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

(914) 238-4772 Fax (914) 238-5177

TOWN OF NEW CASTLE

Marked to Show Revisions To Draft Dated October 25, 2013, Derived From Comments From: Supervisor & Town Board Public Town Counsel Applicant

SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS STATEMENT CHAPPAQUA CROSSING

ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT

Final Draft

SEQRA Action Type: Date: Lead Agency:

Type I October 25298, 2013 New Castle Town Board

200 S. Greeley Avenue, Chappaqua, New York 10514 Ph. (914) 238-4772 Fax (914) 238-5177

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

Contact:

Table of Contents
I. II. III. IV. V. VI. Introduction ............................................................................................................................4 Project Site Description.........................................................................................................5 Project History........................................................................................................................7 Project Description ..............................................................................................................14 Retail Zoning Legislation ....................................................................................................19 Consideration of Environmental Impacts ........................................................................21 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. VII. Land Use and Zoning ..........................................................................................................22 Socioeconomic and Fiscal Conditions...............................................................................27 Land, Water and Ecological Resources .............................................................................28 Community Facilities & Services........................................................................................32 Historical & Archaeological Resources .............................................................................34 Visual Resources ...................................................................................................................36 Utilities....................................................................................................................................37 Traffic .....................................................................................................................................38 Air Quality and Noise ..........................................................................................................44 Community Character ..........................................................................................................46 Construction ..........................................................................................................................49

Measures for the Minimization or Mitigation of Adverse Environmental Impacts...................................................................................................................................50

VIII. Significant Adverse Impacts ...............................................................................................75 IX. X. XI. Conclusions and Certification of Findings Required by SEQRA .................................76 Figures....................................................................................................................................78 Appendix A- 2011 Findings Statement .............................................................................83

Page 3 of 83

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 Readers 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 Towns 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) by Petition dated October 11, 2012 to allow for retail development on an approximately 23.9 acre portion of the Project Site. By letter dated October 22, 2013, discussed further below, the Applicant
Page 4 of 83

advised the Town that the Applicant may submit to the Town a preliminary development concept plan for the retail development that would locate the full-service grocery store in a different location within the retail area than the location proposed in the Petition. If the Applicant submits such a revised preliminary development concept plan for Town Board approval, the Town Board will consider it and make a determination at that time as to whether any additional environmental review would be required in connection with such revised plan. 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 Readers 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. 93.9-1-

The Town Board was acting as Lead Agency for the environmental review under SEQRA of the Applicants (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

Page 5 of 83

1). 2Figure A: Project Site shows the Project Sites 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 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. Crabtrees 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 Readers 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 southern 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 on2

There are four additional 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) that are owned by the Applicant. These five tax lots are currently located in the R-1A District and total approximately six acres. See Figure A: Project Site.

Page 6 of 83

grade 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 Towns 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

III.

Project History

The prior history of the Applicants submissions and the environmental review process that culminated with the Town Boards 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 DAgostino 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 Applicants 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 Readers Digest Site as part of a viable community and real estate tax base, its range of permitted 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 DistrictOPROD 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 DistrictOPROD (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 Towns 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
Page 7 of 83

and basic retail, in an otherwise underserved market to support and enhance the Towns 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. 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 DistrictOPROD 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 Applicants 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

Page 8 of 83

thus were not considered in the 2011 Findings Statement or the FEIS accepted in March 2011 and DEIS accepted in May 2009. The Petition and the Draft SEIS were posted on the Towns website. 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 Towns 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 a Consolidated Summary of Completeness Review Comments dated December 18, 2012 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 Applicants proposed revisions to the Draft SEIS dated February, 2013 (Revised Draft SEIS) intended to address the Town Boards request for additional information. The Revised Draft SEIS was posted on the Towns website. The Town Board reviewed the Revised Draft SEIS, received and reviewed written comment from Town staff and the Towns 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.

Page 9 of 83

On March 29, 2013, and April 2, 2013, the Town Board received Applicants 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. The Further Revised Draft SEIS was posted on the Towns website. 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 Towns 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. 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 Towns 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 Towns 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 DSEIS, 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.

Page 10 of 83

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 Actions 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. 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 Towns 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 FSEIS Components were posted on the Towns website. 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
Page 11 of 83

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 August 2013 FSEIS was posted on the Towns website. 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 Applicants 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 2013FSEIS was complete and constituted the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on condition that the following requirements (Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Conditions) were satisfied: 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 Applicants 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 Towns consultant, AKRF, Inc. to the Town Planner dated August 26, 2013.

(b)

Page 12 of 83

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 Towns web site. CD-ROM 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 Environmental Protection. That correspondence was reviewed by the Town Board and addressed as part of this Findings Statement. See Section VI.C. In order to provide an opportunity for public comment, on October 14, 2013, a draft of the Supplemental Findings Statement was posted on the Town website. In response to this posting the Town Board received comments, including those from the Applicant under signature of John Marwell, Esq., dated October 22, 2013 (October 2013 Marwell Letter). The October 2013 Marwell Letter reported that as a result of negotiations the Applicant had with a potential full-service grocery store tenant regarding site planning requirements, the Applicant was requesting that the Supplemental Findings Statement acknowledge the potential for the full-service grocery tenant to be located within the proposed OPROD in a location other than the 100 and 200 Building. At this time, however, the Applicant has not amended its Petition with a new or superceding superseding petition requesting approval of a Preliminary Development Concept Plan that would locate the grocery store in a location other than the 100 and 200 Building as described in the Petition and the Proposed Retail PDCP. While the potential for a proposed full-service grocery store to be located within the proposed OPROD in a location other than the 100 and 200 Building has been addressed to the extent appropriate within this Supplemental Findings Statement, as discussed in Section VI.A below, any Preliminary Development Concept Plan proposed by Applicant for approval by the Town Board must identify any changes from the Applicants Preliminary Development Concept PlanProposed Retail PDCP studied in the DSEIS and FSEIS(DSEIS PDCP), and any environmental impact arising from any such change that is not adequately addressed in the DSEIS/FSEIS will require further environmental review. Moreover, if the Applicant proposes a Preliminary Development Concept Plan that differs from the Proposed Retail PDCP as described in the Petition and studied in the DSEIS and FSEIS, the Town Board will hold a public hearing on that Proposed Preliminary Development Concept Plan
Page 13 of 83

pursuant to as part of a rezoning under NYS Town Law 265 and Town Code 60-600 before making any determination to approve that proposed plan.

IV.

Project Description

The Petition Proposed Action 3 would apply an Office Park Retail Overlay DistrictOPROD 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 Projects 70.8 acres to approximately 71.9 acres. The retail area would include the existing and adaptively reused 200 Building and a rebuilt 100 Building, new buildings 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 retail area would be anchored by a full-service grocery store and also include between 10 to 14 retail stores. 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 retail store(s) below. The fourth floor could be used by those store(s) for office space, accessed via a relocated elevator and fire stairs from within or adjacent to the 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 DistrictOPROD is proposed within a generally level portion of the Project Site that contains a portion of the existing vacant
In describing the Petition Proposed Action, the potential modification of it as described in the October 22, 2013 letter from the Applicant has been considered where appropriatetaken account of.
3

Page 14 of 83

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 stores. The first and second floors of the 200 (Cupola) Building could be combined to create a double-height selling space. The west faade and the upper portions of the east faade would be retained. The fourth floor of the 200 (Cupola) Building could be either usable office space or unused space depending on the grocery or retail tenant. The lower floor below the main, ground floor of the 200 (Cupola) Building could be utilized for support, including storage, refrigeration and preparation space. The 100 Building would be demolished and a replacement building would be constructed in its place extending the architectural character of the 200 (Cupola) Building. A fully contained interior loading dock would be located within the lower floor below the main, ground floor of the reconstructed 100 Building to serve the grocery store or retail above. Access to the loading dock would be from a widened internal driveway and the main entry drive from Bedford Road. Levels below main floor of 100 and 200 Buildings are to be used for the loading dock and other support space (e.g., storage, refrigeration, preparation); internal loading and support space of the lower floor shall not be counted towards the 120,000 square footage of retail permitted within the B-RO-20 district. A number of freestanding buildings would be built to house individual and connected stores in the OPROD. 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 land banking 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 1,680 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 land bank 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
Page 15 of 83

Road, and the south driveway also from Roaring Brook Road which is approximately 300 feet west of the Horace Greeley High School entry driveway. 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 the south entry to be located directly opposite the High School entry driveway and signalizing it. C. Re-establishment of the Project Sites 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. Walkways 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 to extend along the south entry dive from the intersection of the re-established loop road and the east entry drive 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 16 of 83

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 approximately 71.9 acres and the area within the MFPD District would be reduced from 30.6 acres to approximately 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 peak rate 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 in accordance with Town Code requirements, and the Applicant has stated that no monument sign will have internal illumination. J. New off-site traffic improvements; The CR&EV Project included the Applicants constructing and/or funding the construction of a right-turn laned 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 Sites 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 MFPD PDCP. The conditions to be amended are included in the following table:

Page 17 of 83

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 Applicants 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 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 14(g) 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 Projects proposed lighting plan which includes the addition of retail uses on the Project Site. Condition 14(j) 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 14(oo) 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
Page 18 of 83

the Project 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 14(gg) 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 Towns Tree Preservation Law. Condition 14(kk) 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 (collectively, Proposed OPRD Legislation). Both local laws The Proposed OPROD Legislation 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 DistrictOPROD 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 DistrictOPROD. The Proposed OPROD Legislation 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 Towns 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 Towns commercial real estate tax base.

Page 19 of 83

Zoning and planning approvals of any OPROD and related project improvements would involve, under both local laws the Proposed OPROD Legislation, a two-step review process: (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 Proposed OPROD Legislation, 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
Page 20 of 83

(4)

(5)

(6)

Proposed Redrafted for Consolidation Local Law, the minimum floor area occupied by a single use shall be 1,500 square feet but in 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.

The Proposed OPROD Legislation Both local laws establishes 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. The Proposed OPROD Legislation 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 (i) retail stores and shops, but not including a public garage; (ii) post office, package center, copy center and the like, but not personal service; (iii) financial institutions; (iv) restaurants, by special permit, (limited to 1 per 150,000 square feet of floor area in the OPROD under the Proposed Local Law),; (v) health clubs and fitness centers, (vi) tutoring services and the like, but not personal service,: (vii) carry out restaurants (by special permit),; (viii) structurally mounted wireless telecommunication services facility (minor); and (ix) 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.

Page 21 of 83

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 reutilization of the office space at the Readers 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 Readers Digest and its desire to expand the Towns 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 Readers Digest and its ultimate departure from the community. The Town Board finds that Readers Digests departure from the community tied with the economic challenges experienced during the last several years provides a basis to re-examine and refine the TDPs 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 Readers Digest Campus at some length, stating: The Readers 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 Readers 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 Readers 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 Readers Digest Corporation has completely vacated the Project Site. The Applicants unsuccessful efforts to reutilize the existing Readers 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.

Page 22 of 83

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 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 Towns 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. Crabtrees 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. 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 Projectwould 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
Page 23 of 83

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. The Petition Proposed Action that will allow the establishment of retail commercial use on the Project Site is consistent with the TDPs 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 TDPs 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 Towns 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) remove 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 Towns 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 areas 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
Page 24 of 83

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 Towns relatively small commercial real estate tax base. 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 overall scope of Town residents consumer expenditures, and some of those 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 Towns goals to reduce its carbon footprint by reducing the drive time that Town consumers and others in 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 the Proposed OPROD Legislation would direct architectural improvements to be visually compatible with other permitted uses in the B-RO20 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 introduction of retail use at Chappaqua Crossing as well as mitigating potential 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
Page 25 of 83

steps to ensure the continued commercial use of the Project Site to preserve and enhance the Towns 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 roadways, stormwater management systems and signage, and new off-site improvements. These changes are further detailed in Section IV and V (pages 13-20) of this 2013 Supplemental Findings Statement. The physical changes are depicted on the DSEIS PDCPPreliminary 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 Boards consideration of a PDCP and the Planning Boards 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 Towns 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 Towns 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 Towns commercial tax base as detailed in the CR&EV Project Findings Statement. The Towns 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.

Page 26 of 83

B.

Socioeconomic and Fiscal Conditions

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 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 Actions 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 hamlet 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
Page 27 of 83

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. 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 stores 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, would capture more of the current leakage (of sales) than traditional grocers 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, 5 of which are part of the CR&EV Project and 12 of which are part of the Petition Proposed Action. 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
Page 28 of 83

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. 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 Sites 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 Boards PDCP and the Planning Boards 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.

Page 29 of 83

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, the Petition Proposed Action differs from the CR&EV Project in that it includes a relocation of the existing south entry driveway and provision of a new walkway to be located directly opposite the Horace Greeley High School entry driveway 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 driveway would impact approximately 62% (8,880 square feet) of a Townregulated 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 in Wetland 5. 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 Castles 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 ratio in the range of 2:1 (17,760 SF:8,880 SF) to 3:1 (26,640 SF:8,880SF) for direct wetland impacts and in the range
Page 30 of 83

of 1.5:1 (13,320 SF: 8,880 SF) for wetland buffer impacts. Per the Towns 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 Towns Environmental Coordinator or the Towns Wetlands consultant prior to removal of the invasive species. The Applicant already has analyzed and inventoried certain areas in accordance with the standardized vegetation monitoring protocol (i.e., transects and plots using a random or straitified placement protocol). This That process collected data such as plant percent coverage, density, and height in order to quantify the extent of invasive species versus native species within those areas. The same level of analysis and inventory may be required for other areas in the Project Site. 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 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 Sites 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 Sites 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
Page 31 of 83

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 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 DSEISProposed 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 Towns 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.

Page 32 of 83

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 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 Boards PDCP and the Planning Boards 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 Sites relocated south entry drive(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 Applicants analysis, the average demand for police services due to calls such as larceny at the surrounding shopping centers was 12. This call volume would represent 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.

Page 33 of 83

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 refuse and recycling generated by tenants in the 200 (Cupola) Building and in the reconstructed 100 Building 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 tenants in the other retail space would be stored within enclosed dumpsters or compactors until they are collected. If the space is in a building served by an enclosed loading area, the dumpster or compactor shall be located in that enclosed loading area. If that space is in a building that is not served by an enclosed loading area, the dumpster or compactor shall be enclosed inside the building or in a structure adjacent to the building. The grocery store will be served by an enclosed loading area. The precise location and design of structures enclosing dumpsters or compactors that are not in enclosed loading areas will be included 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 held inside the grocery store or restaurant space or in enclosed 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 north 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 retail use in the 200 (Cupola) Building will be designed in a manner that will retain the buildings 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 grocery store or retail tenant. The west faade
Page 34 of 83

(facing the parkway) and the upper portions of the east faade (facing the interior of the site) would be retained, with modification of the window and door openings in the lower portion of the east faade to reflect the new store(s) 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 floor and architectural character of the adjacent 200 Building. The reconstructed 100 Building would feature new architectural elements that would complement and 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 faade and the new 100 Building would extend the gabled, hipped roof elements along the faade 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 as shown in DSEIS Figure II.B.1-3. 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 DSEISProposed Retail PDCP and associated architectural renovations and provide comments as appropriate. While the modification of the first floor faade 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 faade 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 Boards PDCP and/or the Planning Boards 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
Page 35 of 83

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 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 Boards PDCP and the Planning Boards 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 Actions 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.

Page 36 of 83

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 Boards PDCP and the Planning Boards 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. 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; the use of building system controls and operating strategies designed to minimize consumption of gas and electricity; construction of the new buildings 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 Applicants private property.

Page 37 of 83

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 driveway. 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) 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
Page 38 of 83

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 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 driveway, 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 Towns traffic consultant) believes it may be possible to avoid or further reduce the impacts at these intersections by instituting signal timing refinements. In addition, improvements have been proposed by the Applicant at the intersection of Roaring Brook Road and the Horace Greeley High School driveway. 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 west entry and Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and Whippoorwill
Page 39 of 83

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). The Applicant shall apply to NYSDOT for a permit to install this lane and keep the Town informed of NYSDOTs deliberations and actions on the application. The Applicant has proposed to dedicate land 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 will further evaluate the traffic signal timing plan based on observed volumes after improvements are complete and in use for the weekday peak morning highway hour and submit its evaluation and observations to the Town and NYSDOT for fine tuning of the traffic signal to allow southbound through movement to maintain the LOS during each peak hour similar to the LOS identified in the CR&EV Project to the extent practicable. 2. Roaring Brook Road and Chappaqua Crossing West Entry 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 Towns 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
Page 40 of 83

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 by NYSDOT 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 Applicant will submit the suggested timing changes to NYSDOT, which has authority to approve and implement any timing change. 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. 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 Applicant will submit the suggested timing changes to NYSDOT, which has authority to approve and implement any timing change. 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 Applicant will submit the suggested timing changes to NYSDOT, which has authority to approve and implement any timing change. 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
Page 41 of 83

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 during certain peak hours. The Town requested that the Applicants traffic consultant and the Towns 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, which would be beneficial even if the Petition Proposed Action is not approved or realized, 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; 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 Boards PDCP and the Planning Boards 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
Page 42 of 83

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 tenant(s) in the 200 (Cupola) Building and the reconstructed 100 Building would occur at an enclosed loading area below the reconstructed 100 building via a service drive located at the southern end of the proposed retail parking. Deliveries to the grocery store would occur in an enclosed loading area located beside or behind the store. Deliveries to remaining retail stores would occur in an enclosed loading area located beside or behind the building in which the store is located, or if any store is not served by an enclosed loading area, through the front or back door of that store. 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 expected 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. 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 Projects 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
Page 43 of 83

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 Sites 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. 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

Page 44 of 83

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. 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 200 (Cupola) Building and the reconstructed 100 Building would be within an enclosed loading area below the proposed store. For the free-standing buildings with enclosed loading areas, loading and refuse pickup would be in those enclosed loading areas. For any free-standing building without an enclosed loading area, loading will be through each tenants front or back door in the building, and refuse pickup will be at a dumpster or compactor enclosed inside the building or in a structure adjacent to the building. The grocery store will have an enclosed loading area. All loading areas will be over 700 feet from the nearest residential structures. 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.

Page 45 of 83

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 Towns 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. Crabtrees 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 DistrictOPROD 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. 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 Actions 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 Actions retail development includes utilization of the architectural features of the Project Sites 200 (Cupola) Building and the CR&EV Projects residential structures. The 200 (Cupola) Building is to remain and is proposed to be incorporated into the retail portion of the Project Site.

Page 46 of 83

The Applicant proposes to adaptively reuse the existing 200 (Cupola) Building in keeping with its Georgian architectural style. The west faade of the 200 (Cupola) Building, which faces the Saw Mill River Parkway, and the upper portions of the east faade of the 200 (Cupola) Building (facing the Project Site interior) would be retained. On the east faade, 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 appearance of the adapted building will retain its Georgian style. 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 complement and unify the new structures with the existing 200 (Cupola) Buildings Georgian architectural style. Retail uses proposed by the Petition Proposed Action would also be located in a number of one-story free-standing or connected (located adjacent to one another within the same building) buildings. 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 existing 200 (Cupola) Building while having gables, dormers and hipped roofs, common to both the 200 (Cupola) Building 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. 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 11:00PMand 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
Page 47 of 83

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 200 (Cupola) Building and the reconstructed 100 Building would be within an enclosed loading area below the reconstructed 100 Building. For the free-standing buildings with enclosed loading areas, loading and refuse pickup would be in these enclosed loading areas. For any free-standing building without an enclosed loading area, loading will be through each tenants front or back door in the building, and refuse pickup will be at a dumpster or compactor enclosed inside the building or in a structure adjacent to the building. The grocery store will have an enclosed loading area and its loading and refuse pickup will be in that enclosed loading area. All loading areas will be over 700 feet from the nearest residential structures. 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 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
Page 48 of 83

complement the existing and proposed architectural character, with consideration of the adjoining residential areas. The Town Boards Market Analysis recommended imposing a requirement to include signage or other means of way-finding (e.g., information kiosk) that promote the Towns 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 Towns 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 to 2 year period. The residential component would be constructed over a 2 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 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 30during 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 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 Applicants 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 Boards review and approval of the
Page 49 of 83

PDCP and the Planning Boards 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 Applicants 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. Table 1: Measures for the Minimization or Mitigation of Adverse Environmental Impacts and to Facilitate Implementation of the Petition Proposed Action Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 1. Land Use and Zoning Mitigation/Minimization Measure A B-RO-20 District of approximately 71.9 acres shall be designated on the Project Site with no special tenant restrictions as depicted in Figure C. An MFPD District of approximately 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.

2.

Land Use and Zoning

3.

Land Use and Zoning

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 50 of 83

Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 4. Land Use and Zoning

Mitigation/Minimization Measure 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 subdivided into two lots. The East Village MFPD District shall be further divided into at least 61 lots, and each of the 60 fee simple townhouses in the East Village MFPD District shall be on a separate lot. The B-RO-20 District may be further subdivided between Office Park Retail Overlay DistrictOPROD and the balance of the BRO-20 District. A waiver shall be obtained from the Town Board or 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.

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

Page 51 of 83

Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 10. Land Use and Zoning

Mitigation/Minimization Measure 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 on the Project Site. 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 Towns commercial tax base.

11.

Land Use and Zoning

12.

Land Use and Zoning

13.

Land Use and Zoning

14.

Land Use and Zoning

Page 52 of 83

Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 15. Land Use and Zoning

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Any proposal for approval of a PDCP that would differ from the DSEIS PDCP shall identify each of the differences. The Applicant shall submit an assessment of whether the changes from the DSEIS PDCP to the proposed PDCP would result in any environmental impact that is not addressed or is not adequately addressed in the DSEIS/FSEIS and any additional or different mitigation measure or measures that should be considered by the Town Board or Planning Board in conjunction with the PDCP and/or site plan approval process. 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 be analyzed and assessed and appropriate mitigation implemented as part of the PDCP and/or Site Plan approval processes. The grocer shall be limited in size from 36,000 to 50,000 SF (not including the loading area).

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).

Page 53 of 83

Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 18.

Mitigation/Minimization Measure

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. 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 NYCDEPs Watershed Rules and Regulations.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

Page 54 of 83

Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 25.

Mitigation/Minimization Measure

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. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources Using the soil testing data referenced above and 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 abovereferenced manuals and guidelines. The SWPPP shall include a full explanation as to how Open Space Design criteria from the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual (2010) are incorporated into the Project and how it those criteria 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.

26.

27.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

28.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

Page 55 of 83

Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 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 Towns Environmental Coordinator shall also be implemented.

30.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

31.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

Page 56 of 83

Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 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 Towns 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 Castles 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 s 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 57 of 83

Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 39. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Wetland enhancement to offset wetland impacts shall be accomplished via invasive species removal and supplemental planting approved by the Planning Board acting upon the recommendations of the Towns Environmental Coordinator or Wetlands Consultant using a mitigation ratio in a range between not less than 2:1 and 3:1 for direct wetland impacts and 1.5:1 and 3:1 for buffer 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 Towns Environmental Coordinator or Wetlands Consultant. Additional wildlife surveys shall be performed as appropriate to inform the 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. The Applicant has analyzed and inventoried certain areas in accordance with the standardized vegetation monitoring protocol (i.e., transects and plots using a random or stratified placement protocol). This That process collected data such as plan percent coverage, density, and height in order to quantify the extent of invasive species versus native species within those areas. The same level of analysis and inventory may be required for other areas in the Project Site.

40.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

41.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

Page 58 of 83

Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 42. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

Mitigation/Minimization Measure 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). 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.

43.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

44.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

45.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

Page 59 of 83

Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 46. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

Mitigation/Minimization Measure 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. 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.

47.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

48.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

49.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

50.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

Page 60 of 83

Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 51. 52. 53. Land, Water, and Ecological Resources Land, Water, and Ecological Resources Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

Mitigation/Minimization Measure 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 offsite trail along the sewer trunk line providing bicycle and/or pedestrian access to the Chappaqua Hamlet. 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, including grocery store 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.

54.

Land, Water, and Ecological Resources

55.

Community Facilities and Services

56.

Community Facilities and Services

57.

Community Facilities and Services

Page 61 of 83

Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 58. 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 Chappaqua Fire Department A private solid waste carter shall be used for the uses on the B-RO-20 portion of the Project Site. All grocer loading shall be in an enclosed loading area. All grocer refuse and recycling shall be stored within that enclosed loading area. All loading for tenants in the 200 (Cupola) Building or 100 Building shall be within an enclosed loading area located at the lower level below the main, ground floor of the reconstructed 100 Building. All refuse and recycling from tenants in the 200 (Cupola) Building and the 100 Building shall be stored within that enclosed loading area. Refuse and recycling for all retail uses (except for the grocery use) shall be stored within dumpsters or compactors enclosed inside of a building or a structure adjacent to a building. The location and design of structures enclosing dumpsters or compactors that are not inside at buildings shall be 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 Readers Digest Rotunda Building (200 Building) and the Guest House shall be retained and adaptively reused.

59. 60.

Community Facilities and Services Community Facilities and Services

61.

Community Facilities and Services

62.

Community Facilities and Services

63.

Historic and Archaeological Resources

Page 62 of 83

Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 64. Historic and Archaeological Resources

Mitigation/Minimization Measure 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. 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 Boards PDCP and the Planning Boards 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 to minimize visibility of the proposed Project Site buildings from residential properties and shall be subject to detailed review and approval during the Town Boards PDCP and the Planning Boards site plan approval processes. All loading areas will be over 700 feet from the nearest residential structure. Interior landscaped gardens and supplemental landscape shall be constructed and/or maintained, as proposed and approved through the Town Boards PDCP and the Planning Boards site plan approval processes.

65.

Historic and Archaeological Resources

66.

Historic and Archaeological Resources

67.

Visual Resources

68.

Visual Resources

69.

Visual Resources

Page 63 of 83

Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 70. Visual Resources

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Applicant shall provide visual analyses of any PDCP submitted for approval by the Town Board. Such analyses shall be in form and content equivalent to the visual analyses in the DSEIS and in sufficient detail to identify any environmental impacts and shall be analyzed and assessed and appropriate mitigation implemented as part of the PDCP and/or 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. A Town sanitary sewer district must be formed or extended to include the Project Site prior to the granting of site development plan approval by the Planning Board, and all requirements of the Town Code, the Westchester County Department of Environmental Facilities, and the Westchester County Health Department must be met in that formation or expansion. The extension of the sewer service near the southern entry 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 Applicants private property.

71. 72.

Utilities Utilities

73.

Utilities

74.

Utilities

Page 64 of 83

Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 75. Utilities

Mitigation/Minimization Measure 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 shall meet Town and regulatory construction standards. As proposed by the Applicant and in connection with the proposed sanitary sewer district formation or extension and connection, reasonable off-site sewer improvements to accommodate and offset the projects 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 Towns 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. 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, 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.

76.

Utilities

77.

Utilities

78.

Utilities

79.

Utilities

80.

Utilities

Page 65 of 83

Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 81. Utilities

Mitigation/Minimization Measure In accordance with applicable Town Code requirements, all utility service lines should be underground to all buildings and decorative street lights, and vaults for underground utilities should be installed as part of any sidewalk construction, even if the vaults are not to be used initially. 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 impacts associated with stormwater inflow and infiltration. 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. 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.

82.

Utilities

83.

Utilities

84.

Utilities

85.

Utilities

86.

Utilities

Page 66 of 83

Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 87. Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Applicant shall apply to NYSDOT for a permit to install separate southbound right-turn lane from Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) to Roaring Brook Road and, subject to NYSDOT approval, shall have a permit in place prior to commencement of construction and shall install and have such turn lane operable prior to issuance of any temporary or permanent Certificate of Occupancy for the MFPD project or the Petition Proposed Action, whichever occurs first, and, as proposed by the Applicant, dedicate land from the Project Site along Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) to NYSDOT. Applicant shall apply to NYSDOT for a permit to install a separate northbound left-turn lane from Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and, subject to NYSDOT approval, shall have a permit in place prior to commencement of construction and shall install and have such turn lane operable prior to issuance of any temporary or permanent Certificate of Occupancy for the MFPD 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 driveway shall be reviewed and approved as part of the Planning Boards site plan approval process.

88.

Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

89.

Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

90.

Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

91.

Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

Page 67 of 83

Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 92. Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

Mitigation/Minimization Measure The intersection of Chappaqua Crossings east entry 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. Optimization of signal timing at the intersection of the Saw Mill River Parkway and Roaring Brook Road shall be pursued with NYSDOT by the Applicant and the Town. 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 Applicant and the Town. 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 Applicant and the Town. If approved by the NYSDOT, these timing changes shall be implemented as part of the PDCP and site plan approval processes. The south entry 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 Sites relocated southern access driveway as part of the Town Board PDCP and the Planning Board site plan review processes.

93.

Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

94.

Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

95.

Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

96.

Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

97.

Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

Page 68 of 83

Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 98. Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Applicants leases and signage shall require Tenants delivery vehicles arriving from the Saw Mill River Parkway, to enter and exit the Project Site through the west entry at Roaring Brook Road and all other delivery trucks to enter and exit the Project Site through the east entry at Bedford Road (NYS Route 117). Deliveries are expected to be spread throughout the day, and no loading or unloading shall be allowed before 5:00 AM. 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

103. Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

104. Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

Page 69 of 83

Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 105. Traffic, Transportation, and Parking

Mitigation/Minimization Measure At or prior to making application to NYSDOT for Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) roadway and intersection improvement permit(s), Applicant also shall ask NYSDOT to examine, consider, and discuss with Applicant and the Town: (i) implementation of traffic controls and other improvements at the intersection of Chappaqua Crossings 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 Cowdin Lane for the purpose of facilitating through traffic on Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and ingress and egress to and from Chappaqua Crossings East Access Driveway to and from Annandale Road, and to and from Cowdin Lane.

106. 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 70 of 83

Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 107. 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. The design of any new buildings shall be complementary to the Georgian-style architecture of the 200 (Cupola) 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 shall 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 200 (Cupola) Building and the reconstructed 100 Building. 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.

108. Community Character

109. Community Character

110. Community Character

111. Community Character 112. Construction

113. Construction

Page 71 of 83

Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 114. 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.

115. Construction

116. Construction

117. Construction

118. Construction

Page 72 of 83

Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 119. Construction

Mitigation/Minimization Measure Construction employees shall be issued temporary access control cards to allow them to enter the Project Site through the existing 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.

120. Construction 121. Construction

122. Construction

123. Construction

Page 73 of 83

Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 124. 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 construction exposure shall exceed five (5) acres unless prior written authorization is obtained from the Town MS4 consistent with NYC DEP and Town Code requirements, 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

125. Construction

126. Construction

Page 74 of 83

Primary Environmental Impact Area 4 127. 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.

128. Construction

129. Construction

130. Construction 131. Construction 132. Construction 133. Construction

VIII. Significant Adverse Impacts This Supplemental Findings Statement 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 (Proposed Action and Implementing Legislation) 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 75 of 83

The Petition Proposed Action Proposed Action and Implementing Legislation 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 Proposed Action and Implementing Legislation 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 driveway, 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 Towns 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 driveway. A description of the significant impacts and potential mitigation measures associated with each of the eight intersections is discussed in Section VI.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 Proposed Action and Implementing Legislation. 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 driveway, 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
Page 76 of 83

(2) that consistent with social, economic, and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives available, the Proposed Action and Implementing Legislation Petition Proposed Action is one that avoids or 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 77 of 83

X.

Figures

Page 78 of 83

Intentionally Left Blank

Page 79 of 83

Intentionally Left Blank

Page 80 of 83

Intentionally Left Blank

Page 81 of 83

Intentionally Left Blank

Page 82 of 83

XI. Appendix A- 2011 Findings Statement

Page 83 of 83