FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FGEIS) FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDED CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER, CHAPTER 345, “ZONING”, AND OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
VOLUME 1
MARCH 16, 2020 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (“FGEIS”)
Name of Proposed Action: The adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map, hereinafter referred to as the Village of Port Chester Form-Based Code
State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) Classification: Type 1 (see 6 NYCRR 617.4(b)(1) “the adoption of a municipality's comprehensive zoning regulations”)
Location of Proposed Action: Village of Port Chester, New York
Lead Agency Name: Village of Port Chester Board of Trustees
Lead Agency Contact: Mr. Eric Zamft, AICP, Director Village of Port Chester, Department of Planning & Economic Development 222 Grace Church Street, Suite 202 Port Chester, New York 10573 Telephone No.: (914) 937-6780
Prepared by: Village of Port Chester, Department of Planning & Economic Development 222 Grace Church Street, Suite 202 Port Chester, New York 10573 Telephone No.: (914) 937-6780
And: Fisher Associates 325 Delaware Avenue Suite 200, Buffalo, New York 14202 Telephone No.: (716) 858-1234
Date Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement accepted as complete by Lead Agency: March 16, 2020
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
TABLE OF CONTENTS A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... A 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION (I.E., VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER FORM-BASED CODE) ...... 2 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES TO THE DGEIS ...... 5 4.0 THRESHOLDS FOR FURTHER EVALUATION ...... 6 5.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ...... 7 5.1 Introduction ...... 7 5.2 Comments on the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement ...... 9 6.0 Fair Share Mitigation ...... 52 6.1 Introduction ...... 52 6.2 Precedent in New York State ...... 52 6.3 Methodology...... 53 6.4 Sample Calculation ...... 57 6.5 Other Fair Share Contribution Mitigation Contemplated by the GEIS ...... 57 6.6 Other Non-Mitigation Fees Contemplated by the GEIS ...... 58 6.7 Summary of Anticipated Fair Share Contribution Mitigation Funds ...... 58
TABLES Table 1: Index of Comments and Responses ...... 7 Table 2: Build-Out by Use ...... 53 Table 3: Fair Share Contribution Upgrades/Improvement Cost Estimates ...... 55 Table 4: Per Square Foot Mitigation Amounts ...... 56 Table 5: Sample Fair Share Contribution Mitigation Calculation ...... 57
APPENDICES Appendix A Public Hearing Transcripts Appendix B Public and Agency Comments Appendix C Build-Out Analysis Report Appendix D Traffic Study & Fair Share Contribution Traffic Mitigation Appendix E Revised Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (“DGEIS”) Appendix F Revised Proposed Zoning Code Appendix G Port Chester Public Schools Overcrowding and Mitigation Analysis
March 2020 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) is intended to analyze and address public and agency comments received by the Village of Port Chester Board of Trustees, as Lead Agency, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), in response to the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS). The DGEIS explored the impacts that may be associated with adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, which is the culmination of years of planning work that aims to support and encourage sustainable and sensitive redevelopment in the Village.
The Village adopted its Comprehensive Plan in 2012, which formed the basis for the proposed zoning. Among the goals established by the Comprehensive Plan included the following:
Maintain and Enhance Residential Neighborhoods Revitalize Commercial Areas and Waterfront Strengthen Industrial Areas Improve Transportation and Infrastructure Facilities and Opportunities for New Development The Plan established several Planning Intensity Areas, including: o Neighborhood Protection and Enhancement Zones o Limited Intensity Planning Zones, and o Higher Intensity Planning Zones
The proposed zoning combined with the earlier comprehensive plan effort, constitutes the comprehensive zoning plan for the Village. As indicated in the proposed zoning amendments, such comprehensive zoning plan represents the most beneficial and convenient relationship among the various public and private areas within the Village. The proposed zoning will guide future growth and development, create sustainable living conditions, protect the Village’s character and social and economic stability, protect and conserve the value of land, and protect and preserve the natural environment and its ecological systems, among other benefits.
As the amended Code and Zoning Map are the implementing documents to the Comprehensive Plan, substantial changes were necessary to the existing zoning code in order to achieve the citizens’ vision for the Village.
The proposed zoning consolidates development regulations into a simple, illustrative, and user-friendly document for buildings and districts, providing fair and transparent rules and procedures based on public input. Changes made to the proposed zoning as a result of public comment on the DGEIS are included in Appendix E.
March 2020 A Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This is the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) for the proposal by the Village of Port Chester Board of Trustees to adopt the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester Chapter 345, “Zoning,” and Official Zoning Map.
This FGEIS has been prepared in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law (State Environmental Quality Review Act or SEQRA) and its implementing regulations found in 6 NYCRR Part 617, including the specific provisions that relate to the content of final environmental impact statements contained in 6 NYCRR §617.9(b)(8).
A Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) dated November 4, 2019 was prepared for the Proposed Action. At its November 4, 2019 meeting, the Port Chester Board of Trustees accepted the DGEIS as complete with respect to its scope and content for the purpose of commencing public review, in accordance with 6 NYCRR §617.9(a)(2). The DGEIS was circulated for review and to solicit comments from involved and interested agencies and the public, pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617.12. The DGEIS was distributed to the Port Chester-Rye Brook Public Library and posted on the Plan the Port website (https://www.plantheport.com/), in conformance with SEQRA requirements.
A public hearing to accept comments on the DGEIS was held by the Board of Trustees on November 18, 2019 at the Village Courthouse, 350 N. Main Street, 2nd Floor, Port Chester, New York pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617.9(a)(4). The public comment period was held open until December 23, 2019.
Following its official acceptance by the Board of Trustees, this FGEIS will be circulated in accordance with the requirements of 6 NYCRR §617.12. It will also be posted on the Plan the Port website and distributed to the Port Chester-Rye Brook Public Library. Given the additional information included in the FGEIS, the Village is supportive of providing additional opportunity for public comment. Although a public hearing on a Final EIS is only optional in SEQRA, the Village will be holding a public hearing on the FGEIS. While SEQRA only requires a 10-day public comment period on a Final EIS, the Village will be mirroring the DGEIS timetables and thus have a 30-day public comment period. Finally, although there is no formal “comment and response” mechanism after a Final EIS is complete, depending on comments received on the FGEIS, the Village may choose to provide responses to such comments.
March 2020 1 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION (I.E., VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER FORM-BASED CODE)
In September 2019, a second draft of the proposed Form-Based Code was accepted by the Board of Trustees for public review and comment. This second draft was encapsulated as the Proposed Action in the DGEIS. In response to public and agency comments submitted to the Lead Agency during the public comment period, numerous revisions to the proposed Form-Based Code are provided. All changes to the proposed Form-Based Code since the issuance of the DGEIS are shown in redline so the reader can clearly identify all modifications (see Appendix F).
The general changes by chapter are:
Table of Contents Table of Contents revised to match individual Article table of contents’.
Table of Tables & Illustrations Table of Tables & Illustrations reviewed and revised to match titles throughout the document.
Preamble Note added to indicate that the Preamble is provided for information only and does not constitute part of the Port Chester Zoning Code.
Article 1: General Section 345.122 revised to clarify the validity of permits issued prior to the adoption of the proposed Form-Based Code.
Article 2: Zoning Map Section 345.201.F revised to reflect the ability of the Zoning Map to be amended by the Board of Trustees. Sections 345.202 and 345.204 revised to provide further clarity on the process by which special requirements or assignment of district for development parcels occurs. Table 345.204 revised to include the CD-3.R20, CD-3.R7, CD-3.R5 Districts and to remove the regulation for the CD-5W and CD-6 Districts.
Article 3: Zoning Districts and Civic Zones No substantial revisions outside of correct references and formatting.
Article 4: Building and Lot Plans & Standards Tables 345.405.A-1, A-5, A-6, and A-8 Number of Buildings, Accessory Buildings revised to permit only in the 3rd Lot Layer. Tables 345.405.A-5, A-6, A-7, and A-8 Drive-Through revised to include Drive Through standard. Tables 345.405.A-6, A-7, and A-8 Building Standards, Façade Openings revised to except Shopfront, Gallery, and Arcade frontages. Table 345.405.A-7, Number of Buildings, Accessory Buildings revised to permit only in 3rd Lot Layer and not permit on a Through Lot. Tables 345.405.A-5, A-6, A-7, and A-8 Ceiling Height revised to indicate a maximum range of nine (9) to eleven (11) feet for residential and a maximum of fourteen (14) feet for non-residential. Table 345.405.A-9 revised to be consistent with new code references. Table 345.405.A-10 revised to be consistent with new code references, including any potential bonuses. Table 345.405.B.4 revised to except areas adjacent to the waterfront. Section 345.405.D.1.b revised to clarify that it is the Planning & Economic Development Zoning Administrator that could grant such waiver. Section 345.405.H.1.c revised to clarify how building height is measured.
March 2020 2 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Tables 345.405.J-1 and J-2 Cottage and Estate House revised to be permitted in the CD-4 Districts. Table 345.405.K-1 revised to add, remove, and clarify certain uses and the districts that they are permitted, not permitted, or specially permitted in. Section 345.405.K.6.f.I.(a) revised to indicate that drive-throughs must be located in the 3rd Lot Layer. Section 345.405.K.7.a revised to indicate that an application for classification would be required. Table 345.405.N-1 revised to add, remove, and clarify certain parking requirements. Section 345.405.N.1.c.iii revised to indicate that the Planning & Economic Development Zoning Administrator shall establish a radius of impact to be the appropriate general standard for use of public parking to count towards the parking of a particular application or site. Section 345.405.N.1.h.ii revised to remove standard for providing indoor employee showers or dressing facilities. Section 345.405.N.1.h.vi revised to indicate that the Decision-Making Authority has the ability to entertain any other acceptable way to reduce the required number of spaces. Section 345.405.U revised to globally refer to “affordable AFFH”. Section 345.405.U revised to include a subsection that requires that all developments incorporate an Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan so the affordable units are marketed consistent with local, state and federal requirements. Section 345.405.U.16 revised to state that Westchester County could be the Administrative and Monitoring Agency. Section 345.405.V revised to include an extensive subsection on Green Building and Infrastructure. Section 345.405 revised to correctly refer to the Westchester County Planning Board referral process.
Article 5: Development Parcel Plans & Standards Tables 345.504.B-1 and B-2 – Plaza illustration revised; Sport Field or Court revised to be permitted in CD-5W.
Article 6: Supplemental Standards Section 345.609.B.1 revised to clarify that damage repair by the applicable lot owner.
Article 7: Sign Standards Section 345.701.H.12 revised to remove canister signs. Section 345.701.H.23 revised to clarify that design drawings be submitted to the Planning & Economic Development Zoning Administrator. Table 345.701B-15 revised to remove additional standard ‘c’.
Article 8: Administration, Procedure & Enforcement Section 345.805.C.2 has been revised to include a discussion of the required parking standards, as well as the operational aspects of any parking provided. Section 345.805.E.2 revised to include a Conditional and Final approval process. Sections 345.805.F, G, and H revised to indicate that the approval resolution is a non-binding document and that all conditions must appear on the approved plan. Section 345.805.G.3.b.i revised to require twenty (20) copies of the application. Section 345.805.G.5.d.i revised to require five (5) copies of the site plan. New Subsection 345.805.G.4.c added to include Reservation of Parkland on Site Plans Containing Residential Units. Section 345.805.H.4.c revised to indicate Development Parcel Plans. Section 345.809.F.2 revised to give the Planning Commission approval authority over the location of signs within a Site Plan or Development Parcel Plan. Section 345.813.C.2 revised to clarify content of notice. Table 345.814 revised to reflect types of development applications.
March 2020 3 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Article 9: Nonconformities Section 345.901.A.1 and 3 revised to include Sign and Security Grill. Section 345.901.D.3 revised to clarify that the request would come from the Planning & Economic Development Zoning Administrator. New Section 345.901.I (Alternate Method of Legal Nonconforming Use and/or Legal Nonconforming Building or Structure) added.
Article 10: Definitions Multiple definitions revised. Multiple definitions removed or consolidated into other definitions. A number of definitions added. Uses and terms from the Special Districts (SD-PRD and SD-PMU) added and/or appended to existing definitions.
Other Global Changes Cross references, including tables, illustrations, and sections, were reviewed and revised. Table and illustration references bolded throughout the document.
Zoning Map Legend revised to read “CD-5W”.
March 2020 4 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES TO THE DGEIS
Based on comments received on the DGEIS during the public comment review period (see Appendices A and B and Section 5.0 of this FGEIS), the DGEIS has been revised accordingly and is presented in “redline” format in Appendix E of this FGEIS. Key revisions to the DGEIS include the following:
Expanded discussion of build-out analysis (Section 2.4 of the DGEIS). A Build-out Analysis Report is included in Appendix C to the FGEIS Revised Transportation Resources section (Section 3.3 of the DGEIS) to include reference, summary, analyses and mitigation associated with the Traffic Study completed for the Proposed Action (Traffic Study is included in Appendix D to the FGEIS), expanded discussion of Commuter Rail and Bus Network, and new section that addresses Parking. Revised Community Services and Utilities section (Section 3.4 of the DGEIS) to include reference to and expanded discussion of the updated Port Chester Public Schools Overcrowding and Mitigation Analysis Report Updated January 2020 (included in Appendix G of this FGEIS), and an expanded discussion of Jobs and Employment section. Expanded discussion of Historic and Cultural Resources section (Section 3.6 of the DGEIS) to include State and National Register-Listed or Eligible Properties and Locally Significant Buildings and Structures Updated and expanded discussion of Growth-Inducing, Cumulative, and Secondary Impacts section (Section 4.3 of the DGEIS) Update of Further Alternatives section (Section 5.5 of the DGEIS) to include a discussion of one (1) new alternative: Modified CD-5 and CD-5W Districts Maximum Building Height Alternative Updated Future SEQRA Actions section (Section 6.0 of the DGEIS)
March 2020 5 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
4.0 THRESHOLDS FOR FURTHER EVALUATION
As stated in 6 NYCCR 617.10 (C) “Generic EIS’s and their findings should set forth specific conditions or criteria under which future actions will be undertaken or approved, including requirements for any subsequent SEQRA compliance. This may include thresholds and criteria for supplemental EISs to reflect specific impacts such as site specific impacts that were not adequately addressed or analyzed in the generic EIS.” Thresholds are used to ensure that projects which were not adequately analyzed by the GEIS will be adequately reviewed prior to approval.
The Village has previously indicated that an objective of developing a new Form-Based Code and preparing a GEIS is to assist in streamlining the development review and approval process. Beyond having a clear, community-driven vision for the community and regulations that can effectuate that vision, focusing the SEQRA review of individual projects to the resources that would be specifically impacted is an expected outcome of the effort. The GEIS evaluates, generically, impacts on all environmental resources and provides generic mitigation measures for those impacts. Section 6.0 of the DGEIS identifies the relationship between the GEIS and Future SEQRA Actions. In this case, where a GEIS has been prepared to consider proposed Village-wide Zoning Code, any future site-specific SEQRA action would remain subject to SEQRA for the required ‘hard look’ at potentially significant adverse impacts. To the extent the GEIS has identified and analyzed certain types of impacts, future SEQRA actions may require less analysis within some areas of potential impact.
It is expected the Findings Statement will reiterate that future SEQRA actions must identify and analyze where supplementary information, analysis, and/or mitigation is required. Future SEQRA actions are generally more likely to be focused on primary or direct impacts, whereas, secondary or indirect impacts may be sufficiently addressed in a GEIS. For future actions following the issuance of a Findings Statement, initial SEQRA procedures such as Lead Agency designation, classification of the Proposed Action, review of an EAF (with or without supplementary studies), as well as a Determination of Significance must be performed prior to determining which potential impacts may require supplementary SEQRA analysis or mitigation. Accordant with the SEQRA Regulations, supplementary SEQRA analysis for future actions may yield one (1) the following determinations:
(1) No further SEQRA compliance is required if a subsequent proposed action will be carried out in conformance with the conditions and thresholds established for such actions in the generic EIS or its findings statement; (2) An amended findings statement must be prepared if the subsequent proposed action was adequately addressed in the generic EIS but was not addressed or was not adequately addressed in the findings statement for the generic EIS; (3) A negative declaration must be prepared if a subsequent proposed action was not addressed or was not adequately addressed in the generic EIS and the subsequent action will not result in any significant environmental impacts; or (4) A supplement to the final generic EIS must be prepared if the subsequent proposed action was not addressed or was not adequately addressed in the generic EIS and the subsequent action may have one or more significant adverse environmental impacts.
It is likely that most future SEQRA actions would fit into the category described above in item (3). Section 6.0 of the DGEIS has been updated and details actions that may be required for future site-specific SEQRA review.
March 2020 6 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
5.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5.1 Introduction This section addresses the substantive comments on the DGEIS that were made at the public hearing held on November 18, 2019, or received in written form during the DGEIS review period, which closed at the close of business day on December 23, 2019. Table 1 below lists the sources of all of the written comments on the DGEIS received, the substantive comments of which are addressed in this FGEIS.
Table 1: Index of Comments and Responses Substantive Author Comment Source Date Comments Mr. Bryant Lewis Public Hearing Transcript November 18, 2019 P1 Mr. David Cooper Public Hearing Transcript November 18, 2019 P2, 28 Mr. Tom Kissner Public Hearing Transcript November 18, 2019 P3-5 Mr. Richard Hyman Public Hearing Transcript November 18, 2019 P6-14, 29-32 Mr. Tom Corbia Public Hearing Transcript November 18, 2019 P15 Mr. Sheldon Kahan Public Hearing Transcript November 18, 2019 P16-17 Mr. John Colangelo Public Hearing Transcript November 18, 2019 P18 Mr. Ronald Luiso Public Hearing Transcript November 18, 2019 P19 Mr. Keith Morlino Public Hearing Transcript November 18, 2019 P20-21 Mr. Richard Abel Public Hearing Transcript November 18, 2019 P22 Mr. Gregg Hamilton Public Hearing Transcript November 18, 2019 None Ms. Nadia Ali Public Hearing Transcript November 18, 2019 P23-24 Ms. Beeta Jahdi Public Hearing Transcript November 18, 2019 P25 Mr. Carlos Santos Public Hearing Transcript November 18, 2019 P26 Mr. Mark Blanchard Public Hearing Transcript November 18, 2019 P27 Mr. Tom Kissner Comment Letter November 18, 2019 TK1-2 Mr. Frank J. Schumaci, IE, Region Comment Letter November 22, 2019 DOT1-3 8 Permits Unit, New York State Department of Transportation, Region 8 Ms. Linda Turturino Comment Email December 1, 2019 LT1 Mr. Sheldon Kahan, President, CEO Comment Letter December 3, 2019 SK1 Interstate + Lakeland Lumber Mr. Howie Ravikoff, M. Ravikoff Comment Letter December 4, 2019 HR1-16 Associates, Inc. Mr. John B. Colangelo, John B. Comment Letter December 5, 2019 JC1-2 Colangelo Attorney at Law, On behalf of the Complex at Port Chester LLC Ms. Robyn M. Hollander, AICP, Comment Letter December 5, 2019 MNR1-6 Deputy Director, Station Area Planning and Transit Oriented Development, Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company
March 2020 7 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Substantive Author Comment Source Date Comments Mr. Anthony Baxter, Chairman, Comment Letter December 5, 2019 PC1-11 Village of Port Chester Planning Commission * Mr. David J Cooper/Kasey Brenner, Comment Letter December 6, 2019 ZS1-3 Zarin & Steinmetz, On behalf of Broad Street Owner, LLC Mr. Anthony B. Gioffre III, Cuddy Comment Letter December 9, 2019 CF-1 + Feder LLP, On behalf of Tarry Lighthouse, LLC Mr. Greg Usry, Interim City Comment Letter December 9, 2019 CR1-2 Manager, City of Rye Mr. Ronald Luiso, Byram Mason & Comment Letter December 9, 2019; RL1-2 Building Supply Corp revised December 11, 2019 Sustainable Port Chester Alliance Comment Letter December 11, 2019 SPCA1-4 Mr. Richard Hyman Comment Letter December 17, 2019 RH1-12 Dr. Hans-Jakob Wilhelm, Ph.D, Comment Letter December 20, 2019 HJW1 Board Chair, Ballet des Ameriques School & Company Mr. Gregg Hamilton Comment Letter December 22, 2019 GH1-11 Mr. Louie Sanchez, Business Comment Letter December 23, 2019 IBEW1-4 Representative, Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers of Greater New York and Vicinity Ms. Nadia Alia, Ms. Doris Bailey Comment Letter December 23, 2019 NAACP1-10 Reavis, Ms. Joan Grangenois- Thomas, Mr. Tom Kissner, Mr. Bryant Lewis, Port Chester/Rye NAACP Mr. Thomas A. Corbia, President, Comment Letter December 23, 2019 SB1-6 Port Chester-Rye Union Free School District School Board Mr. Frank Ferrara, Chairman, Port Comment Letter December 23, 2019 IDA1-3 Chester Industrial Development Agency Sustainable Port Chester Alliance Comment Letter December 23, 2019 SPCA5-11 Ms. Norma V. Drummond, Comment Letter December 23, 2019 WCPB1-13 Commissioner, Westchester County Planning Board * Resolution of the Village of Port Chester Planning Commission
March 2020 8 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
5.2 Comments on the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement The following subsections present each comment, after which the corresponding response is provided. In cases where the comment is identical to another comment, comments have been grouped together. The subsections follow the same titles and sequence as were presented in the DGEIS, for convenient reference back to that prior document. Any comment that falls outside of the sequence presented in the DGEIS is presented in a ‘Miscellaneous’ sub-heading.
5.2.1 Comments on Section “1.0 Executive Summary” of the DGEIS No comments.
5.2.2 Comments on Section “2.0 Description of the Proposed Action” of the DGEIS
5.2.2.1 Topic: Build-Out Analysis Comment P-3 According to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the rezoning will almost completely eliminate industrial space from Port Chester, decreasing our industrial area from 1.7 - 1.378 million square feet to 24,000 square feet, a decline of more than 98 percent. Yet the DGEIS has nothing to say about the huge problems this would cause, including the elimination of potential hundreds of jobs.
Response P-3 The Proposed Action evaluated in the DGEIS is the adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning,” and Official Zoning Map by the Board of Trustees –the rezoning of the entire Village. Zoning on its own has no direct impacts on the environment, as it is the legal framework governing future development. However, its implementation, meaning the likely future development that would occur under the zoning (new, amended, etc.) after its adoption, does have the potential for environmental impacts. The practice in New York State has been to evaluate the implementation of zoning in a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) because it is a broad-based action having wide application with no specific development projects proposed. The challenge then becomes how impacts are assessed, even generically, in the absence of a specific development project. The common practice employed in New York State and other states having similar environmental review regulations, is to develop a “build-out analysis” which can estimate potential development based on parameters such as current zoning regulations, proposed zoning regulations, trends in development applications, and market conditions. For the Village of Port Chester, two build-out scenarios were considered – 1) a 20-year build-out scenario based on market potential, acknowledging development projects already being considered and 2) a maximum build-out scenario, which considered both existing and proposed zoning codes. For the purposes of the DGEIS, the 20-year build-out scenario represented the Proposed Action, which provided a more realistic estimation of potential development over the next 20 years. While the results of the build-out analysis were completed and included in the DGEIS for impact purposes, a memorandum detailing and describing the full methodology and the detailed information was not. The complete build-out memorandum has been included in this FGEIS as Appendix C. The Proposed Action and the Build-Out Analysis Report do not propose or otherwise recommend demolition of existing development including any existing industrial uses. See Response HR-13 on page 13 regarding nonconforming structures and uses. The build-out analysis methodology describes the assumptions and methodology used to estimate potential impacts. This methodology included an estimate of existing development within the study area, including an estimate of 1.378 million square feet of industrial uses. The methodology also included assumptions regarding the likely future land use split for new development projects (i.e. the amount of new development anticipated to be used for residential, commercial, etc.) which was based on a market analysis completed in 2018, trends in development applications seen over recent years, national industrial trends, as well as the sentiment of the community over the course of the 45-plus community meetings held on the project. Based on these assumptions and market pressure, industrial land uses would likely be replaced over time with other land uses (primarily office, retail, and residential land uses). The 24,000 square feet noted by the commenter is “flex space” identified in the market analysis and utilized in the build-out analysis. This use is considered a subset of light industrial uses that would likely be included in future development applications. As noted previously, existing industrial land uses are not being recommended for elimination/removal.
March 2020 9 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Comment P-6 First of all, on page 9 and 10 is the build-out analysis and the market study. But it does not explain what the methodology is. It talks about some software program called Zonar. I don’t [know] that anyone here probably knows what that is, but there is no methodology at all explained about how they came up with the numbers. In the build-out analysis and the market studies are crucial for determining what the impact will be of all the new buildings, various parts of the infrastructure socioeconomic.
Response P-6 See Response P-3 on page 9 regarding the full methodology of the build-out analysis (and market analysis) being provided as Appendix C in this FGEIS. Part of that methodology was the utilization of a software program called Zonar , which is described in Appendix C.
Comment TK-1 [U]nder both the "full build-out" and the "20-year build-out" scenario, the DGEIS projects that industrial space will decrease by 98.3%, from 1.378 million square feet to just 24,000 square feet, which would entail significant job loss (Section 3.1.3.2, page 22). Oddly, however, the DGEIS states-without any explanation-that even without the rezoning, under the "Current Zoning" scenario, industrial space would decrease by the exact same amount, to 24,000 square feet. In other words, the DGEIS argues that industrial space and industrial jobs will entirely disappear from Port Chester, to exactly the same degree, whether the proposed rezoning is undertaken or not. No explanation of any kind is given for this coincidence, and the methodology is not available for public examination…[I]t is implausible that a massive rezoning of the study area like the one contemplated would have no effect on industrial space; it is far more likely that the industrial uses which are currently thriving in the village under existing zoning would continue to do so if current zoning were maintained, but that industrial uses would be negatively impacted by the proposed rezoning which would allow significantly larger residential development throughout the study area. The existing estimates call into serious question the methodology used to do the build-out analysis, and the village should revise its methodology… [T]he DGEIS makes no mention of the potentially massive economic dislocation that would be involved if industrial uses decreased to the extent suggested in the DGEIS, but these impacts need to be studied and the action should be revised to mitigate these effects and protect manufacturing jobs.
Response TK-1 See Response P-3 on page 9 with regards to the build-out methodology.
Comment HR-2 We suggest the Planning Office put out a series of projections of what the Village might look like in certain points in the future; 1, 5, 10, 20 and perhaps even 50 years out and solicit written responses to a series of fixed question from the heads of each department, office, and key personnel such as the Village Engineer, Manager, Clerk, Code Enforcement, Police Department, Ambulance Core, Treasurer, Tax Assessor, and especially the IDA. We suggest you ask; what is your overall opinion; is your office currently equipped to handle its current responsibilities at each future point in time based on the provided projections; what will your office require and what will that cost in the future to maintain or achieve its stated goals. These reports should be made public. Each decision making body should be provided these reports.
Response HR-2 The build-out analysis presented fully in Appendix C of this FGEIS provides reasonable projections of the amount of development that could potentially occur in the Village over the next 20 years (the “20-year build-out scenario”). The build-out analysis also considers the maximum development potential of both the current zoning code and the proposed Form-Based Code (the “maximum build-out scenario”). In the beginning of the Form-Based Code project, the Village’s consultant team met with Village department heads to understand their experience with the existing zoning code, any concerns they had about an amended or new zoning code, and potential impacts that could arise via a rezoning. These meetings combined with the significant community engagement that occurred early on the in the project via Planapalooza and the Plan the Port activities resulted in a Vision Book that was presented by the Village’s consultant and released to the public on May 21, 2018. As part of the preparation of the DGEIS and FGEIS, Village staff coordinated with the heads of each department through the Village Manager’s Office to understand the potential
March 2020 10 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
impacts that new development could have on each of those departments. This coordination has informed the discussion of “fair share” contributions to mitigation as it relates to Village services. This is further presented in Section 6.0 of the FGEIS and in Reponses P-9 (page 30), PC-8 (page 31), GH-3 (page 31), SB-3 (page 31), and WCPB-10 (page 31).
Comment IBEW-2 The DGEIS estimates that industrial space in Port Chester will be almost totally eliminated (a decline of 98%, from 1.378 million square feet to 24,000 square feet, according to Table 2 in Section 3.1.3.2) -- yet we know from US Census data that this space provides over 500 jobs in Port Chester, and these jobs are disproportionately held by low- income people of color. A loss of potentially thousands of existing jobs, particularly blue-collar jobs, could be devastating to Port Chester's working-class community and particularly to people of color. But the DGEIS makes no detailed effort to estimate how many jobs might be lost, the types of jobs at risk or who will suffer the consequences. Nor does the plan offer any way to mitigate this likely outcome.
Response IBEW-2 See Response P-3 on page 9 with regards to the build-out methodology. Current industrial land uses may remain as nonconforming uses per the regulations included in the Proposed Code in Article 9. In addition, see Response HR-13 on page 13 regarding nonconforming structures and uses.
Comment GH-5 The DGEIS does not explain its methodology for estimating future population growth and so it is impossible to evaluate and comment upon the validity of the population estimates which result.
Response GH-5 See Response P-3 on page 9 with regards to the build-out methodology and Appendix C for a description of the methodology used to estimate. population growth.
Comment SPCA-5 First, the DGEIS offers no methodology for its estimate of population increases under the 20‐year‐buildout scenario, so village residents have no way of evaluating whether the village will experience the (already large) increase of nearly 10,000 people contemplated in one scenario or the (enormous and unmanageable) increase contemplated in the Maximum Buildout. Furthermore, the Maximum Build‐Out Scenario, Proposed Zoning Condition assumes (page 10) that "all new buildings in the study area included first floor retail, one floor of office above, and the remaining floors... for residential dwelling units" (page 10). Yet few or no developments with one floor of office space have been built in Port Chester in the past few years, so the assumptions on which this scenario is based appear faulty; the maximum build‐out scenario may actually underestimate the full population increase potentially resulting from the new code. It is impossible to say whether the 20‐year‐buildout analysis falls victim to the same error since no methodology is provided for it.
Response SPCA-5 See Response P-3 on page 9 with regards to the build-out methodology and Appendix C for a description of the methodology used to estimate population growth. An assumption of the build-out methodology is that all new buildings will contain at least a first floor that is retail, office space (if any) limited to upper floors, and residential above. This assumption is based on development trends in urban areas and development applications received by the Village. In addition, this assumption is an important component of transit-oriented development (TOD), which is the foundation of the proposed new Form-Based Code. The Code mandates the activation of lower floors through retail, office, and other similar uses. The Village is currently seeing this type of mixed-use development in a number of applications that are currently before the Planning Commission. For these reasons, the Village is comfortable and confident in the assumptions made in the build-out analysis as a sound basis to reasonably guide the evaluation of impacts in the GEIS. See Appendix C.
March 2020 11 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Comment WCPB-9 The DGEIS does not contain adequate information to evaluate the impacts of the proposed zoning changes. While Table 4 of the DGEIS describes the potential build-out of the new zoning at both the 20-year time horizon and at full/maximum buildout, the methodology of this analysis is not discussed. Additionally, there are no assessments of visual impacts or traffic impacts. The document instead states that this information would be provided in the final GEIS. It is also noted that there would likely be another opportunity for public comment after the final GEIS is completed.
Response WCPB-9 See Response P-3 on page 9 with regards to the build-out methodology and the full build-out analysis report included as Appendix C of this FGEIS. See Response DOT-1 on page 23 with regards to the traffic assessment being included in Section 3.3 of the revised DGEIS and the traffic impact assessment itself included as Appendix D. Community character and visual resources, including visual impacts, were presented in Section 3.2 of the DGEIS per the adopted DGEIS Final Scoping Document. SEQRA permits additional information not provided in a DEIS to be provided in the FEIS, particularly when amplification of information provided in the DEIS is deemed necessary and appropriate. Moreover, this approach is appropriate given that no new substantive information has become known regarding a potential environmental impact and no significant project change is proposed. See SEQRA’s implementing regulations (6 NYCRR Part 617.9(b)(8)) which state (emphasis added): “A final EIS must consist of the following: the draft EIS, including any revisions or supplements to it; copies or a summary of the substantive comments received and their source (whether or not the comments were received in the context of a hearing); and the lead agency's responses to all substantive comments. The draft EIS may be directly incorporated into the final EIS or may be incorporated by reference…” Given the additional information included in the FGEIS, the Village is supportive of providing additional opportunity for public comment. Although a public hearing on a FEIS is only optional in SEQRA, the Village will be holding a public hearing on the FGEIS. While SEQRA only requires a 10-day public comment period on a FEIS, the Village will be mirroring the DGEIS timetables and have a 30-day public comment period. Finally, although there is no formal “comment and response” mechanism after a FEIS is complete, depending on comments received on the FGEIS, the Village may choose to provide responses to such comments.
5.2.2.2 Topic: Community Outreach Comment HR-1 This community still needs to be educated. Whatever you think you may have done, its not enough. A huge number of long term Village residents, property owners and established businesses do not understand what is going on. The process is unclear, the proposal and its repercussions are unclear. The Planning Commission/Planning Office needs to reach out to these two groups specifically and engage them in meaningful conversation.
Response HR-1 Community and stakeholder engagement is a critically important component of the entire Plan the Port effort. At the beginning of the Plan the Port process the Village was clear that a community-driven approach, whereby the community is involved and assumes ownership of the vision and ultimately the zoning, was the only approach that it was interested in pursuing. Section 2.6 and Appendix E of the DGEIS details this extensive public outreach and community engagement effort. As of the date of this FGEIS more than 45 separate meetings were held with and in the community. These meetings included, among others, a Business/Property Owners Workshop on March 23, 2018, a presentation to downtown businesses on July 22, 2019, and more recently, efforts to engage directly with property owners and small businesses out of the concern of commercial and small business displacement. A separate and dedicated project website – www.plantheport.com – has been available since the beginning of the project. In addition, the project has a dedicated page on the Village’s website entitled ‘Form-Based Code/DGEIS’ which contains all project documents and meeting information. The Village has also posted news items related to the project on the front/home page of its website, as well as on the local cable channel. Section 2.6 of the DGEIS has been revised to update this robust community engagement effort. See Appendix E.
March 2020 12 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Comment HR-13 We believe there should be workshops for existing commercial property owners. What is going to happen with existing buildings? We believe the vast majority of current property owners do not know what will happen with their commercial property when / if the zoning changes. There has been no publication geared to this population, no bullet points of information like the example above…
Response HR-13 See Response HR-1 on page 12 regarding community engagement. Per Section 345.901.A.1. of the proposed Form- Based Code (Appendix F), “If any Nonconforming Use of a Structure ceases for any reason for a continuous period of one (1) year or more or is changed to a conforming Use, or if the Structure in or on which such Use is conducted or maintained is moved for any distance whatever, for any reason, then any future Use of such Structure must conform to this Chapter. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, a Use, Structure, Lot, or Sign of any of the following types that legally existed as of the Effective Date of this Chapter, any amendment of this Chapter or any amendment to the Zoning Map, may be continued as a legal nonconformity in accordance with the provisions of this Section 345.901 and certification by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to 345.805.D.: 1. A lawfully permitted Use of Structure, 2. A lawfully permitted Structure, 3. A lawfully permitted Lot, 4. A lawfully permitted Sign, and 5. A lawfully permitted Security Grill.” Additional detail regarding nonconformities is provided in Article 9 of the proposed Form- Based Code. See Appendix F.
5.2.2.3 Topic: The Proposed Action (Comments on the proposed Form-Based Code) Comment P-16 [W]e run an interstate lumber, that's who we are, and I just want to be able to continue to do that. And within reason, you know, if I need to just expand a little bit, whether is put a little office space above the building that exists there now, it used to be Dave's Trucking, it is a good building, steel, concrete, well, steel and block, but it is in good shape. And I may want to increase that a little bit or my outdoor storage, and that's something that I have to come before the Board and you know, do what is required.
Response P-16 Comment noted. Industrial uses were discussed at the Board of Trustees DGEIS Comments Workshop on December 16, 2019. As a result of the discussion and direction provided at that workshop, the Proposed Action (the Form-Based Code presented in this FGEIS in Appendix F) has been revised to include Light Manufacturing Plant (the equivalent of “light industrial”) as a Special Exception Use in the CD-5 District only along: Townsend Street, Purdy Avenue, Dock Street, and Martin Place. See revised Table 345.405.K-1 (Building and Lot Principal Uses) in Appendix F. The Proposed Action has been further revised to include Outdoor Storage as an Accessory Special Exception Use in the CD-5 District only along: Townsend Street, Purdy Avenue, Dock Street, and Martin Place. See revised Table 345.405.K-2 (Building and Lot Accessory Uses) in Appendix F.
Comment P-19 I just don't like the situation where it says its zone is not permitted. It shouldn't be not permitted, it should at least be a special exception, you know. Nobody knows what tomorrow is gonna be and when an opportunity might come up. But you have to have the ability to have industrial space in our communities and to be able to make it easier to develop that space in an industrial use.
Response P-19 See Response P-16 on page 13 regarding industrial uses, Response HR-13 on page 13 regarding existing nonconformities, and Response HR-1 on page 12 regarding community engagement utilized throughout the project. In addition, see Section 345.806 of the proposed Form-Based Code (Appendix F) regarding Zoning Variances including Area Variances and Use Variances.
Comment SK-1 The property at 31 Purdy Avenue, Port Chester, N.Y. has been and is presently being used for outdoor and indoor storage of building materials, receiving and distribution of building materials, and includes the indoor office space
March 2020 13 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
required to manage this facility. As the property owner of this property, it is extremely important to me that I am able to maintain the existing use and improve, modify, and expand the facility in the future, if needed.
Response SK-1 See Response P-16 on page 13 regarding industrial uses and Response HR-13 on page 13 regarding existing nonconformities. In addition, see Table 345.405.K-1 “Building and Lot Principal Uses” within the proposed Form- Based Code (Appendix F) regarding uses permitted, not permitted, and uses allowed with a special exception for the CD-5W district.
Comment HR-3 Table 345.405.K-1, Building and Lot Principal Use, Retail Use / Personal Service Use / Artisan Use Categories, Motor Vehicle Goods Maintenance / Cleaning / Repair / Service, other than Motor Vehicle Body Shop. This description is also listed under Motor Vehicle-Related / Boat-Related Uses Categories. This needs further clarification. Both are Principle uses. One is retail, one is not? How could the other not also be retail? Is wholesale a permitted use? Re-write the definition of each. Or consolidate the two into one and clarify if retail, wholesale, or open to the public is permitted or not.
Response P-19 Table 345.405.K-1 (Building and Lot Principal Uses) has been revised to list “Motor Vehicle Goods Maintenance / Cleaning / Repair / Service, other than Motor Vehicle Body Shop” under the “Motor Vehicle-Related / Boat-Related Uses Categories” only.
Comment HR-4 CD-4 district has several footnoted restrictions on Uses. It is the only district with any footnotes. It is our understanding that the Village grouped certain areas together intentionally. Separate the areas in to two districts or remove the footnoted restrictions.
Response HR-4 The commentator is correct that the rezoning effort consolidated/reduced the number of zoning districts within the Village. The transition to character districts (“CD”) provided direction of how that could occur – basing the zoning on the character of the district. Early on there was significant concern that the CD-4 District had consolidated too many dissimilar character areas into one large district. Rather than creating a number of new districts, which could result in the “jig-saw puzzle” of zoning districts the Village currently has, an alternative approach of differentiating between the residential portions of the CD-4 District, and the commercial corridors was pursued. After much discussion with the Board of Trustees (including specifically the January 8, 2019 workshop), the following commercial corridors were identified: Willett Avenue, South Regent Street, William Street (between Washington Street & Pearl Street), Westchester Avenue, Midland Avenue, Boston Post Road, North Main Street, Bowman Avenue, and Putnam Avenue (between North Main Street & Willett Avenue). These corridors were identified by footnotes within a number of tables in the proposed Form-Based Code. The utilization of footnotes is a common practice within zoning, especially within tables, to further define or clarify uses, requirements, regulations, etc.
Comment HR-5 CD-5 should include USES Retail motor vehicle goods and etc. and Motor Vehicle etc. and should be a Permitted Use or at least Special Exemption Use. Should the Commission not find that a suitable solution, a carve out for the boundaries of New Broad and Pearl Street would suffice.
Response HR-5 Based upon the neighborhood character analysis provided early on in the Plan the Port project and the engagement with the community, there was a desire to limit motor vehicle-related uses, especially within the downtown. As a result, the proposed Form-Based Code in Table 345.405.K-1 (Building and Lot Principal Uses) limits “Motor Vehicle Goods Maintenance / Cleaning / Repair / Service, other than Motor Vehicle Body Shop” as a Special Exception Use along the commercial corridors within the CD-4 District only and not within the CD-5 District. As noted in
March 2020 14 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Response HR-4 on page 14, an objective of the zoning effort was to define character districts, consolidate zoning districts, and avoid a jigsaw puzzle of zoning districts.
Comment HR-6 CD-6 district Industrial Uses should include Brewery / Distillery/ Winery as a Permitted Use.
Response HR-6 In the Village’s existing zoning code there is a distinction between “Breweries / Distilleries / Wineries” and “Microbreweries / Microdistilleries / Microwineries / Nanobreweries”. “Breweries / Distilleries / Wineries” are larger-scale, production facilities that have been historically industrial in nature; “Microbreweries / Microdistilleries / Microwineries / Nanobreweries”, while involving some production are small-scale and primarily targeted to patron interaction, including drinking on-site the produced alcohol, along with food consumption. The proposed Form-Based Code continues this distinction, see differences in the definitions of each in Article 10 (Definitions). The proposed Form-Based Code furthers this distinction by permitting them in different districts within the Village; with Breweries / Distilleries / Wineries being limited to the CD-4 (along the commercial corridors) and CD-5W Districts as Special Exception Uses (see Table 345.405.K-1 (Building and Lot Principal Uses)) and Microbreweries / Microdistilleries / Microwineries / Nanobreweries being permitted in the CD-4, CD-5, CD-5W, and CD-6 Districts (see Table 345.405.K-1 (Building and Lot Principal Uses) in Appendix F), but with special standards (see Section 345.405.K.8.b.iv. in Appendix F).
Comment HR-7 CD-6 should include USES Retail motor vehicle goods and etc. and Motor Vehicle etc. and should be a Permitted Use or at least Special Exemption Use because these uses exist in the C-4 zone today. Should the Commission not find that a suitable solution, a carve out for the boundaries of the C-4 zone would suffice.
Response HR-7 See Response HR-4 and Response HR-5 on page 14.
Comment HR-8 CD-6 USES should include all the uses currently available and or exist in the M-1 zone such as Light Manufacturing; Brewery / Distillery / Winery, Machine Shop, Warehousing or Distribution Facility and Wholesaling as a Permitted use under the same clear boundaries as are provided today in the M-1 Zone. Should the Commission not find that a suitable solution, a carve out for New Broad Street would suffice.
Response HR-8 In the proposed form-based, character district zoning, the higher the district number the more “urban” the character. Based upon the neighborhood character analysis provided early on in the project and the engagement with the community, there was a desire to limit industrial, especially within the downtown. As a result, the proposed Form- Based Code in Table 345.405.K-1 (Building and Lot Principal Uses) (see Appendix F) limits: . Light Manufacturing Plant as a Special Exception Use to CD-4 (along the commercial corridors), C-5 (along certain corridors), and CD-5W Districts; . Brewery / Distillery / Winery as a Special Exception Use to CD-4 (along the commercial corridors) and CD- 5W Districts, Machine Shop / Woodworking Shop, other than Artisan Establishment as Special Exception Uses within the CD-4 (along the commercial corridors), C-5, and CD-5W Districts; . Warehousing or Distribution Facility as Special Exception Uses within the CD-4 (along the commercial corridors), C-5, and CD-5W Districts; and, . All industrial uses not within the CD-6 District.
Wholesale Sales is provided as a Special Exception Use within the CD-6 District. As noted in Response HR-4 on page 14, an objective of the Village was to consolidate districts, not proliferate, as a “carve out” of New Broad Street and Pearl Street would require.
March 2020 15 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Comment HR-11 Keep Industrial and Light industrial uses included in every new district where they are currently permitted in existing zones.
Response HR-11 See Response HR-8 on page 15.
Comment PC-1 The Planning Commission recommends that the Ceiling Height standards in each of the Character Districts be revised to differentiate the maximum heights of stories above the first floor based upon the use of each story - with a different standard being applied to residential as opposed to non-residential uses such as Business/Commercial, Office, Retail/Personal Service, or Lodging Use. The Planning Commission suggests a maximum range of nine (9) to eleven (11) feet for residential and a maximum of fourteen (14) feet for non-residential.
Response PC-1 Comment noted. The Proposed Action (the Form-Based Code presented in this FGEIS in Appendix F) has been revised to amend the “Ceiling Height” standard in the mixed-use character districts as follows: . Table 345.405.A-5 (District Standards: CD-4 General Urban Character District); . Table 345.405.A-6 (District Standards: CD-5 Urban Center Character District); . Table 345.405.A-7 (District Standards: CD-5W Urban Center – Waterfront Character District); and, . Table 345.405.A-8 (District Standards: CD-6 Urban Core Character District).
Comment PC-2 The Planning Commission recommends that as part of the checklists established by the Department of Planning & Economic Development for Building & Lot Plans (referenced in Article 8, Section 345.805.F.1.e.ii), Site Plans (referenced in Article 8, Section 345.805.G.2.b), and Development Parcel Plans (referenced in Article 8, Section 345.805.H.1.b.i), illustrations/imaging, as well as traditional photometric plans, be required to be provided for applications in the CD-6, CD-5, and CD-5W Districts, depicting site/building lighting after dark in order to foresee the resulting downtown and waterfront area skyline.
Response PC-2 Comment noted. Each of the checklists to be established will include a requirement that illustrations/imaging and photometric plans be provided for applications in the CD-6, CD-5, and CD-5W Districts, depicting site/building lighting after dark in order to foresee the resulting downtown and waterfront area skyline. No changes to the Proposed Action are required.
Comment PC-3 The Planning Commission recommends that the Second Public Draft Article 8, Section 345.805.C.2 be revised to state that as part of the Pre-Categorization and/or Pre•Submission Conference between Village Staff and an applicant that the required parking standards for an overall application/site be clearly discussed, as well as the operational aspects of any parking provided.
Response PC-3 Comment noted. The Proposed Action (the Form-Based Code presented in this FGEIS in Appendix F) Article 8, Section 345.805.C.2 has been revised to read: “Upon receipt of a PPF, the Department of Planning & Economic Development Zoning Administrator shall schedule a Pre-Categorization Conference with the prospective applicant. The Pre-Categorization Conference may include the Building Inspector, Village Engineer, Village Attorney, or other staff, at the discretion of the Department of Planning & Economic Development Zoning Administrator. At the Pre- Categorization Conference the proposal shall be discussed and indication of the category shall be provided by the Village to the prospective applicant. Application requirements and the development review procedures and process shall be discussed as well. In addition, the required parking standards for an overall application/site shall be clearly discussed, as well as the operational aspects of any parking provided. In preparation of the Pre-Categorization Conference, the Department of Planning & Economic Development Zoning Administrator may request from the
March 2020 16 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Building Department an internal search report. At the discretion of the Department of Planning & Economic Development Zoning Administrator, the Pre-Categorization and Pre-Submission Conference, described later in this Article, may be combined.”
Comment PC-4 The Planning Commission recommends that Article 4, Section 345.405.N.1.c.iii of the Second Public Draft be revised to include a "radius of impact" that establishes an appropriate general standard for use of public parking to count towards the parking of a particular application or site.
Response PC-4 Comment noted. The Proposed Action (the Form-Based Code presented in this FGEIS in Appendix F) Article 4, Section 345.405.N.1.c.iii has been revised to read: “If elected by the Applicant, all spaces within the same Block or an Adjacent Block in a public Parking Lot or Parking Structure or by parking agreement or Easement. The Department of Planning & Economic Development Zoning Administrator shall establish a radius of impact to be the appropriate general standard for use of public parking to count towards the parking of a particular application or site.” See Appendix F.
Comment RL-1 Byram has invested millions of dollars in the development of it’s business on Townsend Street. The value we have fought so hard for would be greatly reduced if we cannot provide hope of reasonable and controlled expansion by Special Exception Permit of our business. By taking the Special Exception Use away would break a long outstanding positive relationship with the Village/which has existed for 40 years.
Response RL-1 See Response P-16 on page 13 regarding industrial uses and Response HR-13 on page 13 regarding existing nonconformities. In addition, see Section 345.806 of the proposed Form-Based Code (Appendix F) regarding Zoning Variances including Area Variances and Use Variances.
Comment RL-2 Form Based Zoning as proposed, would make outdoor storage “not permitted” except as an accessory use. This is not in the spirit of Local Law #1 and #2 of 2004. We do not agree with this and believe it will greatly devalue the value of our business… I am therefore requesting that Townsend Street be allowed to have a special exception permit for outdoor storage in the CD-5 Zone. This is appropriate since it is currently 82.9 % industrial.
Response RL-2 See Response P-16 on page 13.
Comment CF-1 It is respectfully submitted that the Draft Code be revised to permit one extra story where a property is classified within a FEMA AE Flood Zone and more than 75% of any above grade story is devoted to parking.
Response CF-1 Comment noted. The community engagement process indicated six (6) stories along Main Street and four (4) along with waterfront were the desired maximum heights for the community. However, there is a rationale to provide height relief within the FEMA AE Flood Zone (the “100-year floodplain”) since within the AE Flood Zone, constructing underground, even non-habitable space, is challenging and could impact flood insurance rates. Therefore, and being consistent with Village staff’s policy of not making code revisions regarding height without Board of Trustees input, the DGEIS has been revised (in Section 5.0) to include a sixth alternative “FEMA AE Flood Zone Additional Story Alternative”, which would permit an additional above-ground story in the CD-5 and CD-5W Districts for those properties within the FEMA AE Flood Zone”. See Appendix E. The technical information in this FGEIS, including the alternatives analysis, serves “as an aid in an agency’s evaluation and balancing of the competing factors and in choosing those alternatives, consistent with the goals of the project, which minimize environmental effects to the
March 2020 17 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
maximum extent practicable.1” With respect to a GEIS, the Findings should identify the “conditions and thresholds” deemed acceptable to minimize the environmental effects of subsequent future actions in the Village2. Therefore, as with any other alternative, the Lead Agency (the Board of Trustees) would be able to determine in its Findings that, based upon the analyses in the DGEIS and FGEIS, this alternative or any other would be an acceptable future condition. To that end, Village staff will be requesting a workshop with the Board of Trustees after the FGEIS public hearing and comment period to help inform the preparation of the Findings Statement, especially with regards to alternatives.
Comment WCPB-1 [W]e recommend the Village revise the new zoning to ensure a consistent reference to affordable AFFH which should always be referred to as “affordable affirmatively furthering fair housing” or “affordable AFFH”.
Response WCPB-1 Comment noted. The Proposed Action (the Form-Based Code presented in this FGEIS in Appendix F) throughout Article 4, Section 345.405.U has been revised to consistently refer to “affordable AFFH.” See Appendix F.
Comment WCPB-5 However, with respect to this last requirement, we recommend that the language be changed from “Bee-Line Bus Station” to “any BeeLine bus stop” since there is no centralized Bee-Line Bus station in Port Chester.
Response WCPB-5 Comment noted. The Proposed Action (the Form-Based Code presented in this FGEIS in Appendix F) Article 4, Section 345.405.N.1.h.i.III has been revised to read: “By 20% if any portion of the Lot is within 500 feet of any Bee- Line bus stop”. See Appendix F.
Comment WCPB-6 While we are also supportive of the proposed vehicular parking reductions in exchange for providing bicycle parking and/or bicycle facilities, we recommend the language be strengthened for some provisions. For example, the proposed ordinance would allow a parking reduction of 10 spaces for “each indoor employee shower and dressing facility”. We recommend this be further clarified to avoid situations where this standard could be interpreted to provide an overly generous parking credit. For example, would an applicant receive a 20 space credit for constructing a separate male and female shower and dressing facility? Would five separate unisex single-person changing room/shower facilities result in a 50 space parking reduction? We point out that it may be more cost-effective for an applicant to simply construct showers than provide expensive indoor or below-ground parking, leading to the potential abuse of this provision. We also caution the Village about requests likely to be received after a year or two of operation of a new building, where the developer later proposes to eliminate the shower(s) because “no one uses them” when by their own actions (e.g. not keeping them tidy or in working order, etc.) they may discourage such use. What will the Village's options be at that point since the developer will no longer have the option to construct parking?
Response WCPB-6 Comment noted. The Village agrees, at this time, that such a standard may be difficult to enforce and could result in some applicants taking advantage of the provision. As a result, the standard has been removed from the proposed Form-Based Code, specifically, Article 4, Section 345.405.N.1.h.ii.III has been removed (see Appendix F). Article 4, Section 345.405.N.1.h.vi. has been revised to read: “By up to 10% of the required number of spaces and/or any other alternative acceptable way to reduce upon written request to the Planning & Economic Development Zoning Administrator. In such instance, the Planning & Economic Development Zoning Administrator shall provide a written determination, which shall be included as part of the development review record for consideration by the Decision- Making Authority.” See Appendix F.
1 Coalition for Responsible Planning, Inc. v. Koch, 148 A.D.2d 230, 235 (1989). 2 See NYSDEC: The SEQR Handbook (3rd Ed. 2010), at 146.
March 2020 18 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Comment WCPB-7 In reviewing the new Zoning Ordinance, our staff encountered some difficulty in obtaining a full understanding of the regulations. While staff obtained a greater proficiency with the ordinance after a discussion with Village staff, we encourage the Village to present information in the proposed ordinance as clearly and concisely as possible so that residents and property-owners in the Village can best understand how the zoning applies to them. Staff has identified the following for the Village to consider as a way to improve the overall readability and understanding of the new Zoning Ordinance…ORGANIZATION OF CODE…DEVELOPMENT PARCELS…JARGON TERMS AND UNCLEAR DEFINITIONS.
Response WCPB-8 Comment noted. It is understood there might be some difficulty in adjusting to reading and understanding the proposed Form-Based Code. As the commentator mentions, this is the first municipality-wide form-based code in Westchester County and substantively different to other zoning codes in the County. The Village appreciates the suggestions to improve overall readability and understanding. At this point in time, rather than revising the structure of the proposed Form-Based Code, the Village offers two approaches to assist the public in better reading and understanding the code: 1) Post-Adoption workshops – whereby Village staff will offer training to the public, property owners, design professionals, and others on how to utilize the code; and 2) a revised “Executive Summary” that can be distributed as a “How to Use” guide.
Comment WCPB-8 The proposed zoning ordinance contains several references to County Planning Board referral jurisdiction requirements that were not consistent or correct. We urge the Village to work with County Planning Department staff to determine the appropriate language for the ordinance.
Response WCPB-8 Comment noted. After receipt of the comment letter, Village staff coordinated with County Planning staff to identify the incorrect referral language. The Proposed Action (the Form-Based Code presented in this FGEIS in Appendix F) throughout Article 4, Section 345.405 has been revised to correctly refer to that referral process. See Appendix F.
5.2.2.4 Topic: The SEQRA Process Comment CR-1 [The City of Rye requests that] the Lead Agency provided at least thirty (30) days to review and provide comments on the FGEIS build-out and traffic analysis and proposed mitigation measures.
Response CR-1 See Response WCPB-9 on page 12. The Village is open and responsive to this request.
Comment CR-2 [The City of Rye requests that] the Lead Agency accept comments from interested and involved agencies after the completion of the FGEIS and that it provide responses to substantive comments on analysis not included in the DGEIS.
Response CR-2 See Response WCPB-9 on page 12. The Village is open and responsive to this request.
Comment SPCA-7 [T]he SEQRA process should not move forward to an FEIS until the public has seen a complete study of population increase and a complete traffic analysis.
Response SPCA-7 See Response WCPB-9 on page 12.
March 2020 19 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
5.2.2.5 Topic: Miscellaneous Comments Comment P-22 And one of the reasons we're at this point now is because of spot zoning and any board or future boards can change this plan at the whim of four members, and I would like to see some research done, whether the law can be changed to make it that you need a super majority in order to spot zone so it is not as easy, it still can be done, but it has — and that will preserve the zoning code that we are all trying to have happen, because it is just too easy to change it right now.
Response P-22 According to the Village Attorney, there is no authority under New York State law for a village to impose a supermajority voting requirement for all proposed zoning amendments.
Comment PC-7 The Planning Commission recommends that the Village's Subdivision Regulations, currently located within Chapters 90 and A402 of the Village Code, be revised and that approval authority lie completely with the Planning Commission.
Response PC-7 Comment noted. The Village anticipates revising the Village's Subdivision Regulations, currently located within Chapters 90 and A402 of the Village Code at a future date after the adoption of the proposed Form-Based Code.
Comment HR-12 What happens if today I have CO for light manufacturing and then new zoning excludes light manufacturing? My tenant remains, eventually moves out, a new tenant moves in and complies with the new code but then moves out and the next tenant wants to do light manufacturing? Is that permitted? The building didn't change. It was a previously permitted use.
Response HR-12 In such a scenario, the previous legal, non-conforming use would have been willfully abandoned when the compliant use moved in. Nonconformities are discussed in Article 9 (Nonconformities) of the proposed Form-Based Code.
Comment HR-14 When my building needs renovations, what rules do I follow? Simple repairs? Major renovations? I have a commercial space without a CO. What are my options?
Response HR-14 The development review process is described in Article 8 (Administration) of the proposed Form-Based Code (see Appendix F). We encourage the commentator to schedule an appointment with the Building Department to discuss any space that currently does not have a Certificate of Occupancy.
Comment RH-12 I suggest that the cover picture showing the Marina and Costco parking lots as parks gives a poor impression as to the seriousness of the Proposed Action.
Response RH-12 The cover image is based upon the community engagement and visioning effort that occurred earlier in the project and depicts a potential vision for the downtown and waterfront; a vision that the proposed Form-Based Code would permit and encourage. It is common practice for zoning code projects to include such images to be aspirational. Finally, an objective of the rezoning effort was to create a zoning document that is easier and more desirable to read through the use of graphics, tables, etc.
March 2020 20 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
5.2.3 Comments on Section “3.1 Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy” of the DGEIS
5.2.3.1 Topic: Nonconformities Comment P-7 Obviously if someone -- if the building is non-conforming it can stay. But, it would decrease the area zoned industrial from a million 378,000 thousand square feet to 24,000 square feet. Basically no industrial zoning will be left, every industrial use would now be non-conforming.
Response P-7 See discussion of industrial uses in Response P-3 on page 9. Additional detail regarding nonconformities is provided in Article 9 of the proposed Form-Based Code. See Appendix F.
5.2.3.2 Topic: Land Use Comment P-4 So I urge the Board to consider revisiting the use of industrial -- well, the designation of a certain amount of industrial space for the future use in the village.
Response P-4 As a continuation of Comment P-3on page 9, see discussion of industrial uses in Response P-3 on page 9.
5.2.3.3 Topic: Zoning/Public Policy Comment PC-10 The Planning Commission recommends that the Form-Based Code be required to be revisited annually to assess how well it serves the Village.
Response PC-10 Comment noted. The Village agrees with the comment and the Findings Statement will consider adding such statement.
Comment PC-11 The Planning Commission further recommends that the granting of both Use and Area Variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals be monitored closely and that a process be put in place to ensure the purpose and intent of the Form-Based Code and the analyses and recommendations of Village Staff and Planning Commission are not negated by granting of any variances that do not meet all of the statutory criteria set forth in New York state Village Law.
Response PC-11 Comment noted. As part of the annual review suggested in Comment PC-10 on page 21, the Village Board of Trustees could also examine the results of development applications over the previous year, including any variances that were granted. Such a statement will be considered in the Findings Statement, which the Board of Trustees, as Lead Agency, will be responsible for adopting. It is noted that Article 8, Section 345.806 of the proposed code includes procedures for review of use and area variance applications. Such variance process and associated variance approval or disapproval is from New York State Village Law and is applied on a case-by-case basis. Although it is the Village’s intent that future development conforms to the rules, regulations, and requirements of Article 8, it is recognized that pursuant to New York State Village Law, variances are sometimes necessary and appropriate, providing a mechanism for relief or a “safety valve” where the strict application of a particular zoning provision(s) may otherwise place an undue burden upon an individual owner of property. In those cases, the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals is authorized to vary a specific regulation or provision only as much is necessary for the reasonable use of property.
March 2020 21 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
5.2.4 Comments on Section “3.2 Community Character and Visual Resources” of the DGEIS Comment P-1 Will the charm that makes Port Chester such an attractive place for dinner, concerts and even shopping for both visitors and residents alike be compromised? Will local favorite restaurants, will local businesses be displaced? And if they are, what will it mean for those that would be losing their businesses?
Response P-1 One of the foundational objectives of the Plan the Port rezoning effort is to create zoning regulations that reflect the maritime charm of the Village of Port Chester. The switch to a form-based code as opposed to conventional zoning is key to this objective. The Village has been dedicated to creating a Form-Based Code that reflects and is unique to Port Chester and not necessarily mimic other local communities. Section 3.2 of the DGEIS discusses community character and visual resources. From the beginning of the Plan the Port efforts, members of the community expressed their concern regarding both residential and commercial displacement that could occur as a result of a rezoning. To that end, a commitment by the Village has been made to identify strategies and approaches to promote and aid local small businesses to remain in the Village. Section 3.5 of the DGEIS has been revised to note that commitment. See Appendix E and Response WCPB-13 on page 35.
Comment RH-1 Page 24: “Adoption of the proposed amendment is not anticipated to result in any significant adverse impacts to community and visual character...no mitigation is proposed.” The 20 year build out anticipates the demolition of much of the downtown buildings replacing buildings eligible for the State Register of Historic Places with new high rise towers, which will clearly change the community and visual character.
Response RH-1 The Proposed Action evaluated in the DGEIS is the adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning,” and Official Zoning Map. The Proposed Action and the Build-Out Analysis Report do not propose or otherwise recommend demolition of eligible or historic buildings or structures. Section 3.2.2 of the DGEIS states “the adoption of the Proposed Action would improve the visual character of existing underutilized areas and ensure that development is constructed in a manner which is consistent with the “historic” building patterns in the Village which elevate the importance of civic spaces and the pedestrian realm and respond to changing market preferences away from a more suburban development pattern thus allowing the Village to be more competitive regionally and economically resilient in the future… With respect to visual resources, the proposed zoning includes specific standards that will ensure that the quality of the visual environment is either preserved or enhanced… Because large portions of the Village are already developed with streets that have attached mixed use buildings that front the sidewalk, the new code is written to ensures that new development is complementary and additive, providing comfort and visual interest to the pedestrian by following the precedent of the original Village layout and design. These positive visual attributes are being codified strengthened for the first time in the new zones.” It is noted that certain assumptions were made in the Build-Out analysis to consider and assess a reasonable built environment scenario for purposes of estimating potential impacts over a 20-year period. The intent of the build-out analysis and the corresponding actions of the Village as development proposals are received is not clearance or removal of historic properties that are eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Rather, the Proposed Action will ensure that proposed development that is adjacent or proximate to historic resources is compatible with the surrounding built environment. Thus, in conjunction with other protections further described in Section 3.6 of the revised DGEIS, the Proposed Action will not significantly impact historic built resources in the Village. Section 3.6 of the DGEIS has been revised to include additional information regarding eligible and historic buildings and properties in the Village of Port Chester, and additional mitigation measures to ensure their protection is an important component of an application review (see Response P-12 on page 43).
Comment GH-2 The increased density downtown around the train station would ‘remake’ the character of the heart of Village. Tall glass and steel buildings would replace the more modest mixed use buildings which exist, casting shadows over the streetscape and any buildings which remain from the 19th and 20th Century periods which was, arguably, the
March 2020 22 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Village’s gilded era (The Embassy Theatre and the Capitol Theatre opened within the space of two years in the 1920’s).
Response GH-2 See Response RH-1 on page 22 regarding eligible and historic buildings and properties within the Village of Port Chester. With regards to shadows, the modest changes to height in the downtown area that are proposed within the Form-Based Code would not result in a significant change in buildings casting shadows over the streetscape and any downtown buildings due to the following: 1) the area around the train station is proposed to increase from a maximum of 10 stories to a maximum of 12 stories; 2) along Main Street, the maximum height is proposed to increase from five (5) stories to six (6) stories; and 3) while the proposed Form-Based Code modestly changes the maximum height allowed as-of-right, future development is not required to build to the maximum height, and the form and massing of any future development, which could affect shadow patterns, is unknown at this time. Based on these factors, the modest changes to maximum building height regulations, and consistent with the adopted DGEIS Final Scoping Document, a specific shadow analysis was not warranted for the DGEIS. Analyzing potential impact of shadows may be warranted for site-specific applications depending on the height, form and mass of proposed buildings and structures. Such analysis should consider potential impact on sunlight sensitive resources. Section 6.0 of the DGEIS under “Community Character and Visual Resources” states (emphasis added) “At the time a site-specific development application is submitted, a supplemental visual analyses may be required which will be reviewed and compared against the DGEIS Visual Resources analysis. This supplemental visual analysis will be required to include a review of the potential for shadows cast by new buildings and structures to impact sunlight sensitive resources. Mitigation may be necessary based on the results of the supplemental visual analysis.”
5.2.5 Comments on Section “3.3 Transportation Resources” of the DGEIS
5.2.5.1 Topic: EIS Traffic Analysis Comment DOT-1 NYSDOT is concerned with the quantification ranges set on the transportation resource thresholds and will need to review these findings in detail. NYSDOT will need to review the FEIS, traffic assessment and finding statement referenced in the DGEIS.
Response DOT-1 As noted in Response P-3 on page 9, the Proposed Action evaluated in the DGEIS is the adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning,” and Official Zoning Map by the Board of Trustees – in short, the rezoning of the entire Village. Zoning on its own has no direct impacts on the environment, as it is the legal framework for future development. However, its implementation, meaning the likely future development that would occur under the zoning (new, amended, etc.) after its adoption, does have the potential for environmental impacts. Therefore, the practice in New York State has been to evaluate the implementation of zoning in a GEIS, since specific development projects are not being proposed, rather, the potential for certain types of development. The challenge then becomes, how are impacts determined, even generically, in the absence of a specific development project. More specifically to traffic and transportation, there is a particular challenge in that while site-specific traffic analyses follow a standard process and methodology based upon decades of professional traffic and transportation studies, for a community-wide rezoning, similar guidance is not available on a generic level. In addition, it is common where both generic and site-specific traffic analyses is conducted does not conclude that significant traffic impacts will result, but additional travel demand from each development project accumulates over time which can result in traffic issues, congestion, and/or delays. This cumulative impact then may require mitigation at the expense/responsibility of the road/facility owner (Village of Port Chester, Town of Rye, Westchester County, State of New York, Metro-North Railroad, etc.) or place an unfair burden on a single developer, the costs of which should be shared with preceding developers that contributed to the cumulative impacts. Although not part of the adopted DGEIS Final Scoping Document, the Village engaged with the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), Region 8 from early on in the SEQRA process to establish a methodology by which future traffic mitigation improvements are shared by development applicants and not the burden of the applicant which caused travel demand to cross a threshold or the road/facility owner. Prior to conducting the traffic assessment, numerous meetings were held between NYSDOT and
March 2020 23 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
the Village on agreeing upon the most appropriate approach. Research on how other agencies and municipalities dealt with this in New York State occurred – resulting in concurrence that the “fair share” contribution to traffic mitigation approach was most appropriate. The research and approach methodology is provided in memoranda included as part of Appendix D. After the approach was agreed to by NYSDOT, the traffic assessment was conducted and is included in Appendix D. The DGEIS in Section 3.3 has been revised to include the results of the traffic assessment (see Appendix D).
Comment DOT-2 NYSDOT is concerned that some assumptions made in the DGEIS will result in segmentation, particularly the statement “All projects subject to SEQRA must evaluate and, if necessary, mitigate potential impacts to the transportation network.”
Response DOT-2 See Response DOT-1 on page 23. The DGEIS has been revised in Section 3.3 to reflect the completion of the traffic assessment. A goal of the approach agreed upon with NYSDOT was to ensure that all future development projects contributed to their “fair share” of cumulative impacts on the transportation network. Future development projects would need to comply with the mitigation requirements presented in the GEIS. Further examination of site-specific impacts of a project on the transportation network will also be a component of any future site-specific SEQRA review.
Comment HR-9 In multiple areas of this draft there are traffic studies required. Common thinking is these traffic studies never reflect reality. We suggest the traffic studies follow parameters that the Planning Commission set forth; both in the required observations and facts and how those facts are interpreted. We suggest the Commission sets those parameters every 12 months to allow for changes in the environment. We suggest every so often the Village hire an outside firm to establish such parameters and publish them for the use of private developers.
Response HR-9 The Village has historically contracted with traffic engineering consulting firms to assist the Village and its Boards and Commissions in development project review and with general assistance in identifying and finding solutions for traffic issues within the Village. Such an arrangement is anticipated to continue beyond the implementation of the Proposed Action and such on-call traffic engineering firm will continue to guide the traffic review of site-specific applications. Traffic studies completed by professional engineers and planners utilize nationally accepted information and methodologies to approximate travel demand in order to determine any transportation system impacts, and local departments and state agencies (i.e., NYSDOT) with purview over their respective transportation systems, are involved in the review of such studies. Information and methodologies are continuously being evaluated and improved upon by nationally recognized engineering associations, state transportation agencies, and the federal government. As they are peer reviewed and approved, new information and methodologies will be incorporated into traffic studies for the evaluation of site-specific development projects, as appropriate.
Comment GH-6 & SPCA-6 Of equal concern, the DGEIS does not provide a traffic analysis, thus leaving residents in the dark about this hugely important issue. Placing the traffic study in the FGEIS is not an acceptable replacement, since it does not provide the community with time to evaluate the impact on traffic. The role of the draft Environmental Impact Statement in the SEQRA process is to allow the community to evaluate the full range of impacts and request further study as needed, and if the village is not prepared to provide a complete DGEIS it should have taken more time rather than rushing through the process with incomplete documentation.
Response GH-6 & SPCA-6 See Response WCPB-9 on page 12, Response DOT-1 on page 23 and Response DOT-2 on page 24.
Comment P-14 Well, there is no traffic impact analysis at all.
March 2020 24 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Response P-14 See Response WCPB-9 on page 12, Response DOT-1 on page 23 and Response DOT-2 on page 24.
Comment P-17 [W]ork on mitigation that is required, you know, from a parking point view, a traffic point of view, a congestion point of view, I think that's important.
Response P-17 See Response DOT-1 on page 23 and Response DOT-2 on page 24. The Village, in conjunction with NYSDOT, is committed to ensuring that any impacts to parking, traffic, and congestion that would result from the implementation of the Proposed Action will be mitigated to the extent possible and practicable.
5.2.5.2 Topic: Parking Comment PC-5 The Planning Commission further recommends that as a mitigation measure to be considered in the GEIS, where existing public parking facilities are proposed to fulfill some portion of the required site parking, as mentioned above, the pedestrian route(s) from parking area to the project site examine the need and opportunity for pedestrian and/ or streetscape enhancements to improve safety and the overall pedestrian experience.
Response PC-5 Comment noted. The DGEIS in Section 6.0 (see Appendix E) under ‘Transportation Resources’ has been revised to add the following to the ‘Supplemental Parking Analysis’ mitigation measure: “…Where existing public parking facilities are proposed to fulfill some portion of the required site parking, the pedestrian route(s) from parking area to the project site shall be examined to determine if there is a need and opportunity for pedestrian and/or streetscape enhancements to improve safety and the overall pedestrian experience.” See Appendix E.
5.2.5.3 Topic: Transit Comment MNR-1 Potential impacts to transportation (not just traffic) would need to be measured including number of new rail riders anticipated as a result of the new zoning code and, if it is determined that there is an impact (specially to access to rail or capacity of the rail system), mitigation measures need to be identified.
Response MNR-1 Comment noted. Village staff coordinated with staff from the Metro-North Railroad to identify reference material and comparable initiatives and projects to inform how to determine these impacts. As a result, the DGEIS has been revised in Section 3.3 to describe the anticipated number of new rail riders that could be generated by the implementation of the Proposed Action and the potential impact that those new riders may have on the capacity of the Metro-North Railroad (See Appendix E). In addition, Section 6.0 under ‘Transportation Resources’ has been revised to include specific requirements for any subsequent SEQRA compliance for any future site-specific development application: “Supplemental Transit Analyses: At the time a site-specific development application is submitted, a supplemental transit impacts analysis shall be required and shall be reviewed and compared against the findings set forth in the Findings Statement. Metro-North Operations Coordination: Metro-North may require review and approval of future development plans that have the potential to have impacts to the active rail operation. Metro-North may also require that for all projects drainage be directed away from Metro-North's right-of-way. Additionally, entry permits from Metro-North may be required for construction of projects along Metro-North’s right-of-way depending upon the distance.” See Appendix E. In addition, see Response MNR-5 on page 48 and Response MNR-6 on page 50.
March 2020 25 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
5.2.5.4 Topic: Miscellaneous Comment DOT-3 Is a transportation district being creating to manage the transportation mitigations?
Response DOT-3 Various approaches to funding transportation improvements were researched and evaluated, as presented in Appendix D. The analysis revealed the creation of a transportation district was not the preferred option by the Village since transportation districts have been met with strong opposition in the State Legislature and have potential tax cap implications. Based on these factors, the option chosen by the Village and coordinated with NYSDOT was to establish “Fair-Share” contributions to traffic mitigation. This is described in revised DGEIS Section 3.3.
Comment HR-16 Traffic is a continual concern on many levels. Has anyone studied restricting 53’ trailer deliveries to off hours? Approximately 2 years ago there was a parking/ traffic study. What happened to that? Of highest level importance that study identified all the major parties involved in the traffic signals down Westchester ave, on north and south main streets and coming over the mill street bridge. The study recognized that these signals are NOT coordinated. Who is working on this? This is a no-brainer to get traffic flowing better in our downtown.
Response HR-16 In 2017, the Village completed a Mobility and Parking Management Study with Recommendations for Plan of Action. The Study with Recommendations for Plan of Action have been posted on the Village’s website since the project was completed in 2017. The Village has utilized and continues to utilize that Study as a guide for the implementation of transportation improvements in the downtown. The Village continues to discuss with NYSDOT, Westchester County, and the Town of Greenwich with regards to the coordination of traffic signals along Mill Street, North and South Main Street, and Abendroth Avenue. In addition, the Village reviews, and in some cases restricts, deliveries as part of every site plan approval.
Comment PC-6 The Planning Commission recommends that the Form-Based Code be revised and/or mitigation be added to the GEIS that if an entire block is being redeveloped, curb-cuts should be minimized and should be placed the farthest away from traffic signals, especially where pedestrian traffic is significant.
Response PC-6 Comment noted. The DGEIS in Section 6.0 under ‘Transportation Resources’ has been revised to include the following mitigation measure: “Curb Cut Minimization: If an entire block is being redeveloped, curb-cuts should be minimized and should be placed the farthest away from traffic signals, especially where pedestrian traffic is significant.”
5.2.6 Comments on Section ”3.4.1.1 Educational Facilities” of the DGEIS Comment P-30 Let me talk about the school impact. The DGEIS references the Urbanomics study, the February 2019 Urbanomics methodology, which projects the number of public schools children and estimates the fiscal impact. That works when you have individual projects and they have a dozen, or 20 or 5. It doesn't work when you have 1,077 children — public school children. For that, the Urbanomics methodology only deals with operating costs, not capital cost. In fact, I noticed that in the DGEIS, in the Urbanomics study there is no mention of capital cost, except I found something that said “transfer of debt service in the February 2019 Urbanomics study.” Now, I have the old Urbanomics study that was originally done for the [IDA]…and they did take up capital cost. In fact, they said that each student – each new student would cost $18,370, each new student would cost — per capita cost, not operating cost, capital cost, 1,077 students, that’s 20 million dollars capital cost that would come from a 1,077 students. That capital cost if you got a 3 percent bond of 20 years, would be almost a million and a half a year just to cover the bond cost of capital cost of 1,007 students. So you can't pretend that the operating costs are gonna cover the capital. It will not.
March 2020 26 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Response P-30 Urbanomics prepared an update to the February 2019 “Port Chester Public Schools Overcrowding and Mitigation Analysis Phase One Final Report”, dated January 2020, attached as Appendix G. The Report breaks out the expected capital cost per student using the same methodology as the referenced 2014 study. The mitigation tool has been updated to reflect these changes. Sections 3.4.2.1 and 3.4.3.1 of the DGEIS have been revised to reflect this update.
Comment GH-4 An uptick in population, particularly of millennials commuting north to jobs in Stamford or south to jobs in Manhattan, will inevitably beget young families and thus children and the public school system is only just completing an expensive expansion calibrated to meet the needs of the Village’s existing population.
Response GH-4 The January 2020 Update to the “Port Chester Public Schools Overcrowding and Mitigation Analysis Phase One Final Report” has been attached as Appendix G. The Report breaks out the expected capital cost per student and has been used to update the mitigation tool to reflect the expected demand for new institutional facility space. See Response P-30 on page 27.
Comment SB-1 The Village should consider layered mapping of the predicted student population growth with the existing elementary school districts, which will facilitate a better understanding of the effects of the proposed residential zoning on the current elementary school zones. This information would provide valuable feedback for the Village to adjust the residential zoning and/or for the District to plan for future facility expansions and/or adjustments of elementary school zones as an option.
Response SB-1 An evaluation of potential redistricting was not included as part of the adopted DGEIS Final Scoping Document and, therefore, is not part of the DGEIS. The inclusion of such a topic is beyond the scope of the DGEIS because the Proposed Action is a rezoning effort.
Comment SB-2 The Village should consider expanding the modeling provided in Appendix F of the DGEIS to demonstrate the effects of any community benefits agreement discussed further in number three below. As stated in the DGEIS, each project will be subject to its own review; however, it would be beneficial at this juncture to understand the overall effects on the District by community benefits agreements as a potential component of the Village's approach in the DGEIS.
Response SB-2 See Response GH-9 on page 37.
Comment SB-4 The twenty-year Build-Out Analysis shows an estimated increase to the District’s tax rolls of approximately $535 million over a 20 year period. To the extent the figure is accurate, the increase in tax revenue may off-set some of the operational costs of providing educational services to the larger student population. Additional financial analyses would be required to confirm the statement that the anticipated increase in tax revenue would adequately support the expanded school district population.
Response SB-4 As shown in Appendix G, the costs of educating 1,077 new students for one year would total $14,397,336 ($13,368 per student, exclusive of State Aid). In the highly improbable circumstance where all 1,077 students enter the District in the first year of the build-out period, the cumulative costs over 20 years would total $287,946,720, or just over half of the projected revenues to the District.
March 2020 27 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Comment SB-5 In various places in the DGEIS, there are references to calculating per pupil costs accounting for government aid (e.g., Section 3.4.1.1; page 32). Under the current State Aid formula and public education funding process, the District remains underfunded by New York State and the District would like the Village to acknowledge that fact in the process. This is important because using a fully-funded formula variable assumption in any cost calculations will not accurately describe existing nor predictive cost calculations, which will negatively affect the DGEIS process and in turn the District. It certainly is the District's hope that the State will revise the public education funding approach so that all State school districts are properly funded but until that occurs, the reality of the aid discrepancy must be recognized.
Response SB-5 Comment noted. The evaluation of the State’s Funding structure was not included in the adopted DGEIS Final Scoping Document. However, as noted in Response SB-4, the projected tax revenues to the District will exceed the cost of educating any additional children to be generated by new development under the implementation of the Proposed Action.
5.2.7 Comments on Section “3.4.1.2 Police Protection” of the DGEIS No comments.
5.2.8 Comments on Section “3.4.1.3 Fire and Emergency Services Protection” of the DGEIS No comments.
5.2.9 Comments on Section “3.4.1.4 Parks, Open Space, and Recreational Facilities” of the DGEIS No comments.
5.2.10 Comments on Section “3.4.1.5 Water Supply” of the DGEIS
Comment RH-2 Page 34: “Currently the Village’s water demand and maximum day demand is at or near the safe yield of the system.” Page 38: “The system and supply sources that feed them appear to have sufficient capacity to handle future growth...” These two statements are contradictory and there is no mitigation proposed for a potential shortage of water supply.
Response RH-2 Comment noted. According to the Westchester County Department of Environmental Facilities, water supply sources that feed the Port Chester system have sufficient capacity to handle future growth in the Village and region. Water supply infrastructure is available throughout the Village but each individual project will need to be evaluated to determine whether any future system upgrades are necessary.
5.2.11 Comments on Section “3.4.1.6 Wastewater and Stormwater Management” of the DGEIS Comment WCPB-11 Since 2010, it has been the policy of the County Department of Environmental Facilities (WCDEF) that municipal governments require development applicants to identify mitigation measures that will offset the projected increase in sewer flows to County operated wastewater facilities. The best means to do so is through the reduction of inflow and infiltration (I&I) at a ratio of three for one for market rate housing units and at a ratio of one for one for affordable housing units. We recommend this mitigation policy be discussed in the final GEIS with specific details on how implementation of I&I mitigation is to be accomplished. For example, what is the mechanism for applicants to place funds into the fair share fund to specifically address I&I mitigation. Will there be an account for I&I work based on a per gallon cost of removal of flow through I&I? How will I&I projects be identified? Who will conduct the work and in what timeframe?
March 2020 28 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Response WCPB-11 The Village has a Capacity, Management, Operations and Maintenance (CMOM) Program to properly maintain the municipal sewer system. As part of this, the Village is conducting a Village-wide survey of stormwater and wastewater inflow and infiltration to provide a needs assessment for long-term improvements to quality and quantity in compliance with the Clean Water Act and its Amendments. Section 3.7.3 of the DGEIS has been revised to include the following mitigation measure: “As part of any site-specific development application, a financial contribution shall be provided to the CMOM Program fund for the use to mitigate and, ultimately, alleviate Inflow & Infiltration (I&I) into the sanitary sewer system. Such contribution shall be calculated utilizing an offset ratio of three (3)-to-one (1), i.e., projected sewage flow (gpd) X (three) X ($1/gallon) = contribution for I&I removal in dollars.”
Comment WCPB-12 The County Planning Board further recommends that the Village implement a program that requires inspection of sewer laterals from private structures for leaks and illegal connections to the sewer system, such as from sump pumps. These private connections to the system have been found to be a significant source of avoidable flows. At a minimum, we encourage the Village to enact a requirement that a sewer lateral inspection be conducted at the time property ownership is transferred and any necessary corrective action be enforceable by the municipal building inspector.
Response WCPB-12 Comment noted. The Village takes this request under advisement. The Village strives to reach an objective of systematically performing individual inspections of sanitary sewer laterals – along with any enforcing necessary corrective action. The Village currently administers Local Laws prohibiting illicit discharges, deposits and connections to sanitary, storm (or combined) sewer systems (Chapters 199 and 269 of the Village Code). This is a specialty service that is not within the New York State Certified Building Instructor training program. As noted in in Response WCPB-11 on page 29, the Village has a CMOM Program and has contracted with an engineering firm to provide a camera and smoke testing program in order to determine leaks and illegal connections to the municipal sewer system.
5.2.12 Comments on Section “3.4.1.7 Solid Waste Management” of the DGEIS No comments.
5.2.13 Comments on Section “3.4.1.8 Electric and Natural Gas Utilities” of the DGEIS Comment RH-3 Page 39: “No significant adverse impacts are expected an electric or gas supply as a result of the Proposed Action...” There is no mention of the Con Ed gas moratorium which would significantly impact any future development.
Response RH-4 While the Consolidated Edison (ConEd) gas moratorium was of significant concern and a topic of conversation in 2019, ConEd has no immediate plans to end service to new development. Nonetheless, the Village currently requests that any potential development apply to ConEd prior to a formal application with the Village and such practice would continue after the implementation of the Proposed Action. Concomitantly, the Village is committed to sustainability efforts to reduce carbon footprint, reduce generation of greenhouse gas emissions, and dependence on fossil fuels (see revised Section 4.5, “Climate Change and Sea Level Rise,” of the DGEIS (Appendix E). The Village is also open to alternative energy strategies within new development. The Proposed Action has been revised in Article 4, Section 405.V (see Appendix F) to more broadly discuss green building and infrastructure requirements, as follows:
V. Green Building and Infrastructure.
The Village of Port Chester is committed to reducing its carbon footprint, generation of greenhouse gas emissions, and dependence on fossil fuels. The intent of this subsection is to introduce new green building and infrastructure regulations for all new development within the Village of Port Chester.
1. Checklists Required
March 2020 29 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Any application for new development shall provide a completed Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) checklist, Enterprise Green Communities checklist, Institute of Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI) Envision checklist, or equivalent green project checklist acceptable to the Planning & Economic Development Zoning Administrator.
2. Alternative Energy Sources
As part of a development application, an applicant must show evidence of a consideration to incorporate reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities such as new green infrastructure or retrofits, installation of solar arrays or canopies, and geothermal systems.
3. Green Infrastructure
Development should incorporate elements and practices described in the Village of Port Chester Green Infrastructure Guide dated June, 2018.
Comment RH-4 Page 39, Table 9: There seems to be in error for electric under Full/Maximum Build Out.
Response RH-4 Comment noted. The Village assumes that the commenter is referring to Table 8 on Page 39 of the DGEIS. The DGEIS, Table 8, has been revised to show the correct anticipated energy consumption (electricity and natural gas) that would result from the Full/Maximum Build-out for both the current and proposed zoning.
5.2.14 Other Comments on Section “3.4 Community Services and Utilities” of the DGEIS
5.2.14.1 Topic: Fair-Share Mitigation Comment P-9 Fair share mitigation plan is mentioned on page 36, 37 and 39, but it is not defined. It often says that…[the] increased taxes would offset any impact. But of course the increased taxes are not what they claim it’s gonna be and fair share mitigation is not defined.
Response P-9 See Response HR-2 on page 10. The DGEIS included “fair share” mitigation as a method by which future public sector costs for improvements and improved services would be borne by new development based upon its “fair share” of the potential impact. As noted on page 36 of the DGEIS, this “fair share” mitigation plan was to be defined through the SEQRA process. Based upon further refinement since the DGEIS public comment period closed, Section 6.0 of this FGEIS provides a detailed discussion of “fair share” contributions to mitigation – the objectives, the methodology, the analyses, and, ultimately, the specific mitigation metrics for each resource. The Village believes the creation of “fair share” contributions to mitigation and increased tax revenues from individual site-specific projects that would result from the implementation of the Proposed Action would offset any potential service impact created by that individual project or cumulatively. Therefore, the implementation of the Proposed Action would not have any significant adverse impact on community services and utilities.
Comment PC-8 The Planning Commission expresses its general concern with regards to the Village's infrastructure and recommends that formalized requirements for applicants to improve, rehabilitate, and/or create infrastructure in connection with planned development be added to the Form-Based Code itself or as mitigation within the GEIS, including but not limited to, sanitary sewers, water supply, stormwater management, sanitation, optimizing traffic signal functions, as well as pedestrian and streetscape enhancements.
March 2020 30 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Response PC-8 Comment noted. The Village is also concerned about the potential impacts to Village infrastructure, including wastewater and stormwater management, water supply, solid waste management, transportation, and streetscape that would result from the implementation of the Proposed Action. As described in Response P-9 on page 30, the Village has pursued the “fair share” contributions to mitigation approach to alleviate this concern.
Comment GH-3 This increase in population would put significant strain on the Village’s infrastructure, including an increase: trash streams, water usage and outflow, as well as in traffic and the need for parking.
Response GH-3 Comment noted. See Response PC-8 on page 31 regarding Village infrastructure and Response P-9 on page 30 regarding “fair share” contributions to mitigation address these concerns. Section 6.0 of the FGEIS also discusses “fair share” contributions to mitigation.
Comment SB-3 Understanding that the Mitigation Measures are currently conceptual, the District requests that any “Fair Share” mitigation plan and fund be developed as soon as practicable. Also, the Village should consider expanding the “Fair Share” mitigation plan concept at this juncture to include references from industry literature or provide examples of municipalities where it was successfully implemented. In addition, the District must be provided an equal opportunity to participate in the future development of any such plan.
Response SB-3 Comment noted. See Response P-9 on page 30. The Village and the School District have a standing liaison meeting every few months to discuss matters that are common to both. At the most recent liaison meeting on January 16, 2020, the Village and School District/School Board discussed the proposed Form-Based Code, the DGEIS, and the concept of “fair share” contributions to mitigation. The School District/School Board will be an important partner in the implementation of the Proposed Action, especially “fair share’ mitigation for educational impacts. Section 6.0 of the FGEIS discusses “fair share” contributions to mitigation.
Comment WCPB-10 While the DGEIS discusses mitigating several impacts, including sewer impacts, through a fair share fund, this fund is only talked about conceptually.
Response WCPB-10 See Response P-9 on page 30. Section 6.0 of the FGEIS discusses “fair share” contributions to mitigation.
5.2.15 Comments on Section “3.5.2.1 Population” of the DGEIS Comment RH-6 Page 45, “Further it is anticipated that implementation of the Proposed Action would have beneficial impacts on demographics.” What does this mean?
Response RH-6 Comment noted. Section 3.5 of the DGEIS includes an evaluation of socioeconomic existing conditions, potential impacts, and mitigation regarding the Proposed Action. Section 3.5.3 on Page 45 states “The Proposed Action, in and of itself, would not create any significant adverse socioeconomic impacts. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary. Further, it is anticipated that implementation of the Proposed Action would have beneficial impacts on demographics and the economy, including additional housing opportunities, job generation, and the generation of significant tax revenues to all taxing jurisdictions.” The portion of the sentence referring to “beneficial impacts on demographics” has been removed. See Appendix E.
March 2020 31 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
5.2.16 Comments on Section “3.5.2.2 Housing” of the DGEIS Comment P-18 In this regard we recommend the following, to mitigate the effect of an affordable housing — required number of affordable housing units under the current code. One option is to…build in into the new code a two-year moratorium on…the housing requirement in new projects, will provide the village with the flexibility to approve projects that are ready for site plan approval and are consistent with the current code, and also provide much needed economic stimulus to the village. An additional alternative would be to adopt an affordable housing formula — a payment in lieu formula, the developer would pay to the village an amount per unit after the project is built. And this would go into a fund which would be utilized by the village to build affordable housing units, an affordable housing development or to refurbish existing housing.
Response P-18 Based on collaboration with, and comments received from, the Westchester County Planning Board (see letter from December 23, 2019 provided in Appendix B), the Village will not be considering a two-year moratorium on affordable housing requirements nor will the Village be considering a payment in-lieu of providing affordable housing. See Comment and Response WCPB-4 on page 35. The Proposed Action in the DGEIS (and in this FGEIS) is proposed to contain a required 10% set-aside of affordable Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (affordable AFFH) Units in all districts for new development that contains 10 or more units (see Article 4, Section 405.A.U).
Comment P-21 So I think what we need to look at too is where affordable housing is in Port Chester too. What is our current stock of affordable housing as well too? And maybe even — I want to say, I am not sure it is — if this is possible, to receive a number not only for housing but any given group homes, because that does affect the tax in there too as well.
Response P-21 Comment noted. As stated in Section 3.5.3.1 of the DGEIS, a mitigation measure is to conduct a comprehensive housing needs assessment. Such a housing needs assessment will, among other things, document the Village’s current stock of affordable housing. Studying the number of group homes in the Village is not relevant to the Proposed Action because local zoning cannot limit the number or location of group homes and, therefore, are not impacted by the Proposed Action. Note that group homes, like any other use, would still be required to conform to the dimensional standards of the new Form-Based Code.
Comment P-24 I am asking that you please consider 20 percent of development for… affordable housing, for those in the 15 to 30 percent AMI because if our most of them are people in our county cannot afford to live here, then I can't either.
Response P-24 The Proposed Action in the DGEIS is proposed to contain a required 10% set-aside of affordable Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (affordable AFFH) units in all districts for new development that contains 10 or more units (see Article 4, Section 405.U). Section 5.3 of the DGEIS contains an alternative – the greater affordable Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (greater affordable AFFH) Unit Requirement Alternative – that requires a 30% set-aide, among other differences. Although a 20% alternative does not exist within the GEIS, it lies between the 10% Proposed Action and 30% greater affordable AFFH Unit Requirement Alternative. See Response CF-1 on page 17 with regards to the potential to select an alternative in the Findings Statement.
Comment P-25 I ask that you consider 20 percent development for those in affordable housing at the 15 and 30 percentiles because if I can't live here, what does that mean for the most vulnerable people and I'm sure this city does not want to stand for pushing people that need housing out.
Response P-25 See Response P-24 on page 32.
March 2020 32 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Comment P-28 I think the confusion here is that there is no requirement that the code contain a mandatory minimum of affordable housing, it's really a project-by-project basis. So you could have a mandatory minimum and come in with a project with no affordable housing, that project is not eligible. Or stated another way, is what I want the Board to consider is that if you had a minimum with an option for payment in lieu, the eligibility of the project can that comes in for the CDGB moneys has to do really with the project itself. The number of units, whether or not that project meets the county's criteria that the county has. So I just ask in summary the Board to consider implementing all the tools at the conclusion of this very noteworthy process and that the CDBG, as far as the county implements it require — does not require that the village have a minimum without options.
Response P-28 See Response P-24 on page 32 and Response P-18 on page 32.
Comment P-29 Payment in lieu of affordable housing is a complete waste of time and money. In fact, this Board even set up an affordable housing fund in Port Chester and not one has been built. If you look across the county, not even a hand- full, you count in one hand the number of units that were built out of an affordable housing fund.
Response P-29 Comment noted. See Response P-18 on page 32.
Comment P-31 [The DGEIS says] that new affordable housing will “replace existing illegal apartments.” Now come on, you think that people who live in illegal apartments are gonna be able to afford it? Unless you want to go for the 30 percent, going down to 30 percent AMI, then they may able to afford to live in a new affordable housing, otherwise there is no one living in an illegal apartment who could afford it. Then…it says later, [the] “proposed action may increase residential rents in the village therefore possibly negating increase inventory of affordable housing.” You know, how is that possibly going to help if the rents are gonna go up?
Response P-31 It is in the best interest of the Village to have rental units that meet all local, state, and federal requirements, including all fire, health, and safety requirements. The DGEIS language refers to the uneasy balance that may result from development of new residential units that provide greater housing opportunities in the community in contrast with the effects of gentrification on existing renters and residents who may see rising rents. The DGEIS in Section 3.5.2 addresses and describes the potential impacts on existing residents from the development of new housing in the Village. Section 3.5.2.2 describes mitigation measures related to residential displacement. The DGEIS has been revised in Section 3.5.3 to read: “These new affordable units would add to the general community housing stock, with the expectation that some of the occupants of the new housing units would come from the current pool of Village residents.” See Appendix E.
Comment JC-1 First, a two year delay on any affordable housing requirements for new projects that are in the site plan approval process; in such case, an affordable housing set-aside will not apply; thus this will provide the Village with the flexibility to approve projects that are ready for site plan approval consistent with the new Code and provide much needed economic stimulus to Port Chester businesses and ultimately its tax base.
Response JC-1 See Response P-18 on page 32.
Comment JC-2 If…the Village still desires to impose an affordable housing requirement, it should be include a buy-out option in the form of a reasonable payment in lieu of affordable housing. This way, developers pay a per unit sum to Port Chester.
March 2020 33 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
The Board of Trustees can then devote these monies to build an affordable housing rental development on property that the Village owns or may acquire or the monies may also be utilized to refurbish existing housing as affordable units.
Response JC-2 See Response P-18 on page 32.
Comment GH-7 & SPCA-8 The Proposed Action would add between 2900 and 9,178 units of new housing (DGEIS Section 3.1.3.2), 90% of which would be market-rate. This new housing can be expected to displace current Port Chester residents in two different ways--first, because existing housing will be torn down and current residents evicted for the sake of new housing, and second, because a large influx of new, wealthy residents into the village will raise rents even in existing units, causing a gentrification effect. The DGEIS states (Section 3.5.2.2) that "Some of the occupants of the new housing units would be expected to come from the current pool of Village residents, many of whom are living in illegal apartments, thereby minimizing any direct residential displacements." This claim is not credible; Port Chester residents living in overcrowded illegal apartments currently are doing so because they cannot afford available legal dwellings, and the idea that they will be able to afford new units in new developments--either at market rate or at the still relatively high “affordable” rates proposed in the action--is absurd. The DGEIS is silent on the question of how many tenants might lose their homes under the proposed action. The claim that current residents of illegal apartments will move into new affordable units is incorrect. Anyone familiar with Port Chester knows that the residents of illegal apartments are paying very low rents, while the rents of so-called affordable units under the proposed action will be “affordable” only to middle-class residents making 60% of Westchester AMI ($72,000 for a family of four). These residents will be displaced and will not be able to find new housing in Port Chester, thus seriously undermining the diversity and vitality of our community. Furthermore, these residents are disproportionately black and Latino, so the proposed action will harm racial minorities in our village. Thankfully, there is a clear way of avoiding this outcome: the Greater Affordable Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Unit Requirement Alternative (AAFFH) discussed on page 67 of the DGEIS would “result in lesser residential displacement and lesser impact on Environmental Justice communities than the proposed action” (page 67).
Response GH-7 & SPCA-18 The Proposed Action evaluated in the DGEIS is the adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning,” and Official Zoning Map by the Board of Trustees – the rezoning of the entire Village. Zoning on its own has no direct impacts on the environment, as it is the legal framework for future development. Based on the results of the market analysis, which is included within Appendix C of this FGEIS, there is a projected demand of 2,900 residential units over the next 20 years. However, based on the results of the build-out analysis also in Appendix C, the estimated number of residential units currently within the build-out analysis study area is in excess of the estimated maximum potential of the current code (see the Build-Out Analysis Report in Appendix A which includes a description of the methodology and all assumptions). The current zoning code thus limits the potential for new residential housing, which would have a significant impact on housing affordability, as demand would exceed supply thus increasing housing costs. A similar situation where demand is exceeding supply is occurring in communities throughout the United States. Based on the results of the Build-Out Analysis Report, the proposed Form-Based Code allows for additional residential development and includes a 10% set-aside for affordable AFFH units, which would have a positive impact on housing supply while limiting the effect of increasing housing costs. See Response P-31 on page 33 regarding illegal units and residential displacement. See Response WCPB-4 on page 35, Response P-15 on page 46, and Response WCPB-2 on page 47 regarding Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). See Response CF-1 on page 17 with regards to the potential to select an alternative in the Findings Statement.
Comment WCPB-3 The Village should require that all developments incorporate an Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan so the affordable units are marketed consistent with local, state and federal requirements.
March 2020 34 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Response WCPB-3 Comment noted. The Proposed Action has been revised to include such a requirement in Article 4, Section 405.U. See Appendix F.
Comment WCPB-4 While not mentioned in the DGEIS alternative, we strongly discourage the Zoning Ordinance include any payments- in-lieu for affordable AFFH, as in our experience, those units almost never actually get built. We also strongly discourage permitting the off-site construction of affordable AFFH because that doesn't meet the spirit of opportunity to allow for integration.
Response WCPB-4 Comment noted. The Village will not be considering a payment in-lieu of providing affordable AFFH units or off- site construction of affordable AFFH units. See Response P-18 on page 32.
Comment WCPB-13 While the draft GEIS discusses the potential for residential and commercial displacements, the mitigation proposed by the GEIS is ambiguous and non-committal. We recommend that there be a more substantial discussion of this topic in the final GEIS.
Response WCPB-13 Often DGEISs include concepts and measures that are refined through the SEQRA process – in the FGEIS and, ultimately, in the Findings Statement. After the DGEIS comment period ended the Village reached out to Pace University’s Land Use Law Center for Sustainable Development to have a discussion on how to approach social equity issues that arise from development and gentrification – as exemplified in the various comments received on the DGEIS. This was necessary since there are only a few examples of success in balancing the desire to uplift a community with the gentrification that may result. As a result of that discussion, the Village commits to procuring a report within 60 days of the adoption of the Findings Statement regarding Proposed Action that researches various commercial displacement initiatives across the country, their mechanics, their success and failure, and the applicability for Port Chester. The Village further commits within an additional 90 days to holding local conversations on the report and identifying and committing to specific measures to mitigate impacts to businesses that may be impacted by the implementation of the Proposed Action. Finally, the Village commits to applying through the New York State Consolidated Funding Application (CFA) process in the 2020 cycle (July 2020) for funding to implement the selected mitigation measures and strategies. These commitments and some illustrative examples of mitigation measures appear in revised Section 3.5.3 of the DGEIS. See Appendix E.
5.2.17 Comments on Section “3.5.2.3 Jobs and Employment” of the DGEIS Comment P-5 & TK-2 We also need to consider the problems that irresponsible, dangerous non-union construction may produce in our village; the village should commit to using only responsible contractors, at least on village-owned parcels.
Response P-5 & TK-2 The Village is required by New York State law, through the Building Code, to ensure the health, life, and safety of its buildings and structures – whether already standing or to be constructed. The Village’s Building Department follows the Building Code and has a substantial process by which a building or structure receives a Certificate of Occupancy. There is no tolerance in the Village for irresponsible or dangerous construction. This applies whether the contractor is union or not.
Comment P-23 I also ask that you think about are we losing our tax base by pushing out our restaurant workers and our small business owners…
March 2020 35 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Response P-23 Comment noted. See Response SPCA-1 on page 36.
Comment P-26 So I think it's just sitting at the table, finding some insurances from both sides, both the developers and the builders, and small businesses that would be able to keep some of the better or move prosperous businesses here in Port Chester, as well as all of them because everybody should have an opportunity.
Response P-26 Comment noted. See Response SPCA-1 on page 36.
Comment SPCA-1 Threats to small businesses include: Displacement: As buildings are torn down to make way for new development, many businesses will be evicted from their current locations, and many will struggle to find appropriate, affordable space to relocate to. Uncertainty: Rapid development means rapidly changing land values and intense speculation, which may prevent businesses from obtaining the long-term, stable leases they need to grow and thrive. Disruption: Heavy construction, tenant displacement and a shifting customer base can cause a temporary loss of business, and business relocation means temporary closure; many small businesses do not have the financial resources to adapt to these factors.
Response SPCA-1 See Response WCPB-13 on page 35. The comments of the Sustainable Port Chester Alliance, Rye-Port Chester NAACP, and others on the DGEIS have informed the creation of mitigation measures to alleviate impacts to small businesses. See revised DGEIS Section 3.5 for these mitigation measures (Appendix E).
Comment SPCA-2 Port Chester should implement a policy modelled on the Small Business Jobs Survival Act currently under consideration by the New York City Council, which would require longer-term leases and give small businesses the right of first refusal when leases are up for renewal.
Response SPCA-2 See Response SPCA-1 on page 36.
Comment SPCA-3 Port Chester should use some of the revenue generated by development to create a dedicated fund to provide grants or loans to small businesses to help with relocation.
Response SPCA-3 See Response SPCA-1 on page 36. The Village has added a new mitigation measure, a Business Displacement Fund, to Section 3.5.3.3 of the revised DGEIS. The creation of a Business Displacement Fund would utilize “fair share” contributions from every new site-specific development application that involves commercial displacement. See Appendix E for a description and additional detail.
Comment SPCA-4 New mixed-use development often creates retail spaces that are too large or otherwise inappropriate for small, locally-owned businesses. Port Chester should reexamine its zoning policy to ensure that its new zoning creates spaces appropriate for small businesses, and should where possible require that 10% of new retail space is offered to small, locally owned businesses.
Response SPCA-4 See Response SPCA-1 on page 36.
March 2020 36 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Comment RH-8 There is also no discussion of the displacement of residents and business. The concept that businesses and residents will move during construction and then move back into the new buildings is impossible in most cases. Most will not be able to afford the rents in the new buildings or the cost of 2 moves, unless as mitigation the developers are required to pay for the moves and rent the new units and stores at the previous rents.
Response RH-8 See Response WCPB-13 on page 35.
Comment GH-9 Developers and construction managers should be encouraged to: hire union workers; pay prevailing wages; and fund apprenticeship programs to ensure that local residents can use this wave of development as a step up to good-paying careers in the trades. Section 5.5.3.2 of the DGEIS addresses this opportunity by suggesting that the Village consider adopting a policy which encourages or requires Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) and Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs) as part of its Uniform Tax Exemption Policy (UTEP). While it may not be appropriate to include mention of these in the Form-Based Code itself, the Village will benefit economically, and local resistance to development and to the Form-Based Code itself, as drafted, will be defanged if the Trustees and the Industrial Development Agency (PCIDA) adopt a Resolution(s) encouraging or enforcing the use of CBAs and PLAs by local developers, in parallel with the approval of the Form Based Code.
Response GH-9 The appropriate body/entity to consider Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs) or Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) is the Port Chester Industrial Development Agency (PCIDA). The PCIDA has commented on these mechanisms in its December 23, 2019 letter (Appendix B). Apprenticeship programs are tied to unions. The Village is supportive of developers to utilize union labor as much as possible. As noted in the November 16, 2018 “Final Scoping Document – Agency and Public Comments on the Draft Scoping Document” Memorandum prepared by Fisher Associates (the Village’s SEQRA consultant for the project) requiring union labor for any future theoretical site-specific project is beyond the scope of the DGEIS, especially since the Proposed Action is a rezoning effort and the use or not of union labor on a generic level would be speculative. Similarly, wage rates to be paid by any future theoretical site-specific project is beyond the scope of the DGEIS. All such conversations should occur at the PCIDA or with individual developers.
Comment GH-11 & SPCA-11 The DGEIS improperly describes as mitigations to the proposed action a set of items that are in fact mere suggestions. After discussing the numerous severe socioeconomic impacts of the proposed rezoning (Section 3.5), for example, the DGEIS discusses a number of mitigations. To prevent small business displacement, for instance, the document discusses creating a small-business support program. Yet instead of positively stating that the village will do this, the DGEIS merely states that “The village could explore creating a policy that supports existing small businesses” (Section 3.5.3.2). To simply “explore” such an action does nothing whatsoever for small businesses; the village can and must actually implement such a policy. The EIS should clearly and positively state that the village will actually implement these policies, or should acknowledge that there are numerous unmitigated socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action as currently drafted.
Response GH-11 & SPCA-11 See Response WCPB-13 on page 35.
Comment IBEW-1 I submit that the village should (1) study further the foreseeable negative impacts of the rezoning on wages, employment, worker safety and public safety, and (2) delay implementation of the proposed rezoning until such time as policies are in place to ensure that these negative impacts are minimized through new policies and enforceable regulations.
March 2020 37 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Response IBEW-1 The DGEIS discusses impacts to employment in Section 3.5.2.3. Safety is of utmost importance to the Village and is discussed in Response P-5 & TK-2 on page 35. As noted in Response GH-9 on page 37, wage rates are beyond the scope of the DGEIS and SEQRA. Mitigation measures are described throughout the DGEIS, as revised, and will be finalized in the Findings Statement. See Appendix E.
Comment IBEW-3 Construction is an important part of the economy of the Lower Hudson Valley, employing tens of thousands of workers and offering one of the few paths to the middle class for many low-income workers, particularly people of color. The proposed rezoning would put this vital sector at risk. It would likely create a significant construction boom in Port Chester, as existing buildings are demolished and replaced with larger developments. It is likely, however, that much of this new construction would be undertaken by irresponsible contractors (Section 3.5.2.3) who pay low wages, engage in illegal practices like wage theft and employee misclassification, and promote unsafe construction practices that put workers and village residents at risk. An influx of such contractors would do serious damage to the labor market of Westchester County by eliminating good working-class jobs and undermining the wage and benefit standards responsible local contractors and construction workers have spent decades building. It would also put workers and local residents at risk through unsafe construction practices. Finally, low-quality construction by untrained workers and inexperienced contractors could put significant burdens on village residents--as we saw recently at the Castle development, where non-union plumbing work proved inadequate and was ultimately redone by union workers. Policies and enforceable regulations are surely needed to address these major concerns.
Response IBEW-3 See Response P-5 & TK-2 on page 35.
Comment IBEW-4 The village should mandate the Industrial Development Agency to modify its Uniform Tax Exemption Policy to require that any construction, which receives IDA subsidies, should: 1) Pay workers the Westchester-area prevailing wage as set by the New York State Department of Labor. 2) Agree to hire a fixed percentage of local residents through a state- registered apprenticeship program, thus providing working-class Port Chester residents with the opportunity to embark on careers in the trades. 3) Mandate a strict compliance program to make sure the above policies are fully adhered to through full disclosure as well as enforcement through fines and sanctions when necessary. This will require the Village or IDA to retain an independent, professional compliance firm that gathers the required data and regularly files detailed reports on their findings.
Response IBEW-4 See Response GH-9 on page 37.
Comment NAACP-2 Knowing that the majority of these small businesses that have revitalized Port Chester into a place people want to visit is largely due to several businesses owned by people of color. Our group took it upon itself to create a map where you can see the number of small businesses owned by people of color rezoning could displace.
Response NAACP-2 Comment noted. The Village appreciates the ‘Port Chester POC Business Map’ created by the NAACP and desires to integrate it as a resource to consider in the review process. The DGEIS in Section 6.0 under ‘Socioeconomics’ has been revised to add the following to the ‘Supplemental Economic Documentation’ mitigation measure: “…The Port Chester POC Business Map shall be reviewed by the applicant and a discussion of potential impacts to these businesses shall be included with the supplemental economic documentation.” See Appendix E.
Comment NAACP-3 [The NAACP Working group insists that the Village] 1) create a policy that supports existing small businesses remaining in the Village, which would make sure new development incorporates existing businesses into their development.
March 2020 38 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Response NAACP-3 See Response SPCA-1 on page 36.
Comment NAACP-4 [The NAACP Working group insists that the Village] 2) creates a small business lease program in order to establish an environment for fair negotiations in the commercial lease process.
Response NAACP-4 See Response SPCA-1 on page 36.
Comment NAACP-5 [The NAACP Working group insists that the Village] 3) continues to provide support to small businesses through State and County programs.
Response NAACP-5 See Response SPCA-1 on page 36.
Comment NAACP-6 [The NAACP Working group insists that the Village] 4) adopts a policy supporting the use of building and construction trades, especially local residents.
Response NAACP-6 See Response P-5 & TK-2 on page 35.
Comment NAACP-7 [The NAACP Working group insists that the Village] 5) adopts a policy supporting the Port Chester Industrial Development Agency (PCIDA) to explore Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) and Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs) as part of its Uniform Tax Exemption Policy (UTEP).
Response NAACP-7 See December 23, 2019 letter from the PCIDA requesting clarification (provided in Appendix B). See Response IDA- 3 on page 40.
Comment NAACP-8 Based on the data above, the DGEIS could potentially displace half of our population -- a majority of which is already employed. We ask you to consider what is the mechanism for considering these conditions and implementing them? At what point in this process will they be considered and by whom? If 50% of our residents are currently in unskilled or low-skilled jobs, what does this mean if small businesses likely employ 25% of our workforce? The DGEIS also does not take into consideration the types of jobs that will be generated by the Proposed Action.
Response NAACP-8 See Response WCPB-13 on page 35.
Comment NAACP-9 The NAACP Working group insists that conditions be implemented, such as enshrining Community Benefits Agreements to include pre-apprenticeship programs, project labor agreements and prevailing wage protection prior to the preparation of the Final Generic Impact Statement and not afterward when there is no incentive to do as much.
Response NAACP-9 The mechanisms mentioned by the commentator are under the purview of the PCIDA. See Response IDA-3 on page 40. The Village is supportive of pre-apprenticeship programs as a way to train unskilled workers to work on local projects. That being said, the Village itself is unable to create or administer such program and would have to rely upon others to do so.
March 2020 39 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Comment IDA-3 In Section 3.5.3.2, mitigation of zoning impacts on “Jobs and Employment,” it states: The Village could consider adopting a policy supporting the Port Chester Industrial Development Agency (PCIDA) to further explore Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) and Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs) as part of its Uniform Tax Exemption Policy (UTEP). If adopted, The VoPC IDA would need clarification as to the “support” offered by the Village regarding these mechanisms. If the support is a request to study these matters, it should be noted that as job creation is a key mandate of the VoPC IDA, we continually perform extensive study and outreach on labor issues. These have included, but not been limited to, holding a symposium on labor issues in October 2016, meeting with labor representatives, and having community groups present before the Agency Board. When considering PLAs, it is important to note the relatively small size of the labor pool in the Village. Any development project large enough to accommodate the incremental cost of a PLA would likely require skilled workers and apprentices from across the multi-county region. The overwhelming majority of those employed will probably not be Village residents or, more specifically, workers displaced by redevelopment. As the intention is to mitigate the loss of jobs directly due to the displacement of incumbent businesses that are facing loss of venue due to redevelopment, it is the Agency’s suggestion that a more focused mitigation be considered. In January 2017, the VoPC IDA adopted a Policy Statement on Community Benefits that underscores our commitment to encourage all recipients of VoPC IDA assistance to purchase goods and services from Port Chester businesses and to provide employment opportunities for Port Chester residents. We believe that policy is the appropriate vehicle to address potential issues that could be covered by a CBA, such as providing for any workers that may be displaced by a proposed development. Modifying the VoPC IDA’s governing laws to require a CBA for every IDA project is not necessary or appropriate.
Response IDA-3 Comment noted. The DGEIS in Section 3.5.3.3 has been revised to read: “Beyond those potential strategies listed above to be explored, the Village shall adopt a policy that states that it supports the PCIDA’s consideration of PLAs and CBAs as mechanisms for enhanced financial assistance on individual projects as it looks to update its UTEP.”
5.2.18 Comments on Section “3.5.2.4 Tax Revenues” of the DGEIS Comment P-8 The property tax projections on page 45, does not consider any IDA pilots. Therefore it's worthless. I am sure Trustee Ferrara can tell you that no developers are coming into Port Chester or really anywhere in Westchester county without going for a pilot, whether it is in Port Chester or Westchester county of wherever that happens to be. So they're claiming that the — all this new development on the 20-year market would add 500 million dollars tax role potential to both the school district and to the village, 500 million dollars over a 20-year period. Now I'm assuming that's assessed value and not actually property taxes. But either way there is no way that that number makes any sense because everyone is gonna ask for a pilot, that's based upon full taxes and you're not doing any full tax.
Response P-8 The commentator is correct that the property tax revenue to be generated does not consider the possibility of a PILOT – or any other financial assistance – being provided by the PCIDA. As noted in the November 16, 2018 “Final Scoping Document – Agency and Public Comments on the Draft Scoping Document” Memorandum prepared by Fisher Associates (the Village’s SEQRA consultant for the project), the level of tax incentives granted to developers at an undetermined time in the future would be speculative and is beyond the scope of the DGEIS. A foundational principal of PILOTs is that existing tax revenues are, at a minimum, frozen at current levels. The taxes generated by development – even one with a PILOT – is greater than existing tax generation. Even with PILOTs, it is anticipated that there will be a significant increase in tax revenues to all taxing jurisdictions as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action.
Comment RH-5 Page 45, Tax Revenue: “The analysis...does not take into consideration any tax benefits that a particular development project could receive from the ...PCIDA.” It is completely unrealistic to assume any new development would pay taxes on a full assessment so all the financial impact analysis is flawed.
March 2020 40 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Response RH-5 See Response P-8 on page 40.
Comment SB-6 The District understands that the Village may use payment in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) to enhance projects when and if the Form-Based Code is adopted. In Section 5.3.2.5 of the DGEIS, there is a statement that community benefit agreements trigger increased PILOTs. The use of PILOTs generally results in decreased school tax revenue. Understanding that chronologically, a Mitigation Plan will be developed later, the District requests that any such Mitigation Plan developed clearly demonstrates a balanced approach benefiting the Village and the District with respect to the use of PILOTS.
Response SB-6 See Response P-8 on page 40. Even with PILOTs, it is anticipated that there will be increased tax revenues to the School District. The comment stating that “…community benefit agreements trigger increased PILOTs” is unclear as such a statement does not appear in Section 5.3.2.5 of the DGEIS. As noted in Response SB-3 on page 31, the Village is committed to continuing to have a dialogue with the School District/School Board on important matters such as the “fair share” contribution mitigation fund through its liaison meetings.
5.2.19 Other Comments on Section “3.5 Socioeconomics” of the DGEIS
5.2.19.1 Topic: Environmental Justice Comment P-32 And lastly, the CP29 that's talked about. That is for a DEC environmental permit process. That is for a DEC environmental review process, which is for DEC'S enforcement program, DEC'S grant programs, and DEC'S public participation provisions. It has nothing to do with local review of any particular development. It is nice if you include environmental justice in your general review, but the CP29, does not apply.
Response P-32 The commentator is correct that CP-29 is an environmental justice policy of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Federal, State, and local policies on environmental justice were reviewed to determine an acceptable way of integrating environmental justice into the development review process. The Village used NYSDEC CP-29 as a model to utilize on the local level in Port Chester with the understanding that such policy adequately addresses potential environmental hazards on low-income and minority neighborhoods that may result from proposed development involving NYSDEC approvals. It is noted that while the proposed Form-Based Code does not address environmental justice specifically, development of the Code recognized the incompatibility of some existing high-intensity use designations (i.e., industrial) and their impact or potential impact on the health and safety of local residents, as well as community character. It further recognized that some nonconforming uses would eventually transition to allowable uses that would further reduce potential environmental hazards associated with those nonconforming uses. Therefore, the Proposed Code and its proposed character districts indirectly respond to the environmental justice concerns raised by the commenter. Thus, the Proposed Action will not have significant impacts to environmental justice communities.
5.2.19.2 Topic: Voting Comment HR-10 We have not seen a published study on how the proposed code might affect voting in the Village of Port Chester. How the new proposed development would affect new voting districts. How the new potential population consisting mostly of singles, young couples and empty nesters might affect votes on the school system budget. Hire qualified outside firm to study the effects of new proposed development on the above mentioned topics to provide published report for all Boards and Commissions to review.
March 2020 41 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Response HR-10 Voting impacts were not included as part of the adopted DGEIS Final Scoping Document and, therefore, are not part of the DGEIS. The inclusion of such a topic is beyond the scope of the DGEISbecause the Proposed Action is a rezoning effort.
5.2.19.3 Topic: Port Chester Industrial Development Agency (PCIDA) Comment HR-15 Has the IDA changed their offerings in areas where there is a Federal Incentive such as an Opportunity Zone? Does the IDA have a different offering for areas where there is a State Incentive? I am a strong believer that these developers who are interested in Port Chester will remain interested in Port Chester regardless of an IDA incentive.
Response HR-15 The Federal Opportunity Zone program and New York State Industrial Development Agency financial assistance have two (2) disparate missions – Opportunity Zones provide tax relief over a long time period, which is beneficial for investors; IDA financial assistance relates to the upfront costs of development to allow a project to continue to operate as income begins to grow. Therefore, at the current time, the PCIDA does not consider the Federal Opportunity Zone program in its review of any potential financial assistance to a particular project. The Village is unclear about the commentator’s reference of a “State Incentive.” The PCIDA’s application for financial assistance is available on their website, which indicates the questions and information that the PCIDA considers when reviewing an application.
5.2.19.4 Topic: Miscellaneous Comments Comment P-10 Socioeconomic mitigation on page 45 and 46 it says, these should be considered. It doesn't say they're required, it doesn't say it's an actual mitigation that has to be done, it just says should be considered.
Response P-10 A core component of the SEQRA process is that potential impacts and proposed mitigation are refined as the process goes from Scoping to DEIS, to FEIS, and finally to Findings Statement. All of the mitigation measures proposed in the DGEIS have been further defined and/or clarified in the FGEIS in response to public and agency comments and will be finalized in the Findings Statement.
Comment HJW-1 As I have suggested in various meetings over the years, this problem could be alleviated – and the goals for economic development achieved – by bringing the arts, crafts and culture generally into play. The first goal, it seems to me, should be to create a “buzz” regarding Port Chester’s downtown area: to give people a sense that something is happening culturally in this area. For example, agreements could be made with landlords to rent out the empty commercial spaces on short-term leases or even for the very short term as “pop-up” stores. Larger spaces could host live music and/or dance performances, poetry readings, etc. Smaller spaces could invite local and regional artists and artisans to display and sell their work in a boutique setting.
Response HJW-1 Comment noted. One of the objectives of the Village’s 2017-2022 Strategic Plan is to promote economic development activities in our downtown. Most of the efforts of the Village over the past few years has been “placemaking” in downtown, ranging from the Liberty Square pop-up pedestrian plaza, to the streetscape plan, to waterfront and promenade reactivation. The State has been instrumental in providing needed financial assistance to help implement these projects. The suggestions noted by the commentator are ideas the Village will consider as it continues to improve downtown.
Comment GH-10 & SPCA-10 The DGEIS makes no attempt to quantify how many buildings might be destroyed, nor does it address the effect of large-scale demolition throughout the downtown area on village character, residential displacement or business displacement. The EIS should correct these gaps and recommend mitigations or limitations on demolition.
March 2020 42 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Response GH-10 & SPCA-10 See Response P-1 on page 22 regarding community character; Response P-31 on page 33 regarding residential displacement; and Response WCPB-13 on page 35 regarding business displacement. The Proposed Action evaluated in the DGEIS is the adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning,” and Official Zoning Map by the Board of Trustees – the rezoning of the entire Village. Zoning on its own has no direct impacts on the environment, as it is the legal framework for future development.
Comment NAACP-1 We strongly advise that the recent rezoning of Inwood, a predominantly black and Latino neighborhood in upper Manhattan, be reviewed carefully in order to avoid the mistakes made in that project.
Response NAACP-1 Comment noted. Prior to embarking on the project and then again during the SEQRA scoping sessions for the project, the Inwood Rezoning Proposal was reviewed, among others. The commentator is correct in that the Inwood rezoning project is a “cautionary tale” of how a rezoning effort does not respond appropriately to community concerns. It is the Village’s explicit intent to not replicate the same mistakes, but rather, to hopefully be a model for a community- driven, municipality-wide rezoning effort.
5.2.20 Comments on Section “3.6 Historic and Cultural Resources” of the DGEIS Comment P-12 It does not include the list of buildings that are eligible for the state register of a historic place. Even though the environmental assessment inform itself, does the project site contain or is it substantially contiguous to a building archeological site district which is listed on the national or state register or that has been determined by the commission of New York state department office parks and recreation to be eligible for the state register of historic places. It is not even listed in this. They list six national register buildings, but they don't list anything from the state register. And they give no mitigation. Buildings are proposed to be torn down that are eligible for the state register. Right now, there are proposed to torn them down in Port Chester and there is no mitigation at all.
Response P-12 Comment noted. The Village shares the commentator’s concern regarding potential impacts to eligible and historic buildings within the Village. The DGEIS in Section 3.6 has been revised to include the list of buildings and structures within the Village of Port Chester that are eligible for the New York State Register of Historic Places. In addition, the DGEIS in Section 3.6 has been revised to include additional mitigation measures to ensure that the protection of historic buildings and structures is an important component of an application review (see Response RH-1 on page 22). The Proposed Action evaluated in the DGEIS is the adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning,” and Official Zoning Map by the Board of Trustees – the rezoning of the entire Village. Zoning on its own has no direct impacts on the environment, as it is the legal framework for future development. The Proposed Action does not propose or otherwise recommend demolition of eligible or historic buildings or structures.
Comment MNR-3 Kindly note in the FGEIS that Port Chester Station was determined Historic by NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) and it is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Eligible historic structures owned by Metro-North, like Port Chester Station, are afforded the same protection as those listed on the National Register. In accordance with these laws, Metro-North is required to consult with SHPO on any project. Kindly add this resource to this section for measurement of impacts in the FGEIS.
Response MNR-3 Comment noted. The DGEIS in Section 3.6 has been revised to include Port Chester Station as eligible for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. Section 6.0 under ‘Historic and Cultural Resources’ has been revised to include the following future SEQRA action: “Metro-North SHPO Coordination: For any project that involves Metro-North, Metro-North is required to consult with SHPO. Further, any future site-specific development
March 2020 43 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
project substantially contiguous to the Port Chester Station, Metro-North would have to consult with SHPO.” See Response RH-1on page 22.
Comment RH-7 Page 47: “In addition, potential impacts include possible demolition of existing structures that may be eligible or listed or even deemed by some to be locally significant to make way for new development resulting from the new code. New development as a result of adoption of the amended zoning code will conform to the existing historic character of the Village.” This conflicts with the comment page 24 above. There is no mitigation proposed and it is unrealistic to assume that multiple new buildings in the downtown will not change perhaps irretrievably so the historic Village character. Controlling the “form” of new buildings will not save the historic character. The DGEIS does not even include the list of buildings SHPO has deemed eligible for the State Register.
Response RH-7 Section 3.6.3 “Mitigation Measures” of the DGEIS states, “When state or federal funding is used or a state or federal permit is required regarding a proposed project, the project’s sponsor must consult with OPRHP to obtain an opinion regarding potential impacts on cultural resources. This consultation is required for properties containing historic resources listed on, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP. Consultation may result in a letter of “No Effect” or “No Impact” or SHPO may require a cultural resources investigation involving a historic resources/standing structures analysis and/or Phase 1 archaeological investigation depending on the potential resources affected. In addition to the consultation process, Type I or unlisted actions under SEQRA that may potentially impact NRHP listed or eligible sites would require consultation to allow a lead agency to effectively determine whether such action will have an adverse impact on historic resources. As appropriate, the SHPO will determine the appropriate level of site investigation and evaluation necessary to ensure the effects or impacts of a project on NRHP-listed or eligible properties are considered and avoided or mitigated during the project planning process. Site-specific review will also focus on any impact to locally significant structures. The Village should establish a Village Historic Preservation Commission and include them as a Referral Body in the development application review process to ensure that impacts to historic resources are minimized. This should coincide with an investigation establishing a Historic District in the downtown area.” In addition, see Response RH-1 on page 22 and Response P-12 on page 43.
5.2.21 Comments on Section “3.7 Water Resources” of the DGEIS No comments.
5.2.22 Comments on Section “3.8 Ecological Resources” of the DGEIS No comments.
5.2.23 Comments on Section “3.9 Geology, Topography, and Soils” of the DGEIS No comments.
5.2.24 Comments on Section “3.10 Hazardous and Contaminated Sites” of the DGEIS No comments.
5.2.25 Comments on Section “3.11 Air and Noise” of the DGEIS Comment P-11 Noise, they don't even talk about the airport. You can't move the airport I know, my house is under it, I am sure some of your houses are under it. But they say that there would have to be construction standards with sound attenuating to 45 decibels, within the contours of 65 to 75 decibel area. This will be very difficult to enforce and you know, I don't think any of our buildings are built to 45 decibels, it's not even mentioned in the report.
March 2020 44 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Response P-11 Although Westchester County Airport is only approximately 2.8 miles from the northern border of the Village of Port Chester and many homes and businesses are under its flightpath, the implementation of the Proposed Action would not have an impact on the Airport. With regards to noise, the existing noise environment created by the presence of the Airport would not be impacted by the implementation of the Proposed Action and, therefore, per the adopted DGEIS Final Scoping Document, the evaluation of noise impacts related to the Airport were not warranted. However, given the existence of the railroad running through the center of the Village and the likelihood that new residential development would occur proximate to the railroad, there is the potential for significant adverse noise impacts on residential buildings. Mitigating this through specific noise attenuation measures is common practice, especially for United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-involved projects. The DGEIS in Section 3.11.3, has been revised to state: “As new residential development is proposed within the 65 to 70 decibel noise contour area related to the railroad, sound attenuating construction standards are recommended that reduce interior sound levels to the target goal of 45 decibels. Sound Transmission levels (STL) of construction materials and methods will be evaluated during site plan review ¬based upon the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) noise policy (24 CFR 51B).” A similar statement has been added to Section 6.0 under “Air and Noise.”
5.2.26 Comments on Section “4.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts” of the DGEIS Comment MNR-4 Though the statement that traffic mitigation will be a parameter for establishment of thresholds and conditions in the Findings Statement, there is no similar statement about transportation / transit conditions or mitigation measures.
Response MNR-4 Comment noted. See Response MNR-1 on page 25. The DGEIS in Section 4.1 has been revised to include the following statement: “Additional passenger trips will be generated for bus and rail services within the Village, with associated potential impacts. Transit mitigation will be a parameter for establishment of specific requirements for any subsequent SEQRA compliance for any future site-specific development application in the Findings Statement.”
5.2.27 Comments on Section “4.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources” of the DGEIS No comments.
5.2.28 Comments on Section “4.3 Growth-Inducing, Cumulative, and Secondary Impacts” of the DGEIS Comment RH-9 Page 62, Growth Inducing Cumulative and Secondary Impacts. This section is omitted.
Response RH-9 Comment noted. The DGEIS in Section 4.3 has been revised to include Growth Inducing, Cumulative, and Secondary Impacts. See Appendix E.
5.2.29 Comments on Section “4.4 Energy Use and Conservation” of the DGEIS Comment GH-1 The DGEIS makes mention of LEED-ND checklists and Green Infrastructure, but I suspect that private industry and public governing bodies are going to have to take more drastic steps than green roofs, solar panels, and mandatory sortation and recycling of waste streams if we are to avert climate disaster and ensure that this planet remains habitable for our children, grand-children and their descendants.
Response GH-1 The Village is committed to sustainability efforts to reduce carbon footprint, reduce generation of greenhouse gas emissions, and dependence on fossil fuels. See Section 4.5 of the DGEIS.
March 2020 45 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
5.2.30 Comments on Section “4.5 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise” of the DGEIS No comments.
5.2.31 Comments on Section “5.1 No-Action Alternative” of the DGEIS No comments.
5.2.32 Comments on Section “5.2 Euclidean Zoning Update Alternative” of the DGEIS No comments.
5.2.33 Comments on Section “5.3 Greater Affordable Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Unit Requirement Alternative” of the DGEIS Comment P-15 Our concerned is going to be focused on the section 5.0, which would be the affordable housing. I don't know what the Board is gonna come up with, however, if it does come up with a solution that we would not be in favor of anything over the 10 percent, we are going to do our due diligence and give our reasons why we think that 10 percent would impact us.
Response P-15 The Proposed Action in the DGEIS (and in this FGEIS) is proposed to contain a required 10% set-aside of affordable Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (affordable AFFH) Units in all districts for new development that contains 10 or more units (see Article 4, Section 405.A.U). The DGEIS contains an alternative – the greater affordable Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (greater affordable AFFH) Unit Requirement Alternative – that requires a 30% set-aside, among other differences. The DGEIS evaluates the greater affordable AFFH alternative including anticipated socioeconomic impacts on population, schools, fiscal impacts, affordable housing, and residential and commercial displacement/impact on Environmental Justice Communities. See Response CF-1 on page 17 with regards to the potential to select an alternative in the Findings Statement.
Comment P-20 The one thing that stepped out to me was the 30 percent affordable housing alternative, and the one thing I'll ask when it comes to affordable housing is at least do some sort of a financial impact.
Response P-20 See Response P-15 on page 46 and Section 5.3.2 of the DGEIS, which evaluates anticipated impacts of the greater affordable AFFH. The 2017 FEIS for the United Hospital Redevelopment rezoning in Response to Comment F53 provides an example of the potential financial impact of affordable housing on that proposed project. The reader is encouraged to look at the recently completed “Affordable Housing Cost Study” prepared for the State of Oregon Housing and Community Services Department (OHCS).
Comment LT-1 It is my understanding that 10% affordable housing is being set aside for future projects and I feel that is fair. I do not support section 5.3 in the DGEIS at seeks to consider 30 % affordable housing because we cannot be over saturated and have an unhealthy balance in our small community. I would like to see an impact statement on our current stock of affordable housing and with changes made how that will affect our tax base.
Response LT-1 See Response P-15 on page 46 and Response P-21 on page 32 with respect to the mitigation measure related to conducting a housing needs assessment.
March 2020 46 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Comment RH-10 Page 67, Affordable Housing Alternative. Fee-in lieu payments are virtually useless in providing affordable housing. The Village has had an affordable housing fund for many years and has not spent a penny on increasing affordable housing. In addition the amount is insufficient to make any real impact on the affordable housing need.
Response RH-10 Comment noted. The Village will not pursue a fee-in lieu of payment for affordable housing. See Response P-18 on page 32.
Comment NAACP-10 The NAACP Working Group supports the alternative recommendation supplied by Sustainable Port Chester Alliance. The NAACP Working Group will go so far as to adjust downward and will accept no less than 15% set aside with varying degrees of affordability ranging from 30 - 60% of AMI.
Response NAACP-10 Comment noted. See Response CF-1 on page 17 with regards to the potential to select an alternative in the Findings Statement.
Comment IDA-2 The VoPC IDA understands that housing affordability is a critical issue throughout the region and is fully supportive of the Westchester County recommended Inclusive Zoning 10% Affordable Housing set aside model. However, Inclusive Zoning puts the cost of the Affordable component squarely on the development itself, with little benefit of the kinds of resources such as tax credits that are available at the State and County level for stand-alone Affordable projects. The Greater Affordable Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AAFFH) Unit Requirement Alternative being considered will weigh much too heavily on mixed-use projects and may inhibit their financial viability, even with significantly greater assistance than the VoPC IDA might normally consider or consider prudent. As such the VoPC IDA cautions against elevating this option beyond the 10% level.
Response IDA-2 Comment noted. See Response CF-1 on page 17 with regards to the potential to select an alternative in the Findings Statement.
Comment WCPB-2 We note that the DGEIS contains a zoning alternative that would increase the required affordable AFFH set-aside to 30%. We are not supportive of the preference system proposed in this alternative. To be consistent with the County's Model Ordinance Provisions, there should be no preference system established to favor existing residents, even if they are displaced by new development. The Village should only consider a preference for some portion of affordable units in any development after analysis has been done to confirm that any demographic group that might wish for preferences has been determined to be a racially and ethnically diverse group (e.g. veterans).
Response WCPB-2 Comment noted. A difference between the affordable housing requirements as put forth in the Proposed Action in the DGEIS and the greater affordable AFFH Unit Requirement Alternative is the inclusion of preferences. See Response CF-1 on page 17 with regards to the potential to select an alternative in the Findings Statement. One approach may be, per the commentator’s suggestion, to consider a requirement without preferences and at some point in the future conduct the analyses necessary to establish if a preference(s) are determined to be a racially and ethnically diverse group. This could be a statement within the Findings Statement.
5.2.34 Comments on Section “5.4 CD-6-T Urban Core TOD Character District Alternative” of the DGEIS Comment P-2 I am here tonight to encourage the Board to incorporate that CD6-T alternative into the proposed SEQRA action and ultimately adopt a form-based code with the 17 story, 179 foot maximum in the CD-6-T.
March 2020 47 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Response P-2 Comment noted. Being consistent with Village staff’s policy of not making code revisions regarding height without Board of Trustees input, per the Board’s direction at an October 3, 2019 workshop, the DGEIS included the CD-6-T Urban Core TOD Character District Alternative. See Response CF-1 on page 17 with regards to the potential to select an alternative in the Findings Statement.
Comment P-28 That the 179-foot, 17 story CD-6-T alternative would, in fact, meet that community desired development at that area. So therefore, the record should show in your finding statement, you could adopt the finding statement that indicates that this CD-6-T alternative is consistent with community character.
Response P-28 See Response P-2 on page 48. Should the Board of Trustees decide to elevate this alternative to Proposed Action, the Findings Statement would need to provide an additional analysis with regards to community character and state in the record that the alternative is consistent with community character since the DGEIS stated “In consideration of this alternative, the Lead Agency (the Board of Trustees) would have to examine in greater detail those greater potential impacts should it wish to pursue the alternative as a Proposed Action…”
Comment MNR-5 As noted the area immediately adjacent to the Port Chester station represents the potential for Transit Oriented Development. Though Metro-North recognizes that the implementation of TOD has the potential to increase the number of riders, particularly those who would not need a parking space to access the station, at a minimum, Metro- North requires the maintenance of existing parking capacity, and encourages an increase to that capacity through the construction of TOD.
Response MNR-5 A focus on transit-oriented development (TOD) is an integral part of the proposed new Form-Based Code. The Proposed Action allows greater density in the CD-6 Urban Core Character District. The CD-6-T Urban Core TOD Character District Alternative increases that transit-oriented density from twelve (12) stories to seventeen (17) or 179 feet, whichever is less. While the commentator commented specifically on the CD-6-T Urban Core TOD Character District Alternative, the Village believes that the comment applies to the CD-6 District as well. The Village acknowledges that any proposed development that would utilize existing railroad parking capacity and would be required to coordinate with Metro-North on the expected provision of increased parking capacity. The DGEIS in Section 6.0 under ‘Transportation Resources’ has been revised to include the following statement as an action that would be required for any future site-specific SEQRA review within that district(s): “Metro-North Parking Coordination: Developments that would utilize existing railroad parking capacity may be required to coordinate with Metro-North on the expected provision of increased parking capacity.”
Comment PC-9 The Planning Commission does not support the CD-6-T Urban Core TOD Character District Alternative.
Response PC-9 See Response P-2 on page 48.
Comment ZS-1 Broad Street encourages the Board to incorporate the CD-6-T Alternative into the Proposed Action, and ultimately adopt a Form Based Code that includes a 17-story/179-foot maximum building height for the CD-6-T District.
Response ZS-1 See Response P-2 on page 48.
March 2020 48 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Comment ZS-2 The DGEIS suggests that it remains an open question whether the CD-6-T Alternative results in additional community character impacts above the Proposed Action. To the extent that the Board agrees, we submit the Record also supports a determination that allowing buildings up to 17 stories or 179 feet next to the Train Station would not result in any additional impacts beyond what has been shown as acceptable in the DGEIS when assessing the CD-6 Proposed Action… Accordingly, the Board should determine in its Findings Statement that the CD-6-T Alternative would, in fact, facilitate the “community's desired future state or character” for the Train Station subarea.
Response ZS-2 See Response P-28 on page 48.
Comment ZS-3 Since the DGEIS already establishes that the 179-foot tall full build out under the CD-6 is acceptable with respect to visual impacts, the Board should also conclude in its Findings that incorporating the 17-story/179-foot maximum into the Proposed Action would not result in any additional significant visual impacts in the Train Station “subarea,” or the Village at large. Similar to the conclusion in the DGEIS, the Board should determine that incorporating the CD- 6-T Alternative into the Form Based Code would ensure that redevelopment in the Train Station subarea is “complementary and additive” to the Village. The Board should also conclude in its Findings that allowing buildings up to 179 feet tall is appropriate for the “subarea” next to the Train Station.
Response ZS-3 See Response P-2 on page 48 and Response P-28 on page 48.
Comment IDA-1 The VoPC IDA is generally supportive of a CD-6-T Urban Core TOD Character District Alternative, although it harbors some concerns about frontage on Westchester Avenue, which could conflict with the character of the downtown. We have seen smaller projects struggle to be viable even with reasonable financial assistance and believe elevating this option will allow for more robust projects with a greater chance of success once built. Any incremental impacts can certainly be mitigated.
Response IDA-1 See Response P-2 on page 48 and Response P-28 on page 48.
5.2.35 Comments on Section “5.5 Further Alternatives” of the DGEIS No comments.
5.2.36 Comments on Section “6.0 Future SEQRA Actions” of the DGEIS Comment P-13 Under SEQRA these came up at the last meeting, what — what happens with future SEQRA. It says that if it exceeds certain thresholds there would have to be future SEQRA. But the thresholds are not listed, the thresholds apparently are gonna be provided in the finding statement and not before.
Response P-13 The Village has previously indicated that an objective of developing a new Form-Based Code and preparing a GEIS is to assist in streamlining the development review and approval process. Beyond having a clear, community-driven vision for the community and regulations that can effectuate that vision, focusing the SEQRA review of individual projects to the resources that would be specifically impacted is an expected outcome of the effort. The GEIS evaluates, generically, impacts on all environmental resources and provides generic mitigation measures for those impacts. Section 6.0 of the DGEIS identifies the relationship between the GEIS and Future SEQRA Actions. In this case, where a GEIS has been prepared to consider proposed Village-wide Zoning Code, any future site-specific SEQRA action would remain subject to SEQRA for the required ‘hard look’ at potentially significant adverse impacts. To the extent the GEIS has identified and analyzed certain types of impacts, future SEQRA actions may require less analysis
March 2020 49 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
within some areas of potential impact. Tt is expected the Findings Statement will reiterate that future SEQRA actions must identify and analyze where supplementary information, analysis, and/or mitigation is required. Future SEQRA actions are generally more likely to be focused on primary or direct impacts, whereas, secondary or indirect impacts may be sufficiently addressed in a GEIS. For future actions following the issuance of a Findings Statement, initial SEQRA procedures such as Lead Agency designation, classification of the Proposed Action, review of an EAF (with or without supplementary studies), as well as a Determination of Significance must be performed prior to determining which potential impacts may require supplementary SEQRA analysis or mitigation. Accordant with the SEQRA Regulations, supplementary SEQRA analysis for future actions may yield one (1) the following determinations: (5) No further SEQRA compliance is required if a subsequent proposed action will be carried out in conformance with the conditions and thresholds established for such actions in the generic EIS or its findings statement; (6) An amended findings statement must be prepared if the subsequent proposed action was adequately addressed in the generic EIS but was not addressed or was not adequately addressed in the findings statement for the generic EIS; (7) A negative declaration must be prepared if a subsequent proposed action was not addressed or was not adequately addressed in the generic EIS and the subsequent action will not result in any significant environmental impacts; or (8) A supplement to the final generic EIS must be prepared if the subsequent proposed action was not addressed or was not adequately addressed in the generic EIS and the subsequent action may have one or more significant adverse environmental impacts.
It is likely that most future SEQRA actions would fit into the category described above in item (3).
Comment MNR-2 It should be noted that due to the proximity of the site to Metro-North's active rail operations, it will be required for all projects that drainage be directed away from Metro-North's Right-of-Way. Metro-North will require review and approval of future development plans that have the potential to have impacts to the active rail operation. Additionally, entry permits from Metro-North may be required for construction of projects resulting from this rezoning along our right-of-way depending upon the distance.
Response MNR-2 Comment noted. See Response MNR-1 on page 25. See Appendix E.
Comment MNR-6 Section 6.0 (Future SEQRA Action, Transportation Resources – page 74) mentions supplemental traffic and parking analyses but should include the requirement for supplemental transit analyses as well. Additionally, please include that each individual project resulting from this rezoning should measure impacts to transit as well.
Response MNR-6 Comment noted. See Response MNR-1 on page 25. See Appendix E.
Comment RH-11 Pages 73-76, Future SEQRA Actions: Some sections say WILL and others say MAY. What determines the difference?
Response RH-11 The term ‘shall’ denotes something that is mandatory for all site-specific applications; the term ‘may’ denotes something that would only be required on particular site-specific applications, but not all. The DGEIS in Section 6.0 has been revised to clarify this word/term usage. See Appendix E.
Comment GH-8 & SPCA-9 An important purpose of the SEQRA process is to ensure that community concerns are attended to when major developments are proposed. Currently in Port Chester, most large developments require their own environmental review process, which allows the community to weigh in on potential impacts on a case-by-case basis and grants the village government the right to refuse projects which would have a negative impact. Under the proposed rezoning,
March 2020 50 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
large projects will be constructed "as of right," with little opportunity to study their impacts and modify plans accordingly. This represents a massive loss of public control over development, with significant effects on all aspects of village life, from traffic to affordable housing to village character. Section 6.0 of the DGEIS proposes to address this issue by requiring at least some future development proposals to conduct at least some additional review, but fails to specify which projects would be required to do environmental review under what circumstances. Instead, it states that: “It is expected that the Findings Statement will contain conditions that establish thresholds and requirements for supplementary impact analyses, where necessary, and mitigation measures for future site-specific development that is proposed in accordance with the Proposed Action” (Page 73). In other words, the public won't learn which projects will require review until the findings statement, when it may be too late to debate this important issue. The FEIS should specify clearly and specifically that all projects over a particular size will require SEQRA review, so that the public retains control over development in the village.
Responses GH-8 & SPCA-9 Comment noted. The Village is in agreement that a key component of the SEQRA process is to ensure that community concerns are addressed. Future site-specific applications will still undergo a SEQRA review and the community will remain involved in the process. Such review will be focused on key issues either noted specifically in the GEIS/Findings Statement or specific to that site or proposal. In Response P-13 on page 49 there is a description regarding SEQRA regulations that permit no further SEQRA compliance. However, the expectation in Port Chester is that most projects will require a SEQRA review. See Response P-13 regarding revisions to the DGEIS to be specific about requirements for any subsequent SEQRA compliance for any future site-specific development application.
March 2020 51 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
6.0 FAIR SHARE MITIGATION
6.1 Introduction Since community services and infrastructural capacity is vital to the future of the Port Chester community and has value to both the public and private sectors, the DGEIS introduced the approach of “Fair Share Contribution” as mitigation to offset the potential capital costs associated with increased demand placed on certain community services and facilities and impacts related thereto. Not only does this provide a method by which the impacts of potential development can be mitigated, but it also allows for the maximization of public and private funds towards comprehensive service and infrastructure planning, without burdening the Village, State, County, or any individual property owner alone. The DGEIS further stated that the methodology for determining such “Fair Share Contribution” Mitigation, the details of such mitigation, and its plan and process, would be provided in the FGEIS. These details, its plan, and process follows.
6.2 Precedent in New York State Since the establishment of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) process within the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) in 1982, several communities within New York State have utilized that process to develop financial strategies to allow cost sharing for infrastructure improvements. In fact, specifically here in the lower Hudson Valley, a number of communities have utilized the approach of “fair-share contribution” mitigation within a GEIS. A GEIS evaluates if certain actions may have a significant impact on the environment within a specific geographic area (i.e., the “study area”). To guide decision making, a GEIS will describe the positive and negative environmental effects of a proposed action and any mitigation measures necessary to eliminate or reduce significant adverse environmental impacts. A GEIS can cover a range of community needs such as water, sewer, fire protection, recreation, and schools, as well as transportation.
A GEIS allows for the standardization of the way future developments are held accountable for their impacts. Overall impact is determined and mitigation measures are proposed, which can include policies, additional studies, actual physical environment improvements, and monetary contribution to mitigation efforts. Established in the court case Coconato v. Town of Esopus (1989), regulatory fees are those “reasonably necessary to cover the costs of issuance, inspection, and enforcement.” This case restricts a municipality’s ability to simply raise its permit fees to help cover the cost of future mitigation. More recently, municipalities have required that new development bear a proportional share of the cost of capital expenditures necessary to provide improvements to the physical environment. Known as “fair-share contribution” mitigation, this methodology assigns the cost of improvements to those who create the need for the improvement and is based on the capacity used. The raised funds can only be used to fund the specific improvements in the study area, are collected at the time of building permit application, and are usually administered by the Lead Agency. Utilizing fair-share mitigation as part of a GEIS may also obviate the need for multiple SEQRA processes for future developments. This shortens project timelines and require less public resources during the lifecycle.
A fundamental component of a GEIS is that it provides a so far unchallenged legal mechanism to establish the nexus between the impacts of a project to the human environment and the fee(s) that will be paid to mitigate them. This nexus is a result of the court case Contractors & Builders Association v. City of Dunedin (1976, Florida). The case established the “rational nexus” test that was used in the New York court case Weingarten v. Town of Lewisboro (1989) to establish New York case law. The test requires that a valid mitigation originate from “a) a development creating a need for the creation or expansion of certain capital facilities; b) the amount of the fee not exceeding the cost the municipality in the event that the community provided the facility; and c) the fee being designated to address the concerns that promoted its imposition.” This process has been successfully used, most notably by the Town of Colonie in Albany County, the Town of East Greenbush in Rensselaer County, and the Cities of New Rochelle and Yonkers in Westchester County. To that end, the Village believes that there is a reasonable relationship between the impacts that development creates and the need to mitigate these impacts with upgrades and improvements to community services and utilities. Further, the Village believes that there is a reasonable relationship between the “Fair Share Contribution” Mitigation metrics discussed herein and those upgrades and improvements.
March 2020 52 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
6.3 Methodology In order to establish a fair, rational, and consistent method for determining a “Fair Share Contribution” Mitigation from private developments that will be used to fund improvements that would be necessary to accommodate the build- out of the proposed Form-Based Code, best practices were reviewed, in consultation with various Village departments, service providers, etc.
This methodology involves the following steps: 1. Creating the “build-out” under the proposed Village-Wide Form-Based Code, including square footages, units, etc. 2. Assigning the build-out to particular uses, 3. Identifying the service upgrades and infrastructural improvements necessary to accommodate and mitigate that build-out, 4. Estimating the costs of all potential upgrades/improvements, 5. Establishing cost mitigation metrics for the potential improvements, 6. Identifying and Exceptions, 7. Identifying the mechanics of implementing and administering the collection of such costs, and 8. Creating a process by which such metrics could be updated based upon changes
What follows are the details of that methodology.
6.3.1 Calculating the “build-out” under the proposed Village-Wide Form-Based Code, including square footages, units, etc. The proposed zoning amendments require an evaluation of environmental, human, community, and economic impacts pursuant to SEQRA. One input to the SEQRA process is a build-out and likely impacts analysis for the Village considering existing and proposed zoning conditions. A comparison of the two scenarios quantifies potential development yields attributable to the proposed zoning amendments, and serves as the ‘demand factor’ for evaluating impacts to the environment, supporting infrastructure, and economic vitality later in the SEQRA process. For the purposes of identifying the “fair share contribution” mitigation, the Full/Maximum Build-Out Scenario was utilized. The build-out analysis summarizes the data, analysis, and tools used for the build-out and likely impacts analysis, and provides a general comparison of high-level impacts associated with the existing and proposed zoning conditions. The Build-Out Analysis Memorandum is provided in Appendix _ of the FGEIS.
6.3.2 Assigning that “build-out” by use The next step will be to determine the total square footage in the project attributable to each use category. For simplicity, all uses were confined to one (1) of four (4) use categories (see Build-Out Analysis Memorandum for more detail). Table 2 depicts the use categories, the equivalent square footages, and the percent of that use of the overall Full/Maximum Build-Out.
Table 2: Build-Out by Use Percentage of Applicable Use Categories Built-Out Footage/Units Build-Out Multifamily Residential 6,178 units1 54.5% General Retail 1,922,566 SF 22.6% General Office 1,922,566 SF 22.6% Industrial 24,000 SF 0.3% TOTAL 8,502,632 SF 100.0% NOTE: 1 At an assumed average of 750 SF, equivalent to 4,633,500 SF.
March 2020 53 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
As can be seen in Table 2, Single-Family Residential was not considered as part of the Build-Out since one of the objectives of the rezoning effort was to preserve the character of the single-family neighborhoods.
6.3.3 Identifying the service upgrades and infrastructural improvements necessary to accommodate and mitigate that build-out An objective of utilizing the “Fair Share Contribution” mitigation approach is to create a stream of revenue that would cover the projected capital and operating costs of upgrading and improving services and infrastructure to mitigate the anticipated impacts of the implementation of the Proposed Action. The relevant resource categories from the DGEIS that were considered are described below; other resource categories described in the DGEIS did not warrant “Fair Share Contribution” mitigation (rather other forms of mitigation). Much of the upgrades and improvements were identified through the Village’s Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), FY 2019-FY 2026 (last updated January 20, 2020), which, in great part, was established with future development and the adoption of the Form-Based Code in mind. a. Police Protection: The Village’s CIP was utilized to determine the upgrades and improvements to police protection to accommodate future development. These upgrades/improvements include the following rolling stock purchases: Two (2) Police Vehicles b. Fire and Emergency Services Protection: The Village’s CIP was utilized to determine the upgrades and improvements to fire and emergency services protection to accommodate future development. These upgrades/improvements include the following rolling stock purchases and upgrades to fire facilities: Fire Truck Replacement Program Bucket Truck Combination Hook Trucks Kitchen Upgrades at Headquarters Fire Exhaust Equipment Windows for Headquarters Improvements to Building Structure for Headquarters c. Wastewater and Stormwater Management: The Village’s CIP was utilized to determine the upgrades and improvements to wastewater and stormwater to accommodate future development. These upgrades/improvements include: Annual Sewer Rehabilitation Project Emergency Repair (including wastewater and stormwater) Annual Stormwater Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Drainage Program d. Solid Waste Management/Public Works: The Village’s CIP was utilized to determine the upgrades and improvements to solid waste management and public works to accommodate future development. These upgrades/improvements include the following rolling stock purchases: Loader Front Loader Garbage Truck (one-armed bandit) Garbage Truck Sander/Salter Snowblowers Truck Replacement Program Computerized Brine Machine Carpenter Truck Small Dump Truck
March 2020 54 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
6.3.4 Estimating the costs of all potential upgrades/improvements Order-of-magnitude costs were then estimated for all upgrades/improvements identified above and presented in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Fair Share Contribution Upgrades/Improvement Cost Estimates Upgrade / Improvement Cost Estimate Police Protection Two (2) Police Vehicles $2,608,750
Fire and Emergency Services Protection
Fire Truck Replacement Program $2,800,000 Bucket Truck $150,000 Combination Hook Trucks $40,000 Kitchen Upgrades at Headquarters $150,000 Fire Exhaust Equipment $45,000 Windows for Headquarters $700,000 Improvements to Building Structure for Headquarters $950,000
Wastewater and Stormwater Management Annual Sewer Rehabilitation Project $795,000 Emergency Repair (including wastewater and stormwater) $1,400,000 Annual Stormwater Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) $210,000 Drainage Program $7,500,000 Wastewater and Stormwater Management Annual Sewer Rehabilitation Project $795,000 Emergency Repair (including wastewater and stormwater) $1,400,000 Annual Stormwater Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) $210,000 Drainage Program $7,500,000 Solid Waste Management/Public Works Loader $375,000 Front Loader $300,000 Garbage Truck (one-armed bandit) $2,040,000 Garbage Truck $90,000 Sander/Salter $840,000 Snowblowers $350,000 Truck Replacement Program $130,000 Computerized Brine Machine $45,000
As seen in Table 3, the total cost of all upgrades/improvements necessary to accommodate future development is approximately $21,758,750.
March 2020 55 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
6.3.5 Establishing cost mitigation metrics for the potential improvements To constitute a fair share mechanism in the GEIS, a key requirement must be met: the contribution must be in proportion to the amount of impact created, and the raised funds must be used to fund improvements that benefit those that provided the contributions. This means that the contribution must be in proportion to the size of the project and/or its impact. Different communities utilize different metrics – ranging from different metrics per use, metrics per area (e.g., gross floor area), etc. Therefore, the preferred metric to be utilized by the Village is square feet per use.
Table 4: Per Square Foot Mitigation Amounts Per SF Mitigation Applicable Use Categories Amount $2.35 Multifamily Residential $1.66 General Retail $1.57 General Office $1.11 Industrial
Within each use category, the total gross square footage will be multiplied by the then-applicable per square foot mitigation amount (see Table 4). Common areas serving a building will be distributed by the percentage of each individual use. For example: a mixed-use building containing 50% residential and 50% office will apply half of the common area SF to the multifamily residential mitigation amount and half of the common area SF to the office mitigation amount. Finally, the applicable mitigation amounts derived for each use category will be summed to determine the total Fair Share Contribution mitigation payment due for the applicable project.
6.3.6 Identifying any Exceptions The following development projects will be exempt from the Fair Share Contribution requirements: 1. Government and public facilities. 2. Alteration or expansion of an existing building in which no additional dwelling units or square footage is created, the use is not changed, and where no additional community service or infrastructural demands will be produced over and above those produced by the existing building. 3. The construction of accessory buildings, structures or uses which will not produce additional community service or infrastructural demands over and above those produced by the principal building or use of the land. 4. The replacement of a destroyed or partially destroyed building or structure with a new building or structure of the same size and use, provided that no additional community service or infrastructural demands will be produced over and above those produced by the original use of the land.
6.3.7 Identifying the mechanics of implementing and administering the collection of such costs The Planning & Economic Development Zoning Administrator will be responsible for calculating the Fair Share Contribution Mitigation payment as part of the approval process. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any building/structure, the Fair Share Contribution must be provided in full.
All Fair Share Contributions made by applicants will be allocated to the Village and held by the Village Treasurer. This would require that the Village set up a separate Fair Share Contribution Mitigation Fund (FSCMF) to hold the generated mitigation revenue. The fund would only be used to fund the upgrade or improvement set forth above; any additional upgrades or improvements that become necessary would not be eligible unless the fair share contribution analysis was updated. Similarly, should an identified upgrade or improvement become not necessary, the fair share contribution analysis would need to be updated. In addition, the Village would reserve the right to prioritize the upgrades/improvements based upon determined need and/or demand. The Village may use the Fair Share Contribution Mitigation at its discretion for improvements to the critical areas identified in the GEIS. The Village may determine that such improvements are necessary in advance of a specific development application. If such public betterment improvements are made by the Village, the Village would be reimbursed over time as the funds accumulate.
March 2020 56 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Previous contributions would not be refunded in the case of change of use, redevelopment, reduction, or modification of an existing use that results in a net decrease in square footages compared to the previous use. Any request to modify a development project subsequent to an approval may be subject to an additional Fair Share Contribution Mitigation calculation to the extent the change would exacerbate constraints on community services and/or infrastructural capacity that would require mitigation.
Finally, the Planning & Economic Development Zoning Administrator will prepare written administrative guidelines to implement the provisions of the Fair Share Contribution Mitigation program. The guidelines shall include administrative procedures, example calculations, application forms and such other information that will assist Village staff, decision makers, developers and the public to understand how the provisions of the Fair Share Contribution Mitigation program are to be implemented.
6.3.8 Creating a process by which such metrics could be updated based upon changes
Since square footages and cost estimates are only approximations and may not completely reflect actual development over time: At the time a site- and project-specific development application is submitted, further evaluation of the development program be performed pursuant to site plan protocols, SEQRA, and consistency with the standards outlined under the Findings Statement. This information will serve as the basis to determine if any additional analyses of community service and utilities impacts is warranted for individual development projects, The Village will review the analysis annually and revise as necessary so that sufficient funds are available for improvements in the future, and The Village will update the analysis every five (5) years to coincide with each new Five-Year CIP and its associated budget.
6.4 Sample Calculation Table 5 provides an example of how the Fair Share Contribution Mitigation amount would be calculated for a sample project. Assume a mixed-use project with 15,000 SF ground-floor General Retail space, second story 8,000 SF General Office space, and 100 Multifamily units (equivalent to 86,250 SF) on the upper floors.
Table 5: Sample Fair Share Contribution Mitigation Calculation Sample Calculation and Steps Step 1 Take 15,000 SF General Retail space and multiply it by the relevant Per SF Mitigation Amount (here, $1.66/SF). This amount equals $24,900. Step 2 Take 8,000 SF of General Office space and multiply it by the relevant Per SF Mitigation Amount (here, $1.57/SF). This amount equals $12,560. Step 3 Take 100 Multifamily units (equivalent of 86,250 SF) and multiply it by the relevant Per SF Mitigation Amount (here, $2.35/SF). This amount equals $202,688. Step 4 Add $24,900+12,560+202,688 The resultant Fair Share Contribution Mitigation due in connection with the project equals $240,148.
6.5 Other Fair Share Contribution Mitigation Contemplated by the GEIS In addition to the above-mentioned Fair Share Contribution Mitigation – which is focused mainly on community services and utilities, the following two (2) Fair Share Contribution Mitigations are provided for elsewhere in the GEIS. Fair Share Contribution Mitigation of School Impacts: The Fair Share Contribution School Mitigation is discussed in Section 3.4.3.1 of the DGEIS (as revised in this FGEIS, see Appendix _). Such Fair Share Contribution Mitigation made by applicants will be allocated to the Village and then transferred to the School District.
March 2020 57 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement For the Adoption of the amended Code of the Village of Port Chester, Chapter 345, “Zoning”, and Official Zoning Map
Fair Share Mitigation of Traffic Impacts: The Fair Share Contribution Traffic Mitigation is discussed in Section 3.3.3 of the DGEIS (as revised in this FGEIS, see Appendix E). Such Fair Share Contribution Mitigation made by applicants will be allocated to the Village. In addition, the potential for site-specific transit (rail/bus) mitigation is discussed in Section 6.0 of the DGEIS under ‘Transportation Resources’ (as revised in this FGEIS, see Appendix E).
6.6 Other Non-Mitigation Fees Contemplated by the GEIS There are a number of other revenues that could be realized by development that would result as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action. These include: Payment In-Lieu of Parking (Article 4, Section 345.405.N.1.h.v) Fee-in-lieu of Parkland (Article 8, Section 345. G.4.ix and H.4.iii) Fees for Review Services, including the ability to utilize 3rd party building review and inspection (to be included as part of future revisions to Chapter 175, Fees, of the Code of the Village of Port Chester).
6.7 Summary of Anticipated Fair Share Contribution Mitigation Funds The Proposed Action would provide for approximately $21 million in “one-time” funding sources to provide for mitigation capital costs and improvements in support of the proposed redevelopment activities. This does not account for additional economic and job creation benefits anticipated from redevelopment (see Section 3.4 of the DGEIS). The Village is committed to ensuring its residents receive the full benefits of this redevelopment efforts. Additional programs such as job training and readiness, community art, assistance to residential and business displacement, and the like, may be included as mitigation to be considered as part of the Fair Share Contribution Mitigation in any future revisions to this analysis.
- - END - -
March 2020 58