FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT€¦ · Letter dated July 29, 2008 Appendix Q Evans Associates...

FINALENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

RESIDENCES AT MILL COURT CROSSING Lexington Avenue and Mill Court

TOWN OF CORTLANDT, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORKTax Map Number: Section 13.18, Block 2, Lot 2

Project Applicant: KIRQUEL DEVELOPMENT LTD.3489 Lexington Avenue, Mohegan Lake, NY 10547

Attention: Michael Sheber(914) 528-1261

Lead Agency: TOWN OF CORTLANDT PLANNING BOARDTown Hall, 1 Heady Street, Cortlandt Manor, NY 10566-1249

Attention: Steven Kessler, Chairman(914) 734-1080

Lead Agency Acceptance Date: February 2, 2010

Public Hearing on FEIS: March 2, 2010

January 14, 2010Previously submitted December 22, 2009, November 12, 2009, August 5, 2009, October 16, 2008

PROJECT CONSULTANTSFor

RESIDENCES AT MILL COURT CROSSING FEIS

Project Engineer CRONIN ENGINEERING, PE, PC

2 John Walsh Boulevard, Peekskill, NY 10566Contact: Timothy L. Cronin, III, PE (914) 736-3664

Traffic EngineerTRC RAYMOND KEYES ASSOCIATES

7 Skyline Drive, Hawthorne, NY 10532-2119Contact: Brian Dempsey, PE (914) 592-4040

PlannerTIM MILLER ASSOCIATES, INC.

10 North Street, Cold Spring, NY 10516Contact: Frederick Wells (845) 265-4400

Biological AssessmentEVANS ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.

205 Amity Road, Bethany, CT 06524Contact: Beth Evans (203) 393-0690

HydrogeologyEP & S OF VERMONT, INC.

40 Hamilton LaneGlenmont, NY 12077

Contact: Philip N. Holloway (518) 465-4000

Cultural Resource Consultant: CITY / SCAPE: CULTURAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS

166 Hillair Circle, White Plains, NY 10601Contact: Gail Guillet (914) 328-3032

Legal CounselLYNCH & HETMAN, PLLC

111 State Street, First Floor, Albany, New York 12207Contact: Peter A. Lynch, Esq. (518) 463-1252

RESIDENCES AT MILL COURT CROSSINGFinal Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents Page

1.0 Summary and Revised Project Description 1-1

2.0 Project Description Comments and Responses 2-1

3.1 Geology, Soils and Topography Comments and Responses 3.1-1

3.2 Water Resources Comments and Responses 3.2-1

3.3 Air Resources Comments and Responses 3.3-1

3.4 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Comments and Responses 3.4-1

3.5 Traffic Comments and Responses 3.5-1

3.6 Land Use and Zoning Comments and Responses 3.6-1

3.7 Community Services Comments and Responses 3.7-1

3.8 Socioeconomics Comments and Responses 3.8-1

3.9 Cultural Resources Comments and Responses 3.9-1

4.0 Alternatives Comments and Responses 4-1

i

Appendices

Appendix A Chas. H. Sells. Inc. Report dated March 24, 2008Appendix B Public Hearing Transcripts and Planning Board MinutesAppendix C Written Comments Received on the DEISAppendix D Biological Assessment ReportAppendix E Filed Subdivision Map of Red Mill CrossingAppendix F Figure From Cortlandt TMSPAppendix G Holloway ReportAppendix H Albedo ArticleAppendix I Residential Demographic DataAppendix J Cultural Resources Reports (supersedes DEIS Appendix J)Appendix K Comparative SF Home Sales DataAppendix L 2008 Fiscal AnalysisAppendix M TRC Memo dated July 19, 2007Appendix N TRC Letter dated July 19, 2007Appendix O TRC Memo dated November 27, 2007Appendix P Chas. H. Sells. Inc. Letter dated July 29, 2008Appendix Q Evans Associates Memo dated June 27, 2008Appendix R TRC Memo dated September, 21, 2007 Appendix S New York State OPRHP Letter dated November 26, 2007Appendix T TRC Trip Generation Comparison TableAppendix U Correspondence With Lakeland CSDAppendix V Emails Regarding Sewer MitigationAppendix W Letters Regarding Fire AccessAppendix X TRC Memo dated December, 21, 2009Appendix Y Map of Existing Bus Stop LocationsAppendix Z Evans Associates Letters dated Nov. 11 & Dec. 17, 2009

List of Tables Page Table 1-1 Changes in Surface Cover - FEIS Plan 1-4Table 1-2 Changes in Surface Cover - FEIS Alternate Plan 1-4Table 1-3 Comparison of Areas of Disturbance by Cover Type 1-5Table 1-4 Comparison of Areas of Disturbance by Slopes 1-5Table 1-5 Design Point 2 - 22 Lot Plans 1-6Table 1-5A Design Point 3 - 22 Lot Plans 1-6Table 1-5B Design Point 1 - 22 Lot Plans 1-6Table 1-6 Wetland / Buffer Disturbance Comparison 1-6Table 1-7 Wetland / Buffer Disturbance Comparison - Evans Report 1-7Table 1-8 Tree Removals 1-8Table 1-9 Revenue & Cost Summary 1-11

Residences at Mill Court Crossing FEIS

ii

List of FiguresEnd of Section

Figure 1-1 Revised Subdivision Plan 1.0 Figure 1-1ALT Alternative Subdivision Layout 1.0Figure 1-2 Revised Subdivision Plan with Steep Slopes, Wetland & Buffer 1.0 Figure 1-2ALT Alternative Subdivision with Steep Slopes, Wetland & Buffer 1.0Figure 1-3 Emergency Access Gate Detail 1.0Figure 2 Cortlandt Colony Impacts 1.0Figure 3 Pre-Development Drainage 1.0Figure 4 Post-Development Drainage 1.0Figure 5 Lot 17/18 Post-Development Drainage Divides 1.0


iii

List of Drawings (Total 19 drawings)

Alternative Stone Wall PlanLP-2ALTAlternative Landscape PlanLP-1ALT

Stone Wall PlanLP-2Preliminary Landscape PlanLP-1Ladder Truck Access PlanFD-6.1

Tree Survey PlanTS-5.1DetailsUD-4.2DetailsUD-4.1

Profiles - Alternative LayoutPR-3.1ALTProfiles PR-3.1

Erosion Control PlanER-2.1Alternative Grading Plan 1.3 - (50' scale)SP-1.3ALTGrading and Utility Plan 1.3 - (50' scale)SP-1.3Alternative Grading Plan 1.2 - (50' scale)SP-1.2ALTGrading and Utility Plan 1.2 - (50' scale)SP-1.2

Alternative Site Layout - (100' scale)SP-1.1ALTSite Layout - (100' scale)SP-1.1

Existing Conditions Plan - (100' scale)SP-1.0Cover SheetCS

TitleDrawing Number


iv

Residences at Mill Court Crossing FEIS January 14, 2010

1-1

1.0 Summary and Revised Project Description Introduction and SEQRA Background This document is a Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") prepared in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and it’s implementing regulations, 6NYCRR Part 617. The FEIS consists of this volume, including appendices, and accompanying maps, and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS"), which is hereby incorporated by reference into this FEIS. The SEQRA documents have been prepared in support of the application of Kirquel Development LTD., (the "Applicant") to develop a realty subdivision on 52.76 acres of land, now proposed as 22 lots, including a 22.8 acre open space lot; and 6.58 acres of open space protected by conservation easements, known as the “Residences at Mill Court Crossing". The project is located on Lexington Avenue and Mill Court in the Town of Cortlandt, Westchester County, New York. Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-1ALT at the end of this section depicts two alternative subdivision layouts. The lead agency for this action is the Town of Cortlandt Planning Board. SEQRA prescribes that the lead agency is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the FEIS. At the end of the SEQRA process the Planning Board will adopt a Findings Statement. The Applicant is requesting preliminary subdivision approval based on the findings of the lead agency that result from the SEQRA process. Subsequent to preliminary approval, a fully detailed set of site development drawings will be provided to the permitting agencies for review. For final approval, all conditions of the preliminary approval must be satisfied. Other approvals that are necessary for the development of this subdivision plan are identified in the DEIS. The applicant prepared the DEIS for this application based on a written DEIS Scope accepted by the lead agency on November 1, 2005. The lead agency reviewed the DEIS for adequacy with respect to its scope and content for the purpose of public review, and issued a Notice of Completion and Public Hearing on the DEIS on May 1, 2007. The lead agency held a public hearing on the DEIS, beginning June 5, 2007, and adjourned to July 10, September 5, and October 2, 2007, at which time the hearing was closed. The lead agency received written comments during the public comment period, which extended for an additional ten (10) days following the close of the public hearing. As required by SEQRA, public and agency comments received by the lead agency on the DEIS, together with responses to all substantive comments, are provided in this FEIS in comment/response format. Generally, the comments have been summarized or paraphrased to clarify their context, and some responses for comments that have been previously addressed in this document may refer to the prior response.


1-2

A set of preliminary site plan drawings for each alternative accompanies this document, as revised in response to comments received on the DEIS submission. The plan revisions are outlined below. (See Figures 1-2 and 1-2 ALT for illustration of the project’s environmentally sensitive areas.) This FEIS document includes information that expands upon DEIS studies in support of conclusions made in that document, including further biological study at the site (Appendix D), further archaeological investigations (Appendix J) and various background data and reports. FEIS appendices contain various correspondences relating to this matter, as further referenced in the FEIS narratives. Transcripts of the public hearing are included in their entirety in FEIS Appendix B. Complete copies of all written comments received by the lead agency are included in FEIS Appendix C. This FEIS and its attachments have been prepared by the Applicant based on input and guidance provided by the Cortlandt Planning Board, town staff and its advisors, with the assistance of Cronin Engineering, PE, PC (project engineer); TRC Engineers, Inc. (traffic engineering); Tim Miller Associates, Inc.; Evans Associates Environmental Consulting, Inc. (biological assessment); OP-TECH Environmental Services, Inc. (hydrogeology); CityScape Cultural Resource Consultants; and Peter Lynch, Esq. 1.1 Revised Description of Proposed Action The project site covers 52.76 acres; of which, 31.57 acres are environmentally sensitive. These areas include: 11.08 acres of regulated steep slopes; 8.56 acres of wetland; and 11.93 acres of wetland buffer (these areas due to the topography may overlap). Applicant’s FEIS proposals (ALT will be used for comparison) preserves, i.e. does not disturb, 100% of the wetlands, 94% of the wetland buffer, and 88% of steep slopes. In fact, wetlands are expanded by .19 acres (see Tables 1-4 and 1-6 below). Therefore, taking into consideration the Applicant’s objectives, current economic conditions, and the social makeup of surrounding neighborhoods; Applicant’s FEIS ALT proposal has avoided or mitigated, to an extent which is feasible, negative environmental impacts. Both of the Applicant’s revised proposals subdivide the Residences at Mill Court Crossing site into 22 lots. Eighteen (18) lots will be improved by the construction of market rate four bed room single family homes; 3 lots will have 2-3 bedroom affordable housing; and, Lot #22 will be deeded to the Town for open space. Of the 21 improved lots, 16 will ingress and egress through Mill Court; and 5 will use Lexington Avenue. All of the lots off of Mill Court have a buffer protected by a conservation easement; and, eight lots numbered 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, 20, and 21 have additional areas safe guarded by conservation easements. The revised plans have reduced the proposed road width from 30 feet to a 24-foot wide road to conform to the existing Mill


1-3

Court road width. The FEIS Alternative Plan (the ALT) has been prepared to address comments made relating to the access road from Mill Court. The ALT Plan shifts the entrance to the project’s loop road to the North/West; thus eliminating any impact on Town regulated Wetland B. Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-1ALT set forth the revised subdivision layouts. Mill Court exists as a public road ending in a temporary turnaround. There is only one access to the houses along Mill Court; and that is from Red Mill Road. The length of Mill Court presently exceeds 500 feet. Applicant’s proposed extension of Mill Court connects to its circular loop road after traveling less than 500 feet. In order to satisfy concerns relating to access for emergency vehicles into the Project’s site as well as the existing Mill Court, Applicant has obtained from Wild Birch Farms an easement to permit emergency vehicles to traverse their private roads. The access easement is shown on Figures 1-1 and 1-1 ALT. A gate design for that access as requested by the Fire District Chief in shown in Figure 1-3. The driveway entrance to Lots 17 & 18 off of Lexington Avenue is located over 350 feet from the nearest road intersection. In September of 2007 TRC, Applicant’s traffic consultant, performed a sight distance analysis for the proposed driveway. The study concluded that there is sufficient sight distance for all five sight lines at the intersection (TRC memo included in the FEIS as Appendix R). Further, TRC has taken a second look at the safety issues of the driveway’s location; and has opined in part as follows: a) The two houses will not generate significant traffic; b) The majority of this traffic would come from/to Route 6 and will not significantly impact Strawberry Road; c) The site driveway will operate at Level of Service A; d) The driveway is located approximately 350 feet from Strawberry Road and thus will have no safety impact on Strawberry Road; and, e) Significantly more than the minimum sight distance is provided in all 5 sightlines. TRC concludes: the two lots will not generate significant traffic, the driveway is sufficient distance from Strawberry Road, and sufficient sight distance is provided. (Complete TRC December 21, 2009 Memo set forth in this FEIS as Appendix X). It also should be noted that E & K, the Town's consultant, concluded that the traffic from the two lots will not have a significant impact on the adjacent roadway network. (See DEIS at Appendix M) The waste disposal system has been bifurcated. The 16 houses off of Mill Court will be connected to the proposed Mill Court Sewer District. The houses with access from Lexington Avenue will use septic systems. Also, the elimination of lots 20, 21, and 22 from the original 27 lot proposal does away with the need for a pump station. It is noted that Applicant has engineered, at the request of the Town, the Proposed MacArthur Boulevard Sewer District. However, as of this date the Town has taken no action on this proposal. In the event that the Town proceeds with the creation of the MacArthur Sewer District, Applicant would participate; and, the five houses of off of Lexington Avenue would be sewered.


1-4

The revised proposal has an overall density of .40 units per acre. Current zoning and the Comprehensive Master Plan density is one unit for every acre (see RESPONSE to COMMENT 2-6 for further discussion on density). The revised proposal is materially less dense than all of the surrounding subdivisions. For example, the houses currently existing on Mill Court have a density of one unit for every 1.16 acres. (See RESPONSE to COMMENT 2-6.) 1.2 Comparative Summary of Potential Impacts of the Revised Subdivision Plan The following summary compares the 27 improved lot proposal set forth in the DEIS to the 21 improved lot revised proposal and the ALT described herein. (Lot #22 will be left unimproved and will be deeded to the Town). Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy The revised project’s density, approximately one house per two and one half acres, is a much more conservative use of the land than envisioned by current zoning, Comprehensive Master Plan and Sustainable Development Study (See RESPONSE to COMMENT 2-6); and, is less than the one house per two acre density of the DEIS proposal. The revised project creates 29.38 acres of open space consisting of a 22.8 acre lot to be deeded to the Town; and conservation easements totaling 6.58 acres. The open spaces comprise more than 55% of the Applicant’s parcel. The allocation of land to open spaces far exceeds the public policy set forth in the Comprehensive Master Plan. The revised plans adheres to the goals in Patterns of Westchester by: utilizing existing central water and sewer lines, creating 29 acres of protected open space, locating the development where local transportation is available, and; having a density of less than one house per two and half acres (see pages 1-16, 1-17, 3.6-8 and 3.6-9 of the DEIS for more details). Soils and Topography The reduction of building sites from 27 to 21 will materially reduce impacts on land and steep slopes. A comparison of the changes in surface cover types between the DEIS proposals and FEIS proposals is provided in Table 1-1 and Table 1-2 below. A comparison of areas of disturbance by cover type among the DEIS, FEIS, and FEIS ALT is provided in Table 1-3 below; and, a comparison of steep slope impacts is set forth in Table 1-4 below.


1-5

Table 1-1: Changes in Surface Cover – FEIS Plan (acres)

27 Lot Plan (DEIS) 22 Lot Plan (FEIS) Cover Type Existing

Disturbed Post Development Disturbed Post

Development Meadow 0.12 0 0.12 0 0.12 Woods 41.66 16.47 25.19 12.26 29.40 Wetland/ Water 8.56 0.03 8.72 0.03 8.53 Impervious 0.29 0.29 4.71 0.29 3.50 Lawn & Landscape 2.13 0.57 14.02 1.14 11.21 Total 52.76 17.36 52.76 13.72 52.76 Prepared 7-15-09 by Cronin Engineering Table 1-2: Changes in Surface Cover – FEIS Alternate Plan (acres)

27 Lot Plan (DEIS) 22 Lot Plan (FEIS-Alt) Cover Type Existing

Disturbed Post Development Disturbed Post

Development Meadow 0.12 0 0.12 0 0.12 Woods 41.66 16.47 25.19 12.16 29.49 Wetland/ Water 8.56 0.03 8.72 0.00 8.56 Impervious 0.29 0.29 4.71 0.29 3.47 Lawn & Landscape 2.13 0.57 14.02 1.14 11.12 Total 52.76 17.36 52.76 13.59 52.76 Prepared 7-15-09 by Cronin Engineering Table 1-3: Comparison of Areas of Disturbance by Cover Type (acres) Cover Type 27 Lot Plan

(DEIS) 22 Lot Plan (FEIS)

22 Lot Plan (FEIS-Alt)

Meadow 0 0 0 Woods 16.47 12.26 12.16 Wetland/Water 0.03 0.03 0.00 Impervious 0.29 0.29 0.29 Lawn & Landscape 0.57 1.14 1.14 Total 17.36 13.72 13.59 Prepared 7-15-09 by Cronin Engineering


1-6

Table 1-4: Comparison of Areas of Disturbance by Slopes (acres)

Slope 27 Lot Plan (DEIS)

22 Lot Plan (FEIS)


Less than 15% 14.37 12.06 12.16 15% - 20% 1.51 0.81 0.78 20% - 30% 1.18 0.64 0.45 30% and steeper 0.30 0.21 0.20 Total Site Disturbance 17.36 13.72 13.59 Prepared 7-15-09 by Cronin Engineering The aforenoted tables reveal that the revised proposal limits overall disturbance (including grading); reduced to 26% of the site:

[13.72 ac. overall disturbance / 52.76 ac. total site = 26.0%]; and by using the ALT to 25.8%:

[13.59 ac. overall disturbance / 52.76 ac. total site = 25.8%). Regulated steep slopes disturbance is reduced to 15.0%:

[Regulated disturbance = 0.81 + 0.64 + 0.21 = 1.66 ac; Regulated slopes from pg 1-2 = 11.08 ac;

(1.66 ac regulated disturbance / 11.08 ac regulated slopes) = 15.0%]; and by using the ALT to 12.9%:

[Regulated disturbance = 0.78 + 0.45 + 0.20 = 1.43 ac; Regulated slopes from pg 1-2 = 11.08 ac;

(1.43 ac regulated disturbance / 11.08 ac regulated slopes) = 12.9%]. Compared to the original 27 lot proposal the revised proposal reduces overall disturbance by 21%:

[27 lot layout total disturbance = 17.36 acres; Revised proposal, 22 lot layout disturbance = 13.72 acres;

(17.36 ac –13.72 ac) / 17.36 ac = 21.0%] Impervious surface addition is reduced by over 25%;

[27 lot layout total impervious = 4.71 acres; Revised proposal, 22 lot layout impervious = 3.50 acres;

(4.71 ac –3.50 ac) / 4.71 ac = 25.7%] and comprises about 6.6% of the project site:

[Revised proposal, 22 lot layout impervious = 3.50 acres; Project site = 52.76 acres;

(3.50 ac / 52.76 ac) = 6.6%] Comprehensive Plan proposed limit is 50% (see DEIS at page 2-7). Surface and Ground Water Resources In the existing condition, stormwater is conveyed toward Red Mill Road from both the northern end of the site (across from Strawberry Road) and the western end of the site (by Amherst Road


1-7

and north of this location) uphill from Mountain View Road. The construction of the project will increase the imperviousness of the site which will reduce stormwater infiltration into the ground. The drainage areas toward Red Mill Road will be reduced though site regrading and installation of storm drain systems, which will reduce stormwater flows in this direction. At the northern end of the site, the drainage basin through the site (including diversion of some offsite area) will be reduced from 4.0 to 2.1 acres. (See Table 1.5A.) This will provide for peak flowrate and overall volume reductions of stormwater runoff toward Red Mill Road in all of the analyzed storms. Along the western end of the site, the drainage basin from the site will be reduced from 11.8 to 8.8 acres resulting in a three acre reduction in the watershed area draining to the west. (See Table 1.5.) With this reduction in drainage area, the peak rate of runoff is reduced for all of the analyzed storms and the overall volume of runoff in this direction either remains the same or is reduced. Since the runoff is over private property before the stormwater reaches Red Mill Road, the reductions will help to improve any adverse drainage issues that may exist in these areas. The increases in impervious coverage will also act to reduce groundwater infiltration, and therefore flow, towards these offsite areas. Table 1-5, 1-5A and 1-5B below illustrate the diminished flows in design points 1, 2 and 3. See also Figures 3 and 4 set forth at the end of section 1 and see Figure 5 for the details of drainage solution on lots 17 & 18. The DEIS Stormwater Management Plan, which focused on the original 27 lot proposal, was reviewed by the Town’s engineering consultant; and was found to comply with Town, County and New York State requirements (see RESPONSE to COMMENT 3.1-3). Since the revised proposal reduces proposed density and impervious surfaces, Applicant’s DEIS Stormwater Plan requires no significant revisions. Table 1-5: Design Point 2 to Northwest / Mountain View Road 22 Lot Plans - Runoff Calculations Pre-development area = 11.8 acres – Post-development area = 8.8 acres

Runoff Rate Runoff Volume

Pre-dev. (cfs)

Post-dev. (cfs)

Pre-dev. (acre-feet)

Post-dev. (acre-feet)

1 year storm 0.5 0.5 0.145 0.145 10 year storm 6.7 6.2 1.009 0.890 100 year storm 20.9 17.0 2.509 2.099 Prepared 12-22-09 by Cronin Engineering


1-8

Table 1-5A: Design Point 3 to North / Red Mill Road 22 Lot Plans - Runoff Calculations Pre-development area = 4.0 acres – Post-development area = 2.1 acres

Runoff Rate Runoff Volume

Pre-dev. (cfs)

Post-dev. (cfs)

Pre-dev. (acre-feet)

Post-dev. (acre-feet)

1 year storm 2.0 1.4 0.213 0.140 10 year storm 7.6 4.6 0.697 0.422 100 year storm 15.0 8.8 1.365 0.799 Prepared 12-22-09 by Cronin Engineering Table 1-5B: Design Point 1 – 22 Lot Plans - Runoff Calculations

Pre-development (cfs)

Post-development (cfs)

1 year storm 14.0 13.9 10 year storm 67.1 62.6 100 year storm 146.0 137.6 Prepared 7-15-09 by Cronin Engineering As noted at DEIS page 2-14, a drainage district will be established to facilitate continued maintenance of the stormwater facilities that are located within the road right-of-way and easements in this project. Wetlands and Wetland Buffers Applicant’s revised proposal reduces impacts on Town and New York State delineated wetlands by over 20%. When the import of the Evans report is factored in, the reduction in impacts is about 80%. The ALT proposal eliminates the impact on Town regulated Wetland B; and, further reduces impacts on the buffers by about 28%:

[Revised proposal, 22 lot layout buffer impacts = 1.27 acres; ALT proposal buffer impacts = 0.91 acres;

(1.27 ac – 0.91 ac) / 1.27 ac = 28.3%] Thus, if the ALT proposal is selected overall disturbances to wetlands and wetland buffers is cut almost in half (from the DEIS proposal).


1-9

Table 1-6: Wetland / Buffer Disturbance Comparison (acres)

27 Lot Plan (DEIS)

22 Lot Plan (FEIS)


Wetland 0.03 0.03 0.00 Buffer 1.66 1.27 0.91 Prepared 7-15-09 by Cronin Engineering Table 1-7: Wetland / Buffer Disturbance Comparison – Evans Report (acres) 22 Lot layout 27 Lot layout Wetlands 0.00 0.00 Buffer 0.37 0.78

Moreover, at page 4 of the Evans report, she determined,

“While the subject property as a whole does not provide interconnection to other properties with high conservation value, the protection of the central wetland and the surrounding uplands within the Open Space Parcel does provide protection to the most biologically sensitive portions of the site. In addition, protection of the most sensitive portions of Lots 12, 13, 19, 20 and 21 through implementation of 2.45 acre conservation easements will further buffer the wetlands and steeply sloped portions of the property from the proposed residential development.”

It should be noted that subsequent to the Evans report the area protected by conservation easements has been expanded to 6.58 acres. It is the Applicant’s position that the revised plans, which reduces the number of building lots and increases the areas protected from growth, creates a reasonable balance of development and preservation. The limits of disturbance on lot 17 are 130 feet from wetland A; and, the construction of the residence and its garage are sited at a distance of 170 feet. Applicant will consider creating a conservation easement from the edge of Wetland A to lot 17’s limits of disturbance (see Figures 1-2 and 1-2ALT). Specimen and Protected Trees Table 1-8 below lists the disposition of the existing surveyed trees by species related to the current proposed plan and the ALT. In total, the current plan or the ALT would necessitate removal of one large tree (a 48” Tulip tree located on proposed Lot 20) as compared with 5 trees 36” and greater in the DEIS plan. Thus the revised proposal would preserve 80% of the large trees scheduled for removal in the prior plan. These preserved trees along with the plantings proposed would result in minimal tree disturbance. The ALT plan reduces disturbances to treed areas by .13 acres; thus, further limiting tree removal.


1-10

Measures to protect the trees that will remain, in particular the trees at the edges of the limits of disturbance, will be addressed in a Tree Protection Plan as a condition of approval. Table 1-8: Tree Removals (Updates DEIS Table 3.4-4)

Species Existing Count Removals

12” dbh and greater

12” dbh 13”- 35” dbh 36”+ dbh

Ash 23 0 4 0 Ailanthus 5 2 0 0 Beech 1 1 0 0 Black Birch 256 51 33 0 Cedar 1 0 0 0 Elm 8 0 0 0 Hickory 118 11 11 0 Locust 17 8 3 0 Maple 134 17 21 0 Oak 947 111 232 0 Pine 2 0 1 0 Poplar 14 1 7 0 Sassafras 1 0 0 0 Silver birch 1 0 0 0 Tulip 81 0 5 1 (48”) Wild Cherry 18 7 4 0 Totals – FEIS Plan 1,627 209 343 1 Totals – FEIS ALT 1,627 207 320 1 Note: The tree survey map includes 82 trees located near the property line on adjacent properties at Lexington Avenue; these are not tabulated here.

Traffic The DEIS proposal, of 22 homes using Mill Court and 5 homes using Lexington Avenue, generated a total of 28 A.M trips and 33 P.M. trips. The revised plans of 21 homes, 16 of which will use Mill Court reduce trip generations by 6 in the A.M.; and, by 8 in the P.M. Applicant’s DEIS traffic study trip generation has been reviewed by the Town’s traffic consultant; and, found to be if anything conservative. Based on the traffic generation data, The DEIS plan was deemed to have minimal negative impacts on traffic. Since the revised plans reduce trips by over 25% the original determination by the Town’s consultant is materially enhanced (for more details see RESPONSE to COMMENTS 3.5-7 and 3.5-10.


1-11

Air Resources The DEIS 27 lot layout and the revised 21 proposed homes’ traffic generation will not result in any significant impacts on air quality (DEIS pages 3.3-1 to 3.3-9; and RESPONSE to COMMENT 3.3-1). The reduction of 6 homes will further reduce emissions from that of the DEIS plan. Community Facilities and Services Police Protection The DEIS 27 house plan would potentially require an increase in police staffing by less than a quarter of a person (See DEIS at page 3.7-2). Applicant’s revised 21 house plan and the ALT reduce the projected increase in population from 98 to 75 persons (using Rutgers University, Center for Urban Policy Research Residential Demographic Multipliers set forth in the Appendix I). Thus, any required increase is reduced by about 23%; and would be more than mitigated by the tax revenue accruing to Westchester County and the Town of Cortlandt (see discussion of Socioeconomics below). Education The DEIS 27-lot house plan projects that an additional 23 students would attend public schools. Applicant’s revised 21-house plan and the ALT reduce the increase from 23 to 16 students (see RESPONSE to COMMENT 3.7-3). The Rutgers Study distributes the school age children into grades as follows: K-2 (multiplier is .31); 3-6 (.38); 7-9 (.23); and, 10-12 (.14); total is 1.05 students. Therefore, it is clear that the revised 21 house layout and the ALT will have no impact on school staff and facilities. (See DEIS discussion at page 3.7-4, 5.) It is also noted that Westchester-Putnam School Boards Association Facts and Figures 2006-2007 (relevant pages set forth in the Appendix I) states that Lakeland School District has 30,000 residents; 6,406 or 21% attend public school. The Applicant’s 21-house proposal and the ALT will increase residents by 75; thus, 21% or 16 would attend public school. This computation supports Applicant’s calculation that 16 new public school students will be residents at Mill Court Crossing and will not significantly affect school district facilities. Further, Applicant contends that its development, in fact, will not add any additional students to the school population. Applicant’s position is based on the statement made by Kenneth J. Connolly, Superintendent of Schools for the Lakeland School District. Superintendent Connolly, in his letter dated March 14, 2006 (DEIS Appendix B), stated that: “For general classes , grades 1-12, the number of students both entering and leaving have remained fairly consistent over the last five years”.


1-12

Fire Protection The DEIS plan of 27 houses would not require an increase in fire protection staff (see DEIS at page 3.7-5). The revised plan and the ALT reduce the houses to 21; and, therefore would further reduce demand for any additional staff. Public Water, Sewer, Solid Waste The revised proposal and the ALT, which reduce homes from 27 to 21, decrease water usage from 9,500 gallons per day to 7,400 gallons per day. With the elimination of the pump station, improvements to the central portion of the site, and usage by the five proposed residences along Lexington Avenue of individual sewage disposal systems, water associated with sewer use will be reduced to 5,600 gallons per day. Extension of existing water main will be reduced from 3,850 to 2,900 linear feet; and the added fire hydrants will decrease by three. Sewer line construction is to be reduced from 5,010 linear feet to 3,314 linear feet. Curbside garbage stops will be reduced from 27 to 21; and solid waste generation from 104 tons per year to 80 tons per year. Hospitals, Health Care, Ambulance Services and Social Services The reduction of persons from 98 (as in the DEIS) to 75, as in the revised proposal and the ALT, would not require any significant emergency services staff increase (see DEIS, at page 3.7-9). If minimal staff increases are required, the costs would be more than offset by additional tax revenues generated through property taxes (see Socioeconomics discussion below). Utilities The reduced plans for 21 homes would further reduce demand for utility services from the DEIS plan. No significant adverse effects on utilities are projected. Recreation Facilities The reduced plans would further reduce demand for Town recreation facilities and services from the DEIS plan. The current proposed plan and the ALT also provides significant open space on Lot 22.


1-13

Socioeconomics Using applicable demographic multipliers,1 the total projected population of the 21 homes in the current proposal and the ALT are 75 (18 x the multiplier 3.67 for four bedroom single family detached and 3 x the multiplier 2.95 for three bedroom single family detached). The projected population of school-age children attending public school in the current proposal and the ALT are 21 (18 x the multiplier 1.05 per household and 3 x the multiplier 0.58). This number is reduced by the private school factor applicable to the Lakeland school district2 -- 11% or 2). To reflect 3 students housed in the existing 3 unit apartment building, the net additional public school enrollment to be generated from Applicant’s project is 16 students distributed over all grade levels. The DEIS fiscal analysis was rerun (included in FEIS Appendix L) to reflect the revised project of 21 units, including 18 market rate and 3 affordable units. All rates and data were updated to the latest available information including the Town 2008 tax rates and the 2008-2009 Lakeland School information. The updated analysis concludes that, for $900,000 selling price, there would be surplus revenues of $63,960 to the Town and $55,614 to the school district. With a 10% reduction in selling price to $810,000, there would be surplus revenues of $56,632 to the Town and $26,223 to the school district. The following table summarizes the projected differences between the current proposed plans (either the proposal or the ALT) and the DEIS plan.

1 Rutgers University, Center for Urban Policy Research Residential Demographics Multipliers (June 2006). Refer to relevant pages set forth in the Appendix I. 2 Facts and Figures 2006-2007, Westchester County-Putnam School Boards Association. Refer to relevant pages set forth in the Appendix I.

Table 1-9: Revenue & Cost Summary

Jurisdiction Projected Taxes ($) Projected Costs ($) Surplus/Deficit

Current Proposed Plan - $900,000 Selling Price Town of Cortlandt $76,335 ($12,375) $63,960 Lakeland Schools $306,158 ($250,544) $55,614 Current Proposed Plan - $810,000 Selling Price Town of Cortlandt $69,007 ($12,375) $56,632 Lakeland Schools $276,767 ($250,544) $26,223 DEIS Plan Town of Cortlandt $64,373 ($14,700) $49,673 Lakeland Schools $419,172 ($312,432) $106,740 Source: Tim Miller Associates, Inc., 2008, and DEIS 2006.


1-14

Cultural Resources Phase 1B Archaeological Field Reconnaissance Survey has been completed and reviewed by New York State. The determination made was that Applicant’s project will have no impact on historical properties. (See RESPONSE to COMMENT 3.9-1 for further details.) The afore noted survey tested the area of the DEIS 27-lot proposal; and, because the revised proposals reduces the number of lots to 21 home sites, within the same area as the DEIS proposal, no further action is required. Alternatives Applicant’s revised proposal does not change or modify any of the Cluster alternatives discussed in the DEIS. However, it is noted that as of this date the Town Board has not authorized the Planning Board, even though requested by the Applicant, to consider any cluster alternatives.


2-1

2.0 Project Description Comments and Responses1

COMMENT 2-1 (OLD 2-2): Westchester County Planning Board Letter of July 9, 2007 - there is no proposal to establish easements or restrictions to protect sensitive areas; Bob Foley, PB member, on July 10, 2007 also asked about open space. Alison Olsen, mentions on September 5 and on October 2, 2007 reads a petition of "people that live in the area" (Mountain View Road - 4th appearance), who wants the property to be considered "open space". Similar comments were found in the testimony of Jeffery Winer on June 6, 2007 and letter from Rudy Guidarelli, dated June 2, 2007, para. 3. Also reiterated in item 5 of Petition attached to October 12, 2007 letter signed by Alison Olsen.

RESPONSE 2-1: Applicant is proposing two subdivision layouts set forth in Figures 1-1 and 1-1ALT. Both proposals result in a reduction of building lots from 27 to 21; and, establish an open space lot of 22.8 acres. With the addition of land protected by conservation easements the building lots, roads and other infrastructures will take up 17.06 acres; or less than 33% of the site. The open space area preserves the biodiversity of the site and allows the continuation of the natural dispersal corridor (See Evans Report) while also allowing Applicant to achieve a reasoned use of its property.

COMMENT 2-2 (OLD 2-3): Cortlandt Watch letter read into hearing minutes on October 2, 2007 - Project will be detrimental to the Town because it destroys erosion control, stormwater management, and climate stability; and will worsen an already difficult traffic situation. This property is so important that we urge the Town to preserve by purchase. We also urge the Planning Board to defer consideration until purchase option has been explored.

PB member, Mr. Bernard, on November 7, 2007 suggested that the Applicant consider proposing a sale to the Town based on a dollar value of a 16 lot subdivision. Ed Vergano the Town’s Technical Director, also on November 7, 2007, stated that the Town is interested in purchasing the property; and, the Town Board has authorized an appraisal. Similar comments were found in the September 5, 2007 testimony of Ms. Olson and Alice [Alison Olsen]. Similar comment by Bob Foley on September 5, 2007 (pg 55).

RESPONSE 2-2: Applicant negotiated a possible sale to the Town during 2008. No agreement was concluded.

COMMENT 2-3 (OLD 2-5): Testimony of Colleen Ruiz (Cortlandt Colony Home Owners Association) at June 5, 2007 hearing - she expressed concern about the structural integrity of their swimming pool [note the pool encroaches on Applicant’s property line]. Also, closeness of the proposed homes’ back yards to their property. She also claims that the proposed emergency

1 Due to the reorganization of the FEIS during review, the comments have been renumbered, with the numbers of the original FEIS shown in parenthesis to assist in review. All responses have been renumbered accordingly.


2-2

access road runs right behind their ball field. Testimony of Sherry Kaplan (Cortlandt Colony) June 5, 2007 - she also questioned the integrity of pool (construction and drainage), what will property look like after development, and impact on privacy? In addition, Ms. Ruiz and Ms. Kaplan requested some assurance that the drainage from the Applicant’s project will not affect their pool and that the project drainage itself will not go into the pool.

RESPONSE 2-3: The structural integrity of the Cortlandt Colony Pool will not be imperiled by construction activities associated with the Applicant’s proposed subdivision. The closest ground disturbance is over 100 feet from the pool; and, based on deep test borings no blasting is contemplated on the lots contiguous to Cortlandt Colony property.

A 30 foot aesthetic buffer, in the form of a conservation easement, will create a private environment for users of the pool. Also, no disturbances are to take place within 80 feet of the pool; and no structure will be built closer than 105 feet (see Figure 2 at the end of Section 2).

The Cortlandt Colony pool deck area has an elevation of 473.4 feet, which is higher than the majority of the Applicant’s project site. The area denoted as “lot 10", the only area that is higher, has an existing and proposed grading slope away from the Cortlandt Colony property (see drawing SP-1.2 “Grading and Utility Plan” and SP-1.2ALT “Alternative Grading Plan” set forth in the FEIS). Therefore, stormwater drainage from the project site will not have an effect on the Cortlandt Colony pool.

COMMENT 2-4 (OLD 2-6): June 5, 2007 testimony of Ms. Nicole Curreri (lives on Trolley Road) - will emergency access road be gated? June 5, 2007 testimony of Mrs. Chardulo (4 Mill Court) does not want the emergency access road to become a speed way.

RESPONSE 2-4: A 30-foot wide utility and emergency access easement is proposed to be provided from Amherst Road. This proposed easement is also shown on the revised site development and subdivision plan. The Emergency access route will be secured by a gate or other devise as directed by the Town (see DEIS page 2-6). No unfettered access to the route will be permitted.

To prevent unauthorized access to the emergency entrance from Amherst Road, after discussions with the Fire Chief of the Lake Mohegan Fire District, Applicant proposes to secure ingress and egress by constructing gates comprised of two fixed bollards 12 feet apart connected by a locked chain. The locking mechanism will be able to be cut by standard bolt cutters. (See Letters from Applicant and Lake Mohegan Fire District set forth in Appendix W; and drawings SP1.1 and SP1.1ALT.) Gate details are shown on Figures 1-1, 1-1ALT, 1-2, 1-2ALT and 1-3.

COMMENT 2-5 (OLD 2-7): Testimony of Ms. Nicole Curreri on June 5, 2007 (resident of Trolley Road) has the City of Peekskill been advised of the Application, particularly with respect to their watershed?


2-3

RESPONSE 2-5: The DEIS, at page 1-31 lists the City of Peekskill (Planning) as an Interested Party and received a copy of the document. No comments on the DEIS were received from the City of Peekskill.

COMMENT 2-6 (OLD 2-8): June 5, testimony of Nicole Curreri (resident of Trolley Road) she wants fewer than 27 houses. Testimony of Mr. Daily (139 Red Mill Road), also on June 5, he, too wants less houses, less people. “You really cannot sustain this much development here” PB member Loretta Taylor, on July 10, 2007, stated she does not want 27 houses; number of houses is a major issue. Also, testimony of Frank Creolo (8 Mill Court) on June 5and June 10, 2007; “If not (second access) then reduce number of houses.”

RESPONSE 2-6: The E & K report (DEIS appendix M) opined on the “sustainability” of Applicant’s 27 lot conventional subdivision layout set forth in the DEIS. It is noted that E & K is the primary consultant in the preparation of the Sustainable Development Study (SDS) for the Towns of Yorktown, Cortlandt; and, the City of Peekskill. This study was instrumental in the finalization of Cortlandt’s revised Comprehensive Plan.

The E & K Report, on page 1, states that the Applicant’s proposed density is one half of the allowable density as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. On page 13 the E & K Report concludes: “The proposed subdivision of the property into single-family lots of 1 acre or greater as proposed in the DEIS is clearly the use and density envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code.” In fact the SDS recommended this site to be converted to a higher density (E & K Report, page 13). Applicant’s revised site plans reduce the number of market rate conventional lots from 24 to 18. Thus, the contemplated density will be less than one third as permitted by the Comprehensive Plan and current zoning. Also, under the revised plans access through Mill Court will be reduced from 22 homes to 16 homes. The 12 houses currently situated on Mill Court result from the subdivision of 14 acres of land (with density of 1.16 acres per lot).

COMMENT 2-7 (OLD 2-9): June 5, 2007 testimony of Joanne Creolo (8 Mill Court) - she is concerned about the quality of life that we now enjoy on Mill Court. Ted Trotter (7 Mill Court) on June 5, 2007 also wants his “life style” and cul de sac to be preserved. PB member Loretta Taylor, on July 10, 2007 stated” residents...their quality of life, in some ways, unimpeded by other people’s desire to build a development and make money.”

RESPONSE 2-7: The Mill Court subdivision was approved by the Planning Board on June 28, 1989. The approval contemplates an extension of Mill Court through Applicant’s property to the South. No cul de sac was established at the end of Mill Court; instead Mill Court ends in a Town temporary turnaround (see DEIS at page 2-5; and filed Subdivision Map attached in the Appendix E).

Applicant’s contemplated revised proposals are consistent with, and in fact, will enhance the life style for all the residents of Mill Court, new as well as old. Life-style (defined in A Dictionary of


2-4

Sociology, Dec. 1998, author Gordon Marshall) in its most common and general usage, conceptualizes alternative ways of living, usually conspicuous through values and modes of consumption.2 Examples follow: The creation of the Mill Court Sewer District will permit the current residents on Mill Court to convert from septic systems to sewers. It is generally believed that houses with sewers will command, in the open market, prices of 5% to 10% over similar houses with septic systems. Also, the extension of Mill Court into a loop road will now require the Lakeland district school buses to traverse Mill Court; thus, eliminating the need to drive students to the intersection of Red Mill Road and Mill Court (see memo and letter from TRC in Appendix N and O, respectively). The extended loop road configuration will eliminate the turnaround and permit more maneuverability for Town snow plowing, garbage removal and emergency equipment. Further, the Applicant’s subdivision will produce lot and house values exceeding the current values along Mill Court; and, should increase the existing homes market values. All of the examples above would increase economic levels and adjust habits for the betterment of the individual homeowners; and, the community as a whole. Last, allowing Applicant to achieve a reasonable use of his property is not only a recognition of property rights, but also comports with the intent of SEQRA to give appropriate weight to economic considerations (see 6NYCRR 617.1(d)).

COMMENT 2-8 (OLD 2-13): PB Chairman Steven Kessler, on July 10, 2007 expressed his concern about “flag lots”.

RESPONSE 2-8: Applicant’s revised proposals eliminate “flag lots”.

COMMENT 2-9 (OLD 2-18): PB member Susan Todd, on September 5, 2007, states she would like to see lots 4 & 5 (revised 22 lot plan) eliminated. Similar comment by Bob Foley on September 5, 2007 (pg. 51).

RESPONSE 2-9: Applicant’s revised proposals have materially reduced the environmental impacts, if any, resulting from construction on lots 5 & 6; by, among other things eliminating one lot from the original group of 5, 6 and 7. The reconfiguration and consolidation of 5, 6, and 7 into lots 5 and 6 reduces the impacts on steep slopes from 0.67 acres to 0.24 acres, or 64%. Adjustments to the limits of disturbance on lot 4 reduce lot 4 steep slope impacts from 0.11 acres to 0.09 acres. Therefore, there is no reasonable basis for prohibiting building in these locations. Also see 1st paragraph of Response 3.1-1.

COMMENT 2-10 (OLD 3-21): June 5, 2007 testimony Ted Trotter (7 Mill Court) - he is concerned about our “18th century stone walls”.

2 Life-style (defined in A Dictionary Of Sociology, Dec 1998, author Gordon Marshall) in its most common and general usage, conceptualizes alternative ways of living, usually conspicuous through values and modes of consumption, which are attendant upon the increasing differentiation of advanced capitalist societies. In the Random House 2006 Unabridged Dictionary, life-style is defined as the habits, attitudes, tastes; moral standards, economic level, etc. that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group.


2-5

RESPONSE 2-10: DEIS sections 3.6 and 3.9 describe the project proposal as it relates to preservation of stone walls on the property. Where disturbed, stone walls will be relocated on lots for use as low retaining walls, tree wells, and lot boundary markers where feasible (DEIS page 3.9-8). In addition, the revised plans include the relocation of the low stone walls to mark the edges of proposed conservation easements on lots. The disposition of stone walls in the current plans is shown in the Stone Wall Plan and Stone Wall Plan ALT that accompany this FEIS. The current proposed plans necessitate the removal of approximately 1,821 linear feet of existing stone walls. Stones from these walls are proposed to be stockpiled and reused to construct approximately 1,689 linear feet of new stone walls. The ALT plan shows the removal of approximately 1,701 linear feet of existing stone walls and approximately 1,653 linear feet of new stone walls. COMMENT 2-11 (OLD 3-24): C. John Potts October 2, 2007 letter and testimony from the October 2, 2007 hearing -he is concerned about impact of construction on existing water mains.

RESPONSE 2-11: The existing water mains within Mill Court have been in place for many years sustaining loads from heavy equipment such as garbage and oil trucks. Proposed construction traffic will not exceed current loads and cannot be expected to damage these mains. The connection to the existing main will be performed under the supervision of the Town. The existing water mains are also located over 400 feet from any anticipated potential blasting, providing more than adequate buffer space from such activities. The construction of the new water main will also reduce the possibility of stagnation within the existing water main in Mill Court by providing potable water flows beyond the end of the existing water main, thereby providing a potential improvement to water quality at the end of Mill Court.

COMMENT 2-12: Mr. Priolo, at the October 2, 2007 Public Hearing, (pg. 28, lines 9-24) and pg. 34, lines 3-10), Mr. Giacinto (pg. 28, lines 9-24) - each requested information about the bonding requirements to “cover potential issues that will develop afterward”. Mr. Priolo also requested a bond to address potential future water issues (pg. 34, lines 1-2) and a bond and pre-inspection of all houses if there is to be blasting (pg.34, lines 3-9).

RESPONSE 2-12: To insure that the construction of the projects improvements; such as, roads and sewer lines, comply with the approved plans and specifications, the Applicant will be required to post a performance bond. The amount of the bond is greater than the estimated costs of completion. The Town will not release the bond until all work has been completed to the Town’s satisfaction.

Once the project improvements have been completed the performance bond will be released and a maintenance bond will be posted. The maintenance bond, whose value will approximate 10% to 20% of the performance bond, will be posted for at least a year; and will cover any required modifications and/or repairs.

In addition, there is also the requirement to provide an erosion control bond. This bond provides an additional level of protection against issues relating to stormwater. The Town will specify


2-6

that prior to project completion, all tributary areas need to be stabilized and all erosion control measures shall be cleaned. In the event that blasting is required, the contractor must provide adequate liability insurance and a pre-blast survey of existing structures.

COMMENT 2-13: Mr. Bianchi, at the November 7, 2007 Public Hearing, questioned the practicality and net benefits of zero energy homes.

RESPONSE 2-13: Due to current economic conditions Applicant will not be offering IEH energy free homes as an option. DEIS references to IEH homes, set forth on DEIS pages 1-2, 2-3, 3.7-11 and 7-1 are hereby deleted. It is noted that no credit is taken in the DEIS with regard to reduced impacts for reduced energy usage.

COMMENT 2-14: Mr. Fischer, at the October 2, 2007 Public Hearing asked whether the houses will have oil tanks.

RESPONSE 2-14: Applicant’s project does not specify the type of heating mechanisms to be utilized by the proposed residences. However, in the event that oil heat is the selected method, the required oil tanks will be installed in accordance with current building codes.


3.1-1

3.0 EXISTING SETTING, POTENTIAL IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION

3.1 Geology, Soils and Topography Comments and Responses

COMMENT 3.1-1 (OLD 2-14). PB Chairman Kessler, on September 5, 2007 questioned the location of the common driveway for lots 5 & 6 (revised 22 lot plan). Suggests it be pushed to the South to limit impact on slopes over 20%.

RESPONSE 3.1-1: The location of the common drive way that provides access to lots 5 and 6 has been modified. The new configuration avoids impacts on 20% and over slopes. (See drawing FD 6.1 accompanying this FEIS).

COMMENT 3.1-2 (OLD 2-17): PB member Loretta Taylor on September 5, 2007 asked why we need to disturb steep slopes and build on lots 17 & 18 (revised 22 lot plan)? Bob Foley, PB member on September 5, 2007 (pg. 42-43) also took issue with building on lots 17 & 18 (revised 22 lot plan) because of drainage issues and steep slopes. PB members Susan Todd, Mr. Bernard and Mr. Kline on September 5, 2007, took issue of building on lots 17 & 18 (revised 22 lot plan) because of the steep slopes. A similar comment was stated by PB Kline on October 7, 2007. Similar comment by Bob Foley on September 5, 2007 (pg. 52) and Mr. Bernard on November 7, 2007, (pg. 50).

RESPONSE 3.1-2: Applicant’s subject parcel is divided into two distinct market rate development areas (the ALT layout is being utilized for this response -- see drawing SP1.1ALT). Due to the bifurcation of the proposed subdivision by a large New York State and Town regulated wetland and buffer, there must be two access points, Lexington Avenue and Mill Court.

The first location, comprised of 16 lots on 19.5 acres, is accessed by the continuation of the public road, Mill Court. The second location (lots consisting of two 2.5 acre lots (lots 17 & 18), is reached from Lexington Avenue by use of a common driveway. Each of these entrances necessitates some disturbance of steep slopes. The Mill Court extension will intrude on 0.07 acres of Steep Slopes (see DEIS Table 3.1-4 at page 3.1-12); and, the gateway from Lexington Avenue, 0.29 acres. Due to the location of the site’s wetlands and other more significant Steep Slope areas, no other alternative routes into Applicant’s property are feasible.

The combined market rate areas cover 24.53 acres of land; of which, 20% or almost 5 acres are contained on lots 17 and 18. The conversion of lots 17 & 18 to open space would reduce Applicant’s market rate lot count to 16 and the use of its property to less than 38% (19.53/52.76). The Sustainable Development Study, Town’s Revised Master Plan and Zoning Code all contemplate a much more liberal use of one’s property. Examples follow: The Sustainable


3.1-2

Development Study recommended a 50% reduction in current density rules for most of Cortlandt. However, Applicant’s site is not included in the reduction area. Instead the subject parcel is envisioned for use as a Hamlet with increased density (see E & K Report in the DEIS, Appendix M at page 13). The zoning Code permits a density of 34 lots (see DEIS at page 1.1). The Master Plan limits impervious surfaces to 50%; Applicant’s proposal contains only 3.47 acres or 6.6% (3.74/52.76) of the subject parcel.

In May, 1998, Applicant acquired the subject parcel for development purposes. After the expiration of the Town’s development Moratorium, Applicant filed its subdivision application in May, 2004. From 1998 until sale of the approved subdivision is concluded (Applicant estimates a sale date on or about December 2010), Applicant will have incurred significant development costs which might exceed the return it receives from the sale of the proposed 18 market rate homes. Thus, by reducing Applicant’s project to 16 lots (i.e. eliminating 17 & 18), Applicant would be deprived of realizing a reasoned economic return on his investment. In addition, the Applicant, in its revised proposals has reduced its market rate lots from 24 to 18. The lots eliminated in these proposals contain the largest and most attractive building sites. Fair market value of these lots would exceed $1,800,000 (value based on house prices starting at $900,000).

The unavoidable disturbances in the steep slope areas will be performed with appropriate stabilization measures that will minimize any erosion and/or sedimentation. All work will be subject to inspection by the Town’s environmental monitor and/or appropriate Town Department; and all construction activities will comply with Local Law 3 of 2003, Section 259; the Steep Slope Ordinance as follows: Specifically, the common driveway for lots 17 and 18 has been designed to minimize steep slope impacts while providing access to the site. The driveway, based on Town requirements for a common driveway, will be 18' wide with a minimum 2' shoulder for its entire length. The geometry shown will allow access of all required emergency vehicles. The common driveway is to serve two parcels which will reduce slope impacts. The driveway has been located to minimize site grading while providing an access to the site. The driveway location follows the natural grades to the greatest extent practicable while minimizing site grading. The maximum centerline fill required is 3' and the maximum centerline cut is 4' to create the driveway. Where necessary, retaining walls will be provided to keep land and steep slope disturbances to the minimum required to provide access to the site. No grades are proposed in excess of 1 vertical to 2 horizontal which is considered stable in earth. Where retaining walls are used, they will be designed as permanent structures.

It is also noted that the Lake Mohegan Fire District reviewed the ingress and egress to the building sites and concluded that “their concerns were satisfied” (see letters relating to this issue at Appendix W).


3.1-3

It is manifest that SEQRA seeks a balanced approach to development. In order to create this balance, Applicant contends that equal weight must be afforded to economic factors, as well as environmental and social factors.

Applicant also proffers that due to the high development and SEQRA review costs of this project, and the fact that a modest disturbance of areas with steep slopes over 30% is necessary to access the site from both Lexington Avenue and Mill Court, compelling and exceptional reasons exist for the issuance of a steep slope permit. In fine, but for the issuance of the permit, Applicant would not have any economically reasonable use of the site.

COMMENT 3.1-3 (OLD 3-1): Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) letter of August 18, 2007 provides that the Permit for Steep Slopes should be denied because: Common driveway for lots 26 & 27 will most likely create a condition of excessive runoff into a major wetland; and slope disturbance on lots 3-8 may result in increased runoff onto Mountain View, Red Mill and possibly Trolley Roads. Similar comments were stated by PB member Kline on October 7, 2007, and by Mr. Bernard at the November 7, 2007 meeting (pg. 50). RESPONSE 3.1-3: Applicant’s revised proposals have redesigned the common driveway to lots 17 & 18 (formally lots 26 & 27) and have reduced the steep slope impacts. Similarly, the lots on the northwest corner of the Applicant’s revised proposals (formerly lots 3-8) have been reduced by one lot; and the driveways have been reconfigured to minimize steep slope impacts. Overall, Applicant’s revised proposals reduce steep slope impacts from 2.99 acres to 1.66 acres; or by, 45%. The ALT further reduces steep slope impacts to 1.43 acres; a reduction (from the DEIS) of more than 52%. (See DEIS Table 3.14 at page 3.1-12 and Table 1-4 of this FEIS.) All construction activities shall comply with local law 3 of 2003, section 259, Steep Slope ordinance. It is also noted that the Lake Mohegan Fire District reviewed the ingress and egress to the building sites and concluded that “their concerns were satisfied” (see letters relating to this issue at Appendix W).

In the existing condition, stormwater is conveyed toward Red Mill Road from both the northern end of the site (across from Strawberry Road) and the western end of the site (by Amherst Road and north of this location) uphill from Mountain View Road. The construction of the project will increase the imperviousness of the site which will reduce stormwater infiltration into the ground. The drainage areas toward Red Mill Road will be reduced though site regrading and installation of storm drain systems, which will reduce stormwater flows in this direction. At the northern end of the site, the drainage basin through the site (including diversion of some offsite area) will be reduced from 4.0 to 2.1 acres (See Table 1.5A.) This will provide for peak flowrate and overall volume reductions of stormwater runoff toward Red Mill Road in all of the analyzed storms.


3.1-4

Along the western end of the site, the drainage basin from the site will be reduced from 11.8 to 8.8 acres resulting in a three acre reduction in the watershed area draining to the west. (See Table 1.5) With this reduction in drainage area, the peak rate of runoff is reduced for all of the analyzed storms and the overall volume of runoff in this direction either remains the same or is reduced. Since the runoff is over private property before the stormwater reaches Red Mill Road, the reductions will help to improve any adverse drainage issues that may exist in these areas. The increases in impervious coverage will also act to reduce groundwater infiltration, and therefore flow, towards these offsite areas. (See Tables 1-5, 1-5A, and 1-5B at Section 1.2 and Figures 3, 4, and 5 set forth in Section 1 of this FEIS.)

Applicant, due to the expression of concern about stormwater by current residents, requested the Town to reengage WSP-SELLS (the Town’s engineering consultant, referred herein as Sells) to opine on Applicant’s Stormwater Management Plan. On March 24, 2008 Sells issued its report (based on Applicant’s original 27 lot proposal) which concluded as follows:

1. The proposed facilities - drywell (or if needed infiltration chambers or swales) and detention basin - reduce the post construction peak runoff rates in all design storms. Based on the analysis, there should be no impacts from the surface runoff of stormwater.

2. We have also reviewed the proposed stormwater quality treatment and have found the Applicant has addressed these requirements satisfactorily.

3. The Applicant has prepared preliminary erosion and sediment control plans. We find that they are satisfactory for the DEIS. Final site plans should contain a project phasing plan the follows the phases proposed in the DEIS.

4. In conclusion. Our main concern is groundwater in the area; and the effect of constructing the detention basin. Based on this concern we feel a ground water specialist, hydrogeologist should study ground water conditions at the site and evaluate whether the proposed development will result in negative impacts.

To address the concerns of Sells, Applicant engaged Op-Tech Environmental Services, Inc. The hydrogeologist who performed the analysis is Philip N. Holloway. (The full Holloway report is contained in the Appendix G.) The Holloway report, in part, concluded as follows:

1. Given that the northern-most edge of the proposed detention basin is located on the south side of the drainage divide at a distance of 100 feet, any disturbance of the existing topography that increases the surface gradient (i.e. construction of the detention basin to proposed elevations), will also increase the gradient of the groundwater flow. Increasing the ground water gradient on the south side of the


3.1-5

drainage divide will increase the flow velocity of the groundwater in a direction away from the property at 10 Mill Court and other properties on the north side of the drainage divide.

2. The detention basin construction will impact the groundwater flow regime by

increasing the water table gradient and flow in a south to southeast direction only. Even in the event of an extraordinary high (shallow) water table in the vicinity of or up gradient of the proposed detention basin, the proposed surface elevation change will increase flow toward the south and southwest only (see attached drawing). Applicant’s revised 22 lot proposal further increases the reduction in stormwater discharge from pre-development rates. As an example; the rates in the northwest quadrant, design point 2, are reduced by 10% (see Table 1-5 of the FEIS Section 1.2). Other design points, except off of Lexington Avenue, will have more substantial reductions.

Sells reviewed the Holloway Report; and, on July 29, 2008 reported to the Town that: “Based on the conclusions reached by OP-Tech, we have no further comments on this phase of the project’s review”. [Complete Sells letter set forth in the Appendix P.] COMMENT 3.1-4 (OLD 3-2): PB members, Bob Foley and Loretta Taylor, on July 10, 2007 stated concerns about blasting. Mr. Orlando Giacinto (15 Mountain View Road) also expressed, on October 15, 2007, concerns about blasting. Similar comment by Ms. Olsen on October 2, 2007 (pg. 11) and Mr. Giacinto (pg. 27, line 1-7).

RESPONSE 3.1-4: On August 23, 2006 soil boring testing was performed on the site fifteen test holes were dug with depths ranging from 5 to 8 feet. After analysis, it has been concluded that it is unlikely that any significant blasting will be required. However, there is one 75 by 25 foot outcrop in the area of the loop road that may require removal using blasting. The ALT moves the access road to the North/West; and, avoids the potential blasting area described in the DEIS. A field survey, conducted on July 10, 2009 studied the redesigned path of the loop road. The Applicant and its contractor observed outcroppings of rocks that contained substantial veins. Based on this study, it is feasible that the loop road can be constructed by using a large machine with a hammer. Any blasting that may be required will be performed in accordance with all applicable New York State (NYS) and local laws and regulations by a blasting contractor licensed in NYS. A blasting protocol has been provided on pages 3.1-14 and 3.1-15 of the DEIS. Said protocol details the requirements and procedures necessary for any blasting.

COMMENT 3.1-5 (OLD 3-6). Cortlandt Watch October 2, 2007 letter and the testimony of Ms. McConnell on behalf of Cortlandt Watch at October 2, 2007 Public Hearing expressed

Residences at Mill Court Crossing FEIS August 3, 2009

3.1-6

concern about drainage problems and soil erosion caused by the removal of trees. Similar comment by Ms. Olsen on October 2, 2007 (pg. 11).

RESPONSE 3.1-5: Erosion and sedimentation control measures are outlined in Applicant’s SWPPP; and, include provisions to minimize site disturbance and erosion during construction, as well as stabilizing vegetation immediately following construction (see drawing ER-2.1 denoted as “Erosion Control Plan” included in the FEIS). Any runoff due to tree removal will be controlled by the proposed stormwater facilities; namely, the detention basin to slowly release and infiltrate stormwater and the individual drywells that will provide additional storage and infiltration.

The revised proposal would preserve 80% of the large trees scheduled for removal in the DEIS plan. These preserved trees along with the plantings proposed would result in minimal tree disturbance. (See discussion under Specimen and Protected Trees in Section 1.2 of this document.) The ALT plan reduces disturbances to treed areas by .13 acres; thus, further limiting tree removal.

Sells, Town’s engineering consultant and, Holloway, have each opined that Applicant’s proposal (reviewed as the original 27 lot proposal) has no adverse impacts on drainage; the reduction in lots from 27 to 21 will further reduce impacts on drainage (see Response 3.1-3 and the Sells and Holloway Reports). Applicant’s revised proposals have significantly reduced post-development runoff (see Tables 1.5, 1.5A, and 1.5B at Section 1.2; and, Figures 3, 4, and 5 set forth after Section 1 of this FEIS.

COMMENT 3.1-6: Planning Board member, Mr. Bernard, at the September 5, 2007 Public Hearing requested information on soil types and commented on information in the DEIS that conflicts with itself.

RESPONSE 3.1-6: The soil maps utilized in the main body of the DEIS in Figure 3.1-4 and in Figure 2 of the SWPPP (See Appendix C of the DEIS) are both based on the 1994 edition of the USDA SCS “Soil Survey of Putnam and Westchester Counties, New York”. The hydrologic information taken from these maps is customarily accepted in the preparation of stormwater prevention design.

COMMENT 3.1-7: At the October 2, 2007 Public Hearing Mr. Fischer asked about soil stabilization and phasing during construction.

RESPONSE 3.1-7:.The NYSDEC General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities (GP-0-08-001) requires construction phasing limiting disturbances, in each phase, to no more than five acres. Applicant’s phasing plan complies with the NYS rules; and is set forth in the Stormwater Prevention Plan provided in Appendix C of the DEIS.


3.2-1

3.2 Water Resources Comments and Responses

COMMENT 3.2-1 (OLD 2-4): Letter of John Potts dated October 2, 2007 expressed that we are not trying to stop development; however, think that Board approved growth centers should not skirt laws protecting wetlands or add to and worsen existing problems.

RESPONSE 3.2-1: Applicant’s revised proposed subdivision layout has no impacts on the major State regulated wetland A and its buffer. In fact, by reducing the Lots to 22, and establishing Lot 22 as an open space/preserve area, Applicant has preserved the integrity of the onsite wetland, and achieved a SEQRA balance of environmental concerns, with economic and social concerns. The minimal disturbance to the area at the end of Mill Court designated as Town regulated wetland “B” and its buffer has been reviewed by Evans Associates. The Evans Report, at page 3, states that the functional area, if any, of the wetland is far removed from the entrance of the access road into the site. Applicant’s ALT proposal adjusts the access road; and, eliminates any impacts on Town regulated Wetland “B”. Any disturbance of wetlands or wetland buffer’s will comply with Section 179 of the Town Code.

COMMENT 3.2-2 (OLD 2-15): PB member Mr. Bianchi on September 5, 2007 asked Applicant to look at the possibility of having the access road from Mill Court make a sharp right hand turn to limit impact on wetlands or wetland buffer. Mr. Bianchi asked about the distance to the wetlands and why the road alignment cannot be modified.

RESPONSE 3.2-2: As a result of the comments received from the Planning Board, the proposed access road has been reconfigured to avoid the existing wetlands on the project site. Refer to the ALT (Figure 1-1ALT) that illustrates the realigned access road. The reconfigured access road is now moved to the North/ West; thus, avoiding any disturbance to Town regulated wetland B and a material part of its buffer (see Table 1.6 in Section 1.2).

COMMENT 3.2-3 (OLD 3-3): Rudy Guidarelli (243 Red Mill Road) letter of June 2, 2007 - states that heavy rains cause surface water from proposed development on to my property. John Potts (38 Trolley Road) letter of October 2, 2007, also raised runoff concerns, noting that he has a septic system and is concerned. June 5, 2007 testimony of Richard Gansfuss (6 Mill Court) - states that the project will put my septic in peril, and that lots of septic would be in trouble. He noted that vegetation which absorbs water is to be cut down. His system is not failing now; but leach fields get saturated with rain. September 5, 2007 testimony (pg. 36) of Alison Olsen. John Potts (38 Trolley Road), on October 2, 2007 voiced the same concerns. As did Donald Kanfield (155 Red Mill Road) on October 2, 2007. Similar comment by Ms. Olsen on June 5, 2007 (pg. 47 & 48).

RESPONSE 3.2-3: Applicant, with the assistance of the Town, will bring sewer services to the residences along Mill Court and some portion of Red Mill Road. Residents will have the option of converting from septic to sewers.


3.2-2

In the existing condition, stormwater is conveyed toward Red Mill Road from both the northern end of the site (across from Strawberry Road) and the western end of the site (by Amherst Road and north of this location) uphill from Mountain View Road. The construction of the project will increase the imperviousness of the site which will reduce stormwater infiltration into the ground. The drainage areas toward Red Mill Road will be reduced though site regrading and installation of storm drain systems, which will reduce stormwater flows in this direction. At the northern end of the site, the drainage basin through the site (including diversion of some offsite area) will be reduced from 4.0 to 2.1 acres. (See Table 1.5A.) This will provide for peak flowrate and overall volume reductions of stormwater runoff toward Red Mill Road in all of the analyzed storms. Along the western end of the site, the drainage basin from the site will be reduced from 11.8 to 8.8 acres resulting in a three acre reduction in the watershed area draining to the west. (See Table 1.5.) With this reduction in drainage area, the peak rate of runoff is reduced for all of the analyzed storms and the overall volume of runoff in this direction either remains the same or is reduced. Since the runoff is over private property before the stormwater reaches Red Mill Road, the reductions will help to improve any adverse drainage issues that may exist in these areas. The increases in impervious coverage will also act to reduce groundwater infiltration, and therefore flow, towards these offsite areas.

Applicant’s SWPPP has been developed in accordance with NYSDEC requirements. Among other things, Applicant will construct a detention basin; and, ten of the steeper individual lots will also have from one to five drywells. Sells, the Town’s engineering consultant, in its March 24, 2008 report (summary of Report is set forth in Response 3.1-3) supported the Applicant’s position by opining that the project as proposed in the DEIS, will reduce post construction runoff. The FEIS revised proposal and the ALT further reduce post construction runoff (see Tables 1.5, 1.5A and 1.5B in Section 1.2).

COMMENT 3.2-4 (OLD 3-4): Westchester County Planning Board letter of July 9, 2007 - Natural wetlands and their buffers should not be utilized for stormwater treatment. PB member John Bernard, on July 10, 2007 stated he had the same concerns.

RESPONSE 3.2-4: Applicant’s proposed detention basin is not situated in a wetland. Adverse impacts from construction, if any, would be limited to a small portion of the buffer of Town regulated wetland B. (See RESPONSE 3.2-1 and the Evans report; also see grading drawing identified as SP 1.2: SP1.2 ALT and the erosion control drawing designated as ER 2.1; see Table 1.5B).

COMMENT 3.2-5 (OLD 3-5): CAC letter of August 18, 2007 provides it seems inadvisable to rely upon the current 10, 25, 50, and 100 year storm models. Also see comments relating to Steep Slopes in section 3.1 Wetlands disturbance permit should be denied because: “Turning” wetland B into a stormwater catch basin is unacceptable even though existing function is similar; proximity of lots 14-16 and 20-22 to the wetland buffer is undesirable. It is likely that pesticides and fertilizers would leach into the wetlands. PB member Bob Foley, On July 10, 2007 says


3.2-3

detention ponds do not work. A similar comment was made in the November 7, 2007 statement of PB member Bianchi. Similar comment by Mr. Chardulo on June 5, 2007 (pg. 57), Mr. Priolo on October 2, 2007 (pg. 28) and Mr. Bianchi on November 7, 2007 (pg. 48 & 49).

RESPONSE 3.2-5: Applicant’s proposed location of its detention basin is not within any wetland. In fact, the construction of the basin will increase groundwater flows away from the Town regulated wetland B. (See RESPONSE 3.1-3, and the Holloway report; also see grading drawing identified as SP 1.2; SP 1.2ALT; and the erosion control drawing designated as ER 2.1; also see Table 1.5B.) Design details and specifications in the State’s Design manual are based on research and experiences of NYSDEC and provide proven technologies for stormwater designs.

Applicant’s revised proposals have eliminated lots 20-22; and, have consolidated lots 14-16 into lots 12 and 13. The Town Regulated Wetland B has been further protected by establishing a conservation easement on lot 13. No construction activity will occur in the wetland B, its buffer; or the area protected by the conservation easement.

The use of 1, 10, and 100 year rainfall events for sizing stormwater systems is described in chapter 2 of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual. Detention ponds designed and constructed in accordance with NYS requirements are accepted by the NYSDEC as an effective method to control stormwater runoff.

COMMENT 3.2-6 (OLD 3-7): June 5, 2007 testimony of Ms. Nicole Cararie - Off site drainage improvements, how much and what is to be done? Similar comment by Ms. Olsen on September 5, 2007 (pg. 40-41).

RESPONSE 3.2-6: Applicant’s DEIS was prepared in 2005 and contained a proposal for 27 lots. At that time the value of the proposed project, on a completed basis, exceeded the present proposed 21 lot (the 22nd lot is Open Space) project by millions of dollars. It is the Applicant’s position that the added mitigation of reducing building lots by 30%; and, the agreement to provide laterals for current residents’ sewer hookups into the main line being constructed by the Applicant are reasonable alternatives to costly offsite drainage modifications.

COMMENT 3.2-7 (OLD 3-8): Effects of tree removal on surface and especially subsurface drainage: June 5, 2007 testimony (pg. 27-29) of Mr. Canfield (155 Red Mill Road) we have a water problem; not surface, but groundwater [seasonal high water table]. Will removal of trees make the problem worse? June 5, 2007 testimony (pg. 38-39) of Frank Creolo (8 Mill Court) - he has an extreme problem with high water table; is concerned about the stormwater management area right above his house. June 5, 2007 testimony (pg. 45-47) of Ms. Alice [Alison Olsen] (Mountain View Road) - she is concerned about drainage in the Northwest corner affecting her septic; she wants to know the effect tree removal will have on drainage. Similar June 5, 2007 testimony (pg. 61) of Mr. Winer and October 2, 2007 testimony (pg. 51-52) of Mr. Gansfuss. September 5, 2007 testimony (pg. 36) of Alison Olsen. Also reiterated in item 6 of Petition


3.2-4

attached to October 12, 2007 letter signed by Alison Olsen. Similar comment by Mr. Chardulo on June 5, 2007 (pg. 56), and Mr. Foley on July 10, 2007 (pg. 20).

RESPONSE 3.2-7: All of the consultants, both Town and Applicant, have opined that Applicants proposal will have no adverse impacts on surface or groundwater flows. The stormwater analysis performed for this project and presented in the DEIS takes into account the removal of tree cover represented by the standard engineering values used in the computation of pre- and post-development land cover. The resulting design for stormwater management would accommodate the change due to tree removal. Further, the current plan reduces woodland tree removal by 3.95 acres.

The revised proposal would preserve 80% of the large trees scheduled for removal in the DEIS plan. These preserved trees along with the plantings proposed would result in minimal tree disturbance. (See discussion under Specimen and Protected Trees in Section 1.2 of this document.) The ALT plan reduces disturbances to treed areas by .13 acres; thus, further limiting tree removal. (RESPONSE 3.1-3 summarizes the Sells and Holloway reports; see also the DEIS pages 3.2-19 through 3.2-22).

COMMENT 3.2-8 (OLD 3-9): June 5, 2007 testimony of William Boyd (109 Red Mill) - he questioned the impact of water “runoff” before Mc Arthur, North of Mill Court.

RESPONSE 3.2-8: This impact is outside the scope of this project.

COMMENT 3.2-9 (OLD 3-10): June 5, 2007 testimony of Mary Daley (9 Stone Field Court) -“Cronin did detention pond for the Stone Field Court Development” and it does not work. Similar comment by Ms. Daley on October 2, 2007 (pg. 49).

RESPONSE 3.2-9: Cronin Engineering did not design or aid in the construction of Stone Field Court’s detention basin.

COMMENT 3.2-10: Planning Board member, Mr. Bernard, at the July 10, 2007 Public Hearing requested a clearer manner depicting how water flows on Applicant’s site. Also Chairman Kessler, at the July 10, 2007 public hearing, asked that post development map should show arrows similar to the pre development map.

RESPONSE 3.2-10: Pre and post development drainage illustrations, Figures 3.2-5 and 3.2-6 set forth in the DEIS, have been modified; and, are included in the FEIS as Figures 3 and 4. In addition attached to the Holloway Report (FEIS Appendix G) is a drawing outlining post development groundwater flow directions. Details of the drainage solution for lots 17 and 18 are set forth in Figure 5 located at the end of Section 1 of this FEIS.


3.2-5

COMMENT 3.2-11: Chairman Kessler, at the June 5, 2007 Public Hearing, questioned the importance of drywells, their maintenance, and the effects of non maintenance. Similar comment by Mr. Gansfuss on October 2, 2007 (pg. 52).

RESPONSE 3.2-11: The primary control of stormwater runoff will be the grading of the Applicant’s site and the construction of the detention basin. In addition, and as a redundancy, all of the steeper building lots will have between one and five eight foot diameter by six foot deep drywells surrounded by a one foot ring of gravel.

Maintenance for the drywells will be the responsibility of the individual homeowners. A manual outlining these requirements will be provided to each homeowner at title closing. See Page 3.2-21 of the DEIS for details of cleaning recommendations.

COMMENT 3.2-12: During the Public Hearing on September 5, 2007 Planning Board member, Mr. Foley asked if there was a dam on the open space parcel lot #22.

RESPONSE 3.2-12: A review of the site’s survey revealed no dam or other structure on lot #22. There is however, an old abandoned roadway and culvert located on the southern portion of the contagious adjacent property.

COMMENT 3.2-13: June 5, 2007 testimony (pg. 52, 53) of Mr. Trotter and Mrs. Chardulo regarding surface drainage on Mill Court. June 5, 2007 testimony (pg. 58) of Mr. Daily (139 Red Mill) - he is also concerned about drainage in the Northwest corner. PB member Mr. Kline on July 10, 2007 (pg. 37) also expressed concern about drainage, including drainage in the Northwest Corner. September 5, 2007 testimony (pg. 37, 39, 40, 41) of Alison Olsen. Similar comments were found in the October 2, 2007 testimony of Ms. Olsen (pg. 8, 9, 11), Mr. Priolo (pg. 27), and Mary Jo Daley (pg. 49). Also reiterated in item 1 of Petition attached to October 12, 2007 letter signed by Alison Olsen. Similar comment by Mr. Chardulo on June 5, 2007 (pg. 57).

RESPONSE 3.2-13: In the existing condition, stormwater is conveyed toward Red Mill Road from both the northern end of the site (across from Strawberry Road) and the western end of the site (by Amherst Road and north of this location) uphill from Mountain View Road. The construction of the project will increase the imperviousness of the site which will reduce stormwater infiltration into the ground. The drainage areas toward Red Mill Road will be reduced though site regrading and installation of storm drain systems, which will reduce stormwater flows in this direction. At the northern end of the site, the drainage basin through the site (including diversion of some offsite area) will be reduced from 4.0 to 2.1 acres. (See Table 1.5A.) This will provide for peak flowrate and overall volume reductions of stormwater runoff toward Red Mill Road in all of the analyzed storms. Along the western end of the site, the drainage basin from the site will be reduced from 11.8 to 8.8 acres resulting in a three acre reduction in the watershed area draining to the west. (See Table 1.5.) With this reduction in drainage area, the peak rate of runoff is reduced for all of the analyzed storms and the overall


3.2-6

volume of runoff in this direction either remains the same or is reduced. Since the runoff is over private property before the stormwater reaches Red Mill Road, the reductions will help to improve any adverse drainage issues that may exist in these areas. The increases in impervious coverage will also act to reduce groundwater infiltration, and therefore flow, towards these offsite areas.

Applicant’s SWPPP has been developed in accordance with NYSDEC requirements. Among other things, Applicant will construct a detention basin; and, ten of the steeper individual lots will also have from one to five drywells. Sells, the Town’s engineering consultant, in its March 24, 2008 report (summary of Report is set forth in Response 3.1-3) supported the Applicant’s position by opining that the project as proposed in the DEIS, will reduce post construction runoff. The FEIS revised proposal and the ALT further reduce post construction runoff (see Tables 1.5, 1.5A and 1.5B in Section 1.2).


3.3-1

3.3 Air Resources Comments and Responses

COMMENT 3.3-1 (OLD 3-11): Testimony of Richard Gansfuss (6 Mill Court) at the June 5, 2007 hearing. He expressed concern about air quality.

RESPONSE 3.3-1: Section 3.3 of the DEIS describes potential air quality effects of the project, based on commonly accepted practice for evaluation of impacts associated with construction and operations after construction. The DEIS describes in detail expected short term and long term effects, and outlines various mitigation measures proposed in the project to minimize the adverse effects. Given the reduction in disturbed area of some 22% (23% using the ALT proposal) and reduction in number of houses from 27 to 21, there will be a concomitant reduction in potential effects on local air quality from the DEIS plan.


3.4-1

3.4 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Comments and Responses

COMMENT 3.4-1 (OLD 3-12): Westchester County Planning Board letter of July 9, 2007 - provides that an extensive landscaping plan should be provided and reviewed by an independent arborist. Any trees damaged during construction and removed should be replaced in kind or replaced with a suitable number of smaller trees. Similar comments were found in the testimony of Richard Gansfuss and Jeffery Winer on June 5, 2007.

RESPONSE 3.4-1: Preliminary Landscape Plans have been prepared for the revised project and the ALT (see Drawings LP-1 and LP-1ALT contained in this FEIS). While the Town of Cortlandt Code does not require tree replacements as suggested by County Planning, the Applicant proposes the following note, specifically landscape note #4, on those plans: “Any tree over 8” diameter (measured 4.5’ above ground) outside of the approved limit of disturbance line that is irreparably damaged or removed during construction shall be replaced with the same species, or a suitable alternative species as specified by the landscape architect, with two (2) 2.5” caliper (measured 6” above ground) trees.”

COMMENT 3.4-2 (OLD 3-13): CAC letter of August 18, 2007 provides - Tree cutting permit should be denied because: 25% of specimen trees and a larger uncounted number of trees less than 12" in diameter would be destroyed; and, the loss of tree canopy will adversely affect the biodiversity of this site. PB member Mr. Klein, on July 10, 2007 stated his concern about the “loss of forest in particular specimen trees”. The statement in the DEIS that this is a fragmented isolated habitat is false. There are numerous avenues for contact with the main biotic corridors that are nearby. January 5, 2007 testimony of Mr. Canfield. Concerned about “tree canopy”. Also interested in the protection for the wood frog and box turtle. (Note: on page 29 of hearing transcript Canfield admits that he was up to the site at least three times in the past week and saw nothing; also, looked to hear wild turkeys and heard nothing.) June 5, Testimony of Mr. Daily (139 Red Mill Road) - concerned about “habitat”. PB member Bob Foley asked, on July 10, 2007 (pg. 19-20) if an analysis had been made of the effect that tree removal has on biodiversity and wants Town consultant, Coleman, to look at the effect of tree cutting. Also, CAC letter of November 20, 2009.

RESPONSE 3.4-2: Evans Associates memo (the Evans Memo) of June 27, 2008 (set forth in full in the Appendix Q) addresses the issue of biotic corridors. The Evans memo, in part states that: “The subject property is not immediately adjacent to or in contact with any of the biodiversity corridors, Hubs or Planning Units identified in the Croton to Hudson Biodiversity Plan. In fact the nearest area is one mile west of the subject property. Other areas of significance, including three of the four Biodiversity Corridors, are more than 2 miles north of the subject property and are separated by major transportation corridors and developed areas”. The foregoing notwithstanding, at page 5 of her report, Evans concludes that by concentrating development in areas already surrounded by residential properties,


3.4-2

“The design allows for unfragmented forested habitat to be preserved in the central portion of the site. This unfragmented forest will both accommodate resident species, including forest interior species, as well as serve as a dispersal corridor for species moving throughout the region. Since no threatened or endangered species or critical habitats have been identified on or near the site, the proposed subdivision layout mitigates the loss of upland forested areas to the extent practical by preserving a matrix of upland and wetland habitats in the central portion of the site”.

In view of the foregoing, it is the Applicant’s position that the project’s development team has achieved a balanced project that results in a positive environmental impact.

In addition, the Applicant’s revised proposals preserve the natural dispersal corridor (see RESPONSE 2-1); and, will protect the sighting areas of the wood frog and box turtle (see Evans Report page 5).

Further, the revised site plan represents a 23% reduction in proposed disturbed area on the site, thereby preserving nearly four acres more woodland trees than the DEIS plan. An updated Tree Survey Plan shows the smaller area of proposed tree removal. In the current plan, 553 trees 12 inches and greater would be removed. The current plan preserves 165 more surveyed trees than the DEIS plan, including all but one large tree over 36 inches in trunk diameter that is located out of the woods in a lawn near Lexington Avenue.

The revised proposal would preserve 80% of the large trees scheduled for removal in the DEIS plan in addition to numerous trees that are under 12” dbh in those same areas. These preserved trees along with the plantings proposed would result in minimal tree disturbance. (See discussion under Specimen and Protected Trees in Section 1.2 of this document). The ALT plan reduces disturbances to treed areas by .13 acres; thus, further limiting tree removal.

Evans Associates has clarified its June 27, 2008 memo by letter dated November 11, 2009. In part Evans opines as follows: “Since ’biodiversity’ refers to the assemblage of species, and not the number of individuals of each species, it is not true that removal of trees for development affects the biodiversity of the site”; and, “Figure A (attached hereto) clearly shows that the subject property is not contiguous to, or even near, any of the major biotic corridors in the region.” The complete letter is set forth in Appendix Z of this FEIS.

Evans Associates has reviewed the CAC November 20, 2009 letter and on December 17, 2009 opines, in part, as follows: a) Mr. Coleman’s report (2005) reviewed the original 27 lot plan which in fact would have fragmented a large block of forest land; b) The current 22 lot plan preserves this block of forest; c) Evans’ reports are addressed to the 22 lot plan; and, therefore Evans’ conclusions differ from Mr. Coleman’s; d) Evans’ 2008 report does not claim that the subject property has no value as a habitat; instead, it discusses the impacts to wildlife species


3.4-3

using the site; e) The report identifies how the 22 lot layout protects the most sensitive habitats and species, and how the Open Space parcel provides a dispersal corridor; f) Mr. Coleman’s report identifies potential impacts and general planning strategies while Evans’ report is designed to address strategies on a site specific basis. (Evans’ December 17, 2009 memo is set forth in Appendix Z of the FEIS)

In reference to item 4 in the CAC memo, Mr. Coleman’s report (2005) reviewed the original 27 lot plan where the 22 lots mentioned were those off of Mill Court extension.

COMMENT 3.4-3 (OLD 3-14): Cortlandt Watch letter of October 2, 2007 - Removal of trees creates a big carbon footprint.

RESPONSE 3.4-3: Carbon Footprint is a measure of the impact our activities have on the environment (see Carbon Footprint Ltd www.carbonfootprint.com/carbonfootprint.html). Also defined as the measure of the exclusive global amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases emitted by human activity or accumulated over the full life cycle of a product or service. (See Wiedmann and Minx, 2008 and see www.carbonfootprint.com).

Removal of trees, per say, (other than the release of CO2 from the tree cutting activity) does not create a big Carbon Footprint. However removal of trees, under certain circumstances, can affect the quantity of global CO2 by eliminating a Carbon Sink; a carbon dioxide reservoir that is increasing in size (www.carbonfootprint.com).

It is the Applicant’s position that notwithstanding the potential reduction in a carbon dioxide reservoir, the net effect of reducing the forested area of the subject site would probably be a decrease in warming.

This result is based on the effect of surface reflectivity of the sun’s radiation (Albedo – see definition set forth in the Columbia Encyclopedia (copyright 2001-07 Columbia University Press). During the winter months in mid to high latitudes Forests, which have a very low Albedo, inhibit the reflection of solar radiation off of the underlining snow fields (high Albedo); thus, contributing to global warming. Therefore, the limited tree removal contemplated in the Applicant’s project will have, at worst, a neutral effect on warming. (See Albedo article from Encyclopedia of Earth attached in the Appendix H).

Refer to Response 3.1-5 and pages 1-7 through 1-8 of this document for additional details pertaining to the revised proposal and tree preservation. The revised proposal would preserve 80% of the large trees scheduled for removal in the DEIS plan. These preserved trees along with the plantings proposed would result in minimal tree disturbance. (See discussion under Specimen and Protected Trees in Section 1.2 of this document). The ALT plan reduces disturbances to treed areas by .13 acres; thus, further limiting tree removal.


3.4-4

COMMENT 3.4-4 (OLD 3-15): June 5, 2007 testimony of Sherry Kaplan (Cortlandt Colony) -concerned about protection of animals, and claims she has a bird sanctuary on our property.

RESPONSE 3.4-4: Applicant’s revised proposals establish an open space area in over 55% of the site. In addition, the natural wildlife dispersal corridor has been preserved; thus, bird migration should continue as before (see Evans Report).


3.6-1

3.6 Land Use and Zoning Comments and Responses

No comments were received on Land Use and Zoning.


3.5-1

3.5 Traffic Comments and Responses

COMMENT 3.5-1 (OLD 2-1): Letter of Rudy Guidarelli, dated June 2, 2007. Proposed project will cause increase in traffic on Red Mill Road. Access is limited through Mill Court: would access (entrance and exit) through Lexington Avenue be more feasible? June 5, and July 10, 2007 testimony of Frank Creolo (8 Mill Court) - he wants second access road out to Lexington Avenue or any other road; if not feasible then reduce the number of houses. Testimony of Al Chardulo (4 Mill Court) - he does not want development’s traffic to “go down his road” and he opined that the project should have its own road. PB member Bob Foley, commented on July 10, 2007 that he would like traffic to go out Amherst Road. PB member Kline on July 10, 2007 (pg. 40) commented on the traffic benefit of access on Amherst Road, and commented on November 7, 2007 that he also strongly supported using Amherst Road as a second access. Similar comments were found in the September 5, 2007 statement of PB member Kline and the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Creolo on October 2, 2007.

RESPONSE 3.5-1: The Mill Court subdivision was approved by the Planning Board on June 28, 1989. The approval contemplated an extension of Mill Court through Applicant’s property to the South, evidenced by the fact that a cul de sac was not required at the end of Mill Court; instead Mill Court ends in a Town temporary turnaround (see DEIS at page 2-5; and filed Subdivision Map attached in the Appendix E). Accordingly, elimination of the temporary turnaround and continuation of the road into the subject is wholly consistent with the Mill Court Subdivision approval.

Site generated traffic volumes for the proposed housing subdivision were estimated based on Land Use Code 210 “Single Family Detached Housing” from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) publication entitled, “Trip Generation”, Seventh Edition. The trip generation characteristics of the various project sizes are summarized in the table labeled “Trip Generation Volume Comparison along Mill Court” set forth in Appendix T. Only 16 dwelling units are now proposed along Mill Court Extension. However, as illustrated in the DEIS (see pages 2 and 8 of the E&K Report set forth in the DEIS Appendix M), the Project at 27 dwellings units would not have a significant traffic impact on the adjacent roadway network.

It is the Applicant’s position that the alternative accesses to the site considered in the DEIS are problematic. The DEIS presents two possible “second access” alternatives. Alternative Layout C (Figure 4-2) and, Alternative Layout E2 (Figure 4-5). Layout C proposes ingress and egress of 13 building lots through Amherst Road; and Layout E2 proposes a second access road exiting a cluster site plan east through to West Street on Lexington Avenue.

Layout C is problematic due to the fact that Amherst Road is a private road under the presumptive control of Wild Birch Farms (referred to as Wild Birch). In a letter and petition to the Planning Board, dated December 13, 2007, Wild Birch declared its “opposition to allow additional or outside traffic to utilize our private road or that would connect to ....Amherst Road


3.5-2

or ....require Amherst Road be made public”. The Planning Board, in a letter dated November 7, 2007, requested the Town Board make Amherst Road a public road (Town Board has the legal authority to make Amherst Road a public Road; see DEIS page 2-5). On April 3, 2007, by letter, Applicant requested the Town Board to take action on the Amherst Road issue. At a meeting held with Town Board representatives, in late November of 2007, Applicant was advised that it is unlikely that Amherst Road would become public.

It is noted that Applicant’s traffic consultant reviewed the possibility that 12 houses would ingress and egress through Amherst Road; and concluded there would be no adverse impact on the adjacent roadway network (see TRC Memo dated July 19, 2007 set forth in the Appendix M).

Layout E2 would create extensive and troublesome impacts to environmentally sensitive areas of the Applicant’s site. In order to construct the “second” access road, the Applicant would disturb, at a minimum, 3.09 acres of major wetland A and its protective buffer ( DEIS page 4-11). Also, approximately 2.11 acres of steep slopes, most in excess of 30%, would be disturbed (DEIS page 4-11). This road would bisect the open space area and would eliminate the established natural biodiversity dispersal corridor (see Evans Associates Environmental Consulting Incorporated Biological Assessment Report June 2008 Figure HA-1 (the Evan’s Report) set forth in the Appendix D). On September 30, 2007 Planning Board members conducted a second site walk; and exited the site by traversing the route of this “second” access road. The sensitive nature of this area was clearly evident; as was the steepness of the proposed road’s required grade. The Applicant also believes that the cost of this road would be prohibitive (see also pages 10-11 of Edwards and Kelcey’s August 2006 Transportation and Site Layout Analysis of Proposed Mill Court Crossing (E & K Report) contained in the Appendix M of the DEIS).

Applicant has revised its plans to reduce the number of Lots accessed via Mill Court from 22 to 16, (i.e. 36% reduction), to mitigate any potential impact upon the Mill Court residents. The reduction of the number of homes with access off Mill Court evidences that Applicant has duly considered and addressed comments relative to traffic impact arising out of site access via Mill Court. Retaining Mill Court as the primary site access is simply based upon the reality that it exists as a public street, and its usage will avoid the necessity of creating a new road, and corresponding new intersection. (By way of example, this project is distinguished from the facts of Stackhouse v. Planning Board of Town of Cortlandt, 2005 NY Slip Op 50548 (U) where the Court upheld Planning Board denial of a residential subdivision which proposed a new road and intersection at the downhill slope of an existing road, creating a hazard)1. There is nothing in this record to suggest that the existing intersection of Mill Court and Red Mill Road exists as a

1 Applicant has cited Stackhouse v. Town of Cortlandt to distinguish the current project from a project which the Planning Board denied due to traffic impact. That is, the project in Stackhouse created an entirely new road connection at a point with a limited sight line. As distinguished, the subject project relies upon an existing road network, which, in Applicant’s opinion is readily capable of handling the relevant traffic.


3.5-3

hazard. Moreover, the record supports a finding that the level of service at that intersection would not change by the addition of 16 single family homes in the neighborhood. By making the foregoing reduction, but retaining the Mill Court access, Applicant has simply identified the traffic issues raised, reduced the project scale, and thus mitigated any potential impact to the fullest extent practicable.

COMMENT 3.5-2 (OLD 2-10): June 5, 2007 Testimony of Tim Faller (resident on Mc Arthur Boulevard) made the following comment about Traffic. “I don’t mind building; but, we should have roads first”. A similar comment was stated by Bob Foley on July 10, 2007. Also reiterated in items 2 and 3 of Petition attached to October 12, 2007 letter signed by Alison Olsen.

RESPONSE 3.5-2: Applicant’s response, in part, assumes that Mr. Faller’s comment is an expression of his concern about the impact of additional cars transversing Mill Court and the adjacent roadways.

The extension of Mill Court through Applicant’s property is consistent with Town policy (see DEIS page 2-5). Applicant has explored alternatives for ingress and egress; but, determined that the potential routes were problematic (See RESPONSE 3.5-1). The Town’s traffic consultant’s report supports Applicant’s position that its proposals will have little if no impact on the surrounding road network. In fact, E & K states: “Model run #4 was analyzed to determine whether concentrating the 27 units off of Mill Court (and eliminating site distance on the eastern sections of the property) would adversely affect traffic operations. The analysis showed that the impacts on traffic would be de minimis and that the intersection of Red Mill Road and Mill Court would still operate at good levels of service (“B” or better on all movements).

COMMENT 3.5-3 (OLD 2-11): Stacy Reynolds’ (250 Red Mill Road) testimony of June 5, 2007 - she wants to improve pedestrian safety on Lexington and Red Mill. Letter of Ed Burroughs dated July 9, 2007, page 5 item 6, asks about access to public transit on Lexington Avenue.

RESPONSE 3.5-3: Applicant’s proposals will not increase pedestrian traffic on Red Mill; and, due to the improved school bus route, may in fact cause a reduction. In addition, Applicant will improve safety at the intersection of Red Mill and Mill Court by correcting the sight lines. Additionally, the School District has indicated it would access Mill Court with either regular size buses or smaller buses (rather than stand on Red Mill Road) to pick up and drop off children, thereby improving safety associated with bus riders (refer to Appendix O).

Applicant will also address the Lexington Avenue pedestrian safety issue by granting to the Town an easement to construct sidewalks. The proposed sidewalk easement will be a minimum of 16 feet in width and is shown on the site plan, Drawing SP1.1 and SP 1.1ALT attached to this FEIS. Figure in Appendix Y shows the locations of existing bus stops along the project frontage of Lexington Avenue.


3.5-4

COMMENT 3.5-4 (OLD 2-16): PB member Bianchi on September 5, 2007 wants a determination made that emergency equipment would be able to get to lots 12 & 13 and 17 & 18 (revised 22 lot plan), and that the Developer needs to show that the driveways meet town code.

RESPONSE 3.5-4. The 20 foot wide common driveways for lots 5/6, 12/13, and 17/18 meet Town Code. In response to comments made by the Mohegan Fire District, however, these driveways have been redesigned to permit responses by any emergency vehicles; including the Fire District’s Hook and Ladders, (see letters from Mohegan Fire District in Appendix W; and, drawing FD-6.1). In addition, to further respond to the Fire District’s concerns Applicant has agreed to insure that sprinkler systems are installed in the houses to be constructed on Lots 5, 6, 12, 13, 17 and 18 (see letters from Applicant and the Mohegan Fire District in Appendix W; and, drawing FD-6.1).

COMMENT 3.5-5 (OLD 2-19): Andrew Fischer, on October 2, 2007 states that if the project is approved than there cannot be a future "by-pass".

RESPONSE 3.5-5: Applicant has determined that it is improbable that an agreed upon Route 6 by-pass would be hindered by approval of Applicant’s proposal (See DEIS, pages 3.5-12, 3.5-13, 4-7, and 4-8). Note: That at a Town Board Planning Session on February 25, 2008, the proposed Cortlandt Traffic Mitigation Special Permit (TMSP) was introduced. Within the TMSP is a proposed Route 6 mini by-pass connecting Lexington Avenue to Regina Avenue. This route would not be affected by Applicant’s project. (See Appendix F for TMSP illustrations). In July 2009 NYSDOT advised TRC that they do not have a definitive alternative and that they are waiting for the Towns to get back to them. It is notable that the Town’s consulting engineers, Edwards & Kelcey noted, “More detailed engineering analysis of the alignment needed for the Route 6 Bypass has since shown that environmental considerations and engineering challenges make a new alignment that crosses the subject property problematic” (see DEIS, Appendix M, page 14). The adverse impact associated with the by-pass is manifest, for construction of the by-pass will compromise the on-site wetland (see Figure 4-4 of the DEIS; alternative Layout E1). In contrast to the discussed future by-pass, Applicant’s revised plan effectively preserves the existing wetlands by establishing a 22.8 acre open space area on site, a positive environmental impact. There is no basis to hold up this project while discussions of the future by-pass are uncertain and ongoing, for to do so would effect condemnation blight damages upon the Applicant.

COMMENT 3.5-6 (OLD 2-20): Westchester County Planning Board letter of July 9, 2007 - County Planning Board requests that the projects internal loop road width be reduced to 24 feet. Also, the Town's traffic consultant( see page 11 of E & K August 2006 Report) recommended that internal roads should have pavement no larger, in width, than Mill Court or Amherst Road; both of which are 24 feet.


3.5-5

RESPONSE 3.5-6: Applicant’s revised proposals reduce the width of its internal loop road from 30 feet to 24 feet. For details see Figures 1-1 and 1-1ALT and Drawings SP-1.1 and SP-1.1ALT included in the FEIS.

COMMENT 3.5-7 (OLD 3-16): Cortlandt Watch letter of October 2, 2007 - there is no way to change traffic patterns on Red Mill to make it safer. More traffic will only make the road more dangerous. June 5, 2007 testimony of Mr. Velazquez (116 Red Mill) - he expressed concern about increased traffic on Red Mill. PB member Susan Todd, at November 7, 2007 PB meeting queried whether an evaluation of Red Mill Road is required, stating. “You have to convince me that your homes will not have any impact” Also, October 2, 2007 letter of John Potts (38 Trolley Road) states his concerns about traffic. Similar comments were found in the June 5, 2007 testimony of Mr. Creolo and Mr. Trotter; and PB member Kline’s July 10, 2007 statement; and, Ms. Olsen’s testimony and PB member Bernard’s statement on October 2, 2007.

RESPONSE 3.5-7: Applicant engaged the services of TRC Raymond Keys (TRC) to prepare a Traffic Impact Study. TRC concluded that: “the traffic associated with the Mill Court Crossing will not have a significant impact on the operating conditions of the adjacent roadways and intersections. Accordingly, safe and efficient operating conditions will be provided for through traffic as well as traffic destined for the site” (see DEIS Section 3.5, Traffic and Transportation).

TRC’s study was reviewed by the Town’s consultant E & K. E & K’s traffic models assumed that 27 units would access the site via Mill Court, and determined that traffic generated by the site is likely to have minimal impacts on traffic operations on the surrounding roadway networks, which is to be expected with the level of trip generation; i.e. less than one vehicle every two minutes at the busiest. Even concentrating 27 units off of Mill Court the change in impact would be de.Minimis (see pages 2 and 8 of the E & K Report set forth in the DEIS Appendix M).

It is noted that the focus of both the TRC and E & K reports is the Applicant’s original 27 lot layout; with 22 homes using Mill Court for access. Applicant’s revised layout reduces the number of homes using Mill Court to16, further mitigating any perceived traffic impact.

COMMENT 3.5-8 (OLD 3-17): June 5, 2007 testimony of Nicole Cararie. Did Traffic Study look at the intersection of Red Mill and Trolley?

RESPONSE 3.5-8: Yes. See Table 3.5-3 on page 3.5-7 of the DEIS.

COMMENT 3.5-9 (OLD 3-18): The following persons expressed concern over limited sight distance at the intersections of Red Mill and Mill Court: June 5, 2007 testimony of Joanne Creolo (8 Mill Court); June 5, 2007 testimony of William Boyd (109 Red Mill Road); June 5, 2007 testimony of Stacy Reynolds (250 Red Mill) - also concerned about sight distance for the 5 homes off of Lexington Avenue; Frank Priolo (3 Mill Court - 4th appearance), on October 2, 2007. (Also reiterated in item 4 of Petition attached to October 12, 2007 letter signed by Alison Olsen.)


3.5-6

RESPONSE 3.5-9. Applicant has offered (See DEIS at page 3.5-6) to improve the sight distance at the Red Mill Road/ Mill Court intersection. This will help improve safety at this particular intersection; and, is reasonable related to the increased traffic volumes on Mill Court associated with this development (see E & K Report, page 8).

In September 2007 Applicant’s traffic consultant, TRC, performed a sight distance analysis for the proposed site driveway off of Lexington Avenue; and concluded that for all 5 sight lines there was more than enough sight distance. (See TRC September 21, 2007 Memo in the Appendix R).

COMMENT 3.5-10 (OLD 3-19): June 5, and July 10 2007 Testimony of Frank Creolo (8 Mill Court) - he questions the traffic study conclusion on the number of cars. June 5, 2007 testimony of Ms. Alice (Mountain View Road) - she questions the conclusion on the number of cars. July 10, 2007 testimony of Mary Joan Daley (Stone Field Court) - claims that the traffic study needs to be redone, and that peak hours are incorrect. Bob Foley, PB member, on July 10, 2007 said traffic study needs to be redone. On October 2, 2007 Chairman Kessler asked if we are going to do a second traffic study. Similar comments were found in the testimony of Nicole Cararie on June 5, 2007; PB member Foley’s statement on September 5, 2007; and the testimony of Frank Creolo and Mary Joe Daley on October 2, 2007. Also reiterated in item 2 of Petition attached to October 12, 2007 letter signed by Alison Olsen.

RESPONSE 3.5-10: Applicant’s TRC report was prepared utilizing the appropriate methodology and has been comprehensively vetted by the Town’s consultant, E & K. E & K opined as follows: 1) Traffic generation were reviewed for reasonableness; and, the Applicant’s calculations, which covered the AM and PM on a typical weekday, are conservative. Therefore, for the remainder of this analysis the Applicant’s trip generation forecasts are used (See E & K Report at pages1-2). 2) Trip generation distribution analysis appears reasonable except for travel using Strawberry Road verses Route 6. Due to the low level of site generated traffic; however, the minimal impacts on the off-site intersections are not likely to materially change (E & K Report at page 3). 3) No-build traffic methodology appears reasonable; but, there are differences between Applicant’s analysis and E & K (E & K Report at page 3).

Thus, the appropriate methodology was utilized and the projections were conservative. The Town’s Traffic Consultant determined that there would not be a traffic impact. Further, Applicant’s revised proposals reduce the number of dwelling units utilizing Mill Court by almost 30% and therefore, reducing traffic generation and making any impact trivial (see table entitled “Trip Generation Comparison Along Mill Court” attached as Appendix T.

COMMENT 3.5-11 (OLD 3-20): June 5, 2007 testimony of Ms. Alice - she asks about speed bumps on Red Mill. Testimony, on June 5, 2007, of William Boyd - he expressed concern about speeding.


3.5-7

RESPONSE 3.5-11: The E & K report, at pages 8 and 9, states, “However, Red Mill Road will continue to have substandard geometrics along its length and Cortlandt should consider basic geometric improvements consistent with the rural and historic character on the roadway, which may include traffic calming elements to reduce speeds and increase motorists’ awareness of the nonstandard features.” In the Applicant’s opinion, there is no causal relationship between this project and potential speeding along Red Mill Road.

COMMENT 3.5-12 (OLD 3-25): June 5, 2007 testimony of Joanne Creolo (8 Mill Court) - will school buses be able to go down Mill Court to the new development? Ms. Alice from Mountain View asked the same question on June 5, 2007; so did William Boyd of 190 Red Mill Road. Frank Creolo on July 10, 2007 asked the same question. Mary Joan Daley (Stone Field Court) on July 10, 2007 asked the same question. PB member Bob Foley on July 10, 2007 raised the same issue. Similar comments were found in the testimony of Ms. Stacy Reynolds on June 5, 2007; and the statement of PB member Foley on September 5, 2007; and the testimony of Frank Creolo and Ms. Olson on October 2, 2007. Also reiterated in item 3 of Petition attached to October 12, 2007 letter signed by Alison Olsen.

RESPONSE 3.5-12. On November 27, 2007 representatives of the Lakeland Central School District Transportation Department, TRC, and the Applicant met at the site to observe field conditions and further discuss bus access for the Residences at Mill Court Crossing. Applicant was advised that the maximum walking distance allowed by the District is 1,320 feet. As some of the Applicant’s lots are greater than 1,800 feet from an existing bus stop, it is most likely that a bus would travel up Mill Court into the new subdivision. As a condition to the approval of the Red Mill Crossing subdivision a “site distance“ easement was established on the two lots at the intersection of Red Mill Road and Mill Court (Filed subdivision map is attached as Exhibit E). Applicant’s proposal for sight distance enhancements will utilize the Town’s rights of way and the easement areas. These improvements should permit a full size bus to turn onto and out of Mill Court. If after the improvements at the intersection are completed and a full size bus still has difficulty with the turn, than the School District would consider using a van-sized bus (TRC November 27, 2007 Memo set forth in the Appendix O).


3.7-1

3.7 Community Services Comments and Responses

COMMENT 3.7-1 (OLD 3-23): Westchester County Planning Board letter of July 9, 2007. Requests mitigation of increased sewage flows. Wants Applicant and Town to identify measures that will offset the inflow/infiltration at a 3:1 basis. Details need to be provided and required funds should be put into a dedicated account. Offsite sewer hookups need to be discussed.

RESPONSE 3.7-1: Based on Applicant’s review of this project with the County Department of Environmental Facilities, the Peekskill Wastewater Treatment Plant, where the subject sewage flows, will be conveyed operated at an average daily flow of 6.7 million gallons per day in 2007. The plant has a SPDES permitted operating capacity of 10 million gallons per day. It was also indicated that adequate capacity exists within the County conveyance system to accommodate the proposed flows for the project.

While it is the applicant’s position that mitigation for the proposed increases in wastewater flows to the treatment plant are not warranted for the project as excess capacity in the existing treatment and conveyance system is available, the project sponsor is willing to work with the Town to provide sewage flow mitigation. Such mitigation within the Town-owned conveyance system can include lining of existing sewer pipes or rehabilitation of manholes once suitable locations for such work is identified by the Town and the Applicant. The Applicant’s engineer on April 22, 2009 (see e-mail set forth in the FEIS as Appendix V) requested information from the Town regarding locations of inflow and infiltration measurements. This data would permit the Applicant to make specific recommendations for mitigation. On April 23, 2009 (see e-mail set forth in the FEIS as Appendix V) the Town responded that it did not have any specific areas identified. In lieu thereof, Applicant proposes to pay a fee of $5,600 or $1 for every gallon of additional municipal sewage flow. This fee could then be used by the Town as it sees fit.

COMMENT 3.7-2 (OLD 3-26): Andrew Fischer, On October 2, 2007 questioned the accuracy of the Lakeland School Board letter, stating, “GW is over capacity, kids in trailers."

RESPONSE 3.7-2: Applicant’s office is directly across the street from GW, and he has observed conditions at the school on a daily basis. There are no kids being housed in trailers. GW recently went through an expansion and all students are housed in the school proper. In response to Applicant’s request, Kenneth J. Connolly, Superintendent of Schools for the Lakeland School District, on March 14, 2006 by letter (see Appendix B of the DEIS for the complete letter), stated among other things: a) For general classes, grades 1-12, the number of students both entering and leaving have remained fairly consistent over the last five years; b) The number of school age children in the proposed subdivision (24) would not affect the total number of buses in any way; c) There are no plans at this time to expand facilities or staff for the immediate future; d) If they (the additional 24 students) are spread across all 13 grade levels, there will be no impact on staff or facilities.


3.7-2

The superintendent’s letter did not express any concern about current overcapacity; or that students were being housed in trailers. The superintendent’s position was amplified and confirmed in his April 20, 2009 letter (see Appendix U of the FEIS for the complete letter).

COMMENT 3.7-3 (OLD 3-27): PB member Bob Foley at the November 7, 2007 PB meeting questioned the statistical analysis of impact on schools. Wants a new letter from the school board. PB member Susan Todd, also on November 7, 2007 questioned the “child count”.

RESPONSE 3.7-3: Applicant’s answer is based on the Rutgers University, Center for Urban Policy Research Residential Demographics Multipliers (June 2006); and Facts and Figures 2006-2007, Westchester County-Putnam School Boards Association. Both documents’ relevant pages are set forth in the Appendix I. Also, Applicant is using the category for four bedroom single family detached over $329,500.

The revised proposals reduce the number of homes to 21. The School-Age Children Multiplier is 1.05 per household for the 18 market rate homes and .58 for the 3 affordable homes. Total gross students are 21. This number is reduced by the private school factor, set forth in the Facts and Figures 2006-2007, of 11%; or, 2 students. The Applicant’s property contains one three unit apartment building consisting of two, one-bedroom units and one, three-bedroom unit. Three children attending school in the Lakeland School District currently live in the three bedroom unit. Therefore, the net additional public school enrollment to be generated from Applicant’s projects is 16 students.

Further, the Rutgers study distributes the children over several grade levels and demonstrates the accuracy of Applicant’s position as set forth in the DEIS at pages 3.7-4 and 3.7-5 that there will be no adverse impacts.

On April 15, 2009, Applicant sent a letter to Superintendent Connolly of the Lakeland School District outlining the statistical basis for its conclusion that 16 additional students would be generated from the Applicant’s project; and, that they would be spread over all 13 grade levels (see Appendix U of the FEIS for the complete letter). Superintendent Connolly responded by letter, April 20, 2009, and stated: “This letter will confirm that there is no significant adverse impact to the District due to the addition of 16 students into the Lakeland Central School District from the proposed Mill Court Crossing Subdivision in the Town of Cortlandt as presented by Tim Miller Associates.” (Applicant’s April 15, 2009 letter) (see Appendix U of the FEIS for the letter). Further, Applicant contends that its development, in fact, will not add any additional students to the school population. Applicant’s position is based on the statement made by Kenneth J. Connolly, Superintendent of Schools for the Lakeland School District. Superintendent Connolly, in his letter dated March 14, 2006 (DEIS Appendix B), stated that: “For general classes , grades 1-12, the number of students both entering and leaving have remained fairly consistent over the last five years”.


3.7-3

COMMENT 3.7-4: Planning Board member Mr. Foley, at the Public Hearing held on September 5, 2007 commented on the location of the sewer line. Also, at the October 2, 2007. Public Hearing, Mr. Giancinto asked that all neighbors be hooked up to the new sewer line.

REPONSE 3.7-4: To limit the environmental impacts related to sewer construction Applicant’s proposed New Sewer district will consist of a direct 8 inch gravity sewer line connection to the County trunk line through Stonefield Court. The new sewer main will provide residences of Mill Court and Red Mill Road (between Mill Court and Stonefield Court) the option of sewer service. Applicant will provide laterals to assist homeowner hookups.

COMMENT 3.7-5: In the Westchester County Department of Planning letter, dated July 9, 2007, item 3 on page 4 asked about the establishment of a new sewer district.

RESPONSE 3.7-5: On June 12, 2007 Applicant submitted its request to reinstate its parcel into the Peekskill Sanitary Sewer District and establish a new local sewer district. The Request was sent to the Town Board. No response to our request has been forth coming from the Town Board. Applicant has been advised that no action on the sewer district will occur until the Planning Board concludes its review of the submitted subdivision request.

COMMENT 3.7-6: The letter from the CAC, dated August 18, 2007, page 2, third bullet point commented on the driveways and proposed sewer line on lots 20-22 as being sources of pollution.

RESPONSE 3.7-6: Applicant’s revised subdivision plans (Figures 1-1 and 1-1ALT of the FEIS) eliminate lots 20-22 of the plan set forth in the DEIS. New lot 22 is now the Open Space Parcel.

COMMENT 3.7-7: Letter from Richard Strauss/Lake Mohegan Fire District, May 15, 2007: I have some clarifications and corrections for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 3.7.4 Fire Protection. RESPONSE 3.7-7: Comments noted. COMMENT 3.7-8: Westchester County Letter Dated July 9, 2007, Page 5, #5 Public Transit requests that the FEIS include a map of the site with the bus stops clearly delineated to show the relationship between the proposed site plan and existing transit options. RESPONSE 3.7-8: The site plan map setting forth the nearby bus stops is attached to the FEIS as Appendix Y. Further, Applicant would consider constructing shelters for the Bus stops on the Town’s portion of Lexington Avenue.


3.8-1

3.8 Socioeconomic Comments and Responses

COMMENT 3.8-1 (OLD 3-22): Mohegan Volunteer Ambulance Corps letter of June 5, 2007 - asking for a $25,000 contribution.

RESPONSE 3.8-1: The DEIS fiscal analysis was rerun and is included in FEIS Appendix L. The analysis shows that revenue to Mohegan Fire is projected to increase from $937 to $15,936 each year, or more than the $25,000 suggested, within two years of project completion. This substantial increase can be expected to offset any need for additional equipment or manpower by Mohegan Fire that could be attributed to the proposed project.

COMMENT 3.8-2 (OLD 3-28): PB member Mr. Bianchi, on November 7, 2007 asked that a new fiscal analysis be prepared using house prices at less than $900,000.

RESPONSE 3.8-2: Applicant has reviewed Multiple Listing sales of comparable properties for the period January 2007- May 2009. The average sales price per square foot is $261. Applicant’s houses will be at least 3,500 square feet; and would therefore be priced to sell at over $900,000 (Applicant’s analysis is set forth in the Appendix K). Notwithstanding Applicant’s position, new fiscal analysis using house prices at $900,000 and $810,000 has been computed and is set forth in the Appendix L and summarized in the Summary section 1.2 entitled “Socioeconomics”.


3.9-1

3.9 Cultural Resources Comments and Responses

COMMENT 3.9-1 (OLD 3-29): Mary Daley of 9 Stone Field Court on June 5, 2007 asked about the Archeological study. Robert Foley, Planning Board Member, requested clarification regarding the land excluded from CityScape’s archeological study. Similar comments were found in the testimony of Joe Anne Daley on July 10, 2007; and, Ms. Mary’s testimony on October 2, 2007.

RESPONSE 3.9-1: In July 2007 Applicant’s consultant, CityScape, issued its complete Phase 1A Literature Review And Sensitivity Analysis & Phase 1B Archaeological Field Reconnaissance Survey Report (entire report set forth in the Appendix J). CityScape made 630 shovel tests, which did not yield any Prehistoric Cultural Material, according to CityScape recommended that no further archaeological investigations be undertaken in the project area.

The CityScape report was submitted to the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (SHPO). On November 27, 2007 SHPO, by letter to the Town (included in the Appendix S), opined that the (Applicant’s) project will have No Impact on historic properties in or eligible for inclusion in the State and National Registers of Historic Places with the condition that the APE is reduced to exclude the untested area (i.e. wetlands, wetland buffers, and other undisturbed area) of the project. The condition set forth has been complied with.

COMMENT 3.9-2: PB member Bob Foley on July 10, 2007 asked about views from Strawberry Road.

RESPONSE 3.9-2: The DEIS describes potential visibility of the proposed project from area viewpoints, noting at page 3.9-5: “Given the position of the site in relation to locations of potential public views from the surrounding area, no off-site vantage point was identified from which more than a small portion of the project development would be viewed.” And at page 3.9-6 with regard to the Lexington Avenue area that includes the west end of Strawberry Road: “The project site fronts on, and would be visible from, Lexington Avenue. Five of the proposed residential dwellings will be situated along and gain access from Lexington Avenue. Two of these houses will be at least partially visible from Lexington Avenue [likewise from the end of Strawberry Road], though they will be at a lower elevation and set back approximately 130 feet from [Lexington Avenue, and further from Strawberry Road]. … There will be no connection to the rest of the project parcel from Lexington Avenue and thus the existing tree cover will remain between the lots on Lexington Avenue and the remainder of the project. The visual character of Lexington Avenue [and Strawberry Road] after development of the proposed Mill Court Crossing subdivision, and in particular, the houses which will be located along Lexington Avenue, will be similar to what currently exists.”


4-1

4.0 Alternatives Comments and Responses

COMMENT 4-1: Westchester County Planning Board letter of July 9, 2007 - Route 6 By-pass and Cluster alternatives.

RESPONSE 4-1: All of the Alternatives set forth in the DEIS require Town Board approval. Both the Planning Board and the Applicant have sought such approval; and, as of today, the Town Board has not acted. See Response 3.5-1 for more details.

As aforementioned in Response 3.5-5, it is notable that the Town’s consulting engineers, Edwards & Kelcey noted, “more detailed engineering analysis of the alignment needed for the Route 6 By-pass has since shown that environmental considerations and engineering challenges make a new alignment that crosses the subject property problematic”. (See DEIS Appendix M, page 14). The adverse impact associated with the by-pass is manifest, for construction of the by-pass will compromise the on-site wetland (see Figure 4-4 of the DEIS; Alternative Layout E1). In contrast to the discussed future by-pass, Applicant’s revised plans effectively preserve the existing wetlands by establishing a 22.8 acre open space area on site, a positive environmental impact. There is no basis to hold up this project while discussions of the future by-pass are uncertain and ongoing in the Applicant’s opinion, for to do so would effect condemnation blight damages upon the Applicant.

COMMENT 4-2 (OLD 2-12): PB member Mr. Klein, on July 10, 2007 and again on November 7, 2007 declared his support for a “cluster” development. Likes Alternative C; but, not the # of houses. PB member Susan Todd, on November 7, 2007, expressed support for a cluster alternative. PB member Bianchi would also like to see a cluster development. He talked about “C”; but, with the elimination of one side or the other.

RESPONSE 4-2: Due to the position taken by the Town, Cluster Alternative “C” is unavailable (see RESPONSE 3.5-1). Until the Town Board authorizes the Planning Board other cluster alternatives are also uncertain. By concentrating about 80% of its building lots in the North/ West corner of the project site; Applicant has effectively created a “cluster” development.

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT€¦ · Letter dated July 29, 2008 Appendix Q Evans Associates...

Documents

Transcript of FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT€¦ · Letter dated July 29, 2008 Appendix Q Evans Associates...