From: Cheryl Corning [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 4:40 PM To: PublicComment ; Chappaqua Forward Cc: Meave Tooher ; John Barone Subject: Chappaqua Forward – Form Based Code Public Comment

Attached for filing as a public comment, please find the Comment Letter and three attachments filed by this office on behalf of Residents United to Save Chappaqua Hamlet.

Please confirm receipt of this correspondence and attachments and make same part of the public record.

Thank you

Cheryl Corning, Paralegal Robinson Square – 313 Hamilton Street Albany, New York 12210 Phone: (518) 432-4100 ext. 1 Fax: (518) 432-4200 https://www.tabllp.com/

Meave M. Tooher, Partner John L. Barone, Partner William F. Demarest III, Associate Helene G. Goldberger, Of Counsel

ROBINSON SQUARE, 313 HAMILTON STREET, ALBANY, NY 12210 TEL (518) 432-4100 • FAX (518) 432-4200

March 25, 2012

Supervisor Ivy Pool Members of the Town Board Town of New Castle 200 S. Greely Ave Chappaqua, NY 10514

[email protected] [email protected]

Re: Chappaqua Forward – Form Based Code

Dear Supervisor Poole and Members of the Town Board:

This office represents Residents United to Save the Chappaqua Hamlet, a grass roots, not-for- profit organization representing members of the community in responding to and opposing the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) and proposed Form Based Code (hereafter FBC) currently under consideration by the Town Board for the Town of New Castle and specifically the Chappaqua Hamlet.

The Town Board held a public hearing on the DGEIS on February 23, 2021. Shortly before the close of the public hearing, after over 2 and ½ hours of comments in opposition to the published DGEIS, and without prior notice to the community, the Town Board declared it was moving in a “new direction,” apparently in response to the outcry from the community regarding the information provided on the DGEIS and the FBC. Supervisor Poole then shared what she described as the right direction for the FBC. She indicated the Board would complete the Final GEIS and SEQRA findings statement using the originally proposed 72 acres – the entire business district – but would prepare an FBC limited to a single area, the North Greely corridor. Supervisor Poole acknowledged that the Board was still awaiting “consultants additional analysis across a wide range of topic areas such as the profitability of 3 story vs. 4-story buildings, expanding the AFFH requirements and including a requirement for workforce housing, sidewalks and steep slopes, traffic and parking, architectural style, etc.” See Supervisor Poole’s statement of February 23, 2012. The supervisor further relayed that despite the depth and variety of these changes, the Board was closing the public hearing, and was not willing to await the impending comments from the Chappaqua Central School District, slated to be released at the School Board meeting on March 16, 20211. There was no proposal to perform a Supplemental

1 The reasoning presented for not awaiting the School District comments was that the public could ask questions at the School Board meeting, and provide written comments to the Town Board on the comments of the School District in advance of the closing of the date for comments, March 25, 2021.

Printed on Recycled Paper Tooher & Barone, LLP March 25, 2021 Page 2 of 12

EIS (“SDGEIS) to incorporate and consider this “new direction” or the “additional analysis” the Town is expecting. This as yet unseen “new direction,” will allegedly remove the public lands from the FBC, reinstate the Planning Board in the review process (in a manner as yet undefined), and allegedly limit the heights of buildings in the Hamlet in ways different from those proposed in the DGEIS and current FBC draft.

The Town Board voted to approve the “new direction,” with one notable exception, Lisa Katz, who advocated for stopping the process. Citing a history of citizen engagement in the community, Member Katz advocated for a full charrette process, stopping the FBC process in its tracks, looking at the impacts of the pandemic on the Town, and looking to the future with knowledge and information. Ms. Katz correctly stressed: “Getting it right is more important than getting it done right now.”

This change in direction by the Town Board highlights the inconsistencies in the current process, demonstrates the inadequate public outreach to the community in the Town Board’s approach to the FBC, and reinforces the failures in the Board’s approach to the SEQRA process throughout. Aside from the substantially new scope for the FBC proposed by the Town Board, which substantially modifies the 72-acre area, the Town Board failed to properly address numerous issues in its environmental review, including, but not limited to, community character, sewer, stormwater and flooding, steep slopes, and alternatives. These are fatal flaws of the current DGEIS. Any additions/changes to the GEIS that are to be incorporated into a SDGEIS and FGEIS must identify all issues and substantial impacts that have been raised by this comment letter (and attached reports) as well as the numerous comments submitted by the community, Town Planning Board, School District, etc. Based upon the issues and impacts identified, future iterations of the GEIS must demonstrate that the proposed 72 acre scope for the FBC will result in substantial environmental impacts to the community and therefore, cannot be approved by the Town.

We submit herewith reports from Dr. Barbara Faga, Theodore Fink, AICP, and Dresdner Robin providing their expert review and commentary on various aspects of the DGEIS and FBC process. Their expert analysis demonstrates that the FBC proposal fails to meet accepted planning practices, has moved forward without adequate community input, and continues to ignore pressing environmental concerns.

Barbara Faga, PhD, FASLA (Faga Report)

Dr. Barbara Faga’s is a recognized expert on form-based codes and has conducted extensive research into their adoption process and success throughout the United States. Her report provides an overview of the typical processes in the development and community input of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan as well as the FBC and comparison to the community involvement in New Castle.

Greenplan Inc., J Theodore Fink, AICP. (Greenplan Report) Mr. Fink is a certified professional planner who has worked in the Hudson River Valley for 56 years on a variety of municipal projects, including comprehensive plans, zoning laws, several hybrid form-based codes, subdivision regulations and other land use related rules. Mr. Fink’s

Tooher & Barone, LLP March 25, 2021 Page 3 of 12 report looks to the overall insufficiency of the DGEIS and the SEQRA review in the Town’s form-based code process. His report discusses flaws in the DGEIS process and the need for a supplemental GEIS to properly evaluate the impacts of the newly proposed smaller FBC area.

Dresdner Robin (DR Report) Dresdner Robin is an award-winning land-use consultancy firm that provides integrated engineering, planning, environmental, survey, landscape and architecture services in New York New Jersey and Philadelphia. Their report analyzes the DGEIS and the proposed FBC, specifically regarding the need for additional analysis of stormwater and flooding issues, sanitary sewer impacts, and steep slopes in a Supplemental GEIS.

The Process: Form Based Codes

Dr. Faga’s report sets forth her review and evaluation of the steps taken by the Town to develop and attempt to implement a form based code for the Chappaqua hamlet. Dr. Faga concludes that the process the Town implemented ignored recognized planning practices, avoided a meaningful charrette process, and trivialized and disregarded the voice of the community. “Simply stated, the Town administered a flawed process in crafting the form based code and presenting it to the community, and when the community balked, the Town continued down this fatally flawed path…[i]n sum, we have not seen this much disregard for the community by a local government in form based code adoptions to date.” Faga Report P.3, 5.

Early Stages

“A form based code is effective only if it implements a community’s vision for its future.” Faga Report P.10. Essential to the development of a form based code is active public engagement early in the process. Id. In New York, this early community involvement is especially important to build the foundation for a proper SEQRA process, including accurate scoping and a comprehensive DGEIS.

Charrettes, for example, use a collaborative approach to include the community in the design and vision of a town’s form based code and are recommended early in the process. Faga Report P.17. The inclusion of a diverse and large stakeholder group in the planning engages the entire community and facilitates the exchange of ideas. Id. The goal of this type of design feedback is to gain an understanding by the Town of the general opinion of the community related to the form based code. Id. The foundation that results frames the proposed scale of the form based code and informs the SEQRA process, including the scope/issues for the DGEIS. Faga Report P.18.

The FBC cannot reflect the community wishes without more particularized input into the details of that implementation, the very purpose of the charrette process. Unfortunately, the Town opted to skip charrettes, resulting in a misguided FBC proposal and a DGEIS that did not properly assess or focus upon the relevant study area and issues. Faga Report P.18. Kimley-Horn (who would become the lead consultant on the FBC process) was directed to replace the charrette process in the proposal with meetings and products directed to Town leadership, based upon the adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan. See email from Sabrina Charney Hull, Director of

Tooher & Barone, LLP March 25, 2021 Page 4 of 12

Planning to Bonnie Van Ohlsen, dated Friday March 22, 2019. The misguided decision to ignore recognized planning practices for community input doomed the FBC process from the start. As Dr. Faga states, “[n]ot only is community engagement vital in terms of achieving superior results, but it is also a universally accepted requirement in the urban planning field.” Faga Report P.11.

Speeding Through the Pandemic

The process for the adoption of a form based code varies by location, however, the constant elements include ample opportunity and numerous meetings to encourage community engagement with the Town for overall public support and successful adoption. Faga Report P.18. Dr. Faga uses case studies to exemplify this point. Dr. Faga identified 13 cities across the county that have implemented form-based codes [in the last 5 years/ of similar size to the Town/ for Towns, etc]. The implementation process for those cities averaged approximately 35 public meetings and 3 years. In contrast, the Town’s process for the FBC for Chappaqua involved fewer than 10 meetings and less than a year. Faga Report P.19. The Town’s general community process lasted just five months during the COVID pandemic, which includes the holiday interrupted periods in November and December. Faga Report P.23. Compounding the haste and ineffectiveness of the FBC rollout, the “general community process” was mainly the public hearings for SEQRA and did not include early public input to shape the vision of the FBC for the DGEIS.

Neither the FBC itself nor the process for its review was adjusted to respond to the instant limitations and potential long-term impacts presented by the COVID pandemic. Faga Report P.3. The pandemic vastly changed the priorities for families across the country and altered the lives for many Americans. Faga Report P.3. During the pandemic, when most people were isolating their families and/or trying to preserve their jobs or rescue their businesses, the Town was advancing the FBC on an incredibly condensed schedule. Clearly, at this pace, it was impossible for the Town to determine the community’s “vision” for a zoning change during these unique and challenging times. Yet the Town Board decided to speed through the FBC drafting phase and rely upon its own vision for the Town’s FBC without sufficient public input to shape the foundation and scope of the DGEIS during a time of high societal stress.

Despite the community begging the Town to pause the process during this pandemic and also to conduct charrettes before continuing with SEQRA, the Town Board pressed on displaying no understanding for how its speedy rollout of the FBC had been detrimentally affected by the pandemic. Faga Report P.23. Thus, community members were eliminated from the vision and initial drafting stages of the FBC and forced into a premature, confusing DGEIS hearing process in which they could not engage in conversation with their elected Town Board. Faga Report P.24. “Each person was allowed three minutes to ask a question or express an opinion. The Town Board did not answer questions or respond except to say thank you and move on to the next person from the community. Answers were later posted on the website but often failed to clarify the issues.” Faga Report P.24. Unlike the Town of New Castle, other cities acknowledged the issues faced during the pandemic and either paused or abandoned their processes. Princeton, New Jersey, for example, considered a form based code for almost three

Tooher & Barone, LLP March 25, 2021 Page 5 of 12 years and 30 public meetings before deciding to abandon the zoning change in March 2021, due to widespread public objection, and effects of the pandemic. Faga Report P.19.

The Town’s advancement of the FBC under the condensed timeline and pandemic circumstances, with no ability to conduct hands-on workshops or charrettes and foster meaningful give-and-take with community members, was not an acceptable course of action. Faga Report P.24. The pandemic required a markedly different process for the Town to achieve the necessary transparency and active interchanges with the community that would facilitate enacting the FBC. Faga Report P.3. “Having failed to meet this challenge, the Town-issued DGEIS missed issues completely, identified the wrong geographic scope for the form based code, and inadequately addressed the potential impacts.” Faga Report P.3.

Lack of Socioeconomic and Fiscal Analysis

The Town of New Castle failed to perform a thorough socioeconomic and fiscal analysis of the the changes proposed by FBC. While the Town has conveyed its perceived economic benefits from enactment of the FBC, the potential negative impacts are not properly identified or analyzed. Therefore, and not surprisingly, a fundamental deficiency in the DGEIS is the failure to quantify the potential negative socioeconomic and community impacts.

Generally, assertions that form based code is wholly responsible for revitalizing cities and promoting successful economic development are widely overstated. Faga Report P.25. To date there is little research demonstrating that form based codes do or do not, by themselves, lead to positive fiscal impacts to communities. Id. Thus, it is incumbent upon proponents of a form based code to illustrate, through detailed financial analysis, the likely fiscal impacts. Id.

The CCSD submitted a letter to the Town Board dated March 16, 2021 (“CCSD Letter”) and the Town Planning Board submitted a letter to the Town Board, dated December 23, 2020 (“PB Letter”) that highlight some of the specific deficiencies with the DGEIS concerning socioeconomic impacts. The CCSD Letter requests that the Town:

• Conduct a property tax analysis based on new developments, including specific impact to single-family homes, senior citizens on fixed incomes, and residents without children attending our public schools. This analysis should include all residents of the CCSD, including those residing in the Town of Mount Pleasant. • Analyze the safety and security impacts of added residential and commercial developments on Robert E. Bell Middle School, including impacts to the area during construction and development. • Analyze the financial and tax impacts of potential PILOTS or other tax abatements that may be granted by Westchester County IDAs or other government agencies outside of the Town Board’s or CCSD’s control. • Provide legal analysis, supported by an attorney memorandum, on the validity and effectiveness of FBC language limiting PILOTS and other tax abatements.

Tooher & Barone, LLP March 25, 2021 Page 6 of 12

• Include in the Findings Statement a fee structure to be charged to the developers, based on a per student formula, to mitigate impacts to the CCSD due to expenses associated with increased student enrollment.

CCSD Letter Pg.5-6.

The PB Letter justifiably questions the DGEIS’s statement that the cost of added community services will be provided for by a “walkable, vibrant hamlet” stating:

It’s a fallacy to assert that a vibrant hamlet in itself will pay for the services. The first case needs to be made that more people living in the hamlet will help pay for services. (Whether the hamlet is more vibrant is a separate matter.) The approximate cost of added community facilities should be compared to the net increase in tax revenues to make the case. It is critically important that the GEIS provide a comprehensive commercial / residential tax revenue analysis compared to the costs of community services in each alternative.

PB Letter P.8.

As Dr. Faga warns regarding the overstatement of economic benefits, the DGEIS assumes economic benefits without adequate analysis. The Planning Board observes, “[t]he DGEIS assumes that the extra building height called for in the FBC will provide the development return on investment required to stimulate new housing, but it provides insufficient financial analysis to back up the assertion.” PB Letter P.9. “The GEIS should provide a basic financial analysis of costs/returns, including projected tax revenue, for three, four, and five story development.” Id.

The Planning Board also notes the importance of analysing the impacts from the COVID pandemic as part of the fiscal and socioeconomic assessment in the DGEIS:

Many argue that the COVID pandemic has not caused changes in retail patterns as much as it has accelerated the changes in retail patterns that have already been unfolding. The GEIS should discuss assumptions regarding these trends and how they have been accounted for in the document. With patterns moving away from brick and mortar retail, what additional traffic will be generated in the hamlet from last mile deliveries? *** In what ways do the proposed alternative actions satisfy the articulated community demand for “entertainment options that attract community residents and visitors?” What impacts from the COVID pandemic shutdown are expected to be longer-term in nature? For example, the document cites a 2015 study by Pace that states 97% of the residents of Chappaqua work outside of Chappaqua. Clearly, that figure has been significantly disrupted by COVID. To what extent can the COVID shutdown and resulting response to the shutdown, coupled with increased bandwidth of internet infrastructure, be expected to reduce the demand for travel to and from New York City daily? To what extent can these changes in work and transportation patterns anticipated to be permanent? More study is required. Is it likely that daily commuter demand for parking at the train station will decrease? If so, by how much? What amount of decreased demand for commuter parking at the railroad parking lot would reduce or change parking constraints identified under each of the proposed alternatives.

Tooher & Barone, LLP March 25, 2021 Page 7 of 12

PB Letter P.11-12 (Emphasis added).

Assessing costs and fiscal impacts to local businesses, the school district, home values, property taxes, and community safety are important issues to be assessed either before or during SEQRA, to establish the proper evaluation needed in the DGEIS. Given the significance of these issues, this deficiency cannot be cured, by merely addressing potential negative impacts in the FGEIS. See Webster Assocs. v. Town of Webster, 59 N.Y.2d 220, 228 (1983) ("[T]he omission of a required item from a draft EIS cannot be cured simply by including the item in the final EIS.").

A complete socioeconomic analysis also requires examination of reasonably foreseeable impacts on noise; historic resources; aesthetic resources; traffic; short- and long-term population concentration, distribution, or growth; and community character, all of which are specifically protected under SEQRA. See ECL § 8-0105 (6). A fiscal and socioeconomic analysis must be completed in a supplemental EIS before the GEIS is finalized.

A Failed FBC Process

The Town Board ignored widely recognized form based code practices and SEQRA requirements to follow its own vision of how the process should play out. As noted in the FBC FAQs on the Town’s website, the FBC was written by a professional consultant with a small group of individuals from the Town consisting of the Town Board, the Planning Board, two commercial property owners, and a local architect, charged with “the task of informing KH what the Town hoped to accomplish through the adoption of amended zoning legislation for the Chappaqua business hamlet.” FAQ 5. While this could have been an adequate follow-up step to a lengthy public participation charrette process, the shortened approach utilized by the Town ignored the need for public input and placed the entire community’s future in the hands of a limited number of self-interested parties. Having started out on improper footing, the subsequent public hearings were not an exchange of community voices, but rather a stilted one-sided hearing process where community members voiced their concerns and the Town Board sat silent. As noted by Dr, Faga, “Virtual public hearings are not a good forum for compromise and harmony.” Faga Report P.16. “Extensive, widespread and inclusive community participation is vital for successful design and implementation of a form-based code.” Faga Report P.23.

Further, the early exclusion of the general public led to the FBC lacking a clear vision. Faga Report P.4. “It states too many goals that have repeatedly changed over its various draft versions.” Id. A form based code generally aims at tackling one or two of the goals touted by new urbanism, but the Town’s FBC seems to take on too many issues, over too large of an area, and without thorough evaluation. Id. The exclusionary tier-based review and discussions exemplified in Chappaqua were the formula for an exceedingly dissatisfied community.

The Inadequacies of the DGEIS and the Need for a Supplemental EIS

The Greenplan Report notes the lack of a full and complete evaluation of significant SEQRA issues in the DGEIS such as community character, and the inadequacies and flaws in the traffic

Tooher & Barone, LLP March 25, 2021 Page 8 of 12 impact and parking analysis. Looking to the substance of the DGEIS, The Greenplan Report notes that the new direction cited by the Town Supervisor is a change in the project justifying a Supplemental GEIS. The Supervisor’s announcement of this alternative proposal reveals that the Town Board believes there is substantial new information regarding the dissatisfaction of the community with the proposed FBC and the area that it covers. The regulations which implement SEQRA provide for a supplemental EIS, when there is a change proposed for the project or newly discovered information. 6 NYCRR 617.9[a][7][i][a]-[b]. Either is sufficient to justify a Supplemental GEIS before moving forward, here there are both.

The DGEIS fails to provide critical information for a meaningful review under SEQRA of the environmental impacts of the proposed FBC. The purpose of the DGEIS is to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on the project and environmental setting. The DGEIS provides the public with a statement and evaluation of the potential significant adverse environmental impacts, cumulative impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures. The current DGEIS fails to provide the full required statement in several ways. First, the DGEIS covers the entire proposed area and does not specifically address the “new direction” the Town Supervisor has proposed. The DGEIS thus fails to comply with the mandates of SEQRA because it fails to fully identify the conditions and thresholds for environmental impact of the “new direction.” Second, the DGEIS fails to address all relevant impacts for the full study area. Indeed, the Town Supervisor in her statement on the new direction identifies several impacts still awaiting additional analysis that should have been included in the DGEIS and public review process, including sidewalks and steep slopes, traffic and parking, and several topic areas impacting community character.

It is the role of the Town Board as lead agency to identify and minimize the significant environmental impacts that might result from the proposed rezoning in order for its determination to be rational, supported by substantial evidence, and legally sufficient. Neville v. Koch, 79 N.Y.2d 416, 428, 593 N.E.2d 256, 262 (1992). A Town Board fails to comply with the substantive requirements of SEQRA when it does not identify the relevant areas of environmental concern, take a hard look at them and make a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination. See Matter of Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Southeast, 9 N.Y.3d 219, 231–232, 851 N.Y.S.2d 76, 881 N.E.2d 172 [2007]; Matter of Shop–Rite Supermarkets, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of the Town of Wawarsing, 82 A.D.3d 1384, 1385, 918 N.Y.S.2d 647 [2011], lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 705, 2011 WL 2535249 [2011] ); Bergami v. Town Bd. of Town of Rotterdam, 97 A.D.3d 1018, 1020–21, 949 N.Y.S.2d 245, 248 (2012). The form-based code process should not go forward until a Supplemental DGEIS is prepared as the Town Supervisor has acknowledged the failure of the DGEIS to address significant areas of environmental concern. The SEQRA regulations provide for a supplemental EIS for “significant adverse environmental impacts not addressed or inadequately addressed in the EIS.” 6 NYCRR § 617.9(a)(7)(i). The DEC SEQRA Handbook identifies four (4) situations justifying a supplemental EIS: (1) where “the project sponsor proposes project changes that may result in one or more significant adverse environmental impacts not addressed in the original EIS”; (2) “when “the lead agency discovers new information, not previously available, concerning significant adverse impacts”; (3) when “a change in circumstances arises that may result in a significant adverse environmental impact changes proposed for the project”; and (4) following a GEIS when site-specific or project-specific analysis of potential significant adverse environmental impact(s)

Tooher & Barone, LLP March 25, 2021 Page 9 of 12 is needed.” SEQRA Handbook p. A supplemental draft GEIS is warranted in this case due to changes in the proposed project that were not addressed in the original draft GEIS, newly discovered information, and to provide site-specific analysis of the limited “new direction” area following the current draft GEIS.

The Greenplan Report also addresses the failure of the DGEIS to effectively speak to the impacts on community character of the proposed FBC, noting the use of euphemistic terms as inappropriate to what is supposed to be an objective disclosure statement. Greenplan Report, p.10. Mr. Fink stresses the recognized importance of community character to the Chappaqua community and the flagrant minimization of this issue in the DGEIS and FBC. Id. Community character is a substantial factor in the SEQRA analysis, and expressly includes such considerations as “existing patterns of population concentration, distribution, or growth, and existing community or neighborhood character”. Chinee Staff & Workers Ass'n v. City of New York, 68 N.Y.2d 359, 366, 502 N.E.2d 176, 180 (1986). “A significant effect on the environment may be found if a proposed project impairs “the character or quality of existing community or neighbourhood character, or impacts upon “existing patterns of population concentration, distribution, or growth. . . . It is not relevant whether the proposed project may effect these concerns primarily or secondarily or in the short or the long term since the regulations expressly include all such effects.” Id. (citations omitted). Having failed to adequately evaluate the impacts of the proposed FBC on community character, the DGEIS is fatally flawed.

The Town Plan, the Comprehensive Plan and the FBC

The Greenplan Report also notes the inconsistencies in community impact of the FBC as evidenced in the Town’s Planning documents. The Town Planner and Town Board have cited the Comprehensive Plan as part of the public process for the FBC. However, the Comprehensive Plan and the FBC are two different tools for addressing the future of the Town. The Comprehensive Plan sets forth broad aspirational goals for the community. Through a series of 46 stated goals, the Comprehensive Plan sets a tone for the future of New Castle. The recurrent theme throughout the Comprehensive Plan is maintaining the bucolic nature of the Town and preserving the history, charm and long-standing civic and community traditions. The DGEIS and the proposed FBC fail to meet the Town goals and are inconsistent with the Town Plans. The Greenplan Report stresses the need to engage the community in the process so as to create a form-based code that reflects community’s goals.

The Comprehensive Plan looks to avoid arbitrary changes in the Town Zoning so as to sustain the articulated goals. As noted in the Greenplan Report, in order to establish zoning is consistent with the Town Plan, the proposed FBC must be shown not to materially alter the intent of the Town Plan. The Greenplan Report notes there is a high likelihood that the “amendments as proposed will result in unintended consequences that have not been subjected to a thorough consistency analysis.” Greenplan Report, p. 12. The Town has failed to show in the DGEIS or the hearing process how it has acted in the best interests of the Town by implementing the Town Plan recommendations.

Tooher & Barone, LLP March 25, 2021 Page 10 of 12

Inadequate Traffic and Parking Analysis

Finally, the Greenplan Report questions the adequacy of the traffic and parking analysis in the DGEIS. One of the goals of form-based codes generally is to lessen congestion in streets by reducing traffic and encouraging pedestrians. Greenplan Report p. 13. In looking at traffic and parking impacts under the proposed FBC as written, there is no evidence that there would be a reduction in congestion. Id. Indeed, the traffic analysis in the DGEIS acknowledges the need to identify a traffic mitigation funding stream to support the traffic increases anticipated by the increased development. DGEIS, p.133. No clear funding mechanism is identified in the DGEIS. Traffic impacts in the Hamlet include traffic impacts from heavy duty trucks used for construction, as well as longer term traffic impacts. This could degrade quality of life in the Hamlet for the foreseeable future. The Town Board failed to meet its SEQRA obligations by failing to identify concrete mitigation measures for these serious negative impacts. Greenplan Report, p.15.

The Greenplan Report notes the inadequacy of the parking analysis in the DGEIS, and the apparent effort to deal with an acknowledged lack of available parking by requiring self- sufficient parking or “finding a way to create parking” during peak hours. The buildout scenario presents the option for 5 story parking garages in 5 separate locations and proposes a “parking toolbox” that provides vague and incomplete answers to the many questions on available parking. Greenplan Report p.15. The DGEIS provides no evaluation of the visual or community character impact of these large-scale structures on the Hamlet community. Id.

Inadequate Analysis of Sewer, Stormwater And Flooding, and Steep Slopes

In examining sewer, stormwater and flooding issues, sanitary sewer impacts and steep slopes, the Dresdner Robin Report (DR Report) notes the need for additional analysis as part of a Supplemental GEIS in order to avoid unknown negative environmental impacts from anticipated development under the proposed FBC. The DR Report reveals furth inadequacies in the FBC analysis in areas of significant environmental concern. While issues of sanitary sewer impacts, stormwater and flooding, and steep slopes may not lend themselves to straightforward public comment, they are none the less critical areas of environmental review that require detailed analysis to ensure the Town is protected before moving forward with the FBC. The DGEIS and FBC process have minimized and inadequately evaluated these important areas.

Regarding sanitary sewer capacity, the DR Report finds that there has been insufficient analysis in several areas, minimizing the reliability of data in the DGEIS. Overall, “…very little peak capacity remains available under the FBC for Full Build Scenario given the assumptions of the study. The failure to account for unexpected increases, underestimated assumptions, or contributed sewershed areas that were not accounted for, creates an unacceptable risk of exceeding sewer capacity during peak flow conditions.” DR Report, P.10. Capacity analysis has not been provided in the DGEIS for various areas of the FBC coverage area. “The true impacts of the FBC on the Town’s wastewater infrastructure cannot be assessed without these analyses.” DR Report p.12.

Tooher & Barone, LLP March 25, 2021 Page 11 of 12

In reviewing Stormwater/Flooding impacts, the DR Report notes that although the FBC requires all development comply with Chapter 108A Stormwater management and Erosion and Sediment Control of the Town Code and the NYS Green infrastructure Mandate, and that design be in accordance with the NYSDEC Stormwater Management Design Manual, these protections are largely illusory in the FBC area. Many of the protections afforded by these provisions only apply to disturbances of 1 acre or more or creation of 1,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. Proposed development of many of the individual lots in the FBC area typically result in less than one acre of disturbance or less than 1,000 square feet of impervious surface. This limits the possibility for development in the FBC area to meet the Town’s Master Plan Goal 19 and Actions 19.1 to require Green infrastructure techniques in new developments and 19.4 requiring applicants to incorporate hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of water courses and pipe networks impacted by development. DR Report p.13. The DR Report further points out the steep elevation grade of King Street in the FBC area – an elevation change of 165 feet over approximately 1,960 feet – creates undesirable stormwater impacts requiring additional upgrades unaccounted for in the DGEIS and the FBC to prevent excess stormwater surface flow and possible flooding to the hamlet as a consequence of future development. DR Report p.14.

In further evaluating the steep slopes in the FBC area, the DR Report notes that the Town engineer would be given authority over development in the steep slopes area, removing that authority from the Planning Board.2 The DR Report further notes that the proposed build out scenario proposes a residential building and parking area for the extremely steep slope areas along the East side of King Street and along the ridge that separates the Hamlet from residential uses to the east. The DR Report encourages the Planning Board’s continued participation in the review process in these areas to discourage development along these very steep slopes. DR Report p.13.

In sum, the DR Report finds that there is inadequate analysis demonstrated in the DGEIS to fully evaluate the impacts of the FBC on sewer, stormwater and steep slopes.

Conclusion

The history of the Chappaqua FBC demonstrates a disregard for the recognized planning practices and SEQRA analysis necessary for implementing such large scale zoning changes. While the Town Board likes to refer to the process utilized for implementing the Comprehensive Plan into the FBC timeline, the Plan itself merely notes the possibility of “considering a form based code” for the Hamlet and transitional areas. That ‘consideration’ requires public and community input through the recognized public participation and charrette process, to determine that the FBC is indeed what the community wants and needs. By disregarding such practices, the Town led the Chappaqua community down the road of a flawed process from the start, investing funds into a deficient DGEIS that clearly lacked a comprehensive understanding of the community’s needs and desires as well as the obvious environmental issues and impacts.

2 Although comments have been made by the Supervisor that the Planning Board will retain much of the jurisdiction removed by the proposed FBC, and analysis can only be done at this point on the FBC as currently provided to the public.

Tooher & Barone, LLP March 25, 2021 Page 12 of 12

Thank you for your time and consideration. We ask that these comments and attachments be made a part of the record.

Very truly yours,

Meave Tooher John Barone

Report on

Zoning and Form Based Code Issues

Chappaqua, NY

Barbara Faga, PhD, FASLA Ellen Heath, FAICP Ketki Kulkarni, MCRP

March 24, 2021

March 25, 2021 Page 2 of 29

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 3

Introduction 6

Why form based code? 6

Brief history of form based code 6

Chappaqua’s form based code 8

1. Chappaqua -- The process of form based code adoption 9

a. Guidance for form based code development and adoption 10

b. The New Castle Comprehensive Plan 12

c. Form based code development and adoption process 14

2. Experiences of other cities and towns 18

a. Case studies 18

b. Why cities abandon form based code 22

c. Comparison to Chappaqua’s process 23

d. Community engagement during a pandemic 23

e. Fiscal issues 25

3. Recommendations for changes and possible corrections of the process 26 a. Potential actions to consider reworking the approvals process 27 b. Strength of community engagement 28 Conclusion 29

March 25, 2021 Page 3 of 29

Executive Summary

This report reviews and evaluates the steps taken by the Town of New Castle to develop and attempt to implement a form based code for the downtown Chappaqua hamlet and surrounding properties. The conclusions reached herein demonstrate a process that ignored recognized planning practices, avoided a meaningful charrette process, and trivialized and disregarded the opposition in the community. Simply stated, the Town administered a flawed process in crafting the form based code and presenting it to the community, and when the community balked, the Town continued down this fatally flawed path. ● The Town never properly sought the collective community voice and disregarded what they did hear in rolling out the proposal for the form based code as well as the scope for the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (“DGEIS”); ● In our experience, the speed and lack of substantive public involvement in the Town of New Castle process is unprecedented when compared with other communities across the country; ● Surprisingly, the form based code process was not adjusted to respond to limitations presented by the COVID19 pandemic. The pandemic vastly changed the priorities for families across the country and altered how many Americans live their lives. This was especially true in Chappaqua, a hamlet whose residents are inextricably tied to New York City, one of the epicenters for the pandemic. The pandemic required a markedly different process for the Town to achieve the necessary transparency and active interchanges with the community that would facilitate enacting a form based code. Having failed to meet this challenge, the Town issued a DGEIS that missed issues completely, identified the wrong geographic scope for the form based code, and inadequately addressed the potential impacts; ● The Downtown Working Group (DWG), created to work on the form based, code failed to include ample input from residents, business owners, workers, teachers, the local school district, fire department, merchants, EMS and other residing/working members of the community. Instead, the Town assembled a non-diverse limited group that drove the design decisions for the form based code, excluding critical input from the proper stakeholders.

March 25, 2021 Page 4 of 29

● The general public meetings were crunched into a condensed time frame of 5 months, limited by the pandemic to virtual meetings. This kind of process is insufficient to address the deeper issues involved and has resulted in a great deal of miscommunication between the Town Board and the public. Again, we are further baffled by the Town Board deeming it appropriate to rush through this process in the middle of the pandemic, while many cities across the US have decided to shelve, pause, or delay such major zoning changes. ● The form based code lacks a clear vision. It states too many goals that have repeatedly changed over its various draft versions. A form based code generally aims at tackling one or two of the aims touted by new urbanism, but the Chappaqua code seems to be suffering from the “While we are at it” syndrome, making the code and the process too complex.1 ● More often than not, participants on the Downtown Working Group mentioned the ease for developers as one of the desired outcomes of adopting the code, ignoring the community goals identified in the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. The lack of a clear vision further muddies the ability of the Town to proceed with an accurate DGEIS and thus, creates a fatal flaw in the review process. ● Assertions that form based code is wholly responsible for re-energizing downtowns, redeveloping cities, and promoting successful economic development are widely debated. The reality of what form based code accomplishes is hard to distinguish from the promises that often oversell the product.2 The Town Board has not provided a clear fiscal analysis with its various components to support any coherent conclusion.

Form based codes have been adopted by many cities. With big goals like revitalization, affordable housing, walkability, maintaining character, and helping local businesses, form based codes have the promise of fostering better living, healthy environments, beautiful neighborhoods, and equity and affordability.3 As a result, the form based code may seem like an attractive tool for the hamlet of Chappaqua. However, the current form based code process has lacked meaningful engagement with

1 "Code Hackathon: What Can Go Wrong with Form-Based Codes?" PlaceMakers, 2019, http://www.placemakers.com/2019/05/14/code-hackathon/. 2 "Assessing Criticisms of Form-Based Codes." Better! Cities & t\Towns, 2013, https://rangwalaassoc.com/wp- content/uploads/Ideas/Articles/AssessingFBCs.pdf. 3 Building by Right: Social Equity Implications of Transitioning to Form-Based Code (miami.edu) March 25, 2021 Page 5 of 29

the community. It has been our experience that changes as big as rezoning are not usually accepted by the community unless the community is made an integral part of the process. Community vision should form the basis of a successful form based code. It has been discovered by many planners in adopting form based code for cities across the country that intensive community engagement is a must for effective implementation. Planners need to work with communities for months, if not years, to educate them about the process, usually hosting hands-on working sessions to make the community part of the design process. In essence, the nature of form based code demands that planners develop the code together with the members of the community. In sum, we have not seen this much disregard for the community by a local government in form based code adoptions to date.

March 25, 2021 Page 6 of 29

Introduction

Why form based code?

Form based codes evolved two decades ago and cities have been adopting them since 1980s through a gradual process of intensive community engagement, deliberation, and consultancy. Multiple cities have successfully implemented form based codes. Neighborhoods and districts like Fort Worth in Texas and Pleasant Hill in California; smaller cities like Delray Beach FL, Benicia CA, Bellevue KY; and larger cities including Miami, Denver, and Nashville; have all been a part of the form based code movement by going through community-engagement-focused processes.

Graphic 1: Number of form based code per state in the US along with international region

Brief history of form based code

Form based codes are 20 years old. Carol Wyant, then Form Based Code Institute (FBCI) director, established the term in 2001.4 The origin of the code was the development of the Gulf Coast second home community of Seaside, FL, developed by Robert Davis on 80 acres of family property in 1979. One

4 "History." Form-Based Codes Institute, 2021, https://formbasedcodes.org/history/. March 25, 2021 Page 7 of 29

of the several Seaside architects, Andres Duany, put together a one-page design code for the resort town.

The 1984 design award winner was admired for its neoclassical plan and summer architecture. Best described by Architect Magazine as “intended to evoke the character of an old Southern town” and “guidelines governed virtually every building—houses, for instance, had to have front porches and picket fences.”5

Since the 1980’s, cities have enacted form based code through a gradual process of intensive community engagement, deliberation, and consultancy. Currently, Placemakers.com tracks form based code adoption throughout the US. They report that of the 728 form based codes on their list, 438 have been adopted to date. Statista.com reports that as of July 2019 there are 19,502 incorporated US cities, towns, and villages,6 which means that 2.22% of US incorporated local governments have adopted some aspect of form based code over the last 20 years.

Compare this adoption rate with zoning first enacted by New York City in 1916. The US Supreme Court upheld the rights of the Village of Euclid, Ohio, to enforce zoning in the celebrated Village of Euclid v Ambler Realty case in 1926, and courts have supported it ever since. By 1928, over 525 local governments had adopted zoning, and ten years later the number had grown to more than 1,200 ordinances. The fact that zoning could spread so quickly prior to modern communication methods is indicative of the need and desire on the part of government officials and residents for building and development controls. Only one major US city is famously without zoning - Houston.7

5 Dixon, John Morris. "How Seaside Helped Revive Urban Design: The Plan for Seaside, Fla." Architect, November 1, 2013. https://www.architectmagazine.com/design/urbanism-planning/how-seaside-helped-revive-urban-design_o. 6 "Number of Cities, Towns and Villages (Incorporated Places) in the United States in 2019, by Population Size." Statista, 2021, 2021, https://www.statista.com/statistics/241695/number-of-us-cities-towns-villages-by-population-size/. 7 "Houston Doesn’t Have Zoning, but There Are Workarounds." Rice Kinder Institute for Urban Research, 2020. March 25, 2021 Page 8 of 29

Graphic 2. Seaside Design Code created by Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk8

Chappaqua’s form based code

Chappaqua’s local community is almost unanimously convinced they do not need a new form based code. To date there have been six public hearings during COVID-19 and over holidays in a condensed time from September 2020 to February 2021. Public commenters expressed concerns about the rush to approve the proposed code. Yet the Town Board proceeds to move toward a form based code approval as illustrated in their newly published Form Based Code Review Process beginning with 1) Closing Public Hearing on Feb 23, 2021 and ending with 9) form based code adoption.9 Despite proceeding with the current DGEIS analysis of the form based code, the Town Board also recently announced (on Feb. 23, 2021) the “New Direction” limiting the form based code experiment “to a relatively small area of the

8 "The Seaside Code: The Poster That Started It All." University of Notre Dame School of Architecture, https://seaside.library.nd.edu/essays/the-code. 9 "Chappaqua Forward - Form Based Code Project." The Town of New Castle New York, 2021, https://mynewcastle.org/510/Chappaqua-Forward.

March 25, 2021 Page 9 of 29

Chappaqua hamlet – the North Greeley corridor, from the traffic light at the intersection with King Street to Bischoff Avenue. This area includes the former Rite Aid space that has been vacant for over 2 years.” The memo notes that “the SEQRA process on the entire study area” will continue because the

“Town Board wants these questions answered!”10 The Town is already facing several deficiencies with its current DGEIS and a complete overhaul in the scope of the project while still proceeding with the initial study area is yet another procedural abnormality being pursued by the Town for the approval of this proposal.

In general, introduction to form based code is met with either enthusiasm or disdain by the public, depending on when and how the new code is presented, and the process by which it is conveyed. Responses generally fall into the following reactions 1) a “development regulation that fosters predictable built results and a high-quality public realm,”11 or 2) “a cautionary tale,”12 or 3) a “newfangled planning tool that didn’t pencil.”13 We determine that the proposed Chappaqua form based code falls into the categories of 2) “a cautionary tale,”14 and 3) a “newfangled planning tool that didn’t pencil.”15

Following this introduction this report includes the following sections.

1. Chappaqua – the process of form based code adoption 2. Case studies, experiences of other cities and towns 3. Recommendations of changes and possible corrections of the process to date

1. Chappaqua -- the process of form based code adoption

Form based code is described as a specific process for zoning that encourages community process. This is the primary selling point for enacting form based code; interaction with the community is the heralded portion of the process. However, in the case of the Chappaqua effort, through public hearing

10 "Q. What Is the “New Direction” Announced by the Town Board for the Form Based Code? What Does That Mean and What Happens Next?", 2021, https://www.mynewcastle.org/DocumentCenter/View/2808/New-Castle- New-Direction-FBC-FAQ-2262021. 11 Form based codes Defined. (2021). Retrieved from https://formbasedcodes.org/definition/ 12 Dreger, A. (2018). Is the East Village a Cautionary Tale of Form Based Code? Retrieved from https://eastlansinginfo.org/content/east-village-cautionary-tale-form-based-code 13 Hamburger, J. (2015). Park City’s idea for newfangled planning tool just ‘didn’t pencil’. Retrieved from https://www.parkrecord.com/news/park-city/park-citys-idea-for-newfangled-planning-tool-just-didnt-pencil/ 14 Dreger, A. (2018). Is the East Village a Cautionary Tale of Form Based Code? Retrieved from https://eastlansinginfo.org/content/east-village-cautionary-tale-form-based-code 15 Hamburger, J. (2015). Park City’s idea for newfangled planning tool just ‘didn’t pencil’. Retrieved from https://www.parkrecord.com/news/park-city/park-citys-idea-for-newfangled-planning-tool-just-didnt-pencil/ March 25, 2021 Page 10 of 29

comments, newsletters, and on-line media, community members have protested the haste of this project and residents not participating in working groups. These comments are summarized from those listed in Chappaqua Forward Public Comments.16 a. Guidance for form based code development and adoption

According to PlannersWeb and to many urban planners and local officials, enacting form based code community engagement is the single biggest selling point of the process. Their philosophy is “A form- based code is effective only if it implements a community’s vision for its future.”

Essential to the development of a form-based code is an active public engagement process. A form based code is effective only if it implements a community’s vision for its future. Developing this community vision must be done early in the process, with the active involvement of those affected. One of the best models for how to do this is the community “charrette,” which is a multi-day open public process with multiple feedback loops for the public to interact with a variety of professionals with complementary expertise in planning, urban design, architecture, transportation, law, public safety, real estate economics, and public administration. The range of professionals involved is typically determined based on the specific context and issues likely to be addressed during the community planning process. The idea is to get everyone in the same room together to work through differences and arrive at a common vision.17

Unfortunately, the Chappaqua community missed this opportunity. This is primarily due to the Town Board’s drive to condense the time frame that other cities’ local officials have traditionally devoted to community process. The Town Board disposed of the opportunity to utilize a community charrette to build consensus, and similarly never approached the community or a diverse group of stakeholders to ascertain whether there was indeed interest in a form based code at this time and if so, the desired scope of such code. The list of experts Madden and Russell refer to on PlannersWeb are those whose job is to familiarize the community with form based code. The Town Board is not providing a common vision, nor have they provided their constituents with the recommended and necessary process.

16 "Public Comments." Town of New Castle Chappaqua Forward, 2021, https://www.mynewcastle.org/531/Public-Comment. 17 Madden, Mary, and Joel Russell. "Part 4: How Form-Based Codes Are Written." 2020. https://plannersweb.com/2014/12/fbc4/. Note Mary Madden is among the list of instructors on Form Based Code.com https://formbasedcodes.org/instructors/ March 25, 2021 Page 11 of 29

The result is that the community was not included in the process to craft a zoning code vision and thus, has not come to a consensus regarding a proposal that could be properly studied for environmental impacts. Not surprisingly, the community is against the new code as well as the Town’s SEQRA overreach, while pursuing legal efforts to hold and/or stop the process.

Urban planners understand that people do not unexpected change in their community.18 There are multiple instances of processes where community members, although initially skeptical of form based code, eventually accepted it as they were involved in the process of rezoning by the means of design charrettes, digital engagement, workshops and more. Not only is community engagement vital in terms of achieving superior results, but it is also a universally accepted requirement in the urban planning field. The American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) ethics code includes many references toward working with the community beginning with “our primary obligation is to serve the public interest.” For more on planning ethics see Page 2, Section 1 in the AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (the code). Public interest is being ignored by New Castle, Chappaqua per 1e, 1f, and 1h of the code, while the town board is involved in continuing to push this form based code process through their local community.

In 2018, The American Planning Association (APA) issued Living with Your Form Based Code as part of their Zoning Practice newsletter series. They describe the code and encourage actors to get to know the new zoning before attempting to make the zoning change.

This is a recurring theme in discussions about form-based codes—not everybody who will be using the code really understands the code. If your community is considering preparing a form- based code, the very first step should be to make sure that people who are not experienced planners, such as elected officials, development professionals, and residents, can get on board with this approach.19

Later, more complex issues resulting from experience with development proposals may become apparent, or larger policy changes may point to the need for new zoning districts or standards. Greater experience with the code may also lead to recognition of a need for administrative or staffing changes. If open communication between all the stakeholders can be nurtured, and an

18 Kanter, Rosa Beth Moss. "Ten Reasons People Resist Change." September 25Harvard Business Review, 2012. https://hbr.org/2012/09/ten-reasons-people-resist-chang. 19 Stroud, Nancy, and Elizabeth Garvin. "Living with Your Form-Based Code." Zoning Practice, no. 4. (2018). https://planning- org-uploaded-media.s3.amazonaws.com/document/Zoning-Practice-2018-04.pdf March 25, 2021 Page 12 of 29

attitude of problem solving be maintained, the necessary changes can improve the effectiveness of the form-based code.20

The definition of how to prepare a form based code is from Parolek (2008): “Form based code is a method of regulating development to achieve a specific urban form.”21 The process includes determining building form and use involving a prescribed method specific to the locality. The process always includes public meetings, 3D modeling, the identification of transects, and design of a regulating plan. Each is an element of the overall formula to determine the means of governing the built environment. Form based code always shapes the physical form of development rather than the land use.22

Each of the following two items included are in the category of items that the community generally participates in ongoing workshops/charrettes throughout the process. “Form based codes are often accompanied by master plans and/or regulating plans that tie form to pattern in ways that use-based codes do not. This makes form based codes more effective as they are often arrived at through a collaborative, community-based planning effort designed to settle on a vision plan.” 23

“Form based codes are clear and precise standards that offer predictability. The form based codes are developed to create a specific place that the citizens desire. Both the vision and form based codes are developed with citizen input. The citizens have a higher comfort level with the result the standards are likely to produce. City staff gets a streamlined and easy to administer review process. “23 b. The New Castle Comprehensive Plan The Town of New Castle’s Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2017. The comp plan is organized around five principles, the first is “Principle: Livable Built Environment.” Goal 1. “Preserve the bucolic residential character of the community’s neighborhoods.24 The majority of the community has expressed a clear preference to maintain the bucolic character of the hamlet. The form based code failed to propose a

20 Ibid. 21 Parolek, D. G., Parolek, K., & Crawford, P. (2008). Form based codes. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 "Principle: Livable Built Environment." http://www.plannewcastle.us/plancontent/livable-built-environment.

March 25, 2021 Page 13 of 29

process that would protect the bucolic character of the Town while simultaneously providing a roadmap for smart development. Further, the Town generally failed to properly identify and assess community character in the DGEIS.

The second goal under the first principle is directed to Chappaqua redevelopment: Goal 2. Locate higher density residential development in hamlets, with density of development decreasing as distance from hamlet centers increases. To allow for higher density residential (not mixed-use) development in areas immediately surrounding the hamlet while maintaining the residential character of the neighborhoods, the Town should review the regulations found in the zoning code regarding transition areas surrounding the hamlets. Alternative zoning approaches, including form based codes, should be considered for areas within the hamlets and associated transition areas. Regulations should be revised to allow for development, while ensuring it does not disrupt the single-family residential character of the adjacent neighborhood and should include guidance regarding the appropriate scale, density and housing type.25

The goals of the comp plan related to Chappaqua rezoning include: ● Preserve the bucolic residential character of the community’s neighborhoods ● Preserve and protect historic resources ● Create a sustainable mix of commercial and residential uses within the hamlets ● Enhance the aesthetic quality of the hamlets ● Attract, retain and support diverse, local businesses and establishments.26

However, the stated goal during the DWG discussion for the form based code was to make the approvals process “easier on developers” to get things done.27 While this was expressed in the DWG meeting as the goal of the form based code, it is not listed in the form based code Town of New Castle, NY/ Revision: 9/23/20.28 Aside from the questionable goal of easing the lives of developers, the Town failed to integrate into the form based code substantive discussions regarding how to identify, preserve

25 "Goal 2. Locate Higher Density Residential Development in Hamlets, with Density of Development Decreasing as Distance from Hamlet Centers Increases." Town of New Castle, http://www.plannewcastle.us/plan-actions/livable-built- environment/locate-higher-density-residential-development-in-hamlets-with-density-of-development-decreasing-as-distance- from-hamlet-centers-increases. 26 New Castle 2017 Comprehensive Plan, p.17 27 "Chappaqua Hamlet Form Based Code Downtown Working Group Meeting 1/14/20." 2020, https://vimeo.com/385066903 Time 46:02 28 Town Code, Part II General Legislation, Chapter 60 Zoning, Article VIII: Form-Based District. (Town of New Castle, NY: 2/3/20, Revision: 9/23/20). March 25, 2021 Page 14 of 29

and promote the above-identified goals (from the comp plan) as part of the development vision for the hamlet.

The Town may have intended the form based code to establish a detailed set of development rules and procedures as included in the “Article 3 Form Based District, A. Transect Intent, (4) The intent of this pattern of development is to create compact walkable communities that promote the health, safety, and welfare of the community through a livable built environment, harmony with nature, a resilient economy, a healthy community, and responsible regionalism.”29 Regardless of the Town’s intentions, the form based code does not incorporate and stress these goals. Further the DGEIS does not address community character in order to assess the potential negative impacts to the goals of the comprehensive plan. c. Form based code development and adoption process The public meetings for the form based code began in September 2020 and ended with a public hearing on February 23, 2021.30 According to the presentation at the September 9 meeting, billed as an introduction to the process, (i) stakeholder meetings with some groups (“Emergency Services, Business Community, Historical Society, Town Department Heads, etc.”) were held in 2019, and (ii) the Downtown Working Group kicked off in May 2019. However, key stakeholders were merely invited, via e-mail, to a presentation where they could obtain information. These stakeholders were never part of the design concept process or the process facilitated by the DWG.

At the September 9 meeting, Sabrina Charney Hull, Planning Director, stated that Kimley Horn was hired in 2019 “to help us develop the form based code.” There is no discussion about how the decision to move to a form based code was made. The fifth slide in the September 9 presentation provides the Town’s rationale for moving to a form based code: • Allow residential uses • Increase allowable building heights in response to market conditions (according to Ms. Hull, they learned through a “market scan” that the existing 35-foot height limit would not allow for an

29 Ibid. p.13 30 "Chappaqua Forward." Videos and Presentations, Town of New Castle, 2020, https://www.mynewcastle.org/513/Videos-Presentations. March 25, 2021 Page 15 of 29

adequate return on investment for property owners. Volume 2, Appendix E of the DGEIS is the market scan conducted by RES Group). • Concerns about hamlet aesthetics • Concerns about the current lengthy and expensive approval process • Improving neighbor notification31

There was no discussion in the public meeting about whether or how other methods of zoning or non- form based code zoning changes could address these issues, but the DGEIS does discuss alternatives, including keeping the existing zoning. The DGEIS did not present an alternative for non-form based code zoning changes. Alternative B, Maximum Buildout Using Existing Zoning, explores the limits of the existing zoning.

Public hearings are not conducive to creating consensus. When the public hearings are virtual there is even more opportunity to create opposition. A public hearing is not a good forum in which to seek harmony or compromise for the following reasons. • No one changes his or her mind in a public meeting and the “aha” moments are extremely rare. • The format fosters a lack of constructive dialogue and the tendency to perpetuate an “us versus them” dynamic. • People arrive with an entrenched mentality and prewritten comments that they read into the record. 32

The New Castle Town Board fostered this public process that doomed their efforts from the beginning. The Town Board mentions at each meeting that they are listening with “open hearts and open minds” throughout the virtual meetings. However, during the last hearing, many from the public requested that the Town Board keep the public comment period open for the Board of Education report that would be submitted after the hearing. Residents stressed the need to review this report and then submit subsequent comments via a later public hearing. This request was refused by the Town Board. Surprisingly, at the close of the public hearing, the Town Board explained how it intended upon substantially changing the scope of the form based code to only the North Greeley corridor. One would

31 "Form Based Code Engagement Session 9/29/20." 2020, https://youtu.be/3B2eM0pZm5M?t=927. 32 Faga, Barbara. "Designing Public Consensus." The Civic Theater of Community Participation for architects, landscape architects, planners and urban designers (2006). March 25, 2021 Page 16 of 29

expect that such an extensive change would substantiate subsequent public hearings to understand the community’s position on the new vision for the form based code.

If the intent was to gain consensus the meetings were designed to fail. The February 23, 2020, 6th public hearing began like the others with the Town Board Work Session followed by the form based code public hearing -- a total 3 hour, 41 minutes, 30 second (3:41:30) combined meeting. The public hearing was called to order at 1:09:06 and after directions and ground rules were read the public comments began at 1:21:06. “Ground rules” for the meeting were read by Supervisor Pool (Graphic 3 screen shot). The first commenter stated she did not want to hear “try not to repeat comments by others” and went on to tell the Town Board that “if 1000 residents tell you they don’t want five story buildings – you need to hear it 1000 times.”33 Similar comments followed. Virtual public hearings are not a good forum for compromise and harmony. The hearings in Chappaqua produced an antagonistic relationship between the Board and the community, isolating residents to their “3 minutes” of input, creating confusion and tension between the public and the Board and finally, ensuring that collaboration was not the end result.

33 "Town Board of New Castle Work Session & Public Hearing 2/23/21." Town of New Council, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY641_PHK0ghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY641_PHK0g. March 25, 2021 Page 17 of 29

Graphic 3. Guidelines for form based code from February 23, 2021 public hearing34

It is clear through best management practices for proposing a form based code and from the failures of the SEQRA public hearings that charrettes and workshops are the best tools to “bring a great deal of participation . . . with engineers, landscape architects, environmentalists, real estate and marketing people. All the information in an integrated fashion . . . it also saves time.”35

Charrettes use a collaborative approach to include the community in the design of its zoning code, form based code and/or substantial revisions to an existing code. As stated previously, the inclusion of a diverse and large stakeholder group in the planning process through charrettes act to facilitate the engagement of the entire community and the exchange of ideas. This type of design feedback reduces the mistrust between the community and local government while achieving an understanding by the Board of the general temperature of the community when it comes to a proposed zoning overhaul. The

34 Ibid. 35 Faga, Barbara. "Designing Public Consensus." The Civic Theater of Community Participation for architects, landscape architects, planners and urban designers (2006). March 25, 2021 Page 18 of 29

foundation that results from this process informs the SEQRA process, the issues that need to be assessed by the DGEIS, the scope of the changes that could be accepted by the community and generally provides for a focused DGEIS that would avoid the need for a Supplemental DGEIS later in the process. Unfortunately, in Chappaqua, the Town opted to skip charrettes, resulting in a misguided form based code proposal and a DGEIS that did not properly assess or focus upon the relevant study area.

2. Experiences of other cities and towns

Strongtowns is an established online advocacy group for form based code and reinforces in their introduction that town zoning is specific to the town, city, location of the code. “Your city's zoning code is like the DNA of your community. It provides the rules that govern where buildings can be built, how tall they can be, how far from the street and neighboring properties, and so on.”36 Each local government adopts their conventional zoning or form based code as their specific path to realizing a vision. And while each code is different there are similar paths to their adoption. The primary and essential path is community education and engagement. The essential elements of form based code are described in detail on a popular online site, PlannersWeb, which specifically outlines How Form-Based Codes Are Written.37 a. Case studies

Case studies show that the processes for the adoption of form based code vary by location. The constant elements include extensive meetings and engagement with the community to allow for successful adoption. This takes time. Each local government has a different story of their path to adoption. Local officials often engage directly and invite other communities to learn and share their methods, successes, and failures.

Other successful examples of form based code implementation feature intensive participation of community members - homeowners, tenants, local business owners, school board, and other stakeholders - regardless of the geography, size, population, and year of implementation. Graphic 3

36"Six Reasons Your City Needs a Form Based Code." StrongTowns, 2020, https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/6/8/6- reasons-your-city-needs-a-form-based-code. 37 Madden, Mary, and Joel Russell. "Part 4: How Form-Based Codes Are Written." 2020. https://plannersweb.com/2014/12/fbc4/. March 25, 2021 Page 19 of 29

shows the time taken by each of these locations for their public engagement and implementation. In some cases, these processes were for citywide zoning changes, in others, the form based code was for a specific area or neighborhood. Following is an overview of several locations from large to small community adoption time for community engagement.

Graphic 4: A comparison of time taken for rezoning and public engagement of Chappaqua and other cities with similar rezoning projects38

- Princeton, NJ: Princeton considered form based code for almost three years and 30 public meetings before the community made the decision to adopt the form based code. In March 2021, the city decided to abandon the zoning change due to widespread public objection, and effects of the pandemic.39

38 Kulkarni, Ketki. March 22, 2021. 39 Howe, Andrea. "Zoning Dies Again, Safety Ordinances Planned." March 3, 2021. https://www.pdclarion.com/news/local_news/zoning-dies-again-safety-ordinances-planned/article_dd13fb23-c0d2-5744-9ae5- 8d81805942ed.html. March 25, 2021 Page 20 of 29

- Burlington, VT: Burlington took four years to adopt the form based code. The website describes a total of 40 public meetings to work through the details of the code, make revisions, and draft the document with major community input before adopting the code in November 2017.40 - Lower Merion, PA: This community outside Philadelphia adopted a form based code to “preserve classic residential neighborhoods, township’s village core and commercial areas to improve walkability, expand transit use, and encourage design excellence.” The code was adopted after “over 40 public meetings” in a three-year process.41 - Covington, KY: The form-based development code in Covington was adopted in September 2020 – in the middle of the COVID pandemic. However, the city had engaged the public in two years of meetings, charrettes, and other opportunities to have a say in the development of the code before the pandemic began.42 - Lancaster, NH: An information brief created in consultation with the University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension states that, “The development of form based code is based on community input on the vision, components which are valued and characteristics to be preserved. Lancaster set out to talk to and more importantly, hear from the residents in Lancaster. The engagement strategy included a design charrette, public meetings, outreach to the business community, youth, and the senior population. The design charrette allowed participants to see what the design of downtown would look like with form based code. Property owners – many of whom bought their building because they loved the property itself – were interviewed and supportive. The town planner met with high school students who said they valued what downtown looked like and were less concerned with the use in each building. The senior population had an opportunity to weigh in at a monthly meeting where they shared their stories of downtown and learned how form based code could protect it for future generations. The seniors also talked to their families, including their adult children and this new group of residents became aware and

40 "Planbtv Downtown Code." The City of Burlington, https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/planBTV/FBC. 41Saffron, Inga. "Lower Merion’s New Zoning Code Is a Love Letter to Suburbia." (Philadelphia), 2019, Sept 5. https://www.inquirer.com/real-estate/inga-saffron/lower-merion-zoning-affordable-housing-exclusion-density-transit-sprawl- cities-20190905.html?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar. 42"Covington Approves Neighborhood Development Code, Ditches Old Zoning Ordinance." September 27, 2020. https://www.rcnky.com/articles/2020/09/27/covington-approves-neighborhood-development-code-ditches-old-zoning- ordinance. March 25, 2021 Page 21 of 29

supportive. All segments of the community wanted the look and feel of downtown to remain and be strengthened. Form based code would address this.”43 - Nashville and Chattanooga, TN: Both Nashville and Chattanooga prioritized public involvement for development of the code. Chattanooga called its process a “public process” that included charrettes, meetings, and discussions. Code Studio, the consultant hired to design the code, engaged the community actively through education, interviews, and illustration services.44 Nashville similarly gathered inputs from 18,500 citizens and went through a participatory and comprehensive process.45 - Cleveland, OH and Detroit, MI: Both Cleveland and Detroit have moved one step ahead in terms of public engagement in their currently ongoing process. Each city created websites (https://thelandcode.com/ and https://zonedetroit.com/ respectively) to engage citizens in a meaningful way at a time when hosting an in-person meeting is difficult. These websites not only provide all documents related to the development of the code, but also provide an interactive medium for residents to provide inputs on how they want to see their neighborhood through this design. Cleveland has hosted over 17 public meetings and Detroit has engaged the public on more than 30 occasions. - Denver, CO: Denver adopted their form based code in 2010 after a ten year discussion, and five- year extensive community process involving 13 council districts with two advertised meetings per district, along with numerous on-demand meetings. The key lesson for planners was that face-to-face, one-on-one meetings were the most effective. According to then proponent and Mayor John Hickenlooper people wanted to know “how will this affect me?” 46

43 Molly Donovan, University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension. "Form-Based Code." In Community Planning New Hampshire, University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension, 2014. https://extension.unh.edu/resources/files/Resource004821_Rep6854.pdf. 44 "A Small City with a Big Vision: Chattanooga’s New Form-Based Code." Form Based Codes Institute, 2016, https://formbasedcodes.org/4121/. 45 Tubbs, Sean. "Planner Describes How “Form-Based” Zoning Changed Nashville." 2015. https://www.cvilletomorrow.org/articles/nashville-planner-on-form-based-zoning. 46 John Hickenlooper was one of the first business leaders in LoDo with the founding of Colorado’s first brewpub, the Wynkoop Brewing Company, elected mayor 2003, governor in 2011, and US Senator in 2021. https://hickenlooper.com/ March 25, 2021 Page 22 of 29

b. Why cities abandon form based code Communities around the country are learning that form based code does not always produce desired results. Cities who have adopted form based code because it encourages affordable housing canceled their adoption upon finding this was not a valid element of the proposed code. - Charlottesville, VA put their consideration of form based code on the shelf in February 2020 after public protest regarding affordable housing issues. “The council voted to indefinitely table the new zoning proposal during its regular meeting and sent an associated zoning map back to the Planning Commission.” “Supporters of form based code and consultants hired by the city have said the new system would promote affordable housing, while opponents have said it’s too complicated and won’t incentivize affordable development.” 47 - Pensacola, FL –At the October 2018 Board hearing the community protested the new code and a local real estate developer stated the proposed code “would make development more expensive and would limit the variances developers could request.” “The Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) hired planning firm DPZ for $155,000 — part of which came from a $40,000 state grant while the rest came from CRA funds — to develop a form-based overlay district. “The future of a proposed overlay district aimed at protecting the character of Pensacola's downtown neighborhoods — and that the city has spent $155,000 to develop — is in limbo after Thursday's Pensacola City Council meeting.”48 - Sarasota, FL – In 2018 the city decided to forego the proposed form based code for their residential areas after STOP, a citizens group objected to elements of the new code. “The form based code project, originally expected to take 30 months, lasted more than five years before a final draft was finished. The city spent more than $1.4 million on the Urban Design Studio, the new department established to write the code.”49

47 Stout, Nolan. "City Council Shelves Form-Based Code." The Daily Progress, 2020. https://dailyprogress.com/news/local/city- council-shelves-form-based-code/article_175b3df5-0cfb-5b45-b4c9-1d71a38ddd4c.html. 48 Little, Jim. "Pensacola Form-Based Code Proposal in Limbo after Failing to Pass CRA." Pensacola News Journal, October 2018. https://www.pnj.com/story/news/2018/10/12/pensacola-form-based-code-proposal-limbo-after-failing-pass-cra/1602388002/ 49 Conway, David. "Foregoing Form-Based Code, City Plots Zoning Changes." Sarasota Observer, January 24, 2019. https://www.yourobserver.com/article/sarasota-zoning-changes-form-based-code-priorities March 25, 2021 Page 23 of 29

c. Comparison to Chappaqua’s process Extensive, widespread, and inclusive community participation is vital for successful design and implementation of a form-based code. Chappaqua’s general community process lasted five months during the COVID pandemic and spanned over November and December holidays. The residents begged the Town to pause the process during this pandemic and also to conduct charrettes before proceeding with SEQRA. The public hearings began in September 2020 and were originally scheduled to end in December 2020. In response to numerous public requests the Town Board extended the hearings in January and again in February before announcing the hearings were over at the end of the February 23, 2021 meeting.

The Town Board began the process of drafting the code in May 2019 through an appointed downtown working group50. The first draft was presented to the working group on November 13, 2019.51 The first public hearing that included members of the community that we could identify was held on September 9, 2020.52 The presentational committee meeting that was held on July 23, 2019 to introduce the code was held on a Tuesday afternoon and evening. These meetings did not appear to have high attendance. The first two information sessions were held during working hours which might have prevented members of the community from attending. If Chappaqua wants to design an effective form based code for the hamlet, the Town Board should engage in a process of community consultation that informs, educates, involves, and includes the residents to design a “new direction” that is derived from a plan that the community envisions together. Not surprisingly, due to the Town’s failure in community consultation, many Chappaqua residents still do not understand the proposed form based code or the current process. This frustration is heard during various comments presented during the public hearings. d. Community engagement during a pandemic The most vital component of the process of rezoning, or for that matter, any other major change in the layout of the community, is community involvement, so that those who would most be affected by the changes will have a say in the whole process. However, as 2020 saw the entire country on lockdown

50 "Downtown Working Group Meetings & Documents." Chappaqua Forward, 2021, https://www.mynewcastle.org/522/Downtown-Working-Group. 51https://www.mynewcastle.org/DocumentCenter/View/1879/11132019---Chappaqua-Form-Based-Code-Draft- Code-Slideshow-Presentation-PDF 52 https://www.mynewcastle.org/513/Videos-Presentations March 25, 2021 Page 24 of 29

with most residents confined to their houses, public meetings of any kind were out of the question, and many cities and towns moved to virtual or video meetings. The adoption of a form based code under these circumstances, with no ability to conduct hands-on workshops or charrettes and foster meaningful give-and-take with community members, is not an acceptable course of action. Community members could not engage in conversation with their elected Town Board. Each person was allowed three minutes to ask a question or express an opinion. The Town Board did not answer questions or respond except to say thank you and move on to the next person from the community. Answers were later posted on the website but often failed to clarify the issues. Princeton NJ, Coral Gables FL, and Gowanus, Brooklyn, NY, are examples of locations with issues of conducting public engagement processes during the pandemic. As previously mentioned, Princeton abandoned their proposed code change due to community objection amid the pandemic. Coral Gables is currently subject to a lawsuit regarding changing their code during the pandemic.53

An example of a virtual public process occurred in Gowanus, a neighborhood in Brooklyn, NY. Gowanus residents Simon and Vogel accept that virtual realities are a poor substitute for public engagement and voice it in their opinion piece for City Limits. Excerpts from that piece states, “We understand proponents’ eagerness, but it is critical for the public to have a fair chance to weigh in meaningfully in a standardized manner on changes that will dramatically affect their lives, health, property, livelihoods, and neighborhoods. That is essential. In fact, that was the entire reason the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) was instituted three decades ago." 54

While some members of the community suggested that virtual meetings enable more people to attend virtual meetings since they are not held back by personal obligations like childcare, a member of the Community Board 6 (a Gowanus residents’ group) rightly pointed out, “Part of any community dialogue is being able to not only hear what people say but perhaps read body language and get a sense of the group politic. Is this person sharing their own opinion or is there collective support of that opinion? That

53 "To Zoom or Not to Zoom? Coral Gables Zoning Change Critics Say Virtual Meeting Is Illegal." 2021, https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/2021/02/01/to-zoom-or-not-to-zoom-coral-gables-zoning-change-critics-say- virtual-meeting-is-illegal/. 54 "Questioning the Fairness of Rezoning During a Pandemic." Updated August 4, 2020, https://www.planetizen.com/news/2020/08/110091-questioning-fairness-rezoning-during-pandemic. March 25, 2021 Page 25 of 29

comes across in lots of ways in a community meeting... I think it’s necessary for the process.” 55 Not only is public opinion critical when it comes to changes to the neighborhood they live and work in, but to hold a public hearing online, with no discussion, and telling the public not to repeat what others say is certainly not the intent of an appropriate community process.

The Gowanus zoning is on hold. “I’m not going to order certification ’til I figure out whether what the city is proposing to do…meets the requirements of the ‘public assembly,’” said Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge Katherine Levine at a virtual court hearing on Feb. 4. “So I have to look at the case law and figure that out.” 56 e. Fiscal issues Assertions that form based code is wholly responsible for re-energizing downtowns, redeveloping cities, and promoting successful economic development are widely overstated.57 To date there is little research demonstrating that form based code does or does not, by itself, foster development and/or lead to positive fiscal impacts to communities. Absent any research, it is incumbent upon local proponents of form based code to illustrate specifically, through detailed financial analysis, what are likely to be the fiscal impacts of a proposed form based code. In the case of Chappaqua, the Town failed to perform a thorough fiscal analysis of the impacts from the proposed form based code. A March 11, 2021, letter from Eric R. Levine requests information on the fiscal impact of the proposed form based code along with several other letters from the community.

Requests for fiscal analysis are not limited to requests from individual community members. Necessary requests for information are made by the School Board and the Planning Board – each of which should have been informed and addressed prior to ending the public process to discuss the form based code. The March 16, 2021, Chappaqua Central School District letter to the Town Board includes detailed requests for financial and development information. And the Town Planning Board letter to the Town Board, dated December 23, 2020, lists questions regarding finances, sustainability, future after COVID,

55Hubert, Craig. "Gowanus Residents Want to Halt Rezoning until in-Person Ulurp Meetings Can Resume." Nov 24, 2020. https://www.brownstoner.com/development/gowanus-rezoning-brooklyn-development-ulurp-virtual-meetings-2020/. 56 "Public Review of Gowanus Rezoning Still on Hold as Judge Studies Legality of Virtual Process." Brownstowner, Updated February 8, 2021, https://www.brownstoner.com/development/gowanus-brooklyn-rezoning-judge-considers-legality-virtual- ulurp-process-voice-of-gowanus/. 57 "Assessing Criticisms of Form-Based Codes." New Urban Publications, 2013, http://bettercities.net/article/assessing- criticisms-form-based-codes-19967. March 25, 2021 Page 26 of 29

and several other topics among the 24 items and 13 pages.58 The first item under number 24 on page 12 includes, “How does an expedited development application process lead to the creation of a “more beautiful and pedestrian oriented hamlet? Such declarations are not supported and are in fact not supportable.” Unfortunately this is an example of the questions that the community and the Planning Board are asking and a stunning example of the lack of discussion over form based code. The March 16, 2021, Chappaqua Central School District letter to the Town Board includes additional requests for financial and development information. The mere change to a form based code is not the action that achieves a municipality’s fiscal goals is evidenced by Syracuse NY, Lansing MI, Cincinnati OH, and others throughout the country. These and many other cities have looked to form-based code as one solution; however, a form based code may not be the action that addresses the economic concerns of the municipality or its desires to attract developers. Unfortunately, unless the fiscal impacts are thoroughly studied prior to advancing the proposed code change, the subject town could find that the form based code is not the answer to achieving its fiscal goals and rather, could negatively impact the town in various ways.

3. Recommendations for changes and possible corrections of the process

Changing an entire zoning code is a complicated process requiring extensive public input and interaction. Communities do not like change that is forced on them and is inconsistent with their vision. The Chappaqua Central School District (CCSD) specifically asks for “additional study and analysis to more fully understand the impacts of the form based code on the school district and community at large” in their letter to Supervisor Pool and Members of the New Castle Town Board dated March 16, 2021.59 The residents of Chappaqua have taken it one step further saying “no” to the form based code as the environmental impacts are too substantial.

If the foundation of a good public process is trust, the structure has a twofold purpose:

• To gather information that will help to create a design or plan that benefits the community.

58 Town of New Castle, Planning Board Comments on DGEIS, https://www.mynewcastle.org/DocumentCenter/View/2529/12232020---New-Castle-Planning-Board-to-Town-Board-re-DGEIS- PDF 59 CCSD letter, 16 March 2021 https://www.chappaquaschools.org/uploaded/CCSD/Board_of_Education/FBC_DGEIS_2021/CCSD_BOE_Comment_Letter_to_T own_of_New_Castle_03-16-2021.pdf March 25, 2021 Page 27 of 29

• To develop a shared vision that will result in public acceptance and approval process can be a positive or a negative experience.

The Form Based Code Institute (FBCI) advocates the adoption of the code as a community process and thereby, the Town Board’s role is to listen to their community and act accordingly. There is no apparent or compelling reason to force the form based code on the community at this time or to finalize a DGEIS without clearly indicating that the resulting environmental analysis demonstrates that the form based code is not appropriate for the scope of the community that was analyzed. The Town should supplement its DGEIS to identify issues that were not identified and to analyze the newly proposed scope of the form based code from the last public meeting. a. Potential actions to consider reworking the approvals process

The process should stop at its current stage and a new process forward is needed to meet Town and community goals. A properly planned community charrette is necessary because (a) it is up to the community to decide if a form based code is appropriate for the community as opposed to other options such as working within the structure of the current zoning and performing some amendments and (b) the process has been misguided from the start and needs an overhaul and new beginning. Essential elements of the new process include: 1. Encourage the community to become familiar with form based code and the process by announcing the schedule will substantively change to allow for the time to hold in-person, hands-on meetings and charrettes. The SEQRA process should also be adjusted accordingly. 2. Explain why form based code may be the best tool to meet the goals of the comprehensive plan. Explore options regarding conventional zoning changes and review pros and cons. 3. The Town Board should spend time in small group meetings or in-person with the community in a variety of locations so that each community question is discussed and answered in detail. While this may not be practical now, a pause in the process to allow emotions to subside could facilitate a new start for Board members and residents to begin a productive dialogue. 4. The Town Board should respond to the issues the Chappaqua School Board submitted in their letter dated March 16, 2021, and the Town Planning Board letter of December 23, 2020 and the additional requests for public information.

March 25, 2021 Page 28 of 29

b. Strength of community engagement

Community engagement is about process. It begins with local officials getting to know people in the community prior to discussion of contentious issues. It is advanced by a few early successes that demonstrate professional wisdom and foster community members’ faith in local leaders. Prior to putting forth recommendations, it requires development with the community of an overarching strategy and goals, and then working to ensure the strategy and goals are accepted by all concerned. Most important is that the vision captures the public imagination.60

Graphic 5 includes four components: (a) height – the higher the bubble, the more important the process; (b) direction -- left to right illustrates processes in order they could happen; (c) colors: Lilac for informal group involvement events, Green for outdoor events, Blue for self-engagement (for instance, a resident can engage on digital platform by herself in her own time), and yellow for formal public and (d) the importance, illustrated by size of the bubble.

Graphic 5: Community engagement process for form based code concept to implementation 61

60 Faga, Barbara. "Designing Public Consensus." The Civic Theater of Community Participation for architects, landscape architects, planners and urban designers (2006). 61 Kulkarni, Ketki. March 22, 2021. March 25, 2021 Page 29 of 29

The public hearings and comments, including the SEQRA GDEIS, that the Town Board conducted for Chappaqua are of course vital, but should not have been organized until after the community had an in- depth understanding of the proposed zoning code. In Chappaqua, the virtual public hearings failed to enable the community to understand the Board’s position regarding the importance and need for the rezoning. The community may still disagree with a form based code as presented currently, but if organized and presented properly, the concepts would have looked different for Chappaqua’s zoning revision whether by form based code or through use of amending the current zoning code.

Form based code is a community process. Group events like Lunch and Learn help the public in understanding the process and intricacies of rezoning. Neighborhood walks and bike tours orient the physical locations that would be rezoned and provide visual strategies. Design charrettes are important not only because they help planners understand the community vision, but also because they create involvement with the public in the designing process. When the community understands the goal, the implementation is positive, and the vision and product better represent the character of the community.

Conclusion For any project, every one of the individuals involved – client, designer, consultant, government official, resident, business owner, naysayer, onlooker – brings his or her personal vision of what is needed, of what the outcome could be, and/or what will work best. Slowly through meetings and discussions, heated exchanges and casual conversations, ideas begin to emerge and combine and coalesce until a shared version can eventually be seen. This common vision is the aim of every public process. It is the key to getting a project done correctly.62 We have rarely seen this much disregard for the community by a local government in form based code adoptions.

62 Faga, Barbara. "Designing Public Consensus." The Civic Theater of Community Participation for architects, landscape architects, planners and urban designers (2006). R ESU M E 1

BARBARA FAGA, PhD, FASLA Professor of Professional Practice Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey 33 Livingston Avenue, Room 354 New Brunswick, NJ 08901 Telephone: +1 (848) 932-2803 Mobile: 404-307-4008 Email: [email protected], [email protected]

EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL EXERIENCE PhD, Georgia Institute of Technology; Barbara is currently in her fifth year as Professor of Professional Practice at the School of City and Regional Planning Bloustein School, Rutgers University, New Jersey, USA. She is a designer of College of Architecture Dissertation: Formers versus Zoners; How award-winning projects including: Centennial Olympic Park, Atlanta; Parc and Why Communities Change to Form-Based Diagonal Mar, Barcelona, Spain; Carter Presidential Center, Atlanta; Celebration, Zoning Florida; Schuylkill River Master Plan, Philadelphia; Miami Downtown Vision Plan, Major: Sustainable Cities Minor: Public Policy Miami; Wharf District Park of the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway over the Bachelor of Science, Landscape US$15B "Big Dig" Boston; Porta Nuova, Milan, Italy; East Edisto master plan for Architecture, Michigan State University 70,000 acres near Charleston, South Carolina; and the Atlanta BeltLine. She CAREER HISTORY worked as a public sector planner and designer for the Department of Planning, Alexandria, Virginia and the Department of Parks & Recreation, Atlanta, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey Zoning, Urban Design classes, and Design Georgia. She has projects in the European Union, Latin America, Australia, and Studios Korea. Georgia Institute of Technology, adjunct and part-time instructor 1990 to 2015 Over her 35-year career, Barbara has helped elevate the position, scope and Barbara Faga LLC, 2011-present profile of landscape architecture, city planning and urban design on the global AECOM, Fellow, 2011 to present, stage, while serving as a mentor to young professionals. Barbara joined EDAW executive vice president, 2005-2011 (now AECOM) in 1980. She chaired EDAW’s board of directors from 1996 to 2005 EDAW 1980-2005, principal, chair of and later served as AECOM executive vice president, Planning, Design + the board, 1996-2005 Development, North America. Barbara was named one of ten AECOM Fellows in City of Alexandria, VA, urban designer, 2011. 1978-1980

Schnadelbach Braun landscape architects, Philadelphia, 1977 Barbara has conducted hundreds of public meetings, served as a board member, City of Atlanta, Department of Parks & and chaired several environmental, professional, and retail/development Recreation, park designer, 1974-1976 associations. She speaks in the United States, Europe, Australia, and South Heery architecture, Atlanta, 1973 America on urban issues for professional associations, public agencies, and PUBLICATIONS universities. She has directed complex teams on large, time-sensitive, and award- BOOK AUTHOR winning projects including housing and community development plans, downtown Co-editor, Planning Atlanta, American revitalization, waterfront development, and parks. Planning Association /Planners Press, Chicago, 2014 Her book, Designing Public Consensus: The Civic Theater of Community Designing Public Consensus; the Participation for Architects, Landscape Architects, Planners and Urban Designers Civic Theater of Community Participation for Architects, Planners (Wiley, 2006) is used by practitioners, professors and students. She co-edited and Urban Designers, Wiley, 2006 Planning Atlanta in 2014 with Harley F. Etienne and has contributed chapters to BOOK CHAPTERS several planning books. She received a distinguished alumni award in landscape Faga, B. (2020). Urban Design. In N. G. architecture from Michigan State University. Design Intelligence named her one of Leigh, S. P. French, S. Guhathakurta, & B. the top 15 women who are changing the world of architecture Stiftel (Eds.), The Handbook of International Planning Education (First ed.). London: Routledge. PROJECT EXPERIENCE Faga, B., Foreword in Palazzo, D., & National Center for Civil and Human Rights, Atlanta Steiner, F.R. (2012). Urban Ecological CLIENT: National Center for Civil and Human Rights Design: A Process for Regenerative Places. Consultant for selection of designer and construction of the plaza water feature Washington, DC: Island Press. opened in 2014. Faga, B. (2009). Civic Engagement. In G. Hack, E. L. Birch, P. H. Sedway & M. J. Silver (Eds.), Local Planning: Contemporary Houston-Galveston Regional Plan for Sustainable Development, Public Principles and Practice (pp. 234-235, 238- Engagement Review and Strategy Session 242). Washington, D.C.: ICMA Press. Project review co Faga, B. (2009). The Future of Public Participation. In E. L. Birch (Ed.), The Urban CLIENT: Houston-Galveston Area Council and AECOM. Review of one-year and Regional Planning Reader (pp. 265- public engagement process involving over 80 meetings in Phase 1 and a total 271). New York, NY: Routledge. US$2.5M HUD budget managed by the Houston- Galveston Area Council. R ESU M E 2

BARBARA FAGA, PhD, FASLA

Steiner, F., Faga, B., Sipes, J., & Yaro, R. Miami 2020 Vision Plan, Miami, FL Principal-In-Charge (2006). Mapping for Sustainable Resistance. In E. L. Birch & W. Susan M CLIENT: Miami Chamber of Commerce and the Miami Downtown (Eds.), Rebuilding Urban Places After Development Authority Disaster; Lessons from Hurricane Katrina. International Downtown Association award for the downtown Miami vision Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. plan including land use and public realm recommendations working with Landscape Architecture Graphic Standards, volunteer committees of business leaders and public agencies. The 2025 editorial board, John Wiley & Sons, 2006. plan was approved unanimously by the board of directors in 2010. MAGAZINES & INTERVIEWS (SELECTED) Restoration/Recovery Planning for the Gulf Coast, Texas, Louisiana, TOPOS, “Boston’s Big Dig”, by Barbara Mississippi, Alabama, Florida Faga, Vol 51, 2005 Principal-In-Charge Interviewee, Discover Magazine, “The Next Katrina” by Sarah Richardson, from the CLIENT: Regional Plan Association of New York August 2006 issue. A 50-year view of the Gulf Coast that examines the cumulative impacts Interviewee, Metropolis Magazine, caused by decades of hurricanes, severe storms, flooding, storm surges, the “Secretary to the Mob, Public-outreach loss of wetlands and marshlands, and the degradation of the barrier islands, specialist Barbara Faga really can’t complain about the growing democratization resulting chapter published in Rebuilding Urban Places After Disaster; of design” by Jeff Speck, September 2007. Lessons from Hurricane Katrina. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Interviewee, “Designing Public Consensus: Press. A Conversation with Barbara Faga, FASLA; Urban designer and executive vice president of EDAW /AECOM discusses the trials, Porta Nuova, Milan, Italy tribulations - and rewards of building public Principal-In-Charge consensus” ArchNewsNow.com, by Kenneth CLIENT: Hines Italia S.r.l. Caldwell, June 12, 2007 Master landscape plan and detailed site design for the public realm of a 3.71 Interviewee, “Urban enthusiast: EDAW 's Barbara Faga designs cityscapes to lure million square-foot mixed-use development adjacent to the central rail station suburbanites downtown” (Georgia Profile), in Milan, which includes office, hotel, retail, and exhibition space around a Georgia Trend by Ed Lightsey, February 1, 2003 central elevated piazza opened in 2013. Interviewee, “The fixer of cities; Landscape architect built reputation at Olympic park” Diagonal Mar Parc, Barcelona, Spain Atlanta Journal Constitution, David Principal-in-Charge Pendered, January 19, 2003 CLIENT: Hines Interviewee, “Designing woman has blueprint to make Atlanta great” Atlanta National ASLA and Urban Land Institute European Award for the 35-acre Journal Constitution, March 4, 2001 sustainable designed park in the center of mixed use development, Interviewee, “Local parks architect surrounded by five residential towers and 3.7 million square foot retail and welcomes the world to tread on her work office development. Diagonal Mar is the first sustainable park plan approved Peacemaker: Barbara Faga turns conflicting opinions into opportunities for workable in Spain. urban designs” Atlanta Journal Constitution, July 27, 1996 Wharf District Park, Boston, MA Managing Principal/Public Participation Interviewee, “Atlanta woman to head board CLIENT: Massachusetts Turnpike Authority of landscape firm”, Atlanta Journal Constitution, April 6, 1996 Boston Society of Landscape architects award for the four-acre park over the Faga, B. (1990). Making the Most of your Big-Dig (the US$16B underground highway). The park is the largest land parcel Landholdings. Hydro Review, IX (4), 36-46. with cost estimate of US$16M for park construction. Plan approval involved PLANETIZEN BLOGS extensive community participation. “The Two Things People Hate: Density and Sprawl”, Mar 26, 2007 Atlanta Beltline Redevelopment and Land Use Plan and Study Area 5&6, “A Guide to Taser-Free Public Meetings”, Atlanta, GA Sep 27, 2007 Principal-In-Charge “Civic Theater at Its Best”, Aug 20, 2007 “A CLIENT: Atlanta Development Authority Tale of Two Public Processes”, Jun 25, 2007 National ASLA award winning development and community participation ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE plans for the proposed 22-mile Atlanta Beltline Greenway and Light Rail Rutgers, the State University of New Corridor. Jersey Georgia Institute of Technology CP 4020c, Intro to Urban and Regional Atlanta Beltline TAD Feasibility Study, Atlanta, GA Principal-In-Charge Planning, 2015 winter, 2014 spring, summer, CLIENT: Atlanta Development Authority fall semesters and 2012 summer 2005 feasibility study to create a Tax Allocation District (TAD) for the CP 8883c, Planning for Non-Majors, graduate level, 2011 proposed Atlanta Beltline Greenway and Light Rail Corridor. COA 8000b, Urbanism, graduate level, 2002 COA 6070, Urban Design Policy, graduate level, 1993 R ESU M E 3

BARBARA FAGA, PhD, FASLA

Participated and directed EDAW summer Carter Center of Emory University, Atlanta, GA Principal-In-Charge student program including: Miami Beach Master Plan CLIENT: President & Mrs. Jimmy Carter Miami Jackson Memorial Hospital Plan Site planning and landscape design for 30-acre presidential library, museum, Indian Creek Master Plan, Miami Beach and research facility, Georgia ASLA and Atlanta Urban Design Commission Port of San Francisco Master Plan Atlanta City South Master Plan award. Virginia Beach Master Plan Wilkes Barre PA Master Plan Atlanta City Center Livable Centers Initiative Master Plan, Atlanta, GA London Docklands Master Plan Nassau, Bahamas Master Plan Principal-In-Charge CLIENT: City of Atlanta and Atlanta Regional Commission ACADEMIC LECTURER Master plan for Atlanta’s center city downtown, involving a variety of partners Auburn University and keeping the competitive position of Downtown in focus for housing, office, Ball State University Clemson University retail and institutional uses, Georgia APA and ASLA award. Georgia Institute of Technology Harvard Georgia Regional Water Plans Kansas State University Michigan State University Facilitator Northeastern University CLIENT: Georgia Department of Natural Resources Princeton Organization and strategy for community meetings in support of the two year UCLA University of Delaware process for the State Wide Water Management Plan for eleven water district University of Florida planning agencies. University of Georgia University of Montreal University of Pennsylvania Tampa Downtown Riverwalk, Tampa, FL Principal-In-Charge INVITED ACADEMIC LECTURES & CLIENT: City of Tampa PANELS (selected) Master planning and design of 2.1 miles of Riverwalk in Downtown Tampa Georgia Tech speaker various classes along the Hillsborough River. Michigan State University, Speaker Professional Lecture Series, April 2012 Atlanta Parks, Open Space and Greenways Plan, Atlanta, GA Co-Chair, University of Texas at Austin, City Forum Mayor’s Green Ribbon Committee speaker, Dec.12-14, 2012 CLIENT: City of Atlanta Bureau of Planning University of Michigan, "Landmark W omen in Landscape Architecture", Whittemore Long-range plan for the future of Atlanta's parks and open space, Georgia Lecture Speaker, February 2012 APA award. University of Georgia, “Social Change and Landscape Urbanism”, Speaker for Plan 6124, 2010 & 2011; Centennial Olympic Atlantic Station Redevelopment Design Guidelines, Atlanta, GA Principal- Park 1997 In-Charge Northeastern University, “The Process: CLIENT: CRB Realty/Jacoby Development/AIG Global Real Estate Public Participation and Design in Contested Design guidelines for the redevelopment of former steel mill near downtown Cities Since The 1960’s”, Panelist, Boston 2011 Atlanta as 138-acre mixed-use residential community. University Of Rhode Island, “Social Diversity And Landscape Design”, Speaker 2010 Atlanta South CBD Redevelopment Plan, Atlanta, GA Principal-In-Charge University of Miami, “Social Change and CLIENT: Central Atlanta Progress Landscape Urbanism”, American Institute of Urban design of a 20-block community in Atlanta's south central business Architects 2009 district, Georgia ASLA award. Clemson University, “Practice and Design”, 2007, 2008 Princeton, Speaker, “New Downtowns: The Buckhead Blueprint Comprehensive Plan, Atlanta, GA Principal-In-Charge Future of Urban Centers”, Sponsored by the CLIENT: Buckhead Coalition Woodrow Wilson School of Public and Comprehensive development plan to guide development of this edge city International Affairs, and the Institute for Urban Research at the University of from 2000 to 2020. Pennsylvania, Speaker 2007 Speaker, “New Downtowns: The Future of Centennial Olympic Park, Atlanta, GA Principal-In-Charge Urban Centers”, Woodrow Wilson School of CLIENT: Georgia World Congress Center Authority Public and International Affairs and the Institute for Urban Research at the Planning and design for 21-acre US$85M urban park serving as central 1996 University of Pennsylvania, Princeton, 2007 Summer Olympic sponsor festival and centerpiece for over US$2B economic Harvard, “Designing Public Consensus”, development, ASLA, GA ASLA, and Atlanta Urban Design Commission Panel Participant, 2006 award. Georgia Institute of Technology, “Designing Public Consensus”, 2006; Atlanta Beltline, 2007 Freedom Park, Atlanta, GA Principal-in-Charge UCLA, “Design for Three Parks, Centennial CLIENT: City of Atlanta Bureau of Planning Olympic, Diagonal Mar, Freedom”, Speaker, 2007 Master plan, design and construction for 200-acre historic urban park, Auburn University, “What Practice Expects”, including greenway and trail system adjacent to the Carter Presidential Landscape Architecture Graduation Center, Georgia ASLA award. Speaker, 1997

R ESU M E 4

BARBARA FAGA, PhD, FASLA Charlotte/Mecklenburg Gov’t District Master Plan, Charlotte, NC Ball State University, “Building Projects”, Principal-In-Charge Landscape Architecture Lecture, 2001 CLIENT: Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Government Speaker, “Downtown Design”, LABASH, Urban design component for joint facilities master plan, including integral civic University of Montreal, 2001 center focused on Old City Hall Park. HUD Region IV, “Public Consensus Building”, Speaker 1999 Kansas State University, “M.L. King Jr. Post Flamingo/Lummus Neighborhood Master Plan, Miami Beach, FL Office Studio Design Project”, Studio Principal-In-Charge Leader, 2002 CLIENT: City of Miami Beach Speaker, “Centennial Olympic Park, Origins and Future Development”, Georgia Tech Miami Preservation League award for the urban design, landscape College of Architecture, 2002 architecture and streetscape design for US$25M of right-of-way Michigan State University “Professional improvements throughout the landmark historically designated Art Deco Practice”, 1995; “Centennial Olympic Park”, National Register District. 1999 University of Delaware, “Landscape Architecture and Urban Studies”, Speaker, Gateway to Coastal Georgia: Connecting the Coast, State of GA 1995 Principal-In-Charge University of Florida, “Centennial Olympic CLIENT: Coastal Georgia Land Trust Park”, 1999 National APA award plan for a master plan and design of 127-mile network of pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian trails and community participation RECENT SPEAKER (selected since 2001) throughout the 20 counties. Falcons, Fountains and the Evolution of the Georgia World Congress Center for the Garfield Park, Chicago, IL Atlanta ULI, May 21, 2014 Principal Participant, “America 2050 Seminar” CLIENT: Chicago Parks District Regional Plan Association and the Lincoln Master plan for 250-acre historic park in downtown Chicago, Illinois ASLA Institute, Healdsburg, California, March 25- 27, 2012 award, Chicago ASLA award Speaker, “Building Community Consensus”, Urban Land Institute, Atlanta, April, 2012 Islands Neighborhood Master Plan, Miami Beach, FL Principal-In-Charge Speaker, “Interactive and Participatory CLIENT: City of Miami Beach Review”, Purpose Built Communities; Urban design, landscape architecture and streetscape design for US$10M of Second Annual Member Conference, Indianapolis, September 2011 right-of-way improvements throughout Star, Palm and Hibiscus islands. Panelist, “Rx for Healthy Places”, Congress of New Urbanism 18, Atlanta, 2010 Indian Creek Greenway Redevelopment Plan, Miami Beach, FL Principal- Panelist, “New Tools for Civic Engagement In-Charge and Community Design”, Regional Plan CLIENT: City of Miami Beach Association General Assembly, New York, 2010 Two-week student workshop addressing redevelopment of 2.5-mile urban Panelist, “The Big Dig; What did we get for environmental corridor, along Collins Avenue in historic Miami Beach. our US$16B?” Urban Land Institute, Boston, 2010 Lancaster Avenue Corridor Plan, Fort Worth, TX Principal-In-Charge Invited panel, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times”, Landscape CLIENT: City of Fort Worth Architecture Foundation and American Redevelopment of a downtown historic street, including US$16M of new Society of Landscape Architects panel, street and pedestrian improvements, Georgia ASLA award. Chicago, 2010 Speaker, “Redefining the Architects Role: Architects as Agents for Social Change”, Model Urban Forest Study, Atlanta, GA Principal-In-Charge National AIA Meeting, University of Miami, CLIENT: Georgia Forestry Commission 2009 Sustainable development standards for incorporating greenspace into Speaker, “Miami Downtown Development communities, Georgia ASLA award. Plan”, Good Morning Miami, Miami Chamber of Commerce, 2009 Speaker, “Our Downtown”, Miami East Edisto Land Management Strategy, Charleston, SC Planning Downtown Development Authority speaker, Principal 2009 CLIENT: MeadWestvaco Corporation Panelist, “Planning & Development”, GRI Strategic level effort for a conservation oriented community focused on World Summit, London 2008 planning for infrastructure, villages, job centers, natural amenities, open Panelist, “Atlanta BeltLine, American Society of Landscape Architects”, space protection and environmental sustainability for an area encompassing Philadelphia, 2008 72,000 acres. This significant planning effort included extensive public Panelist, “Planning Cities”, Milan Urban outreach and communication. Public meetings were held with adjacent Institute, Italy 2008 communities, key stakeholders, and elected officials of seven local Panelist, “Lessons from the Wharf District government agencies. Park”, American Society of Landscape Architects, Minneapolis, 2007 Speaker, “A National Framework for Natural Hazard Risk Reduction and Management: Developing a Research Agenda”, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

R ESU M E 5

BARBARA FAGA, PhD, FASLA Panelist, “Planning for Approvals”, New School Avenue Public Workshop, Sarasota, FL Principal-In-Charge Partners for Smart Growth Conference, Los CLIENT: Quincy Investments, LLC Angeles, May 2007 Facilitation for interactive three-day charrette that brought together the Panelist, “Public Process” American Planning Association, Philadelphia, 2007 developer and disparate community groups resulting in a consensus vision for Urban Summit Participant: “Rockefeller a contentious land use issue on the School Avenue site. Foundation Global Urban Summit: America 2050 Workshop”, Bellagio, Italy 2007 La Varesine, Milan, Italy Principal-In-Charge CLIENT: Hines Italia S.r.l. Panelist, “Rebuilding Urban Places after Disaster”, Municipal Arts Society of New Master landscape plan and detailed site design for the public realm of a major York, 2006 urban mixed-use project near a new public park in Milan, which includes Speaker “Public consensus building”, office, retail, and residential space around a central piazza and urban garden. American Planning Association, Philadelphia, 2006 Moderator, Regional Plan Association, NY, Amicalola Falls State Park Master Plan, Dawsonville, GA Principal-In- “Come what may: Planning in an Age of Charge Disaster”, moderator for panel with Anthony CLIENT: Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources R. Coscia. Chairman, Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, Congressman Anthony Master plan for state park expansion, including hotel and conference center, D. Weiner, Nassau County Executive Georgia ASLA award. Thomas R. Suozzi, Professor Gregory Thomas, Columbia University, Waldorf Astoria, 2006. ASU Student Center and Heritage Plaza, Jonesboro, AR Principal-In- Panelist, “Remaking Atlanta: the Atlanta Charge BeltLine” American Planning Association CLIENT: Arkansas State University National Convention, San Antonio, 2006 Master plan and design of plaza for student center. Speaker, “Gulf Coast Planning”, America 2050: Towards a Rational Strategy for Prosperity, Equity and Sustainability. The Atlanta City Hall Expansion/Renovation, Atlanta, GA Principal-in-Charge Second Annual Roundtable on Mega Region CLIENT: City of Atlanta Bureau of Planning Development at Pocantico, New York region sponsored by Regional Plan Association Urban design and landscape architecture for expansion and redevelopment of and Lincoln Foundation, 2006 historic city hall complex. Speaker, “Urban Center Books Program: Designing Public Consensus: The Civic Atlanta Federal Center Historic Preservation Planning, Atlanta, GA Theater of Community Participation for Architects, Landscape Architects, Planners Principal-in-Charge and Urban Designers”, Municipal Arts CLIENT: Atlanta Federal Center Associates, LP Society, New York, NY, 2006 Section 106 compliance for restoration of historic building as part of Atlanta Speaker, “Navigating the Public Process”, Federal complex. American Planning Association convention, San Francisco, 2005 Panelist, “Urban Design for Cities”, Urban Bell Helicopter New Town, Isphahan, Iran Land Institute, Buenos Aires, 2004 & 2005 Planner Panelist, “Planning and Design as a Public Process, When to Start and When to Stop”, CLIENT: Bell Helicopter American Institute of Architects conference, 1977 master plan for new town for industrial workers while working in Iran. Las Vegas, 2005 Design master plan was subsequently built to house local military. Panelist, “CEO Young Professionals Round Table”, American Society of Landscape Architects, Fort Lauderdale, 2005 Military planning for US bases: Panelist, “Atlanta BeltLine”, Trust for Public Land and the Urban Land Institute, Atlanta, Maxwell and McClellan Air Force Base Master Plans, Montgomery, AL 2005 Speaker, “Miami Beach: Development of the Public Realm”, American Society of Neu Ulm Germany, US Army, base master plan Landscape Architects, Miami Beach, 2005 Panelist, “South Capitol Street master plan” Huntsville, AL US Army Corps of Engineers, Redstone Arsenal, $25M National Capitol Planning Commission, open end planning contract Washington, D.C., 2004 Panelist, “CEO Roundtable” American Society of Landscape Architects conference, Lajes Field, US Forces Azores, housing design and construction Salt Lake City, 2004 Panelist, “Review of Planning for Fort Benning, GA, US Army Base, housing design and construction Downtowns” International Downtown Principal designer Association, Vancouver, 2004 CLIENT: U.S. DOD Speaker, “Leadership, Involvement, Networking and Knowledge, A Boston Master planning, housing studies and design guidelines for military bases. Education: The Big Dig, 2004”, Park Pride conference, The Future of Parks, Atlanta, 2004 Speaker, “Leadership in Planning”, Miami Partnership, Miami, 2004 Speaker and moderator, “Green Communities Seminar; for the Parks Master Plan”, Atlanta, 2002 R ESU M E 6

BARBARA FAGA, PhD, FASLA

Juror, “Disabled Veterans Memorial Design Broadway Streetscape Urban Design Plan, Columbus, GA Principal-In- Competition”, Washington, DC 2003 Charge Panelist, “Fort Lauderdale Beach, FL”, CLIENT: City of Columbus Urban Land Institute, 2003 Panelist, “The Future of Cities”, Urban Land Urban design plans for historic Broadway Street area of downtown Columbus. Institute, Baltimore, 2003 Panelist, “Sustainability in Design”, Urban Congressman John Lewis Plaza, Atlanta, GA Principal-In-Charge Land Institute, Aspen, 2003 CLIENT: Freedom Park Conservancy Speaker, “The Future of Atlanta Parks” Plan and design of plaza honoring Congressman Lewis in Freedom Park. International W women’s Forum, Atlanta, 2003 Disney's Celebration Common Area Development, Celebration, FL Speaker, “International Parks and Diagonal Mar”, University of Pennsylvania, 2003 Principal-In-Charge, Construction Administration Speaker, “Beyond the Box Mid-Century CLIENT: Walt Disney Imagineering Modern Architecture in Miami and New Public space design for 30-acre core of this 8,000-acre planned community, York”, the Municipal Art Society, New York Florida ASLA award. City, 2002 Panelist, “Clark County Courthouse Project Analysis Session, Las Vegas, 2002 Disney's Dixie Landings Resort, Orlando, FL Landscape Architect Fort Lauderdale Beach Master Plan, ULI CLIENT: Walt Disney Imagineering Advisory Panel, 2002 Planning and design for 3,000-room, 325-acre Deep South themed resort at Speaker, “Parks and Open Space in Walt Disney World. Atlanta”, Park Pride, Atlanta, 2002 Speaker, “New Approaches to Land Use 1100 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA Principal-In-Charge Planning American Railway Development Association”, Atlanta, 2002 CLIENT: Carter and Associates Panelist, “Trends in Downtown Award-winning streetscape and public space design for high-rise office tower Development, America’s Meeting Point”, in Midtown Atlanta. Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2001 Panelist, “Master Planning Cities, Developer Georgia DOT Historic Survey, Various Locations in State of GA Forum”, ULI Florida Council, 2001 Principal-In-Charge Speaker, “Centennial Olympic Park, Origins and Future Development”, GA Tech College CLIENT: Georgia Department of Transportation of Architecture, 2001 Documentation of historic resources impacted by proposed road widening Speaker, “Great Downtown Parks, Great projects. Cities, Great Parks”, Charlotte, NC, 2001 Speaker, “Regulatory Perspective, Planning Georgia’s Historic Covered Bridges Survey & Assessment, State of GA and Effectively Responding to Atlanta’s Regional Growth”, Law Seminars Principal-In-Charge International, Atlanta, 2001 CLIENT: Georgia Department of Transportation Assessment of bridges statewide for eligibility for the National Register of HONORS + AWARDS Boston Society of Landscape Architects, Historic Places. Boston Wharf District Park, 2010 American Society of Landscape Architects, Georgia Power Hydroelectric Relicensing, North Georgia Honor Award, Atlanta BeltLine, 2008 Principal-In-Charge American Society of Landscape Architects, CLIENT: Georgia Power Company Honor Award, Atlanta BeltLine Redevelopment Plan, 2007 Documentation of recreation, land management, and aesthetic conditions for GA ASLA Award of Honor – Atlanta BeltLine relicensing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hydro-power Redevelopment Plan Video, Atlanta, GA, 2007 facilities at Lakes Burton, Nacoochee, Tugalo, Yonah, Jackson, Oconee, and Sinclair. GA ASLA Award of Merit – Atlanta BeltLine Redevelopment Plan, Atlanta, GA, 2007 American Society of Landscape Architects, Alabama Power Hydroelectric Relicensing Honor Award, Parc Diagonal Mar, Principal-in-Charge Barcelona, 2005 CLIENT: Alabama Power Top 15 women changing the world of architecture by DesignIntelligence Documentation of recreation, land management, and aesthetic conditions for Distinguished Alumni Award, Landscape relicensing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) facilities at Lakes Architecture, Michigan State University Harris, Martin, Yates and Thurlow Urban Land Institute, European Award for Excellence, Parc Diagonal Mar, Barcelona, Alcoa Relicensing, Yadkin, North Carolina 2004 Principal-in-Charge Miami Design Preservation League Planning Award, Flaming Lummus Neighborhood CLIENT: Alcoa Investments Urban Design, Miami Beach, Documentation of recreation, land management, and aesthetic conditions for 2005 relicensing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) facilities at High Rock, Tuckertown, Narrows and Falls Reservoirs.

R ESU M E 7

BARBARA FAGA, PhD, FASLA

Atlanta Urban Design Commission award for Georgia Tech Regional Engineering Program Campus, Savannah, GA Georgia World Congress Center, Phase IV Principal-In-Charge Field of Dreams CLIENT: Georgia Tech and Savannah Economic Development Authority GA ASLA Honor Award - Atlanta City Center Livable Centers Initiative Master Plan, Master plan for new campus. Atlanta, GA GA APA Award - Atlanta City Center Livable Georgia World Congress Center Phase Four Expansion, Atlanta, GA Centers Initiative Master Plan, Atlanta, GA Principal-In-Charge GA ASLA Honor Award - Freedom Park CLIENT: Georgia World Congress Center Authority Master Plan, Atlanta, GA Outdoor plaza and open space for US$200M convention center expansion. GA ASLA Merit Award - Lancaster Avenue, Fort Worth, TX Plaza construction cost US$5M, Georgia ASLA award. GA ASLA Merit Award - Model Urban Forest, Savannah, GA John Wesley Dobbs Plaza, Atlanta, GA Principal-In-Charge Atlanta Urban Design Commission, Award of CLIENT: Corporation for Olympic Development in Atlanta Excellence - Centennial Olympic Park, Design of new city park within Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site. Atlanta, GA FL ASLA Award of Excellence - Celebration Town Center, Celebration, FL MARTA Northpark Center, Atlanta, GA Principal-In-Charge FL ASLA Frederick B. Stresau Award - CLIENT: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) Celebration Town Center, Celebration, FL Master plan for mixed-use development surrounding urban rapid transit Distinguished Alumni Award, Landscape station. Architecture, Michigan State University GA ASLA Merit Award - Centennial Olympic Beachfront Master Plan, Miami Beach, FL Principal-In-Charge Park Phase I, Atlanta, GA CLIENT: City of Miami Beach American Planning Association, Planning Document - Georgia Coastal Gateways Master plan for beach entryways, boardwalks, and landscape design along GA APA, Planning Document, Mayor’s the beachfront, Florida ASLA award. Green Ribbon Committee, Atlanta Parks, Open Space + Greenways Plan Martin Luther King Jr. Federal Post Office, Atlanta, GA Principal-In-Charge Award of Excellence, Atlanta Urban Design CLIENT: General Services Administration Commission, 1100 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA Landscape and hardscape design for renovation of historic post office in GA ASLA Honor Award - EDAW Summer downtown Atlanta. Student Program Award of Excellence, Atlanta Urban Design Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site Streetscape and Parks, Commission, Carter Presidential Center, Atlanta, GA Atlanta, GA Principal-In-Charge AFFILIATIONS CLIENT: US National Park Service American Society of Landscape Architects, Student Award Jury, 2008 Street scene rehabilitation and interpretive displays at 1930s MLK, Jr. National Endowment for the Arts, Design boyhood home. Award Jury, 2008 Urban Land Institute, Vice Chair, Transit Playa Mujeres Resort Master Plan, Mexico City, Mexico Oriented Development Council, 2008/9 Principal-In-Charge Georgia Tech School of Architecture CLIENT: Roque y Associados Development Council, chair Master planning for 950-acre luxury beachfront resort north of Cancun. American Society of Landscape Architects, Fellows Jury, 2006/8 Rural Land and Vacant Land Analysis, Martin County, FL Principal-In- Urban Land Institute Awards Jury Charge Harbor Park Pavilion Design Competition Jury, for the Boston Society of Landscape CLIENT: Martin County Architects (BSLA), the National park Service Land use analysis of growth management patterns for this S.E. Florida county (NPS) and the Massachusetts Turnpike in support of the land management boundary. Authority (MTA)

Landscape Architecture Foundation, chair Oceanfront Neighborhood Master Plan, Miami Beach, FL Principal-in- American Society of Landscape Architects, Design Awards Jury Charge American Society of Landscape Architects, CLIENT: City of Miami Beach executive committee Urban design, landscape architecture and streetscape design for US$16M of Urban Land Institute, National Program and right-of-way improvements throughout the historically designated "Collins Practice and Policy committees, VP Avenue Corridor" National Register Architectural District. Sustainability Council and Scholarship committee North Central Texas, Center for Santa Barbara at Spanish Waters, Curacao, Netherland Antilles Development Excellence Design Principal-in-Charge Competition, Juror CLIENT: SFT Investments American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial Design Competition, Washington Master plan and rezoning for 1500 acre mixed use development with Hyatt DC, Juror Regency Hotel for Caribbean Island resort. Midtown Alliance, Atlanta, board member

R ESU M E 8

BARBARA FAGA, PhD, FASLA

Trust for Public Land, Georgia advisory Pennsylvania Avenue Redevelopment, Washington, DC Landscape board designer Chair, Mayor’s Parks and Green Spaces CLIENT: Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation Task Force, appointed by Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin Master plan and construction documents for blocks 1100 to 1300 Gerald D. Hines Urban Design Competition, Pennsylvania Avenue. Advisory Committee Midtown Atlanta Arts Advisory Committee Determination of Eligibility (DOE) for the LBJ Education Building, Centennial Olympic Park Area (COPA) Washington, D.C. Advisory Board CLIENT: National Park Service, General Services Association Atlanta Urban Design Commission, Chair Prepared determination for site of Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Site along the Georgia Conservancy, Board of Trustees National Capitol Mall. The Carter Presidential Center, Board of Councilors American Society of Landscape Architects, Vine City Open Space, Atlanta, GA Principal-In-Charge Fellow Client: City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management. American Planning Association Green- Public participation and master planning for new open space in the Vine City Ribbon Committee for Atlanta Parks, Open neighborhood of Atlanta. Space + Greenways Plan, Past Co-Chair Underground Atlanta Festival, Inc., Past West Peachtree Streetscape, Atlanta, GA Principal-in-Charge Chair CLIENT: The Midtown Alliance Peachtree Street/Auburn Avenue GA ASLA award winning streetscape/open space design and schematic design International Design Competition, Juror recommendations and construction for improvement of 13-block corridor. International Women’s Forum, GA Executive Committee Margaret Mitchell House, Board of Councilors Ellen Heath, FAICP Resume

Ellen Heath is a planner with experience in land use and recreational planning and visioning for both public and private clients. Ms. Heath also has significant experience on projects involving public participation and consensus building. She was inducted as a Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners in 2014.

Project Experience

Fort Drum Growth Management Plan, Waterville, NY Client: Fort Drum Regional Liaison Organization Principal-in-Charge. Comprehensive study to assess the impacts of Base Realignment and Closure related growth on the area surrounding Fort Drum. EDAW assisted with community participation and military liaison functions.

Saint Lawrence - FDR Hydroelectric Project, Messina, NY Client: New York Power Authority Project Planner. Recreation plan as part of FERC relicensing for hydroelectric power project. Included facilitation of community meetings and assessment of recreation facilities.

DeKalb County Zoning Ordinance Revision, DeKalb County, GA Project Manager. Comprehensive updates to existing countywide zoning ordinances.

Planning for Livable Military Communities. Client: North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). AECOM assisted NCTCOG with this HUD-funded regional sustainability plan, which involved the seven small municipalities surrounding Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base. AECOM’s responsibilities included public engagement, economic analysis, corridor plans, and six comprehensive plans.

Vernon Parish Comprehensive Plan, Leesville, LA Principal-In-Charge. AECOM worked with the Vernon Parish Police Jury to prepare the Parish’s first comprehensive plan. The theme of the plan is citizen participation—recommendations for balancing economic development and rural preservation will be driven by the vision of Vernon Parish residents, and recommendations will be tailored for different parts of the Parish.

Sustainable Communities Plan for Coahoma County, Coahoma County, MS Principal-In-Charge for this comprehensive plan, including a public outreach element emphasizing local visioning and long-term capacity building.

Glynn County Comprehensive Plan Update, GA Principal-In-Charge. The Glynn County Comprehensive Plan Update will employ the State of Georgia’s latest planning standards to create a state-of-the-art Comprehensive Plan. The plan will include a customized Community Agenda that reflects the community’s overall vision and distinct physical and cultural character.

Town of Mount Pleasant Comprehensive Plan, SC Principal-In-Charge. AECOM prepared the comprehensive plan for the Town of Mount Pleasant. The theme of the plan is sustainability, and the plan addresses land use, transportation, infrastructure, community facilities, and priority investments. Ellen Heath, FAICP

Brunswick Comprehensive Plan, Brunswick, GA Principal-In-Charge. Development of a comprehensive plan that will help the City of Brunswick find ways to take advantage of its incipient revitalization and spread the benefits to the entire community, while preserving its unique cultural and natural heritage.

NW/SW Jacksonville Vision + Master Plan, Jacksonville, FL Principal-In-Charge. Long range master plans for two large-scale planning districts worth highly diverse with land uses in the Jacksonville.

Unified New Orleans Plan (UNOP), New Orleans, LA Principal-In-Charge. AECOM was selected as the neighborhood planner for the Upper Ninth Ward, which includes the Florida, Desire, St. Roch, St. Claude, Marigny, + Bywater neighborhoods. AECOM staff worked closely with neighborhood residents to develop visions for their neighborhoods, as well as priority projects for neighborhood recovery and revitalization.

Doña Ana County Planning, Public Education & Engagement Program, Doña Ana County, NM Senior Planner. AECOM managed a three-year education and engagement process for Viva Doña Ana!, a regional sustainability planning effort in Dona Ana County, NM. The project is funded by the HUD/EPA/ DOT Partnership for Sustainable Communities and is focused on targeted engagement of underserved communities. Key planning issues included urban, small town, and rural development patterns, as well as economic development challenges. This program includes public engagement training for County staff and consultants, oversight of public participation activities carried out by consultants to the County, a public participation plan, a bilingual website, fact sheets and newsletters, and outreach meetings and bilingual workshops.

Comprehensive Public/Private Community Plan to Support Neighborhood Redevelopment, Memphis, TN Principal-In-Charge. Working with the City of Memphis, the Community Development Corporations and Foundations, to develop a strategic plan for a clear and implementable vision for Greater Memphis neighborhoods that will promote coordinated and visionary redevelopment activity.

Port St. Lucie CRA Master Plan, Port St. Lucie, FL Principal-In-Charge. Expansion of downtown redevelopment area + Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District; preparation of 20-year redevelopment plan capitalizing on riverfront mixed-use development.

Mark Clark Community Impact Assessment, Charleston, SC Principal-In-Charge. Study to assess the population, land use and development, socio-economic, and character impacts of the proposed Mark Clark I-526 Expressway extension on the mainly rural, low country community of Johns Island.

City of Doraville Livable Centers Initiative Master Plan, Doraville, GA Principal-In-Charge. Smart growth town center plan encompassing government and regional MARTA transportation center. Provide public participation process and stakeholder interviews for multi-cultural constituents including Spanish, Korean, Chinese, and Vietnamese residents and business owners.

Atlanta BeltLine Redevelopment and Land Use Plan, Atlanta, GA Planning Principal. Redevelopment plan for the proposed Atlanta Beltline Greenway and Transit Corridor.

Upper West Side Livable Centers Initiative, Atlanta, GA Principal-in-Charge. Land use/transportation study for emerging residential/industrial/retail node on Atlanta’s west side.

Page 2 Ellen Heath, FAICP

Strategic Community + Economic Development Plan, Macon, GA Principal-In-Charge. Plan to consolidate the myriad of existing neighborhood and functional plans for Macon’s new Mayor, setting the planning strategy for his administration.

Targeted Neighborhoods Redevelopment Plan, Augusta, GA Principal-In-Charge. Redevelopment plan for several neighborhoods adjacent to downtown Augusta.

Home Park Neighborhood Master Plan, Atlanta, GA Principal-In-Charge. Master plan addressing infrastructure capacity, land use, design, and transportation issues; and recommending measures to retain the distinct character and pedestrian scale of the neighborhood.

Livable Cities Initiative Master Plan, Marietta, GA Principal-In-Charge. Smart Growth Master Plan for city's urban core, including land use, transportation and economic components.

Houston-Galveston Regional Sustainability Plan. Client: Houston-Galveston Regional Council (H- GAC) AECOM was the lead public-engagement consultant for this HUD-funded plan for the 13-county, 6- million person Houston-Galveston region. Efforts included more than 80 public and targeted community meetings, website development, development and distribution of a survey on sustainable principles, and numerous stakeholder meetings and interviews.

NAVSUBASE Kings Bay Encroachment Action Plan (EAP), GA Principal-In-Charge. Development of an Encroachment Action Plan (EAP) for the NAVSUBASE Kings Bay. The EAP investigates any non-Navy action that may impact current or future training and test requirements and recommends corrective or preventative mitigation strategies to address each identified encroachment challenge. The EAP is a first for a Naval submarine base.

Fort Jackson/McCrady Training Center and McEntire Joint National Guard Base Joint Land Use Study, Columbia, SC Principal-In-Charge. Land use compatibility study and encroachment reduction recommendations for three military installations and their surrounding communities.

Scott AFB/MidAmerica Airport Joint Land Use Study, Belleville, IL Principal-In-Charge. Land use compatibility study and encroachment reduction recommendations to ensure that military missions can continue without degrading the public health, safety and welfare of surrounding communities.

Barksdale Air Force Base Joint Land Use Study, Bossier City, LA Principal-In-Charge. Land use planning, environmental protection, private development, and information management services to promote a safer and more desirable community.

Fort Benning Joint Land Use Study, Columbus, GA Principal-In-Charge. Land use compatibility study and encroachment reduction recommendations for the Fort Benning training and readiness operations and surrounding communities.

Fort Campbell Joint Land Use Study, Nashville, TN Principal-In-Charge. Land use compatibility study and encroachment reduction recommendations for the Fort Campbell training and readiness operations and surrounding communities.

Jacksonville Bombing Range Complex Land Use Study, FL Principal-In-Charge. Land use assessment and recommendations for comprehensive plan language to encourage compatible development around the Pinecastle, Rodman and Lake George Ranges in Florida.

Page 3 Ellen Heath, FAICP

Homestead Air Reserve Base Joint Land Use Study, Homestead, FL Principal-In-Charge. Land use compatibility study and encroachment reduction recommendations that will promote community growth and development that is compatible with the HARB training and operational missions.

Fort Stewart Joint Land Use Study, Hinesville, GA Principal-In-Charge. Land use compatibility study and encroachment reduction recommendations for the Fort Stewart tank training and gunnery range operations, Hunter Army Airfield, and surrounding communities.

Escambia County Joint Land Use Study, Escambia County, FL Principal-In-Charge. Land use plan + development regulations for the properties adjacent to and affected by Naval Air Station Facilities.

DeKalb TND Ordinances, DeKalb County, GA Principal-In-Charge. Revision and refinement of the county’s existing TND code. Education Master of City Planning, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1982 Bachelor of Arts, University of Delaware, 1976

Professional Registrations American Institute of Certified Planners, 1989

Affiliations Georgia Planning Association Past President American Planning Association Georgia Institute of Technology Alumni Association, Former Trustee and Chair of Women’s Alumni Committee

Awards + Honors American Society of Landscape Architects, Honor Award, Atlanta BeltLine Redevelopment Plan, 2007 GA ASLA Award of Honor – Atlanta BeltLine Redevelopment Plan Video, Atlanta, GA, 2007 GA ASLA Award of Merit – Atlanta BeltLine Redevelopment Plan, Atlanta, GA, 2007 2002 Georgia Planning Association Award, Outstanding Planning Award for Special Community Initiative, Greater Home Park Master Plan American Planning Association, Planning Document - Georgia Coastal Gateways Georgia Planning Association, Planning Document, Mayor’s Green Ribbon Committee, Atlanta Parks, Open Space + Greenways Plan Georgia Planning Association, Home Park Master Plan Florida Planning and Zoning Association, NW/SW Jacksonville Vision Plans

Publications + Technical Papers “Geographic Information Systems (GIS).” Leonard Hopper, ed. Landscape Architectural Graphic Standards. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2007. pp. 10-11.

Page 4 KETKI KULKARNI [email protected] | +1 (732) 394-9202

EDUCATION Master’s in City and Regional Planning Sept 2017- May 2019 Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Urban Planning Academic Excellence Scholarship Award

Bachelor of Architecture Aug 2010- May 2015 Department of Architecture & Planning Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology Major: Architecture and Building Design

SELECT WORK EXPERIENCE Planner, Transportation Economics Analysis, WSP USA April 2019 – April 2020 Analyst, NJ Transit Five-Year Capital Plan Analyzed the benefits of 75+ capital projects spread across the agency’s rail, bus, light rail and equipment departments as part of the agency’s five-year capital plan. Created a scoring system based on relevant matrices and criteria to prioritize project schedule. Drafted a memo detailing benefits of the transit system to the state of NJ. Analyst, Port of Long Beach CA, TIFIA Loan Developed economic and socio-demographic inputs for Monte Carlo Revenue Risk Model. Analyzed historic data for the region and potential competition for the port. Prepared relevant sections for the final report. Modeler, C-DOT C-470 Express Lanes Developed traffic microsimulation model using Caliper’s Transmodeler software. Prepared project workplan, schedule and proposed deliverables for presentation at client office. Planner, TNEM SC MagLev Developed analysis to evaluate impacts of the project on Environmental Justice (EJ) sections of the population based on economic, demographic and linguistic identities. Drafted relevant sections for final report. Directed site suitability analysis to identify potential real estate for commercial development around future MagLev stations. Planner, CBD Congestion Pricing for City of New York Gathered and analysed economic, demographic, and linguistic data for Environmental Justice analysis. Created & conducted geospatial exercises to identify transit desert in the study area. Analyzed connectivity impacts of the policy change on resident EJ population in terms of access to livelihood and workplaces. Developed geospatial analysis to identify the impacts of congestion pricing on parking surrounding major transit stations immediately outside designated CBD boundaries. Analyst, NJDEP Fostering Regional Adaptation through Municipal Economic Scenarios (FRAMES) Evaluated benefits of 10+ potential strategies for mitigation of sea level rise and stormwater throughout coastal regions of North Jersey.

Research and Teaching Assistantships, Rutgers University Jan 2018 – April 2019 Research Assistant, Voorhees Research Center Conducted site suitability and network analysis using geospatial tools (ArcGIS) to identify potential site for commercial real estate development in Ocean County, NJ, based on point and line accessibility criteria overlapping with area exclusions. Created maps to locate existing public housing in Newark, NJ and identify them based on condition, occupancy and potential for redevelopment.

Teaching Assistant, Urban Design Studio for Redevelopment of Frelinghuysen Avenue, Newark NJ Managed the studio project for Master’s student through the Fall ‘18 and Spring ’19 semesters. Oversaw student progress, facilitated site visits, client interactions, and studio sessions. Graded mid-term and final term submissions. Graduate Studio, Redevelopment of Newark Airport and the community Jan-April 2018 Explored the possibility of developing an Aerotropolis around the Newark Airport using state-of-art tech and design. Created proposal for redevelopment of the community near the airport. Incorporated various transit systems and sustainable transportation modes for access to and within the airport. Created a 20-minute video detailing the design, process and results of the studio. Architect, Aakalpan and Roxas Hospitality Dec 2014 – May 2017 Designed Roxas, a boutique hotel catering to the multinational tourist population in the city of Jaipur and oversaw construction of the same. Directed the design and development of 10+ residences, schools and hotels leading to a successful completion. Led client interaction with design and construction teams. Supervised on-site construction for multiple design projects. Consulted on space design, construction with vernacular materials, micro-climate analysis, landscaping and construction of arches, vaults and domes without centering. SKILLS GIS – ArcMap, ArcGIS Pro, Spatial Analysis, Site Suitability Analysis, Network Analysis, Geostatistical Analysis. Story Maps, City Engine and 3D Analysis 3D Modelling and Graphic Design – Adobe Photoshop, AutoCAD, Revit, Sketchup, Lumion, Adobe Illustrator Data Analytics and Visualization – Statistical modelling, Hypothesis testing, Linear Regression, Time Series Analysis, SPSS, R Infrastructure Development Economics– Project Management, Scheduling, Real Estate Finance, Feasibility Studies, Traffic and Revenue Studies, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Revenue Risk Assessments, Environmental Justice Assessments Planning Methods and Analysis – Population projection, Demand Modelling, Location Quotients and Economic Base Analysis, Shift-share Analysis Qualitative Research Methods – Individual and Group Interviewing, Participant Observation, Focus Groups, Documents and Material Culture

March 25, 2021 GREENPLAN INC. 302 Pells Road Ivy A. Pool, Supervisor Rhinebeck, NY 12572-3354 Town Board of the Town of New Castle T 845.876.5775 F 845.876.7332 New Castle Town Office E [email protected] 200 South Greeley Avenue Chappaqua, NY 10514

Re: Chappaqua Forward Form Based Zoning Amendments State Environmental Quality (SEQR) Review Comments on DGEIS

Dear Supervisor Pool and Members of the Town Board: GREENPLAN Inc. has been retained by Residents United to Save Chappaqua Hamlet Inc. (RUSCH) to assist them in providing a review, analysis, and comments on the Town Board’s proposed Chappaqua Hamlet Form Based Code Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS). The DGEIS was accepted by the Town Board on September 25, 2020 and, based upon the notice posted on www.mynewcastle.org, the final date for acceptance of written comments on the DGEIS is March 25, 2021. This letter presents the results of my review and analysis of the DGEIS.

This comment letter will address the DGEIS document as if the entire Form-based Code (FBC) were still the Town Board’s preferred alternative (i.e. the Proposed Action). I have read the New Direction for the Form Based Code prepared by Supervisor Pool and posted to the Chappaqua Forward webpage. There are new questions raised by this apparent “changes proposed for the project” and “newly discovered information” [see 6 NYCRR 617.9(a)(7)(i)] that will need to be clarified in the Town Board’s SEQR review process. In Supervisor Pool’s “New Direction” document, it is clear that the SEQR process will still apply to the: “entire business district…allow [ing] future administrations to add to the Form Based District…” Thus, the current plan continues to be the model for what I believe is an out-of-scale plan for the hamlet of Chappaqua in the future.

If the smaller model around the North Greeley corridor is successful, then the Town Board will be able to move the prior FBC to encompass the entire hamlet as it has been described in the DGEIS. My comments therefore, must be viewed as applying to the previous proposed action as if it were to go forward following adoption of the required Findings Statement for the FBC. Otherwise, the Town Board would be engaging in impermissible segmentation. This dilemma is particularly concerning for members of RUSCH. To address this concern, I have made a recommendation for the Town Board to prepare a Supplemental DGEIS, limited to an examination of the new alternative for the North Greeley corridor. The rationale for doing so can be found below. New Castle Town Board Page 2 March 25, 2021

Authority to Comment To start, I am a certified professional planner and have worked primarily in the Hudson River Valley for 56 different agencies (state, county, local) over the past 40 years. I have worked on a variety of municipal planning projects, including the preparation of comprehensive plans, zoning laws including several hybrid form-based zoning codes, subdivision regulations, and special natural resource laws and other related land use rules affecting the environment. I have worked on SEQR environmental impact assessments for as long, including personally reviewing or preparing thousands of SEQR environmental impact assessment documents and environmental studies required by statutes and regulations. I am also a part-time professor at Marist College, teaching three environmental science and policy courses including “Principles of Environmental Assessment” (ENSC 380) that focuses on SEQR and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Broad Issues of the Proposed Action Before I address the DGEIS directly and provide specific comments on the document, there are two large SEQR issues looming over the “new direction” of Chappaqua Forward that were presented to the public and agencies at the February 23, 2021 Town Board meeting. These issues can be summed up as follows: 1. First is the significant change in direction for the FBC proposal, which has implications for the Town Board’s SEQR review process. Supervisor Pool’s letter to the community [New Direction for the Form Based Code] states that the DGEIS assessment of the environmental impacts of the 72 acre rezoning of Chappaqua hamlet will now be reduced to a single area of the hamlet, the North Greeley corridor. Some have estimated this to be roughly a six (6) acre area of the hamlet where there are dozens of existing buildings, residences and businesses, including a US Post Office facility. However, no further details on the specific study area that will be targeted for the new alternative has as yet been released to my knowledge. The New Direction document makes it clear that the Town Board has determined the SEQR process will continue to proceed as it has to date, with the entire 72 acre hamlet area as the study area for purposes of the GEIS process and that the next step will be preparation of a Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS).

In my professional opinion, proceeding in this manner is not only contrary with the intent of SEQR but with the “black letter” requirements of the SEQR regulations. The SEQR regulations have been designed to accommodate significant changes in a proposed action (i.e. an entirely new alternative that was not previously addressed in the DGEIS) through preparation of a Supplemental DGEIS. Proceeding without preparing a Supplemental DGEIS prior to preparation of a FGEIS may constitute segmentation and is incompatible with the SEQR regulations. As stated in The SEQR Handbook: “There are two types of situations where segmentation typically occurs. One is where a project sponsor attempts to avoid a thorough environmental review (often an EIS) of a whole action by splitting a project into two or more smaller projects…” [see The SEQR Handbook page 53]. Incompatibility with the SEQR regulations would occur if no Supplemental DGEIS is prepared on the new alternative and is applicable in this case for the following reasons: New Castle Town Board Page 3 March 25, 2021

a. The SEQR regulations clearly spell out the conditions for preparation of a Supplemental EIS. The first criterion for preparing a Supplemental EIS is found at 617.9(a)(7)(i)(a) and is “changes proposed for the project.” The New Direction document is clear evidence that the proposed action moving forward may be selection of an entirely new alternative, namely confining the FBC to the North Greeley Corridor. This new alternative was not addressed in the DGEIS [617.9(a)(7)(i)]. The change to the proposed action is important and relevant new information that was not specifically discussed in the DGEIS. It was not presented as an alternative to the action and thus represents an entirely new action that should be subjected to a separate Supplemental DGEIS. This is so that the public and the interested agencies, namely the Town of New Castle Planning Board and Chappaqua Central School District, are provided with a formal public review and comment process to consider this new alternative and to offer their insights as it pertains to “matters such as building heights, affordable housing criteria and leveraging the expertise of our Planning and Architectural Review Boards for larger projects that emerge along the North Greeley corridor.” among others [emphasis added, see New Castle New Direction FBC FAQ 2.26.2021].

If “larger" projects in this area are possible with this New Direction, shouldn’t the public and interested agencies be fully engaged in exploring how this new alternative affects the environment of the hamlet and especially the dozens of landowners and renters who will be directly impacted in the North Greeley corridor as directed by SEQR (see below)? In addition, “The present state of the information in the EIS” [i.e. the DGEIS discussion of the new proposed action as per 617.9(a)(7) (ii))b)] on the North Greeley corridor as the subject of the now proposed new action is wholly insufficient for the purposes of preparing a Findings Statement on this New Direction. Avoiding preparation of a Supplemental DGEIS on this new proposed action would be contrary to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and the SEQR Regulations. This is because one of the fundamental tenets of SEQR is public involvement through the mandatory review and comment process of a Draft EIS, as opposed to no accommodations for public comment on a Final EIS before a Findings Statement is adopted.

Article 8, Section 8-0109 of the Environmental Conservation Law clearly states the intent of the Legislature: “The purpose of a draft environmental statement is to relate environmental considerations to the inception of the planning process, to inform the public and other public agencies as early as possible about proposed actions that may significantly affect the quality of the environment, and to solicit comments which will assist the agency in the decision making process in determining the environmental consequences of the proposed action.” The SEQR regulations are equally clear: “The lead agency will make every reasonable effort to involve project sponsors, other agencies and the public in the SEQR process.” [see 6 NYCRR 617.3(d), General Rules].

The appropriate means to do so is initially with a “Draft” EIS and a “Supplemental Draft” EIS under certain circumstances when, for example, a proposed project changes and the Draft EIS did not address the changes. A Supplemental EIS is limited to information that was not addressed or inadequately addressed in the “Draft.” Supplemental Draft EISs must conform with the same rules for public participation as Draft EISs but are more limited in scope to information that was not previously addressed. In this way, a Supplemental EIS becomes the only viable means of “assist[ing] the agency in the decision making process” and involving the public and agencies in the SEQR review process for the new alternative that was not previously addressed in the DGEIS, in this case, on the 72 acre FBC action. New Castle Town Board Page 4 March 25, 2021

b. The second criterion for a Supplemental DGEIS is found at 617.9(a)(7)(i)(b). It is “newly discovered information.” Newly discovered information in this case seems to be the Town Board’s “discovery” that there is broad and significant opposition by Town residents to rezoning the entire 72 acre hamlet area. The Town’s Planning Board and the Chappaqua Central School District have raised important issues and concerns which also need to be addressed. As stated by Supervisor Pool: “The overarching concern that I have heard during the public hearing is around the density allowed under the maximum buildout scenario. The community has clearly said that applying the Form Based Code across our entire study area could generate more development than they are ready to accept at this time. I have been listening, and this is what I have heard loud and clear.” [see New Direction document]. What is the newly discovered information? It is that there has been near universal opposition to applying the FBC across the entire hamlet study area, despite the public engagement the Town Board conducted before proposing the FBC. This should have been where the Town Board moved in a direction they believed residents and interested agencies would support. Instead, the Town Board after six months of public comment, has now “discovered” public and interested agency concerns that are so strong the original FBC proposal is proposed to be held in abeyance with an entirely new alternative presented to address the concerns. Despite all of the preliminary engagement and the best advice of the Town’s officials and consultants, it would appear this is now new information the Town Board was not previously aware of.

In addition to preparing a Supplemental DGEIS on the North Greeley corridor rezoning alternative, future Zoning amendments will need to be subject to thresholds for what additional SEQR review will be necessary if any additional areas are added to the North Greeley corridor. It will be essential that the hamlet of Chappaqua's full baseline of data and environmental impact assessment be carefully segregated from the North Greeley corridor or a future Town administration could simply adopt a new FBC for the remaining lands in Chappaqua by claiming that SEQR has been completed because of preparation of the current DGEIS on the 72 acre area. Segregating the data would create a more effective means of organizing the extensive information that comprises the DGEIS’s examination of the new alternative and will create a separate set of standards to be applied to the new preferred alternative.

The Supplemental DGEIS would also provide a separate set of thresholds used in governing environmental impacts of the 72 acre hamlet area and in this way, controlling if and when a larger project for the 72 acres could be invoked. These thresholds would be memorialized in the Findings Statement prepared for the new preferred alternative. While scoping a Supplemental DGEIS is optional, I highly recommend that it be conducted so residents and agencies have an opportunity to voice their concerns about the density options available in this new alternative. Will the new North Greeley corridor alternative reduce density so that it is consistent with the recommendations of the Town Plan or will it maintain the out-of-scale density previously proposed for the 72 acre FBC study area? The density provisions of any alternative going forward is an issue that must be properly addressed as discussed elsewhere in this letter-report.

2. In my professional opinion, the proposed action as presented in the DGEIS goes well beyond the scale and magnitude of development envisioned in the Town’s 2017 Comprehensive Plan and is inconsistent with the public sentiments expressed in the 2014 New Castle Master Planning Public Engagement Report prepared for the Town by the Land Use Law Center at Pace Law School, as discussed further below. I make this statement unequivocally despite the euphemistic statements in the DGEIS that the New Castle Town Board Page 5 March 25, 2021

FBC, as proposed, is consistent with the Town Plan.

When planning professionals talk about comprehensive planning, the phrase “Make no Little Plans,” is often cited. This phrase was popularized by Daniel Burnham in reference to the 1909 Plan of Chicago. This is the Plan that launched, almost single handedly, the City Beautiful movement in America and which came to dominate city planning well into the 20th century. It is still discussed in Chicago’s planning circles. Like Burnham’s Plan of Chicago, when planners talk of residents’ vision for the future during a comprehensive planning effort, lofty phrases such as this are often used to encourage people to think of the possibilities presented by an opportunity like envisioning how growth, development, and conservation in the community can be framed for the next 10 to 20 years or more. As planners, our job is to encourage people to think big and envision the possibilities a comprehensive plan undertaking can present for developing the kind of community residents want.

To illustrate this point, Supervisor Pool’s New Directions document clearly states that the density proposed in the FBC: “Is more development than they [i.e. residents and interested agencies] are ready to accept.” This should come as no surprise. The Comprehensive Plan is quite clear that residents want to “Preserve the bucolic residential character of the community’s neighborhoods.” [Comprehensive Plan Goal 1]. Bucolic is defined in common dictionaries as “Of or characteristic of the countryside or its people; pastoral; rustic” and synonymous with “rural.” The Town Zoning Law similarly speaks of new development that should be of a type characteristic of the countryside and rural areas. In the purposes section of the Zoning Law found in Section 60-100.A, specific purposes of the Zoning Law are: “(1) To lessen congestion in the streets…(6) To prevent the overcrowding of land…(7) To avoid undue concentration of population…[and] (8) To facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements.”

In my professional opinion, each of these purposes and many others found in the 2017 Comprehensive Plan, the 2014 New Castle Master Planning Public Engagement Report, and the Town Zoning Law all point to a community that wants to work towards maintaining the “small-town rural feel” and “rural character” [see Public Engagement Report pages 4, 14, 28, 32, 58, 68, 97, 99, 108, 132, 138, 148, 169, 173, and 176]. This means maintaining “small-town” (i.e. low) population densities, protecting natural and cultural resources, and avoiding the kinds of large-scale and intensive urban development that would be encouraged and streamlined under the proposed FBC. I will also discuss below what I believe is an out of scale proposal to create greater density than is appropriate in the hamlet of Chappaqua in the context of the Town’s “well-considered plan” (see below for explanation) as it is memorialized in New Castle’s planning and zoning framework.

According to the New York State Department of State in its publication entitled Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan [see pages 7 and 8 in Division of Local Government Services, James A. Coon Local Government Technical Series, (revised 2015)]: “How may a comprehensive plan be discerned? A comprehensive plan need not be a single document. It need not be a formally adopted plan. Instead, the question of whether an inclusive scheme of action exists or has been undertaken is a conclusion reached only after considering an entire complex of facts, rather than by looking for a single planning document. For instance, the courts may find evidence of a plan in the zoning law itself, if the regulations set out in the law form a coherent pattern that furthers a land use policy that benefits the entire community. In Asian Americans for Equity v. Koch, the Court of Appeals stated: ‘A well-considered plan need not be contained in a single document; indeed, it need not be written at all. The court may satisfy itself that the municipality has a well-considered plan and that authorities are acting in the New Castle Town Board Page 6 March 25, 2021

public interest to further it by examining all available and relevant evidence of the municipality’s land use policies...For those communities which choose not to adopt a comprehensive plan pursuant to these [i.e. Town Law, §272-a] statutes, the traditional court-fashioned definition continues to apply.’” Therefore, New Castle has a “well considered plan” reflected not only in the 2017 Town Plan, but also in other previous planning documents prepared by or for the Town. As such, each of the Town’s planning documents must be addressed concertedly as the “well considered plan” for the proposed FBC.

The inconsistency of the proposed FBC with the Towns “well-considered plan” creates the potential for new construction that is out of character with the predominantly one and two story buildings found in the hamlet, for causing large-scale traffic that will be attracted to the new development in the hamlet, for increasing the number of new school-age children who will put pressures on the School District to expand, and generally, to take the Town’s “bucolic character” and turn it into something else. I have worked with dozens of other communities in the Hudson Valley that have faced similar issues and none have gone so far as New Castle has done by completely rewriting its Zoning rules to favor out-of-scale new 4- and 5-story developments in a community that has articulated its rationale for remaining a bucolic community with a “small-town feel.” Using a term such as “small-town feel” may seem out of place and almost sentimental in a planning and zoning framework, but it embodies the perceptions that residents have as it specifically relates to what constitutes community character (see State quote from The SEQR Handbook below).

“Rural” is a term that was used over and over again in the 2014 New Castle Master Planning Public Engagement Report, but this term has been completely ignored in the Town’s present DGEIS document. The population density of New Castle exceeds common state and federal definitions of rural. But the Town retains some characteristics of a rural community, like agriculture, protected lands, scenic viewsheds, and low residential densities, thus the reason the Town Plan refers to such terms as “bucolic” and “small-town feel.” Residents just do not support increasing densities to the extent they would get to if the FBC were adopted in its present form.

The remedy in the North Greeley corridor alternative is to: a) demonstrate how this alternative aligns with public sentiment and agency concerns; b) demonstrate how this alternative is consistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan, the Public Engagement Report and the Town’s “well-considered plan”; and c) identify the environmental impacts of this reduced scale alternative and compare it with the environmental impacts of the prior 72 acre FBC action as any alternative to the proposed action should do under the SEQR regulations.

Summary of Comments My comments focus on three inadequacies of the DGEIS. These include the adverse impacts of the action on community character, inconsistency with the Town Comprehensive Plan (henceforward the Town Plan), and adverse impacts of the action on traffic/parking as it conflicts with Town policies as follows:

• The discussion of community character in the DGEIS is wholly insufficient. The full breadth of the impacts disclosed in the DGEIS is limited to aesthetic resources. However, “community character” is far more broadly defined in SEQR guidance provided by the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and by the courts. For instance, DEC’s The SEQR Handbook at page 84 states: New Castle Town Board Page 7 March 25, 2021

“Community character relates not only to the built and natural environments of a community, but also to how people function within and perceive that community. Evaluation of potential impacts upon community or neighborhood character is often difficult to define by quantitative measures. Courts have supported reliance upon a municipality’s comprehensive plan and zoning as expressions of the community’s desired future state or character.” Community character under this premise encompasses all facets of the Town Plan. The DGEIS’s inadequate analysis of the issue grossly underestimates the potential impacts of the FBC on Chappaqua’s community and neighborhood character. This omission is also contrary with caselaw on the issue of community character, as described in The SEQR Handbook, based on decisions including Village of Chestnut Ridge v. Town of Ramapo, Lane Construction Corp. v. Cahill, Wal-Mart Stores v. Planning Board of the Town of North Elba, among many others which stress the need to include sense of place, traffic, parking, historic and other cultural resources, noise, lighting, clean water and clean air, natural resources, population growth, socioeconomics, lifestyles, and people in addition to visual and aesthetic values.

• My review of the 2017 Town Plan as well as other relevant documents that are considered an integral part of New Castle’s “well considered plan” include the 2014 New Castle Master Planning Public Engagement Report, the Town Zoning Law’s Purposes found in Article 1, § 60-100, and the 1998 Chappaqua “Village” Action Plan prepared for the New Castle Downtown Revitalization Task Force (particularly Chapter 3.0 Community Character). Based upon my reading of relevant excerpts of the Town’s “well considered plan”, I do not believe that the Action as proposed in the DGEIS is consistent with the overall vision articulated in the Town’s plans.

The adoption of the FBC for a 72 acre area in Chappaqua is contrary to the priorities and policy recommendations expressed in the plans. For example, the Town Plan at Goal 1 states unequivocally to: “Preserve the Bucolic Residential Character of the Community’s Neighborhoods” and in Action 1.1 to: “Review and revise existing zoning regulations or develop alternative zoning regulations that encourage development that keeps with the scale and character of development in the Town’s various zoning districts.” As set forth below, application of the proposed FBC for the 72 acre area of Chappaqua stretches the common ordinary dictionary definition of “bucolic” beyond recognition. I will also explain how the “scale and character” of what is proposed in the FBC in no uncertain terms is out of scale and character with existing development and the community character of Chappaqua. The Town Plan provides a clear policy goal that is applicable to Chappaqua and its development densities. The form of development permitting four and five story buildings in the hamlet is in direct conflict with the first and most fundamental goal of the Town Plan.

• The traffic and parking impacts of the FBC present a special case for a reduced scale alternative that was not addressed or inadequately addressed in the DGEIS. First, adverse impacts of the action on traffic/ parking cannot be predicted with any accuracy 15 years into the future (i.e. full build-out) and even in the foreseeable future are unrealistic in a rapidly changing transportation network environment. COVID has changed and may continue to change commuting patterns. No one can predict whether this will be a short-term or a long-term change. In 2019, the New York State Legislature enacted the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. The goal established by New York State in this Act is to: “Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all anthropogenic sources 100% over 1990 levels by the year 2050, with an incremental target of at least a 40 percent reduction in climate pollution by the year 2030.” How will adherence to the goals of this Act affect traffic and parking in Chappaqua hamlet? How should it?

New Castle Town Board Page 8 March 25, 2021

Even though the traffic and parking projections go out to 2035, the DGEIS is completely silent on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions from the additional traffic projected for the FBC. This existential issue faces all localities, states, and countries. While the 2017 Town Plan does address the issue indirectly through its policies (i.e. Principle: Livable Built Environment) that: “Ensure that all elements of the built environment, including land use, transportation, housing, energy, and infrastructure, work together to provide sustainable, green places for living, working, and recreation, with a high quality of life.” and that: “Infrastructure services include…clean energy systems…” [emphasis added, see Livable Built Environment Principle and Goal 13], the DGEIS fails to address what is the biggest environmental impact issue facing humanity over the coming decades. Failure to do so is also contrary with State guidance on how greenhouse gas emissions need to be addressed under SEQR [see DEC Policy Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Environmental Impact Statements issued July 15, 2009].

Using the DEC Greenhouse Gas Emissions policy as guidance to local agencies in New York State for SEQR reviews is founded on the premise that the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) authorizes the DEC to issue such guidance and for the general public to rely upon this guidance in complying with the ECL regulations.1 [see ECL § 3-0301(2)(z)].

The DGEIS presents evidence in Sections F.3.b and F.3.c that all of the intersections studied will be subject to increases in vehicular traffic. If the proposed action results in increases in traffic within the hamlet, how then does the proposed FBC: “Lessen congestion in the streets”? [Zoning Law Section 60-100.A(1)], “Alleviate traffic congestion”? [2017 Town Plan Goal 9], and “Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all anthropogenic sources 100% over 1990 levels by the year 2050, with an incremental target of at least a 40 percent reduction in climate pollution by the year 2030.”? [Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, Section 1.4]. These are questions that require answers in the public record.

Community Character Comments Impacts on community character may be one of the most significant environmental impact issues associated with the FBC as currently written. This is because all elements of the Town Plan encompass the community character of New Castle and there are other numerous overriding goals of the Plan that have equal if not greater weight than the goal of encouraging a type and density of development embodied in the FBC. New Castle’s Town Plan is a well written and forward-thinking document.

The FBC may have been a progressive step for the Town to take if it had been done with a more nuanced approach towards density, rather than imposing an entirely new scale of density and development types not presently found in the Town. It would have been perhaps more acceptable if the Town had provided a more robust public engagement process limited to use of the FBC. Given the 15 year build-out scenario of the FBC in the DGEIS, if developers follow through after adoption of the 72 acre FBC plan, hamlet and Town residents will face a future with construction impacts affecting quality of life for years and perhaps decades to come.

1 The DEC Commissioner is authorized by the ECL to: “Issue and amend guidance memoranda and similar documents of general applicability which are to be relied upon by department personnel for implementation of this chapter, and rules and regulations promulgated thereto, and for guidance to the general public in complying with the requirements of this chapter.” New Castle Town Board Page 9 March 25, 2021

The proposed FBC, as acknowledged by Supervisor Pool, is simply too much for residents of the Town to accept and is a reflection of the sentiment that the FBC will overwhelm the hamlet with an increase in density, use of land, and all of the attendant impacts that go along with such increases. The New Castle FBC approach has the potential to derail what could otherwise be an effective means of controlling land use in the hamlet. Streamlining a code so that it encourages the types of development that is desired in a community is a time honored tradition. It doesn’t matter how good the land use system is when it encourages development that is not desired in a community. This is what I see with New Castle’s FBC. New York’s courts have addressed this issue directly: “There must be some showing that the change does not conflict with the community’s basic scheme for land use.” [see Udell v. Haas, 21 NY. 2d 463 at 470]. In reviewing the Town’s planning and zoning documents, I see obvious signs that the FBC, as proposed, conflicts with New Castle’s basic scheme for land use.

My greatest criticism of the proposed FBC approach to the 72 acre hamlet area is as follows:

• Communities should definitely think big and “make no little plans” when formulating a comprehensive plan. This provides an opportunity for residents to envision the community they want and to dream of the possibilities presented by a new planning opportunity. The FBC as written fails to address what is apparent that the community has articulated it wants, which is: “development that keeps with the density, scale, character and aesthetic quality of the existing built environment in the Town’s various zoning districts.” [Town Plan Goal 1].

• Communities must also be acutely aware of the economic forces that often convince local leaders and officials of the financial benefits of more and more development, sometimes referred to as a type of “Ponzi scheme.” Local officials should “make no large leaps” in overhauling current land use control rules without a full scale bottom up public engagement process that thoroughly explores and addresses what citizens’ want.

Introducing a new alternative at this point in the process is only warranted when studied through a Supplemental DGEIS. Including a new alternative at this point in the process is necessary and has both “importance and relevance” to the information on potential significant impacts [see 6 NYCRR 617.8(f)(2) of the SEQR regulations]. The Supplemental DGEIS can reinforce the Town’s commitment to engaging with interested agencies and residents about the pros and cons of the new alternative in the manner set forth in the SEQR statute and regulations. But a Supplemental DGEIS is also an opportunity to engage in further outreach with the public by sponsoring a Charrette or Charrettes before preparing the Supplemental DGEIS to develop a shared community vision for the FBC and the hamlet. Virtually all FBC guidance from planning organizations indicate that a Charrette or Charrettes should be a mandatory step in the process of formulating a new FBC.

The American Planning Association outlines the proper role of citizen participation in a planning process as follows: “Public participation in planning is a mainstay of democratic governance and decision making. By actively involving the whole community in making and implementing plans, the government fulfills its responsibilities to keep all citizens informed and to offer them the opportunity to influence those actions that affect them.” The question for the Town Board becomes whether approval of the proposed FBC amendments will progress New Castle towards the Town Plan’s long-range goals and shared vision for a sustainable small town and bucolic community. Will the rapid growth that will come to Chappaqua be good or bad for the Town if the FBC as written is enacted? That is something the Town’s residents seem to have already decided through their comments on the DGEIS, and their answer is it will be bad. New Castle Town Board Page 10 March 25, 2021

Another question concerning the FBC is whether the financial benefits to developers of the mid-rise projects outweigh loss of community character and thereby set a precedent-setting inconsistency with the Town Plan. Despite the potential infusion of economic benefits to some, what is lacking in the DGEIS are what the costs will be of Chappaqua potentially losing its existing community character, including negative effects on the quality of life currently enjoyed by its residents, and especially the traffic congestion and other negative effects as a result of increases in traffic.

The SEQR review process conducted to date for the proposed FBC contains a significant flaw. It has ignored environmental impacts on the community character of New Castle by failing to include discussion of the topic beyond aesthetics. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan was clearly included in the Final Scoping Document dated 4/20/20. However, the DGEIS fails to mention the inconsistencies of the FBC with all relevant parts of the Town Plan and the Town’s “well considered plan” as discussed elsewhere in this letter-report. It therefore fails to meet the state court’s pronouncement that: “There must be some showing that the change does not conflict with the community’s basic scheme for land use.” [see Udell v. Haas, 21 NY. 2d 463 at 470].

Section 1.A. (page 1-1) of the DGEIS, states that: “The rezoning of the Chappaqua Hamlet has taken information from the Public Engagement Report and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan into account when developing the substance of the draft Form-Based Code.” The DGEIS repeats this statement on page 2-17 in Section 2.A. However, New York State Town Law at Section 272-a.11(a) requires that: “All town land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.” This consistency provision of Town Law requires municipalities do far more than take a goal or policy statement “into account” when crafting land use controls like the proposed FBC. The consistency provision requires adherence with the “basic scheme for land use.”

The scale of development proposed in Chappaqua does not flow from the Town Plan’s policy pronouncements to: “Preserve the bucolic residential character of the community’s neighborhoods.” Although this policy is followed by one where the policy is to: “Locate higher density residential development in hamlets, with density of development decreasing as distance from hamlet centers increases” all of the policies of the Town Plan must be balanced with support from the community as it relates to the scale and magnitude of density permitted. As discussed elsewhere, the Town Board should reformulate the FBC with densities that are acceptable in the community and do so using facts derived from a close examination of the options available in a Supplemental DGEIS.

Section 1.B.3 (page 1-5) of the DGEIS states that: “Future development will be consistent with community character and will exemplify the environment envisioned in the 2017 Comprehensive Plan. The form-based code regulations proposed serve to implement these visual and community character goals, and significant adverse impacts are not anticipated to visual resources.” Here again, the DGEIS fails to address the entire scope of issues related to community character. This needs to be corrected in the remaining SEQR documents prepared for the action.

Section 3.C.2 of the DGEIS states: “Future development will be consistent with community character and will exemplify the environment envisioned in the 2017 Comprehensive Plan…The form-based code regulations proposed serve to implement these visual and community character goals, and significant adverse impacts are not anticipated to visual resources.” This euphemistic statement has no place in what should be an objective disclosure document and should be stricken from future SEQR documents. It is directly contradicted in the DGEIS by the preceding photographs and photo simulations of existing versus future development at selected locations in the New Castle Town Board Page 11 March 25, 2021 hamlet [see in particular Exhibits 3C-4, 3C-5, and so on]. The obvious visual impacts of the out-of-scale buildings clearly impact visual resources and do not reflect that the: “Town’s zoning regulations should be crafted as to ensure that the development that occurs is consistent with the bucolic character of the Town’s residential neighborhoods and to encourage development that keeps with the density, scale, character and aesthetic quality of the existing built environment in the Town’s various zoning districts.” [emphasis added, see Town Plan goal 1].

Alternative B, the No Action alternative provides for an analysis and comparison of the proposed FBC with the maximum buildout that can be expected under the existing Zoning. However, in my professional opinion a significant omission of the DGEIS is the lack of a reasonable and feasible alternative that provides for a FBC for the hamlet area, but does so using a maximum scale of development that is in keeping with the existing community character and the Town Plan recommendations for the hamlet. The first No Action Alternative A is not consistent with SEQR requirements and should be stricken from the DGEIS.

Similar euphemistic statements can be found at other locations in the DGEIS. They include statements such as: “Future development will be consistent with community character and will exemplify the envisioned environment outlined in the New Castle Public Engagement Report and the New Castle Comprehensive Plan.” and “New development proposals that comply with the Code will contain architectural styles and forms predetermined as those that fit with the historic community character of the hamlet.” The FBC will allow four and five story structures but how will this be consistent with the “Small-town, quaint, intimate village feel of downtown shops.”? These and other statements in the DGEIS, about how the proposed Form Based Code will be consistent with Chappaqua’s community character, are not at all in line with the public engagement documents nor with the Town’s officially adopted Town Plan. This has caused a disconnect between what residents want, how they have themselves described the vision of what they see is appropriate for the community, and what is proposed and studied in the DGEIS for the FBC.

Comprehensive Plan Consistency Comments

Consistency of a proposed Zoning Amendment like the FBC, must be weighed against the overall established character of the community, as expressed throughout the municipal Comprehensive Plan. Whatever the economic benefits to the community of the proposed FBC as it seeks to revitalize the hamlet of Chappaqua must be undertaken using a “reasoned consideration” of the community benefits of maintaining the “bucolic small-town character,” which are the clear preferences expressed in the 2014 New Castle Master Planning Public Engagement Report (Engagement Report) and the 2017 Town Plan. Failure to do so conflicts with the basic underlying premise of the entire Town Plan. The DGEIS has ignored these mandates and is fatally flawed as a result.

The Town Board is solely responsible for preparation and adoption of a comprehensive plan. It should always be remembered that the Town Plan was conceived with the majority of the townspeople as both its audience and its authors. A comprehensive plan is a document that expresses the will of the residents of a community about the way they want to live — now, and in the future — and residents have authored the New Castle Comprehensive Plan by expressing their preferences and choices, hopes and dreams. New Castle Town Board Page 12 March 25, 2021

The DGEIS is partially correct when it states that: “The Proposed Action is an amendment to the Town of New Castle Zoning Code that changes the zoning of the Chappaqua Hamlet business districts to a new ‘Form-Based District’ in order to make the zoning consistent with the goals of the Town's 2017 Comprehensive Plan…The rezoning of the Chappaqua Hamlet has taken information from the Public Engagement report and the Comprehensive Plan into account when developing the substance of the draft Form-Based District Zoning Code.” Form based zoning can be an effective means of maintaining the historic character of a community and allowing for new development to meet the architectural and other design standards that the community wishes to incorporate into their land use control systems. However, what is missing from the DGEIS statement is how the proposed FBC and its density provisions address the community’s wishes for maintaining the small-town feel of the hamlet by allowing four and five story buildings, where none currently exist in Chappaqua. The predominant form of residential and non-residential buildings in Chappaqua are limited to one and two story buildings with a few three story buildings scattered around the hamlet. Where is the evidence in the Town Plan of a detailed design plan for the hamlet? In my experience, comprehensive plans that propose new FBC zoning amendments are preceded with some level of design engagement with the community at large. They usually take the form of Charrettes as the established practice for FBCs.

The statement in the DGEIS Section 2.C.1 that: “The stated goal of the Town was to develop and propose a new Zoning Code which will seek to enhance the vitality of the hamlet with a mix of uses; improve the viability of the businesses in the hamlet; encourage and improve economic development; provide sustained environmental benefits; walkability; and protect the historic and desired architectural character of the hamlet” is not the issue. The issue is the interpretation of the Town Plan to dictate that hamlet revitalization is somehow dependent upon large- scale new development being permitted. It does not logically follow that meeting this stated goal can only occur by significantly increasing the density of the hamlet in the FBC. Any attempt to link the FBC with high density uses that are out of character with the existing character found in the hamlet and as described in the Town Plan is a false equivalency. The DGEIS presented an all or nothing analysis by avoiding viable FBC alternatives and including a flawed “No Action” Alternative A.

FBCs can take on many different scales and magnitudes from small rural hamlets to city centers. The one chosen by the Town for the hamlet’s proposed FBC is not in scale for what has historically developed in the hamlet. Chappaqua grew organically from its origins in the early 1700s. It started small and to this day is much smaller than many other hamlets and villages in New York State. While having the characteristics of some villages with a post office of its own and mixed uses in a downtown environment, Chappaqua today has a small town feel, just like it has been expressed in the 2014 Engagement Report and the 2017 Town Plan. Contrary with the assertions in the DGEIS, Chappaqua residents and other Town residents appear to want to protect that small town feel. The most appropriate alternative that should have been addressed in the DGEIS was a FBC that could be used to replicate the existing community and neighborhood character of Chappaqua, rather than pursuing new large scale development that the DGEIS acknowledges will impact transportation, parking, and schools among other community resources.

New York’s courts have dealt with the issue of consistency between a comprehensive plan and zoning regulations on countless cases. The New York State Court of Appeals has opined that to sustain a rezoning without a supportive planning rationale “would invite the kind of ad hoc and arbitrary application of zoning power that the comprehensive planning requirement was designed to avoid.” The FBC amendments proposed to the Zoning ignore the overall vision articulated for the Town throughout the existing Town Plan and Zoning Law [see specifically Zoning section 60-600.B “To be in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan”]. New Castle Town Board Page 13 March 25, 2021

When I am asked to review and analyze consistency between a comprehensive plan and a proposed zoning amendment, all relevant policies and passages from the plan need to be reviewed so that several important questions can be answered: a) Does the amendment materially alter use of property in a way that was never intended in the plan? b) Does the amendment materially alter the density of properties that would be affected? c) Is the intensity of use of property materially altered? d) Does the amendment have townwide implications? e) Does the amendment have implications for unintended consequences, such as secondary growth induced by the amendments? and f) If so, does the amendment include any consideration of how the town will plan for such secondary impacts? In answer to most of these questions, the proposed FBC does appear to materially alter the original intent of the Town Plan including the Town’s “well-considered plan” and has a high degree of likelihood that the amendments as proposed will result in unintended consequences that have not been subjected to a thorough consistency analysis.

The question of consistency then, hinges on not only whether the FBC is consistent with the Town Plan but how is it inconsistent. An explanation for how the FBC is consistent with or is inconsistent with each of the relevant policy statements in the Town Plan has been omitted from the DGEIS. Only after this exercise is completed can the proposal and the land uses that will be permitted by the FBC Zoning Amendments be determined to be either in agreement with or not in agreement with the policies. If they are not in agreement, why not? What will be the effect on residents’ vision for preserving the small town atmosphere if urban scale mid-rise buildings of four and five stories are permitted?

What happened in New Castle with a six month public comment period on the DGEIS, submission of hundreds of thoughtful comments specifically on the issue of density and out-of-scale new development that would be permitted by the FBC, and objections to the overall scale of the action expressed by the Town Planning Board and the Chappaqua Central School District demonstrate a lack of proper public engagement on the formulation of the FBC with residents. While the DGEIS claims the FBC will be consistent with the Town Plan [and the Town’s “well-considered plan”], the reality is that resident’s know better. They are wary of the scale and magnitude of the overall FBC effort.

Zoning amendments enjoy a “strong presumption of validity” and will not be “disturbed” unless they are in clear conflict with a municipal comprehensive plan [see Division of Local Government Services, James A. Coon Local Government Technical Series, (revised 2015)]. As discussed above, the Town of New Castle has a “well considered plan” found in the 2017 Town Plan as well as in the planning documents prepared by or for the Town as described herein including the Zoning Law and others. These documents provide the burden of proof that New Castle has engaged in comprehensive planning as a valid and “inclusive scheme of action [that] exists or has been undertaken” and forms “a coherent pattern that furthers a land use policy that benefits the entire community.” The Town Board can demonstrate how the FBC is consistent with the Town’s “well considered plan” by demonstrating in the record how it has acted in the public interest by implementing the Town Plan recommendations.

Traffic/Parking Comments

The Town Plan is clear that residents’ vision is to preserve the “bucolic” residential character of the community’s neighborhoods. The density and intensity of development incentivized by the proposed FBC as written is contradictory with residents’ vision. Form-based codes strive to lessen congestion in the streets New Castle Town Board Page 14 March 25, 2021 by creating pedestrian-friendly and narrower streets with on-street parking, thus both reducing the amount of traffic by encouraging residents to walk, and slowing the traffic that does exist to safer speeds. This method of street design contrasts with sprawling suburban roads of conventional zoning designed with wide streets for higher speeds so people can more efficiently and quickly reach their destination by cars. This is a laudable goal of FBCs. However, street design for Chappaqua’s FBC is absent a clearly articulated plan for remaking the hamlet’s streets in association with the proposed increases in development density. Significant new sources of funding will need to be identified in order to achieve the types of traffic calming and other design modifications needed to make for complete streets that can accommodate the increases in population that will want to walk instead of drive.

The traffic analysis provided in the DGEIS acknowledges that a traffic mitigation funding stream will need to be identified in order to support the kinds of traffic improvements that would support the increases in traffic projected for the FBC. As stated on page 3-133 of the DGEIS: “Full 15-year buildout contemplated under the proposed Form-Based Code could increase traffic volumes at key intersections by as much as 37%…” Costs of some of the improvements needed too accommodate the increases in traffic have been calculated into seven figures and do not cover all possibilities that could occur over a 15 year period. However, the DGEIS is silent on how such a funding mechanism will function.

SEQR requires that when a significant adverse impact has been identified, that mitigation also needs to be identified. The Town Board failed to identify concrete mitigation for an identified adverse impact in the DGEIS. In so doing, the Town Board failed to carry out its SEQR review responsibilities on the FBC action, instead deferring completion of the necessary studies on the proposed mitigation measures for adverse environmental impacts identified in the DGEIS to a later and speculative process involving actions by the Town Board, a future Town Board, and possible competitive state funding processes to fund additional studies and designs of suitable and appropriate mitigation measures to a later time. In short, the mitigation measures proposed by the Town Board to avoid adverse impacts on traffic are speculative at best.

New York State’s official SEQR guidance, The SEQR Handbook, states: “The EIS should contain enough detail on size, location and elements of the proposal to allow a reader to understand the proposed action, the associated impacts, and to determine the effectiveness of any proposed alternatives or mitigation.” [see pages 124-125]. How can New Castle’s residents or anyone else understand the effectiveness of a mitigation measure that is subject to the vagaries of the political process, subject to uncertain state competitive grant programs, and may or may not get adopted in the future? In the meantime, if the FBC is adopted and in force, adverse impacts can occur at any time without the requisite mitigation measures being in place nor even guaranteed to be in place at any time in the future. What then will prevent identified adverse impacts from occurring in contravention with SEQR? This is a serious flaw in the SEQR process.

The SEQR Handbook shines light on how mitigation relates to the impacts identified in an environmental impact statement as follows: “A discussion of feasible mitigation measures which could address specific identified impacts is a fundamental component of every EIS. The mitigation discussion can allow a project sponsor to offer constructive ways to reduce one or more identified environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Mitigation may include measures offered voluntarily by the project sponsor. It is important that any mitigation offers should be practical, preventative, remedial, or compensatory procedures that the sponsor can actually accomplish. Mitigation measures may also be required by any involved agency with appropriate jurisdiction as conditions which are incorporated as part of its final decision on the action. When mitigation measures are made part of the enforceable standards within an agency’s final approval, that agency creates a means to ensure that environmental impacts will be New Castle Town Board Page 15 March 25, 2021 reduced to the maximum extent practicable, as SEQR requires. This aids the decision- making agencies in balancing positive and negative aspects of a proposed action.” [emphasis added]. [see The SEQR Handbook pages 130-131].

As far as parking is concerned, the DGEIS indicates that the majority of parking is in public and private lots with on-street parking representing only about seven percent (7%) of the total. As stated on page 3-100 of the DGEIS: “Consultation with the Town Planning Department and the Downtown Working Group indicate that there is almost no excess parking capacity in the study area and, therefore, all future development must either be self- sufficient in parking or must find a way to create parking opportunities at peak times.” Reading between the lines, it appears as if the solution to the increases in parking demand will be through parking structures, as discussed on page 3-50 where it states: “The buildout scenario indicates a parking structure to replace town-owned surface parking, and establishment of a mixed use buildings of up to 5 stories in this area.”

The impacts of parking structures on the community character of the hamlet as well as the consistency of such a plan with the Town Plan and its “well considered plan” must be subject to the same level of analysis as is performed with the FBC’s proposed four and five story mid-rise structures. Entirely new multi-level structures will introduce an entirely new feature into the hamlet which is not currently found there and such a plan is out of character with the hamlet’s existing community character. As stated in the DGEIS: “Consultation with the Town Planning Department and the Downtown Working Group indicate that there is almost no excess parking capacity in the study area and, therefore, all future development must either be self-sufficient in parking or must find a way to create parking opportunities at peak times.” Since the DGEIS acknowledges that such parking will not generally be available on-street, people will be required to park and then walk from the new parking garages. When sufficient parking is only available beyond a comfortable distance, people seeking parking will be discouraged and will add to traffic congestion in the hamlet, which is contrary with the Town Plan’s clear policies. Further, the Parking Toolbox discussed on page 3-136 acknowledges that it: “would likely accommodate some of that increased parking” meaning that other options will be required to meet the demands for additional parking in the hamlet. In terms of impacts on community character, the adverse impacts of traffic and parking are a further indicator that the proposed FBC will have a significant adverse impact on the hamlet’s community character.

The DGEIS failed to study, assess, and determine whether and how the mitigation proposed for the adverse impacts (i.e. a traffic mitigation fund) would effectively avoid or reduce the adverse impacts. In this case, the extent of detail on the proposed mitigation measures was not sufficiently related to the complexity of the environmental problems created by the proposed FBC action simply because that mitigation may or may not occur in the future. In my professional opinion, the mitigation measures needed to be fully incorporated into the proposed FBC action in the DGEIS so that it could be subject to the public review and comment requirements of SEQR. The mitigation measures must also be rational and supported by substantial evidence. The mitigation proposed for traffic impacts is speculative and subject to as yet unknowable actions, some of which are dependent on other agency actions, such as state or federal approval of funding, or developer agreements, or creation of special districts. Once the FBC triggered developments occur, impacts could be irreparable and irreversible.

The traffic impacts on the hamlet’s community character and its residents can be divided into those that have been deemed to be short term and involve the 15 year buildout period when heavy trucks and other trucks and equipment needed for construction of the new development allowed under the FBC would travel hamlet streets. First, for anyone living with 15 years of construction activity in the hamlet, this is indeed a long term adverse impact that stretches the meaning of “short term.” Second, the long-term traffic New Castle Town Board Page 16 March 25, 2021 increases in the hamlet are significant, as they have been described in the DGEIS, and have the potential to degrade quality of life for hamlet residents for the foreseeable future, an indicator of a significant adverse impact on community character. Projections of population growth associated with the FBC would increase the number of hamlet residents by more than 192 percent over the no action buildout with existing zoning. Traffic projections are comparable. For the AM Peak hour, traffic associated with the FBC would increase by 250 percent over the No Action Alternative buildout with existing zoning while PM peak hour traffic would increase by more than 160 percent. This increase is in direct conflict with the Town Plan’s goal to “Alleviate traffic congestion.” [see Town Plan goal 9]. It will also degrade quality of life for hamlet residents and businesses and may result in conflicts with hamlet revitalization efforts. Gridlock already happens in the hamlet and the issue has been well documented. If further intractable gridlock happens in Chappaqua, how will the Town’s businesses attract new customers? Will residents seek other places to live free of the congestion that results in the hamlet?

Further, the increases in traffic are closely interwoven with increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Any municipal initiative that results in increases in greenhouse gas emissions becomes part of the problem of climate change rather than the solution. The Town Board needs to concertedly address this issue as discussed above.

Conclusion

I urge the Town Board to consider the issues identified herein and to proceed with preparation of a Supplemental DGEIS to address the issues identified in the new North Greeley corridor alternative. Each of the comments and questions presented above concerning the 72 acre FBC action require a response in the FGEIS. I thank you in advance for your consideration of these comments.

Very Truly Yours,

J. Theodore Fink, AICP President

Cc: John Barone, Esq. Meave Tooher, Esq. J. Theodore Fink, AICP | Curriculum Vitae Planner & Educator | 302 Pells Road Rhinebeck NY 12572 | 845.876.5775 | [email protected]

DEGREES

Master of Urban Planning and Policy. University of Illinois at Chicago. Masters Project entitled “Grant Park Tomorrow” funded by the National Endowment for the Arts and the Illinois Humanities Council (see citations below). Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Design. University at Buffalo, SUNY.

ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE Marist College School of Science, Poughkeepsie, New York. Adjunct Instructor of three courses: Introduction to Environmental Issues (ENSC 101), Environmental Explorations of the Hudson (HONR 370/375), and Principles of Environmental Assessment (ENSC 380). Beginning with ENSC 101 in 2014, teaches natural systems, adverse impacts of human activities upon these systems, and how society deals with the impacts. Sustainability is emphasized, since a goal of environmental science is to sustain natural resources, essentially forever. Topics include land use; ecology; biodiversity; human population growth; food production; energy resources; and water and air pollution. In addition to the scientific issues, related politics, economics, and ethics topics are covered. Through lectures, case studies, readings, documentaries, discussions, ethical dilemmas, group projects, and field trips, students develop an interdisciplinary foundation for understanding how natural systems influence and are shaped by human activities. The Honors course focuses on the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area, using Marist’s research boat as an extended classroom. Students in this course gain a new appreciation of the natural processes that have shaped the River, see first hand how humans impact and manage those processes, and in turn students learn to become stewards of the environment. Environmental Assessment is focused on the substance and procedures of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR). Bard College Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Annandale-on-Hudson, New York. Professor of Land Use Planning. In the mid-1990‘s, taught basic principles and practical applications of environmentally sensitive land use planning for individual properties, municipalities, and regions. The course provided the tools necessary to perform a site analysis, constraint mapping, natural and cultural resource inventories, land conservation/open space planning, analysis of land use controls, and the economics of development and preservation. State University of New York College at New Paltz, Continuing Education Program. Advanced Open Water Diving Instructor, 1982-1985. Taught SCUBA diving in a training program that combined formal classroom study with practical experience. Trained students in the safe operation of equipment and lectured on the physiological affects of the underwater environment as well as how divers effect the delicate ecology of surface waters. A step by step approach was used to train students beginning with exercises in a pool and then advancing to J. Theodore Fink, AICP Curriculum Vitae a series of dives in open water settings. At the successful completion of the course of study, students were then “certified” to SCUBA dive throughout the world. Center for Urban Studies, University of Illinois at Chicago. Teaching and Research Assistant. In the mid-1970‘s, assisted the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development with the preparation of an environmental impact statement for a major urban redevelopment project. Devised population projections for the Chicago Regional Hospital Study. Compiled and interpreted population, housing, land use, and economic statistics in support of Center publications. Assisted the Little Village Industrial Association with preparation of a plan for the future of the residential and industrial community.

NON-ACADEMIC INSTRUCTIONAL EXPERIENCE Low Impact Development Forum - Aquifer and Stream Corridor Protection. Dutchess County Planning Federation and Cornell Cooperative Extension of Dutchess County. Training Instructor for Stream Corridor Protection Planning. Fall 2019. Municipal Law and Planning: A Local Perspective on Hydrofracking. Albany Law School, The Government Law Center. Speaker on Effective Local Planning Tools, September 2012. Conservation Design. Trainer for an alternative design approach to conventional development in numerous municipalities throughout the Hudson Valley since 2001. Conservation Development. Trainer for the Teatown Reservation’s Environmental Leaders Learning Alliance (ELLA) program. ELLA involves 31 town and village Conservation Advisory Councils, Conservation Boards, and Open Space Committees from northern Westchester, Putnam, and parts of Dutchess, Orange and Rockland counties in New York State. Growth Centers. Speaker, Land Use Leadership Alliance Training Program, Pace University School of Law, 2004. Smart Growth Success in the Hudson Valley: Implementation in Warwick. Speaker, Hudson Valley Smart Growth Alliance Conference, November 2002. Elements of Site Plan Review, Speaker, New York Planning Federation 2000 Annual Conference, October 2000. Planning for the Future, Speaker, Wappingers Falls Business and Professional Association, March 1999. Rural Character and Rural Quality: Are They Worth Preserving? Speaker and Panelist, Town of Warwick Master Plan Committee, November 1994. New York Updates Its Planning and Zoning Laws. Various Municipal Planning Boards, October 1994 through present. The Basics of SEQR. Town and Village Boards, Town and Village Planning Boards, June 1993 through present. SEQR's Role in Municipal Land Use Planning. Municipal Planning Boards, April 1993 through present.

2 J. Theodore Fink, AICP Curriculum Vitae

PLANNING CAPABILITIES Progressively responsible community and regional land use planning advice to government and private parties. Organizes and conducts collaborative planning to engage residents with local officials by helping each understand and visualize the implications of sustainable development. Lectured at conferences, colleges and universities, and in local training programs on sustainable development techniques. Promoted a variety of innovative planning tools, aimed at conservation of natural and cultural resources, with proven results. Successfully secured government and other funding for implementing planning, zoning and waterfront revitalization projects. Honed communication skills to achieve successful planning outcomes. Prepared comprehensive plans, open space plans, scenic protection plans, farmland protection plans, waterfront revitalization plans, and a wide range of zoning and other specialized land use controls to implement such plans. Expert witness for court cases and amicus briefs.

PLANNING EXPERIENCE GREENPLAN Inc., Rhinebeck, New York. Founder and President. Since 1991, provides planning services to a variety of clients including villages, cities, and towns as well as counties and state government agencies, attorneys, engineers, architects, planners, landscape architects, private developers, not-for-profits and educational institutions. Prepared illustrated form-based zoning for a number of NY municipalities. Created unique land use controls to protect biodiversity. Advanced conservation development practices and other sustainable development techniques. Promoted a variety of innovative planning tools for implementation of Hudson River Valley Greenway Communities Council approved Greenway Compact and Greenway Program policies. Prepared comprehensive plans, open space plans, scenic protection plans, community preservation plans, farmland protection plans, waterfront revitalization plans, and a wide range of zoning and specialized land use controls to implement such plans. Collaborated with committees, legislative boards, administrative boards, attorneys, and other consultants to achieve adoption and implementation of a wide variety of plans and land use controls. EnviroPlan Associates, Inc., Poughkeepsie, New York. President. In the late 1980‘s, directed all planning and environmental services for this multi-disciplinary consulting firm. Supervised the preparation and/or review of several hundred environmental impact assessment studies. Supervised planning, scientific, and legal staff. Quality Environmental Planning Corporation, Pleasantville, New York. Vice President. In the mid-1980‘s, directed all planning functions for the Westchester County office of a multi-state planning, landscape architecture and engineering firm. Prepared or supervised the preparation of concise environmental impact statements. Processed, in a timely manner, federal, state and local land use permits. Directed a study of the environmental quality of Little Neck peninsula in the Town of Huntington, Long Island. Developed proposed boundaries and completed a boundary justification report and Draft EIS for the Nissequogue State Scenic and Recreational River in the Town of Smithtown, Long Island. Analyzed and assessed local and state significant viewsheds. Prepared amendments to municipal planning and zoning documents. Delineated freshwater wetlands pursuant to Article 24 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law. Supervised planning staff.

3 J. Theodore Fink, AICP Curriculum Vitae

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), New Paltz, New York. Associate Planner. In the early 1980‘s, principal staff assigned to planning the Upper Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River corridor. Assisted the National Park Service in developing a River Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared and presented technical papers on land and water use issues and policies. Identified and evaluated significant land and water resource values for protection. Evaluated state and local laws, ordinances, and plans for their effectiveness in protecting resource values and recommended appropriate actions. Provided responsive communication with local officials, landowners, and citizens in representing the Department and other State programs operative in the River Valley. Analyzed and prepared accurate maps, statistics, and other materials in conjunction with Plan and EIS development. Conducted field investigations, reviewed EISs for proposed developments within the River Valley, and evaluated the impacts of proposed developments. Program Administrator for the Department's River Conservation Program in Southeastern New York State. Assisted citizen's advisory groups in developing multi-disciplinary studies of potential Wild and Scenic Rivers and adjacent lands. Analyzed eligibility of rivers and evaluated proposed designation and its environmental, social, and economic impacts. Prepared Departmental reports recommending action to designate rivers as Wild, Scenic, and Recreational by the governor and legislature. Provided program assistance to the Long Island Regional Office. Provided program support to the Heritage Task Force for the Hudson River Valley. Facilitated public participation to ensure the Program's success. Assisted in the Departmental review of the Marcy South high voltage electric transmission project. Supervised interns on various projects. Prepared a public access development plan for the Hudson River from the Troy dam to the Yonkers/New Jersey boundaries. Identified existing public and private access sites. Evaluated site potential for expansion and improvement. Determined future access needs for the Hudson River. Conducted administrative and field surveys of suitable access sites and evaluated their potential for development. Provided recommended sites for public access in a final report. Open Lands Project, a private non-profit organization, Chicago, Illinois. Project Manager. In the late 1970‘s, directed an innovative research project to evaluate the historic significance, present status and future use of Grant Park, a 320-acre lakefront park, often referred to as Chicago's "front yard." Developed a master plan for restoration of an 1840's pioneer homestead as a living history farm and agricultural museum. Editor of Terrain, a bimonthly newsletter presenting informative articles on open space issues. Produced effective grant proposals that successfully led to an expansion of the organization's programs. Assisted civic and community groups in developing financial, organizational, and planning strategies for the preservation of open space. Provided technical assistance on open space preservation to local, regional, and state agencies. Created policy statements and presented expert testimony at hearings. Commented on local, regional, and state plans affecting open space and recreation. Contributed to projects of CorLands, a land acquisition affiliate of Open Lands Project. Lectured and presented slide shows at civic and community group meetings on the values of open space preservation. Supervised staff and student interns on various projects.

4 J. Theodore Fink, AICP Curriculum Vitae

Erie County Department of Environmental Quality, Buffalo, New York, Planning Intern. In the mid-1970‘s, established a review procedure for conducting environmental impact assessments of capital construction projects of the County.

SPECIALIZED TRAINING Community Leadership Alliance (CLA), Pace University Land Use Law Center and the Glynwood Center. Development Impact Fees, American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP). River Conservation and Revitalization, United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Landscape Design, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies. Greenway Planning, United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Master Instructor, Scuba Schools International.

CLIENTS SERVED SINCE 1991 NY State Department of Environmental Conservation, Dutchess County, Tompkins County and 56 municipalities (cities, towns and villages) in New York State, professionals, not-for-profit organizations and private for-profit entities.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS ‣ Member, American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP). The AICP establishes qualifications for membership, maintains examination procedures for this purpose, and requires annual certification maintenance. ‣ The Town of Warwick was awarded the New York State Association of Realtor’s first annual “Smart Growth Award” for its planning program, including a Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law and other planning efforts. Ted Fink has been Town Planner in Warwick since 1991 and developed the award winning planning and zoning documents for the Town Board. ‣ In November of 2017, the Town of Warwick became only the second municipality in New York State (after New York City) to achieve the SolSmart Gold Designation by the US Department of Energy. The Designation was achieved, in part, through a Solar Local Law amendment to the Town Zoning Law, prepared by Ted Fink. ‣ The American Farmland Trust uses Warwick's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law, Transfer/ Purchase of Development Rights and other preservation programs as models for farmland protection. ‣ Warwick's planning and zoning documents have been cited as the model of a smart growth strategy in publications of the Glynwood Center, New York State Association of Towns, Institute of Local Self-Reliance New Rules Project, and the Smart Growth Network. ‣ The Harvard Environmental Law Review used Warwick as an example of an "innovative land use law...[and a] successful approach...to emulate and encourage..."

5 J. Theodore Fink, AICP Curriculum Vitae

‣ The American Planning Association’s flagship publication, Planning magazine, highlighted Warwick’s planning and zoning programs in an article that appeared in the July 2002 issue entitled “Keeping ‘Em Down on the Farm.” ‣ New York State's "Smart Growth" website cites the Town of Warwick Zoning Law as an example of a smart growth success story. ‣ Warwick's planning strategy was awarded the Upstate Chapter of the American Planning Association's Outstanding Planning Project Honorable Mention in 2002. ‣ The Hudson River Valley Greenway's “Tech Assist Toolbox” cites Warwick's planning and zoning documents as models. These include the Zoning Law and its provisions for Ridgeline and Viewshed Protection, Incentive Zoning, Design Guidelines and Design Standards. ‣ The Warwick Planning Board and GREENPLAN were commended for "Their outstanding achievement and innovative accomplishments toward better planning ideals for the community" by the Orange County Municipal Planning Federation. ‣ The New York Planning Federation and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation uses GREENPLAN’s Habitat Assessment tool as a Model. ‣ The Pace University Land Use Law Center uses land use controls, developed by GREENPLAN, as models. ‣ Scenic Hudson uses GREENPLAN'S Telecommunications Tower law as a model. ‣ The Red Hook Intermunicipal Task Force, for which GREENPLAN provides on-going planning assistance, was awarded Pace University Land Use Law Center's "Groundbreakers Award" in 2009. ‣ The Red Hook Town Board, for which GREENPLAN provides on-going planning assistance, was awarded the New York Planning Federation’s “Pomeroy Award for Zoning Achievement” for the Zoning Amendments it enacted in 2011, which were prepared by GREENPLAN. The Northern Dutchess Alliance awarded Red Hook their “Charting Our Course” Award in 2012 for the Town’s planning and zoning initiatives. ‣ Advisory Member, Board of Directors of the Winnakee Land Trust, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to land conservation in Dutchess and Columbia counties, NY. ‣ Participant on the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's Ad-Hoc Committee to Re-draft the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) Regulations. ‣ Presented with an American Planning Association, Eastern Pennsylvania Chapter Merit Award for “Outstanding Contributions to the Quality of Planning Within the Chapter Area.” ‣ Listed, Who's Who in the World (22nd Edition). ‣ Traveled to 43 countries on six continents to better understand cultural diversity and how world cultures plan and manage their settlements and green spaces. As Mark Twain wrote in Innocents Abroad, travel is: “fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." ‣ Professional Photographer. Photography services for private clients, realtors, and architects. Photographs published by PBS, Island Press, Environmental Defense Fund, Moms Clean Air Force, Huffington Post, Inland Architect, TLC (Discovery Inc. channel), KTVZ TV, Care2.com, The Urban Ecology Newsletter, 350.org, Econesting.com, and Terrain.

6 J. Theodore Fink, AICP Curriculum Vitae

PLANS, PUBLICATIONS, LAWS, EXPERT WITNESS AFFIDAVITS AND MORE 1. Town/Village of New Paltz Community Preservation Plan. For the Town of New Paltz Community Preservation Task Force and Town Board of the Town of New Paltz, assisted in the preparation of a Community Preservation Plan for the Town and Village of New Paltz under a Hudson River Valley Greenway grant. The Community Preservation Plan provides the basis for creation of a Community Preservation Fund, which was approved by voters in November 2020. The Plan allows the Town to purchase, from willing landowners, land and interests in land (i.e. development rights) to preserve the character of the community. March through July 2020. 2. Expert Witness on Application of New York Transco LLC for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need Pursuant to Article VII of the New York Public Service Law to Construct, Operate, and Maintain a New 345 Kilovolt Electric Transmission Line and Related Facilities in the towns of Schodack, Stuyvesant, Stockport, Ghent, Claverack, Livingston, Gallatin, Clermont, Milan, Clinton, and Pleasant Valley in Eastern New York State. Assisting towns and affected parties (Intervenors) along the transmission line right-of-way contribute to the development of a complete record leading to an informed decision in the case, and to foster broad public participation. October 2020. 3. Affidavit of Expert Witness, J. Theodore Fink, AICP in Lerner-Pavlick Realty Company, Residents Protecting Montgomery v. Town of Montgomery, the Town of Montgomery Planning Board, and Bluewater Partners, LLC. For the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Orange County, an Article 78 proceeding challenging the decision of the Town Board and Town Planning Board approval of a ±1,000,000 square foot Amazon warehouse on the applications for Zoning Amendment, Site Plan and Special Use Permit approvals. January 2020. 4. Affidavit of Expert Witness, J. Theodore Fink, AICP in O’Malley, Peloso, McCracken, Leghorn, Arendes, Eichs, and Eaton v. Town of New Windsor Planning Board, Toleman Road Associates, Ltd. and Rock Tavern Village LP. For the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Orange County, an Article 78 proceeding challenging the decision of the Town Planning Board approval of a ±500,000 square foot warehouse on the application for Stewart Hill Industrial Park, alleging the use is prohibited by the Town of New Windsor Zoning Law. November 2019. 5. Affidavit of Expert Witness, J. Theodore Fink, AICP in Adler, Bohan, Torrone, Willow, Guenther, Rindlaub, , Adorney, Bozsik, Young, Hazlett, Lozier, Smith, and Navy v. Town of Gardiner Planning Board and Shinrin Yoku LLC. For the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Ulster County, an Article 78 proceeding challenging the decision of the Town Planning Board approval of an 80 building lodging, dining and event facility known as Heartwood, alleging the approval was inconsistent with the the Town of Gardiner Zoning Law and failed to take a “hard look” at the environmental impacts of the facility in a quiet, rural and ecologically sensitive location. February 2019. 6. Town of Red Hook Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Update. Assisting a LWRP Working Group and the Town Board with development of an Update to the Town’s 1995 LWRP document. The Update is focused on development of new policies to mitigate future climate risks from sea level rise, increased frequency and intensity of storms and

7 J. Theodore Fink, AICP Curriculum Vitae

the resultant flooding from these weather related changes. The LWRP update will articulate a vision for the Town's waterfront, will reflect the strategic plans developed by the Mid-Hudson Regional Council to advance economic priorities and provide approaches to build greater community resilience, and will identify opportunities for expansion of public access while protecting sensitive coastal resources, protection of scenic vistas, protection of agricultural resources and open space. Since June 2018. 7. Town of Fallsburg Draft Zoning: Neversink River Overlay District. Assisted Catskill Mountainkeeper, a not-for-profit organization, with development of draft Zoning Amendments for the Town of Fallsburg, designed to establish new Zoning rules that would apply to a proposed Neversink River Overlay Zoning District. The Neversink River is significant for its water quality, its association with important public water supply aquifers in the Town, and for its Internationally recognized importance as one of the “Charmed Circle” of legendary Trout streams where fly fishing was refined in America. The recommendations included new Zoning provisions applying to aquifers, agriculture (to encourage and support farming as a viable open space use), hamlet redevelopment for compact growth supported by Town services, protection of biodiversity, establishment of a conservation design process for new development, and policy changes in an Updated Comprehensive Plan that favor agriculture, protection of rural character, and encouraging hamlet development rather than suburban development throughout the Town. April 2018. 8. Affidavit of Expert Witness, J. Theodore Fink, AICP in Concerned Citizens For The Hudson Valley v. Town of Goshen, Town of Goshen Planning Board, and Merlin Entertainment Groups, US Holdings. For the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Orange County, an Article 78 proceeding challenging the decisions of the Town to revise its Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law to accommodate a previously “Prohibited Use” that had the potential to change Goshen from the largest rural and agricultural town in Orange County to “something else.” The changes were alleged, among a number of other points, to: 1) represent “irrational ad hockery” and “spot zoning”; 2) be contrary with the New York Department of State Office of General Counsel’s Legal Memorandums; 3) contrary with sound community planning; and 4) procedurally flawed and inconsistent with New York State’s Planning and Zoning enabling laws as well as SEQR. January 2018. 9. SEQR Analysis and Report: Legoland New York Commercial Recreation Facility Final EIS. As an Expert Witness for Concerned Citizens For The Hudson Valley, prepared a Report that examined the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Legoland Commercial Recreation Facility in the Town of Goshen, New York. The Report analyzed the action’s compliance with New York State Town Law, the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and related New York State planning and zoning enabling acts. The Report provided expansive details on the numerous errors and omissions identified in the Lead Agency’s SEQR review process as well as the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law amendment processes. August 2017. 10. Town of Red Hook Complete Streets Program. Preparing Amendments to the Town of Red Hook Highway Specifications to incorporate “Complete Streets” principles that recognize pedestrians and bicyclists as equally important as motorists in the planning and design of

8 J. Theodore Fink, AICP Curriculum Vitae

all new road construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, and maintenance undertaken by the Town. Working with the Town Board, Highway Superintendent, and an Advisory Committee to develop such Amendments. May 2017 to present. 11. Town of Warwick 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. Prepared an update to the Town of Warwick Comprehensive Plan that includes as official Town policy a number of key sustainability best practices including strengthening its centers supported by transit (i.e. its three villages), creating a complete community, reducing transportation fossil fuel consumption, improving regional infrastructure, reducing energy dependency and strengthening the local economy, expanding renewable energy generation, improving resilience of the energy delivery system, reducing the volume of solid waste, increasing farming and forestry activities and viability, advancing farming and forestry training, increasing residents’ access to local food, reducing water consumption, and protecting habitats and water quality. Adopted June 2016. 12. Red Hook Community Preservation Plan Update. Assisted the Town Board of the Town of Red Hook and the Red Hook Community Preservation Advisory Fund Board with an update to their adopted 2011 Community Preservation Plan. The Plan is based upon a special New York State Statute (§ 64–h of NY State Town Law), enacted so that a “Community Preservation Fund,” supported by revenues from a two (2) percent real estate transfer tax, could be used to protect the Town’s farmland and open space, all vital to its future social, economic and environmental health. May 2011 (original Plan) and June 2016 (updated Plan). 13. Affidavit of Expert Witness, J. Theodore Fink, AICP in RB Jai Alai, LLC v. Florida DOT et al. For the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, developed and outlined specific mitigation strategies funded by an “Impact Mitigation Fund” for a highway “Flyover” in the greater Orlando, FL region, based upon a finding by the Court that the DOT, Federal Highway Administration and others had engaged in an arbitrary and capricious action related to a defective environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Court held the Florida DOT and the Federal Highway Administration liable for damages as a result of their defective review processes. October 2015. 14. Affidavit of Expert Witness, J. Theodore Fink, AICP in Washington Development Associates v. City of Binghamton Planning Commission. Proffered and elucidated numerous environmental issues that had been ignored during the review of a new college dormitory, proposed in a sensitive location. September 2015. 15. Village of Cold Spring Zoning Update. Assisting the Village Board of Trustees and a Code Update Committee with an innovative new zoning law and numerous other Code Amendments, funded through the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority’s (NYSERDA) Cleaner, Greener Communities program and the Hudson River Valley Greenway. NYSERDA’s program is designed to create local sustainable growth strategies in such areas as emissions control, energy efficiency, renewable energy, low- carbon transportation, and other carbon reductions through collaborative efforts to improve the quality of life, make communities more prosperous while making New York State more economically vibrant. Since July 2015.

9 J. Theodore Fink, AICP Curriculum Vitae

16. Creating a Natural Resources Inventory: A Guide for Communities in the Hudson River Estuary Watershed. Cornell University Department of Natural Resources, in partnership with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s Hudson River Estuary Program. Reviewer of the Guide; edited all chapters and appendices for content and accuracy. Prepared a Model Local Law (template) in an Appendix to the Guide, designed to be used by local municipalities for adopting a Natural Resource Inventory, addressing the need for periodic updating, and to incorporate consideration of the Natural Resource Inventory in the community’s land use controls. Winter 2015. 17. Planning for Resilient, Connected Natural Areas and Habitats: A Conservation Framework. Town of Red Hook, NY with financial support from Cornell University and the New York State Hudson River Estuary Program. With Michele Greig, AICP of GREENPLAN, Graham Trelstad, AICP and Peter Feroe, AICP of AKRF, Inc. developed a pilot project for enhancing wetland, stream, and forest resilience; local connectivity of wildlife habitats; connections to the Hudson River estuary; and adaptations of these ecosystems to climate change by preserving connectivity of intact connected natural areas. The planning document was developed through a collaborative stakeholder engagement process, identified conservation opportunities, and short and long-term actions based upon a Geographic Information System (GIS) model developed by Cornell. Fall 2014. 18. Balancing of Public Interests: Town of Warwick and Pine Island Fire District. Town Board of the Town of Warwick, Warwick, NY. The preparer of a “balancing of public interests” analysis to determine whether a proposed telecommunications tower, co-sponsored by the Pine Island Fire District, must comply with the Town Code of the Town of Warwick. The analysis is based upon a legal approach, established by the New York State Court of Appeals, to determine if local government agencies will be afforded “limited immunity” from zoning regulations. Draft, October 2014. In a related matter, prepared all SEQR “Lead Agency Dispute Resolution” documents for the Warwick Planning Board v. Pine Island Fire District. The State Commissioner of Environmental Conservation, on March 6, 2015, designated the Warwick Planning Board as the appropriate Lead Agency, based upon the arguments posited in the dispute documents. 19. Walkway-Gateway Zoning. City of Poughkeepsie Common Council, Town of Lloyd Town Board, Scenic Hudson, Inc., Walkway Over the Hudson, Inc., and Dutchess Regional Chamber of Commerce, Poughkeepsie, NY. Developed a structure and approach, including preparation of zoning amendments, for the City of Poughkeepsie and Town of Lloyd to implement form-based zoning regulations to achieve smart growth and sustainability objectives in the neighborhoods surrounding largely industrial zoning districts near the Walkway Over the Hudson State Historic Park, Hudson Valley Rail-Trail and Dutchess Rail-Trail. The project created a place-based development strategy to guide physical development and redevelopment that emphasizes physical form rather than separation of uses as a basic organizing principle. The Walkway has drawn up to three- quarters of a million visitors a year but the immediate neighborhoods near its entrances developed in the 19th Century around a freight railroad line. The Walkway-Gateway District concept is to redevelop the neighborhoods surrounding the Walkway area into vibrant walkable mixed-use areas. Elements include standards for quality placemaking

10 J. Theodore Fink, AICP Curriculum Vitae

such as lot and building design standards, building placement, frontage types, pedestrian and vehicle circulation, streetscapes, and streamlined (expedited) review procedures. The standards meet the Hudson River Valley Greenway goals, allow for a range of transportation modes but de-emphasizing cars, and incorporate green infrastructure and green development concepts for stormwater, renewable energy, local food production and other environmental benefits. Lighting, signage, screening and landscaping standards were included. Zoning Amendments adopted by Poughkeepsie Common Council in October 2013. Zoning Amendments adopted by Lloyd Town Board in June 2013. 20. Affidavit of J. Theodore Fink, AICP in Astor Rhinebeck Associates, LLC, v. Town of Rhinebeck and Town Board of the Town of Rhinebeck, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Dutchess County. A large landowner (1,250 acres) in the Town of Rhinebeck alleged that adoption of the Town Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law in 2009 failed to address the need for affordable housing. The Affidavit supported the Town’s position that Rhinebeck had carefully crafted an inclusionary housing program, including the use of a variety of techniques that had never been implemented before in any other Dutchess County community. The Court decided in Rhinebeck’s favor. The decision by Justice James V. Brands (Index 3147-2012) made September 2012. 21. Town of Warwick Zoning Amendments. Prepared a comprehensive revision of the Town’s Zoning Law, originally adopted in 1927. Town of Warwick Code Revisions Committee and Town Board of the Town of Warwick. Adopted January 24, 2002. Prepared additional Zoning amendments adopted 2003, 2004, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2018. Warwick’s many innovative Zoning regulations have been held as models in New York State by the NY State Association of Towns, NY State's "Smart Growth" website, Pace University Land Use Law Center, American Farmland Trust, Glynwood, Harvard Environmental Law Review, New York Zoning Law and Practice Report, Planning magazine, Hudson River Valley Greenway, the Institute of Local Self-Reliance New Rules Project, and the Smart Growth Network. This includes but is not limited to a Biodiversity Conservation Overlay Zoning District, a Ridgeline Overlay District, an Aquifer Protection Overlay District, an Agricultural Protection Overlay District, and a Land Conservation Zoning District. Other innovations include Solar Energy amendments permitting large-scale facilities on farms while protecting agricultural resources, an Intermunicipal Agreement with the Village of Warwick to establish a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program so that important agricultural lands in the Town can be protected, and planning support related to the Town’s Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Programs. The TDR and PDR programs involve conservation easements on farmland through either transfer of development potential to the Village or areas adjoining the Village in the Town (where the new development’s density increases proportionately and complies with Form-based Zoning principles for new Traditional Neighborhoods), or respectively through outright purchase of the future development potential on farms. Since 1992. 22. Town of Bethel Land Use Analysis. Town Board of the Town of Bethel, Sullivan County, NY. Assisted the Town Board with an analysis of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas development on land use in the Town. Adopted January 2012 followed by

11 J. Theodore Fink, AICP Curriculum Vitae

the adoption of Zoning Amendments to prohibit natural gas extraction and development in February 2012. 23. Village of Cold Spring Comprehensive Plan, Local Waterfront Revitalization Strategy (LWRS), and Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). Village of Cold Spring Special Board and Board of Trustees, Putnam County, NY. Assisted a Special Board with the preparation of a Comprehensive Plan and Local Waterfront Revitalization Strategy. The LWRS was approved by New York State in November 2011. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the Village Board in January 2012. Since 2014, assisting a Code Update Committee (see above) with a series of Zoning Amendments focused on sustainability and assisting the Village Board with completion of a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) document. Since 2009. 24. Tompkins County Community Impact Assessment. Tompkins County Council of Governments, Ithaca, NY. Prepared an assessment of the potential environmental, community, and economic impacts of high volume hydraulic fracturing using horizontal drilling techniques for the natural gas that underlies the Marcellus Shale region, to provide reliable and factual information for 17 municipalities in Tompkins County, including the Town of Dryden, so they would be better prepared if New York State issued permits to the gas industry. Approved by the Council’s Gas Drilling Task Force, December 2011. Dryden prohibited natural gas (and oil) exploration and extraction through its Zoning Law. The Zoning Law was then challenged by natural gas interests. Dryden’s Zoning Law was upheld through a series of court decisions that reached the New York State Court of Appeals in a precedent setting decision (see Middlefield Land Use Analysis below). The Community Impact Assessment was cited in the New York State Court of Appeals documents filed in support of the ban. Adopted December 2011. 25. Town of Red Hook Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law and Subdivision Regulations. Assisted an Intermunicipal Task Force and Town Board with the development of Plan, Zoning and Subdivision modifications. Adopted September 2011. 26. Town of Taghkanic Zoning Law. Assisting the Town Board and Zoning Commission prepare a comprehensive rewrite of the Town Zoning Law. The first amendments addressing mining uses were adopted in September 2011 and the remainder of the Zoning amendments are expected to be adopted in 2017. 27. Town of Middlefield Land Use Analysis. Town Board of the Town of Middlefield, Otsego County, NY. Assisted the Town Board (in the town surrounding the Village of Cooperstown, NY) with an analysis of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas development on land use in the Town. The Analysis became the basis for enactment of a prohibition on oil, gas or solution mining and drilling in the Town, through a new Zoning Law. The Zoning was then challenged by natural gas interests but was upheld by the New York State Court of Appeals in a precedent-setting decision. The Court of Appeals quoted the Middlefield Land Use Analysis in its decision, upholding the Zoning Law prohibition on oil and gas activities, as valid. (see also Tompkins County Community Impact Assessment above). Adopted May 2011. 28. Affidavit of J. Theodore Fink, AICP in Creed-Monarch, Inc. d/b/a Creed Ankony Farm, Astor Courts, LLC, Andrew Solomon As Trustee of the Andrew Solomon Trust, Martin Sosnoff, Toni

12 J. Theodore Fink, AICP Curriculum Vitae

Sosnoff, Allison Hall, and Illiana van Meeteren, v. Town Board of the Town of Rhinebeck and Town of Rhinebeck. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Dutchess County. A group of large landowners in the Town of Rhinebeck alleged that adoption of the Town Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law in 2009 lacked any rationale for the creation of a new Historic Preservation 20 Acre (HP-20) Zoning District. The Affidavit supported the Town’s position that Rhinebeck had carefully undertaken a planning analysis and justification for the new 20-acre density requirement in a District adjacent to the Hudson River. The District addressed historic landscapes that gave rise to the Hudson River School of Painting. The Plan’s Vision is to protect agricultural and other open space uses while curbing rapid population growth in the Town, reinforcing Rhinebeck as a Nationally Significant scenic and historic rural community. The planning technique included the use of a variety of techniques that had never been implemented before in any other New York State community. The Court’s decision upheld all aspects of Rhinebeck’s Zoning that were challenged. The decision by Justice James V. Brands (Index 3116-2010) made April 2011. 29. Town of Warwick Design Guidelines and Design Standards. Use of the Guidelines is encouraged in the Warwick Zoning Law and required for certain nonresidential uses. Use of the Design Standards is required in certain retail zoning districts. Addresses scenic resources including scenic roads as well as rural, nonresidential, and hamlet development. Adopted by the Town Board in 2002 and 2010 respectively. 30. Town of Clinton Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan and Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan. Assisted the Town Board of the Town of Clinton, and special committee’s appointed to advise the Town Board, with the preparation of three plans. The Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan was approved by New York State in 2010. The other plans were adopted by the Town Board in 2012. 31. The Rhinebeck Plan. Prepared a comprehensive plan and implementing Zoning Law, Subdivision Regulations and a Freshwater Wetlands Law for the Town of Rhinebeck, Dutchess County, NY. The Plan focuses on the development of growth centers while protecting the rural character of the remainder of the Town (a “Centers and Greenspaces Plan”). Adopted December 2009. Two legal challenges to the 2009 Zoning Law were decided in the Town’s favor by the Dutchess County Supreme Court. 32. Village of Warwick Zoning Law. Village of Warwick Board of Trustees, Orange County, NY. Rewrote the Village’s Zoning regulations, including design guidelines, to reflect a newly adopted Comprehensive Plan. Adopted February 2009. 33. Town of Fishkill Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments. Town of Fishkill Comprehensive Plan Review Committee and Town Board of the Town of Fishkill, Dutchess County, NY. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in February 2009. 34. Town of Warwick Comprehensive Plan. Town of Warwick Comprehensive Plan Board and Town Board of the Town of Warwick. Adopted 1999. Plan Update adopted 2008. Another Plan Update, addressing sustainability policies, was adopted in June 2016 (see above for description). 35. Town of Milan Comprehensive Plan. Town of Milan Comprehensive Plan Review Committee and Town Board of the Town of Milan, January 2000 to 2007. The Plan was challenged in court but was upheld by the New York State Appellate Division, Second Judicial

13 J. Theodore Fink, AICP Curriculum Vitae

Department in a precedent-setting decision. The case was significant because the New York State Attorney General’s Office acted as counsel for the Town Board, based upon the indemnification provisions of the Hudson Valley Greenway Compact. April 2010. 36. Town of Wawayanda Comprehensive Plan. Town of Wawayanda Comprehensive Plan Review Committee and Town Board of the Town of Wawayanda, Orange County, NY. August 2004 to June 2006. 37. Town of Copake Scenic Resource Protection Plan. Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee and Town Board of the Town of Copake, Columbia County, NY. Adopted August 2005. 38. Town of Greenville Comprehensive Plan. Town of Greenville Comprehensive Plan Board and Town Board of the Town of Greenville. Adopted 2005. 39. Kingston Mixed Use Overlay District Comprehensive Plan and Draft/Final Generic Environmental Impact Statements. A comprehensive plan designed as a GEIS that addresses adaptive reuse of vacant commercial and industrial buildings in two areas of the City, while providing for affordable housing. City of Kingston Common Council. Adopted August 2004. 40. Red Hook Land Use, Conservation and Development Working Group Report. The Report addresses where various types of development should be targeted, where open space should be protected, and how the Town Board can achieve a land use vision for the community. Completed 2004. 41. Karma Triyana Dharmachakra (KTD) Replacement Monastery Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements and Findings Statement. KTD, 2001 through 2004. 42. Town of Lloyd Comprehensive Plan. Town of Lloyd Planning Board and Town Board of the Town of Lloyd. Adopted 2004. 43. Village of Wappingers Falls Sign Guidelines. Village of Wappingers Falls Planning Board and Board of Trustees. Adopted 2003. 44. Town of Lloyd Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Town Board of the Town of Lloyd and Town of Lloyd Planning Board. Adopted February 2003. 45. Village of New Paltz Landscape Guidelines. Village of New Paltz Planning Board and Board of Trustees. Adopted December 2002. 46. Village of New Paltz Lighting Standards. Village of New Paltz Planning Board and Board of Trustees. Adopted December 2002. 47. Kingston O-3 Limited Office Comprehensive Plan and Draft/Final Generic Environmental Impact Statements (GEIS). A comprehensive plan designed as a GEIS that addresses homelessness and affordable housing. City of Kingston Common Council. Adopted May, 2001. 48. Adult Use Study: Town of Fishkill. Town Board of the Town of Fishkill. August 2001. 49. Dutchess Central Utility Corridor Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements and Findings Statement. Dutchess County Water and Wastewater Authority, February, 2001. 50. Town of Warwick Open Space Plan. Town of Warwick Open Space Committee and Town Board of the Town of Warwick, January 2000 through December 2001. 51. Village of Wappingers Falls Comprehensive Plan. Village of Wappingers Falls Board of Trustees and Village of Wappingers Falls Comprehensive Plan Committee. Adopted 2001.

14 J. Theodore Fink, AICP Curriculum Vitae

52. Town of Milan Wireless Communications Facility Local Law. Town Board of the Town of Milan. Adopted December 2000. 53. Town of Amenia Subdivision Regulations. Town Board of the Town of Amenia and Town of Amenia Planning Board. Adopted August 2000. 54. Town of Amenia Site Plan Regulations. Town Board of the Town of Amenia and Town of Amenia Planning Board. Adopted August 2000. 55. Town of Amenia Zoning Amendments. Town Board of the Town of Amenia and Town of Amenia Planning Board. Adopted June 2000. 56. Town of Greenville Zoning Amendments. Town Board of the Town of Greenville, November 1999. 57. Village of New Paltz Zoning Amendments for Senior Housing. Village of New Paltz Board of Trustees. Adopted 1999. 58. Town of Warwick Telecommunications Local Law. Town of Warwick Planning Board and Town Board of the Town of Warwick. Adopted 1999. 59. Town of Amenia Ridgeline Protection Overlay Zone. Town Board of the Town of Amenia and Town of Amenia Planning Board, August 1999. 60. Town of Shawangunk Zoning Amendments. Town Board of the Town of Shawangunk. Phase 1 adopted 1997, Phase 2 adopted 1999. 61. Town of Amenia Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Town Board of the Town of Amenia and Town of Amenia Planning Board, July 1998. 62. Town of Lloyd Zoning Amendments. Town Board of the Town of Lloyd and Town of Lloyd Planning Board, various dates. 63. Village of New Paltz Zoning Amendments for the B-1 Zone. Village of New Paltz Board of Trustees. Adopted 1998. 64. Adult Use Study: Town of Shawangunk. Town Board of the Town of Shawangunk, January 1998. 65. Village of New Paltz Interim Development Regulations for the Gateway Zoning District. Village of New Paltz Board of Trustees. Adopted 1998, co-authored. 66. Town of Warwick Zoning Amendments for Senior Housing. Town Board of the Town of Warwick. Adopted 1997. 67. Dutchess County Water and Wastewater Authority Acquisition of the Water System Assets of the Hyde Park Fire and Water District Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. Dutchess County Water and Wastewater Authority, 1997. 68. Village of New Paltz Gateway Zoning District Generic Environmental Impact Statement. Village of New Paltz Board of Trustees. Adopted 1998. 69. Adult Use Study: Village of Washingtonville. Village of Washingtonville Board of Trustees, 1997. 70. Town of Shawangunk Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Town Board of the Town of Shawangunk. Adopted 1997. 71. Adult Use Study: Town of Lloyd. Town Board of the Town of Lloyd, 1996.

15 J. Theodore Fink, AICP Curriculum Vitae

72. Adult Use Study: Town of Hyde Park. Town Board of the Town of Hyde Park, 1996. 73. Zoning Law Amendments Governing Adult Uses. Town Board of the Town of Hyde Park. Adopted 1996. 74. District Bus Maintenance and Storage Facility Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Beacon City School District, February 1996. 75. Adult Use Study: City of Kingston. City of Kingston Common Council, 1996. 76. Mining Amendments Local Law. Town Board of the Town of Wawayanda. Adopted 1995. 77. Town of Wawayanda Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Town Board of the Town of Wawayanda. Adopted 1995. 78. Zoning Amendments Governing Earth Operations Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements and Findings Statement. Town Board of the Town of Wawayanda, November 1993 to May 1995. 79. Village of New Paltz Comprehensive Master Plan. Village of New Paltz Planning Board. Adopted 1994. 80. Hickory Ridge Subdivision: Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements and Findings Statement. Town of New Paltz Planning Board, 1992 through 1994. 81. Dutchess Stadium Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Dutchess County Industrial Development Agency, December 1993. 82. Milan Zoning Law Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Town Board of the Town of Milan, October 1992 through January 1993. 83. Westage at Castle Point Fiscal Impact Analysis. Town of Fishkill Planning Board, 1993 through 1995. 84. Breaking New Ground: Designing a Hyde Park Hamlet. Winnakee Land Trust Newsletter, No. 5, Summer 1992. 85. Senior Housing Floating Zone Local Law. Town Board of the Town of Warwick, 1992. 86. Town of Clinton Zoning Law Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements and Findings Statement. Town Board of the Town of Clinton, 1990 through 1992, Editor. 87. Town of Dover Master Plan Adoption Environmental Assessment Form. Town of Dover Planning Board, 1992. 88. Town of Dover Mined Land Reclamation Local Law. Town Board of the Town of Dover, June 1991. 89. City-Town Water Agreement: Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements and Findings Statement. City and Town of Poughkeepsie, 1990 through 1991, Editor. 90. Cedar Knolls Subdivision: Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements. Town of Fishkill Planning Board, 1989 through 1990, Editor. 91. St. Simeon Senior Housing Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Town Board of the Town of Poughkeepsie, 1989 through 1990, Editor. 92. Town of Washington Master Plan, Zoning Law and Subdivision Regulations Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements and Findings Statement. Town Board of the Town of Washington, 1989, Editor.

16 J. Theodore Fink, AICP Curriculum Vitae

93. Red Oak Commons Planned Unit Development Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements. Town of Poughkeepsie Planning and Town Boards, 1988 through 1989, Editor. 94. Pond Hills Planned Unit Development Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements. Town of LaGrange Planning Board, 1988 through 1990, Editor. 95. Birch Hill Manor Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements. Town of Beekman Planning Board, 1986 through 1988, co-authored. 96. Town of Poughkeepsie Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Town Board of the Town of Poughkeepsie, 1987, authored sections of the Program document. 97. Silver Lake Development Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements. City of White Plains Common Council, 1985. 98. Nissequogue River State Scenic and Recreational River Boundary Establishment: Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Boundary Justification Report. Town of Smithtown Planning Department, 1985. 99. Villa Loretto Adaptive Reuse Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements. City of Peekskill Planning Board, 1985. 100. Maple Brook Townhouses Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements. Town of Yorktown Planning Board, 1985. 101. Recommendations for Improving Public Recreational Access to the Hudson River. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish and Wildlife, December 1984. 102. Upper Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River Draft Environmental Impact Statement and River Management Plan. National Park Service, October 1982, co-author of portions of the Plan and EIS as a member of an Intergovernmental Planning Team. 103. Legal Authorities and Programs for Resource Management and Land Use Control in New York State. NYS-DEC, Division of Lands and Forests, September 1982. 104. Evaluation of Local Authority and Plans for the Upper Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River. NYS-DEC, Division of Lands and Forests, May 1982. 105. Nissequogue River Summary Study Report. NYS-DEC, Division of Lands and Forests, March 1982. 106. Ramapo River Summary Study Report. NYS-DEC, Division of Lands and Forests, March 1982. 107. Shawangunk Kill Summary Study Report. NYS-DEC, Division of Lands and Forests, November 1981. 108. Land and Water Use Controls in the United States. NYS-DEC, Division of Lands and Forests, October 1981. 109. Grant Park's 150 Years. Inland Architect, Volume 24, Number 2, March 1980. 110. Preserving and Recreating The Urban Forest. The Neighborhood Works, Volume 3, Number 1, January 11, 1980. 111. Is Area's Open Space Threatened? Illinois Parks and Recreation, Volume 10, Number 5, September/October 1979, co-authored.

17 J. Theodore Fink, AICP Curriculum Vitae

112. Grant Park Tomorrow. Open Lands Project, National Endowment for the Arts and Illinois Humanities Council, June 1979. Cited in Grant Park: The Evolution of Chicago's Front Yard, by Dennis H. Cremin; Northwestern University School of Law, Northwestern University Law Review Vol. 105, No.4; Private Rights in Public Lands: The Chicago Lakefront, Montgomery Ward, and The Public Dedication Doctrine, by Joseph D. Kearney and Thomas W. Merrill; City of Chicago’s City Space Implementation publication; The Art Institute of Chicago, The Plan of Chicago: 1909-1979, An Exhibition of the Burnham Library of Architecture; Retícules I Diagonals: El Pla Jaussely de Barcelona de 1907 I el Pla Burnham de Chicago de 1909 Doctoral Thesis of Carme Fiol Costa; and Wikiwand, Triposo, Wikipedia, and Chicago Park District Websites. 113. Urban flight taking jobs from Chicago poor. Chicago Sun-Times, May 27, 1979, co-authored. 114. Is Area's Open Space Threatened? Chicago Tribune, January 4, 1979, co-authored. 115. Grant Park Has Cornerstone of Luck and Determination. Chicago Tribune, July 20, 1978, co- authored.

18

ENGINEERING REVIEW HAMLET OF CHAPPAQUA FORM BASED CODE & DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TOWN OF NEW CASTLE, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK

DRESDNER ROBIN PROJECT NO.: 11612-001

PREPARED FOR Residents United to Save Chappaqua Hamlet, Inc.

PREPARED BY Dresdner Robin One Evertrust Plaza, Suite 901 Jersey City, NJ 07302

______DATE Joseph Mele March 25, 2021 Professional Engineering NY Lic. No. 83364-01

ENGINEERING REVIEW DR PROJECT No.:11612-001 HAMLET OF CHAPPAQUA FORM BASED CODE & March 25, 2021 DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TOWN OF NEW CASTLE, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Executive Summary ...... 1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 3 3.0 BUILD OUT ASSUMPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES ...... 4 4.0 SANITARY SEWER IMPACTS ...... 7 5.0 STORMWATER/FLOODING IMPACTS ...... 10 6.0 STEEP SLOPES ...... 12 7.0 CONCLUSION STATEMENT ...... 13

LIST OF APPENDICES Attachment A Qualifications Attachment B National Flood Hazard Layer FIRM Map

i of i ENGINEERING REVIEW DR PROJECT No.:11612-001 HAMLET OF CHAPPAQUA FORM BASED CODE & March 25, 2021 DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TOWN OF NEW CASTLE, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report has been prepared to assess the proposed Chappaqua Hamlet Form Based Code (“the proposed Form Based Code” or “FBC”) and Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (“the DGEIS”). The purpose of this analysis was to review the proposed FBC and DGEIS and identify potential issues relating to sanitary sewer, stormwater and flooding, and steep slopes impacts, that weren’t addressed or not addressed thoroughly enough.

The following material has been reviewed in preparation of this Report:

1. Chappaqua Hamlet Form Based Code Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement, prepared for the Town of New Castle, Westchester County, New York, prepared by Kimley- Horn of New York, PC, dated September 25, 2020. 2. Appendix A of the DGEIS, Article VIII: Form-Based District, revision date September 23, 2020. 3. Appendix B of the DGEIS, Build-Out Scenarios. 4. Appendix G of the DGEIS, Sanitary Sewer Data.

1.1 Executive Summary

The SEQRA process, and preparation of an environmental impact statement, is intended to guide informed decision making. The preparation of a Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement which addresses comments on the DGEIS is a critical component of this process. Based on our review of the DGEIS with regards to the sewer, stormwater and flooding, and steep slopes sections, additional analysis as part of the Supplemental GEIS is necessary to avoid the potential for unknown negative impacts from anticipated development under the FBC.

Below is a summary of our conclusions and recommendations:

Build-Out Assumptions and Alternatives

• The DGEIS build out analysis includes many assumptions about the development potential, combining parcels, market conditions and other variables. A change between any of these assumptions and the actual project outcomes may cause significant environmental impacts. Additional reasonable alternatives should be considered, including sensitivity analyses that reflect any know divergence between standard assumptions and local observations.

• The Supplemental GEIS should provide a full assessment for the limited “New Direction” alternative recently discussed by the Town Board.

1 of 19 ENGINEERING REVIEW DR PROJECT No.:11612-001 HAMLET OF CHAPPAQUA FORM BASED CODE & March 25, 2021 DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TOWN OF NEW CASTLE, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK

• The Supplemental GEIS should provide a full assessment for a higher density alternative which assumes the same number of total additional units and reverses the ratio of 1- and 2-bedroom units. • The anticipated impervious coverage for each alternative should be calculated and assess how the additional open/recreation space created in Alternative D will improve stormwater management and flooding impacts. Sanitary Sewer Impacts

• The sanitary sewer impact analysis is incomplete. The impacts of the Proposed Action Alternative (full build-out under the FBC) does not include impacts of the additional residential development in the Sewer District No. 2 Area or on the publicly owned parcels with Sewer Service from the County Trunk. The failure to complete this impact analysis creates the potential for negative impacts on the Town’s wastewater infrastructure from anticipated development under the FBC. • The DGEIS capacity analysis of the South Greely Sewershed under the Proposed Action Alternative has less than 10% of excess capacity. The analysis does not account for new residential development within Sewer District No. 2 which will flow into the South Greely Sewershed and may create a situation exceeding sewer capacity during peak flow conditions.

• The Supplemental GEIS should assess the maximum number of new bedrooms that each of the sewersheds can accommodate, assuming the same level of commercial development as the FBC Buildout Scenario. This would establish a cap on the number of new bedrooms that each sewershed can accommodate against which future development can be assessed.

• Analysis should be prepared as to determine where (i.e. what parcels) within the North Greeley Sewershed area that capacity increases can be discharged into the sewer system without negatively impacting downstream conditions. Permitted development intensity within this area under the FBC should be adjusted to avoid these negative downstream conditions. Stormwater and Flooding Impacts

• The proposed FBC requires that all development comply with Chapter 108A Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control of the Town Code. However, individual development of lots in the FBC study area would likely result in less than 1 acre of disturbance or create less than 1,000 square feet of new impervious area (the minimum requirements triggering the water quality and/or quantity controls under Chapter 108A) thereby severely limiting the opportunity for development within

2 of 19 ENGINEERING REVIEW DR PROJECT No.:11612-001 HAMLET OF CHAPPAQUA FORM BASED CODE & March 25, 2021 DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TOWN OF NEW CASTLE, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK

the FBC District to meet the Town’s Master Plan Goal 19.1 to mitigate the negative impacts of stormwater runoff through Green Infrastructure techniques in new developments. • The Supplemental GEIS should consider the potential impacts and benefits of tightening the minimum disturbance requirements of Chapter 108A within the FBC study area from 1 acre to a more appropriate land disturbance (e.g. 5000 square feet of disturbance) to maximize the potential of on-site stormwater management.

• The Supplemental GEIS should also consider what green infrastructure and stormwater management techniques are appropriate in the study area based on the limitations of available space and reduced infiltration capacity. The FBC should include a list of preferred green infrastructure methods to achieve the required stormwater quantity and quality standards. • The stormwater infrastructure along King Street between Senter Street and the northern area of the study was not fully upgraded as part of the recent infrastructure improvements. As, this slope may create undesirable stormwater impacts for future development along this street should include any necessary upgrades to the infrastructure to capture and convey the stormwater in order to prevent excess stormwater surface flow and possible flooding into the hamlet. Steeps Slopes Impacts

• Approval authority for disturbance of very steep slopes and extremely steep slopes should remain with the Planning Board; this would encourage developers to avoid disturbance of the steepest slopes (≥25%) while maintaining the additional oversight by the Planning Board where disturbance of these slopes is unavoidable.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The Chappaqua Hamlet is in the Town of New Castle, in north-central Westchester County, New York. The Study Area is a 72-acre commercial core of the hamlet located along North and South Greeley Avenue, King Street, Woodburn Avenue and Allen Place with a second, disconnected portion of the study area on Upper King Street at the intersection with Bedford Road. The study area to be rezoned includes the B-R (Retail Business), B-RP (Retail Business and Parking), B-D (Designated Business) and I-P (Planned Industrial Zoning) Districts. Included within the study area is the Chappaqua Train Station on the Metro-North Harlem line.

The Proposed Action is an amendment to the Town of New Castle Zoning Code, rezoning the study area to a new “Form-Based District”. The new FBC is intended to provide flexibility for development to encourage revitalization of the hamlet and create a mix of commercial and residential uses.

3 of 19 ENGINEERING REVIEW DR PROJECT No.:11612-001 HAMLET OF CHAPPAQUA FORM BASED CODE & March 25, 2021 DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TOWN OF NEW CASTLE, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK

The FBC regulates uses and building heights via a building regulating plan, which organizes the blocks into four “transects”. A range of uses is permitted in the study area including automotive sales and services, civic facilities, office, public facilities and utilities, residential uses and retail and mixed-uses. Maximum development intensity and density (dwelling units per acre) is limited by the building envelope permitted under the FBC regulations. Maximum permitted building heights are measured in number of stories, as depicted in the map of the code’s Regulating Plan.

3.0 BUILD OUT ASSUMPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES Since the Proposed Action consists of legislation (and not a site-specific development project) a build-out scenario was developed as part of the DGEIS process to provide a means for evaluating the development potential under the proposed FBC and related anticipated impacts. The DGEIS build out analysis includes many assumptions about the development potential, combining parcels, market conditions and other variables. There are several key assumptions which ultimately drove the level of development contemplated under the build out analysis:

1. Which blocks would be redeveloped. Several blocks and parcels were assumed not to be redeveloped under the proposed FBC due to either lot dimensions that were too small or where existing uses were unlikely to redevelop. 2. Building Height. Buildings were developed to the maximum proposed height. 3. Residential Unit Size and Mix. An average dwelling unit size of 1,110 square feet was assumed, with approximately 66% of units 1-bedrooms and 34% of units 2-bedrooms. 4. Parking. The DGEIS identifies parking as the main limitation for residential development within the rezoned area.

In addition to the build-out scenario, the DGEIS contemplated several other alternatives (Table 4D- 2, below):

A. No Action – Existing Conditions with No New Development B. No Action – Maximum Buildout Using Existing Zoning (excluding municipal property in I-P District) C. Full Buildout of FBC – Excluding Publicly Owned Land D. Full Buildout of FBC – Maximum Height 4 Stories

The Town Board recently discussed a fifth alternative which is not assessed in the DGEIS, a “New Direction” which would limit development to the North Greely portion of the hamlet area.

Unlike a traditional zoning ordinance which regulates density on a units per acre basis, density in the FBC is limited primarily by the envelope of the building created and the parking required. The FBC Buildout Scenario assumes an average dwelling unit size of 1,110 square feet, to determine the total number of dwelling units (1,059) which could be constructed. This unit size average is larger than the 998 square foot average for existing comparable apartment units in the Real Estate Market

4 of 19 ENGINEERING REVIEW DR PROJECT No.:11612-001 HAMLET OF CHAPPAQUA FORM BASED CODE & March 25, 2021 DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TOWN OF NEW CASTLE, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK

Scan (Appendix E). The unit breakdown of number of bedrooms has a significant impact on the impacts generated by anticipated development. While the analysis assumes that 66% of units will be 1-bedrooms and 34% of units 2-bedrooms, there is no mechanism currently within the proposed FBC to limit the number of larger units with more bedrooms that could be constructed. While the DGEIS indicates that the need to provide on-site parking would be the limiting factor for residential development, the “parking toolbox” within the FBC allows for a wide range of parking alternatives which could allow for development of larger units with less parking. Given the quality of the local public school system, developers may favor the reverse ratio with 34% of units 1-bedroom and 66% of units with two bedrooms.

Residential development is the main driver of the wastewater generation, with the number of bedrooms the key factor. All build out scenarios presented in the DGEIS represent an order of magnitude increase in wastewater generation above the existing conditions (Alternative A). A reduction in approximately 66% of total bedrooms would result in approximately half the wastewater generated (Alternative B).

Impervious coverage is the primary factor for the determination of stormwater runoff impacts. The alternative analysis undertaken in the DGEIS does not provide an assessment of the impervious coverage within the study area under each alternative. According to the DGEIS, the total existing coverage within the study area is 42.5 acres (59% of the study area) with the additional coverage under the Proposed Action alternative of 2.7 acres (4% of the study area). The proposed Full Build Out under the FBC with Reduced Height Alternative (Alternative D), appears to be the only alternative which would result in additional open and recreation space; however, it is unclear how this would impact the impervious coverage within the study area.

Recommendations:

• Provide a full build-out assessment for the limited “New Direction” alternative recently discussed by the Town Board.

• Provide a full build-out assessment for a higher density alternative which assumes the same number of total additional units and reverses the ratio of 1- and 2-bedroom units.

• Calculate the anticipated impervious coverage for each alternative for comparison and assess how the additional open/recreation space in Alternative D will improve stormwater management and flooding impacts.

5 of 19 ENGINEERING REVIEW DR PROJECT No.:11612-001 HAMLET OF CHAPPAQUA FORM BASED CODE & March 25, 2021 DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TOWN OF NEW CASTLE, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK

6 of 19 ENGINEERING REVIEW DR PROJECT No.:11612-001 HAMLET OF CHAPPAQUA FORM BASED CODE & March 25, 2021 DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TOWN OF NEW CASTLE, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK

4.0 SANITARY SEWER IMPACTS There are four sewer service areas which cover the 72-acre study area, the North Greeley Sewershed, King Greeley and Sewer District No.1 Sewershed (i.e. South Greely Sewershed), a portion of Sewer District No. 2 and an area with Sewer Service from County Trunk in the Railroad Frontage. The Town’s local sanitary sewer districts connect to the Westchester County sanitary sewer trunk line via sanitary sewer manholes at two locations. The local North Greeley System connects to the County trunk line on the west side of North Greeley Avenue at the southern side of the USPS property. The South Greeley System connects to the County system at the westerly side of the intersection of South Greeley Avenue and King Street. The County trunkline then flows down Lower King Street and under the right-of-way of the Metro North Railroad to a manhole at the intersection of Joan Corwin Way and Hunts Place.

In order to assess the impacts of the Proposed Action on the Town’s sanitary sewer infrastructure, a peak hourly wastewater generation for the FBC Buildout Scenario of 891,670 gallons per day was calculated and then broken out for the contributions to the North Greely and South Greely Sewersheds. The peak hourly wastewater generation rates for the portion of Sewer District No. 2 which covers the King Street/Bedford Road area and the publicly owned properties with sewer service in the County Trunk area were not broken out. See Appendix G.

7 of 19 ENGINEERING REVIEW DR PROJECT No.:11612-001 HAMLET OF CHAPPAQUA FORM BASED CODE & March 25, 2021 DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TOWN OF NEW CASTLE, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK

The Peak Contribution of flow for the North and South Greeley Sewersheds was determined based on a set of assumptions as to the various uses of the proposed FBC and their typical per unit hydraulic loading rates (from Table 3E-3 of Appendix G of the DGEIS and shown below). The key factor for determining the sewer generation rates for residential development is the number of bedrooms. The FBC Buildout Scenario makes certain assumptions in order to determine the number of bedrooms created: [1] average unit size of 1,110 square feet allowing for a total 1,059 apartment units, and [2] bedroom breakdown with approximately 66% of units 1-bedrooms and 34% of units 2-bedrooms. Changes in these assumptions can have significant impacts on the peak hour projected wastewater generation. A higher proportion of 2-bedroom units could result in significant additional wastewater generation under the FBC. A greater ratios of residents-to-bedroom than the standard assumed values would have a similar effect.

8 of 19 ENGINEERING REVIEW DR PROJECT No.:11612-001 HAMLET OF CHAPPAQUA FORM BASED CODE & March 25, 2021 DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TOWN OF NEW CASTLE, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK

Source: DGEIS Appendix G

While the DGEIS concludes that the existing sewer systems have available capacity for the anticipated sanitary sewer flow increases to those districts based on the FBC Buildout Scenario, the analysis is incomplete and insufficient to reach this conclusion

As shown below, particularly in the South Greeley Sewershed, very little peak capacity remains available under the FBC Full Build Scenario given the assumptions of the study. The failure to account for unexpected increases, underestimated assumptions, or contributing sewershed areas that were not accounted for, creates an unacceptable risk of exceeding sewer capacity during peak flow conditions.

Sanitary Sewer Capacity (DGEIS Table 3E-3) Peak Contribution Available Capacity Capacity Remaining (CFS) (CFS) After Full Build Under FBC North Greeley Sewershed 0.53 0.74 28.4% South Greeley Sewershed 1.58 1.68 6.0% Source: Dresdner Robin

Furthermore, as noted in the DGEIS (page 3-82), the conveyance system from the proposed FBC development at King Street and Bedford Road has not been studied. This area will convey flows into the South Greeley System which only has approximately 6% of available peak capacity after full

9 of 19 ENGINEERING REVIEW DR PROJECT No.:11612-001 HAMLET OF CHAPPAQUA FORM BASED CODE & March 25, 2021 DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TOWN OF NEW CASTLE, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK

build-out of the sewershed under the FBC. It is imperative that the contribution of sanitary flows from full build out under the FBC (i.e. the Proposed Action Alternative) for the King Street and Bedford Road area should be studied and included as part of this environmental review process before adoption of the FBC.

The Sanitary Sewer Section of Executive Summary of the DGEIS (page 1-7) states that, in the North Greeley sewer district the “amount of available additional capacity is dependent on where new discharges are added to the system and their impact on downstream conditions”. The failure to investigate further, in order to determine and plan the location(s) along the sewer system where additional density is allowable, creates the potential for negatively impacting development down- flow along the sewer system.

Finally, sewer is also available for Town-owned properties in the southern portion of the FBC study area, which connects directly to the county trunk main sewer manhole to the south of the Chappaqua Train Station. The DGEIS states that no capacity issues are anticipated for this connection, however no analysis has been provided to verify flow capacity under the proposed FBC build out conditions. Analysis must be performed to determine whether the county sewer system can accommodate increased peak flows from town owned property in addition to the anticipated sewer flows from the other sewersheds discussed in the study.

Recommendations:

• Capacity analyses for the portion of Sewer District No. 2 that covers the King Street/Bedford Road area and the publicly owned parcels with Sewer Service from County Trunk in the Railroad Frontage should be provided. The true impacts of the FBC on the Town’s wastewater infrastructure cannot be assessed without these analyses.

• The FGEIS should assess the maximum number of bedrooms that each of the sewersheds can accommodate, assuming the same level of commercial development as the FBC Buildout Scenario. This would establish a cap on the number of bedrooms that each sewershed can accommodate against which future development can be assessed. • Analyses should be prepared as to determine where (i.e. what parcels) within the North Greeley Sewershed area that capacity increases can be discharged into the sewer system without negatively impacting downstream conditions. Permitted development intensity within this area under the FBC should be adjusted to avoid these negative downstream conditions.

5.0 STORMWATER/FLOODING IMPACTS The Town recently completed an infrastructure upgrade project in the hamlet, with stormwater infrastructure as shown on Exhibit 3-E3, mainly along Greeley Street and lower King Street. Surface

10 of 19 ENGINEERING REVIEW DR PROJECT No.:11612-001 HAMLET OF CHAPPAQUA FORM BASED CODE & March 25, 2021 DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TOWN OF NEW CASTLE, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK

runoff is collected in catch basins along the main roads (Greeley Avenue, King Street, Bedford Road) and drains into the municipal stormwater system and is then conveyed into Tertia Brook. Overall impervious area in the study area is 42.5 acres (59%). The FBC Buildout Scenario would result in an increase in impervious surfaces of 2.7 acres or approximately 4%.

The proposed FBC requires that all development comply with Chapter 108A Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control of the Town Code and the “New York State Green Infrastructure mandate” (§60-910). Chapter 108A requires that stormwater management practices are designed in accordance with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Stormwater Management Design Manual. The NYSDEC Stormwater Management Design Manual requires any development to reduce design storms to predeveloped peak flow rates. This requirement is designed to mitigate flooding impacts of development. This is most often accomplished by providing on-site below-ground systems that store and infiltrate stormwater.

Per Chapter 108A-7.C, applicants disturbing one or more acres or creating greater than 1,000 square feet of new impervious area must provide water quantity and/or quality controls (post-stormwater construction controls) listed in the subsection. Since proposed developments of individual lots in the FBC study area would typically result in less than 1 acre of disturbance or create less than 1,000 square feet of new impervious area, the minimum requirements triggering the requirement for the water quality and/or quantity controls under Chapter 108A will rarely be met. This would severely limit the opportunity for development within the FBC District to meet the Town’s Master Plan Goal 19 and Actions 19.1 to require Green Infrastructure techniques in new developments and 19.4 which would require development applicants to incorporate hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of water courses and pipe networks that could be impacted by the development.

According to the DGEIS, the Town Engineer has indicated that stormwater management would likely not be achievable in the study area in most cases through infiltration due to high groundwater conditions. Whenever possible it is preferred to treat stormwater through non-structural means, however conditions may dictate the use of subsurface storage systems. These systems are to be designed to store stormwater on-site and control the outflow rate into a municipal system from the site in order to not impact the downstream infrastructure and prevent erosion of stream and riverbanks. Development will also be required to capture and treat the full water quality volume. The lack of ability to infiltrate will limit the methods available for treatment.

The DGEIS recommends several green infrastructure and stormwater management practices as mitigation measures (page 3-75) including bioretention basins, sand filters, infiltration basins, green roofs, and stormwater ponds. A number of these measures may be impractical due to a lack of available land area appropriate for infiltration in the high-density areas. Green infrastructure methods designed for more urban communities such as green roofs, rain gardens, bioswales, and stormwater planters should be encouraged. Not only do these methods address water quality, but

11 of 19 ENGINEERING REVIEW DR PROJECT No.:11612-001 HAMLET OF CHAPPAQUA FORM BASED CODE & March 25, 2021 DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TOWN OF NEW CASTLE, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK

they also create vegetated habitat, reduce water discharge temperatures, reduce the heat island effect and create pleasing aesthetics. This recommendation is aligned with Comprehensive Plan Action 19.1 which requires green infrastructure techniques for new developments through Town regulations and Action 19.3 which encourages green infrastructure features on Town-owned properties.

Recommendations:

• Reduce the minimum disturbance requirements of Chapter 108A-7.C (i.e. the definition of Land Development Activity per Chapter 108A-6) within the FBC study area from 1 acre to a more appropriate land disturbance (e.g. 5000 square feet of disturbance).

• The Supplemental GEIS should consider what green infrastructure and stormwater management techniques are appropriate in the study area based on the limitations of available space and reduced infiltration capacity. The FBC should include a list of preferred green infrastructure methods to achieve the required stormwater quantity and quality standards. • According to Exhibit 3E-3 of the DGEIS, the stormwater infrastructure along King Street between Senter Street and the northern area of the study was not fully upgraded as part of the recent infrastructure upgrades. This stretch of King Street contains an approximate elevation change of 165 feet over approximately 1,960 feet. Stormwater runoff down this slope of King Street flows into the 500-year floodplain to the west of Senter Street (see Appendix A). This slope may create undesirable stormwater impacts. It is recommended that as part of future development along this street the remaining infrastructure be upgraded with new street curb with a 6-inch reveal to contain the storm water in the roadway, along with upgrading the storm infrastructure with bicycle safe inlet grates designed to capture the high volume and velocity in order to prevent excess stormwater surface flow and possible flooding into the hamlet.

6.0 STEEP SLOPES The Town of New Castle regulates disturbance of steep slopes under Chapter 108 of the Town Code. This Chapter identifies three steep slope categories which are regulated: moderate steep slopes (≥15% but <25%), very steep slopes (≥25% but <35%), and extremely steep slopes (≥35%). Sites which contain some combination of steep slopes over a certain threshold require a Steep Slopes Permit from either the Town Engineer or the Planning Board.

The purpose of the Town’s steep slopes ordinance is to preserve, protect and conserve its steep slopes so as to maintain and protect natural terrain and its vegetative features, preserve wetlands, water bodies and watercourses, prevent flooding, protect important scenic views and vistas,

12 of 19 ENGINEERING REVIEW DR PROJECT No.:11612-001 HAMLET OF CHAPPAQUA FORM BASED CODE & March 25, 2021 DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TOWN OF NEW CASTLE, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK

preserve areas of wildlife habitat, provide safe building sites and protect adjoining property by prevent surface erosion, creep and sudden slope failure.

Development within the proposed FBC districts would be subject to the Town’s existing Steep Slopes Ordinance with one distinction. Approval of a very steep slopes permit would be from the Town Engineer rather than the planning board.

Moderate Steep Very Steep Slopes Extremely Steep Slopes Slopes Current Zoning Code Town Engineer* Planning Board Planning Board Proposed FBC Town Engineer Town Engineer Planning Board *Except where site plan is required from Planning Board.

Based on the steep slopes shown on Exhibit 3E-1 of the DGEIS (pg. 3-86), most of the land within the study area that has a moderate steep slope is already disturbed and developed. There are small portions of the properties along the east side of King Street which are shown to have slopes of 25% or greater. This steeps slopes area appears to be part of a larger undeveloped ridge that stretches south behind the Robert E. Bell Middle School, separating the hamlet from residential areas to the east. Under the proposed build out scenario (Exhibit 2-5), a residential building and parking area are proposed to encroach into this very/extremely steep slopes area.

Recommendations:

• Approval authority for disturbance of very steep slopes and extremely steep slopes should remain with the Planning Board. The proposed change for very steep slopes review in the proposed FBC affects a very limited number of properties, most of which are part of a larger steep slopes ridge that separates the hamlet from residential uses to the east. Preserving the Planning Board approval for very steep and extremely steep slopes permits would encourage developers to avoid disturbance of the steepest slopes (≥25%) while maintaining the additional oversight by the Planning Board where disturbance of these slopes is unavoidable.

7.0 CONCLUSION STATEMENT The SEQRA process, and preparation of an environmental impact statement, is intended to guide informed decision making. The preparation of a Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement which addresses comments on the DGEIS is a critical component of this process. Based on our review of the DGEIS with regards to the sewer, stormwater and flooding, and steep slopes sections additional analysis as part of the Supplemental GEIS is warranted.

Additional analysis of the impacts of the Proposed Action on the Town’s sewer infrastructure is warranted, as the DGEIS only analyzed two of the four sewershed areas. The full impacts of the

13 of 19 ENGINEERING REVIEW DR PROJECT No.:11612-001 HAMLET OF CHAPPAQUA FORM BASED CODE & March 25, 2021 DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TOWN OF NEW CASTLE, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK

adoption of the proposed Chappaqua Hamlet Form Based Code cannot be assessed until the capacity of the proposed development on the publicly owned properties in the southern portion of the study area and of the King Street/Bedford Road area are taken into consideration.

While overall stormwater impacts resulting from the FBC Buildout Scenario only result in an additional 2.4 acres of impervious coverage. Typical stormwater management systems to address the impacts of the additional coverage are limited by the density of the development proposed and reduced infiltration capacity.

Q:\PRJ\11612-001 New Castle NY\EG\Regs Reviews Permits\Engineering Review - Chappaqua FBC.docx

14 of 19

ATTACHMENT A

JOSEPH MELE, PE, PLS, PP, LEED AP DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS EDUCATION • NJ Professional Engineer, License No. GB43239 • Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering Technology – • NJ Professional Land Surveyor, License No. GB43239 Fairleigh Dickinson University • NJ Professional Planner, License No. 33LI006192 • Bachelor of Science in Surveying Technology - New Jersey • NY Professional Engineer, License No. 83364-1 Institute of Technology • PA Professional Engineer, License No. PA084000 • MD Professional Engineer, License No. 53432 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS • DE Professional Engineer, License No. 22998 • Fair Lawn Planning Board Vice Chair (2011- present) • LEED Accredited Professional (LEED-AP) • Fair Lawn Environmental Commission (2009-present) • Cert Prof in Erosion & Sediment Control, No. 5629 • Fair Lawn Master Plan Committee (Chair) • American Society of Civil Engineers • Institute of Transportation Engineers • NJ Society Professional Land Surveyors • NY State Assoc of Professional Land Surveyors • American Planning Association • Fair Lawn Economic Development Comm (Trustee) SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS Mr. Mele directs the engineering practice for Dresdner Robin Environmental Management, Inc. Mr. Mele has over 25 years of engineering experience on land development projects throughout New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania. His professional experience includes a range of private land development project types including residential, retail, hospitality, commercial, mixed-use and other development types. Mr. Mele has offered himself as an expert witness for planning and zoning boards on numerous occasions, and as an expert to testify on various legal matters.

His experience supports a spectrum of engineering services from site feasibility, design, permitting and construction. More specifically: site layout, retaining wall design, roadway design, stormwater management, flood control, culvert and channel design, erosion and sediment control, utility design, subdivisions, land surveying, demolition plans, and more. Mr. Mele has been responsible for the preparation of a wide range of permit applications at the local, county, regional, state and federal levels of regulatory review throughout NY, NJ and PA. His projects often require preparation of construction documents, cost estimates, bidding assistance, and construction administration services. His career has allowed him to acquire comprehensive experience on residential, commercial, retail and recreational projects in both urban and suburban markets.

SELECT NOTABLE PROJECTS LIU Post College of Veterinary Medicine Addition, Brookville, NY – Prepared site construction documents and drainage calculations for a 33,000 GSF expansion of an educational building on the LIU Post campus. Designed system of pervious pavement and infiltration basins to manage stormwater on the site. Coordinating extensive utility relocations and surface improvements to accommodate the building addition. Trylon Mixed Use, Queens, NYC, NY – Mixed-use development (residential apartments and retail) consisting of 86 units, 40,000 square feet of retail and amenity space, and 2 levels of subsurface parking containing 126 spaces. The development being situated on an odd-shaped triangular lot being 22,000 square feet in area in close proximity to the MTA subway line requiring close coordination with the agency to avoid impacts resulting from the development. Greenpoint Avenue Mixed Use, Queens, NYC, NY – Mixed-use development of residential apartments, commercial space and retail facilities. Engineering design entailed the preparation of site plan and design documents for the purposes of NYCDEP Site Connection Proposal (SCP); NYCDOT Builder’s Pavement Plan (BPP); water supply and backflow prevention devices requiring approvals from NYC Department of Health, NYCDEP and FDNY; electric approval from Con Edison; gas service approval from Keyspan; NYC Department of Parks and Recreation from NYC DPR. The project included a detention tank to attenuate the storm flow and connection to the City sewer. Baldor Specialty Foods, Bronx, New York – A 108,000 square foot expansion of to a 24-hour operating refrigerated warehouse foot distribution facility. The site being owned by NYCEDC, contained 25-acres. The development included redesign of a 12- acre surface parking area for trucks and new loading docks around the perimeter of the new addition. Responsible for the site plan drawings, utility design, storm water management for water quantity and quality, soil erosion control plans, SWPPP implementation and inspection and construction management. Permitting included drainage master plan and site connection from NYCDEP, water service permitting from NYCDEP, NYDEC permitting and coordination for an NOI and SWPPP reports, RP604 for lot consolidation, NYCEDC coordination for existing infrastructure including gas lines and environmental conditions and assisting with various NYCDOB permits. Services also included construction administration, field inspections during construction, utility line investigations, staging plans to accommodate the continuously operating facility, value engineering redesign during construction, dewatering coordination, and providing as-built survey. Self-storage facilities throughout NY and NJ – Site engineering and permitting for a number of self-storage facilities ranging in size from 50,000 to 200,000 square feet. Design included full development site plans, stormwater management utilizing underground detention, utility design, highway access plans and soil erosion control plans, SWPPPs, onsite individually sewage treatment facility, discharge to state waters, city and state permitting. 99 Hudson, Jersey City, Hudson County, NJ - Development of a high rise residential (condominium) development project on city block containing 1.75 acres. Project consisted of an 880-foot high, 781-unit building with 609 parking spaces within structured garage podium. Scope of work included the following permit items: Flood Hazard Area Individual Permit and Verification with deviations, NJDEP for Sewer and Water, Federal Aviation Administration issuance of a Determination of No Hazard to Airspace for the building and crane, Site Plan approval from Jersey City, Site Plan approval from Hudson County, and HEPSCD approval of Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls. Ellipse, Jersey City, Hudson County, NJ – Development of 41-story, 445-foot high, 376-unit residential high rise, elliptical- shaped building on a pier in the Hudson River. Project included 271 parking spaces within structured parking garage and the consolidation/re-subdivision of lots. Ellipse is situated on a prominent waterfront property which projects into the river. The project presented unique challenges including structural considerations for utility and drainage systems due to inadequate support from waterfront fill as well as regulatory implications. The project required two (2) modifications to the owner’s upland waterfront development permit as well as a new waterfront development permit to accommodate reinforcement of the existing bulkhead with steel sheet piling. Services included securing various permits including NJDEP Flood Hazard Area, NJDEP permits for water and sewer, JCMUA permits for sewer, Preliminary and Final Site Plan and Subdivision with Jersey City Planning Board, and soil erosion permitting. Engineering design included site layout, waterfront walkway design, circulation plans, grading and drainage design, lighting design, and demolition plans. Rivet University Place, Jersey City, Hudson County, NJ - Provided professional land development services for this public-private partnership endeavor that is situated along West Side Avenue and within the New Jersey City University - West Campus Redevelopment Area. The development includes 163 market-rate units, 40,400± sf retail, 169 space enclosed garage within the 1.37-acre property. Preparation of conceptual site plans including site layout, grading, drainage and utility design, rooftop landscape architecture and preparation of site-related technical specifications. Extensive coordination with university representatives. Preparation of permit applications for construction, including the local municipal utilities authority, regional sewerage treatment facility, local soil conservation district and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Provided construction administration services, review of contractor submittals, and responses to requests for information. Ray and Joan Kroc Community Center, Camden, Camden County, NJ – Director in charge of a 24-acre redevelopment site over a landfill to be developed into a community center containing a 120,000-square foot recreation facility building, outdoor facilities including soccer and baseball fields, tennis and basketball courts and passive park space. Services provided include civil engineering design and permitting from various local, county, state and federal agencies; landscape architecture for design of the outdoor spaces; environmental services including Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP) services for remediation and clean-fill cap for the site; and land surveying services; construction administration services including field inspections during construction and construction administration services. Montclair State University-Overlook at Great Notch, Little Falls, Passaic County, NJ – Site engineering and permitting for 200,000 square feet of building conversion from office to institutional (classroom) use including a 160-parking space expansion and access road. Design included full-development site plans, stormwater management, utility design, roadway and utility profiles and cross-sections, soil erosion control plans for municipal permitting Sunrise Senior Living Assisted Living Facilities, Various Locations, NJ – Numerous assisted living residences thought New Jersey including Bridgewater, Livingston, Summit, and Shrewsbury. Responsibilities include professional testimony, site plan preparation, design of grading, drainage, utilities, construction drawings and specification preparation. In addition, the projects also required approvals for NJDEP Treatment Works Approval, NJDEP Freshwater Wetlands, NJDEP Flood Hazard Area Individual Permits, Soil Conservation Certifications and various other site related permits.

The Learning Experience child daycare facilities throughout NY and NJ – Site engineering and permitting for 10,000 to 12,000 square-foot childcare building facilities. Design included full-development site plans, stormwater management, utility design, highway access plans and soil erosion control plans, stormwater pollution prevention plans, municipal and state permitting. Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) Watermain, Sewer and Stormwater Capital Program, Philadelphia, Pa - Director in charge of the preparation of base plans, water and sewer design drawings, green infrastructure design drawings and calculations, sewer slip-lining design, curb ramp design, roadway grading and design drawings for several roadways under PWD jurisdiction. Presently assigned with a total of 4.1 miles of utility infrastructure upgrades under the Watermain, Sewer and Stormwater Capital Program for the City of Philadelphia. In addition to the water and sewer design, the contract includes the implementation of Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) design as directed by the Department’s Office of Watersheds. As the prime contractor, management of the projects include preparation of cost estimates and coordination with sub-consultants and maintaining the requisite participation by minority and women-owned businesses to meet the City’s objectives. Berry Lane Park, Jersey City, Hudson County, NJ – Principal in charge of 17-acre Brownfield Redevelopment of former rail yards, industrial/manufacturing buildings and former Morris Canal into a vibrant new park with natural and synthetic football, soccer and baseball fields, basketball courts, tennis courts, skate park, water spray park, large playground/tot lot, walkways, plaza/seating areas, parking, new utilities etc. Park programming was presented to the community, from schematic design through construction. The park includes many “Green” techniques such as rainwater harvesting for irrigation, over 3 acres of porous paving, rain gardens, use of native plant material, specifying sustainable materials, green roofing, etc. Performed field inspections during construction and construction administration services.

LITIGATION & MISCELLANEOUS Forensic surveying services in NYC – monitoring and surveying movements of various high-rise buildings surrounding construction sites in New York City. Field observations and Preparation of monitoring reports. Regal Sewer Repair/Litigation, Brooklyn, NYC - Survey and emergency repair of sewer force and damages to outfall on Knapp Street. Services included design of new replacement force-main and repair to street improvements. Mediation support for legal action between involved parties. Winged Foot Golf Club Litigation, Mamaroneck, Westchester County, NY – provided expert witness services being deposed during mediation between landowners and operators of a nationally-recognized golf course. Preparation of a rebuttal reporting with analyses and professional opinions regarding as-of-right development and feasibility for the facility. Analyses also included cost assessments and viability of construction. Construction Litigation, West Caldwell, NJ – Expert Witness testimony and deposition regarding an industrial facility’s complaints toward a contractor in its sitework improvements and construction practices. ArcNet, Various sites throughout NYC - Cell Tower Feasibility Studies throughout NY and NJ – assessment and feasibility of cell tower sites on building rooftops in New York City and New Jersey. Structural assessment of rooftop conditions and FAA determination for No Hazard.

AVI LEBOVIC, PE, LEED AP SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS EDUCATION

• PA Professional Engineer (2011) License No. PE078709 Bachelor of Science in Industrial Engineering, 2002 • LEED Accredited Professional (2008) Rutgers University

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, 2005 Rutgers University

Master of Business Administration, 2014 Drexel University

SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS

Mr. Lebovic has over 15 years of experience in a wide variety of civil engineering projects in New Jersey and Pennsylvania and currently serves as a Senior Project Manager at Dresdner Robin Environmental Management, Inc. He has served roles and municipal/planning board engineer, engineering designer and manager of quality assurance and quality control and ADA compliance for all engineering and capital improvements for a regional transit authority. His experience spans a broad range of fields within civil engineering including project management, site design, permitting, stormwater management, erosion and sediment design, utility design, highways and roadways design, streetscapes and lighting design, ADA design, cost estimating, and subdivision and land development and zoning reviews.

KEY PROJECTS AT DRESDNER ROBIN

Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) Water, Sewer and Stormwater Capital Improvements Contract, Philadelphia, PA Project Coordinator/ Engineer for multiple Water Main Relay, Sewer Reconstruction and Green Stormwater Infrastructure Design projects. Responsibilities included preparation of base plans, water relay and sewer reconstruction design plans, stormwater management design, sewer slip-lining design, curb ramp design, roadway grading design, and coordination with various utilities present in Philadelphia. Presently assigned with a total of 4.1 miles of utility infrastructure upgrades under the Watermain, Sewer and Stormwater Capital Program with PWD. Mr. Lebovic is responsible for preparation submittal documents and coordinating with multiple subcontractors on current PWD projects.

PROJECTS PRIOR TO DRESDNER ROBIN

Marlyn Park Sanitary Sewer Improvements, Lansdowne, PA - Project involved rerouting and replacing sanitary sewer in the street and along a steep streambank in a wooded park. Responsibilities included performing design and preparing civil construction drawings, specifications, construction cost estimates and contract documents. Permitting involved obtaining a PADEP General Permit.

2019 Roadway Improvement Program, Whitemarsh, PA – Lead Engineer responsible for designed roadway reconstruction for approximately 4 miles of roadway throughout township. Prepared civil construction plans, estimates and bid package.

Roland Holroyd Science and Technology Center, LaSalle University, Philadelphia, PA – Engineer responsible for site/civil improvements related to a three-story addition to an existing building. Responsibilities included designing a stormwater management plan involving a green roof and subsurface detention basin, erosion and sediment control measures, site grading and pedestrian circulation.

Pennsylvania Turnpike Northeastern Extension A31-A38, Montgomery County, PA – Project Engineer for the widening and reconstruction of seven miles of the Northeastern Extension between Milepost A31 and A38 in Lower Salford, Franconia and Salford townships in Montgomery County. Responsible for production of plans, calculations, specification and construction cost estimate for the project, including: horizontal and vertical alignment design, drainage, stormwater and E&S design.

ReStore Philadelphia Corridors Streetscape, Philadelphia, PA – Project consisted of revitalizing several commercial corridors throughout the city by constructing various types of streetscape improvements. Engineer responsible for developing construction plans, specifications and estimates for pedestrian safety improvements such as, curb bump-outs, ADA ramps, street lighting and traffic calming measures. Green Street improvements involved capturing roadway and sidewalk storm water in bio-swales, raingardens and tree pits with porous pavements. Engineer was also responsible for obtaining Streets Department and PennDOT approvals, conducting community group meetings.

Various Streetlighting Improvement Projects, Philadelphia, PA – Engineer designed ornamental streetscape lighting in Philadelphia to enhance safety and aesthetics for the Center City District, Old City District, University City District and the University of Pennsylvania. Performed lighting calculations to provide safe conditions for pedestrians and vehicles. Produces electrical schematics and coordinated service connections. Designed conduit layout and obtained all utility clearances.

Bala Avenue Streetscape Improvements, Lower Merion, PA – Engineer responsible for the design of streetscape improvements to enhance accessibility and safety of the corridor. Project involved decorative crosswalk improvements, curb bump-outs, ADA ramps within space confined and steep sloped areas and pedestrian scale streetlights.

St. Joseph’s University Streetscape Improvements, Philadelphia, PA – Project involved installation of a raised mid-block crosswalk with a bump-out, street lighting and pavement marking improvements. Engineer responsible for all Streets Department, PennDOT and University approvals and production of plans, specifications and estimates.

CAROLYN WORSTELL, AICP SENIOR PLANNER

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS EDUCATION • NJ Professional Planner (2020) [Lic. #33LI00645000] Master of City and Regional Planning, 2012 • American Institute of Certified Planners (2019) – Rutgers University Bachelor of Arts, Chemistry & Art History, 2008 – George Washington University

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Planning Association – New York & New Jersey Chapters SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS

Ms. Worstell is a licensed New Jersey Professional Planner (PP) and certified member of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) with over 5 years’ experience in land use, zoning and comprehensive planning throughout New Jersey and New York. She has experience in preparing planning reports in support of variance applications, new zoning districts and zoning ordinance amendments, urban renewal plans, and master plans. Ms. Worstell has extensive experience with environmental reviews implementing the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), including the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). She has experience articulating planning concepts and processes such as annexation, spot zoning and variances for legal counsel in the preparation of expert testimony on land use cases. Ms. Worstell has been qualified as an expert professional planner and has provided planning testimony before planning boards, zoning boards of adjustment and historic preservation commissions.

Ms. Worstell has valuable experience working with architects, landscape architects, engineers, and various regulatory agencies, and in order to ensure timely and accurate project completion.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE

Environmental Impact Statements/Environmental Assessments, New Jersey and New York

Involved in the preparation of numerous Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Assessments in New Jersey pursuant to local requirements and in New York pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) including full environmental assessment (FEAF) forms, draft and final generic environmental impact study (DGEIS and FGEIS) reports.

Select Recent Projects • Oyster Bay, NY – SEAF and addendum for expansion of a cold-storage facility. • Franklin Township, NJ – Environmental Assessment report for a self-storage facility. • East Orange, NJ – Environmental Impact Statement for a multi-family residential development.

Land Use, Zoning & Comprehensive Planning

Downtown/Waterfront (Re)Development Projects, Jersey City, NJ – Provided planning and zoning support for numerous redevelopment and development projects in the Jersey Downtown area and along the Waterfront including projects along the Newark Avenue mixed-use corridor, the Exchange Place waterfront neighborhood, and surrounding neighborhoods including the Paulus Hook Historic District and the Van Vorst Park Historic District. Journal Square Redevelopment Projects, Jersey City, NJ – Provided redevelopment planning services for approximately 35 redevelopment projects throughout the Journal Square 2060 Redevelopment Plan area including redevelopment planning assistance and zoning conformance analysis. Subdivision, Teaneck, NJ – Provided planning testimony supporting the subdivision of a historic property before the Historic Preservation Committee. Project proposed to subdivide larger historic property into three single family lots, preserving the historic structure on the property and enhancing views of the home. Petal Dust Cakery, Glen Rock, NJ – Provided planning testimony supporting the adaptive re-use of a garage for a “cakery”. The project proposed renovating a vacant garage in downtown Glen Rock, NJ into a small bakery focused on custom cakes and deserts. The project sought variances for parking.

454 Second Street, Jersey City, NJ – Provided planning testimony supporting bulk deviations from the Merseles Street Redevelopment Plan for a 4-story multi-family development. The project proposed to redevelop the mostly vacant site with a 4-story, 48-unit residential development, with onsite parking and amenity spaces for residents. The project sought deviations for location of utilities and lighting.

Port Imperial, West New York, NJ - The project is part of the Toll Port Imperial (an entity of Toll Brothers) redevelopment located on the waterfront of West New York, NJ and consists of an Amended Final Site Plan for two new residential buildings, including increasing the heights from five to seven stories and the unit count from 61 to 83 units for Building F. Responsibilities included the research on the consistency of the proposed changes to the West New York Waterfront Redevelopment Plan and Controlled Waterfront Development (CWD) district zoning regulations, and assistance in preparation of zoning variance testimony.

414-416 Jefferson Street, Hoboken, NJ - This project is the redevelopment of two lots in the City’s R-2 District, with a five-story (4 residential floors over parking) 7-unit residential building. The project replaces three non-conforming structures, with a modern building containing 5 parking spaces, bicycle storage, electric car charging stations, seven generous 3-bedroom dwelling units and 2,000 square feet of landscaped open space. Responsibilities included preparation of a planning report to support “c2” bulk variances for lot coverage (62% proposed, 60% maximum permitted) and building height (43’-11” over DFE proposed, 40’ above DFE maximum permitted) and review of Hoboken Master Plan for compliance.

Housing & Community Development, New York - Per HUD’s requirements for entitlement funding (including CDBG, HOME, ESG, etc. funds), Ms. Worstell has experience working on 5-Year Consolidated Plans and Annual Action Plans including for the City of Yonkers, NY. The Plans include a demographic analysis, needs assessment, market analysis, strategic plan and action plan components. In coordination with municipal staff, responsible for outreach activities including stakeholder outreach meetings, public surveys (in English and Spanish) and public hearings on the Plans in accordance with municipal public participation plans.

Ms. Worstell also has experience in the preparation of Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) and market studies for affordable housing projects seeking low income housing tax credits (LIHTC).

ATTACHMENT B