Draft FEIS Oct-2012 Intro File_67.pdf

7/29/2019 Draft FEIS Oct-2012 Intro File_67.pdf

1/22

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Cont inuum Liv ing at Irv ington

30 South Broadway

Irvington, New York 10533

Lead Agency Village of Irvington Planning Board

Applicant The Continuum Company

Prepared by

White Plains, New York

Date September 19, 2012


2/22

Continuum Living at Irvington

Irvington, New York

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

i

Project Name:Continuum Living at Irvington

Project Location:

30 South Broadway


Tax Map Designation:

Section 2.090, Block 44, Lot 21

Lead Agency

Village of Irvington Planning Board

85 Main Street


Contact: William Hoffman, Chair

914-591-7070

SEQR Classification of Action:

Type I

Applicant:

The Continuum Company, LLC

590 Madison Avenue, 26th Floor

New York, New York 10022

Contact: Scott Aaron, Partner

212-554-3700

Internet address at which the FEIS will be posted: www.turnermillergroup.com
http://www.turnermillergroup.com/http://www.turnermillergroup.com/http://www.turnermillergroup.com/


3/22


Irvington, New York


ii

The following consultants contributed to the preparation of this report

DEIS Preparation and Coordination

VHB/Saccardi & Schiff

50 Main Street, Suite 360

White Plains, NY 10606

Contact: Gina Martini, AICP

914-467-6600

Civil Engineer

Divney Tung Schwalbe, LLPOne North Broadway, 14th Floor

White Plains, New York 10601

Contact: J. Michael Divney, P.E., AICP, LEED AP

914- 428-0010

Architect

Gruzen Samton Architects, LLP

320 West 13th Street, 9th Floor

New York, New York 10014

Contact: Susan Wright AIA, LEED AP, NCARB

212-477-0900

Architect

Richard Henry Behr Architect, P.C.

2 Weaver Street

Scarsdale, New York 10583

Contact: Richard Behr

914-722-9020

Traffic & Transportation Engineering

John Collins Engineers, P.C.

11 Bradhurst Avenue

Hawthorne, New York 10532

Contact: John Collins, P.E.

914-347-7500


4/22


Irvington, New York


iii

Cultural Resources

CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants

166 Hillair Circle


Contact: Gail T. Guillet

914-328-3032

Natural Resources

Environmental Consulting LLC

3 Aspen CourtOssining, New York 10562

Contact: Stephen W. Coleman

914-494-5544

Environmental Site Assessment

VHB Engineering, Surveying and Landscape Architecture, P.C.

2150 Joshuas Path Suite 300

Hauppauge, New York 11788

Contact: Stephen Kaplan

631-234-3444

Structural Engineer

C&F Consulting Engineering, PC

420 North Broadway


Contact: Michael J. Connors, PE, LEED

914-683-7355

Construction Management

Lasberg Construction Associates, Inc.

200 Business Park, Suite 305

Armonk, New York 10504

Contact: John J. Lennon

914-273-4266


5/22


Irvington, New York


iv

Arborist

Davey Resource Group

650 Sherman Avenue

Hamden, CT 06514

Contact: Allan Fenner

Legal Counsel

Veneziano & Associates

84 Business Park Drive, Suite 200

Armonk, New York 10504Contact: Anthony F. Veneziano

914-273-1300


6/22

v Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION AN D DESCRIPTI ON OF PLAN CHANGES ..............................1-1

1.1 Procedural Requirements Related to the Proposed Action as Modified in this FEIS ................. 1-21.2 Structure of the Final Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................ 1-31.3 The FEIS Site Plan .................................................................................................................... 1-31.4 The FEIS Zoning Proposal ......................................................................................................... 1-61.5 Summary of FEIS Responses to Major Issues ........................................................................... 1-7

Planning and Zoning ................................................................................................................ 1-7Operational Issues .................................................................................................................. 1-8Traffic ...................................................................................................................................... 1-8Utilities and Stormwater Management ..................................................................................... 1-9Flora and Fauna ...................................................................................................................... 1-10Economic Considerations ........................................................................................................ 1-11Community Facilities ............................................................................................................... 1-12Alternatives .............................................................................................................................. 1-13

2.0 INDEX OF COM M ENTS AND RESPONSES ..............................................................2-1

3.0 COM M ENTS AND RESPONSES ...................................................................................3-1

3.1 Project Description .................................................................................................................... 3-23.2 Land Use and Zoning ................................................................................................................ 3-15

3.3 Community Character and Visual Analysis ................................................................................ 3-453.4 Topography and Soils................................................................................................................. 3-573.5 Flora and Fauna ......................................................................................................................... 3-613.6 Traffic and Parking / Emergency Access and Circulation .......................................................... 3-693.7 Utilities ........................................................................................................................................ 3-1063.8 Stormwater ................................................................................................................................. 3-1103.9 Community Facilities and Emergency Services .......................................................................... 3-1213.10 Noise ......................................................................................................................................... 3-1353.11 Economics .................................................................................................................................. 3-1403.12 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 3-1533.13 Phase 1 Environmental Assessment .......................................................................................... 3-161

3.14 Construction .............................................................................................................................. 3-1623.15 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................ 3-1693.16 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .................................................................................................... 3-1763.17 Purpose and Need .................................................................................................................... 3-1773.18 Procedural .................................................................................................................................. 3-187


7/22

vi Table of Contents

Appendices(under separate cover)

4.0 DEIS PUBLIC HEARI NG TRANSCRIPTS ....................................................................4-1

1. March 7, 20122. April 4, 20123. May 2, 2012

5.0 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED .................................................................................5-1

1. Memorandum dated March 26, 2012 from Turner Miller Group.2. Memorandum dated March 27, 2012 from Hahn Engineering.3. Memorandum dated March 23, 2012 from Marianne Stecich, Village Attorney.4. Letter dated March 21, 2012 from the Irvington Historical Society.

5. Letter dated March 30, 2012 from the Irvington Board of Architectural Review.6. Letter dated April 4, 2012 from Patrick Natarelli.7. Letter (no date) from Mary E. Merryman.8. Letter dated March 26, 2012 from Rita McConn-Stern.9. Letter dated April 3, 2012 from the Irvington Environmental Conservation Board.10. Letter dated April 3, 2012 from Earl Ferguson.11. Email dated March 13, 2012 from Barry Graubart.12. Email dated March 18, 2012 from Patricia Graubart.13. Letter dated April 2, 2012 from Mary Beth Dooley.14. Email dated April 3, 2012 from Osman Tugal.15. Email dated March 19, 2012 from David & Linnea Beckwith.

16. Letter dated March 22, 2012 from William Romaine.17. Email dated March 20, 2012 from Jared Zerman.18. Email dated March 19, 2012 from Miriam Sivak.19. Email dated March 18, 2012 from Mark J. Polisar.20. Letter dated March 18, 2012 from Francis Goudie.21. Email dated March 20, 2012 from Francis Goudie.22. Email dated March 19, 2012 from John Tunis.23. Email dated March 20, 2012 from Ron Cohen, M.D. and Amy D. Martini.24. Email dated March 19, 2012 from Regina Eisenberg.25. Email dated March 24, 2012 from Patricia L. Mulvey.26. Letter dated May 4, 2012 from Westchester County Planning Board.

27. Letter dated April 23, 2012 from Cindy and Steven Kief.28. Letter dated April 22, 2012 from Barry S. Graubart.29. Petition submitted bywww.ProtectIrvingtonNY.org.30. Letter dated May 4, 2012 from Sharon Brennen.31. Email dated May 2, 2012 from Ellenor M. Alcorn.32. Letter dated April 18, 2012 from Patricia Graubart.33. Letter dated April 15, 2012 from Barbara Denyer.34. Letter dated April 18, 2012 from Lauri Denyer Marder.
http://www.protectirvingtonny.org/http://www.protectirvingtonny.org/http://www.protectirvingtonny.org/http://www.protectirvingtonny.org/


8/22

vi i Table of Contents

35. Letter dated April 27, 2012 from Elizabeth Rossi.36. Letter dated May 19, 2012 from Barry Graubart.37. Letter dated May 23, 2012 from Friends of the Old Croton Aqueduct, Inc.38. Memo dated May 21, 2012 from Marianne Stecich for the Irvington Planning Board.39. Letter dated March 12, 2012 from William Romaine.40. Email dated March 25, 2012 from Michael Bradley.41. Email dated April 4, 2012 from Janet Silberman.42. Letter dated April 4, 2012 from Environmental Conservation Board.43. Email dated April 22, 2012 from Barbara Scott.44. Letter dated March 7, 2012 from Nancy B. Adler, Board of Directors, Irvington Volunteer

Ambulance Corps.45. Email dated March 7, 2012 from Scott Snyder.46. Letter dated March 26, 2012 from New York State DOT.

6.0 TECHNICAL APPENDICES .............................................................................................6-16.1 Traffic Impact Study6.2 Draft Zoning Amendment6.3 Tree Inventory and Recommendations6.4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan6.5 Construction Noise Assessment


9/22

vi ii Table of Contents

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1 Illustrative Site Plan .................................................................................................................... 1-14

Exhibit 2 Layout Plan ................................................................................................................................ 1-15Exhibit 3 Conceptual Landscape Plan ....................................................................................................... 1-16Exhibit 4 Site Plan with Limit of Disturbance ............................................................................................. 1-17Exhibit 5 Site Plan with Slopes ................................................................................................................. 1-18Exhibit 6 Emergency Vehicle Circulation .................................................................................................. 1-19Exhibit 7 Site Grading and Drainage Plan ................................................................................................ 1-20Exhibit 8 Site Utility Plan .......................................................................................................................... 1-21Exhibit 9 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan .............................................................................................. 1-22Exhibit 10 Site Details ................................................................................................................................ 1-23Exhibit 11 Site Details ................................................................................................................................ 1-24Exhibit 12 Driveway Profile ....................................................................................................................... 1-25Exhibit 13 Site Photometric Plan ................................................................................................................ 1-26Exhibit 14 Elevations ................................................................................................................................... 1-27Exhibit 15 Elevations ................................................................................................................................... 1-28Exhibit 16 Elevations ................................................................................................................................... 1-29Exhibit 17 Elevations ................................................................................................................................... 1-30Exhibit 18 Site Sections .............................................................................................................................. 1-31Exhibit 19 Perspective Rendering Looking East From Aqueduct ................................................................ 1-32Exhibit 20 Perspective Rendering Looking East From Aqueduct ................................................................ 1-33Exhibit 21 Perspective Rendering Looking West From South Broadway .................................................... 1-34Exhibit 22 Perspective Rendering Looking West Across South Broadway.................................................. 1-35Exhibit 23 Perspective Rendering Looking West From South Broadway .................................................... 1-36Exhibit 24 Perspective Rendering Looking North From Station Road ......................................................... 1-37Exhibit 25 Irvington Study: White Faade-Brown Roof ................................................................................ 1-38Exhibit 26 Preliminary Construction Logistics Map ...................................................................................... 1-38Exhibit 27 Full Compliance Site Plan .......................................................................................................... 1-40Exhibit 28 Alternative Site Plan ................................................................................................................... 1-41

List of Tables

Table 1-1 Comparison of DEIS and FEIS Plans ......................................................................................... 1-5Table 3.1-1 Assisted Living Market Depth Analysis ....................................................................................... 3-9Table 3.6-1 Potential Traffic Growth .............................................................................................................. 3-69Table 3.6-5 Level of Service Summary Table ................................................................................................ 3-72Table 3.6-56 Traffic Volume Comparison Table ........................................................................................... 3-98Table 3.11-1 Irvington Budget Analysis ........................................................................................................... 3-142Table 3.11-2 Monthly Costs ............................................................................................................................. 3-151Table 3.17-1 All Communities Offering Assisted Living and Alzheimer Facilities ............................................ 3-178


10/22

1-1 Introduction and Description of Plan Chan ges

1.0

Introduction and D escription of

Plan Changes


11/22


1.0Introduction and D escription of

Plan Changes

1.1 Procedural Requirements Related to the ProposedAction as Modified in this FEIS

The Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, NY is considering a proposal submitted by The

Continuum Company (the applicant) for a zoning text amendment of the existing MF Multi-

Family zoning district to permit assisted living facilities as a Special Permit use in the Village.

This proposal would effectively limit the applicability of the zoning to the 4.6 acre Foundation for

Economic Education, Inc. (FEE) site, which is located on Route 9, just south of the Village

downtown area. The proposed development will include 81 assisted living and 40 memory care

units, along with off-street parking, loading, common open space areas, and extensive indooramenities.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that was prepared for this proposal includes a

site plan for the development of the 121 units of assisted living and memory care on the site. As

described more fully below, the proposed site plan and the proposed zoning amendment have

been modified in this FEIS in response to comments received. However, the overall program has

not changed, i.e., the assisted living would service residents that average 82 years of age and

older.

The Village review of the proposed development followed applicable local law and the

procedures set forth by the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The

Village Planning Board was designated to be the Lead Agency in this review. It issued a Positive

Declaration, requiring the preparation of a DEIS, by the applicant. It held multiple scoping

sessions, public meetings and public hearings on the DEIS. The Applicant has met with abutting,

concerned neighbors on numerous occasions.

The DEIS was accepted as complete, pursuant to SEQRA, by the Planning Board February 1,

2012. Although not required under SEQRA, the Planning Board held a public hearing on March

7, 2012, which remained open at continued hearings on April 4th and May 2nd. Public comment

was received at the hearings, and the record for written comments was extended until May 23,


12/22


2012. All verbal and written comments that were received are addressed in this Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

Although the first draft of the FEIS was prepared by the applicant, it has been thoroughlyreviewed and revised by the Planning Board with the assistance of its technical advisors,

including the Village Attorney, Building Inspector and the Village planning and engineering

consultants, making certain that it reflects the position of the Planning Board, and as such the

FEIS is considered to be the Planning Boards document as required by SEQRA.

Upon completion of the review of the FEIS, with additional public input, the Planning Board will

draft and adopt an Environmental Findings Statement that summarizes the SEQRA procedures

that were followed, and addresses impacts, mitigation and alternatives considered in the DEIS

and FEIS. The Planning Board will then make a recommendation to the Village Board of Trustees

on the proposed zoning amendment. If it chooses to move forward with the proposal, the Village

Board would then conduct its own public hearing, prior to rendering a decision on the zoning

amendment. Subsequent actions would include review of a Special Permit application, site plan

approval, and review and approval of other permits required by the Village, the County and

New York State.

1.2 Structure of the Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement

The FEIS provides responses to all of the substantive comments on the DEIS.

Chapter 2.0 of the FEIS provides an index of all comments received, which were confirmed byVillage advisors as the full set of comments received by the Village during the review period.

Chapter 3.0 of the FEIS provides the comments and the corresponding responses, grouped

around major topic areas in the DEIS.

The final chapter of the FEIS is a technical appendix, which includes the public hearings

transcripts and copies of the letters, e-mails and other documents received during the public

comment period on the DEIS. Also included in the technical appendices are the updated traffic

and stormwater management reports and other documents.

1.3 The FEIS Site Plan

Several comments on the applicants proposal focused on the proposed site plan and its visual

impacts, particularly on South Broadway and on the Old Croton Aqueduct, which border the

project site on its east and west sides. In both cases, the applicant originally sought to amend

zoning provisions that require buffer area along these corridors. Moreover, the proposed DEIS

plan was viewed by many commentors, as well as the Planning Board, as being too large for the

site in terms of building and massing, including the prominent South Broadway view that had a

three story building above a partially underground parking garage along this road corridors

frontage. Although the FEIS plan maintains the same program as the DEIS plan, it responds to a


13/22


number of comments on the DEIS plan relating to building mass, setbacks and views from South

Broadway.

As indicated in Exhibit 1, the proposed development would be accessed from South Broadway bythe existing driveway that serves the FEE building. The driveway will be widened and a

sidewalk will be provided along its southern edge. Upon reaching the top of the hill, the

driveway divides in either a southerly or northerly direction. The northerly leg, to the right,

provides access to the loop road in front of the existing main building. This building will be

adaptively reused as part of the proposed development. The access road then leads to the 40 unit

memory care building and the below grade parking area with access along a portion of the Old

Croton Aqueduct frontage. The below grade parking under the memory care building is a

change from the DEIS plan.

The southerly or left leg of the access road runs parallel to South Broadway. It passes the sites

central open space and leads to an enclosed loading area in the southern portion of the site,

which is also a new feature in the FEIS Plan. The 81 assisted living units are located in buildings

that abut the central open space, which has been expanded and opened up to Route 9 in the FEIS

plan.

In order, to achieve these changes, the applicant placed approximately 25% of the proposed

program space and 75% of the required parking below grade. The effect of this fundamental site

plan change was to reduce building coverage from 22.2% of the site area in the DEIS plan, to

18.8% of the site area in the FEIS. This enabled the new plan to provide more open space at the

critical edges of the site and to open up a meaningful central open space are that helped preserve

some large on-site trees.

Additionally the new plan reduced building heights by nearly one full story in each of the criticalwings of the building. The dementia building remains at two stories only.

The Old Croton Aqueduct setback was increased from 35 feet in the DEIS plan to a 50 feet in the

FEIS plan, which provides sufficient room for landscape screening. The South Broadway setback

was increased from 100 feet in the DEIS plan to 131 feet in the FEIS plan, exceeding the 125 foot

setback requirement. Moreover, the South Broadway frontage has been significantly improved in

the FEIS. The long three story over parking building in the DEIS plan has been eliminated. The

view in the FEIS plan is that of an open space window that leads to a view of the projects

proposed central landscaped lawn/terrace area, replacing the previous plans enclosed courtyard.

The Aqueduct frontage includes the 2 story memory care building and a portion of a 3 -story

assisted living building. The latter could be partially reduced to 2 stories if the alternative plan,which is discussed later in this section, is approved by the Planning Board.

The site plan drawings, elevations, photo-simulations and renderings provided at the end of this

Chapter show the FEIS plan, including the proposed landscape plan.


14/22


Table 1-1

Comparison of DEIS and FEIS PlansContinuum, Irvington, NY

Setback areas include the site access road, the emergency access, retaining walls and parking

DEIS PLAN FEIS PLAN

Program:

Total Units 121 121

Memory Care Units (40) (40)

Assisted Living Units (81) (81)

Total Beds 168 168

Floor Area:

GFA above EL.164.5 105, 000 s.f. 78,567 s.f.

Program Below Grade 0% 25%

Parking:

Below Grade 23 37

Surface 26 13

Setbacks*:

North 78(parking 15)

45

West (Aqueduct) 35 50

South 71 63

East (S. Broadway) 100 131

Coverage:

Building 22.2% 18.8%

Height:

Existing Main Building 55 55

Proposed Main Building inAlternative Plan

41 41

Memory Care 2 stories 2 stories

Assisted Living

Assisted Living in AlternativePlan

3 stories over exposed parking

--

3 stories

2-3 stories


15/22


Notwithstanding the plan changes that reduce building mass and enhance the South Broadway

and Aqueduct frontages, there are important similarities between the DEIS plan and the FEIS

plan in terms of program and services. Access to the site, for example, is still provided from theBroadway access that serves the existing FEE main building. As in the DEIS plan, the access drive

will be widened and a sidewalk will be provided along its northerly edge. The driveway leads to

the landscaped circular driveway that is adjacent to the propertys southerly lot line, across from

the Irvington Estates cooperative housing development. Additional landscaping has been

provided along that common lot line.

The below grade parking for 37 of the 50 required spaces is under the memory care building,

with access provided from a driveway that runs parallel to the Aqueduct. The enclosed loading

area is provided under the assisted living building in the southern portion of the site, moving it

from the more visible location in the DEIS plan that was close to the main access drive for the

facility

In the DEIS plan, the existing main building was proposed to be reused, but an alternative

showed its possible demolition and replacement with a similar structure in about the same

location. The FEIS plan also calls for the adaptive reuse of the main building. However, an

alternative plan with a new main building is also set forth in this FEIS, recognizing the buildings

condition, its lack of historic significance, and physical layout, along with building code and

fire/safety issues were principal factors in the alternative proposal to remove this structure. The

replacement structure would be similar to the existing main building; however, it would not be

as tall (41 feet compared to 55 feet), and it would be designed so that additional assisted living

units could be accommodated on its third floor. This would allow for a reduction in upper floor

units in another portion of the assisted living building, along the aqueduct. See Exhibit 28.

Note also that this FEIS proposes buildings with pitched roofs. Building heights could be slightly

reduced with the flat roof design as shown in the site sections, Exhibit 18.

Both the DEIS plan and the FEIS plan included 121 units and 168 beds. In both the DEIS and the

FEIS plans, the common area includes a card room, bistro, resident lounge, barber/beauty shop,

childrens play area, art studio, wellness center and restaurant. However, in the FEIS plan service

areas, as well as parking, are below grade.

1.4 The FEIS Zoning Proposal

As in the DEIS, the proposed zoning has been drafted so that the proposed development could

proceed without any variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Although the final zoning

language will be refined by the Village Attorney and the Village Board of Trustees, the draft

zoning in this FEIS still calls for Assisted Living Residences as a Special Permit Use, with

granting approval to be provided by the Planning Board. The zoning language in the applicants

draft still includes a description of the purposes of the assisted living provision and specific

qualifying criteria for an MF site:

(1) The site must have frontage on Route 9/Broadway;


16/22


(2) The site must be within 1,500 feet of Main Street.

Lot and bulk controls, including the Broadway and Aqueduct setbacks have been modified in thecurrent draft to correspond to the FEIS plan. The off street parking requirement, at 0.4 spaces per

unit, has been increase from 0.3 in the originally proposed draft. Additional language relating to

the minimum amount of indoor and outdoor amenities has been added to the FEIS draft, as

requested by the Village planning consultant.

The proposed zoning is included is provided as the final page of this chapter.

1.5 Summary of FEIS Responses to MajorIssues

Planning and Zoning

A num ber of comments raised issues about the app licants proposed zoning am endm ent, which

wou ld p ermit assisted livin g in the MF zoning d istrict as a Special Permit use. The FEIS responses

stated that the p roposed am endm ent, which wou ld be a Village Board of Trustees action with a

recomm endation from the Planning Board, is a comm on and well-accepted app roach, and clearly

it is not a techniqu e for byp assing a request for variances from th e Zoning Board of Appeals. A

zoning am end men t is a legislative process that is a discretionary action by the Village Board ,

wh ich is different from , and m ore rigorous than, a variance request. Prior to considering the

amend ment, the SEQRA review process needs to be completed by th e Planning Board, w ith the

Village Board th en informed about all of the environmental issues related to th e prop osed zoning

amendment.

Questions were raised as to wh y the p roposed zoning called for frontage on Route 9 and

proxim ity to dow ntown Irv ington . The applicant proposed these Special Per mit crit eria g iven

the availability of Bee Line bus service on South Broadw ay, and t he pr oximity of shops and

restaurants on Main Street that would serve assisted living residents, families and workers. The

Village Board could d elete these conditions, if it so chooses, and allow assisted living as a Special

Permit u se in the three other areas of the Village wh ere MF zoni ng exists. Althou gh tw o of these

MF Districts have frontage on Route 9, none of them are close to Village restaur ants and shop s.

The Village Planning consultant m ade a num ber of suggestions w ith regard t o the ap plicants

proposed zoning text, including r equiremen ts for State ap proval and standards for com mon op en

space and amenity space. These changes have been m ade to the prop osed zoning tha t is included

in this FEIS. The prop osed zon ing also increases the setback requirements from the Old CrotonAquedu ct, chan ging it from 35 feet in the DEIS to 50 feet in the FEIS. Similarly, the South

Broadwa y setback is changed from 100 to 125 feet. In add ition, the required amoun t of off-street

parking was increased from 0.3 to 0.4 sp aces per unit, which is consist en t w ith industry standards

and the parking provided for other assisted living facilities in the area.

A number of comments raised issues with regard to the p rojects consistency with the Village

Comprehensive Plan. The Plan d oes not add ress assisted living at all, but it d oes includ e

references to senior housing. With regard to the issue of Comp rehensive Plan consistency, the

Village Attorney commen ted th at on page 27 of the Plan, the docum ent ind entifies the subject site

and states that zoning for this site should be consistent w ith pu blic goals that benefit the

comm unity, such as senior housing.


17/22


But beyond this concern, a nu mber of comm ents were raised w ith regard to the p roposed

develop men ts consistency with Com pr ehensive Plan objectives relating to building size, mass

and its effects on South Broadw ay and the Old Croton Aqued uct. As previously noted, the

app licants FEIS plan addr esses these concerns by increasing setback area, redesigning the SouthBroadw ay frontage, and p lacing app roximately 25% of the p rogram sp ace and most of the off

street parking below grad e. The 150 linear feet in a three story assisted living build ing along

South Broad way, as shown in the DEIS Plan, has been removed in the FEIS plan. The view along

South Broadw ay now inclu des a w indow into the sites central open space area.

The FEIS responses furt her state the applicants opinion that assisted living on th e subject site

wou ld p rovide a transition from lower d ensity uses to the south of the site to the ad jacent

mu ltifamily cooperative development to the im med iate north and to the Village Main Street

comm ercial area just beyond those apartm ents.

Operational Issues.

The FEIS helps to clarify a num ber of misconceptions regard assisted living and how th e

proposed developmen t w ou ld funct ion if approved.

As noted, the prop osed d evelopmen t w ill include 81 assisted living and 40 mem ory care units. It

will not includ e indep endent living for seniors, as is the case with the Woodlands in Ardsley.

Independ ent u nits are designed for seniors much younger th an the typical 82 year old in assisted

living. The FEIS respon ses identify where imp acts from these two senior housing typ es differ.

The proposed d evelopm ent w ill apply for State approvals, including an Enriched Housing

License.

The 81 person staff will include RNs and LPNs, who will work on -site seven days a week, from

7am to 7pm . Nu rses will be on-call du ring the evening h ours, when Certified N ursing Assistants(CNAs) will be on du ty. CNAs provide a ssistance with ADLs (activities of daily living), wh ich

include bathing, dressing, grooming, and escorting a resident. There will be at least one ma nager

on the site at all times.

The staff will wor k three basic shifts per d ay: 7am to 3pm; 3pm to 11pm ; and 11pm to 7am for

most emp loyees. The app licant w ill work with th e Village adm inistration to ad just the 3pm sh ift

change time with regard to school dismissal if deemed necessary.

Three meals per day will be served in various d ining venues. Indoor facilities will include

barber/ beau ty shop , card room , liv ing room, lounge/ library , ar t stu dio, fitn ess room and

wellness center. Outd oor areas will includ e benches and w alking paths. The mem ory care

bu ild ing w ill be fu lly secu red .

While the facility will provid e all of the daily need s of its residen ts, the app licant w ill schedu le

weekly van trips to dow ntown Irvington and other destinations for lunch, shopping and

activities, which will support area businesses.

Traffic.

A revised traffic stud y is includ ed in th e app end ix of the FEIS. It add ress all the technical

comments raised by the Village traffic consultant, including adjustments to the projected number

of trips generated by the p roposed d evelopm ent based on 168 beds as opp osed to 121 units. The

results of the traffic stud y clearly demonstrate th at all study ar ea intersections will operate at


18/22


acceptab le levels of service in the p eak AM, PM and Saturd ay hou rs. The total increase in Route 9

traffic as a result of the developm ent w ill amou nt to a 2% increase. The trip generation r ates in

the traffic stud y account for em ployees, service vehicles and v isitors.

Althou gh, the traffic stud y was based on st and ard Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE)method ologies, the comm ents and responses in the DEIS addressed m any non -technical issues

and comm un ity concerns abou t traffic and safety on Route 9 and local road s in the vicinity of the

subject site, includ ing how sh ift changes wou ld affect traffic cond itions. For examp le, the FEIS

indicates that left turn into and out of the site would not present a traffic problem, given the

width of the roadw ay and the w idening of the site driveway. A traffic signal wou ld not m eet

State DOT warrants, and is not needed, nor w ould it be app roved by th e State.

The FEIS notes that off peak tr affic from shift changes wou ld be less than tra ffic dur ing peak

hou rs. Since peak hou r traffic results in acceptable levels of service, off peak tr affic wou ld also be

acceptable.

How ever, the local resident issue of concern w as the mid day shift change that w ould occur aboutthe same tim e as afternoon school dismissal. The num ber of employees from the assisted living

development w orking on a 7am to 3pm shift wou ld likely be about 44 persons, some of wh om

wou ld u ses bus or train service, while others would drive. The volum e of traffic from these

emp loyees would not affect the levels of service on the intersections in the study area.

Anoth er matter w as the amount of off-street parking p roposed for staff and v isitors. The FEIS

responses ind icate that 50 parking spaces that are p rovided meet indu stry standard s for assisted

living and are consistent w ith the parking p rovided at comparable assisted living d evelopmen ts

in nearby commu nities.

Parking w as also raised as an issue du ring pr oject construction. The FEIS clarified that the

maximum num ber of workers on the site would be from 30 to 50. Temporary parking for

construction workers wou ld occur on -site. The FEIS notes that the project wou ld result in 175total jobs; how ever, that estimate includes material delivery supp liers, off-site fabricators and

man y others, as well as the on-site constru ction workers. The FEIS respon ded that a flagman

wou ld be posted on Route 9 to facilitate traffic flow dur ing construction.

Another issue w as raised regarding how th e site would accommodate d eliveries and how the

internal road system add resses fire truck access requ irements. With regard to deliveries, the FEIS

responses note that the load ing area has been relocated from the DEIS plan s more visible

location near the South Broadw ay access dr ive, to the rear of the site, wh ere in the FEIS the

loading area is fully enclosed w ithin the bu ilding. Deliveries would be schedu led for non p eak

hours. Deliveries would also be preclud ed from mid day, wh en school dismissal occurs, With

regard to fire access, the FEIS includ es a plan show ing app ropriate road w idths and turning rad ii

for fire truck access, includ ing circulation around the entire site.

Utilities and Stormwater Management.

Comment s on water sup ply and sanitary sewerage were prim arily made by the Village Engineer

and are ad dressed w ith the engineering plans subm itted as part of the FEIS. Although d etailed

plan s have been provided su fficien t for a SEQRA review, ad ditional d etail wou ld be forthcom ing

as part of a subsequent site plan review of the prop osed d evelopm ent. An issue was raised by the

Coun ty with r egard to the increase in sewer flows and the effects on the Joint Wastew ater

Treatment Plan t in Yonkers. It noted that as a m atter of County DEF policy, it is recomm ended

the me asures be taken to offset the projects increased flow, pr esum ably throu gh red uctions in

inflow/ infiltration, at a 3:1 ratio. The FEIS responds th at it will add ress this matter as par t of the

site plan app roval process.


19/22


Storm wa ter issues raised by th e Village engineer w ere also add ressed in the FEIS by reference to

the detailed p lans and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan contained in the FEIS append ix.

A comment w as presented with regard to runoff problems that currently exist to the immediate

south of the subject site. The FEIS notes that t he curr ent 4.63 acre site has 1.06 acres of imp ervioussurface. Stormw ater from th is area is currently und etained and untreated. Und er proposed

conditions, there w ill be an increase of 1.3 acres of imper vious are a. The total of 2.35 imperv ious

acres will be treated w ith green infrastructure measures, and d etained in und erground pipes

prior to bein g released at a cont rolled ra te of flow.

The portion of the site that d rains to the south was analyzed as a separ ate su b-basin (4.11 acres of

the 10.28 acre watershed ). Und er prop osed conditions this sub-basin is reduced to 2.6 acres of

wh ich only .26 acres is imp ervious. This results in a reduction of 40% of the peak run off and a

redu ction of 51% of the volu me in a 1 year storm event.

With regard to the green infrastru cture, the FEIS notes tha t this includes green roofs, porous

pavem en t, storm water planters, hyd rodyn am ic separ ators and und ergr ou nd deten tion p ipes.

Flora and Fauna.

There were a num ber of comm ents on tree removal w ithin the limit of disturbance wh ere all trees

will be removed, and outside that area where the project arborist identified d ead or diseased

trees that will also be removed . Approxima tely 175 trees will be removed in the area of

disturbance.

As previously noted, the FEIS plan has a d esign th at w ill preserve pre and post construction

measu res in an effort to save additional trees in critical locations, including the trees inside the

existing loop road and the large silver m aple tree behind the main bu ilding. The large silver

map le is a land mar k featu re in the FEIS plan s central open sp ace area. With the new d esign, this

important tree will be visible from th e South Broadw ay access road, where the plan p rovides an

open space wind ow into the proposed development.

The FEIS proposed tw o mitigation measures to ad dress the trees that w ill be removed as part of

the developm ent. The first is the land scaping p lan that is pr esented in the FEIS, which includes

trees and sh rubs w ithin the development and along its edges. Special landscaping attention is

provides to the common property line w ith the Irvington Estates coop erative d evelopmen t,

where the app licant and the co-op board are w orking together on plan details. Add itional

evergreen plantings have been add ed to the Old Croton Aquedu ct and North Broadway setback

areas, which have been increased in depth in the FEIS plan. A second mitigation measure noted

in the FEIS is the app licants proposal for an off-site tree planting p rogram that it w ould develo p

with the Village ad ministration.

The DEIS and the FEIS also describe a pr oposed tree preservation p lan, which w ould be designed

to save as many trees as possible du ring the constru ction process. The plan w ill be detailed as

par t of the constr uction docu menta tion when the p ro ject advances to that stage.

The Village Conservation Board ra ised an issue with regard to on -site habitat given the sites

proxim ity to the Barney Brook, the Aqued uct and migr atory b ird s in th e sites environs. The FEIS

response from the projects environmental specialist described his on-site surveys and the

connectivity between this site and surrou nding areas. The separation, lack of wetlands an d water

features and ot her factors were cited as a basis for the limited w ildlife activity that occur s on the

site.


20/22


Economic Considerations.

There were a nu mber of qu estions raised and comments respond ed to in the FEIS, focusing on

projected tax revenues, costs for Village ser vices, mon th ly ch arges, and th e m arket for assisted

housing in Irvington,

Projected tax revenu es for purp oses of the DEIS were based on 2010 data from seven other

Westchester assisted living d evelopm ents in Westchester. The result was an estimated $5,000 in

tax revenues per un it. With 121 un its, the total real estate tax for all taxes jurisd ictions was over

$600,000 per year. Of this am oun t, nearly 60%%, or $353,000 wou ld go the Irvington School

District, and over 27% or $164,000 wou ld go to th e Village, each year. In response to commen ts,

the app licant contacted the Greenburgh tax assessor w ho indicated that an assessment w ould be

mad e at a later stage in the p rocess.

Other comments r aised issues regarding th e perm anence of the tax revenues and possible

certiorari proceedings that could be pursued to reduce taxes. The FEIS response indicated that

the app licant wou ld be w illing to enter into a PILOT agreement w ith the Village to ensure th attaxes based on fair value are p aid over 15 years.

Regardless of the eventual assessment, the development will result in a significant tax surplus.

There will be no school age children , and n o direct costs to the school district. Even if some of the

proposed units are occupied by Village resid ents who sell their present hom es to families w ith

school age children, the likelihood is great that those seniors would be moving in any event to

another assisted living facility or other accommodation, selling their Irvington house to a young

family.

In terms of Village costs to serve the developm ent, the Village plann ing consultan t called for an

analysis of potential costs to serve the developm ent using stand ard m ethodologies. In response,

the following modified per capita cost analysis was u nd ertaken in th e FEIS for the 168 futu re

residents. Of the 2012 Village General Fund bud get o f app roximately $15,000,000, $6.3 million isallocated to comm un ity service lines, including police protection, fire, safety, par ks, recreation,

library, seniors, refuse collection and recycling. For pur poses of the per capita an alysis it is

assumed that service wou ld increase in response to this or any development. In contrast, Village

general government costs wou ld n ot increase, since this or any similar p roject w ould not requ ire

add itional adm inistrative staff.

The 168 persons in the assisted living project w ould repr esent abou t 2.5% of the Village

populat ion . If th is w ere not an assisted living facility for older sen iors and th ose who need

mem ory care, and if the development d id n ot includ e all of the amenities for its residents as it

does, a per capita cost analysis wou ld assum e that each resident w ould cost the Village a

proportionate share of the overa ll serv ice costs or 2.5% for the en tir e d evelopmen t. Mu ltiplying

2.5% by $6.3 million gives a total p er capita cost of $940 per p erson.

How ever, the proposed development w ill take care of many of the otherw ise provided Village

services on-site with n o cost to the Village. For example, there w ill be a private carter for garbage

collection. Similarly, snow plow ing will be don e by pr ivate contr actors. Residen ts will likely use

the on-site library, recreation facilities and other on -site amen ities more so than using th e Village

facilities and services. Hen ce, a conservative percentage of assum ed u tilization was assigned to

each service line, ranging from a low of 10% for refuse and recycling to 100% for fire, safety and

senior services. The result of this conservative analysis results in an estim ated service cost of

app roximately $66,000 per year, w hich compares to $164,000 in projected t ax revenu es p er year.

Details are provided in the FEIS respon se.


21/22


Note that police cost s w ere assu med to be abou t 50% of the p er cap ita for sen ior s in a facility of

this type, comp ared to the p olice service needs for the Village pop ulation as a whole. If this

percenta ge were increased to an even more conserva tive 100%, the resu lt w ou ld be a total p ro ject

cost for services of appr oximately $100,000 per year , still well below the p rojected taxes.

The Irvington School District wou ld receive significant tax revenu es from the pr oposed

develop men t, estimated to be $353,000 per year.

Comment s on the DEIS also were raised on the p rojected rents and how they compare w ith other

nearby facilities. The FEIS identifies the p rojects estimated month ly cost for assisted living

ranging from $3,000 for a shared assisted living un it to $7,500 per month for a two -bedroom un it,

and $5,500 for a shared unit to $7,000 for a mem ory care unit at the p roposed d evelopm ent. These

costs are slightly lower th an the mon thly costs at the Atria in O ssining, the Atria in Briarcliff

Manor and the Kensington in White Plains. The rents for assisted living at the Woodlands in

Ardsley range from $5,800 to $6,200 for a studio unit, from $6,400 to $6,900 for a one-bedroom

un it, $7,900 for a two-bed room u nit, and $8,595 for a studio m emor y care unit.

A question w as raised about p otential IDA financing and rents. Although IDA financing will be

pursued , th ere w ou ld be no impacts on rent s. IDA financing w ou ld , how ever, requ ire th at 20%

of the units be set aside for ind ividu als at or below 50% of Westchesters med ian income.

Finally, several comm ents w ere raised on th e mar ket for assisted living in Irvingt on. The FEIS

provides inform ation from the applicants m arket analy sis which docu men ts the need for ass isted

living to serve the rap idly growing elderly popu lation in the Count y. It also responds to q uestion

about other assisted living pr ojects in the Cou nty, includ ing the 90 un it project recently prop ose

on Route 119 in the Town of Greenburgh .

The Market Study that is summ arized in the FEIS respon ses ind icates there are over 10,000 net

qualified seniors in the market area, of wh ich about 10% are considered as the poten tial that the

Irvington assisted living developm ent could be expected to draw from.

Community Facilities.

The most significant comm unity facility issue regarding the p roposed d evelopm ent is the

provision of emergen cy services p rovid ed by th e Irvington Volu nteer Fire Departm ent (IVAC).

A num ber of comments and concerns were raised, responses were provided and a prop osed

mitigation p rogram wa s set forth in the FEIS.

It is recognized th at IVAC performs an essential comm un ity service to the Village of Irvington.

Like many all volunteer organizations, it has a m anpow er problem w ith an insufficient nu mber

of trained EMTs and am bulan ce drivers. Unlike other services, IVAC will not receive revenues

from the Village from t he taxes generated by the p roposed d evelopm ent.

Emergency service calls at the assisted living facility will be mad e by the professional staff that is

on du ty at the time of the incident. During most shifts, there will be an RN or LPN on site. If it is

an emer gency that requ ires a trip to the hospital, a 911 call will be mad e by the staff. This is

significantly different than an independent living facility, where the considerably younger

seniors often m ake 911 calls themselves. But beyon d th at distinction, the app licant w ill also

contract with a private am bulance service for routine doctor visits and non em ergency situations,

thu s furt her avoid ing un necessary IVAC and 911 calls.


22/22

IVAC w ill receive the calls, estimated at 6 per m onth for an assisted living facility. They will be

accomp anied to th e site by the Irvington Po lice. IVAC will be reimbu rsed for the call throu gh the

person s insu rance.

In order to m itigate the imp acts of the add itional service calls and t o help attract add itionalvolunteers, the app licant has prop osed the following program .

1. It will financially incentivize its emp loyees to be trained and certified as EMTs by IVACand become IVAC members. Since the emp loyees are working in an ind ustry w here

certifications and training are important to career advancement, the Applicant feels there

wou ld be a real pool of people interested in this opportu nity.

2. The App licant w ill work w ith IVAC to schedu le emp loyees shifts so they are available toIVAC du ring work hours.

3. It will cater IVAC events on a regu lar basis4. It will sponsor annu al fund raisers for IVAC to raise money for equipment an d p rograms5. It will ma ke a minim um donation of $5,000 per an nu m to IVACs fun dr aising efforts.6. It will determine, with IVAC, the need for emergency response equipmen t or other

material contributions

Alternatives.

The Proposed Action in th is FEIS calls for a plan that ad aptively reu ses the main bu ilding on th e

site. The FEIS also carries forw ard the DEIS alternative that w ould replace that buildin g with a

smaller more efficient stru cture with a similar architectural design.

There were a nu mber of qu estions on th e alternatives presented in the DEIS, including

Alternative 7A, which is the DEIS alternative that called for the dem olition of the m ain build ing

on the site, replacing it with a similarly designed, but smaller building on the same p ortion of the

property, i.e., across from th e ad jacen t coop erative apar tm ents.

The FEIS states that the d ecision on dem olition or adap tive reuse of this structu re will be made aspar t of the Environm enta l Findings Statemen t that will be adop ted by th e Plan ning Board at th e

end of the SEQRA process.

The responses to comm ents in the FEIS noted th at the main bu ilding has been altered to an

extent that it is not consider ed to be eligible for the N ational Register. Potions of the build ing

have been dem olished; in other areas, building add itions have been m ade. The exterior has been

altered with vinyl cladd ing. Moreover, the building has fire code and a ccessibility issues that

wou ld need to be add ressed. Its interior layout and room configuration are add itional issues in

the p otential reuse.

If the existing m ain building w ere demolished, its replacement bu ilding wou ld be located on the

same portion of the site. It wou ld hav e a very similar architectur al design as the existing building;

however, it would n ot be the same 55 feet in height. The new bu ildings basement wou ld connect

with the below grad e facilities proposed on the balance of the site, fully integrating th is building

with th e other new buildings and their comm on facilities. The replacement bu ilding could have

some assisted living units in its upp er floors, which would enable the assisted living building

proposed along th e Aqu ed uct to be red uced in he igh t fr om th ree stor ies to tw o st or ies, which is

the same height as the m emory care building.

Documents

Draft FEIS Oct-2012 Intro File_67.pdf