” The Town Development Plan also notes that the office buildings at the Project Site are adjacent to the Saw Mill River Parkway, “which helps to mitigate the impact of the traffic they generate.” Consistent with the Town Development Plan’s objective of maintaining the Town’s nonresidential tax base and the

18

appropriateness of locating commercial development at a site adjacent to the Saw Mill River Parkway, the Town Development Plan’s Development Plan Map designates most of the Project Site for “Research/Office Business” use. (The area of the Project Site that the Development Plan Map designates for “Research/Office Business” apparently is the same area of the Project Site that is presently zoned for commercial use (the B-RO-20 District).) The Proposed Action and Modified Project both propose to rezone a substantial portion of this area for residential use. The Proposed Action would rezone for residential use 37.9 acres that the Town Development Plan designated for “Research/Office Business” use. The Modified Project would rezone for residential use 33.6 acres that the Town Development Plan designated for “Research/Office Business” use. The area of the Project Site that would continue to be zoned for commercial use would thus be reduced from 87.3 acres to approximately 49.4 acres (in the case of the Proposed Action) or to 53.7 acres (in the case of the Modified Project). The area proposed to be rezoned for residential use includes areas presently being used for accessory parking for the existing commercial office buildings. The FEIS concludes that the Proposed Action and Modified Project are materially inconsistent with the Town Development Plan because both proposals would rezone a substantial area of the Project Site that the Town Development Plan designated for “Research/Office Business” to a residential use. The reasons stated in the Town Development Plan for designating most of the Project Site for “Research/Office Business” – the desire to maintain or expand the Town’s tax base, particularly its nonresidential tax base, at a location well served by one of the parkways that traverse the Town – continue to be applicable to the Project Site today. The FEIS concludes that because the planned IBM Hudson Hills facility discussed in the Town Development Plan was never constructed, the Town Development Plan’s designation of most of the Project Site for “Research/Office Business” use is even more important today than it was in 1989 (when the Town Development Plan was prepared), because the Project Site is the only remaining site in the Town suitable for large-scale office, research, or laboratory space that is presently zoned for commercial use. The Proposed Action and Modified Project would severely limit the opportunity for the construction of any future office, research or laboratory development at the Project Site and thereby severely limit the potential for the Town to expand its non-residential tax base within the area of the Project Site that the Town Development Plan designated for “Research/Office Business” uses and that is currently zoned for that purpose. For these reasons, both proposals are in material conflict with the Town Development Plan. This conflict is a significant adverse environmental impact with respect to land use and zoning. The FEIS notes that this significant adverse environmental impact could be mitigated by reducing the area of the Project Site that is proposed to be rezoned from commercial to residential use. The CR&EV Project will reduce the area of the B-RO-20 District by 16.5 acres, as opposed to 37.9- and 33.6-acre reductions in the Proposed Action and Modified Project, respectively. The area of the remaining B-RO-20 District in the CR&EV Project will therefore be 70.8 acres, as opposed to only 49.4 and 53.7 acres in the Proposed Action and Modified Project, respectively. The site of the proposed North Village will remain available for use for parking to support commercial use on the Project Site in the short term and/or for potential additional commercial development on the Project Site in the long term. The CR&EV Project’s reduction in the size of the MFPD District will therefore mitigate the significant adverse impact caused by the Proposed Action’s and Modified Project’s material inconsistency with the Town Development Plan.

19

B.

Inconsistency with Town Zoning

The FEIS includes an analysis of the consistency of the Proposed Action and of the Modified Project with the Town’s zoning policies. The FEIS concludes that both proposals are generally consistent with the policies underlying the MFPD District with respect to their size and configuration, when considered in light of the specific conditions that would be imposed on either development configuration. The FEIS also concludes, however, that the Modified Project’s proposed zoning text amendment that would allow residential buildings 55 feet in height in MFPD Districts is not consistent with the Town’s zoning policies with respect to the height of buildings in general and residential buildings in particular. Under the Town’s Zoning Law, residential buildings in every residential district have a maximum height of 35 feet. The B-RO-20 District, the zoning district currently mapped on most of the Project site, permits buildings to a maximum height of 40 feet. The only zoning district in the Town that permits a building height taller than 40 feet is the B-RO-150 district, which allows for buildings 55 feet in height, but requires a minimum lot area of 150 acres. Notably, while the Town allows B-RO-150 districts within its Zoning Law, no such district is currently mapped within the Town of New Castle. The FEIS concludes that the Applicant’s proposal to amend the Town’s Zoning Law to permit residential buildings of 55 feet in height in an MFPD District is materially inconsistent with the Town’s zoning policies with respect to building heights and would not be consistent with the character of the Town as reflected in its built environment and zoning. This material inconsistency with the Town’s zoning policies would be a significant adverse environmental impact of the Modified Project. This significant adverse impact could be mitigated by reducing the height of the buildings proposed for the Modified Project’s North Village. These buildings are proposed to be close to 50 feet in height. The North Village buildings would not require the Modified Project’s proposed zoning text amendment if their height was reduced so as not to exceed 35 feet. The Proposed Action would not cause this significant adverse impact because the buildings proposed for its North Village would not exceed 35 feet in height. The CR&EV Project will also not cause this significant adverse impact since the North Village’s buildings would not be constructed. C. Traffic Impacts

To evaluate the traffic impacts of the Proposed Action and Modified Project, the FEIS compared projected traffic conditions with the Proposed Action or Modified Project to projected traffic conditions in the No Build condition in five peak time periods: weekday morning school peak hour (7:00-8:00 AM); weekday morning commuter peak hour (8:00-9:00 AM); weekday afternoon school peak hour (2:30-3:30 PM); weekday evening commuter peak hour (4:30-5:30 PM); and Saturday peak hour (12:00-1:00 PM). Using the impact criteria identified in the Final Scope, the FEIS traffic analysis found that both the Proposed Action and Modified Project would result in significant adverse traffic impacts at six locations. Impacts at two of the intersections could be mitigated. First, an impact at the intersection of Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and Roaring Brook Road in the weekday morning commuter peak hour would be mitigated by the construction of the southbound turn lane off of Bedford Road that the Applicant has proposed as part of the Proposed Action and Modified Project

20

and by upgrading the existing traffic signal at this location. The Applicant is required to apply for and fund this measure as mitigation for the traffic impacts of the CR&EV Project. Second, an impact at the intersection of Saw Mill River Parkway and Roaring Brook Road in the Saturday peak hour could be mitigated by traffic signal timing changes, if approved by the New York State Department of Transportation (“NYSDOT”). The Applicant is required to seek NYSDOT implementation of this mitigation measure, but it may proceed with the CR&EV Project even if NYSDOT does not agree to change the signal timing at this intersection. Impacts at the other four intersections would remain unmitigated, as follows: the intersection of South Greeley Avenue and Quaker Street (north leg) in the weekday morning school peak hour; the intersection of Bedford Road and the eastern Project Site driveway in the weekday morning commuter and weekday afternoon school peak hours; the intersection of Roaring Brook Road and the southern Project Site driveway in the weekday evening commuter peak hour; and the intersection of Bedford Road and Whippoorwill Road in the weekday evening commuter peak hour. Two of the locations where unmitigated significant adverse impacts are expected are Project Site driveways. The impact at the intersection of Bedford Road and Whippoorwill Road could be mitigated by installing a traffic signal at the intersection, but this measure is not feasible because the low traffic volume on Whippoorwill Road would not warrant the signal under NYSDOT criteria. The Applicant indicates that the impact at the intersection of South Greeley Avenue and Quaker Street (north leg) could be mitigated by reconfiguring the intersection into a signalized “T” intersection. The Town evaluated this possible reconfiguration several years ago when alternatives for reconstruction of the Quaker Street Bridge were under discussion and determined that the reconfiguration was not a desirable option from a community character perspective. Like the Modified Project, the CR&EV Project includes 662,000 square feet of existing commercial space. Although the residential component of the CR&EV Project includes 88 fewer residential units than the Modified Project, it is expected that the CR&EV Project will result in significant adverse traffic impacts that are similar to those predicted for the Modified Project. These traffic impacts primarily result from the commercial uses. The Town Board believes that the economic benefits to the Town of allowing increased commercial use at the Project Site – the only remaining major commercial site in the Town out side the hamlet areas – outweigh the negative impacts caused by increased traffic. XI. Consideration of Other Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action, Modified Project, and Commercial Rezoning & East Village Project

The FEIS indicated that the Proposed Action and Modified Project could have other adverse environmental impacts in the following areas: Land Use and Zoning; Socioeconomic and Fiscal Conditions; Land, Water, and Ecological Resources; Community Facilities and Services; Historic and Archaeological Resources; Visual Resources; Utilities; Traffic, Transportation, and Parking; Air Quality and Noise; Community Character; and Construction. Other than the impacts identified in Part X, however, these adverse impacts would not be expected to be significant due to the incorporation of measures into the Proposed Action and Modified Project to minimize the impacts of these actions. Because of its similarity to the Proposed Action and Modified Project, the CR&EV Project may also have other adverse impacts in the above-enumerated areas that, with the incorporation of the

21

measures identified in Table FS-1, below, are not expected to be significant. These measures will be incorporated into the CR&EV Project as conditions of the Town Board’s Preliminary Development Concept Plan approval and/or as part of the Planning Board’s review of the Site Development Plan and other Planning Board permit and approval processes. These measures may also be implemented through other permit and authorization processes conducted by other local, State, or federal agencies. It should be noted that the FEIS assumed that all aspects of the Proposed Action or Modified Project would be implemented in full compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and other relevant requirements, and actions that would be necessary pursuant to these requirements are not in all cases explicitly identified here. This assumption applies as a requirement of the CR&EV Project as well. A. Land Use and Zoning

The FEIS considered the potential impacts of the Proposed Action and Modified Project with respect to their consistency with the Town Development Plan, the Town’s Zoning Law, and other relevant land use policies. As discussed above in Parts X.A and X.B, the FEIS found that the inconsistency of the Proposed Action and Modified Project with the Town Development Plan’s policies for the Project Site and the inconsistency of the Modified Project with the Town’s Zoning Law constituted significant adverse environmental impacts. The FEIS indicated that the Proposed Action and Modified Project would not result in other significant adverse impacts, assuming that certain conditions and measures were adhered to and incorporated. As discussed above in Part X.A, the CR&EV Project will mitigate the significant adverse environmental impact caused by the Proposed Action’s and Modified Project’s inconsistency with the Town Development Plan. Because it will not involve construction of the North Village buildings, the CR&EV Project will also avoid the significant adverse impact caused by the inconsistency of the Modified Project’s proposed zoning amendments with the Town’s Zoning Law’s building height limitations. In addition, with the incorporation of the conditions set forth in Table FS-1, below, other significant adverse land use and zoning impacts will be avoided. One aspect of the Proposed Action’s and Modified Project’s potential impacts on land use and zoning that the FEIS considered in detail is their compliance with the Town’s commercial parking requirements. This issue is addressed in detail in the discussion of Traffic, Transportation, and Parking impacts in Part XI.H, below. B. Socioeconomic and Fiscal Conditions

The FEIS did not identify any significant adverse impacts with respect to socioeconomic and fiscal conditions for the Proposed Action or Modified Project. The CR&EV Project retains the commercial component of the Modified Project and retains all of the East Village’s residential units, including the 60 fee simple townhouses and the 20 Stipulation-compliant Affordable AFFH Units. Its socioeconomic and fiscal impacts will therefore not differ substantially from those of the Modified Project, and it will not be expected to result in significant adverse socioeconomic and fiscal impacts. A primary issue in the analysis of impacts on demographic conditions was the number of schoolchildren that the Proposed Action and Modified Project would generate. This issue is addressed in detail in the discussion of impacts on Community Facilities and Services in Part XI.D, below.

22

C.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

The FEIS considered the impacts of the Proposed Action and Modified Project with respect to land (e.g., topography and slopes, hazardous materials), water (e.g., groundwater, stormwater runoff, wetlands), and ecological resources (e.g., disturbance of habitat, removal of trees). Impacts in these areas would be minimized by the design of the Proposed Action and Modified Project, which were designed to be sited in large part on previously developed areas of the Project Site such as building pads, parking lots, and roadways. Impacts would also be minimized by conditions that would be incorporated into the Proposed Action and Modified Project. These conditions are reflected in the conditions for the CR&EV Project set forth in Table FS-1, below. The FEIS indicated that neither the Proposed Action nor the Modified Project would be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to land, water, or ecological resources. The CR&EV Project will result in even less land disturbance than the Proposed Action or Modified Project since the North Village residential cluster will not be constructed. The CR&EV Project will also incorporate the measures described in Table FS-1, below. As a result, the CR&EV Project will not result in significant adverse impacts to land, water, or ecological resources. The construction of a pedestrian pathway leading from the pathway in the East Village MFPD District to Roaring Brook Road across from the high school entrance could result in direct impacts to the wetland identified as Wetland 8 and its associated 100-foot buffer. As noted in Table FS-1, the location and design of such a pathway will be subject to Planning Board review as part of the detailed Site Development plan review or other environmental approval process. D. Community Facilities and Services

The FEIS indicated that the Proposed Action and the Modified Project would incorporate certain features that would minimize impacts on community facilities and services, including schools, recreational facilities, emergency services, solid waste and public works, and public libraries. As a result, neither the Proposed Action nor the Modified Project would be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to community facilities or services. The CR&EV Project will incorporate the conditions set forth in Table FS-1, below, and will not result in significant adverse impacts to community facilities and services. A primary concern in the FEIS analysis of impacts on schools was the number of schoolchildren that the Proposed Action and Modified Project would generate. In its evaluation of this issue, the FEIS considered, and the Town Board has before it, the findings of several consultants, including consultants retained by the Applicant; consultants retained by CCSD, Western Suffolk BOCES and Robert Charles Lesser and Co. (“RCLCO”); and a consultant retained by the Town Board to independently review student generation estimates presented by the Applicant, F.A.C.T.S Presentation Services, Inc. The FEIS indicated that 11 school-aged children would be projected to live in the largely agerestricted Proposed Action and that 58 school-aged children would be projected to reside in the Modified Project. These numbers are based on data from comparable multifamily developments within CCSD and in comparable school districts in situations where no comparable multifamily unit types were present in CCSD. Use of these data resulted in a more conservative (i.e., higher) estimate of schoolchildren to be generated by the proposed projects than use of data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Based on the FEIS estimates, no significant adverse impacts to schools would be anticipated for the Proposed Action or Modified Project.

23

In the course of its analysis of the schoolchildren generation, the FEIS also considered the possibility that the Proposed Action and Modified Project could result in the generation of additional school-aged children due to new families moving into existing CCSD homes when the current residents of those homes moved into the Proposed Action or Modified Project residential units. A “worst case” analysis performed by Western Suffolk BOCES indicated that the Proposed Action could generate an additional 194 students in this scenario. RCLCO estimated that the Modified Project could result in an additional 65 to 120 students in such a scenario. The Town Board concludes that this “bulge” scenario is not likely to occur. Neither the Western Suffolk BOCES nor the RCLCO study found or predicted that either the Proposed Action or the Modified Project would result in an increase in the rate of turnover of existing homes in the CCSD. Furthermore, Western Suffolk BOCES predicted an overall decline in CCSD enrollment in the build year for the Proposed Action and Modified Project. In addition, the RCLCO study does not take into account the phased occupation of the Modified Project, which would be anticipated to add approximately 40 households per year to the CCSD for a period of five years. The CR&EV Project, which includes 88 fewer residential units than the Modified Project, will generate even fewer children and will also not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to schools. With respect to senior services, another area of concern, the FEIS indicated that the Modified Project is projected to result in approximately 31 seniors who would utilize some senior service annually. The Town’s senior facility currently experiences limitations with some programs and services, as well as with parking for the community center where many of the senior programs are conducted. The Modified Project’s 31 additional seniors would likely have some impact on these programs that are near capacity or already oversubscribed. This impact, although adverse, would not be significant. The CR&EV Project, with 88 fewer residential units than the Modified Project, will generate fewer additional seniors seeking to utilize one more senior services. The CR&EV Project will also incorporate on-site recreational and social facilities that will minimize impacts to the Town’s senior services. The CR&EV Project will therefore not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts on the Town’s senior services. In the Modified Project, the Applicant proposed to donate a 6.5-acre parcel to the Town Board for municipal use on a permanent basis, but the effect of the January Submission is to modify the Modified Project to withdraw that offer. The withdrawal of the offer does not affect the Town Board’s conclusion that the Modified Project and therefore the CR&EV Project will not have significant adverse impacts related to open space and recreation. E. Historic and Archaeological Resources

The FEIS determined that neither the Proposed Action nor the Modified Project would result in significant adverse impacts to historic and archaeological resources. Both proposed projects would incorporate measures to preserve important historic buildings on the Project Site (i.e., the Rotunda Building and the Guest House). The FEIS indicated that the proposed height of the Modified Project’s North Village buildings could potentially result in adverse contextual impacts to historic resources if the buildings had a

24

larger scale than the existing Reader’s Digest buildings, including the historic Rotunda Building. These impacts, though potentially adverse, would not be significant. The CR&EV Project will avoid any potentially adverse historic resource impacts that would be caused by the Modified Project’s North Village buildings since those buildings are not being approved and will not be built. In addition, like the Proposed Action and Modified Project, the CR&EV Project will incorporate conditions identified in Table FS-1, below, including the preservation of the Rotunda Building and Guest House. The CR&EV Project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historic and archaeological resources. F. Visual Resources

The FEIS visual impacts analysis considered views to the Project Site from a variety of surrounding roadways, neighborhoods, and representative residences in both winter and summer foliage conditions. The analysis also addressed project site lighting and the proposed architecture for the new residential development. The FEIS determined that with the incorporation of certain measures, including the provision of a vegetated perimeter buffer as well as landscaped gardens in the interior of the Project Site, neither the Proposed Action nor the Modified Project would result in significant adverse impacts to visual resources. The FEIS indicated that the height of the Modified Project’s North Village buildings could result in adverse impacts to visual resources because they would be visible from Roaring Brook Road and to northbound travelers on the Saw Mill River Parkway during winter months and because their height and bulk would be more substantial than that of any multifamily housing previously constructed in the Town or to any new zoning-compliant commercial development that might be proposed on the Project Site in the future. These potential impacts would be adverse but would not be significant. The CR&EV Project will avoid potentially adverse visual resource impacts associated with the Modified Project’s North Village buildings. In addition, like the Proposed Action and Modified Project, the CR&EV Project will incorporate a number of measures designed to minimize impacts to visual resources. These measures are set forth in Table FS-1, below. With the incorporation of these measures, the CR&EV Project is not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to visual resources. G. Utilities

The FEIS considered the Proposed Action’s and Modified Project’s potential impacts on water supply, the sanitary sewer system, electric and gas consumption, and telephone and cable service. A number of measures would be incorporated into the Proposed Action and Modified Project to ensure that they did not cause significant adverse impacts to utilities, and no significant adverse impacts would be anticipated. These measures, which are set forth in Table FS-1, below, will also be incorporated into the CR&EV Project. With the implementation of these measures, the CR&EV Project, which will have fewer residents than either the Proposed Action or Modified Project, will not have significant adverse impacts on utility services. Pursuant to the Town Code, the residential development in the CR&EV Project cannot be constructed without the expansion of the Saw Mill Valley Sanitary Sewer District. The Town’s approval of the CR&EV Project is therefore contingent on approval of the expansion by the Westchester County Board of Legislators.

25

H.

Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

As discussed above in Part X.C, the Proposed Action and Modified Project would cause significant adverse traffic impacts, due primarily to the increased commercial activity that is expected when tenant occupancy restrictions are removed from the commercial portion of the Project Site. The CR&EV Project will incorporate the conditions set forth in Table FS-1, below, to mitigate these traffic impacts and to avoid other significant adverse impacts with respect to transportation and parking. The sufficiency of on-site parking for the commercial portion of the Project Site has been a key concern of the Town Board. The Town’s commercial parking requirements, which are intended to ensure the viability of commercial uses, would require a ratio of 4 parking spaces per 1,000 SF of gross floor area. The existing 700,000 SF of commercial space on the Project Site is served by approximately 1,680 parking spaces (2.4 spaces per 1,000 SF of gross floor area), considerably less than the 2,684 spaces that would currently be required under the Town Code for the 671,000 SF of general office use and the 29,000 SF of miscellaneous floor area that currently exists. The Proposed Action would reduce the number of parking spaces to 1,300 (2.5 spaces per 1,000 SF) for the proposed 520,000 SF of office space. Under the Town Code’s requirements, 2,080 spaces would be required for the Proposed Action. The Applicant proceeded with the proposed 1,300 parking spaces in the DEIS despite being provided with comments from the Town Board in January and March 2009 concerning how to determine off-site parking requirements and when it would be acceptable to remove some of the existing parking spaces. (As discussed above in Part VI.C, the Town’s Building Department had advised that the preexisting condition of 1,680 parking spaces would be grandfathered and allowed to remain without providing additional off-street parking spaces, but that it would not be acceptable to reduce the number of existing parking spaces.) In the draft FEISs, the Applicant continued to propose 1,300 parking spaces for the Proposed Action. Like the Proposed Action, the Modified Project as proposed in July 2010 would include 1,300 spaces for the 520,000 SF of office use, but would add 60 spaces for the 142,000 SF of data center use that was proposed for Building 600, for a total of 1,360 spaces. (Under current Town Code requirements, 2,648 parking spaces would be required for the Modified Project.) The Applicant also proposed amendments to permit data processing centers and disaster recovery facilities to have only one space per each person employed on the maximum shift or one space for each 2,500 SF of gross floor area, whichever is greater. The Applicant also proposed to allow the Planning Board to waive applicable parking requirements and instead review and approve a parking plan with a minimum of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space, provided that, among other things a transportation demand management program is submitted to and approved by the Planning Board. The Applicant did not submit a proposed transportation demand management plan with the Second Draft DEIS submitted in tandem with the Modified Project Petition. Almost two months after it submitted the First Revised Draft FEIS, the Applicant submitted a Parking Management Plan on September 17, 2010 that included measures such as discounted transit passes, shuttle or jitney service to the Chappaqua train station, provision of on-site food service, car sharing strategies/programs, ridematching services, preferred parking for van and car pools, and shower and storage facilities for bikers and walkers. In response to Town Board comments, the Applicant prepared three alternative parking scenarios for the Second Revised Draft FEIS illustrating potential locations for the additional 320 parking spaces that would be necessary to comply with the Town’s parking requirements as grandfathered. Two of the three scenarios involved parking structures and were deemed to be noncompliant with 26

zoning requirements, inconsistent with community character, and/or economically infeasible. The third scenario would include parking spaces at the southern end of the Project Site, including on a portion of the 6.5-acre parcel proposed for donation to the Town in the Modified Project. As noted elsewhere in this Findings Statement, three months later, in January 2011, the Applicant submitted as part of the January Submission a new site plan that the Applicant intended to be zoning compliant and which showed 320 “landbanked” parking spaces in this area. The area for these spaces could be reserved until commercial development on the Project Site warranted the construction of the parking spaces. The Modified Project as modified by the January Submission would therefore have 1,680 parking spaces to meet the Town’s parking requirements as grandfathered. The Applicant has stated that it believes the amount of parking it proposed for the Proposed Action and Modified Project is adequate for several reasons. First, the Applicant indicated that it undertook on-site parking surveys in 2008 that showed a parking utilization rate of approximately 2.4 spaces per 1,000 SF of occupied office area while Reader’s Digest occupied 296,000 SF of the office space. Second, the Applicant relied on information from surveys conducted in December 2006 at multitenant office buildings in Westchester County, which found that the site among those surveyed with the most occupied parking had 2.5 occupied spaces per 1,000 SF of occupied office space. In the Applicant’s view, the Modified Project’s proposed parking amendments were based on sustainable planning principles and would result in a parking plan that would satisfy an acceptable measure of normal demand while encouraging employees to reduce their reliance on singleoccupancy vehicles. The Applicant believes that the amendments would not cause significant adverse parking impacts, based on the Applicant’s experience at the Project Site and on the experience at the office parks in central Westchester County. The Town Board identified a number of potential concerns regarding the Applicant’s assessment of commercial parking needs. First, the Town Board’s consultant identified potential problems with the Applicant’s on-site parking surveys, including that they had been completed during a time period (1:30-2:00 PM) when employees might have taken their cars to get lunch or run other errands and that actual parking space occupancy exceeded the level reported by the Applicant 30 percent of the time. In addition, the Applicant’s parking demand analysis did not include a 10-percent design safety factor to account for motorists driving through mostly filled parking lots and maneuvering in and out of parking spaces. Furthermore, the Town Board’s consultant pointed to the unique nature of the Reader’s Digest occupancy of the Project Site and suggested that historic data regarding the parking associated with Reader’s Digest’s occupancy of the Project Site could not be relied upon to project the potential parking needs of a multi-tenant office building. The Town Board also has concerns regarding the relevance of the surveys of multi-tenant office buildings in Westchester upon which the Applicant relied. Those surveys were conducted at office parks along a major east-west transportation corridor in central Westchester and may not be directly transferrable to a northern Westchester suburban office campus such as the Project Site. Finally, the Town Board’s traffic consultant completed additional parking demand analyses using methodologies endorsed by the Institute for Transportation Engineers (“ITE”) and the Urban Land Institute. These analyses showed a need for more parking than was proposed by the Applicant. The above concerns are relevant to either the Proposed Action or the Modified Project. In addition, the Town Board raised a number of concerns specifically regarding the Modified Project. First, the Applicant’s description of a “data center” does not account for the wide array of data center uses that could be established under the definition of “data center” in the Applicant’s proposed Parking 27

Management Plan, which could potentially result in highly variable parking impacts. The Town Board therefore does not believe it is appropriate to establish a separate parking requirement for data processing centers or disaster recovery facilities. Second, the Town Board does not believe the proposed Parking Management Plan is sufficient to justify the reduction in the number of parking spaces proposed in the Modified Project. The CR&EV Project will include the same amount and types of commercial space as the Modified Project but will also preserve the potential for even more commercial development and/or more parking spaces to support commercial uses at the Project Site by not developing the site of North Village for residential use. The Town Board is concerned that an inadequate parking supply could have an adverse impact on the attractiveness of the Project Site’s office space to potential lessees, notwithstanding the Applicant’s assertions regarding sustainable planning principles. The site of the North Village contains 257 parking spaces in the existing condition, which will be available to support the commercial uses on the Project Site unless and until this site is developed in the future. These 257 spaces will help to meet, at least on an interim basis, the commercial parking requirements for the Project Site. Additionally, the landbanked property on the south side of the Project Site will remain available for more parking as necessary in the future. The Town Board is not willing to risk the consequences of underestimating parking demand for the CR&EV Project’s commercially zoned district. At the same time, the Town Board does not favor constructing more parking spaces on the Project Site than are actually needed since such construction could result in unnecessary environmental impacts. Therefore, the Town Board has determined that the provision of at least 1,680 parking spaces in the B-RO-20 District is essential, as this is the number of existing parking spaces on the site that are grandfathered under current zoning. The Applicant must therefore maintain 1,680 parking spaces on the B-RO-20 portion of the Project Site unless either Planning Board approval is obtained to phase construction of spaces based on an adequate parking management plan, which could include landbanked parking spaces and/or jitney service, among other things, or Zoning Board of Appeals approval is obtained for a variance allowing fewer parking spaces. I. Air Quality and Noise

The FEIS found that neither the Proposed Action nor the Modified Project would result in significant adverse air quality impacts during construction or operation. Air quality impacts would be minimized and energy use would be reduced through the implementation of a number of measures proposed by the Applicant. These measures are set forth in Table FS-1, below, and will be incorporated into the CR&EV Project. The scope of the CR&EV Project, as well as the duration and scope of its construction, will be less than that of the Modified Project. The CR&EV Project will therefore not result in significant adverse air quality impacts. The FEIS also found that neither the Proposed Action nor the Modified Project would result in significant adverse noise impacts during construction or operation. Noise impacts resulting from the construction of the Proposed Action and Modified Project would be minimized through the implementation of certain measures reflected in Table FS-1, below. These measures will also be implemented in the CR&EV Project. The scope of the CR&EV Project, as well as the scope and duration of its construction, will be less than that of the Modified Project. The CR&EV Project will therefore not result in significant adverse noise impacts.

28

J.

Community Character

The FEIS noted that the Modified Project would reduce adverse community character impacts as compared to the Proposed Action in many respects, due to the reduction in residential density, removal of age restrictions, elimination of the residential gatehouse, increase in commercial floor area, and reduction in site disturbance. The Modified Project’s North Village buildings, however, would be of greater scale and height than the Proposed Action’s residential buildings. As a result, the Modified Project’s North Village buildings would, as noted above in Part XI.F, be visible in winter months to northbound travelers on the Saw Mill River Parkway and from portions of Roaring Brook Road west of the Saw Mill River Parkway. The increased height would therefore be contrary to the Town’s viewshed protection objectives. As discussed above in Part X.B, the height and scale of the North Village buildings would also be contrary to Town zoning and land use policies. These impacts would be adverse but not significant with respect to community character. The CR&EV Project will avoid the adverse impacts associated with scale and height of the North Village buildings. In addition, the features of the Proposed Action and Modified Project that would minimize community character impacts will also be incorporated into the CR&EV Project. These conditions are set forth in Table FS-1, below. With the incorporation of these conditions, the CR&EV Project is not expected to result in significant adverse community character impacts. K. Construction

The FEIS found that neither the Proposed Action nor the Modified Project would result in significant adverse construction impacts. The FEIS further indicated that a number of measures, practices, and procedures would be implemented in the Proposed Action and Modified Project to minimize construction impacts. The scope of commercial redevelopment in the CR&EV Project will be the same as proposed for the Modified Project, but the CR&EV Project will involve less residential construction since the Modified Project’s North Village will not be constructed. Construction of the CR&EV Project will also incorporate the measures, practices, and procedures described in the FEIS to minimize construction impacts. These measures are set forth in Table FS-1, below. With the implementation of these measures, the CR&EV Project is not expected to result in any significant adverse construction impacts. XII. Measures for the Minimization or Mitigation of Adverse Environmental Impacts

The impact minimization and mitigation measures that shall be incorporated into the CR&EV Project are identified in Table FS-1, below. As noted in Part XI, the FEIS assumed that all aspects of the Proposed Action or Modified Project would be implemented in full compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and other relevant requirements, and actions that would be necessary pursuant to these requirements are not in all cases explicitly identified here. This assumption applies as a requirement of the CR&EV Project as well. The measures set forth in Table FS-1 are discussed in more detail in Sections II and III of the DEIS and Sections II and III of the FEIS.

29

Table FS-1: Measures for the Minimization or Mitigation of Adverse Environmental Impacts and to Facilitate Implementation of the Commercial Rezoning & East Village Project Primary Environmental Impact Area2 1. Land Use and Zoning Mitigation/Minimization Measure A B-RO-20 District of 70.8 acres shall be designated on the Project Site with no special tenant restrictions as depicted in Figure FS-1. An MFPD District of 30.6 acres shall be designated in the location depicted as the East Village MFPD in Figure FS-1. The East Village MFPD District shall permit a maximum of 111 residential units. The 111 residential units in the East Village MFPD District shall include 60 fee simple townhouses, 31 market-rate condominium flats, and 20 condominium flats that shall be Stipulation-compliant Affordable AFFH Units. The East Village MFPD District shall include no more than 244 bedrooms in the 111 residential units. The creation of the East Village MFPD District shall not include any density bonuses as none were proposed or analyzed in the DEIS or FEIS. The B-RO-20 District area and the East Village MFPD District area shall be divided into two lots. The East Village MFPD District shall be further divided into at least 61 lots. Each of the 60 fee simple townhouses shall be on a separate lot. A waiver shall be obtained from the Planning Board for any residential construction that does not feature individual outdoor unit access. CR&EV Project residential units shall require setbacks of 350-400 feet from Cowdin Lane. The East Village MFPD District shall include construction of 20 Stipulation-compliant Affordable AFFH Units (compliance to be determined by Federal Monitor).

2. 3. 4.

Land Use and Zoning Land Use and Zoning Land Use and Zoning

5. 6.

Land Use and Zoning Land Use and Zoning

7.

Land Use and Zoning,

8.

Land Use and Zoning

9.

Land Use and Zoning

10. Socioeconomic & Fiscal Conditions

2 Given the interrelationship between environmental impact areas, many of the measures described in Table FS-1 address potential adverse impacts in more than one impact area.

30

Primary Environmental Impact Area2 11. Socioeconomic & Fiscal Conditions

Mitigation/Minimization Measure The construction of, and issuance of certificates of occupancy for, all Stipulation-compliant Affordable AFFH Units shall be required prior to or simultaneously with construction of and issuance of certificates of occupancy for any market-rate units. Additional wildlife and/or vegetative surveys shall be performed, as appropriate, to inform final site development review process and other environmental approvals which may be needed, including information to address replacement ratios, adequacy of sizes of proposed new landscaping, species, and other details. An invasive plant management plan shall be prepared and implemented that is acceptable to the Planning Board to inform the final site development review process and other environmental approval processes that may be needed. The areas of site disturbance shall be limited to five acres at any one time during construction to minimize erosion and dust in accordance with NYSDEC General Permit GP-0-10001, unless prior written approval is obtained from the Town as operator of the NYSDEC-regulated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System. Mulch, matting, temporary vegetative cover, or permanent landscaping shall be used for stabilization. No direct disturbance to wetlands 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 or their respective buffer areas shall occur. To maintain and enhance wetlands 5 and/or 6 and/or their respective buffer areas, which may be adjacent to areas proposed for site disturbance, the ecological integrity of these resources shall be restored by the removal of the invasive plant purple loosestrife. If direct or indirect impacts are proposed to any wetland area or buffer, such as Wetland 8, which could be impacted by the creation of a pedestrian path, any such disturbance shall require a wetlands permit and potentially other approvals by the Planning Board or other appropriate entity(ies). As noted above, an invasive plant management plan approved by the Planning Board shall also be implemented. Other measures shall be implemented to reduce loss of functional habitat, including naturalization of exterior side slopes on the proposed water quality basins and locating of meadow ecosystems between improvements and regulated ecosystems such as wetland areas or undisturbed areas.

12. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

13. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

14. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

15. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

16. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

31

Primary Environmental Impact Area2 17. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Stormwater management plan(s) approved by all authorities with jurisdiction, including the Planning Board, NYSDEC, and the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (“NYCDEP”), as appropriate, shall be implemented prior to any construction activities. The stormwater management controls for the East Village MFPD District parcel shall either be self-contained on the East Village MFPD District parcel or include any necessary drainage or other easement(s) over the B-RO-20 District parcel to support the residential uses on the East Village MFPD District parcel. If the East Village MFPD District parcel is to utilize the B-RO-20 District parcel for drainage, then a restrictive declaration running in favor of the East Village MFPD District parcel should be secured to preserve this feature on the B-RO-20 District parcel. The overall area of the Project Site discharging stormwater off-site to the east of the Project Site shall result in either no increase or a decrease in run-off volumes and peak flow to the Bedford Road tributary as compared to existing conditions. During construction, tree protection measures, including creating established construction access roadways with geotextile fabric with 12 inches of woodchips, shall be implemented. Additionally, for each of the trees to be protected, two Jersey barriers shall be placed next to the tree to stop rolling rocks and bumps from construction equipment. If rock blasting is necessary for construction purposes, mats shall be used to prevent blasted material from flying into the trees. Due to the anticipated size of vehicles, vertical 2x4s shall be strapped around the trunks of the trees on the side facing construction to protect the actual trunks of the trees. These types of tree-specific procedures shall be in addition to standard construction best management practices that include hay bales and/or silt fence protocols. In addition, where feasible, trees close to the limit of disturbance that are determined to be in good condition shall be flagged for protection. Small trees in proposed areas of disturbance shall be evaluated for potential relocation on the Project Site in a similar setting. Trees shall be replanted with a replacement to removal ratio of at least 3.1 to 1.

18. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

19. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

20. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

21. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

32

Primary Environmental Impact Area2 22. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

Mitigation/Minimization Measure If any additional parking areas are constructed, or redundant stormwater management practices are required by the NYCDEP, compliance with applicable guidelines and rules shall be demonstrated by providing practices such as subsurface infiltration chambers or sand filters that shall not result in additional disturbances to the Project Site. Stormwater management system(s) that are consistent with the stormwater management plans approved by all authorities with jurisdiction, including the Planning Board, NYSDEC, and/or NYCDEP, as appropriate, shall be implemented. Water quality retrofits shall be implemented in the existing parking lots of drainage Area CC-Ex. Where feasible, other areas of existing parking lots shall be upgraded with stormwater retrofits. An integrated pest management approach to pest control shall be applied to the Project Site. On-site walking trails shall be established and maintained. As proposed by the Applicant, there shall be cooperation in opening on-site trails for public use and in connecting onsite trails to the prospective trail along the sewer trunk line providing bicycle and/or pedestrian access to the Chappaqua Hamlet. Adequate park land and/or recreation facilities shall be provided in accordance with Town Code requirements and as approved by the Planning Board. The design and operation of residential buildings and accessory uses including access roads, paths, and parking areas shall satisfy or exceed all applicable Town Code, New York State Energy Conservation Code, New York State Building Code, and fire safety requirements and/or other multifamily dwelling construction and design standards, including ensuring the size of any elevator is sufficient to accommodate standard-length ambulance gurneys.

23. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

24. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

25. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources 26. Community Facilities and Services 27. Community Facilities and Services

28. Community Facilities and Services 29. Community Facilities and Services

33

Primary Environmental Impact Area2 30. Community Facilities and Services

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Proper access for fire-fighting equipment and personnel shall be provided. Hydrants shall be installed in number and location and with such water pressure as may be determined to be adequate by the Planning Board based upon the recommendations of the Town Engineer and the Fire Department having jurisdiction. Recreational facilities for the residential development in the East Village MFPD District shall be constructed and maintained offering social, health, fitness, recreational, and social amenities, including but not limited to fitness center, outdoor pool, meeting and social rooms, and concierge services. A private solid waste carter shall be used for the commercial uses on the B-RO-20 portion of the Project Site. The historic Reader’s Digest Rotunda Building (Buildings 100 and 200) shall be retained, and the Guest House shall be adaptively reused. If significant cultural artifacts are recovered during construction, those materials shall be processed by a cultural resources consultant, and arrangements shall be made to house them in an appropriate location. An exterior lighting plan for residential and commercial portions of site that is in accordance with the proposed lighting plan in the DEIS and FEIS and that is acceptable to the Planning Board shall be implemented. An appropriate landscaped/vegetated buffer shall be constructed and/or maintained with supplemental landscaping in areas adjacent to neighboring residential properties to minimize visibility of the proposed Project Site buildings, including a raised and landscaped berm, as proposed by the Applicant in the DEIS and FEIS and as approved by the Planning Board. Interior landscaped gardens and supplemental landscape shall be constructed and/or maintained, as proposed by the Applicant in the DEIS and as approved by Planning Board. Such garden and landscaping features shall provide supplemental buffering between on-site residential and office uses.

31. Community Facilities and Services

32. Community Facilities and Services 33. Historic and Archaeological Resources 34. Historic and Archaeological Resources

35. Visual Resources

36. Visual Resources

37. Visual Resources

34

Primary Environmental Impact Area2 38. Utilities

Mitigation/Minimization Measure The costs associated with updating the existing on-site water distribution system and installation of new water lines, portions of which shall be dedicated to the Town, shall be borne by the Applicant or any successor to the Applicant. Existing water mains to be dedicated to the Town shall be tested prior to dedication and, if necessary, cleaned and relined. As proposed by the Applicant, the installation of the new on-site water distribution mains shall meet or exceed Town standards and the annual operation and maintenance costs for the system shall be supported by an ad valorem assessment. Pursuant to the Town Code, the Saw Mill Valley Sanitary Sewer District must be expanded to include the entire East Village MFPD District prior to the granting of site development plan approval by the Planning Board. In expanding the sewer district, there shall be compliance with all requirements of the Town Code, the Westchester County Department of Environmental Facilities, and the Westchester County Health Department. The existing on-site sewage collection system shall be extended and upgraded, with portions of the system being dedicated to the Town sewer system. All new sewer mains installed in the Project Site shall be sized to accommodate peak sewage flows and should meet Town and regulatory construction standards. As proposed by the Applicant and in connection with the proposed sanitary sewer district expansion and connection, reasonable off-site sewer improvements to accommodate and offset the project’s increase in effluent shall be funded and/or constructed in accordance with Westchester Department of Environmental Facilities guidelines and requirements. High-efficiency Energy Star-rated consumer appliances, light fixtures, and building mechanical systems shall be incorporated into the project and the project should meet the Town’s Energy Star requirements for new residential buildings consistent with Town Code, as applicable. There shall be site-wide distribution of security, life safety, energy management, and CCTV signals via cables run either in underground conduits or via cable tray systems within the existing office buildings.

39. Utilities

40. Utilities

41. Utilities

42. Utilities

43. Utilities

35

Primary Environmental Impact Area2 44. Utilities

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Controls and operating strategies shall be incorporated into the project to minimize consumption of gas and electricity as proposed by the Applicant in the DEIS. Residential buildings, including the residential clubhouse, shall be certifiable as LEED Basic for Homes or LEED Basic for New Construction, as proposed by the Applicant. Construction (i.e., improvements for new tenants) in the main office building (Buildings 100-600) shall include upgrades to improve energy efficiency and/or be certifiable as LEED Basic for New Construction. Proposed underground utilities shall be grouped in common utility trenches to the extent feasible and as approved by the respective utility companies. Municipal system and infrastructure improvements shall be installed and permitted. Additional details shall be provided to the Planning Board regarding proposed testing, repairs, and upgrades to the existing water systems and regarding the proposed backflow from stormwater duress. All residential units shall be metered independently to promote water and energy conservation. Water conservation practices shall be employed, including use of reduced flow plumbing fixtures in all new residential construction as well as future office building renovations in compliance with then-applicable building code requirements; use of drip landscape irrigation systems; and restriction of irrigation to early morning hours. Any on-site diesel generators for backup power supply shall only run in times of power outages and for periodic testing of the generators as recommended by the equipment manufacturer. A pedestrian path from the East Village MFPD District parcel to Roaring Brook Road across from entrance to Horace Greeley High School shall be constructed, subject to Planning Board wetlands review, including an easement across property in common ownership (B-RO-20 and R1A). The pedestrian path shall also be accessible to the general public.

45. Utilities

46. Utilities

47. Utilities

48. Utilities 49. Utilities

50. Utilities

51. Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

36

Primary Environmental Impact Area2 52. Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

Mitigation/Minimization Measure In accordance with the Town Building Inspector’s opinion, 1,680 parking spaces (the number of existing parking spaces) shall be maintained on the B-RO-20 portion of the Project Site unless either Planning Board approval is obtained to phase construction of spaces based on an adequate parking management plan, which could include land banked parking spaces and/or jitney service, among other things, or Zoning Board of Appeals approval is obtained for a variance allowing fewer parking spaces. A separate southbound right-turn lane from Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) to Roaring Brook Road shall be constructed no later than the initial phase of construction of the East Village MFPD District residential units and shall require the dedication of land from the Project Site along Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) to NYSDOT and upgrade of existing traffic signal. Signal timing changes shall be requested from NYSDOT for Saw Mill River Parkway/Roaring Brook Road and Bedford Road/Roaring Brook Road to mitigate traffic impact. The access drives for the CR&EV Project shall remain the same as the existing Project Site drives unless modified with the approval of the Planning Board and any other agencies with jurisdiction. Jitney service between Project Site and Chappaqua business hamlet shall be provided as proposed by Applicant (Planning Board to determine thresholds on B-RO-20 parcel and/or MFPD parcel for provision of jitney service).

53. Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

54. Traffic, Transportation, and Parking 55. Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

56. Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

37

Primary Environmental Impact Area2 57. Air Quality and Noise

Mitigation/Minimization Measure As proposed by the Applicant, the following measures shall be implemented in the design, renovation, and construction of the CR&EV Project to minimize energy use and reduce air emissions: insulation that meets or exceeds the New York State Energy Conservation Code requirements and is installed in compliance with Grade I specifications set by National Home Energy Rating Standards; use of refrigerants in HVAC and refrigeration systems designed to minimize emissions of ozone-depleting gases; light-colored white thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO) roofing materials; use of paints and carpeting containing low VOCs and other offgassing compounds; compact fluorescent lighting fixtures in frequently used rooms such as the kitchen and living room; double-glazed windows; programmable thermostats; brick and cementitious siding; operable windows; and use of high quality MERV 8 air filters. There shall be no residential gatehouse on the Project Site. Any new buildings shall be Georgian-style architecture compatible with the architecture of the Rotunda Building. The Town Architectural Review Board shall review and approve this aspect of any proposal in cooperation with the Town Planning Board. A soil and materials management plan (“SMMP”) shall be approved by the Planning Board prior to construction to manage fill material and any environmentally impacted soil that may be encountered during construction activities. Demolished building materials shall be removed in a manner consistent with procedures described in the DEIS. Detailed investigations for lead paint, asbestos, and other hazardous materials shall be undertaken prior to any building renovation or demolition, and the removal and disposal of any such materials shall be implemented in accordance with applicable governmental regulations. Any remediation shall likely include excavation of soil and a combination of off-site disposal of impacted soil and potential on-site reuse of suitable materials (such as wood and stone) in accordance with the applicable regulations.

58. Community Character 59. Community Character

60. Construction

61. Construction

38

Primary Environmental Impact Area2 62. Construction

Mitigation/Minimization Measure If rock blasting is necessary, a blasting plan shall be developed that shall include restrictions on the types and methods of blasting and other methods of rock removal that shall be allowed. Any blasting plan shall incorporate all measures described in DEIS Sections III.C.1.d(1)(b), III.K.3.b, and III.K.4.c and must be approved by the Planning Board. With respect to demolition, all masonry and concrete materials from exterior walls, slabs, and foundations shall be broken into smaller pieces with a hydraulic hammer and stockpiled on site to be recycled. Upon completion of demolition, all stockpiled recyclable materials shall be processed through a crusher and re-used on site for aggregates and structural fill. In addition, asphalt from all parking areas to be removed shall be stripped and processed on site to be re-used in the creation of new roads and parking areas. A demolition and construction management program shall be implemented and communicated to existing tenants on the Project Site. Demolition shall occur one building at a time. Construction employees shall be issued temporary access control cards to allow them to enter the Project Site through the west entry gate to reduce construction-related traffic along Roaring Brook Road. Construction deliveries shall enter and leave the site from Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) via Route 172. Construction truck activity shall be limited to between 9:00 AM and 2:30 PM so as not to conflict with rush hour office or school-related operations. When specialty operations such as concrete placement must be scheduled during peak traffic hours, alternative traffic control procedures could be implemented with the oversight of the Town police department. Flagmen shall be available at all times to ensure safe ingress and egress into the Project Site. All construction worker parking and all construction truck staging shall be on site in designated areas. Measures shall be explored to reduce cumulative construction noise levels at affected Cowdin Lane properties to 60 dBA at the property line.

63. Construction

64. Construction

65. Construction 66. Construction

67. Construction 68. Construction

39

Primary Environmental Impact Area2 69. Construction

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Best construction practices shall be implemented, including wetting soil surfaces, covering trucks and stored materials with tarps to reduce windborne dust, and proper maintenance of equipment. Roadway and haul roads shall be stabilized with tackifiers, geotechnical fabrics and stone ballast as required to minimize dust. Roadways will be washed regularly to prevent dust from being generated by vehicle traffic. Tracking pads will be established where trucking vehicles move from construction areas to established roadways. Wash stations will be installed at the tracking pads, and their utilization will be required prior to leaving a disturbed area. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that are acceptable to the Planning Board shall be implemented. These plans shall include measures set forth in the detailed description of erosion and sediment control procedures outlined in the DEIS, and shall include silt fencing, hay bales, inlet protection, temporary sediment traps and outlet protection and control devices, swales, berms, energy dissipaters, wheel wash down areas, anti-tracking pads, mulching, temporary seeding, dust control with misting systems (including during demolition), covering of stockpile materials or stabilization with an established seed bed, and hay bales. These methods shall be regularly maintained and periodically inspected and shall meet the requirements of NYSDEC Standards and Specifications or Erosion and Sediment Control. These measures shall be included in the construction contract. Any groundwater that is encountered during construction shall be captured and diverted via curtain drains along the perimeter of the excavated areas, to be released in a controlled manner to a stabilized vegetated surface or channel for eventual discharge to the on-site wetlands. Turbidity or sediments in the temporarily diverted groundwater shall be controlled by lining the curtain drains with filter fabric and using clean washed pea stone as trench backfill. As soon as grading operations for an area are completed, the area shall be stabilized and landscaped. During earthwork operations, temporary noise attenuation measures, such as acoustic curtains or screens, shall be implemented along the boundaries of major construction areas.

70. Construction

71. Construction

72. Construction 73. Construction

40

Primary Environmental Impact Area2 74. Construction 75. Construction 76. Construction 77. Construction

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Equipment used during construction will be fitted with PM traps and will use low-sulfur fuel. Equipment used during construction will be properly maintained and operated. Energy Star-compliant construction materials will be used. To the extent feasible, construction materials that have been extracted and manufactured within 500 miles of the Project Site will be used.

XIII. Alternatives Considered The DEIS considered 18 alternatives, many of which were similar to each other, with only slight variations. These alternatives were identified for analysis in order to compare currently permitted uses on the Project Site with a range of alternative uses that, like the Proposed Action, would require discretionary approvals. The alternative scenarios evaluated in the DEIS could be grouped into five broad categories: No Action (Alternative A); Full Occupancy of Buildings or Maximum Build-Out of Project Site Under Current Zoning (Alternatives B.1, B.2, B.3, B.3a, B.4a, B.4b, B.5a, and B.5b); Development Multi-Tenant Office without the MFPD District for Residential Units (Alternatives C.1 and C.2); Office and Residential Development with Various Amended Zoning Options (Alternatives D.1, D.2a, D.2b, D.3a, D.3b, and D.4); and Alternative Plan Configuration for the Proposed Action to Reduce Visibility from Cowdin Lane (Alternative E). In response to comments from members of the public and the Town Board, the FEIS considered four additional alternatives, Alternatives F, G, and H, as well as the Alternative I (the Modified Project). In addition to these four additional alternatives, the No Action (Alternative A) and No Build (Alternative B.1) alternatives were modified in the FEIS to reflect the departure of Reader’s Digest from the Project Site. The alternatives examined in the DEIS would either fail to provide the fiscal and housing benefits of the Proposed Action, would have significant adverse traffic impacts, or would not be feasible. Some of the alternatives involved substantial expansion of the Project Site’s commercial space that would generate additional taxes but would not include the Proposed Action’s multifamily and affordable housing components. With respect to alternatives added in the FEIS, Alternative F includes the same uses and density as the Proposed Action, but in a revised configuration with all new development within the existing Westchester County sewer district. Although such a configuration would avoid the need for County approval of an expanded sewer district and would disturb somewhat less land on the Project Site, Alternative F would have more visual, land use, and neighborhood character impacts than the townhouses included in the Proposed Action and would have the same off-site traffic impacts as the Proposed Action.

41