Documents

local law 45 pages

Also attached to this agenda item: HSRG and LI Zoning Amd FEAF Part 1 2022.08.31 signed

August 31, 2022 FEAF Part 3 Supplemental Narrative HSRG Overlay and LI District Zoning Amendments A. INTRODUCTION PROPOSED ACTION The Village of Croton-on-Hudson (the “Village”) Board of Trustees is proposing to adopt two new Local Laws to amend the Village Zoning Map and provisions of the Village Zoning Code related to the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway (“HSRG”) Overlay and Light Industrial (“LI”) zoning districts (collectively, the “Proposed Action”). The draft Local Laws, outlining the specific proposed amendments, are included in Appendix A. In summary, the Proposed Action would facilitate the following: • An expansion of the HSRG Overlay district to include five additional tax parcels, as defined by the district’s portion of the Zoning Code (Attachment E of Chapter 230); • A change to the underlying zoning of one of the parcels proposed to be added to the HSRG Overlay (Parcel 47 – tax parcel #79.13-2-91) from a split-zone of C-2/RA-5 to C-2. • New zoning text to allow multifamily residential development as a special permit use within the expanded HSRG Overlay district; and • New zoning text to allow multifamily residential or mixed-use Transit-Oriented Development (“TOD”) as a special permit use within a specified portion of the LI district along Croton Point Avenue. This FEAF Part 3 Supplemental Narrative evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action in accordance with the provisions of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Part 2 of the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) is included in Appendix B. The completed Village of Croton-on-Hudson Coastal Assessment Form (CAF) can be found in Appendix C. Through the SEQRA process, the Village Board of Trustees (as Lead Agency) will determine whether the Proposed Action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Areas of analysis covered in this report include: Public schools; visual resources/community character; and traffic/parking. Because the Proposed Action represents proposed Local Laws as opposed to a specific development proposal, assumptions were made to evaluate potential impacts should the Local Laws be adopted. As noted elsewhere in this report, should the Local Laws be adopted, individual development proposals that come before the Village would be subject to site-specific environmental reviews pursuant to SEQRA. PROJECT AREA The Project Area consists of 51 existing tax parcels1 generally located along South Riverside Avenue, Croton Point Avenue, Clinton Street, and Wayne Street in the Village of Croton-on- Hudson, Westchester County, New York. The Project Area includes the existing boundary and proposed expansion of the Village’s HSRG Overlay district (north/east of Route 9), and a portion of the Village’s existing LI zoning district to the south and west of Route 9, on both the north and south sides of Croton Point Avenue (see Figure 1, Project Location and Zoning and Figure 2, Aerial Overview). 1 The Project Area includes 51 individual tax parcels. However, for analytical purposes, two Village- owned tax parcels (79.17-1-3 and 79.17-1-4) were combined to represent Parcel 48, see Table 1. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Underlying zoning of the rear portion of Parcel 47 to be changed to C-2 U V 9A £ ¤ Croton Point Ave Hastings Ave Penfield Ave Young Ave Benedict Blvd Oneida Ave Clinton St Devon Ave Cleveland Dr S Riverside Ave Veterans Plz Arli ngton Dr Wayne St RA-40 C-2 RB RA-5 LI VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS Project Location and Zoning Figure 1 500 FEET Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District – Proposed Expansion Proposed Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Special Permit Parcel C-2 LI RA-40 RA-5 RB Tax Parcel 11.18.21 Data source: https://gis.westchestergov.com ! ! ! ! ! ! Note: Boundary shown for parcel 50 is based on interpretation of paper survey provided by the Village and is approximate. All other boundaries were exported from the Westchester County GIS database. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! U V 9A £ ¤ Croton Point Ave Hastings Ave Penfield Ave Young Ave Benedict Blvd Oneida Ave Devon Ave Cleveland Dr S Riverside Ave Veterans Plz Arli ngton Dr Wayne St VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS Aerial Overview Figure 2 500 FEET 11.18.21 Data sources: https://gis.westchestergov.com; Orthoimagery via Nearmap, 2021 Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District – Proposed Expansion Proposed Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Special Permit Parcel Tax Parcel ! Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District – Existing Parcel ! Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District – Proposed Expansion ! Proposed Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Special Permit Parcel ! ! ! Note: Boundary shown for parcel 50 is based on interpretation of paper survey provided by the Village and is approximate. All other boundaries were exported from the Westchester County GIS database. HSRG Overlay and LI District Zoning Amendments All tax parcels included in the Project Area are listed in Table 1, Project Area Tax Parcels. Parcels 1-47 are located within the HSRG Overlay and proposed expansion of the HSRG Overlay (referred to herein as the “HSRG Overlay parcels”). Parcels 48-50 are located within the LI zone (referred to herein as the “LI TOD parcels”). The existing underlying zoning for all parcels in the HSRG Overlay parcels is C-2 (General Commercial), with the exception of Parcel 47, which is currently split-zoned C-2 and RA-5 (One Family Residence).2 The Project Area totals approximately 13.28 acres, of which 1.89 acres is controlled by the Village (Parcels 43, 48, and 50) and the remaining area is privately owned. The five tax parcels proposed to be added to the HSRG Overlay district total approximately 2.67 acres. The three LI TOD parcels total approximately 2.09 acres. Table 1 Project Area Tax Parcels Parcel ID1 Tax Parcel Number Parcel Designation Ownership Address4 Current Land Use Lot Area (sf)4 79.13-1-5 HSRG Overlay Private South Riverside Ave Vacant 880.2 79.13-1-6 HSRG Overlay Private South Riverside Ave Vacant 1,168.9 79.13-1-7 HSRG Overlay Private South Riverside Ave Vacant 859.8 79.13-1-9 HSRG Overlay Private 321 Oneida Ave Commercial (dental, law, insurance offices) 13,333.1 79.13-1-60 HSRG Overlay Private 325 South Riverside Ave Commercial (restaurant and parking) 14,427.7 79.13-1-61 HSRG Overlay Private South Riverside Ave Commercial (restaurant parking) 7,160.3 79.13-1-62 HSRG Overlay Private 337 South Riverside Ave Commercial (restaurant) 11,276.3 79.13-1-63 HSRG Overlay Private 345 South Riverside Ave Mixed Use (restaurant, laundromat, residential) 12,692.4 79.13-1-64 HSRG Overlay Private 347-349 South Riverside Ave Mixed Use (nail salon, residential above) 12,613.9 79.13-1-65 HSRG Overlay Private 351-353 South Riverside Ave Mixed Use (car service, SF home) 8,286.8 79.13-1-66 HSRG Overlay Private 365 South Riverside Ave Commercial (childcare) 16,240.4 79.13-1-68 HSRG Overlay Private South Riverside Ave Commercial (parking) 7,765.3 79.13-1-69 HSRG Overlay Private 73 Benedict Blvd Commercial (nail salon) 8,270.1 79.13-2-26 HSRG Overlay Private 375 South Riverside Ave Mixed Use (ground floor commercial, residential above) 12,435.6 79.13-2-27 HSRG Overlay Private 383 South Riverside Ave Vacant commercial 7,424.5 79.13-2-28 HSRG Overlay Private South Riverside Ave Commercial (parking) 6,595.8 79.13-2-29 HSRG Overlay Private 387-389 South Riverside Ave Commercial (restaurant and parking) 6,463.3 79.13-2-30 HSRG Overlay Private 395 South Riverside Ave Commercial (hair salon) 8,550 79.13-2-31 HSRG Overlay Private 401 South Riverside Ave Commercial (veterinary clinic) 6,409.5 79.13-2-32 HSRG Overlay Private South Riverside Ave Commercial (veterinary clinic) 6,999.3 79.13-2-33 HSRG Overlay Private 409 South Riverside Ave Commercial (medical office) 4,063.7 79.13-2-5 HSRG Overlay Private 33 Croton Point Avenue Commercial (contractor) 12,162 79.13-2-6 HSRG Overlay Private 43 Croton Point Avenue Commercial (restaurant) 10,770.6 79.13-2-18 HSRG Overlay Private 49 Croton Point Avenue Residential (3 units) 17,333.5 79.13-2-21 HSRG Overlay Private Croton Point Avenue Commercial (gas station) 1,920.4 2 As part of the Proposed Action, the underlying zoning of Parcel 47 (79.13-2-91) would be changed to C-2. FEAF Part 3 Supplemental Narrative Table 1 (cont’d) Project Area Tax Parcels Parcel ID1 Tax Parcel Number Parcel Designation Ownership Address4 Current Land Use Lot Area (sf)4 79.13-2-22.1 HSRG Overlay Private Croton Point Avenue Commercial (gas station) 14,555.5 79.13-2-22 HSRG Overlay Private 67 Croton Point Avenue Commercial (gas station) 12,284 79.13-2-23 HSRG Overlay Private South Riverside Avenue Commercial (parking) 13,591.4 79.13-2-24 HSRG Overlay Private South Riverside Avenue Commercial (parking) 2,925.3 79.13-2-25 HSRG Overlay Private 380 South Riverside Avenue Commercial (gas station) 18,286.5 79.13-1-70 HSRG Overlay Private 370 South Riverside Avenue Mixed Use (ground floor commercial, residential above) 10,098.5 79.13-1-71 HSRG Overlay Private 368 South Riverside Avenue Mixed Use (ground floor commercial, residential above) 5,980.9 79.13-1-72 HSRG Overlay Private 362-366 South Riverside Avenue Mixed Use (ground floor commercial, residential above) 8,516.9 79.13-1-73 HSRG Overlay Private 358 South Riverside Avenue Commercial (deli) 2,669.6 79.13-1-74 HSRG Overlay Private 352 South Riverside Avenue Commercial (restaurant) 10,317.5 79.13-1-75 HSRG Overlay Private Wayne and Clinton Streets Commercial (restaurant parking) 5,261.5 79.13-1-85 HSRG Overlay Private South Riverside Avenue Commercial (gas station/auto repair) 4,054.8 79.13-1-86 HSRG Overlay Private 336 South Riverside Avenue Commercial (auto repair storage) 22,150.3 79.13-1-87 HSRG Overlay Private 326-328 South Riverside Avenue Commercial (pet store) 11,342.1 79.13-1-88 HSRG Overlay Private South Riverside Avenue Commercial (auto repair) 5,166.6 79.13-1-89 HSRG Overlay Private 320 South Riverside Avenue Commercial (auto repair) 5,734.2 79.13-1-90 HSRG Overlay Private South Riverside Avenue Commercial (auto repair) 2,110 79.13-1-76 HSRG Overlay Village 44 Wayne Street Village of Croton-on-Hudson EMS 5,004.6 79.13-1-77 HSRG Overlay Private Wayne Street Commercial (parking) 2,620 79.13-1-83 HSRG Overlay Private Clinton Street Commercial (restaurant storage) 2,360.4 79.13-1-84 HSRG Overlay Private 11 Clinton Street Residential 14,198.4 79.13-2-91 HSRG Overlay Private 485 South Riverside Avenue Commercial (retail, gymnastics studio) 92,210 79.17-1-3; 79.17-1-4 LI TOD Lot 3 – Village Lot 4 – Private 1 Croton Point Avenue Lot 3: Parking/partial commercial office building (leased to owner of Lot 4) Lot 4: Partial commercial office building 24,432.9 79.17-1-6 LI TOD Private 2 & 4 Croton Point Avenue Commercial (restaurant and real estate office) 13,711.3 79.17-1-5 LI TOD Village Croton Point Avenue Village-owned parking 52,820 TOTAL 578,552 sf (13.28 ac) Notes: 1 See Figures 1 and 2 2 Indicates parcel proposed to be added to the HSRG Overlay 3 Indicates LI TOD parcel 4 Address/lot area information taken from Westchester County GIS, with the exception of Parcel 50 (lot area provided by the Village) Sources: Westchester County GIS database, Village of Croton-on-Hudson BACKGROUND / PURPOSE AND NEED HSRG OVERLAY DISTRICT The commercial “Gateways” indicated in the Village Code are the major commercial entry points to the Village from surrounding roads. The Harmon/South Riverside gateway is the entry point to HSRG Overlay and LI District Zoning Amendments the Village from Route 9, the Metro-North Railroad (MNR) Croton-Harmon train station, and Croton Point Avenue. The HSRG Overlay district was first established in 2004 as an important link to the train station via Croton Point Avenue and to the Harmon neighborhood. The HSRG Overlay also provides a connection with the historic Van Cortlandt Manor to the south. A list of specific parcels included in the HSRG Overlay is set forth in Attachment E of Chapter 230 (“Zoning”) of the Village Code. The concept of the Gateway Overlay District was first described in the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) prepared for the Village’s 2002 Comprehensive Plan and map. In 2003, a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) was prepared for the Gateway zoning. The DGEIS analyzed three gateway areas, one of which is the HSRG area. A Final GEIS (FGEIS) was compiled in 2004, followed by Gateway SEQR Findings in March 2004. These documents investigated the existing conditions and potential impacts of adoption of a gateway overlay district law “to establish standards that will upgrade the image and function of gateway areas, strengthen the overall visual identity of the Village, and improve linkages to adjacent residential neighborhoods” in the three studied gateway areas of Croton. After their consideration of the facts and conclusions studied in the GEIS (including land use, zoning, air quality, noise, vegetation and wildlife, community facilities and services, transportation, historic and visual resources, socioeconomics and neighborhood character), the Village Board of Trustees, serving as SEQRA Lead Agency, issued Environmental Findings in March 2004 that the Gateway law was consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations. The initial Gateway law was subsequently adopted and added to the Village Zoning Code on March 15, 2004 (LL No. 3–2004). Since 2007, the Village has been considering ways to encourage revitalization and reduce commercial vacancies in the Harmon area. The Harmon Business Development Committee (HBDC) was formed by the Village Board of Trustees to study and provide recommendations on this particular issue. In 2011, the Village adopted Local Law Introductory No. 3–2010, which made certain revisions to the Zoning Code that expanded the HSRG Overlay boundary, and modified the previously existing Harmon gateway and related regulations to encourage commercial development by facilitating market rate mixed-use of properties. The 2011 amendments and expansion of the HSRG Overlay district boundary were a result of recommendations from the HBDC that were presented in July 2008, supported by professional studies on property utilization (Saccardi & Schiff, Inc., July 2008) and the commercial market (Danth, 2008). In summary, Local Law Introductory No. 3–2010 resulted in, among other area and bulk provisions, the following changes to the HSRG Overlay district regulations: • Expanded the HSRG Overlay district by 22 parcels (approximately 4.77 acres) to its current extent, including the commercial areas along both sides of South Riverside Avenue, extended up to approximately 200 feet north of Oneida Avenue; • Permitted mixed-use buildings in the HSRG Overlay through a special permit; • Increased the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) in mixed-use buildings from 0.4 to 0.8; • Permitted residential uses on the third floor of mixed-use buildings (within the roofline and the existing 35–foot height limit); • Amended parking requirements for mixed-use: 1 space per residential unit plus 1 additional space for each bedroom in excess of 1; (no change to parking requirements for nonresidential space); FEAF Part 3 Supplemental Narrative • Allowed the Planning Board to waive side yard setback requirements provided there is otherwise adequate access to parking areas; and • Required mixed-use buildings to be subject to additional design guidelines as adopted by the Village Board. The purpose and need for the proposed HSRG Overlay zoning amendments that are the subject of this environmental review, is based on the Village’s desire to allow housing flexibility in the HSRG Overlay district, by providing the option for the development of new buildings that are solely residential in nature rather than solely mixed-use. The Proposed Action would allow buildings containing multifamily residential uses as an additional special permit use in the HSRG Overlay, at the same maximum FAR (0.8) and height (3-stories/35 feet) currently allowed by special permit for mixed-use buildings. The Proposed Action also calls for an expansion of the HSRG Overlay, but to a lesser extent than the 2010–2011 amendments (5 additional tax parcels as opposed to 22). The five additional parcels proposed to be added to the HSRG Overlay all have the same underlying zoning as the remainder of the district (C-2) and would provide for a rational extension of the gateway. A special permit approval process would subject individual development proposals on HSRG Overlay parcels to a site-specific environmental review under SEQRA in connection with discretionary land use approvals and public hearings through the Village Board of Trustees, Village Planning Board, Village Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC), and other involved agencies. In addition, any future special permit for new residential development on a Village- owned parcel within the HSRG would not be able to proceed without the Village’s selection of a developer through a competitive request for proposals (RFP) process. LI DISTRICT (PROPOSED TOD PARCELS) As previously noted, the portion of the Project Area within the LI district consists of four individual tax parcels that per direction from the Village have been consolidated for analysis purposes as parcels 48, 49, and 50. Parcel 48 is an assemblage of two tax parcels bordered by Parcel 50 to the west and the Route 9 off-ramp for Croton Point Avenue to the east. The privately-owned portion of Parcel 48 (tax parcel 79.17-1-4) has frontage along Croton Point Avenue and contains portions of a two-story commercial building occupied by a law office. The Village-owned portion of parcel 48 (tax parcel 79.17-1-3) is located to the rear of privately-owned tax parcel 79.17.1-4 and contains portions of a two-story commercial building and a parking lot. The parking lot is connected to Parcel 50 via a curb cut. The owner of tax parcel 79.17.1.4 has a long-term land lease with the Village. Privately owned parcel 49 (tax parcel 79.17-1-6) is located immediately south of Parcels 48 and 50 across Croton Point Avenue and contains two commercial buildings, a single-story building containing law, medical, and real estate offices; and a two-story building containing a restaurant. Village-owned parcel 50 (current tax parcel 79.17-1-5) on the north side of Croton Point Avenue is currently operated by the Village as a parking lot for MNR Croton-Harmon station (commonly referred to as the “parking lot A” or the “north lot”). The Village also leases 6 parking spaces in this lot to the owner of adjacent tax parcel 79.17-1-4 (southern portion of Parcel 48). It should be noted that there is also a much larger Village-owned MNR parking lot to the south of Croton Point Avenue, east and west of Veterans Plaza (commonly referred to as the “south lot”) that is currently HSRG Overlay and LI District Zoning Amendments part of the same tax parcel as Parcel 503. For both Parcel 50 and the south lot, the Village sells quarterly parking permits to Village residents and non-residents (with a higher fee for non- residents). Daily and multiday parking is available for purchase to the general public both on-site and online. In the summer of 2021, AKRF, Inc. (AKRF) was retained by the Village to conduct a parking analysis to understand whether future replacement of the Parcel 50 parking lot with a new residential or mixed-use development would result in a condition where demand for MNR parking exceeds available supply. The results of AKRF’s analyses (summarized below) were presented to the Village in a memorandum dated August 5, 2021. The Village considered the results of the 2021 AKRF parking study when advancing the Proposed Action as it relates to Parcel 50 and the adjacent remaining LI TOD parcels. It is important to note that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2021 observed parking levels at the MNR parking lot were not representative of typical conditions. As such, to ascertain more typical MNR station parking demand – and prepare a realistic capacity/demand analysis – AKRF’s analyses utilized 2019 daily/yearly permit data provided by the Village. AKRF’s analyses concluded that adoption of the Proposed Action with potential future development of Parcel 50 would eliminate 134 spaces from the MNR station parking inventory, reducing the total capacity of the two Village-owned lots from 2,215 to 2,081 spaces. It is anticipated that projected parking demand of approximately 1,187 vehicles could be accommodated in the 2,081-space south lot. AKRF’s projected 38 percent reduction in the number of commuter parkers (from pre-pandemic conditions) from 1,915 to 1,187 along with the recent redesign of the south lot4 would adequately offset the 134 spaces that could be lost as part of any future redevelopment of Parcel 50. Using the more conservative assumption – that pre-pandemic parking demand would be reduced by 19 percent - the post-pandemic parking demand of approximately 1,551 vehicles could be easily accommodated in the 2,081-space south lot. The purpose and need for the zoning amendments proposed for the three LI TOD parcels is based on the Village’s desire to introduce a mixed use/TOD concept to an area of the Village well-suited for such development. Several neighboring municipalities have also adopted TOD zoning concepts around their MNR stations, including the City of Peekskill, Village of Ossining, and Village of Tarrytown. The Proposed Action would allow the specified parcels the option to be developed (via special permit) with either new multifamily residential buildings or new mixed- use buildings containing multifamily residential uses above a ground floor commercial use, at a maximum FAR of 1.2 and maximum height of up to 5-stories. As is currently the case for the HSRG Overlay parcels, a special permit approval process would subject individual development proposals on these parcels to a site-specific environmental review under SEQRA in connection with discretionary land use approvals and public hearings through the Village Board of Trustees, 3 Should the Proposed Action be adopted, the Village would likely assign a new tax parcel number (ex: 79.17-1-5.1) to the portion of Tax Parcel 79.17-1-5 that contains the south lot, to exclude it from the provisions of the Proposed Action. 4 In 2019, plans were developed to demolish the Village’s Department of Public Works (DPW) facility, (formerly) located within the south lot, to create 175 train station parking spaces. As part of that plan, the train station parking area just north of the former DPW facility was also reconfigured/restriped to provide an additional 13 parking spaces, thereby adding 188 new parking spaces to the train station lot. This plan was implemented in July 2020, increasing total train station parking capacity from 2,027 spaces to 2,215 spaces. FEAF Part 3 Supplemental Narrative Village Planning Board, Village WAC, and other involved agencies. In addition, any future special permit for new TOD development on Village-owned parcels would not be able to proceed without the Village’s selection of a developer through an RFP process. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS (2003 AND 2017) HSRG OVERLAY DISTRICT In response to recommendations contained in the Village’s 2003 Comprehensive Plan, zoning changes were adopted for the HSRG to add options and incentives for commercial property owners in the district to spur investment in mixed use buildings. As a result, the HSRG currently allows mixed use buildings (i.e. retail on ground floor with residential units on upper floors) by special permit (standard commercial occupancy is still permitted). Special area and bulk regulations and design guidelines apply specifically to mixed use buildings in this area. As described herein, in general, the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for mixed use in the district is 0.8 and the maximum height is 35 feet/3 stories. The Proposed Actions would not eliminate the special permit process for mixed use development in the HSRG, but rather supplement the existing regulations to incorporate a special permit process for new developments containing solely multifamily residential uses. The creation of additional housing (including affordable housing) in the Village is consistent with the Village’s 2017 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, page 65 of the Village’s 2017 Comprehensive Plan states the following: “Recent development in the Village has provided needed additional housing units. However, with the exception of Half Moon Bay, these developments have provided mainly single‐ family homes best suited for families. At the same time, the demand for appropriately‐sized, affordable housing for aging Croton‐on‐Hudson residents, young couples without children, and Village personnel is growing. The Village has worked with the Croton Housing Network to provide housing to meet these needs throughout the Village. To date, housing units, both rental units and individually owned homes, have been created on Bank Street, Brook Street, at Mount Airy Woods, the Westwind Subdivision and at the Half Moon Bay condominium development. Maintaining and creating lower cost, smaller‐sized single or multi‐family dwellings remains a priority in order to maintain the demographic diversity of the Village.” LI DISTRICT As noted above, the Village seeks to introduce a mixed use/TOD concept to an area of the Village well-suited for such development. The Proposed Action would allow the specified parcels in the LI zone, including Village-owned lots, the option to be developed (via special permit) with either new multifamily residential buildings or new mixed-use buildings containing multifamily residential uses above a ground floor commercial use, at a maximum FAR of 1.2 and maximum height of up to 5-stories. Permitting a higher FAR, while also lowering parking requirements due to the proximity of mass transit options, are fundamental goals of a TOD concept. The Proposed Actions as they relate to the LI district are consistent with the Village’s 2017 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, page 112 of the Village’s 2017 Comprehensive Plan, where “Goal B” is discussed, states the following: “Long term, keep the opportunity for “transit village” type development open on Village lands adjacent to the Croton Harmon rail station.” HSRG Overlay and LI District Zoning Amendments B. REQUIRED APPROVALS Table 2, Required Approvals identifies the approvals/reviews required for the Proposed Action. In addition to the discretionary Local Law and SEQRA approvals by the Village Board of Trustees, the Proposed Action will be referred for review by the Village of Croton-on-Hudson Planning Board, Metro North Railroad, and the Village of Croton-on-Hudson Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC). The WAC will advise whether it believes the action is consistent with the LWRP policies. In addition, the Proposed Action will be reviewed by the Westchester County Planning Board as required by GML 239-m and for consistency with Westchester 2025, the County’s planning guidance document. Table 2 Required Approvals Involved Agencies Approval/Review Village Board of Trustees Approval of Zoning Amendments (Local Laws) Lead Agency for Environmental Review (SEQRA) Interested Agencies Village Planning Board Referral and Review Village Waterfront Advisory Committee Coastal Zone Consistency Review Metro North Railroad Referral and Review Westchester County Planning Board GML-239 m Referral and Review C. PROJECT AREA BUILDOUT ANALYSES Because the Proposed Action consists of zoning amendments, and not an actual construction project, there are many possibilities for the level of future development the amendments could facilitate. Therefore, to conservatively evaluate potential environmental impacts, certain assumptions were applied to establish a theoretical maximum buildout of the affected parcels. The backup data tables for the HSRG Overlay and LI TOD parcels buildout analysis is included in Appendix D. The following sections summarize the assumptions used in the buildout scenarios, and the overall analysis framework for purposes of assessing potential impacts under SEQRA. The full buildout scenarios analyzed herein present a theoretical worst-case assessment. To establish these maximum buildout scenarios, the analyses assumed redevelopment of every HSRG Overlay (plus expansion) and LI TOD parcel with either multifamily residential use or a mixed- use/TOD project; with new construction (including demolition and replacement of all existing structures); at the maximum possible level of development. The chance of either scenario fully occurring, even over a long period of time, is highly unlikely. HSRG OVERLAY PARCELS BUILDOUT ASSUMPTIONS To generate a theoretical maximum buildout scenario for the HSRG Overlay area, the calculations assumed that all parcels within the existing HSRG Overlay district and proposed expansion area would be redeveloped with multifamily residential buildings with an FAR of 0.8, a maximum height of three stories/35 feet, and compliance with existing on-site parking requirements as per the proposed zoning amendments (including those parcels already fully developed). It was also assumed that assemblages of adjacent parcels with common ownership would occur to provide larger development parcels (see Figure 3, Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Common Ownership Parcels). ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! U V 9A £ ¤ Hastings Ave Penfield Ave Young Ave Benedict Blvd Oneida Ave Devon Ave Cleveland Dr Ar lingto n Dr Wayne St S R iversid e Ave VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Common Ownership Parcels Figure 3 500 FEET 11.18.21 Data sources: https://gis.westchestergov.com; Orthoimagery via Nearmap, 2021 Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District – Proposed Expansion Tax Parcel ! Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District – Existing Parcel ! Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District – Proposed Expansion *Adjacent parcels in common ownership are shown in the same color. ! ! ! FEAF Part 3 Supplemental Narrative The conservative assumptions applied to the analyses are summarized below, and the buildout calculations utilizing these assumptions are summarized in Table 3, HSRG Overlay and Proposed Expansion – Theoretical Maximum Buildout Summary (All Residential): • It was assumed that all HSRG Overlay parcels would seek a special permit to be redeveloped with multifamily residential buildings using the maximum potential development under the proposed zoning amendments (up to 0.8 FAR, including three stories within 35-foot maximum building height)5; • Building footprint area was calculated by multiplying each parcel or parcel assemblage’s area by 0.8, then dividing by the maximum number of stories permitted (three); • Residential floor area was calculated by multiplying the building footprint area by the maximum number of stories permitted (three); • The maximum number of residential units per parcel or parcel assemblage was calculated by dividing the residential floor area by 1,000 (the average size of projected residential unit was assumed to be 1,000 square feet); • 1.5 parking spaces per residential unit were assumed to be provided on each parcel or parcel assemblage; • The area calculation for the required number of parking spaces assumes that one space requires 325 sf. This was calculated by adding the area of a typical parking space (10 ft. x 20 ft. = 200 sf) to the area equal to half the circulation aisle (10 ft. x 12.5 ft = 125 sf); • Projected gross floor area per parcel or parcel assemblage is assumed to be entirely residential and excludes stairs, elevators, lobbys, halls, etc; and • All projected uses were assumed to be accommodated within one building per parcel or parcel assemblage. 5 This assumption was made for this analysis to be conservative with respect to residential impacts, even though the Village Zoning Code currently allows for mixed use buildings by special permit in the HSRG Overlay (a requirement that would not change). FEAF Part 3 Supplemental Narrative Table 3 HSRG Overlay and Proposed Expansion – Theoretical Maximum Buildout Summary (All Residential) Parcel ID1 Assemblage Assumed1 Parcel Area (sf) Footprint Area (sf) Max Residential Floor Area (sf) Max Residential Units Min Required Parking Spaces Min Required Parking Area (sf) Parcel Area Remaining (sf) Parcel Utilization (%)2 2, 3, 4 Yes 15,361.8 4,096.5 12,289.5 5,850 5,415.3 64.75 No 14,472.7 3,859.4 11,578.2 5,850 4,763.3 67.09 6,7 Yes 18,436.7 4,916.4 14,749.3 7,475 6,045.2 67.21 8,9,10 Yes 33,593.1 8,958.2 26,874.5 13,325 11,309.9 66.33 11,12,13 Yes 32,275.9 8,606.9 25,820.7 12,675 10,994 65.94 No 12,435.6 3,316.2 9,948.5 4,875 4,244.4 65.87 15,16 Yes 14,020.3 3,738.8 11,216.3 5,525 4,756.6 66.07 No 6,463.3 1,723.5 5,170.6 2,600 2,139.7 66.89 No 8,550 2,280 6,840 3,575 2,695 68.48 19,20 Yes 13,408.8 3,575.7 10,727 5,525 4,308.1 67.87 No 4,063.7 1,083.7 3,251 1,625 1,355.1 66.65 No 12,162 3,243.2 9,729.6 4,875 4,043.8 66.75 No 10,770.6 2,872.2 8,616.5 4,550 3,348.4 68.91 No 17,333.5 4,622.3 13,866.8 6,825 5,886.3 66.04 25,26,27 Yes 28,759.9 7,669.3 23,007.9 11,375 9,715.6 66.22 28,29 Yes 16,516.7 4,404.5 13,213.4 6,500 5,612.2 66.02 No 18,286.5 4,876.4 14,629.2 7,475 5,935.1 67.54 No 10,098.5 2,692.9 8,078.8 3,900 3,505.6 65.29 No 5,980.9 1,594.9 4,784.7 2,600 1,786 70.14 No 8,516.9 2,271.2 6,813.5 3,575 2,670.7 68.64 34, 44 Yes 5,289.6 1,410.6 4,231.7 1,950 1,929 63.53 35,36,45 Yes 17,939.4 4,783.9 14,351.6 6,825 6,330.6 64.71 37,38 Yes 26,205.1 6,988 20,964.1 10,400 8,817.1 66.35 No 11,342.1 3,024.6 9,073.7 4,550 3,767.5 66.78 40,41,42 Yes 13,010.9 3,469.6 10,408.7 4,875 4,666.3 64.14 No 5,004.6 1,334.5 4,003.6 1,950 1,720 65.63 No 14,198.4 3,786.2 11.358.7 5,525 4,887.2 65.58 No 83,981 22,394.9 67,184.8 32,825 28,761.1 65.75 TOTAL Notes: 1 See Figure 3, Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Common Ownership Parcels. Adjacent lots with common ownership were assumed to be combined to provide larger development parcels. 2 Parcel utilization is the percentage of each parcel occupied by buildings and parking in this scenario and does not account for areas required for landscaping, setbacks, outdoor amenities, etc. Sources: Westchester County GIS; Village of Croton-on-Hudson; AKRF, Inc. HSRG Overlay and LI District Zoning Amendments LI TOD PARCELS BUILDOUT ASSUMPTIONS To generate a theoretical (and conservative) maximum buildout scenario for the LI TOD parcels, the calculations assumed that parcels 48, 49, and 50 would each be redeveloped with a 1.2 FAR mixed-use building containing ground floor commercial space with residential space above, at a maximum height of five stories, while also meeting the on-site parking requirements as per the proposed zoning amendments. The conservative assumptions applied are summarized below, and the buildout calculations utilizing these assumptions are summarized in Table 4, LI TOD Parcels – Theoretical Maximum Buildout Summary (Mixed Use Scenario): • It was assumed that the LI TOD parcels would seek a special permit to be redeveloped with mixed-use buildings (residential above commercial) using the maximum potential development under the proposed zoning amendments (up to 1.2 FAR and a height of 5 stories); • Building footprint area was calculated by multiplying each parcel’s area by 1.2, then dividing by the maximum number of stories permitted (5); • Gross floor area (residential and commercial) was conservatively assumed to exclude non- habitable areas including stairs, elevators, lobbys, and halls. Ground floor commercial floor area was conservatively assumed to match the calculated building footprint area; • Residential floor area was calculated by multiplying the building footprint area by the maximum number of stories permitted above the commercial ground floor (4); • The maximum number of residential units per parcel was calculated by dividing the residential floor area by 1,000 (the average size of projected residential unit was assumed to be 1,000 square feet); • One parking space per residential unit was assumed to be provided on each parcel; • For ground floor commercial uses, one parking space per 400 sf of floor area was assumed to be provided on each parcel; • The area calculation for the required number of parking spaces assumes that one space requires 325 sf. This was calculated by adding the area of a typical parking space (10 ft. x 20 ft. = 200 sf) to the area equal to half the circulation aisle (10 ft. x 12.5 ft = 125 sf); • Projected uses were assumed to be accommodated within one building per parcel. FEAF Part 3 Supplemental Narrative Table 4 LI TOD Parcels – Theoretical Maximum Buildout Summary (Mixed Use Scenario) Parcel ID1 Parcel Area (sf) Max Commercial Floor Area (1st Floor) (sf)2 Min Required Commercial Parking Spaces Max Residential Floor Area (Floors 2-5) (sf) Max Residential Units Min Required Residential Parking Spaces Min Total Required Parking Area (sf) Parcel Area Remaining Parcel Utilization (%)3 24,432.9 5,863.9 23,455.6 12,350 6,219 74.55 13,711.3 3,290.7 13,162.9 6,825 3,595.6 73.78 52,820 12,676.8 50,707.2 26,975 13,168.2 75.07 TOTALS 21,831.4 87,325.7 Notes: 1 See Figure 2, Aerial Overview. 2 Ground floor commercial floor area was conservatively assumed to match the calculated building footprint area. 3 Parcel utilization is the percentage of each parcel occupied by buildings and parking in this scenario and does not account for areas required for landscaping, setbacks, outdoor amenities, etc. Sources: Westchester County GIS; Village of Croton-on-Hudson; AKRF, Inc. HSRG Overlay and LI District Zoning Amendments DRAFT August 18, 2022 CONSIDERATION OF ALL-RESIDENTIAL SCENARIO ON PARCELS 48, 49, AND 50 It is important to note that with the Proposed Action, parcels 48, 49, and 50 would also be permitted to be redeveloped with multifamily residential buildings containing no ground floor commercial space. Applying the same parameters outlined above for an all-residential scenario on the three parcels (maximum FAR of 1.2 and maximum height of 5-stories) would yield net increases of 21 residential units and 21 residential parking spaces (from 87 units/parking spaces to 108 units/parking spaces); and net decreases of 21,831 square feet of ground floor commercial space and 55 commercial parking spaces. However, for purposes of conservative environmental review under SEQRA, particularly with regard to potential traffic impacts, it was preferred to assume a mixed-use scenario for these parcels in the buildout calculations. The introduction of 21 additional residential units to the analysis framework would result in modest increases to the number of projected school-age children compared to what is projected later in this report. PROJECT AREA TOTAL BUILDOUT Based on the maximum theoretical buildout scenarios presented in Tables 3 and 4, for purposes of environmental review it is conservatively assumed that up to 470 residential units, 21,831 sf of commercial floor area, and 725 off-street parking spaces could theoretically be developed within the overall Project Area as a result of the Proposed Action. As previously discussed, the chance of either scenario fully occurring, even over a long period of time, is highly unlikely. D. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS PUBLIC SCHOOLS ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK The analysis framework for potential impacts on public schools focuses on the difference between the maximum number of residential units that could be developed under the current HSRG Overlay zoning (last amended in 2010–2011) and the maximum number of residential units that could be developed if all Project Area parcels were to be developed (through a special permit) with multifamily residential buildings (on the HSRG Overlay parcels) and mixed-use TOD buildings (on the LI TOD parcels). As a result of the 2011 amendments, the Village Zoning Code currently allows mixed-use developments in the HSRG Overlay district with a special permit, at a maximum FAR of 0.8 and height of three-stories/35 feet, with residential units above a ground floor commercial use. Mixed-use developments containing residential and commercial space are currently not allowed in the LI district (though limited office/commercial uses are permitted). To establish the overall Project Area’s residential baseline for the schools analysis, i.e. the maximum number of residential units that could be developed in the Project Area under the current zoning, Buildout Scenario 3 from the 2010–2011 Saccardi & Schiff/VHB EAF Part 3 Report was applied. For conservative environmental review purposes, Scenario 3 from the 2010–2011 study assumed that the geographic extent of the HSRG Overlay and proposed expansion area (as delineated at that time) would be redeveloped with new 0.8 FAR, three-story mixed-use buildings, with a combination of some adjacent lots to provide larger development parcels. As shown in Table 5, 2010 v. 2022 Residential Buildout Analysis Comparison, Scenario 3 from the 2010– 2011 study projected 146 residential units for the HSRG Overlay area. When comparing the maximum buildout scenarios for the Project Area as a whole (both the HSRG Overlay and LI districts) presented in Tables 3 and 4, respectively, to the 2010–2011 mixed-use projections established for the HSRG Overlay, the current analyses result in a net increase of 324 HSRG Overlay and LI District Zoning Amendments residential units. This 324-unit increment serves as the basis for the evaluation of potential impacts on public schools, as presented below. Table 5 2010 vs. 2022 Residential Buildout Analysis Comparison Land Use Type 2010–2011 HSRG Overlay Zoning Amendments Buildout Analysis (Scenario 3)1 Proposed HSRG Overlay Zoning Amendments (2022) Buildout Analysis2 Proposed LI TOD Zoning Amendments (2022) Buildout Analysis3 HSRG Overlay and LI Amendments (2022) Buildout Combined Total Residential Increment for Schools Analysis4 Projected Residential (units) +324 Notes: 1 Scenario 3 from the 2010–2011 zoning study (Saccardi & Schiff/VHB) assumed that the entire geographic extent of the HSRG Overlay and proposed expansion area (as delineated at that time) would be redeveloped with new 0.8 FAR, three-story mixed-use buildings, with a combination of some adjacent lots to provide larger development parcels. 2 Buildout calculations assumed that all parcels within the current HSRG Overlay district boundary (and proposed expansion area) would be redeveloped with multifamily residential buildings with an FAR of 0.8, a maximum height of three stories, while also meeting the on-site parking requirements as per the proposed zoning amendments. It was also assumed that assemblages of adjacent parcels with common ownership would occur to provide larger development parcels (see Figure 3). 3 Buildout calculations assumed that each of the three LI TOD parcels would be redeveloped with a 1.2 FAR mixed-use building containing ground floor commercial space with residential space above, at a maximum height of five stories, while also meeting the on-site parking requirements as per the proposed zoning amendments. 4 The schools analysis increment was determined by calculating the net differences between the 2010–2011 and 2022 residential buildout analyses for the Project Area. Sources: Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District Zoning Amendments EAF Part 3 Report and Addendum, (Saccardi &Schiff/VHB, July 2010 and October 2011); Village of Croton-on-Hudson; AKRF, Inc. EXISTING ENROLLMENT The Project Area is located within the Croton-Harmon Union Free School District (CHUFSD). According to enrollment data contained in the CHUFSD 2022–2023 Adopted Budget (April 2022)6, the total enrollment for the 2021–2022 school year was 1,534 students, and the projected enrollment for the 2022–2023 school year is 1,536 students. The April 2022 Budget report includes historical CHUFSD enrollment data between the 2009–2022 school years, including a peak enrollment of 1,752 students in the 2009–2010 school year. Historical enrollment data since the 2009–2010 peak enrollment is presented in Table 6, CHUFSD Historical Enrollment Data. As shown, when accounting for the 2022–2023 projected enrollment of 1,536 students, there are approximately 218 fewer students enrolled in the most recent year that data is available than the 2009–2010 peak enrollment (an overall decrease of approximately 12.32 percent). 6 https://www.chufsd.org/cms/lib/NY01913608/Centricity/shared/budget/2022-2023%20budget/2022- 23%20Official%20Approved%20Budget%20Statement.pdf FEAF Part 3 Supplemental Narrative Table 6 CHUFSD Historical Enrollment Data School Year Building Enrollment Change from Previous Year Percent Change 2009–2010 1,752 0.11% 2010–2011 1,750 -2 -0.11% 2011–2012 1,721 -29 -1.66% 2012–2013 1,703 -18 -1.05% 2013–2014 1,723 1.17% 2014–2015 1,681 -42 -2.44% 2015–2016 1,635 -46 -2.74% 2016–2017 1,636 0.06% 2017–2018 1,600 -36 -2.20% 2018–2019 1,575 -25 -1.56% 2019–2020 1,582 0.44% 2020–2021 1,519 -63 -3.98% 2021–2022 1,534 0.99% 2022–2023 (projected) 1,536 0.13% Change since 2009– -218 -12.32% Source: CHUFSD Adopted Budget 2022–2023 CHUFSD has one elementary school (Carrie E. Tompkins Elementary School), one middle school (Pierre Van Cortlandt Middle School), and one high school (Croton-Harmon High School). Table 7, CHUFSD Current Enrollment (2021–2022) By School, shows the total projected enrollment per school building for the 2021–2022 school year. Table 7 CHUFSD Current Enrollment (2021–2022) By School School Year Carrie E. Tompkins Elementary School Pierre Van Cortlandt Middle School Croton-Harmon High School 2022–2023 (projected) Source: CHUFSD Adopted Budget 2022–2023 PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN – RUTGERS CUPR To estimate the number of public school aged children (PSAC) that could be added to the district from the 324 incremental units derived from the analysis framework presented in Table 5, standard planning multipliers were used - specifically, the Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research (CUPR) Residential Demographic Multipliers, June 2006, which are widely accepted as industry standard multipliers for PSAC assessments completed with environmental impact assessment for new housing in communities throughout New York State.7 The Rutgers CUPR data used for this analysis is attached as Appendix E. 7 AKRF Inc. reviewed the Rutgers CUPR November 2018 report titled “Updated New Jersey Demographic Multipliers – The Profile of Occupants of Residential Development in New Jersey” and it was determined that the 2006 CUPR multipliers yielded PSAC estimates that were higher than those derived from the 2018 updates. Therefore, to ensure conservative analysis the 2006 CUPR multipliers were used. HSRG Overlay and LI District Zoning Amendments To ensure conservative and consistent analyses of potential PSAC that could result from zoning changes in the Project Area, the methodology utilized herein is similar to that utilized in the 2010– 2011 zoning amendments FEAF and addendum. The Rutgers CUPR multipliers were applied to a scenario that assumed the 324 incremental units would be one-bedroom units, and a scenario that assumed a 50/50 mix of one-bedroom and two-bedroom units. In addition, 10 percent of the units in each scenario were assumed to be affordable units8. As presented in Table 8, Projected PSAC Based on Rutgers CUPR Data, utilizing the Rutgers CUPR multiplier methodology (and assuming 10 percent affordable units), the analyses project approximately 29 PSAC (K-12) could be generated by 324 one-bedroom apartments with rents over $1,000/month. Assuming an equal mix of one- and two-bedroom units (with 10 percent affordable units), the Rutgers CUPR multipliers indicate that the 324 units could generate approximately 45 PSAC (K-12). It is again noted that the full implementation of the buildout scenarios for the HSRG and LI districts is highly unlikely. Also worthy of note, new school children generated by private development in the Project Area would not be generated all at once, and new school population would be spread out over 13 grade levels (K-12). Table 8 Projected PSAC Based on Rutgers CUPR Data Scenario Incremental Units Analyzed Rutgers CUPR Multiplier Total PSAC (w/10% AH) All 1BR; 10% AH 292 market rate 1BR (90%) 0.071 20.44 32 affordable 1BR (10%) 0.272 8.64 324 Total 29.08 50/50 Mix 1BR/2BR; 10% AH 146 market rate 1BR 0.071 10.22 16 affordable 1BR 0.272 4.32 146 market rate 2BR 0.163 23.36 16 affordable 2BR 0.454 7.2 324 Total 45.10 Notes: BR = Bedroom AH = Affordable housing 1 One-bedroom rental apartment units, rent more than $1,000/month 2 One-bedroom rental apartment units, rent $500-$1,000/month 3 Two-bedroom rental apartment units, rent over $1,100/month 4 Two-bedroom rental apartment units, rent $750-$1,100/month Sources: 2006 Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research – New York (Table 3-2) All Public School Children: School-Age Children in Public School (PSAC) - 5+ Units-Rent (Appendix E). CHUFSD ENROLLMENT FROM EXISTING MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES Because the CUPR multipliers applied above are conservative, they can overestimate the number of PSAC living in multifamily housing in suburban areas because the CUPR data reflects a state- wide analysis of urban areas (e.g., cities of 100,000 or more persons), including New York City. It is widely recognized that families living in large urban areas have more PSAC per bedroom than 8 As shown in Table 8, the CUPR data uses different multipliers depending on the range of rents assumed. The lower range of rents was utilized to represent the 10 percent affordable housing assumed. FEAF Part 3 Supplemental Narrative the typical suburban multifamily resident. As such, the multifamily housing characteristics data are skewed due to factors not found in suburban settings such as Westchester County. Based on the above, a case study approach was also conducted in order to provide a supplemental level of analysis for PSAC. In November 2021, AKRF, Inc. submitted a request to the CHUFSD pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) to obtain PSAC enrollment currently generated from select multifamily residential properties in the Village. Specifically, AKRF, Inc. requested the number of PSAC enrolled in CHUFSD, per grade (K-5, 6-8, 9-12) for the 2021– 2022 school year and three previous school years (2018–2019, 2019–2020, and 2020–2021) from the following developments/addresses: • Mount Airy Woods: All apartment numbers listed from the following street addresses: 21, 23, and 25 Mount Airy Woods, Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520; • Bari Manor Apartment Homes: All apartment numbers with an address including “Bari Manor,” “Bari Manor Apartments,” or a street address of 31 or 31A Old Post Road South, Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520; • 94 Grand Street: All apartment numbers listed for the address of 94 Grand Street, Croton-on- Hudson, NY 10520. The total number of PSAC residing at these properties over the last four school years is summarized in Table 9, PSAC Enrollment from Selected Village Developments. Table 9 PSAC Enrollment from Selected Village Developments Property Apartments1 2018–2019 PSAC 2019–2020 PSAC 2020–2021 PSAC 2021–2022 PSAC Case Study Multiplier Derived2 94 Grand Street 0.19 Bari Manor Apartment Homes 0.25 Mount Airy Woods 0.17 Totals 0.22 0.22 x 324 units = 71.28 PSAC Notes: 1 The unit mix (breakdown of 1- 2- and 3-bedroom units) from these properties was not available for this study. 2 Case study multiplier based on highest recorded enrollment over the last four school years. Sources: CHUFSD District Clerk, November 2021 FOIL Request PROJECTED PSAC – CASE STUDY OF EXISTING MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES Utilizing the highest recorded combined enrollment from these three properties (28 PSAC from the 2019–2020 school year) results in a conservatively derived multiplier of 0.22 PSAC per residential unit. As noted in Table 9, information on the exact unit mix (i.e., number of bedrooms) for each of these properties was not available for this study. However, Bari Manor is known to contain studio, 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units in several large buildings9 and as a result, its student 9 https://www.trulia.com/c/ny/croton-on-hudson/bari-manor-31-old-post-rd-s-croton-on-hudson-ny-10520- -2088945105 HSRG Overlay and LI District Zoning Amendments generation ratio is expected to be higher than apartments found in smaller buildings. Applying the 0.22 PSAC per unit multiplier to 324 units could generate approximately 71 PSAC (K-12). CONCLUSIONS Based on the analyses presented herein, the 2006 Rutgers CUPR multipliers conservatively estimate 29 to 45 PSAC could result from Study Area development at full buildout of the HSRG and LI TOD parcels, based on the SEQRA analysis framework applied (increment of 324 residential units). Utilizing the 0.22 PSAC per unit multiplier derived from the case study sample of existing multifamily developments in the Village, the PSAC estimate remains conservative and is as high as 71. As noted above, the chance of this theoretical buildout fully occurring, even over a long period of time, is highly unlikely. As presented in Table 6, there is a trend of declining enrollment in the district, and an increase of up to 71 PSAC over the 2022–2023 projected enrollment of 1,536 students, in addition to other background growth to occur over several years, would result in enrollment well below peak enrollment of 1,752 students in the 2009–2010 school year. Furthermore, the estimated additional students would not be introduced all at once, but rather be incrementally introduced and distributed across the district’s three schools (13 grades). The CHUFSD budget has been increasing over the same period that enrollment has been decreasing. It is therefore anticipated that the estimated PSAC attributable to a theoretical maximum buildout resulting from the Proposed Action would not result in a substantive marginal cost to the CHUFSD, and the CHUFSD would have enough space and resources to accommodate the additional children. The special permit approval process would subject individual development proposals throughout the Project Area to a site-specific environmental review under SEQRA in connection with discretionary land use approvals and public hearings through the Village Board of Trustees, Village Planning Board, Village WAC, and other involved agencies. Through this discretionary approval process, estimated PSAC, as well as financial/tax implications for the CHUFSD, would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. VISUAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER HSRG OVERLAY AND EXPANSION PARCELS The HSRG Overlay and its proposed expansion area is comprised primarily of commercial structures, generally one- to two-stories in height, with some three-story buildings found along South Riverside Avenue between Benedict Boulevard and Clinton Street. Most of the parcels without structures are paved and used for either parking or storage. The underlying C-2 zoning throughout the HSRG Overlay (and proposed expansion) allows new commercial structures up to 35 feet in height, and as was the case with the 2010–2011 amendments to allow mixed-use buildings by special permit in this district, the FAR and maximum height provision would not change with the Proposed Action. The HSRG Overlay and its proposed expansion area is located approximately 1,500 to 2,500 feet east of the Hudson River. However, most of the HSRG Overlay area is already developed. From undeveloped or underdeveloped HSRG Overlay parcels, the Hudson River is not visible due to intervening trees and topography. Therefore, existing views toward the River along South Riverside Avenue, Croton Point Avenue, Benedict Boulevard, and Wayne Street are not anticipated to be a significantly impacted by the zoning amendments proposed for the HSRG Overlay. Similarly, views towards the Hudson River from upland residential neighborhoods to the north/east of the HSRG Overlay district would not be significantly impacted by the introduction FEAF Part 3 Supplemental Narrative of new three-story, 35-foot-tall buildings within the district (refer to Figures 5 and 6, LI TOD Profile Section Key and LI TOD Profile Sections discussed further below). The Proposed Action is a zoning amendment, not a construction project, and the proposed amendments would allow for the same maximum building height (35 feet) as currently permitted in the HSRG Overlay. It is possible that a site in the HSRG Overlay district that is currently vacant or underutilized could be developed/redeveloped with or without the Proposed Action. Because plans for new multifamily residential buildings in the HSRG would still require discretionary land use approvals from the Village, this process would afford the Village the opportunity to evaluate project related effects on visual resources/community character on a case-by-case basis. LI TOD PARCELS According to Section 230-18 of the Village Zoning Code, the LI district was designed to accommodate “light manufacturing and related uses consistent with the needs and welfare of the community. Uses in this district shall be grouped according to compatibility and performance in order not to create a nuisance to the community or adjacent users.” Permitted uses in the LI district include the following: • Business and professional offices, including related showrooms; • Railroad lines and stations; and • Motor vehicle parking structures and parking lots. The maximum FAR permitted in the LI district is 0.5 and the maximum building height is three- stories or 40 feet. Uses in the LI district subject to issuance of a special permit by the Village Board of Trustees include the following: • Light manufacturing, assembling, converting, altering, finishing, cleaning or any other processing of products; • Research and design and development laboratories, excluding laboratories that use or process biological, radioactive and hazardous materials, heavy metals or asbestos; • Storage and dispensing of motor fuel and lubricants, but only as part of motor vehicle parking lots and of structures for the parking of motor vehicles; • Hotels, inns and restaurants; • Occasional retail sales incidental to the conduct of any of the permitted uses and subject to such frequency and other conditions as may be imposed by the Village Board of Trustees; • Utilities, including but not limited to structures for the provision of electricity, gas and water; radio and television transmission stations; telephone, telegraph and cablegram facilities; • Warehousing and wholesaling; freight distribution centers and terminals; except that any handling, storage or distribution of flammable, combustible, explosive or hazardous materials shall be prohibited; and • Tier 3 solar energy systems, provided certain requirements are met. The Proposed Action would permit a portion of the LI district along Croton Point Avenue (specifically, Parcels 48, 49, and 50, which fall within 1,500 feet of the Croton-Harmon train station, see Figure 1) to be redeveloped with either residential or mixed-use (residential and commercial) buildings, subject to issuance of a special permit by the Village Board of Trustees. As previously discussed, the purpose and need for the zoning amendments proposed for the LI HSRG Overlay and LI District Zoning Amendments TOD parcels is based on the Village’s desire to introduce a mixed use/TOD option to an area of the Village well-suited for such development. The proposed amendments would allow, by special permit issuance, new buildings on these parcels with an FAR up to 1.2 and a height of up to five- stories. Because applications for new residential or mixed-use buildings on these parcels would require discretionary land use approvals, the Village would evaluate effects on visual resources/community character on a case-by-case basis. However, at the request of the Village, a conceptual visual analysis was undertaken to assess what the theoretical full buildout of the three LI TOD parcels could look like, from several publicly accessible viewpoints offered to both pedestrians and motorists if constructed pursuant to the proposed height and bulk parameters. This visual impact and community character analysis assesses potential significant changes in visibility resulting from implementation of the Proposed Action. The analyses present changes in context with existing development in the area, using the thresholds established by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Program Policy DEP-00-2 / “Assessing and Mitigating Visual and Aesthetic Impacts” (last revised 2019). As noted therein, “aesthetic impact” is the consequence of a visual impact on the public’s use and enjoyment of the appearance or qualities of a listed resource. NYSDEC Program Policy DEP-00-2 is intended to address places or locations that have been officially designated for their aesthetic qualities and that are accessible to the public at large as opposed to places that may have individual or private importance only. Furthermore, the NYSDEC guidance states that “mere visibility of a project should not be a threshold for decision making. Instead, a project, by virtue of its visibility, must clearly interfere with or reduce the public’s enjoyment or appreciation of the appearance of a significant place or structure.” The Project Area is not located within an area officially designated (locally or by New York State) for aesthetic qualities. The Hudson River is visible from many high points throughout the Village. However, the Hudson River is not an officially designated aesthetic resource. To evaluate the potential visual impacts of constructing 1.2 FAR, 5-story buildings on each of the three LI TOD parcels, computer software10 was used to construct three-dimensional models to simulate the general massing of a theoretical mixed-use building on each parcel. The model was then superimposed on series of photographs taken from a total of six viewpoints11 during both leaf-on (summer) and leaf-off (winter) conditions. The following parameters were assumed to create the computerized massing, derived from the LI TOD buildout analysis presented in Table 4 and Appendix D: • Parcel 48: A rectangular-shaped building footprint12 of 5,863.9 sf was (conservatively) placed closest to the Croton Point Avenue frontage of the parcel13. This footprint area was then raised to five stories tall, assuming 10 feet per floor. 10 ESRI ArcGIS Pro, Bentley MicroStation, Adobe Photoshop. 11 The six viewpoints were selected by the Village Board of Trustees. 12 Theoretical building footprint area was calculated by multiplying each parcel’s area by 1.2, then dividing by the maximum number of stories permitted under the proposed zoning (5). 13 Placement of the theoretical buildings on each parcel did not account for areas required for landscaping, setbacks, outdoor amenities, etc. FEAF Part 3 Supplemental Narrative • Parcel 49: A rectangular-shaped building footprint of 3,290.7 sf was (conservatively) placed closest to the Croton Point Avenue frontage of the parcel. This footprint area was then raised to five stories tall, assuming 10 feet per floor. • Parcel 50: A rectangular-shaped building footprint of 12,676.8 sf was (conservatively) placed closest to the Croton Point Avenue frontage of the parcel. This footprint area was then raised to five stories tall, assuming 10 feet per floor. A map showing the locations of each selected viewpoint is presented in Figure 4a, Key to Photograph Viewpoints. The leaf-on and leaf-off photo simulations are provided in Figures 4b- 4m, Viewpoints 1 to 6. In the absence of actual development plans for these parcels, the conceptual massing is highly generalized and therefore conservative. No architectural treatments or building materials/colors were included in the photo simulations. In each photo simulation, the roofline of each theoretical massing is depicted with a yellow dashed line. The following sections describe each of the six viewpoints selected along with key findings of the visual analyses. In summary, it was concluded that no significant adverse impacts are anticipated when considering the potential placement of 1.2 FAR, 5-story mixed-use buildings on the three proposed LI TOD parcels. Viewpoint 1 – Southbound Route 9 Exit to Croton Point Avenue Looking South Viewpoint 1 (Figures 4b and 4c) presents the south-facing view towards Parcels 48-50 from the off-ramp at the exit for Croton Point Avenue from southbound Route 9. The leaf off and leaf on photographs were taken from the grade where Route 9 meets the off-ramp at this location. The off-ramp slopes downhill toward Croton Point Avenue. Due to the presence of mostly evergreen trees along the western edge of Route 9 at this location, the existing and simulated condition views are similar under both leaf-off and leaf-on conditions. A portion of the two-story restaurant on Parcel 49 is visible under existing conditions in both the leaf-off and leaf-on view. The existing building on Parcel 48 is not visible due to intervening vegetation. In the simulated views, the northern extent of Parcel 49’s massing is visible, approximately three-stories taller than the existing restaurant’s façade, and a small portion of the northern façade of Parcel 48’s massing is visible, with the remainder obscured by trees. The five- story highlighted roofline does not exceed the height of surrounding trees and would not overwhelm the observer (i.e. motorists exiting Route 9) when viewed from this location. Viewpoint 2 – Veterans Plaza (aka MNR “South Lot”) Viewpoint 2 (Figures 4d and 4e) presents the northwesterly view towards Parcels 48-50 from Veterans Plaza, a street that extends south from Croton Point Avenue and is surrounded on both sides by the Village owned MNR “South Lot”. Due to the lack of intervening topography, vegetation and buildings, this viewpoint offers the most prominent publicly accessible view of the proposed TOD parcels from the six evaluated locations. The massing of the three theoretical buildings is visible from this location under leaf-on and leaf-off conditions, though Parcel 50 is partially obscured in the leaf-on condition. From this viewpoint the introduction of 5-story buildings would replace the existing limited view of the vegetation found along the edge of the off-ramp to Croton Point Avenue from southbound Route 9, and would therefore not block the views of pedestrians or motorists toward any aesthetically prominent features. The massing shown would also not exceed the height of the surrounding trees and utility poles visible in both photographs. ! ! ! F F! F F! F F! F F! F F! F F! U V 9A £ ¤ Croton Point Ave Young Ave Benedict Blvd S R iversid e Ave Clinton St Devon Ave Hastings Ave Wayne St Vet erans Plz VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS Key to Photograph View Points Figure 4a 500 FEET 1.6.22 Data sources: Orthoimagery via Nearmap, 2021 Proposed Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Special Permit Parcel F F! View Direction and Reference Number HSRG Overlay and LI District Zoning Amendments Viewpoint 3 – Croton Point Avenue Looking West Viewpoint 3 (Figures 4f and 4g) presents the westerly view of Parcels 48-50 from the intersection of Croton Point Avenue and the off-ramp exiting northbound Route 9. Under the existing and simulated conditions, the most prominent feature visible is the Route 9 overpass at Croton Point Avenue, which is approximately the same height as the two-story commercial building visible on the right side of the photographs. As shown in the leaf-off condition, the upper floors of a 5-story building on each parcel would be visible to pedestrians and motorists from this location, but no aesthetically prominent features would be blocked. The visible area beyond the three parcels from this viewpoint consists of industrial/rail yard uses and offers no views of Croton Point Park or the Hudson River. Under the leaf-on condition, the upper floors would be less visible, and Parcel 49 would be almost entirely screened from view. Viewpoint Point 4 – Croton Point Avenue Looking West (further east of Viewpoint 3) Viewpoint 4 (Figures 4h and 4i) presents the westerly view of Parcels 48-50 from Croton Point Avenue, at the approximate midpoint between Viewpoint 3 and South Riverside Avenue. Similar to Viewpoint 3, the Route 9 overpass at Croton Point Avenue serves as an existing barrier to the visibility of existing uses on the three parcels and other distant uses found within the LI district. Due to the curvature of Croton Point Avenue at this location, a 5- story building on Parcels 48 and 50 would not be visible in leaf-on or leaf-off conditions. As for Parcel 49, more of the 5-story massing would be seen by pedestrians and motorists from this viewpoint under the leaf-off condition due to the gain in elevation experienced between Route 9 and South Riverside Avenue. Under the existing condition, the gain in elevation provides a partial view of the slope found at the eastern extent of Croton Point Park in the distance, among other intervening features such as traffic signals, the Route 9 overpass, utility poles, and crane towers. With the introduction of 5- story massing on Parcel 49, the leaf-off view is not substantially different than what is offered from Viewpoint 3, and due to the height of intervening trees, additional screening would be provided under the leaf-on condition. Viewpoint 5 – View from the Parking Lot at the end of Benedict Boulevard Viewpoint 5 (Figures 4j and 4k) presents the southwesterly view towards Parcels 48-50 from the parking lot at the end of Benedict Boulevard, between Route 9 and Wayne Street. As shown in both figures, the down-gradient slope between this location and the three parcels is heavily wooded. A portion of the Route 9 right-of-way and access to the wooded area is blocked by a guardrail and chain link fencing. Viewpoint 5 is approximately 40 feet higher in elevation than Parcels 48-50 and is separated from the three parcels by Route 9. While the upper floors and roofline of the simulated buildings could be visible in the absence of any vegetation, the observer at this location would be looking over the top of the buildings. The dense cover that exists under both leaf-on and leaf-off conditions offers significant screening. Therefore, it can be concluded that no theoretical development up to 5-stories tall on Parcels 48-50 would be visible from this parking lot. Viewpoint 6 – South Riverside Avenue, East of ShopRite Plaza Viewpoint 6 (Figures 4l and 4m) presents the westerly view towards Parcels 48-50 from a high point along South Riverside Avenue adjacent to the ShopRite plaza. The leaf-on and leaf-off photographs were taken from the shoulder of the northbound lane of South Riverside Avenue, at the approximate midpoint between the plaza’s two entrances. As demonstrated in each figure, while the plaza’s buildings are mostly visible to motorists, the modeled buildings would be over 1,200 feet away and separated not only by the plaza and associated landscaping, but other FEAF Part 3 Supplemental Narrative intervening vegetation as well as Route 9. Due to the intervening topography and vegetation, it can be concluded that no theoretical development up to 5-stories tall on Parcels 48-50 would be visible from Viewpoint 6. CROSS-SECTIONAL PROFILE - YOUNG AVENUE TO PARCELS 48-50 As a supplement to the photo simulations presented above, which focused on publicly accessible viewpoints, two cross-sectional profiles (one covering Parcels 48 and 50 and another covering Parcel 49) were developed using ESRI ArcGIS Pro to illustrate the intervening topography and land cover between the three parcels and private residences along Young Avenue and Wayne Street (the residential neighborhoods closest to the three parcels). A key map illustrating the two profile lines (profiles A and B) extending southwest from Young Avenue through Parcels 48-50 is included as Figure 5, LI TOD Profile Section Key. Cross-sectional views of profiles A and B are included as Figure 6, LI TOD Profile Sections. The two cross sections illustrate the topographic relationship and potential visibility of a 5-story building on Parcels 48-50 from private residential properties along Young Avenue and Wayne Street. The horizontal distance covered by profiles A and B is approximately 1,200 feet, and labels are provided for intervening properties, structures, and roadways covered within each profile (shown at a representative scale). As shown in Figure 6, the difference in existing grade elevation between the three proposed TOD parcels and residences to the northeast along Young Avenue and Wayne Street would be approximately 40 feet, which would place a 5-story building on each parcel below and outside of the direct line of sight from these residences. In the absence of actual development plans for these parcels, including grading plans with finished floor elevations, the conceptual 5-story massing shown in each profile is highly generalized and therefore conservative. Applications for new multifamily residential buildings on Parcels 48-50 would require discretionary land use approvals from the Village. As such, the Village would evaluate effects on visual resources/community character on a case-by-case basis. However, based on this analysis that includes a mathematically modeled representation of the topographic profile between each location, the construction of 1.2 FAR mixed-use buildings with a roof height of 5-stories and approximately 50 feet above grade should not present a significant adverse visual impact when viewed from the upland residential neighborhoods. Existing Condition Simulation - 1.2 FAR and 5-stories 1.19.22 VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS Figure 4b Proposed Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Special Permit Parcel LI TOD Buildout Photo Simulations View Point 1 — Leaf Off ! ! F F! F F! Benedict Blvd Wayne St Existing Condition Simulation - 1.2 FAR and 5-stories VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS Figure 4c 1.19.22 Proposed Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Special Permit Parcel ! ! F F! F F! Benedict Blvd Wayne St LI TOD Buildout Photo Simulations View Point 1 — Leaf On Existing Condition Simulation - 1.2 FAR and 5-stories 1.19.22 VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS Figure 4d Proposed Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Special Permit Parcel ! ! ! F F! Cr oton Point Ave Ve terans Plz LI TOD Buildout Photo Simulations View Point 2 — Leaf Off Existing Condition Simulation - 1.2 FAR and 5-stories VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS Figure 4e 1.19.22 Proposed Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Special Permit Parcel ! ! ! F F! Cr oton Point Ave Ve terans Plz LI TOD Buildout Photo Simulations View Point 2 — Leaf On Existing Condition Simulation - 1.2 FAR and 5-stories 1.19.22 VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS Figure 4f Proposed Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Special Permit Parcel ! ! ! F F! Cr oton Point Ave V LI TOD Buildout Photo Simulations View Point 3 — Leaf Off Existing Condition Simulation - 1.2 FAR and 5-stories VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS Figure 4g 1.19.22 Proposed Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Special Permit Parcel ! ! ! F F! Cr oton Point Ave V LI TOD Buildout Photo Simulations View Point 3 — Leaf On Existing Condition Simulation - 1.2 FAR and 5-stories 1.19.22 VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS Figure 4h Proposed Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Special Permit Parcel ! ! ! F F! F F! F U V 9A Cr oton Point Ave LI TOD Buildout Photo Simulations View Point 4 — Leaf Off Existing Condition Simulation - 1.2 FAR and 5-stories VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS Figure 4i 1.19.22 Proposed Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Special Permit Parcel ! ! ! F F! F F! F U V 9A Cr oton Point Ave LI TOD Buildout Photo Simulations View Point 4 — Leaf On Existing Condition Simulation - 1.2 FAR and 5-stories 1.19.22 VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS Figure 4j Proposed Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Special Permit Parcel ! ! ! F! F F! Cr oton Point Ave Wayne St LI TOD Buildout Photo Simulations View Point 5 — Leaf Off Existing Condition Simulation - 1.2 FAR and 5-stories VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS Figure 4k 1.19.22 Proposed Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Special Permit Parcel ! ! ! F! F F! Cr oton Point Ave Wayne St LI TOD Buildout Photo Simulations View Point 5 — Leaf On Existing Condition Simulation - 1.2 FAR and 5-stories 1.19.22 VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS Figure 4l Proposed Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Special Permit Parcel ! F F! F F! F F! F F! U V 9A £ ¤ oton Point Ave Bened S R iversid e Ave ve Wayne St Vet erans Plz LI TOD Buildout Photo Simulations View Point 6 — Leaf Off Existing Condition Simulation - 1.2 FAR and 5-stories VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS Figure 4m 1.19.22 Proposed Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Special Permit Parcel ! F F! F F! F F! F F! U V 9A £ ¤ oton Point Ave Bened S R iversid e Ave ve Wayne St Vet erans Plz LI TOD Buildout Photo Simulations View Point 6 — Leaf On U V 9A £ ¤ Croton Point Ave Benedict Blvd S Riverside Ave Veterans Plz Young Ave Wayne St Parcel 50 Parcel 48 Parcel 49 New York State, Westchester County GIS, Maxar, Microsoft VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS LI TOD Profile Section Key Figure 5 400 FEET Profile Line Profile Vantage Point Reference Markers (100-ft Intervals) LI TOD Parcels Potential 1.2 FAR Building Footprints (5 story scenario) 1-ft Contour Lines 1.6.22 Profile A Profile B Profile A Profile B VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS 1.6.22 Figure 6 LI TOD Profile Sections Young Ave South Riverside Ave Wayne St Route 9 Route 9 Exit Ramp commercial lot parking commercial lot parking residential lot backyard residential lot backyard residential lot backyard Young Ave commercial lot Route 9 overpass at Croton Point Ave residential lot backyard residential lot driveway Metro North station parking South Riverside Ave end of Wayne St gas station Route 9 Entrance Ramp Veterans Plz commercial lot Parcel 48 and 50 Potential 1.2 FAR Building Footprints (5 stories) Parcel 49 Potential 1.2 FAR Building Footprints (5 stories) HSRG Overlay and LI District Zoning Amendments TRAFFIC A detailed traffic impact study (TIS) was completed to assess the potential traffic and transportation impacts related to the theoretical maximum buildout projected under the Proposed Action. The full TIS, including all tables and figures, can be found in Appendix F. The findings of the TIS are summarized in this section. Prior to the preparation of the TIS, AKRF prepared preliminary trip generation numbers to determine if the incremental trip generation numbers associated with the theoretical maximum buildout would exceed the 100 vehicle-trip threshold for any given peak hour that would require a quantified traffic analysis in order to satisfy SEQRA requirements. As this threshold of 100- vehicle trips was found to be exceeded during at least one peak hour, the quantified analysis, as presented in Appendix F, was conducted to assess the potential for traffic impacts, under SEQRA, as assumed through the conservative buildout calculations presented in Tables 3 and 4 earlier in this report. As noted above, up to 470 residential units, 21,831 sf of commercial floor area, and 725 off-street parking spaces could theoretically be developed within the overall Project Area as a result of the Proposed Action (the chance of either scenario fully occurring, even over a long period of time, is highly unlikely). The TIS describes traffic operations for existing conditions within the Study Area and for conditions in the future with the Proposed Action (aka the “Build” analysis). DATA COLLECTION Turning Movement Counts (TMCs) and Vehicle Classification Counts (VCC) were collected at the following locations for the weekday AM (6:30 to 9:30 AM) and PM (4:00 to 6:00 PM) periods in April, 2022: 1. Croton Point Ave. and Veterans Plaza (signalized) 2. Croton Point Ave. and Rt. 9/9A Southbound Ramps (signalized) 3. Croton Point Ave. and Rt. 9/9A Northbound Ramps (signalized) 4. Croton Point Ave. and S. Riverside Ave. (signalized) 5. S. Riverside Ave. and Benedict Blvd. (signalized) 6. S. Riverside Ave. and Clinton St. (unsignalized) Field inventories of the intersection roadway geometries were conducted and signal timing plans were obtained from the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and the Village of Croton-on-Hudson. Descriptions of the study area roadways and agency signal timing plans are provided in Attachment A of Appendix F. PRELIMINARY SCREENING Prior to conducting the traffic analysis, a preliminary screening analysis was completed to estimate the likelihood of traffic impacts occurring at of any of the six intersections where traffic counts were counted and proposed for analysis (summarized in the ARKF May 27, 2022 memorandum, see Attachment A of Appendix F). This screening was based on an assessment of the collected traffic volumes and proposed trip assignments. Based on the results of this screening, the number of intersections analyzed as part of the TIS was reduced from six to five (with the intersection of South Riverside Ave. and Clinton Street screening out). As a result, the following five signalized intersections have been selected for quantified analysis in the TIS: FEAF Part 3 Supplemental Narrative 1. Croton Point Ave. and Veterans Plaza 2. Croton Point Ave. and Rt. 9/9A Southbound Ramps 3. Croton Point Ave. and Rt. 9/9A Northbound Ramps 4. Croton Point Ave. and S. Riverside Ave. 5. S. Riverside Ave. and Benedict Blvd. TRAFFIC VOLUME DEVELOPMENT 2022 Existing Volumes The 2022 Existing conditions traffic volumes are based on the TMC data collected at the study area intersection in April 2022 during the weekday AM (6:30 AM – 9:30 AM) and PM (4:00 PM – 6:00 PM) peak periods. Data collection sheets are provided within the appendices of Appendix F. 2042 Build Conditions For the purposes of this analysis, it was conservatively assumed that the future design year (i.e., the future year by which the full theoretical buildout from the Proposed Action would occur) would be 2042 (2022 + 20 years). Applying this assumption is consistent with the methodology utilized for the assessment of potential traffic impacts from the 2010–2011 HSRG Overlay zoning amendments. Future 2042 grown traffic volumes were developed by increasing the Existing 2022 traffic volumes in the study by a 1 percent per year compounded growth rate. This growth rate reflected increases in background traffic growth that would be expected to occur with or without the rezoning. 2042 Future Build traffic volumes were developed by adding the trips estimated to be generated by the Proposed Action (“Project Generated trips”) to the 2042 grown traffic volumes. The Existing 2022, 2042 Grown, Project Generated, and 2042 Build traffic volumes are illustrated in Figures 1 through 8 of Appendix F. The trip generation (as presented in AKRF’s February 25, 2022 memorandum to the Village, see Attachment A of Appendix F) was based on data presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Assumptions regarding potential driveway locations were utilized to develop trip assignments for the Proposed Action’s theoretical maximum buildout for the weekday AM and PM peak periods. Individual trip assignments were developed for groups of parcels (“zones”) assumed to share common driveways/access points. Figures 9 and 10 of Appendix F illustrate the zone locations and reference the parcels included in each zone. The cumulative trip assignments were then utilized to estimate the increase in traffic that would pass through each study area intersection as a result of the Proposed Action (see Attachment A of Appendix F for tables which illustrate the development of the parcel trip assignments for the HSRG Overlay and LI District). CAPACITY ANALYSIS Potential impacts of the Proposed Action were analyzed using methodologies based on the Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition (HCM 6) methodology (Synchro 11 software) to calculate existing and future traffic operating conditions (Level of Service (“LOS”) and total delay) at each of the Study Area intersections. LOS is based on a grading scale of “A” through “F” with “A” representing optimum traffic conditions and “F” representing poor traffic conditions (LOS D or HSRG Overlay and LI District Zoning Amendments better is typically considered acceptable operating conditions). Further descriptions of the capacity analysis methodology are provided in Attachment B of Appendix F. For the purpose of this analysis, traffic impacts are identified as: (1) any change from LOS D or better to LOS E or F; (2) any change from LOS E to LOS F; or (3) any increase of 10 percent or greater in delay for LOS F between Existing and Build conditions. The significant impact criteria are applied to the approach/lane group LOS for signalized intersections and approach/movement group LOS for unsignalized intersections. Under the 2042 Build condition, absent any additional improvements, there would be impacts expected at the following locations: • Croton Point Avenue and Veterans Plaza—the southbound approach would deteriorate from LOS E to LOS F during the Weekday AM peak hour and within LOS F during the Weekday PM peak hour. • Croton Point Avenue and Route 9/9A Southbound Ramps—the northbound approach would deteriorate within LOS F during the Weekday AM and PM peak hours. • South Riverside Avenue and Benedict Boulevard—the westbound approach would deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E during the Weekday PM peak hour. The southbound approach would deteriorate within LOS F during the Weekday AM and PM peak hours. POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES For the potentially impacted locations described above, recommended potential mitigation measures are as follows: • Croton Point Avenue and Veterans Plaza—Signal timing adjustments • Croton Point Avenue and Route 9/9A Southbound Ramps—Signal timing adjustments • South Riverside Avenue and Benedict Boulevard—Signal timing adjustments and pavement/lane restriping and/or narrowing of the median of Benedict Boulevard to provide two lanes at each approach to South Riverside Avenue. Because the Proposed Action represents proposed Local Laws (rezoning) as opposed to a specific development proposal, conservative assumptions were made to evaluate potential impacts should the Local Laws be adopted. Individual development proposals that come before the Village would be subject to site-specific environmental reviews pursuant to SEQRA. Specifically, a special permit approval process would subject individual development proposals on the study area parcels to a site-specific environmental review (including site-specific traffic studies) under SEQRA in connection with discretionary land use approvals and public hearings through the Village Board of Trustees, Village Planning Board, Village Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC), and other involved agencies. Any future special permit for new development on Village-owned parcels would not be able to proceed without the Village’s selection of a developer through a competitive request for proposals (RFP) process. Within each site-specific traffic study, any impacts and mitigation, if required, for that specific project will be identified and addressed on a case-by-case basis. PUBLIC TRANSIT Public rail and bus service is offered in the study area. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) Metro-North Railroad offers commuter rail service in the study area via its Hudson Line. Amtrak offers regional passenger rail service via its Empire Corridor Line. The FEAF Part 3 Supplemental Narrative Croton-Harmon train station is the stop located in the immediate vicinity of the study area and is accessible via Veterans Plaza. The Westchester County Bee-Line Bus System operates the following bus routes within the study area: Routes 10 (“Croton Commuter”), 11 (“Croton Express”), and 14 (“Peekskill-Ossining-White Plains”). These bus routes offer service to several other Westchester County municipalities. Routes 10 and 11 make stops at the Croton-Harmon train station. No significant changes are expected in public transit conditions by the Build year 2042. However, it is the policy of the mass transit agencies (Metro-North Commuter Railroad and the Bee-Line Bus System) to adjust their operating schedules to reflect demand as needed. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CONDITIONS Pedestrian volumes were observed to be low to moderate in the study area. Sidewalks exist along the following study area roadways: Croton Point Avenue, South Riverside Avenue, and the Metro- North parking lot driveways/Veterans Plaza. Observations conducted during field visits showed low to moderate levels of pedestrian activity at the study area intersections. Sidewalks are present along Croton Point Avenue, South Riverside Avenue, Veterans Plaza, and Benedict Boulevard. Crosswalks and pedestrian signals are present at each of the five study area intersections. Many of the pedestrian facilities along Croton Point Avenue were recently improved or installed as part of the Croton Point Avenue Improvement project. Bicycle volumes were observed to be low in the study area. Bike lanes were recently installed along both sides of Croton Point Avenue as part of the Croton Point Avenue Improvement project. PARKING Estimated parking supply numbers associated with the Proposed Action were calculated based on the buildout assumptions which yield an estimated parking supply requirement of 725 spaces. CONCLUSIONS Assuming the full theoretical maximum buildout under the proposed rezoning occurs by 2042, it is anticipated that traffic impacts could be experienced at the following three intersections studied: • Croton Point Avenue and Veterans Plaza • Croton Point Avenue and Route 9/9A Southbound Ramps • South Riverside Avenue and Benedict Boulevard Potential mitigation measures include traffic signal timing adjustments, pavement/lane restriping, and narrowing roadway medians. Should the Proposed Action be approved and the Project Area rezoned, the Village’s special permit approval process would subject individual development proposals throughout the Project Area to a site-specific environmental review under SEQRA in connection with discretionary land use approvals and public hearings through the Village Board of Trustees, Village Planning Board, Village WAC, and other involved agencies. Through this discretionary approval process, potential traffic and parking impacts, as well as any mitigation measures, would be analyzed on a case-by- case basis.