Chappaqua Crossing Findings Statement Final

7/27/2019 Chappaqua Crossing Findings Statement Final

1/83

TOWN OF NEW CASTLE200 S. Greeley Avenue, Chappaqua, New York 10514 Ph. (914) 238-4772 Fax (914) 238-5177

Marked to Show RevisionsTo Draft Dated October 25, 2013,

Derived From Comments From:Supervisor & Town BoardPublic

Town CounselApplicant

SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS STATEMENT

CHAPPAQUA CROSSING

ISSUED PURSUANT TO THESTATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT

Final Draft

SEQRA Action Type: Type I

Date: October 25298, 2013

Lead Agency: New Castle Town Board


2/83

TOWN OF NEW CASTLE200 S. Greeley Avenue, Chappaqua, New York 10514 Ph. (914) 238-4772 Fax (914) 238-5177

Contact: Jill Simon Shapiro, Town ClerkTown of New Castle200 South Greeley AvenueChappaqua, New York 10514Telephone: (914) 238-4772


3/83

Page 3 of 83

TableofContentsI. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4II. Project Site Description......................................................................................................... 5III. Project History........................................................................................................................ 7IV. Project Description .............................................................................................................. 14V. Retail Zoning Legislation .................................................................................................... 19VI. Consideration of Environmental Impacts........................................................................ 21

A. Land Use and Zoning .......................................................................................................... 22B. Socioeconomic and Fiscal Conditions............................................................................... 27C. Land, Water and Ecological Resources ............................................................................. 28D. Community Facilities & Services........................................................................................ 32E. Historical & Archaeological Resources ............................................................................. 34F. Visual Resources ................................................................................................................... 36G. Utilities.................................................................................................................................... 37H. Traffic ..................................................................................................................................... 38I. Air Quality and Noise .......................................................................................................... 44J. Community Character .......................................................................................................... 46K. Construction.......................................................................................................................... 49

VII. Measures for the Minimization or Mitigation of Adverse EnvironmentalImpacts................................................................................................................................... 50

VIII.

Significant Adverse Impacts ............................................................................................... 75

IX. Conclusions and Certification of Findings Required by SEQRA................................. 76X. Figures.................................................................................................................................... 78XI. Appendix A- 2011 Findings Statement ............................................................................. 83


4/83

Page 4 of 83

I. IntroductionThis Supplemental Findings Statement by the Town Board of the Town of New Castle (theTown Board) is prepared pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA), N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law Article 8, and its implementing regulations codifiedat Title 6 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (N.Y.C.R.R.) Part 617 (theSEQRA Regulations). The Town Board has served as Lead Agency for this SEQRAreview.

In April, 2011, the Town Board adopted a Findings Statement (2011 Findings Statement),approved a Commercial Rezoning and East Village Project (CR&EV Project)and amendedthe Town Development Plan Map for the 113.7-acre former Readers Digest Association,Inc. corporate campus (now known as Chappaqua Crossing) in the Town of New Castle(the Project Site),rezoned the Project Site from a primarily commercial site with B-RO-20zoning on 87.3 acres, to a mixed-use commercial and residential site with a new 30.6 acreMultifamily Planned Development District (MFPD District) and a smaller, 70.8 acre, B-

RO-20 District and approved a Preliminary Development Concept Plan for the MFPDDistrict (MFPD PDCP). The CR&EV Project includes 662,000 square feet of commercialspace in the B-RO-20 District with no limitations on the number of commercial tenants orsquare footage to be occupied by any such tenant and 111 housing units with no agerestrictions, including 91 units of market-rate housing and 20 units of affordable housingthat will affirmatively further fair housing. The affordable housing units will be compliantwith a 2009 Stipulation and Order of Settlement and Dismissal in the case ofUnited States ofAmerica ex rel. Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York, Inc. v. Westchester County, New York,U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y., Case No. 06 I Civ 2860 (DLC) (the Stipulation), requiringWestchester County to take actions necessary to produce 750 Stipulation-compliant units offair and affordable housing in communities falling within certain criteria based upon

minority census population figures. The Town of New Castle is one of the 31 municipalitiesthat fall within the specified census population figures.

The 2011 Findings Statement documented the history and importance of commercialdevelopment at the Project Site and the Towns obligations to provide affordable andmultifamily housing. After extensively discussing the potential environmental impactsassociated with the CR&EV Project, the 2011 Findings Statement concluded that consistentwith social, economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonablealternatives available, the CR&EV Project was one that avoided or minimized adverseenvironmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable by incorporating as conditions tothe decision those mitigative measures that the 2011 Findings Statement and the FEIS onwhich it was based identified as practicable. The 2011 Findings Statement is attached asAppendix A.

This 2013 Supplemental Findings Statement concerns proposed Zoning amendments, TownDevelopment Plan amendments, modifications to the Town Board approvals of theCR&EV Project and MFPD PDCP, and related land use approvals (Retail ZoningApprovals) sought by SG Chappaqua B, LLC (the Applicant) by Petition datedOctober 11, 2012 to allow for retail development on an approximately 23.9 acre portion ofthe Project Site. By letter dated October 22, 2013, discussed further below, the Applicant


5/83

Page 5 of 83

advised the Town that the Applicant may submit to the Town a preliminary developmentconcept plan for the retail development that would locate the full-service grocery store in adifferent location within the retail area than the location proposed in the Petition. If theApplicant submits such a revised preliminary development concept plan for Town Boardapproval, the Town Board will consider it and make a determination at that time as to

whether any additional environmental review would be required in connection with suchrevised plan.

This 2013 Supplemental Findings Statement considers the relevant environmental impacts,facts, and conclusions in the Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement(SFEIS) conditionally accepted on September 3, 2013 and delivered in final form forfiling, distribution and publication on September 10, 2013. The SFEIS supplements andincorporates by reference the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement(SDEIS) declared complete on April 2, 2013. The SDEIS incorporates by reference the2011 Findings Statement, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) accepted bythe Town Board in March 2011, and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)accepted by the Town Board in May 2009 on which the 2011 Findings Statement was

based.1 Having reviewed the SDEIS and SFEIS which are incorporated by reference intothis Findings Statement, the Town Board makes the findings and conclusions set forthbelow based on those documents and the administrative record before it. Specifically, this2013 Supplemental Findings Statement incorporates as conditions those mitigative measuresthat the SDEIS and the SFEIS identified as practicable.

II. Project Site DescriptionThe Project Site is the historic approximately 114-acre former corporate campus of theReaders Digest Association, Inc. (now known as Chappaqua Crossing) located at 480Bedford Road in the Town of New Castle, New York. The Project Site is located generallyeast of the Metro-North Harlem Division Rail Line and Saw Mill River Parkway, north ofRoaring Brook Road, and west of Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and Cowdin Lane. TheProject Site is on the eastern side of the Town of New Castle, and the northernmost portionof the Project Site is approximately 300 feet from the town line that borders theVillage/Town of Mount Kisco. The Project Site consists of one tax lot (Tax Lot No. 93.9-1-

1 The Town Board was acting as Lead Agency for the environmental review under SEQRA of the

Applicants (1) July 9, 2007 Petition to change the zoning of a portion of the Project Site consisting ofapproximately 64.3 acres (Proposed Rezoned Portion) from B-RO-20 and R-1A to MFPD in order toconstruct 278 units of age-restricted housing and workforce housing on the Proposed Rezoned Portion (2007Petition); and (2) August 27, 2007 Application for Area Variance to remove restrictions on the number ofcommercial tenants at the Project Site and the area that could be occupied by such tenants, restrictions thathad been imposed at the request of the Applicant in 2005 (2007 Area Variance Application). As detailed inthe 2011 Findings Statement, the 2007 Petition and 2007 Area Variance Application, as modified, became theCR&EV Project approved by the Town Board in April 2011.


6/83

Page 6 of 83

1).2Figure A: Project Site shows the Project Sites existing conditions including the generalsite layout, zoning lots, and tax lots.

The Project Site is characterized as a corporate campus facility bordered by a mix oflandscaped and vegetative cover types. Wooded areas, meadow, and lawn are present alongthe perimeter of the Project Site, accompanied by wetland areas and associated buffers thatconstitute approximately 60 percent of the perimeter of the property. Areas that have beendeveloped include the existing office buildings, support and accessory buildings, and on-grade parking areas. The Project Site is landscaped with a mix of evergreen and deciduoustrees, flowering trees, shrubs, and manicured lawn areas. Heavily wooded areas dominatethe western, northern, and northeastern sides of the Project Site, as well as the southernportion along Roaring Brook Road. The terrain can be characterized as undulating, withexisting development present at various elevations to correspond with the topography.

The Project Site is immediately surrounded by mixed institutional uses, residential areas andlarge, regionally significant transportation corridors. Horace Greeley High School is locatedacross Roaring Brook Road from the southern end of the Project Site, with the Chappaqua

School District administrative offices building also located across Roaring Brook Roadadjacent to the high school entrance. These educational facilities are busy with school-related traffic during weekdays and host many events on weekends as well. Theneighborhoods beyond on the southern side of the Project Site and on the eastern side arecharacterized as residential areas with one- or two-story homes on properties of one or moreacres. Crabtrees Kittle House, an existing restaurant located less than one mile from theProject Site, is located within this area and features regular restaurant service and specialevent catering. Like the Project Site, these areas are characterized by varying topographywith existing mature vegetation and lawn areas. The Metro-North Harlem Division RailLine right-of-way, an active rail line with peak-hour train passing every 15 minutes, and thedivided, four lane Saw Mill River Parkway border the Project Site to the west. Beyond this

transportation corridor, further west, are areas of open space and residential neighborhoodscharacterized by heavily wooded areas and varying topography.

The Project Site is improved with approximately 700,000 square feet of office space andassociated uses that were constructed and utilized by Readers Digest beginning in 1939. TheProject Site includes the main building complex, with the signature white cupola that sitsatop the center of the oldest building (known as the 200 Building), the southern mostbuilding known as the 100 Building, and other buildings and is clearly visible from the SawMill River Parkway and Roaring Brook Road to the west. Accessory buildings totalingapproximately 29,000 square feet and located in the center and eastern section of the ProjectSite include an auditorium, a former single-family house utilized for office purposes(Bedford Valley House), a maintenance garage, a former single-family house utilized as a

corporate guest house, and a gate house. Approximately 1,680 parking spaces in ten on-

2 There are four additional lots containing three single-family dwellings (Tax Lots 93.9-1-7, 93.9-1-8,93.9-1-9, and 93.9-1-10) located immediately adjacent to and south of the Project Site, as well as anundeveloped two-acre lot located across Roaring Brook Road from the Project Site, near the intersection ofthat road and the Harlem Division Rail Line (Tax Lot 92.12-2-1) that are owned by the Applicant. These fivetax lots are currently located in the R-1A District and total approximately six acres. See Figure A: Project Site.


7/83

Page 7 of 83

grade lots are located primarily east and north of the main building. The Project Site hasthree access points: the main entrance located on Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) on thesoutheast side of the Project Site; the employee entrance located on Roaring Brook Roadjust off the Saw Mill River Parkway exit on the southwest side of the Project Site; and anaccess drive located on Roaring Brook Road at the center of the south side of the Project

Site that is closed off and utilized only for emergency access.The Project Site is unique as it encompasses the Towns only B-RO-20 (Research and OfficeBusiness) District. 70.8 acres of the Project Site are zoned as B-RO-20; 30.6 acres are zonedMFPD and 12.3 acres are zoned as R-1A. See Figure B-Project Site Zoning

III. Project HistoryThe prior history of the Applicants submissions and the environmental review process thatculminated with the Town Boards adoption of the 2011 Findings Statement and approval of

the CR&EV Project and the MFPD PDCP are fully set forth in Appendix A. In 2012, theclosing of the DAgostino supermarket in the Chappaqua hamlet created a need in thehamlet for a full service grocery store. At the same time, notwithstanding the removal of thelimitation on the number and size of tenants that may occupy the 662,000 square feet ofoffice space, the Applicant has encountered difficulties leasing that office space. Given theApplicants experience and the general lack of demand in the commercial real estate marketfor large office and research facilities, the Town Board recognized that, to retain thecommercial use of the historic Readers Digest Site as part of a viable community and realestate tax base, its range of permitted commercial uses would need to be augmented by retailuses and the existing facilities would need to be adaptively reused to preserve the historicfeatures while supporting the continuing office and research uses and meet communityneeds.

Proactively responding to these circumstances, the Town Board, by Resolution adopted July24, 2012, initiated consideration of and set a Public Hearing for September 24, 2012 on aproposed local law that would amend the Town Development Plan concerning commercialdevelopment policies and would amend New Castle Town Code Chapter 60 to adopt newzoning text provisions to establish an Office Park Retail Overlay District (OPROD) butwould not map the district, instead it would set procedural standards that would apply to thefuture mapping of an Office Park Retail Overlay DistrictOPROD in a Research and OfficeBusiness District and set substantive standards that would apply to any developmentproposed within a mapped Office Park Retail Overlay DistrictOPROD (Proposed LocalLaw).

The Proposed Local Law would provide the opportunity for the development of a retailzoning district on a planned basis in part of the Project Site, the Towns only mappedResearch and Office Business District (Office Park District). The retail zoning districtwould be anchored by a full service grocery store, provide for other retail uses that wouldprovide a complementary and mutually sustaining tenant mix appropriate for the comfortand convenience of community residents and occupants in the underlying Office ParkDistrict, and facilitate the provision of daily needs products and services, such as groceries


8/83

Page 8 of 83

and basic retail, in an otherwise underserved market to support and enhance the Townscommercial real estate tax base.

The Town Board determined that the adoption of the Proposed Local Law is subject toenvironmental review under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA), that it would involve no other agencies, and that therefore the Town Boardwould be the Lead Agency for such environmental review. The Town Board alsodetermined that the adoption of the Proposed Local Law would change the allowable useswithin a zoning district affecting 25 or more acres of the district and thus constitutes a TypeI action under SEQRA.

The Public Hearing on the Proposed Local Law was opened on September 24, 2012,continued on October 30, 2012 and adjourned on that date.

Shortly after the initial Public Hearing on the Proposed Local Law, under cover letter fromJohn Marwell, Esq. dated October 15, 2012 (October 2012 Marwell Letter), the TownBoard received an SEIS Proposed Project Petition and the Application of SG Chappaqua

B, LLC dated October 11, 2012, with Exhibits 1 through 12 (Petition), from theApplicant seeking (i) amendment and adoption of the Proposed Local Law and applicationof the Office Park Retail Overlay DistrictOPROD zoning to a portion of the Project Siteconsisting of approximately 23.9 acres (Proposed Retail Zoned Portion), (ii) approval of aPreliminary Development Concept Plan for the Proposed Retail Zoned Portion (ProposedRetail PDCP), (iii) amendment of the MFPD PDCP and of the conditions therein adoptedApril 11, 2011, and (iv) amendment of the Town Zoning Map to map the Proposed RetailZoned Portion (collectively, Petition Proposed Action).

Collectively, the Petition Proposed Action and the Proposed Local Law would allow for thesubstitution of 120,000 square feet of existing but underutilized office space for 120,000

square feet of retail space, including a full service grocery store, as the anchor tenant, andcompanion retail uses at the Project Site, associated parking, relocation and improvement ofthe south driveway connecting to Roaring Brook Road and the adaptive reuse of the existing200 Building and other improvements to house a full service grocery store and ancillary retailuses. The residential component of the Petition Proposed Action proposes no changes tothe number of residential units or bedrooms in the previously approved CR&EV Project.

Under cover of the October 2012 Marwell Letter, the Town Board also received aSupplemental Environmental Impact Statement dated October, 2012, with Appendices 1through 8 and Full Size Drawings SP-0.0 through SP-8.6, on the Petition Proposed Action(Draft SEIS) which also incorporated by reference the 2011 Findings Statement, the FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement accepted by the Town Board in March, 2011, and the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement accepted by the Town Board in May, 2009, acting ineach case as Lead Agency for the environmental review under SEQRA of the Applicants2007 Petition and 2007 Area Variance Application, which, as modified by the Town Board,became the approved CR&EV Project.

The Draft SEIS addressed the environmental impacts of specific aspects of the PetitionProposed Action and Proposed Local Law that were not part of the CR&EV Project and


9/83

Page 9 of 83

thus were not considered in the 2011 Findings Statement or the FEIS accepted in March2011 and DEIS accepted in May 2009.

The Petition and the Draft SEIS were posted on the Towns website.

On October 16, 2012, the Town Board passed a resolution by which it determined that thePetition Proposed Action was subject to SEQRA, classified the Petition Proposed Action asa Type I action, and designated itself as Lead Agency for the environmental review of thePetition Proposed Action after issuing lead agency letters and waiting the requisite period oftime. That Resolution also set a Public Hearing for October 30, 2012 to consider thePetition. The Public Hearing on the Petition Proposed Action was opened on October 30,2012 and adjourned on that date.

The Town Board with the assistance of the Towns staff, consultants, special counsel andcounsel proceeded to review the Draft SEIS and assess its completeness. On December 18,2012, the Town Board passed a resolution requesting the Applicant to revise the Draft SEISto include additional information and analyses and directed staff to deliver to the Applicant

a Consolidated Summary of Completeness Review Comments dated December 18, 2012detailing the information requested (Completeness Comments Memorandum).

Thereafter, Town staff, consultants, special counsel and counsel met and otherwisecommunicated with representatives of the Applicant to review the Completeness CommentsMemorandum.

By Resolution adopted January 22, 2013, the Town Board, as Lead Agency for theenvironmental review of both the Proposed Local Law and the Petition Proposed Action(1) consolidated those proposed actions into a single proposed action for purposes offacilitating and coordinating their environmental review under SEQRA (Consolidated

Proposed Action); (2) determined that the Consolidated Proposed Action is a Type I actionand may include the potential for one or more significant adverse environmental impactsand thus made a Positive Declaration under SEQRA; and (3) directed Town counsel to draftand submit to the Town Board proposed amendments to the Proposed Local Law which, ifadopted by the Town Board, would incorporate the legislative revisions and limits ondevelopment proposed in the Petition Proposed Action.

Under cover of letter from John Marwell, Esq. dated February 26, 2013, the Town Boardreceived Applicants proposed revisions to the Draft SEIS dated February, 2013 (RevisedDraft SEIS) intended to address the Town Boards request for additional information. TheRevised Draft SEIS was posted on the Towns website.

The Town Board reviewed the Revised Draft SEIS, received and reviewed written commentfrom Town staff and the Towns consultants, special counsel, and counsel as set forth in aChappaqua Crossing DSEIS Completeness Review memorandum from the Town Planner tothe Town Administrator dated March 22, 2013 and the documents referred to in thatmemorandum (DSEIS Completeness Review Memorandum), and directed Town staff todeliver the DSEIS Completeness Memorandum to the Applicant and request that theApplicant address the matters contained therein.


10/83

Page 10 of 83

On March 29, 2013, and April 2, 2013, the Town Board received Applicants additionalproposed revisions to the Draft SEIS dated March, 2013 (Further Revised Draft SEIS)intended to address the matters set forth in the DSEIS Completeness Review Memorandum.The Further Revised Draft SEIS was posted on the Towns website.

By Resolution dated April 2, 2013, the Town Board, acting as Lead Agency for theConsolidated Proposed Action, having considered the Further Revised Draft SEIS, theDSEIS Completeness Review Memorandum, and oral comments from Town staff and theTowns consultants, special counsel, and counsel and other advice, information andimpressions available to them, determined that the Further Revised Draft SEIS was adequatewith respect to its scope and content for purposes of commencing the public review underSEQRA in accordance with NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Rule 617.9 (6(NYCRR 617.9) (DSEIS) and scheduled a Public Hearing for April 23, 2013.

The Town Board also issued a Notice of Completion of the DSEIS and a Notice of PublicHearing on the DSEIS dated April 2, 2013 under NYS Department of EnvironmentalConservation Rule 617.9 and Rule 617.12 (6 NYCRR 617.9 and 617.12), setting a public

hearing on the DSEIS for April 23, 2013.

Subsequently, the DSEIS was filed, distributed and published in accordance with NYSDepartment of Environmental Conservation Rules 617.9 and 617.12 (6 NYCRR 617.9 and617.12). Copies of the DSEIS were made available for public review at the New CastleTown Hall and the Chappaqua Public Library and posted on the Towns web site.CD-ROM copies of the DSEIS were distributed to involved and interested agencies andother interested parties. The Notice of Completion was published in theEnvironmental NoticeBulletinon April 17, 2013.

The Town Board received a draft of a redrafted Proposed Local Law to incorporate the

legislative revisions and limits on development proposed in the Petition Proposed Action(Proposed Redrafted for Consolidation Local Law) and on April 2, 2013, the Town Boardadopted a resolution setting a public hearing on the Proposed Redrafted for ConsolidationLocal Law for April 23, 2013. Also, on April 2, 2013, the Town Board received aMemorandum from the Town Planner, dated April 2, 2013, regarding Amendments to the1989 Town Development Plan in relation to the Towns proposed local law allowing retaildevelopment in the B-RO-20 Zoning District setting forth the rational for variousamendments to the Town Development Plan and proposed text for the same (TownDevelopment Plan Amendments). By Resolution adopted on April 2, 2013, the TownBoard also set a Public Hearing for April 23, 2013 on the Town Development PlanAmendments.

The Town Board held Public Hearings on the DSEIS, the Consolidated Proposed Actionthe Proposed Redrafted for Consolidation Local Law and the Town Development PlanAmendments on April 23, 2013 and April 29, 2013, closed the Public Hearing on the DSEISon April 29, 2013, set a period for written comments on the DSEIS (Comment Period),and adjourned the Public Hearings on the Consolidated Proposed Action, ProposedRedrafted for Consolidation Local Law and Town Development Plan Amendments on April29, 2013.


11/83

Page 11 of 83

Public Hearings on the Consolidated Proposed Action, Proposed Redrafted forConsolidation Local Law and Town Development Plan Amendments were subsequently re-noticed and reopened on July 30, 2013, continued on September 3, 2013 and closed onSeptember 3, 2013.

The Town Board on May 13, 2013 and May 14, 2013 received correspondence from theOffice of the Watershed Inspector General and the Riverkeeper requesting that the TownBoard extend the comment period to enable public comment on the Consolidated ProposedActions Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Invasive SpeciesManagement Plan (ISMP).

By resolution dated May 17, 2013, the Town Board directed the Applicant to submit aSWPPP and ISMP as an Appendix to the DSEIS (SWPPP/ISMP Appendix) and, for thelimited purpose of allowing public comment on the SWPPP/ISMP Appendix, extended thewritten comment period on the DSEIS, scheduled to close on May 17, 2013, to a date thirty(30) days after the date the SWPPP/ISMP Appendix was filed with the Town Board andmade available for public review in accordance with 6 NYCRR 617.12.

The Applicant submitted the SWPPP/ISMP Appendix, and the SWPPP/ISMP Appendixwas made available for public review, and notice of its submission was published in theEnvironmental Notice Bulletin on June 12, 2013, and the public comment period wasextended to and closed on July 12, 2013.

Prior to the close of the extended public comment period, the Town Board receivedcomments from the Office of the Watershed Inspector General dated July 12, 2013, fromthe Riverkeeper dated July 12, 2013 and from the New York City Department ofEnvironmental Protection dated July 11, 2013 on the SWPPP/ISMP Appendix.

By Resolution dated July 23, 2013, the Town Board retained AKRF, Inc. to review theSWPPP and ISMP to be incorporated as part of the Supplemental Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement and advise the Town Board on the adequacy of those Plans response tothe July 12, 2013 comments from Riverkeeper and the Watershed Inspector General andcomments from the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, dated July11, 2013, on the SWPPP/ISMP Appendix to the DSEIS.

The Town Board had also previously retained AKRF, Inc for economic consulting servicesrelating to the impacts of the proposed retail development at Chappaqua Crossing onbusinesses in the Towns hamlets and AKRF, Inc prepared a Chappaqua CrossingCompetitive Effects Analysis dated July 25, 2013 that was accepted by the Town Board to

be incorporated as an Appendix to the Final Supplemental Environmental ImpactStatement.

From June 19, 2013 to July 19, 2013, the Town Board received components of the FinalSupplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS Components) from the Applicant.The FSEIS Components were posted on the Towns website.

The Town Board reviewed the FSEIS Components and received and reviewed writtencomments on them from Town staff, Town consultants, special counsel, and counsel and


12/83

Page 12 of 83

the Town staff, Town consultants, special counsel and counsel met with and otherwisecommunicated those comments (Town Comments) to the Applicant regarding the FSEISComponents.

The Applicant revised the FSEIS Components to address the Town Comments and on

August 29, 2013, the Applicant submitted a Final Supplemental Environmental ImpactStatement dated August 2013 (August 2013 FSEIS). The August 2013 FSEIS was postedon the Towns website.

The Town Board reviewed and considered the August 2013 FSEIS, memoranda fromAKRF, Inc. dated August 26, 2013 and September 3, 2013 commenting on the ApplicantsInvasive Species Management Plan and Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Planrespectively, and oral comments from the Town staff, Town consultants, special counsel andcounsel and other advice, information and impressions available to them.

On September 3, 2013, the Town Board adopted a resolution determining that the August2013FSEIS was complete and constituted the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement on condition that the following requirements (Final SupplementalEnvironmental Impact Statement Conditions) were satisfied:

1. Town staff, Town consultants, special counsel and counsel shall confirm thatthe Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement incorporates adetailed vegetation inventory of Wetlands 5 and 6 in order to quantify thespatial extent of invasive species colonization, the presence of additionalinvasive plants not yet included in the ISMP, and the extent of nativevegetation to be preserved (Vegetative Inventory). This should include abaseline map showing the areas dominated by invasive species and specificprotocol(s) for measuring the success/failure of achieving the proposed

management goals for each species (Baseline Map).

(a) Specifically, the Applicants consultant, William Kenny AssociatesLLC (WKA) will conduct a vegetation inventory within the southernportion of the meadow using the line intercept inventorymethodology. Six transects of 100-feet in length will be establishedwithin the southern portion of the meadow. Along the transect, thecover intercept (i.e. the distance the plant spans along the transect)and average height will be recorded for each plant. From these data,the density of plants along the transect will be calculated. The lineintercept method is a field standard in vegetation inventory andwidely used in a variety of habitats. In addition to conducting avegetation inventory along each of the six transects, WKA will flagand map invasive monocultures within the meadow in order togenerate the approximate area of coverage within treatment areas.

(b) All work shall be accomplished as set forth in a memorandum fromthe Towns consultant, AKRF, Inc. to the Town Planner datedAugust 26, 2013.


13/83

Page 13 of 83

On September 10, 2013, the Applicant submitted a Vegetative Inventory and Baseline Mapand Town staff, Town consultants, and counsel reviewed those documents and confirmedthat the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Conditions had been satisfied.

On September 10, 2013 the Applicant prepared and provided the Town Board with digital

and printed copies of the August 2013 FSEIS which included the final revisions to the ISMPand discussion of invasive species in sufficient number to enable the Town Board todischarge its obligations under NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Rule 617.9and Rule 617.12 (6 NYCRR 617.9 & 617.12) to file, distribute and deposit copies of thecompleted Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

Subsequently, the FSEIS was filed, distributed, and published in accordance with the abovecited SEQRA Regulations. Copies were made available for public review at the New CastleTown Hall and the Chappaqua Public Library and posted on the Towns web site.CD-ROM copies of the FSEIS were distributed to involved and interested agencies andother interested parties. The Notice of Completion was published in theEnvironmental NoticeBulletinon September 18, 2013.

Thereafter, additional correspondence dated October 2, 2013, was received from the Officeof the Watershed Inspector General, Riverkeeper and the New York City Department ofEnvironmental Protection. That correspondence was reviewed by the Town Board andaddressed as part of this Findings Statement. See Section VI.C.

In order to provide an opportunity for public comment, on October 14, 2013, a draft of

the Supplemental Findings Statement was posted on the Town website. In response to

this posting the Town Board received comments, including those from the Applicantunder signature of John Marwell, Esq., dated October 22, 2013 (October 2013 Marwell

Letter). The October 2013 Marwell Letter reported that as a result of negotiations the

Applicant had with a potential full-service grocery store tenant regarding site planningrequirements, the Applicant was requesting that the Supplemental Findings Statement

acknowledge the potential for the full-service grocery tenant to be located within the

proposed OPROD in a location other than the 100 and 200 Building. At this time,however, the Applicant has not amended its Petition with a new or superceding

supersedingpetition requesting approval of a Preliminary Development Concept Plan that

would locate the grocery store in a location other than the 100 and 200 Building asdescribed in the Petition and the Proposed Retail PDCP. While the potential for a

proposed full-service grocery store to be located within the proposed OPROD in a

location other than the 100 and 200 Building has been addressed to the extent appropriate

within this Supplemental Findings Statement, as discussed in Section VI.A below, any

Preliminary Development Concept Plan proposed by Applicant for approval by the TownBoard must identify any changes from the Applicants Preliminary Development Concept

PlanProposed Retail PDCP studied in the DSEIS and FSEIS(DSEIS PDCP), and anyenvironmental impact arising from any such change that is not adequately addressed in

the DSEIS/FSEIS will require further environmental review. Moreover, if the Applicant

proposes a Preliminary Development Concept Plan that differs from the Proposed RetailPDCP as described in the Petition and studied in the DSEIS and FSEIS, the Town Board

will hold a public hearing on that Proposed Preliminary Development Concept Plan


14/83

Page 14 of 83

pursuant to as part of a rezoning under NYS Town Law 265 and Town Code 60-600

before making any determination to approve that proposed plan.

IV. Project DescriptionThe Petition Proposed Action3 would apply an Office Park Retail Overlay DistrictOPRODto approximately 23.9 acres or 33% of the B-RO-20 District portion of the Project Site. Aspart of the Petition Proposed Action, the B-RO-20 District portion of the Project Site wouldbe modified from the CR&EV Projects 70.8 acres to approximately 71.9 acres. The retailarea would include the existing and adaptively reused 200 Building and a rebuilt 100Building, new buildings and parking to be constructed within and extending east of theexisting south parking area, and a relocated south driveway connecting to Roaring BrookRoad. The retail area would be anchored by a full-service grocery store and also includebetween 10 to 14 retail stores. The grocery and retail stores would total approximately120,000 square feet in size. This proposed retail floor area would be offset by removal of

120,000 square feet of existing office space that due to its age and configuration has proveddifficult to lease. Approximately 542,000 square feet of office space would remain.Approximately 600 parking spaces would be provided within the retail area. Two of theexisting single-family lots along Roaring Brook Road and owned by the Applicant would beincorporated into the site to provide a landscaped buffer for the retail areas. These twosingle family lots would remain within the R1-A Zoning District as single family residences.The residential component of the Petition Proposed Action is substantively the same as theCR&EV Project, with no proposed increase in the number of residential units or bedrooms.(See Figure C: Petition Proposed Action Project Overlay).

The fourth floor of the existing 200 Building contains approximately 14,500 square feet ofoffice space, accessible via a single central elevator and two sets of fire stairs along the eastwall. The disposition of the fourth floor of the 200 Building is dependent on the size andlayout of the retail store(s) below. The fourth floor could be used by those store(s) for officespace, accessed via a relocated elevator and fire stairs from within or adjacent to the sellingfloor. The fourth floor could also be used by another office tenant for office space, accessedvia relocated fire stairs and an elevator in the 200 Building north pavilion, which would alsobe used for office space. Another option would be to close off and seal the fourth floorspace, with no elevator access.

The Petition Proposed Action would modify the CR&EV Project as follows:

A. The addition of a retail area to be housed in both existing and newly constructedbuildings in the southern portion of the Project Site

The Office Park Retail Overlay DistrictOPROD is proposed within a generallylevel portion of the Project Site that contains a portion of the existing vacant

3 In describing the Petition Proposed Action, the potential modification of it as described in the October 22,2013 letter from the Applicant has been considered where appropriatetaken account of.


15/83

Page 15 of 83

office building and parking lots. The project includes the adaptive reuse of the200 (Cupola) Building and the demolition and reconstruction of the 100 Buildingto house stores. The first and second floors of the 200 (Cupola) Building couldbe combined to create a double-height selling space. The west faade and theupper portions of the east faade would be retained. The fourth floor of the 200

(Cupola) Building could be either usable office space or unused space dependingon the grocery or retail tenant. The lower floor below the main, ground floor ofthe 200 (Cupola) Building could be utilized for support, including storage,refrigeration and preparation space.

The 100 Building would be demolished and a replacement building would beconstructed in its place extending the architectural character of the 200 (Cupola)Building. A fully contained interior loading dock would be located within thelower floor below the main, ground floor of the reconstructed 100 Building toserve the grocery store or retail above. Access to the loading dock would befrom a widened internal driveway and the main entry drive from Bedford Road.Levels below main floor of 100 and 200 Buildings are to be used for the loading

dock and other support space (e.g., storage, refrigeration, preparation); internalloading and support space of the lower floor shall not be counted towards the120,000 square footage of retail permitted within the B-RO-20 district.

A number of freestanding buildings would be built to house individual andconnected stores in the OPROD. The one-story buildings would be designedutilizing materials and detailing to complement the existing 200 (Cupola)Building and the reconstructed 100 buildings, featuring brick piers, storefrontglass, gables, dormers and hipped roofs. These buildings and their associatedparking would be located primarily within the existing south office parking lot.The eastern section of this area would extend approximately 200 feet to the east

of the existing lot. Approximately 600 parking spaces would remain within theretail area, at a ratio of 5 spaces per 1,000 square foot of retail use. The newparking areas would be regraded and paved with new tree planting islands andfull cutoff LED light standards. Shopping cart corrals, located in proximity tothe grocer, would be provided in addition to the required parking spaces.

B. Modifications to office parking areas including relocation and land banking andthe establishment of a relocated south driveway.

The addition of the retail area in the south portion of the Project Site woulddisplace existing office parking that would be relocated to the north within theProject Site. As part of the Petition Proposed Action, a total of 1,680 office

parking spaces are to be retained, reconfigured or constructed within the officearea of the B-RO-20 District to the west and east of the existing office buildingsand through the extension of the existing north lot. Given the current tenancyof the office use on the site, the Applicant is proposing to land bank severalportions of this parking.

There are three existing entries to the Project Site the main or east driveway fromBedford Road (NYS Route 117), the west driveway from lower Roaring Brook


16/83

Page 16 of 83

Road, and the south driveway also from Roaring Brook Road which isapproximately 300 feet west of the Horace Greeley High School entry driveway.In recent years, the south driveway has been gated and used only for emergencypurposes or overflow parking for High School events. The Petition ProposedAction includes relocating the south entry to be located directly opposite the

High School entry driveway and signalizing it.C. Re-establishment of the Project Sites internal loop road to facilitate

movements to and from the existing west and east entries and the new southentry to all areas of the Project Site.

The existing vehicular gates would be removed at the east and west entries andthe re-established loop road would connect directly from the west entry to theretail area and the newly proposed south driveway.

D.Adjustments to the residential East Village layout due to the change in the EastVillage access.

The internal loop road to the East Village Residential area would be relocated tofacilitate internal circulation within the Project Site. The access drive would beshifted approximately 30 feet to the east and the multi-family buildings andtownhouses would be shifted accordingly.

E. Internal adjustments to roadways and walks.The internal roadway system would be adjusted so as to facilitate movements toand from the existing west and east entries and the proposed new south entry toall areas of the Project Site. Walkways would be extended or provided to fullyconnect the retail, office and residential areas within the Project Site. A walkway

extending generally parallel to the east entry drive would provide pedestrianaccess from Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) to the existing office building aswell as to the proposed retail uses and the residential uses on the site, includingthe residential clubhouse. A walkway is also proposed to extend along the southentry dive from the intersection of the re-established loop road and the east entrydrive to Roaring Brook Road which would connect to a proposed crosswalkleading to the Horace Greeley High School.

F. Reduction in the town house unit size due to the shift in the residential accessdrive.

The townhouses in the East Village are arranged in clusters, four of whichextend towards the east from the residential access drive. Within these fourclusters there are two groupings of three to four attached townhouses. Inconjunction with the proposed 30 foot shift in the internal loop road, eachtownhouse would be reduced in width by approximately four feet so that theeastern edge of the townhouse clusters remains in the same location as theCR&EV Project.


17/83

Page 17 of 83

G.Adjustment in the MFPD District line and areaThe shift of the East Village access drive and units results in adjustment of theMFPD District line. As such, the B-RO-20 District would increase from 70.8acres to approximately 71.9 acres and the area within the MFPD District wouldbe reduced from 30.6 acres to approximately 29.5 acres.; and

H. Stormwater quality and quantity control.Stormwater management systems have been designed to provide water qualityand quantity controls to existing and newly created impervious areas such thatthe peak rate runoff leaving the site from improved areas would be less than orequal to existing conditions for all storm events up to and including the 100-yearfrequency.

I. Signage for proposed additional retail uses.The addition of retail uses to the existing and approved office uses andresidential uses would require signage at the three Project Site entries, within theProject Site itself, and on the retail buildings. This signage is intended to providedirection and information to visitors, occupants and residents. Freestandingground signs area proposed at the east, south and west entries that would list thedifferent uses within the Project Site and certain retail or office tenants. Theretail uses would have wall signs and/or hanging signs mounted at specificallydesigned locations on the architectural facades. Directional signs would beprovided along interior roadways. All signs would be illuminated in accordancewith Town Code requirements, and the Applicant has stated that no monumentsign will have internal illumination.

J. New off-site traffic improvements;The CR&EV Project included the Applicants constructing and/or funding theconstruction of a right-turn laned from southbound Bedford Road (NYS Route117) onto Roaring Brook Road and upgrading the existing traffic signal in orderto improve traffic flow at that intersection. As part of the Petition ProposedAction, a left-turn lane from northbound Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) ontoRoaring Brook Road and new signalized intersection with turning lanes at theProject Sites newly relocated south entry drive (across from Horace GreeleyHigh School) are being proposed to be constructed or funded.

K.Amendments to the conditions of the approved East Village MFPD PDCP.

The Petition Proposed Action incorporates amendments to certain conditions ofthe approved East Village MFPD PDCP. The conditions to be amended areincluded in the following table:


18/83

Page 18 of 83

Condition 3(g) SEQRA and Application Review FeesCondition 9 Adaptive Reuse of Buildings 100 and 200Condition 14(g) Exterior Lighting PlanCondition 14(j) Individual Outdoor Unit AccessCondition 16 MFPD Approval Expiration

Condition 14 (oo) Landscape/Vegetated Buffer in North Village AreaCondition 14(gg) Tree Replacement RatioCondition 14 (kk) Disturbance to Wetlands and/or Wetland Buffers

Condition 3(g) requires the Applicant to pay in full all costs and fees incurred by the Townin connection with the SEQRA or application review process for the CR&EV Project priorto the earlier of the Applicants submission of an application for site plan approval for theMFPD Parcel or the issuance of a building permit for a residential unit within the ProjectSite. Pursuant to the terms of a Settlement Agreement between the Applicant and the Towndated December 11, 2012 the Applicant paid $905,000.00 to the Town to satisfy thisobligation in full.

Condition 9 provides that the historic Rotunda Building (Buildings 100 and 200) shall beretained and the Guest House shall be adaptively reused. The Petition Proposed Actionwould amend that condition to provide that The historic Rotunda Building (Building 200)and the Guest House shall be retained and/or adaptively reused.

Condition 14(g) provides for the development and implementation of an exterior lightingplan in accordance with the proposed lighting plan in the DEIS and FEIS. The PetitionProposed Action would amend that condition so as to require a lighting plan that is inaccordance with the SEIS-Proposed Projects proposed lighting plan which includes theaddition of retail uses on the Project Site.

Condition 14(j) requires that individual outdoor unit access pursuant to Town Code Section60-410H (2) (g) (formerly Town Code Section 60-417.271) be provided unless waived by thePlanning Board. The Petition Proposed Action would eliminate the requirement forindividual outdoor unit access.

Condition 16 provides that approval for the establishment of the MFPD District shall expireunless (i) within 12 months of the date of Town Board approval, the Applicant has receivedsite plan approval and final subdivision approval, if appropriate from the Planning Board forthe development of the MFPD Parcel; and (ii) work has begun on the Project Site within 18months of Town Board MFPD District approval and is prosecuted to conclusion with

reasonable diligence. The Petition Proposed Action would extend the time period to receivethe required Planning Board approvals. The Town Board has previously granted extensionsof both these time periods to the Applicant and has amended the Town Code to enable theApplicant to seek additional extensions.

Condition 14(oo) provides for an appropriate landscaped/vegetated buffer, including araised and landscaped berm, to be constructed and/or maintained with supplementallandscaping in areas adjacent to neighboring residential properties to minimize visibility of


19/83

Page 19 of 83

the Project Site buildings. Given that the North Village residential development proposedby the Applicant was not approved as part of the CR&EV Project, the Petition ProposedAction would eliminate the reference to a raised and landscaped berm as no longer beingnecessary.

Condition 14(gg) provides for a tree replacement to removal ratio of at least 3:1. Accordingto the Petition Proposed Action, that ratio was based on the number of trees to be replacedfor the entire proposed project, including the North Village which was not approved as partof the CR&EV Project. The Petition Proposed Action would revise the condition to requiretree replacement mitigation in accordance with the Towns Tree Preservation Law.

Condition 14(kk) provides for no direct disturbance to Wetlands 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6 or 7 or theirrespective buffer areas and requires a wetland permit for any disturbance to Wetland 8 or itsbuffer area. However, the Petition Proposed Action proposes certain traffic mitigationmeasures the construction of which may potentially disturb the buffer area of Wetland 7 andalso impact Wetland 8. Accordingly, the Petition Proposed Action would delete theprohibition on disturbance to Wetland 7 or its buffer area from the condition and further

amend the condition to require a wetland permit for any disturbance to Wetlands 7 or 8 ortheir buffer areas.

To the extent that the proposed amendments discussed above raise issues of environmentalconcern, those issues have been analyzed in the SDEIS and SFEIS.

V. Retail Zoning LegislationThe Town Board is considering two local laws, the Proposed Local Law and the ProposedRedrafted for Consolidation Local Law, each of which would amend both the Town

Development Plan concerning commercial development policies and the New Castle TownCode Chapter 60 regarding retail development in a Research and Office Business District(collectively, Proposed OPRD Legislation). Both local laws The Proposed OPRODLegislation would adopt new zoning text provisions to establish an Office Park RetailOverlay District (OPROD) but would not map the district, but set procedural standardsthat would apply to the future mapping of an Office Park Retail Overlay DistrictOPROD ina Research and Office Business District and set substantive standards that would apply toany development proposed within a mapped Office Park Retail Overlay DistrictOPROD.

The Proposed OPROD Legislation Both local lawswould provide the opportunity for thedevelopment of a retail zoning district on a planned basis as part of the Project Site, theTowns only mapped Research and Office Business District (Office Park District). Theretail zoning district would be anchored by a full service grocery store, provide for otherretail uses that would provide a complimentary and mutually sustaining tenant mixappropriate for the comfort and convenience of community residents and occupants in theunderlying Office Park District and facilitate the provision of daily needs, products andservices, such as groceries and basic retail, in an otherwise underserved market to supportand enhance the Towns commercial real estate tax base.


20/83

Page 20 of 83

Zoning and planning approvals of any OPROD and related project improvements wouldinvolve, under both local laws the Proposed OPROD Legislation, a two-step review process:

(1) Town Board rezoning of a specific portion of the underlying OfficePark District to OPROD and approval of a Preliminary

Development Concept Plan (PDCP) for the development of therezoned area;

(2) Planning Board approval of a final detailed site plan, together withother related land use approvals, and if appropriate, Planning Boardapproval of an integrated operations plan for the OPROD and theunderlying Office Park District.

Under both local laws the Proposed OPROD Legislation, the standards for developmentwithin an OPROD are the same as those applicable to development in the underlying OfficePark District without regard to the OPROD except that:

(1) An OPROD shall only be established within an Office Park District;(2) The maximum size of an OPROD shall be 35% of the size of the

underlying Office Park District;

(3) The Proposed Local Law, but not the Proposed Redrafted forConsolidation Local Law, imposes limits on (a) the maximumaggregate building footprints in an OPROD (20% of the totalbuilding footprint(s) in all of the underlying Office Park District,including the OPROD, subject to increase by the Town Board to25%); (b) the maximum building footprint occupied by a single use

(40% of the total building footprint(s) in all of the OPROD; and (c)the maximum building footprint occupied by any three uses in anOPROD (60% of the total building footprint(s) in all of theOPROD).

(4) Both local laws limit the maximum aggregate floor areas in anOPROD to 20% of the total floor area in all of the underlying OfficePark District, including the OPROD, but, under the Proposed LocalLaw, the maximum aggregate floor area percentage may be increasedto 25% by the Town Board;

(5)

The Proposed Local Law, but not the Proposed Redrafted forConsolidation Local Law, limits (a) the floor area occupied by a singleuse in an OPROD to a maximum of 40% of the total floor area in allof the OPROD; (b) the floor area occupied by any three uses in anOPROD to a maximum of 60% of the total floor area in all of theOPROD;

(6) Under the Proposed Local Law, the minimum floor area occupied bya single use in an OPROD shall be 5000 square feet, and under the


21/83

Page 21 of 83

Proposed Redrafted for Consolidation Local Law, the minimumfloor area occupied by a single use shall be 1,500 square feet but inno case shall there be more than four stores, each having a floor areaunder 5,000 square feet.

(7)

An OPROD must contain a full service grocery store which, underthe Proposed Local Law, must occupy at least 50,000 square feet butnot more than 60,000 square feet, and, under the Proposed Redraftedfor Consolidation Local Law, must occupy at least 36,000 square feetbut no more than 66,000 square feet.

The Proposed OPROD Legislation Both local laws establishes detailed design guidelines,signage requirements, parking and loading requirements, and operational characteristics forretail development in the OPROD. In each case, the design guidelines require that buildingsand improvements be consistent with and complement one another and the design of otherbuildings and improvements in the balance of the underlying Office Park District andotherwise be consistent with a number of other guidelines. These guidelines address such

topics as historic architectural character, the use of similar building materials, forms, colorsand scale; fenestration, and the concealment of mechanical equipment, utilities and refuseareas. The Proposed Redrafted for Consolidation Local Law further requires that signage inthe OPROD be consistent in design and presentation with the underlying Office ParkDistrict. The Proposed Local Law mandates that any reduction in parking granted by theTown Board be kept available by land banking in areas or structures shown on an approvedsite plan.

The Proposed OPROD Legislation Both local lawswould amend the schedule of regulationsfor business and industrial districts to add OPROD and to define permitted principal andpermitted accessory uses. Permitted principal uses include (i) retail stores and shops, but not

including a public garage; (ii) post office, package center, copy center and the like, but notpersonal service; (iii) financial institutions; (iv) restaurants, by special permit, (limited to 1 per150,000 square feet of floor area in the OPROD under the Proposed Local Law),; (v) healthclubs and fitness centers, (vi) tutoring services and the like, but not personal service,:(vii) carry out restaurants (by special permit),; (viii) structurally mounted wirelesstelecommunication services facility (minor); and (ix) utility structures for transmission,storage and/or treatment of water and sewage.

VI. Consideration of Environmental ImpactsThe FSEIS considers the potential impacts of the Petition Proposed Action, the TownDevelopment Plan and Zoning amendments required to implement the Petition ProposedAction, the Consolidated Proposed Action and the Proposed Redrafted for ConsolidationLocal Law in the following areas: Land Use and Zoning; Socioeconomic and FiscalConditions; Land, Water and Ecological Resources; Community Facilities and Services;Historic and Archaeological Resources; Visual Resources; Utilities; Traffic, Transportation,and Parking; Air Quality and Noise; Community Character; and Construction.


22/83

Page 22 of 83

A. Land Use and ZoningIn the 2011 Findings Statement regarding the CR&EV Project, the Town Board supportedcommercial use at the Project Site and elimination of the restrictions on the number oftenants and the amount of space that they could lease with hopes to further the goal ofreutilization of the office space at the Readers Digest Campus. However, the change toallow multiple commercial tenants has not resulted in a substantial enhancement of theviability of commercial development at the Project Site. In the two years since the removalof the tenancy restrictions, difficulties have persisted in renting the commercial space. Inaddition, certain projections and forecasts underlying the policies that formed the basis ofthe 1989 TDP have not been realized and the physical, economic and environmentalstandards and conditions affecting the use of property throughout the Town have changed.

The TDP defines the term office business, research and industrial development as aspecific type of commercial development that features a sizable building in which corporateoffice, research and/or light industrial activities take place, along with necessary parkingfacilities, usually in a self-contained campus-like setting. The TDP states that for at least 30

years, the Town has pursued a policy of encouraging this kind of development, a result of itspositive experience with a major corporate office of this type Readers Digest and itsdesire to expand the Towns tax base, particularly its nonresidential tax base and concludesthat for the most part, this policy has served the town well. The TDP did not contemplatethe eventual downsizing of Readers Digest and its ultimate departure from the community.The Town Board finds that Readers Digests departure from the community tied with theeconomic challenges experienced during the last several years provides a basis to re-examineand refine the TDPs approach to the only B-RO-20 Zoning District remaining in thecommunity.

This re-examination and redefinition is further supported by a 2010 Westchester County

Department of Planning report entitled Land Use in Westchester: A Detailed Look atExisting Conditions and Development Trends, which included a qualitative discussion ofmajor land use trends observed in Westchester County since the previous land use report,Patterns for Westchester was published in 1996. The 2010 report addressed the ReadersDigest Campus at some length, stating: The Readers Digest corporate campus is anexample of a major corporate campus in the County that is experiencing a change in usefrom a single-tenant corporate campus. Located in the Town of New Castle and opened in1939, the Readers Digest site spans 120 acres. The company shed over 1,000 jobs at itscorporate campus, and in 2005, sold its landholdings and continued to lease just 250,000 of atotal of 700,000 square feet of office space on the property. In addition to subdividing theremaining 450,000 square feet of office space The redevelopment of the Readers Digestcampus may involve shifting uses from commercial offices to residences This analysis

was based on studies which document the decline of the single tenant office park. At thepresent time the Readers Digest Corporation has completely vacated the Project Site. TheApplicants unsuccessful efforts to reutilize the existing Readers Digest Campus office spacefurther underscores the importance of broadening the types of commercial uses permitted atthe Project Site. Introducing retail uses in the B-RO-20 District of the Project Site willstrengthen and enhance the viability of continued commercial uses at the Project Site and therelated benefits of a more robust and diversified Town tax base.


23/83

Page 23 of 83

Compatibility with Surrounding Land Use

The site plan for the Petition Proposed Action includes the addition of a retail area in thesouthern portion of the Project Site, modification to office parking area, adjustments to theresidential East Village layout, site-wide changes to roadways, stormwater managementsystems and signage. These changes are physically compatible with surrounding land uses inthat the changes are occurring internally to the Project Site. The OPROD is proposedwithin a generally level portion of the Site that currently contains an existing vacant officebuilding and parking lots. The location of the OPROD on this portion of the Project Sitemaintains the appropriate setbacks.

The Project Site is immediately surrounded by mixed institutional uses, residential areas andlarge, regionally significant transportation corridors. Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) andRoaring Brook Road are identified as major roadways in the Towns 1989 DevelopmentPlan. Horace Greeley High School and the Chappaqua Central School District offices arelocated across Roaring Brook Road from the southern end of the Project Site. Theseeducational facilities are busy with school-related traffic during weekdays and host many

events on weekends as well. The neighborhoods beyond on the southern side of the ProjectSite and on the northern and eastern side are characterized as residential areas with one- ortwo-story homes on properties of one or more acres. Crabtrees Kittle House, an existingrestaurant located less than one mile from the Project Site to the east features regularrestaurant service and special event catering. Like the Project Site, these areas arecharacterized by varying topography with existing mature vegetation and lawn areas. TheMetro-North Harlem Division Rail Line right-of-way, an active rail line with peak-hourtrains passing every 15 minutes, and the divided, four lane Saw Mill River Parkway borderthe Project Site to the west. Beyond this transportation corridor, further west, are areas ofopen space and residential neighborhoods characterized by heavily wooded areas and varyingtopography.

Amendment of Town Development Plan Policies for the Project Site

The Petition Proposed Action differs from the CR&EV Project, which allowed 662,000square feet of commercial space in the B-RO-20 District, in that the Petition ProposedAction proposes to introduce 120,000 square feet of retail space (consisting of a full servicegrocery store anchor tenant and companion retail uses) in the B-RO-20 District by removing120,000 square feet of existing office space so that no more than 662,000 square feet ofcommercial use (542,000 square feet office use and 120,000 square feet of retail use) will berealized on the Project Site. Thus the amount of non-residential use allowed by the PetitionProposed Action would be consistent with that of the CR&EV Project. The residentialcomponent of the Petition Proposed Action proposes no change to the number of

residential units or bedrooms in the CR&EV Project.

The April 11, 2011, Findings Statement regarding the CR&EV Project specifically stated thatthe FEIS concludes that the Proposed Action and Modified Projectwould be materiallyinconsistent with the Town Development Plan (TDP) with respect to the proposedrezoning of a substantial portion of the Project Site from commercial to residential use. Atthat time the Town Board found that the significant adverse environmental impact wasmitigated by reducing the area of the Project Site that was sought by the Applicant to be


24/83

Page 24 of 83

rezoned from commercial to residential use. In addition, the CR&EV Project Findingsconcluded that because the Town Development Plan strongly encourages the continuedcommercial zoning of the Project Site, the Town Board took steps to strengthen the long-term viability of commercial development at the Project Site by removing the restrictions onthe number of commercial tenants allowed in the B-RO-20 District.

The Petition Proposed Action that will allow the establishment of retail commercial use onthe Project Site is consistent with the TDPs strong encouragement for the continuedcommercial zoning of the Project Site. However, it is inconsistent with aspects of the TDPin that (1) the existing B-RO-20 (office business, research and industrial development)zoning of the subject property does not allow for the mixture of commercial uses ascurrently presented in the Petition Proposed Action (introduction of retail use); and (2) anew retail zoning district would be established outside the Chappaqua and Millwoodhamlets.

Concurrent with its consideration of the Petition Proposed Action, and based upon itsreexamination of the TDPs approach to the B-RO-20 Zoning District, the Town Board is

considering amending the Town Development Plan to eliminate its inconsistencies with thePetition Proposed Action. In particular, these proposed amendments to the TownDevelopment Plan would (a) allow certain retail uses on land zoned for office/researchoffice parks (B-RO-20 Zone) subject to certain limitations and approval of a preliminarydevelopment concept plan; (b) repeal the policy that new commercial facilities that havemarket areas extending substantially beyond the Towns boundaries should not be permitted;(c) modify the blanket prohibition on the establishment of new business centers outside theexisting hamlets by providing that new business centers should not be established in anyother section of New Castle unless a market analysis establishes such a need and theoperations of such new business centers are not contrary to surrounding uses; (d) affirmthat a mix of residential and non-residential uses should be permitted in the B-RO-20

office/research district by stating that the overall purpose of the policies guidingdevelopment in business districts should be to carefully examine rather than just reducethe scale and intensity of commercial use so as to better balance traffic generation, roadcapacity and parking demands, as well as to maintain visual compatibility with the residentialcharacter of the Town; (e) remove a reference to a projected IBM Hudson Hills Facilitythat was never constructed; and (f) delete the recommendation that the Town shouldactively seek to limit State and County roadway improvements designed to increase thecapacity of existing roads to carry additional through traffic outside the Towns twohamlets. With the adoption of these amendments, the Petition Proposed Action would beconsistent with the Town Development Plan.

Another motivational factor for consideration of retail commercial use is that in 2011/2012

the Town of New Castle experienced the loss of its only full service grocery store east of theSaw Mill River Parkway. Recent analysis by HR&A Advisors (February 2013) noted thatbecause of the areas strong north-south arterial connections and lack of lateral roadwayscombined with the abundance of area-defining bodies of water, drive-time trade analysis inrelation to retail service markets is a more representative means to define the service area ofretail uses as opposed to the geographic boundaries utilized by the TDP. HRA defined theprimary service area as being within a 10 minute drive-time and the secondary trade area asthe area outside of the 10 minute drive-time but within the 15 minute drive-time. This


25/83

Page 25 of 83

analysis identified an underserved market which would benefit from the addition of the retailthat would be provided as part of the Petition Proposed Action, in that the retail commercialuse would add to the comfort and convenience of occupants at the Project Site, as well asresidents of the community by providing daily needs products and services. This is currentlya missed opportunity to help stabilize and strengthen the Towns relatively small commercial

real estate tax base.To better understand the potential impacts on existing businesses in the Chappaqua andMillwood hamlets, the Town Board retained AKRF, Inc. who prepared a ChappaquaCrossing Competitive Effects Analysis inventorying existing retail uses in the hamlets, andanalyzing retail capture rates and the potential for retail overlap and competition betweenhamlet and Project Site businesses. This analysis found that there is a fairly vibrant retailenvironment within both hamlets, with low vacancy rates and a range of retail product andservice offerings. However, with the exception of personal and laundry services, the retailinventory is limited when compared to the overall scope of Town residents consumerexpenditures, and some of those expenditures are leaking to locations in Mount Kisco,Pleasantville, Ossining and elsewhere. The retail categories with the highest leakage are

generally within retail categories where products are offered in larger formats (e.g. grocerystores, general merchandise stores). The AKRF study concluded that the Petition ProposedAction presented an opportunity to capture exported consumer dollars, and from a tax baseperspective better capitalize on Town-generated commercial demand. For consumers, thePetition Proposed Action could provide retail offerings as part of larger-format stores thatcompliments existing retail offerings. The proposed mix of retail commercial uses wouldfurther the Towns goals to reduce its carbon footprint by reducing the drive time that Townconsumers and others in the underserved market area would need to travel if they arecurrently seeking goods and services from other communities. Given the identification of anunderserved market area, retail development at the Project Site would reduce the necessity todrive to other communities. Along those lines, consideration of off-site traffic

improvements at the intersection of Bedford Road (NYS Route 117) and Roaring BrookRoad at Horace Greeley High School/as well as relocating the South Entrance will furtherpromote sufficient and improved traffic operations within the surrounding area.Dimensional and design guidelines presented in both the Proposed Local Law and theRedrafted for Consolidation Local Law the Proposed OPROD Legislation would directarchitectural improvements to be visually compatible with other permitted uses in the B-RO-20 Zoning District and surrounding area (influences of the historic Georgian-style 200Building and residential East Village buildings) in order to support the appearance of aunified mixed-use campus. The Petition Proposed Action would adaptively reuse the iconic200 (Cupola) Building.

In summary, the current circumstances surrounding the use of land within the B-RO-20Zoning District have changed dramatically from what was forecast in 1989. The Town isproposing to address these challenges as directly as possible, but in a thoughtful deliberatemanner by changing the zoning to accommodate a full service grocery store and companionretail uses and establishing a regulatory structure for retail development that will mitigate anyimpacts related to the introduction of retail use at Chappaqua Crossing as well as mitigatingpotential impacts on existing retail businesses in the Town. The Town Board is alsoconsidering changes to the TDP that would eliminate any inconsistencies between it and thePetition Proposed Action. In undertaking these efforts, the Town would be taking proactive


26/83

Page 26 of 83

steps to ensure the continued commercial use of the Project Site to preserve and enhancethe Towns limited commercial tax base.

Preliminary Development Concept Plan

The Petition Proposed Action physically differs from the CR&EV Project in that it calls forthe addition of a retail area in the southern portion of the Project Site, modifications tooffice parking areas, adjustments to the residential East Village layout, site-wide changes toroadways, stormwater management systems and signage, and new off-site improvements.These changes are further detailed in Section IV and V (pages 13-20) of this 2013Supplemental Findings Statement. The physical changes are depicted on the DSEISPDCPPreliminary Development Concept Plan (DSEIS PDCP) which is depicted in FigureD: DSEIS PDCP. The DSEIS PDCP will be refined further as retail demands and otherfactors, including environmental factors (stormwater control, tree and wetland mitigation,etc.) are addressed through the Town Boards consideration of a PDCP and the PlanningBoards site plan approval processes.

The Town Board finds that:

Addition of retail use would help the Town better realize its goal to maintain commercialuse at the Project Site to preserve and enhance the Towns limited commercial tax base.

Maintaining a threshold of no greater than 120,000 square feet of retail and 542,000square feet of office use for a total of 662,000 square feet of commercial use willmaintain consistency with the findings of the CR&EV Project and will mitigate anysignificant environmental impact from the addition of retail use as a type of commercialuse at the project site.

Requiring that retail use at the Project Site be anchored by a full service grocery story of36,000 to 50,000 square feet and establishing a minimum floor area of 1500 square feetfor any single use and limiting to four the number of stores that may have a floor areaunder 5000 square feet will provide for the comfort and convenience of occupants in theOffice Park District and occupants in the community, facilitate the provision of dailyneeds products and services and mitigate the impacts on businesses in the Townshamlets.

The proposed amendments to the Town Development Plan discussed above, areconsistent with the evolution of the use of the Project Site and the need to maintain andexpand the Towns commercial tax base as detailed in the CR&EV Project FindingsStatement. The Towns adoption of these proposed amendments would eliminate anyinconsistencies between the Petition Proposed Action and the Town Development Plan.

On any PDCP proposed by Applicant for approval by the Town Board, Applicant mustidentify any changes from the SDEIS PDCP, and any environmental impact arising fromany such change that is not adequately addressed in the DSEIS/FSEIS will requirefurther environmental review.


27/83

Page 27 of 83

B. Socioeconomic and Fiscal ConditionsThe April 2011 Findings Statement did not identify any significant adverse impacts withrespect to socioeconomic and fiscal conditions. The largest change from the CR&EVProject to the Petition Proposed Action is in relation to the change in assessed value due tothe exchange of 120,000 square feet of office use to retail use. The converted 120,000square feet of commercial office to 120,000 square feet of commercial retail space isexpected to result in a higher assessed value, as compared to 120,000 square feet of officespace under the CR&EV Project. The increase in assessed value is a result of the higherrents in combination with lower expenses and a lower capitalization rate for retail use ascompared to office use.

The total projected revenue from commercial taxes is anticipated to range from $3,016,148(66,000 SF grocer) to $3,060,708 (50,000 SF grocer) to$3,052,354 (36,000 SF grocer)depending on the floor area of the proposed grocery tenant. It was determined that thePetition Proposed Action would generate approximately $671,000 to $716,000 in tax revenuemore than the CR&EV Project.

The Petition Proposed Action is expected to provide for additional types of employmentopportunities on the Project Site. While the potential for a greater number of office jobsexists (480) in relation to the CR&EV Project, it is unlikely to occur due to the vacancy ofthe buildings because of among other things the difficulties in leasing the old, irregular floorplates. The Petition Proposed Actions retail space would offset the removal of acomparable amount of vacant office space and provide jobs (300) that would not otherwisebe available due to the underutilization of the vacant office buildings.

The introduction of commercial retail use as part of the Petition Proposed Action providesan opportunity to capture a significant portion of spending that is being spent outside ofNew Castle. The Town of New Castle commissioned a market analysis of the Chappaquaand Millwood Hamlets in relation to the Petition Proposed Action at Chappaqua Crossing(Chappaqua Crossing Competitive Effects Analysis, prepared by AKRF, July 25, 2013). That analysisfound that there is a fairly vibrant retail environment within both hamlets, with low vacancyrates and a range of retail product and service offerings. However, with the exception ofpersonal and laundry services, the retail inventory as a whole is limited when compared tothe consumer demand within hamlet stores primary and secondary trade areas. The retailcategories with the highest leakage are generally within retail categories where products areoffered in larger formats (e.g. grocery stores, general merchandise stores). The analysisconcluded that the Petition Proposed Action presented an opportunity to capture exportedconsumer dollars, and from a tax base perspective better capitalize on Town-generatedcommercial demand. For consumers, the Petition Proposed Action could provide retail

offerings as part of larger-format stores that complement existing retail offerings. To ensurethat the Petition Proposed Action does not negatively impact retail uses within theChappaqua and Millwood Hamlets, the New Castle Town Board has proposed sizerestrictions in the proposed OPROD legislation. The Proposed Local Law requires that theminimum floor area occupied by a single use be 5,000 SF. The Proposed Redrafted forConsolidation Local Law requires that the minimum floor area occupied by a single tenantbe 1,500 square feet, but in no case shall there be more than four retail tenants each having afloor area under 5,000 square feet. The intent is to embrace the fact that a majority of


28/83

Page 28 of 83

retailers in both the Chappaqua and Millwood Hamlets are less than 3,000 square feet andthat the current supply of space in the hamlets does not meet the site-selection criteria oftenants that may be looking for space larger than 3,000 square feet and would otherwise belooking outside of the hamlets for a location.

The size-range restriction for a grocery store limits the possibility of attracting a smaller full-service grocery store. The intent is for the grocery use to serve as a major anchor at theProject Site, and in this respect setting a minimum square footage requirement above 36,000square feet is appropriate. A larger grocery store will draw from a greater geographic area.The draw from a greater geographic area would benefit other Chappaqua Crossing retailersand new/additional consumer visits to Chappaqua also could benefit existing Town retailers.As the analysis indicates, the primary trade area could vary substantially depending on thestores size and brand. As such, the Town Board finds that a premium quality grocery store,unique to the immediate area and distinct from other formula grocers, would capture moreof the current leakage (of sales) than traditional grocers already found within a short drivingdistance from the Project Site. By contrast, the Town Board has concerns related to theimpact of a too large anchor (i.e. greater than 50,000 square feet). Allowing the grocer to use

50% or more of the total available retail space may prevent the most desirablecomplementary and mutually sustainable tenant mix for the comfort and convenience ofoccupants in the underlying Office Park District and occupants and residents in thecommunity as a whole. Moreover, by limiting the grocer to a range of 36,000 SF to 50,000SF allows the maximum tax revenue to be captured. In addition, the retail tenants on theProject Site should be encouraged to join the Chappaqua-Millwood Chamber of Commerce.This will foster communication between retailers to promote both existing and new Townretail. In addition, support should be provided to existing retailers in identifying nichemarkets, repositioning, product and marketing to the existing and new customer base.

C. Land, Water and Ecological ResourcesSite Disturbance and Stormwater Management

The Petition Proposed Action would result in approximately 49 acres of disturbance. This isan additional site disturbance of 24 acres over the 25 acres of disturbance proposed in theCR&EV Project. The proposed area of disturbance includes approximately 17 acres ofexisting pavement and buildings, 5 of which are part of the CR&EV Project and 12 of whichare part of the Petition Proposed Action. The additional proposed site disturbance is due tothe construction of part of the retail component in the southern portion of the Project Siteand the addition of parking in the central and northern portions of the Project Site. Itshould be noted that the amount of land disturbance would be reduced from 49 acres to 45acres in areas where land-banked parking is proposed. It is also important to note that the

type of disturbance to occur in areas of existing pavement and buildings is vastly differentfrom disturbance of naturally vegetated areas and therefore the impact is lessened. Thepotential impacts related to clearing of land not previously disturbed for the PetitionProposed Action would include the removal of existing vegetation and associated habitat;the loss or migration of topsoil; a change in the surface drainage flow patterns; and erosionand sedimentation of the exposed soils. Approximately 32 acres of land disturbance willoccur to areas not previously disturbed. The DSEIS included information pertaining tostormwater management and the invasive species management plan. The information in the


29/83

Page 29 of 83

DSEIS was reorganized and supplemented with additional analysis per comments stemmingfrom the New York State Attorney General Watershed Inspector General, the New YorkCity Department of Environmental Protection and the Riverkeeper as the currentlysubmitted SWPPP/ISMP Appendix. The SWPPP/ISMP Appendix includes a descriptionof the proposed stormwater management measures which have been preliminarily designed

in accordance with the NYSDEC New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual(NYSSMDM, August 2010). The stormwater management measures have been proposedsuch that the future redeveloped conditions of the site generally maintain the currenthydrology of the site. Proposed green infrastructure techniques and standard stormwatermanagement practices will improve the stormwater quality conditions of the existinguntreated runoff from the site under current developed conditions while treating the runofffrom the new impervious area under redeveloped conditions. All construction activity isproposed

Documents

Chappaqua Crossing Findings Statement Final