February 12, 2013

Transcription

February 12, 2013

DASNY
(DORMITORY AUTHORITY STATE of NEW YORK)
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Nonsignificance
Date:
February 12, 2013
Lead Agency:
DASNY
515 Broadway
Albany, New York 12207-2964
Applicant:
Ethelbert B. Crawford Public Library
393 Broadway
Monticello, New York 12701
This notice is issued pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”),
codified at Article 8 of the New York Environmental Conservation Law (“ECL”), and its
implementing regulations, promulgated at Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York Code, Rules and
Regulations (“N.Y.C.R.R.”), which collectively contain the requirements for the State
Environmental Quality Review (“SEQR”) process.
DASNY, as lead agency, has determined that the Proposed Action described below
will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement will not be prepared.
Title of Action:
Ethelbert B. Crawford Public Library Acquisition, Renovation
and Relocation Project (Public Libraries Program)
SEQR Status:
Unlisted Action – 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.2(ak)
Review Type:
Coordinated Review
DASNY SEQR Negative Declaration
Page 2
Ethelbert B. Crawford Public Library Acquisition, Renovation and Relocation Project
Description of Proposed Action
DASNY (“Dormitory Authority State of New York”) has received a funding request from
the Ethelbert B. Crawford Public Library (“Crawford” or the “Library”) pursuant to DASNY’s
Public Libraries program for its Acquisition, Renovation and Relocation Project. For purposes of
the State Environmental Quality Review (“SEQR”), the Proposed Action would consist of the
Dormitory Authority’s authorization of the issuance of an amount not to exceed $5,340,000 in 30year, fixed-rate, tax-exempt bonds on behalf of Crawford. The proceeds of the bond issuance
would be used to finance the Acquisition, Renovation and Relocation Project (the “Proposed
Project”) on a 1.32-acre site located at 479 Broadway in the Village of Monticello, Sullivan
County, New York (the “Project Site”).
Description of Proposed Project
The Proposed Project would involve the relocation of the existing 3,439-gross-square-foot
(“gsf”) Crawford Library from its current location at 393 Broadway to a 1.32-acre site, one-third of
a mile west at 479 Broadway in the Village of Monticello. The Proposed Project would include
acquisition and renovation of the existing 9,400-gsf building and construction of two small 300gsf additions to the existing building for an entrance and a stairwell, with 56 associated parking
spaces, including 4 handicapped spaces.
The Proposed Project would provide needed space for modernization of the library to
provide collection and computer space, administrative space, a community meeting room to
accommodate 100 people, and an expanded children’s library. The Proposed Project would also
include an outdoor park area with a pavilion for outdoor library programs. The Proposed Project
would complement the Village’s downtown revitalization efforts. The existing library contains
inadequate space and insufficient parking, as well as difficult vehicular access.
Other Public Actions
The Proposed Project would require site plan approval and a special use permit from the
Village of Monticello Planning Board.
Location of Proposed Project
The Proposed Project would be located at 479 Broadway (south side of Broadway), east of
the intersection of Broadway and Prince Street, in the Village of Monticello, Sullivan County,
New York (the “Project Site”). The Project Site would consist of five tax parcels that total 1.32
acres. The 1.32-acre Project Site has 118 linear feet of road frontage along Broadway and 255
linear feet of road frontage along Prince Street. The Proposed Project would encompass
approximately 1.24 acres of the 1.32-acre Project Site. The remaining 0.08 acre of land consists of
meadow and a small wooded area in the southern portion of the Project Site which would remain
undisturbed.
Page 3
Description of the Institution
Ethelbert B. Crawford Public Library. The Ethelbert B. Crawford Public Library has
been providing continuous service to the Monticello community since it opened in 1936. The
Library district comprises those portions of the Monticello Central School district, in the Towns of
Bethel, Forestburgh, and Thompson. The Library estimates an annual average of 135 patrons per
day. Approximately 220 patrons visit the library daily during the summer months, with winter
attendance at approximately 120 patrons per day. In addition to routine daily visitors, the Library
hosts special events for both children and adults.
Reasons Supporting This Determination
Overview. DASNY completed this environmental review in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), codified at
Article 8 of the New York Environmental Conservation Law (“ECL”), and its implementing
regulations, promulgated at Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York Code, Rules and Regulations
(“N.Y.C.R.R.”), which collectively contain the requirements for the SEQR process. The
environmental review followed standard environmental analysis methodologies and impact criteria
for evaluating the Proposed Project, unless stated otherwise.
Representatives of DASNY reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form-Part I (“EAFPart I”) and supporting documentation for the Proposed Project, prepared on behalf of Crawford
(see Exhibit I); and made a determination that the Proposed Project was an Unlisted action
pursuant to 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.2(ak). On January 11, 2013, DASNY circulated a lead agency
request letter and the EAF-Part I to the involved agencies and interested parties. There being no
objection to DASNY assuming SEQR lead agency status, it conducted a coordinated review among
the involved agencies.
DASNY representatives visited the Project Site and environs and discussed the Proposed
Project’s possible environmental effects with representatives of Crawford and the involved
agencies. Based on the above, and the additional information set forth below, DASNY as lead
agency has analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and determined that the Proposed
Project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement will not be prepared.
General Findings. The Proposed Project would modernize an important community
facility. The existing library is outdated, has inadequate space, and insufficient parking to meet the
demands of the community. Vehicular access at the existing library is difficult. Attempts to fit the
existing collection of over 30,000 books, 5,000 media items, 900 periodicals and to meet the
modern demands of the community into the existing building has resulted in overcrowded
conditions. The downturn in the economy and the public demand on the media collection have
resulted in increased library use. Additionally, the existing library does not meet handicapped
accessible requirements and does not have sufficient space for library programs.
Page 4
Architecture+ of Troy, New York, was retained by the Library in 2005 to explore various
options for expansion of the Library. Architecture+ worked with the Library to explore the option
of expanding the existing library on its current site. However, the existing site is narrow and
steeply sloped, severely limiting the potential for expansion. A search for alternative sites was
conducted. In 2011, the 1.32-acre property located at 479 Broadway became available, and
Architecture+ prepared a Feasibility Study to assess the possibility of renovating the existing
building and parking area for a new library. The Feasibility Study concluded that the 1.32-acre
Project Site was appropriate for the relocation of the Library.
The proposed new Library facility is required in order to provide additional space for
modernization of the library. The Proposed Project would provide collection and computer space,
administrative space, a community meeting room to accommodate 100 people, and an expanded
children’s library. The Proposed Project would also include an outdoor park area with a pavilion
for outdoor library programs. Additionally, the Proposed Project would complement the Village’s
downtown revitalization efforts by providing a community facility that would increase foot traffic,
local business patronage, and acting as an anchor for the western edge of the downtown business
district.
Zoning. According to the Village of Monticello zoning regulations, the Project Site is
located mostly within the Village’s Core Business (B2) zoning district. A small portion of the site
along the southern property line is located within the Residence (RM) zoning district. No
disturbance is proposed within the RM zoning district portion of the site. According to Chapter
280 Article IV of the Code of the Village of Monticello, Section 280-10 (Attachment 10),
Schedule of Use, Area, and Bulk Regulations, a “library” is a specially permitted use in the B2
zoning district. The Village of Monticello Planning Board is the permitting authority with regard
to special use permits. In order to obtain the required relief from relevant portions of the Village
of Monticello zoning regulations, Crawford and DASNY intend to seek a special use permit from
the Village of Monticello Planning Board.
As noted in the Village of Monticello zoning regulations (Section 280-12), before granting
any special use permits, the Planning Board shall determine that the special use requested is in
accordance with comprehensive plans of land use in the community and will not disrupt the
relationship of residential, commercial and industrial areas within the Village. As described below
and in detail in the EAF-Part I (Supplemental Report), the Proposed Project would support
policies and objectives identified in the Town of Thompson/Village of Monticello Comprehensive
Plan (“Comprehensive Plan”) adopted in May 1999.
In addition, the Planning Board, before granting any special use permits, shall further
determine that:
Such special use encourages the orderly beneficial development of the Village. As
described below and in detail in the EAF-Part I (Supplemental Report), the Proposed Project
Page 5
would be compatible with the surrounding land uses and consistent with the character of the
neighborhood.
A plan for said special use has been submitted to the Planning Board, showing all
buildings, sewage treatment, water supply, landscaping and off-street parking for the requested
special use. Preliminary plans for the Proposed Project have been submitted to the Village of
Monticello; detailed plans showing the required information are in preparation.
The special use is a use desirable to the community and for public convenience and that
such use will promote the safety and health and will further the welfare of the district, and,
further, that said use will not cause undue noise or will not overly congest the traffic within the
area. As described below and in detail in the EAF-Part I (Supplemental Report), the Proposed
Project would not adversely affect the cohesion of the surrounding residential community, nor
would it displace any residences or businesses. The Proposed Project would not result in
significant adverse traffic or noise impacts. The Proposed Project would serve to enhance the
community character by providing a modernized library facility which would draw community
members together. The construction and operation of the Proposed Library would not result in
significant adverse effects on the community character of the surrounding area.
Off-street parking for all employees and expected customers or attendants has been
provided for in the plot plan. The Proposed Project would include sufficient parking for all
employees and customers.
Based on the above analysis, the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse
zoning impacts.
Land Use. The Project Site is classified as a detached row building with retail, office, and
storage space plus a parking lot. The Project Site is bounded to the north across Broadway by a
church, an attached row building with a retail use and a restaurant, to the east by a parking lot and
bakery, a municipal parking lot, and vacant residential land, to the south by an office building.
The Project Site is bordered to the west by an attached row building with an attorney office and
retail business (corner parcel) and across Prince Street by a professional building, retail business, a
small office and a two‐family residence. The Proposed Project would result in a negligible
increase in the density of development on the Project Site due to the 600 gsf of additions. The
Proposed Project would be compatible with the surrounding land uses and consistent with the
character of the neighborhood. No significant adverse land use impacts are expected.
Public Policy. The Proposed Project was reviewed for its potential to conflict with
existing public policies, as follows.
DASNY’s Green Construction Policy. All DASNY projects that involve new construction,
new additions, or significant renovation shall include submission to the United States Green
Building Council (“USGBC”) with the goal of achieving a Leadership in Energy and
Page 6
Environmental Design (“LEED®”) Silver rating. The LEED® rating system aims to promote the
design and construction of environmentally responsible buildings. A building attains LEED®
status by amassing sustainability points for various design elements in the following five areas of
sustainability: sustainable site development, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials
and resources and indoor environmental quality. In accordance with DASNY’s Green
Construction Policy, the Proposed Project shall register for LEED® at the start of the project,
require energy modeling in schematic design, require a commissioning authority to be part of the
design process during design development, and track, measure and prepare all LEED®
documentation.
Town of Thompson/Village of Monticello Comprehensive Plan. The Proposed Project
would also support policies and objectives identified in the Town of Thompson/Village of
Monticello Comprehensive Plan (“Comprehensive Plan”) adopted in May 1999, including
Appendix C, Broadway Design Guidelines. The Comprehensive Plan includes objectives, policies
and recommendations aimed at revitalizing Broadway in the Village of Monticello
(Comprehensive Plan Section 2.4.5.2).
The Proposed Project would support the Comprehensive Plan by renovating an existing
vacant building on Broadway and converting it into a library with an outdoor park area, linked to
the Broadway streetscape, with a pavilion for outdoor Library programs. This community facility
would increase pedestrian traffic and improve patronage of local businesses, as well as act as an
anchor for the western edge of the downtown business district. The improvements associated with
the Proposed Project would retain the historical character of the existing building while improving
the façade of the building on both the north and east sides. The east elevation of the building
would be significantly improved with the addition of brick facing and new windows on both the
first and second stories. The existing extensive paved/gravel parking area would be converted to a
more aesthetically pleasing parking lot, and new landscaping, pedestrian paths, park area and
pavilion would visually improve the project site.
Smart Growth. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the State Smart Growth
Infrastructure Policy Act (“SSGPIPA”) of 2010 and would generally support the smart growth
criteria established by the legislation. The compatibility of the Proposed Project with the ten
criteria of the SSGPIPA is detailed in the attached Smart Growth Assessment Form (Appendix A).
The implementation of the Proposed Project would be consistent with the relevant public
policy initiatives. The Proposed Project would not result in any significant adverse public policy
impacts.
Socioeconomic Conditions. The Proposed Project would consist of the relocation of an
existing facility with a minor addition of space to meet the needs of the Library. The preparation
of a socio‐economic profile is not warranted for a project of this scale. The Proposed Project
would not result in the displacement of any residences or businesses, nor would it divide or alter
existing neighborhoods or adversely affect the cohesion of the surrounding community. In fact,
Page 7
the Proposed Project would serve to enhance the community atmosphere by providing a
modernized library facility which would draw community members together. Therefore,
significant adverse socioeconomic impacts would not occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
Community Facilities and Services. Police protection for the Project Site is provided by
the Village of Monticello Police Department, which has a force that includes 25 full‐time officers
and two civilians. The Police Department patrols the area 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The
Town of Thompson Police Department and the Sullivan County Sheriff’s Department can provide
assistance to the Village Police, as needed. Emergency and fire protection services are provided
by the Monticello Fire Department, which consists of four professional career firefighters and 65
professional volunteer firefighters. Both the Fire and Police Departments are expected to have the
capacity to serve the Proposed Project, since the project represents a relocation of an existing
facility into an existing building, with only minor site modifications.
The Proposed Project would not displace or physically alter existing community facilities
or services, nor would it introduce a new residential population or result in substantial increase in
patrons or employees. As such, significant adverse impacts to community facilities or services
would not occur as a result of the Proposed Project. While the Proposed Project would not affect
police protection, coordination would be necessary during construction to ensure no
disruption/interruption of services.
Open Space. The Project Site does not contain any designated publicly‐accessible open
space or recreation resources, nor is it currently utilized by the community or neighborhood as an
open space or recreation area. The Proposed Project would not adversely affect any existing
public open spaces. The 1.32‐acre Project Site currently contains only 0.11 acre of green space,
which consists of 0.05 acre of brushland and 0.06 acre of wooded land. The Proposed Project
would retain the 0.06 acre of wooded land and 0.02 acre of the brushland, and would convert 0.46
acre of impervious surface to new lawn/landscaped areas. The Proposed Project would also
include an outdoor park area with a pavilion for outdoor Library programs. Significant adverse
impacts to open space on the Project Site or in the surrounding community would not result from
the Proposed Project.
Cultural Resources. The Proposed Project was reviewed in conformance with the New
York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 (“SHPA”), especially the implementing regulations
of Section 14.09 of the Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Law (“PRHPL”), as well as
with the requirements of the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), dated March 18, 1998,
between the Dormitory Authority and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and
Historic Preservation (“OPRHP”).
The study area for archaeology is the area that would be disturbed by construction
activities. An online mapping program/tool provided by the State Historic Preservation Office
(“SHPO”) of OPRHP identifies the Project Site as being located within an
Page 8
archaeologically‐sensitive area; however, given that the Project Site was previously disturbed
during construction of the existing structures, it is not expected to be archaeologically sensitive.
The historic architectural study area includes the area within 400 feet of the Project Site.
The only structure or property listed on the State or National Register of Historic Places (“S/NR”)
that is within 400 feet of the Project Site is the Rialto Theater, identified as S/NR №. 00NR01697.
This structure is located approximately 350 feet northeast of the Project Site on Broadway. In
addition, the Church of St. Peter, located across Broadway from the Project Site, was built in 1920
and, thus, would be considered eligible for the S/NR.
DASNY has submitted the Proposed Project to OPRHP for review. In a letter dated
January 25, 2013, OPRHP requested plans and elevations of the Proposed Project. These
materials were sent to OPRHP on February 5, 2013, and are under review by OPRHP. It is the
opinion of DASNY that Proposed Project would not result in adverse effects to any historic
resource, since it would not alter, directly or indirectly, any of the S/NR‐eligibility characteristics
of those resources.
Urban Design and Visual Resources. A design/visual resources analysis is generally
warranted if a proposed action would result in buildings with substantially different bulk or
setbacks than the existing buildings in the vicinity of the proposed action; or if a proposed action
would result in substantial new, aboveground construction in an area that contains important (and
publicly‐accessible) views, natural resources or landmark structures.
The Proposed Project would include two 300‐gsf additions and modifications to the
existing parking area to add landscaping and an outdoor park area with a pavilion for outdoor
Library programs. The proposed new construction would be consistent with the surrounding uses
and nearby residential uses. The Project Site is within 400 feet of the Rialto Theater, which is
listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Proposed Project would not have the
potential to block any important views of this historic resource.
The design of the proposed Library would be carefully coordinated to enhance the
aesthetics of the site. The proposed additions would not be substantially different from existing,
surrounding development with respect to height, bulk, form, setback, size, scale, or use. Views,
visual corridors, and the context of historic structures and natural features also would not be
substantially affected. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse
impacts with respect to design or visual resources.
Natural Resources. A natural resources evaluation considers species in the context of the
surrounding environment, habitat or ecosystem and examines the potential for a project to impact
those resources. The Project Site and immediately surrounding area is a fully-built, urban
environment that is devoid of significant water resources and wetland resources. Typically, a
natural resources assessment is appropriate when: (1) a natural resource is present on or near the
site of a project; and (2) disturbance of that resource would be caused by the project. As noted
Page 9
above, the Project Site is substantially devoid of natural resources and its built resources are not
known to provide habitat to support a protected species as defined in the federal Endangered
Species Act (50 CFR 17) or the state Environmental Conservation Law (6 N.Y.C.R.R. Parts 182
and 193). Accordingly, the Proposed Project does not require a detailed natural resources
assessment, nor would it result in significant adverse impacts to natural resources.
Hazardous Materials. The hazardous materials assessment is based on the findings of the
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (“ESA”) Report that was prepared for the Proposed
Project.1 The purpose of the Phase I ESA was to identify potential Recognized Environmental
Conditions (“RECs”) on the Project Site and the potential implications of those RECs for the
development of the Proposed Project.
According to the Phase 1 ESA dated March 28, 2012, historical site uses include auto
repair work and gasoline storage/fueling which suggest potential impacts to site groundwater, soil
and vapor quality. Additionally, evidence exists of reported and potential contamination by
adjacent uses, which include a dry cleaner, undertaker, and gasoline tanks. Based on these
findings, the Phase I ESA recommended that a Phase 2 ESA be conducted.
A Phase 2 ESA was completed on May 31, 2012.2 The Phase 2 ESA included groundpenetrating radar (“GPR”) screening, indoor air testing, soil testing, and groundwater testing. The
site contains an aboveground propane storage tank (1,450± gallons). The GPR screening
identified two anomalies on the radargrams which are suggestive of filled former tank excavations.
The filled areas measured approximately 18 feet by 12 feet and approximately 3 feet by 10 feet.
Low concentrations of solvent compounds were detected in one groundwater sample, but are not
indicative of a significant release.
The Phase 2 ESA report concludes that additional investigation and/or remedial action are
not recommended at this time. The report recommends that future development plans include
health and safety and water management contingencies if groundwater is encountered during
redevelopment of the site, and the use of a vapor barrier and/or a venting horizon and mechanism
under any new planned structures, particularly near the southern end of the existing structure.
Under the assumption that the Phase 2 ESA recommendations will be adhered to, the
Proposed Project would not substantially increase the exposure of people or the environment to
hazardous materials. No significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials would be
anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project.
Infrastructure. The Proposed Project was assessed for its potential effects upon water
supply, wastewater collection and treatment and storm water management systems.
1
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Kerendian Development, LLC, Property, March 28, 2012, The Chazen
Companies for the Ethelbert B. Crawford Public Library.
2
Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Crawford Library, May 31, 2012, The Chazen Companies for
Lomonaco & Pitts, Architects, P.C.
Page 10
Water Supply. The Proposed Project would be served by the Village of Monticello public
water system. The Library would generate demand for an estimated 1,000 gallons of water per day
on average. It is anticipated that sufficient capacity exists to supply the estimated 1,000 gpd of
water that would be necessary for the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would not result in
significant adverse impacts to the public water supply.
Sanitary Sewage. The Project Site is served by the Village of Monticello Wastewater
Treatment Plant, located at 38 Plant Drive in the Village of Monticello. The Library would
generate an estimated 1,000 gallons of sanitary sewage per day on average. It is anticipated that
the Village of Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant would have the capacity to treat the
wastewater generated by the proposed facility. The Proposed Project would not result in
significant, adverse sanitary sewage‐related impacts.
Solid Waste and Sanitation Services. The Proposed Project would generate approximately
0.20 ton of solid waste per month. Solid waste generated by the Proposed Project would be carted
by a licensed waste hauler through the Village of Monticello sanitation department for disposal at
the Sullivan County Landfill located on East Broadway in the Village of Monticello. The amount
of solid waste that would be generated by the Proposed Project is expected to be similar to that
generated by the existing library, and is likely to be less than solid waste generated by some of the
previous uses of the Project Site; therefore, significant adverse solid waste impacts would not
occur as result of the Proposed Project.
Storm Water. Under the Proposed Project, the 4,700-gsf footprint of the existing building
is proposed to be increased by 300 gsf for construction of a stair tower for a second means of
egress. The Proposed Project would result in a net decrease in impervious area by approximately
30 percent (largely attributed to the replacement of gravel areas with lawn), thus resulting in a
decrease in storm water runoff volume from the Project Site. The total disturbance of the site for
construction is anticipated to be less than 1.0 acre — therefore, not requiring a State Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (“SPDES”) General Permit for storm water runoff from
construction activities. The Project Site generally drains from east to west with overland flow
eventually discharging to existing drainage structures located along the edge of road on the
western boundary of the site. Storm water would be managed on site and ultimately discharge to
the municipal storm sewer system at an existing catch basin at Prince Street. A hydraulic analysis
would be performed to demonstrate a no‐net‐increase in storm water discharge for storm water
quantity control compliance. It is anticipated that the Proposed Project design would result in
capture and treatment of the water quality volume from impervious areas by the implementation of
standard practices and application of green infrastructure techniques. The Proposed Project would
comply with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) and
LEED® water quantity and quality criteria.
As the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in storm water volume or
rate of discharge, significant adverse impacts are not anticipated.
Page 11
Energy. Electrical power is provided to the Project Site by New York State Electric and
Gas (“NYSEG”). The Proposed Project is expected to generate a demand for approximately
2,507,000 British Thermal Units (“BTU”)3 annually.
The Proposed Project would comply with Executive Order 111, “Green and Clean” New
York State building guidelines and the Energy Conservation Construction Code of New York State
2010 (“ECCCNYS”). Executive Order 111 and ECCCNYS require that the proposed building’s
design demonstrate advanced energy performance. Thus, the Proposed Project would incorporate
energy‐saving features. The Library is considering LEED® certification as a track for additional
documentation of advanced energy performance. The potential energy conservation measures that
are currently being considered by the design team include:
♦ Improved envelope insulation; Improved glazing properties;
♦ Improved lighting power density (interior and exterior); Daylighting responsive
lighting and controls;
♦ High‐efficiency, gas‐fired condensing boiler;
♦ Supply distribution through variable air volume (“VAV”) terminal boxes with
hydronic heat reheat coils;
♦ Dedicated outdoor air system with energy recovery ventilation; and
♦ Direct digital control (“DDC”) system to control all new equipment.
It is anticipated that the existing power grid system currently operated by NYSEG would
have the capacity to supply electricity to the proposed building; therefore, the Proposed Project
would not result in significant adverse energy impacts.
Transportation. Traffic generated by the Proposed Project would be expected to be similar
to traffic generated at the existing Library, located approximately one-third of a mile east of the
Project Site on the same street (Broadway). The Proposed Project would provide needed
additional space to alleviate overcrowding, as well as adequate parking, so the number of
employees and patrons are not expected to increase significantly as a result of the Proposed
Project. Additionally, many of the library patrons are expected to be pedestrians and bicyclists due
to the site’s location in the village center. It should be noted that the Proposed Project would
consist of reoccupancy of an existing building, and many of the historic uses of the building would
have generated more traffic than the proposed use.
It is estimated that the Proposed Project with 8 employees would be expected to generate 8
vehicle trip ends (“VTEs”) per a.m. peak hour and 43 VTE’s per p.m. peak hour. Municipal
parking is available within 500 feet of the Proposed Project.
3
A BTU is the amount of heat energy needed to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit.
This is the standard measurement used to state the amount of energy that a fuel has as well as the amount of output of any heat
generating device.
Page 12
The Proposed Project has been designed to efficiently accommodate pedestrian movements
and would not substantially alter existing pedestrian patterns in the vicinity of the Project Site.
The design of the Proposed Project allows pedestrian access from the north along Broadway and
from the west along Prince Street. The Proposed Project would also provide handicapped
accessibility, whereas the existing Library does not. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not
result in significant transportation impacts, and the existing infrastructure is expected to be
adequate to handle any slight increase in traffic resulting from the Proposed Project.
Air Quality. Traffic generated by the Proposed Project would be similar to traffic
generated by the existing Library. Since the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial
increase in vehicular emissions, significant adverse mobile‐source air quality impacts would not
occur.
Stationary sources of air emissions would include proposed operational sources associated
with the Proposed Library, in addition to other nearby sources in the study area that may impact
the Proposed Project. The proposed heating, ventilation and air conditioning (“HVAC”) system
would utilize packaged, rooftop air conditioning units with liquid petroleum (“LP”), gas‐fired
furnace section, integrated air conditioning through direct expansion cooling coils, and packaged
condensing section. Heating hot water would be made with a high efficiency condensing gas‐fired
boiler.
The Proposed Project would consist of the relocation of an existing facility in an urban
section of the Village, with a minor addition of space to meet the needs of the Library. Therefore,
a screening analysis for stationary sources is not warranted for this Project, and no significant
impacts to air quality would be anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions are emitted into the
atmosphere through natural processes and human activity. In recent history, human activities
including the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation have increased the concentration of GHG
emissions into the atmosphere. Consequently, the changing global climate has become an issue of
long-term and international significance. The six recognized greenhouse gases that are emitted
into the atmosphere as a result of human activity are: carbon dioxide (“CO2”), methane (“CH4”),
nitrous oxide (“N2O”), fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (“HFCs”), perfluorocarbons
(“PFCs”), and sulfur hexafluoride (“SF6”).
Typically, GHG emissions assessments are conducted for projects that would involve: (1)
power generation (not including emergency backup power, renewable power, or small-scale
cogeneration); or (2) changes to solid waste transport modes, distances or disposal technologies;
and (3) development of 350,000 square feet or greater.
As the Proposed Project is not unusually large and would not involve excessive power
production or alter the solid waste management system, a detailed GHG emissions assessment is
not required.
Page 13
Noise. Traffic generated by the Proposed Project would be expected to be similar to traffic
generated at the existing Library located one-third of a mile east of the Project Site on the same
roadway. As such, it would not substantially affect existing traffic levels in the vicinity of the
Project Site and therefore does not require a detailed analysis for vehicular traffic noise. Similarly,
the Proposed Project would not be located close enough to a rail line or airport to require a detailed
analysis of noise. No further analysis of project‐induced mobile source impacts is warranted and
significant adverse mobile source noise impacts would not occur.
Typically, stationary noise sources associated with building operations (e.g. mechanical or
HVAC equipment) are designed and/or placed to minimize noise emission, especially for new
and/or renovated buildings. The stationary noise sources that would be introduced by the
Proposed Project would be enclosed within the building. It is assumed that other nearby stationary
sources of noise associated with mechanical or HVAC operations also are shielded or enclosed.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in noise impacts attributed to stationary sources,
nor would it be subject to significant adverse noise impacts from existing proximate sources.
Community Character. Community character is a term used to describe the various
elements that contribute to a community or neighborhood — such as land use, architectural design,
visual resources, historic resources, socioeconomics, traffic and noise — from which an area
derives its distinct “personality.” A community character assessment considers how a proposed
action may affect the context and feeling of a neighborhood by collectively accounting for its
effects on the contributing elements. In general, this assessment is warranted for actions with the
potential to result in significant adverse impacts in one of the technical areas, or if it may
moderately effect several of these areas.
A preliminary screening for community character was conducted for the Proposed Project.
The study area for this screening analysis matches the land use study area and is delineated by a ¼mile radius around the Project Site. Located in downtown area of the Village of Monticello, the
study area can generally be described as a developed area with a high level of pedestrian activity.
The study area contains primarily a mix of commercial, office, community services, and residential
uses. Residential uses occupy the southern and northeast portions of the study area.
Based on the results of the screening, the Proposed Project would not result in significant
adverse impacts in the following areas: land use and zoning; socioeconomic conditions; open
space and recreational facilities; design and visual resources; cultural resources; noise; or
transportation. Additionally, the Proposed Project would not have the potential to affect the
defining features of the community through a combination of moderate effects in relevant
technical areas. As such, the Proposed Project does not require a detailed neighborhood character
assessment.
The Proposed Project would not adversely affect the cohesion of the surrounding
residential community, nor would it displace any residences or businesses. In fact, the Proposed
Project would serve to enhance the community character by providing a modernized library facility
Page 14
which would draw community members together. The construction and operation of the Proposed
Library would not result in significant adverse effects on the community character of the
surrounding area.
Construction Impacts. Construction of the Proposed Project would be expected to occur
over a nine-month period, starting in the fall of 2013 and ending approximately in the summer of
2014. The following construction activities are expected to occur within the Project Site:
♦ Interior renovations (including some demolition);
♦ General excavation and earthwork: operations to prepare the Project Site;
♦ Grading, as necessary, to provide positive drainage for surface storm water
flow and to achieve the planned improvements;
♦ Foundations: preparation for, and construction of, foundation structures;
♦ Site work: installation of asphalt parking areas, curbing and pedestrian
walkways;
♦ Utilities: storm water management facilities, installation of buried LP gas
tank and piping; and
♦ Finishing: cleanup and landscaping, outdoor garden and educational area.
Equipment such as bulldozers, scrapers, backhoe, loaders, trucks, and generators are
typically used during construction. It is expected that primary construction access to the Project
Site would be from Prince Street. A stabilized construction entrance, signage, and temporary
chain link fence and gate would likely be required to prevent unauthorized parking, pedestrian
interference, and other impediments to construction vehicle access. Equipment staging and
material storage would likely be provided from a storage area situated in or near the construction
site.
The Phase I ESA recommends that future development plans include health and safety and
water management contingencies if groundwater is encountered during redevelopment of the site,
and the use of a vapor barrier and/or a venting horizon and mechanism under any new planned
structures, particularly near the southern end of the existing structure. Accordingly, construction
of the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse hazardous materials impacts.
As discussed above, storm water would be managed on site and ultimately discharge to the
municipal storm sewer system at an existing catch basin at Prince Street.
Construction‐related impacts would be temporary in nature and limited to the duration of
the construction period. The Proposed Project would generate approximately 15 to 20 jobs during
construction, which would have a beneficial effect on the local economy. No significant adverse
impacts related to noise, vibration, utilities, water quality, traffic, air quality, safety and security,
hazardous materials or the disruption of businesses would be expected during construction of the
proposed new building. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse
construction impacts.
Page 15
For Further Information:
Contact:
Jack D. Homkow
Director
Office of Environmental Affairs
Address:
DASNY
One Penn Plaza, 52nd Floor
New York, New York 10119-0098
Telephone:
Fax:
(212) 273-5033
(212) 273-5121
DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
PART I — PROJECT INFORMATION
(Prepared by Project Sponsor)
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist the Dormitory Authority in determining whether the action
proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, including Parts A
through E, and submit documents required. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the
application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review.
It is expected that completion of the EAF—Part I will be dependent on information currently available and will
not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is
unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. For further information regarding the Dormitory
Authority’s State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) procedures, in general, or for assistance with the
Environmental Assessment Form—Part I, you may contact a member of the Dormitory Authority’s SEQR and
Historic Preservation Unit. (Note: A separate EAF—Part I must be completed for each separate site or
building.)
Name of Action
Ethelbert B. Crawford Public Library Proposed Acquisition, Renovation, and Relocation
Location of Action (Include Street Address, Municipality and County)
479 Broadway, Village of Monticello, Sullivan County
Name
Name of Applicant/Sponsor (and contact person)
Address
393 Broadway
City/PO
|State
Monticello, NY 12701
|Business Telephone
845-794-4660
|Zip Code
Name
Name of Owner (if different)
Kerendian Development, LLC
|Business Telephone
Address
24 Picadilly Circle
City/PO
|State
Rock Hill, NY 12775
|Zip Code
Description of Action and Proposed Project:
DASNY (“Dormitory Authority State of New York”) has received a funding request from the Ethelbert B.
Crawford Public Library (“Crawford” or, the “Library”) pursuant to DASNY’s Public Libraries program for its
Acquisition, Renovation and Relocation Project. For purposes of State Environmental Quality Review
(“SEQR”), the Proposed Action would consist of the Dormitory Authority’s authorization of the issuance of an
amount not to exceed $5,340,000 in 30-year, fixed-rate, tax-exempt bonds on behalf of Crawford. The proceeds
of the bond issuance would be used to finance the Acquisition, Renovation and Relocation Project (the
“Proposed Project”) on a site located at 479 Broadway in the Village of Monticello, Sullivan County, New York
(the “Project Site”). The Proposed Project would involve the relocation of the existing 3,439 gross floor area
(GSF) Crawford Library from its current location at 393 Broadway to a 1.32 acre site located a third of a mile
west at 305 Broadway in the Village of Monticello. The Proposed Project would include acquisition and
renovation of the existing 9,400 GSF building and construction of two small 300 SF additions to the existing
building for an entrance and a stairwell, with 56 associated parking spaces, including 4 handicapped spaces.
The Proposed Project would provide needed space for modernization of the library to provide collection and
Dormitory Authority of the State of New York
Environmental Assessment Form—Part I
Page 2
computer space, administrative space, a community meeting room to accommodate 100 people, and an
expanded children’s library. The Proposed Project would also include an outdoor park area with a pavilion for
outdoor library programs. The Proposed Project would complement the Village’s downtown revitalization
efforts. The existing library contains inadequate space and insufficient parking, as well as difficult vehicular
access.
(Revised 12/04)
Please Complete Each Question—Indicate N/A if Not Applicable
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1.
The predominant facility type (use) existing on the site is vacant commercial space. The number of separate
buildings existing on the site is one. The total square footage of existing structure is 9,400 GSF. The total
number of structures to be demolished is 0 . The total square footage of buildings to be demolished is 0 .
2.
The total number and stories of new additions will be one single-story addition for new entrance, and one
two-story addition for a stairwell. The use of the newly constructed additions are for a new entrance and a
stairwell to serve the public library. The total square footage of new additions is 600± GSF.
3.
The total number and stories of separate new buildings will be 0 . The use of each newly constructed
building is N/A . The total square footage of each new building is N/A.
4.
The uses of buildings or areas proposed for renovations are public library with associated meeting space
and multimedia areas. The total square footage of renovations is 10,000 GSF. The date(s) of construction of
the building(s) to be renovated are 1920
5.
The number of separate project sites is one . The size of each site in acres is 1.32 acres. The site is in the
Village
Town or
City of Monticello which has a population of 6,726 (2010 census). The total size
of the project site will increase by N/A acres or decrease by N/A acres as a result of the Proposed Project.
6.
The total construction cost for the Proposed Project is $2,922,306. The total number of dwelling units or
beds will change from N/A to N/A upon project completion.
7.
List the project architect’s name, company, address, and telephone number:
architecture+, Lomonaco & Pitts, Architects, P.C., 297 River Street, Troy, NY 12180
8.
List the general contractor’s or construction manager’s name, company, address, and telephone number: N/A
9.
List the environmental consultant’s name, company, address, and telephone number:
Chazen Engineering, Land Surveying, and Landscape Architecture Co., P.C.
21 Fox Street, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601, 518-266-7323 (Andy Rymph)
10. Identify the specific Dormitory Authority program and funding amount for which this application has been
made: Referendum from local municipality - $5.34M
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
1.
Attach a project location map (e.g., appropriate portion U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle map or
equivalent) indicating existing property boundaries and dimensions, topography, roads, and major
structures. Attached as Figure 1.
2. Present land use(s) of project sponsor’s site:
a.
Urban
Suburban
Rural
b.
Residential
Institutional
Commercial (unoccupied)
Forest
Parkland
Manufacturing
Industrial
Other: Specify
Agricultural
Page 3
c. Specific uses now on project site are (e.g., hospital with separate parking garage)
vacant commercial building
d. Site has been used as above since February 2012 (year)
3.
Past land use(s) of project sponsor’s site (if known): bakery, offices, church, retail including hardware store
and furniture store, bowling alley, tin and plumbing shop, bus terminal, lumber yard, ice cream
manufacturer, bus terminal, an auto repair shop with gasoline storage/fueling (based on historical sources
and interviews conducted for the Phase 1 ESA).
4.
Indicate below how the project sponsor’s site will change as a result of the action proposed.
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE
CURRENTLY (acres)
AFTER COMPLETION (acres)
0.05
0.06
0
0.02
0.06
0
0
0
0
0
1.10
0.11
0
1.32
0
0
0.62
0.13
0.49
1.32
Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural)
Forested
Agricultural (includes orchards, cropland,
pasture, etc.)
Wetland (Freshwater or Tidal as per Articles
24, 25, or ECL)
Water Surface Area
Unvegetated (rock, earth or fill)
Roads, and other paved surfaces
Buildings (ground floor coverage)
Other (indicate type) = lawn/grass
Totals
5.
Attach a neighborhood map showing major land uses within a one-mile radius of the project site. The map
should identify roads, transportation facilities, institutions (including military bases), residential areas
(and their character), parks and recreational facilities, major commercial areas, industrial/manufacturing
facilities (including factories, energy production plants, public or private landfills, incinerators, gas
stations, waste treatment facilities). Attached as Figure 2.
a. The uses of the properties directly adjoining and across the street from the Proposed Project site are:
Church of St. Peter (religious), Brenner Income Tax (office), Nu Design Furniture (retail)
6.
Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain, a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the
National Registers of Historic Places?
Yes
No. If yes, describe the condition that applies:
7.
Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a site listed on the Register of National Natural
Landmarks?
Yes
No. If yes, describe the condition that applies:
8.
What is predominant soil type(s) on the project site? Lackawanna channery loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes and
Wellsboro gravelly loam
a. Soil drainage:
Well drained ( 75±% of site);
Moderately well drained (25±% of site);
Poorly drained (
% of site).
b. Has the project site been significantly filled?
Yes
No If yes, what are the nature and origins
of the fill materials? Field screening of soil samples collected during a Phase 2 Environmental Site
Assessment (dated May 31, 2012) identified evidence of historical urban filling (i.e., brick fragments,
coal ash, concrete fragments, etc.) which is common of developed areas in an urban setting.
c. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1
through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? N/A acres. (See NYCRR 370).
9.
Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site?
Yes
No
Page 4
a. What is depth to bedrock? Based on ten borings that were drilled for the Phase 2 Environmental Site
Assessment dated May 31, 2012, which ranged in depth from 8 feet to 14.6 feet, bedrock was encountered
at 11.6 feet in one boring and not encountered in any other boring.
10. Approximate percentage of proposed site with slopes: 0-10% 100%; 10-15% 0%; 15% or greater 0 %
11. What is the depth of the water table? Based on ten borings that were drilled for the Phase 2 Environmental
Site Assessment dated May 31, 2012, which ranged in depth from 8 feet to 14.6 feet, water was encountered
at depths ranging from 5 feet to greater than 12 feet.
Source of information: Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment dated May 31, 2012
12. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer (as designated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency)?
Yes
No. Identify:
13. Do hunting, fishing, or shell fishing opportunities currently exist in the project area?
Yes
No
14. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered?
Yes No. According to: NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper on NYSDEC website & site is
completely developed and consists mostly of impervious surface.
Identify each species:
15. Is there any visible evidence of possible groundwater or soil contamination on the proposed or any
adjacent sites (e.g., stressed vegetation, stained soil, discolored surface water, foul odors, leaking
containers)?
Yes
No. If yes, describe: According to a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)
dated March 28, 2012, historical site uses include auto repair work and gasoline storage/fueling which
suggest potential impacts to site groundwater, soil and vapor quality. Additionally, evidence exists of
reported and potential contamination by adjacent uses, which include a dry cleaner, undertaker, and
gasoline tanks. A Phase 2 ESA dated May 31, 2012, included ground penetrating radar screening, indoor
air testing, soil testing, and groundwater testing. This report indicates that additional investigation and/or
remedial action are not recommended at this time. Low concentrations of solvent compounds were
detected in one groundwater sample, but not indicative of a significant release. The report recommends
that future development plans include health & safety and water management contingencies if
groundwater is encountered during redevelopment of the site, and the use of a vapor barrier and/or a
venting horizon and mechanism under any new planned structures, particularly near the southern end of
the existing structure.
16. Are there any aboveground or underground tanks for storage of fuel or liquid waste products currently on
the site?
Yes
No. If yes, describe storage capacity and product stored for each tank and attach the
NYSDEC Bulk Storage Registration Certificate (if applicable) in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 612: The
site contains an above-ground propane storage tank (1,450± gallons). Ground penetrating radar screening
performed for a Phase 2 ESA dated May 31, 2012, identified two anomalies identified on the radargrams
which are suggestive of filled former tank excavations. The filled areas measured approximately 18 by 12
feet and approximately 3 by 10 feet.
17. Are any new aboveground and/or underground storage tanks proposed?
storage capacity and products to be stored for each new tank:
Yes
No. If yes, describe
18. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological
formations)
Yes
No. If yes, describe:
19. Is the project site currently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area?
Yes
20. Does the project site include scenic views known to be important to the community?
If yes, describe view and identify character of view or vista:
Yes
No.
Page 5
21. Streams within or contiguous to project area:
a. Name of stream and name of river to which it is tributary: None.
22. Are any lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area?
a. Name
b. Size (in acres)
Yes
No.
23. Is site served by existing public utilities?
Yes
No.
a. Which will be used to service this project?
Electricity
Gas
Water
Steam
Storm sewer
Sanitary sewer
Other: Geothermal is being considered for heating and cooling.
b. Attach name, address and telephone numbers for each utility company or authority to service
Proposed Project. See below:
Electric & gas: NYS Electric and Gas (NYSEG), 18 Link Drive, Binghamton, NY 13904, 1-800-572-1111
Village of Monticello Water Treatment Plant, Kiamesha Lake, Monticello, 845-794-6810
Village of Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant, 38 Plant Drive, Monticello, 845-794-5920.
c. Will public or private improvements be required to allow connections?
Yes
No.
24. Will any utilities necessary to support the project be provided exclusively on-site; or will any public
utilities be supported by on-site facilities (e.g., sanitary sewage treatment facility, stormwater retention
basin, cogeneration plant, etc.)?
Yes
No.
25. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25AA Sections 303 and 304?
Yes
26. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to
Article 8 of the ECL and 6 NYCRR 617? (Contact regional NYSDEC office to verify).
Yes
No. If
yes, describe:
27. Has the project site or any sites within a ½-mile radius of the project site ever been used for storage or
disposal of solid or hazardous waste? (Contact regional NYSDEC office to verify).
Yes
No. If yes,
identify:
28. Is the site located in a coastal area as defined in 19 NYCRR Part 600 (Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Policies and Procedures)?
Yes
No. If yes, identify:
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.
Attach a site plan of proposed new site development and/or renovation which indicates proposed new site
boundaries, topography, structures, buildings to be altered, dimensions and heights, new roads and
parking, power or incineration structures, storm drainage structures, utilities, etc. Attached as Figure 3.
2.
Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor: 1.32 acres.
3.
Project acreage to be developed: 1.26 acres initially; 1.26 acres ultimately.
4.
Project acreage to remain undeveloped: 0.06 acres.
5.
Project will occupy 373± linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare. Name of thoroughfare:
118 linear feet along Broadway and 255 linear feet along Prince Street
6. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels?
Yes
No. Maximum numbers of trips generated by proposed action in A.M. and P.M. peak hours,
respectively: 8 and 43 (according to the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008,
Land Use Code 590, Library, based on 8 employees). However, many of the library patrons are expected to be
pedestrians due to the site’s location in the village center. It should be noted that the Proposed Project would
Page 6
consist of reoccupancy of an existing building, and many of the historic uses of the building would generate
more traffic than the proposed use. Additionally, the Proposed Project would be located only a third of a mile
from the existing library on the same roadway, and the additional traffic generated by the expanded facility is
not expected to be significantly greater than that generated by the existing library.
7.
If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic?
Yes
No.
8.
Will the Proposed Project result in a demand for additional parking?
Yes
No.
9.
The number of off-street parking spaces existing: undetermined; proposed: 56±
10. The number of loading (service and delivery) berths existing is 1 ; proposed: 1
11. Will the project require any state or local permits for curb cuts or traffic signalization?
If yes, describe:
12. Has a traffic or parking study been done?
application.)
Yes
Yes
No.
No. (If yes, submit a copy with this SEQR
13. If residential, number and type of housing units: N/A
One-Family
Two-Family
Multiple-Family
Existing
Proposed
If hospital, health-related, or nursing facility, the number of beds existing N/A; proposed N/A
14. Dimension (in feet) of largest proposed structure 1 story height; 15± width 20± length (Proposed Entrance
Addition)
15. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? 0 tons/cubic yards.
How much fill will be imported onto the site? 0 tons/cubic yards. Origin:
16. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed?
Yes
No
N/A.
a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? use on site
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation?
Yes
No.
c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation?
Yes
No.
17. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground cover) will be removed from site? 0 acres.
Proposed project will increase green space on the site by 0.46 acre.
18. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this
project?
Yes No. Identify:
19. The anticipated period of construction (including demolition): 9± months
Starting date Fall 2013; completion date Summer 2014
20. If multi-phased: N/A
a. Total number of phases anticipated:
b. Anticipated date of commencement Phase I:
c. Approximate completion date of final phase:
d. Is Phase I functionally necessary to subsequent phases?
e. What work will be completed in each phase?
21. Will blasting occur during construction?
Yes
No.
month
month
Yes
No.
year
year
Page 7
22. Number of jobs generated: during construction 15 to 20±; after project is complete 8±.
23. Number of jobs eliminated by this project: 0 .
24. Will project require relocation of any people, businesses, or facilities?
Yes
No.
If yes, explain: The existing library facility located at 393 Broadway would be relocated to the project site
upon completion of construction. The existing library is located approximately a third of a mile from the
proposed location.
25. What types and amounts of liquid waste will be discharged as a result of the operation of the Proposed
Project?
Sanitary sewage; 1,000± gpd;
Industrial waste;
gpd.
a. For each type that will not go into a permitted municipal system, indicate whether effluent will be
discharged into surface or groundwaters. If surface, name water body into which it will be
discharged: Sanitary Sewage
Industrial Waste
b. Indicate status of any discharge permits required for liquid waste disposal or attach permits:
N/A
26. Will the surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease as a result of the proposed?
Yes
No. If yes, explain:
27. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100-year floodplain?
In a coastal high hazard area?
Yes
No.
Yes
No.
28. What are the components of the proposed stormwater disposal system and their locations:
The Proposed Project is considered a redevelopment project with less than one-acre of total ground
disturbance, resulting in an overall reduction of impervious cover on the site. Stormwater would be
managed, and runoff reduced, onsite by implementation of green infrastructure practices, including but
not necessarily limited to infiltration, bio-retention, grass-lines swales, and use of catch basins with sumps.
a. What are the design criteria used? NYSDEC Stormwater Management Design Manual – Chapter 9
(Redevelopment Projects)
b. Who administers stormwater management requirements in your locality? Village of Monticello
Building Department
29. Will the project generate solid waste?
Yes
No.
a. If yes, what is the amount generated per month? Maximum 0.2 tons per day based on 0.001 tons per
capita per day and using maximum occupancy of 229 persons.
b. Identify the name and location of the solid waste facility to be used: Sullivan County Landfill,
East Broadway, Monticello
c. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill?
Yes
No.
If yes, explain: recyclables
d. Will the project generate any solid waste due to demolition of existing structures?
Yes
No.
If yes, what is the approximate amount to be taken off-site? 10± dumpsters (4± tons)
30. Will the project involve disposal of solid waste?
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal?
b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life?
Yes
No.
tons/month.
years.
31. Will the project generate any hazardous, toxic or infectious waste either during construction or operation
of facility?
Yes
No.
a. If yes, what types (e.g., PCBs, asbestos, radiological, medical, infectious, etc.)?
b. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal?
tons/month.
c. Is the applicant operating an on-site incinerator?
Yes
No.
d. For applicants utilizing an off-site incineration facility, identify final disposal location: N/A
32. Will project use herbicides or pesticides?
Page 8
Yes
No. If yes, identify:
33. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)?
Yes
No.
34. Will project contain any new stationary sources of air emissions (e.g., boiler, laboratory vents, etc.)?
Yes
35. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels?
Yes
No.
36. Will project result in an increase in energy use?
Yes
No. If yes, indicate type(s) and percentage (%)
increase over existing use in the applicable service area: electricity and fuel for heating, lighting, A/C
37. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute.
38. Total anticipated water usage per day: 1,000± gallons/day.
39. Does the project sponsor have knowledge of any environmental liens or government notifications relating
to past or current violations of environmental laws with respect to the Proposed Project site or any facility
on it?
Yes
No. If yes, explain:
40. Does project involve any local, state or federal funding other than the Dormitory Authority?
Yes
No. If yes, explain sources and amounts: Local funding via Library Bond - 5.34M
41. Approvals/Permits Required. (Attach Copies of Approvals/Permits Received or Applications submitted.
Please be sure to include environmental permits for: underground and aboveground storage tanks, waste
haulers, wetlands, stream disturbance, SPDES, etc.):
City, Town, Village Board
City, Town, Village
Planning Board
Village Building
Department
City, Town Zoning Board
City, County Health
Department
Other Local Agencies
Regional Agencies
State Agencies
Permit/Approval Type
Submittal/
Approval Dates
Specific Agency
site plan, special use
permit, lot consolidation
building permit
Jan 2013
Village of Monticello
Planning Board
Village of Monticello Building
Department
GML 239m review
Authorization of the
issuance/expenditure of
tax-exempt bonds
Jan 2013
Sullivan County Department
of Planning
Dormitory Authority of the
State of NY
Federal Agencies
IMPORTANT: For each agency approval needed or received, attach a list of the
full agency name, address, telephone number and contact person.
C. ZONING AND PLANNING INFORMATION
1.
Please attach a local zoning map showing zoning districts in the project area and environs and a copy of
the zoning regulations (or applicable portion) pertaining to the Proposed Project site. Attached as Figure 4.
2.
Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision?
Yes
No. If yes, indicate specific
decision required:
zoning amendment;
zoning variance;
special use permit;
subdivision (lot
consolidation);
site plan;
other (identify):
Page 9
new/revision of master plan;
resource management plan;
3.
What is the present zoning classification(s) of the site? Most of the site is Core Business (B2); southernmost
portion of site is Residence (RM)
Indicate block and lot numbers: Five parcels: Section 111 Block 6 Lots 2, 3, 4, 18, and 19 (Figure 5)
4.
What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning?
Units and/or floor area: Maximum building footprint of 11,499 GSF for the 1.32 acre site
5.
What is the proposed zoning of the site? N/A
6.
What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed
zoning? Units and/or floor area: N/A
7.
Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans?
Yes
No.
8.
If zoning variance is required, specify reason: N/A
parking, or
other.
height,
density,
bulk,
setback,
9.
What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a ¼-mile radius of proposed
action? Uses: commercial, retail, office, medical office, deli, religious, residential, recreational, community
services, park; Zoning: Core Business (B2), General Business (B1-0), Residential (RM)
10. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining, surrounding land uses within a ¼-mile radius?
Yes
No.
11. If the proposed action requires the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed?
1
What are the lot sizes proposed? Five existing lots are being consolidated into one 1.32 acre lot.
12. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation or extension of sewer or water
districts?
Yes
No. Identify district:
13. Will the proposed action create an increased demand for any community provided services (recreation,
education, police, fire protection)?
Yes
No. If yes, which services: fire, police, emergency services.
a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand?
Yes
No.
b. If capacity insufficient, explain how increased demand will be met:
14. Do you know of any public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts associated with
your proposal?
Yes
No. If yes, describe: _________________________________
Identify any groups or organizations opposed to project based on potential adverse environmental impacts
grounds: N/A
D. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS
Attach any additional information as needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts
associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or
avoid them.
a. If an environmental determination has been made previously in conjunction with an approval by
another government agency, submit for review all materials related to that determination: the written
determination (i.e., Negative Declaration, Conditional Negative Declaration, or Positive Declaration),
any Draft or Final Environmental Impact Statement, Findings Statement, environmental audit report,
or permit application(s). N/A
Page 10
b. Attach appropriate portion of applicable Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) "Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)" with the project boundaries located on that map. Attached as Figure 6.
c. Attach any cultural resources impact determination made so far by, or evidence of prior consultation
with the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation (OPRHP). If a project
review impact determination letter has been previously issued by the OPRHP include a copy of that
letter with this EAF. (A project review impact determination letter is required for all projects wholly
or partially funded or undertaken by the Dormitory Authority in accordance with the State Historic
Preservation Act of 1980.)
E. VERIFICATION
I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge.
Applicant/Project Sponsor Name
Authorized Representative’s Name
Representative’s Title
Chazen Engineering, Surveying, & Landscape Architecture Co., P.C.
Director, Landscape Architectural Services
Signature of Applicant or Authorized Representative
Date
1/11/13
If the action is in the Coastal Area, the Dormitory Authority will complete a Coastal
Assessment Form before proceeding with its assessment of the project.
Ethelbert B. Crawford Public Library Proposed Acquisition, Renovation, and Relocation LIST OF PERMITTING AGENCIES Village of Monticello Planning Board Village Hall 2 Pleasant Street Monticello, New York 12701 845‐794‐6130 James Snowden Village of Monticello Building Department Village Hall 2 Pleasant Street Monticello, New York 12701 845‐794‐6130 Ext. 310 Luiz C. Aragon, Commissioner Sullivan County Division of Planning and Environmental Management 100 North Street Monticello, NY 12701 845‐807‐0527 Salvatore Renda, AIA NCARB LEED® AP Regional Project Manager, Planning, Design & Quality Assurance Dormitory Authority of the State of New York 515 Broadway, Albany, NY 12207 518‐257‐3211 The Chazen Companies January 11, 2013 Project Site
Feet
0
Dutchess County Office:
21 Fox Street, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Phone: (845) 454-3980
Capital District Office:
547 River Street, Troy, NY 12180
Phone: (518) 273-0055
ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS
PLANNERS
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
1,000
Drawn:
PWC
Date:
01/09/2012
Project Location Map
Scale:
1 1 equals 2,000 "
Project:
Glens Falls Office:
100 Glen Street, Glens Falls, NY 12801
Phone: (518) 812-0513
Map Document: (R:\0\standards\Gis\ChazenGIS\8X11P_MinimalChazenAddress.mxt)
2/16/2010 -- 1:11:34 PM
2,000
31211.00
Sullivan County, New York
Figure:
1
Rd
wana
Ana
ross
sody
C
Ln
Rd
Ol d Li be rt y R d
Rhap
Con
La
te 1
7
ng
Lo
t
Rou
d
R
an
Rd
B a rd R d
D e la no V lg
Old
h
na
cord
Pa
rk
i
Rd
Monticello Raceway
l
e
17B
17
Fo s t e r Av
e
r
D
en
e
e
e
R
nt Dr
Rd
Dr
v i e w Av
e
Pl e a s a nt
N e ls ho re
e
Pl
ter
pen
Pl
A
W
av
irg
v
an
Elk D
r
d Av
e
Landfill
R ipple
Da
l S
t
Lutm
Fa
mon
Car
Benn
Ric
B e nt on A ve
d
ett S
t
so
ha
rd
Sp r
d
Mil
lR
d
ve
f A
v
ei
Service St
ay
ly
lif
On
A lv i n Ln
B el mo
dc
n A
v
St
ing
Ann
n Ave
l in A
ve
adw
er
oo
C l i n to
F ra n k
Bro
Harvey
ly S
t
Av
on
St
Emi
Ave
Pl
rnt
n
Tho
ffe
V ic k i e L
n
ke
Ave
St
Av e
Fis
iew
nd
ser
mo
rr
Fra
env
Ave
Av
ll
ne
sh
Bu
St
Jon
Ban
k
es
St
nce
Gre
n A
ve
Ham
Pl
Heigh
Rd
Av e
Community Services
St
St
ton
R ic h
ilto
St
My r t le Av e
t S
t
G o l ds t e in D r
Th e lm a
Dr
B urt o n Av e
W
id
ry L
Rec. &T e rEntertainment
n
Village of
Monticello
Dr
A ve
Ave
Commercial
t Ln
erg
ard
Sc ot
le D r
h il d
Dr
Ed w
Vacant
Miche
Ave
La
Ave
M i lt o n
e
Av
od
Wo
rris
Pa rk
Other Residential
on R d
e
St
Fe ldb
l Ln
Three Family
s
Mo
Ln
Av e
ma
Fairc
t
S a i n t J o hn S
Atwel
Ln
Av
Ham
Sta
ith
Dr
od
e
nc
w
Hig
re
d
Lloyd
Tho
a
Sm
Gri
ewo
A
nd
R
hla
t
n
S
ve
o
lo
Rit
den
al D
r
ll
Yo rk Av e
e
Av
ce
Su
ti
il
ts Dr
Two Family
key
Gar
Rd
Service Station
St
St
un
on
D
rea
H ei gh
A lv a
on
v il l e
ro
M
Rd
42
Fult
Project Site
St
E
aker
e S
t
Pr i
St
Ma p le L n
Single FamilyB
orn
Pe l
Osb
r
Flor
y
D
Ave
Ha
D il lo n
ne
en
m m it
Pi
re
Service Station
Lak
Ever g
pson
S
Park
e S
t
h
t
tag
Hig
R ock R
i d ge L n
Thom
Cot
en
Ln Do l lard Dr
o ny
rgis Rd
Ln
d
R
Stu
K in c h
iv
N
Rd
Dunbar
rm
St
t
ad
y
Ha
ve
t A
Ex
ro
t
r
Hi
r
S
no
fe
n
o n Ma
wa
Mo
B
es
llc r
so
W
De Hoyos Park
H a m il t
nt
a
ef
H il ls i d e A v e
Sh
as
Rd
Cry
Service Station
T yle r R d
l St
sta
Ple
r
ll
ne
Rd
way
J
Va
Race
Gre
ab
Li be rt y S t
St
Co
ld
Sp
r in
g R
d
Industrial
Public Services
Feet
Parks
0
Phone: (845) 454-3980
Phone: (518) 273-0055
ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS
PLANNERS
Glens Falls Office:
Phone: (518) 812-0513
2/16/2010 -- 1:11:34 PM
1,000
Drawn:
Date:
Neighborhood Map
Scale:
2,000
PWC
01/09/2012
1 1 equals 1,500 "
Project:
31211.00
Figure:
2
Figure 3
Concept Design
ETHELBERT B. CRAWFORD PUBLIC LIBRARY
Site Design
The property at 305 Broadway has street frontage on
Broadway and Prince Street and consists of 5 lots on
the village tax map. This 1.32 acre property easily accommodates a public park space, exceeds the local
parking requirements, and allows for a future building
addition. The existing building on the property has a
footprint of approximately 4,700 square feet. There is
an existing building immediately to the west of the existing building on the adjacent property. A 300 square
foot building addition at the south end of the existing building is planned to provide a second means of
egress.
Existing Building Owned by Others
A park space for outdoor library programs such as musical performances, poetry readings, and story hour
has been developed in the northeast corner of the
site. Parking will be accommodated at the south end
of the site.
The Library and park will be accessed by pedestrians
from Broadway. Vehicular access to the site will be
along the west side of the property along Prince Street.
A pedestrian pathway will extend from a decorative
archway at Broadway to the public parking lot. A side
entrance to the Library will be developed on the east
side of the building along the pedestrian pathway.
Pedestrian
Entrance
The parking lot will accommodate fifty-six parking
spaces, exceeding the forty spaces required by the
Village of Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Four of the
spaces will be wheelchair accessible spaces located
on the east side of the building proximate to the side
entrance. Additionally, a wheelchair accessible drop
-off area has been designed for the parking lot at the
south end of the building.
Vehicle
Entrances
The 305 Broadway property will provide the Library and
with a prominent public face on Broadway. The development of the Library and park will breathe new
life into this section of Broadway and compliment the
downtown revitalization efforts.
Site Plan
Scale : 1” = 80’-0”
Feasibility Study for New Public Library - 7
Li ber ty S t
St
ton
Pel
Pri
Lak
nce
ewo
od
St
Av e
Project Site
Core Business (B2)
General Business (B1-0)
Fult
on
St
Feet
Residence (RM)
Phone: (845) 454-3980
Phone: (518) 273-0055
ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS
PLANNERS
Glens Falls Office:
Phone: (518) 812-0513
2/16/2010 -- 1:11:34 PM
0
100
200
Drawn:
Date:
Zoning Map
Scale:
PWC
01/09/2012
1 1 equals 100 "
Project:
31211.00
Figure:
4
111.-3-16
19
- 20
111.5-
111.
-5
111
.-5
- 21
- 22
111.-5-1
8
-5
111.
-7
-4
-3
42
-4
111
.-6
Project Site
-6.1
-5
111
.-6
111.-7-7
111
.-6
111
.-6
-3
-2
111.-7-6
111.
-6
111
.-6
-1
111.
-7
111.
-7
-2
111.
-7
111.-7-1
111
.-5
- 23
111
.-5
111.-5-1
Pel
ton
111.5- 2
Li ber ty S t
4
111.-5-2
111.-3-15.1
St
111.-3-14
111.-6-19
111.-6-6.2
Lak
9
Pri
7- 1
nce
.111
ewo
od
St
111.-7-9
111.-7-20
115.-6-1
Av e
111.-7-8
111.-7-10
111.-6-18
111.-6-7
115.-6-2
111.-7-18
111.-7-11
115.-6-32
111.-6-17
111.-7-12
111.-6-10
111.-6-16
115.-6-30
111.-6-15
111.-7-14
111.-6-14
11
5
115.-4-7
. -4
-8
-4-
6
Fult
115
.
115.-4-5
111.-7-15
111.-7-13
-4-9
115.
Phone: (845) 454-3980
Phone: (518) 273-0055
ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS
PLANNERS
Glens Falls Office:
Phone: (518) 812-0513
2/16/2010 -- 1:11:34 PM
on
St
111.-6-11
111.-6-12
115.-6-29
Feet
0
115.-4-10
100
200
Drawn:
Date:
Tax Map
Scale:
PWC
01/09/2012
1 1 equals 100 "
Project:
31211.00
Figure:
5
Li ber ty S t
St
ton
Pel
Pri
Lak
nce
ewo
od
St
Av e
Project Site
Fult
on
St
Based on a review of GIS databases, there are no NYSDEC or
USFWI NWI wetlands, streams, or FEMA 100-Year Floodplains
Phone: (845) 454-3980
Phone: (518) 273-0055
ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS
PLANNERS
Glens Falls Office:
Phone: (518) 812-0513
2/16/2010 -- 1:11:34 PM
Feet
0
100
200
Drawn:
Date:
Water Resources Map
Scale:
PWC
01/09/2012
1 1 equals 100 "
Project:
31211.00
Figure:
State Environmental Quality Review
Environmental Assessment Form – Part II
Part 2 - PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE
Responsibility of Lead Agency
General Information (Read Carefully)
In completing the form, the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been
reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst.
The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible, the threshold of
magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for
most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a
Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3.
The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been
offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question.
The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question.
In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumulative effects.
Instructions (Read carefully)
a) Answer each of the 20 questions in PART 2. ANSWER Yes if there will be any impact.
b) Maybe answers should be considered a Yes answers.
c) In answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the
impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur, but
threshold is lower than example, check column 1.
d) Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any
large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that
it be looked at further.
e) If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact, then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3.
f) If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 cam be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small-to-moderate
impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must
be explained in Part 3.
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the
project site?
NO
YES
Examples that would apply to Column 2
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per
100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project
area excess 10%.
Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less
than 3 feet.
Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles.
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally
within 3 feet of existing ground surface.
Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve
more than one phase or stage.
Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than
1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year.
Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill.
Construction in a designated floodway.
Other impacts
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found
the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)
NO
YES
Specific land
forms:______________________________________________
___________________________________________________
1
Small to
Moderate
Impact
2
Potential
Large
Impact
3
Can Impact Be
Mitigated By
Project Change
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
IMPACT ON WATER
3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
(Under Articles 15,24,25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL)
NO
YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
Developable area of site contains a protected water body.
Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a
protected stream.
Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body.
Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland.
Other impacts: ____________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of
water?
NO
YES
A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water
or more than a 10-acre increase or decrease.
Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area.
Other impacts: ____________________________________________
________________________________________________________
5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?
Examples that would apply to column 2.
NO
YES
Proposed Action will require a discharge permit.
Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have
approval to serve proposed (project) action.
Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45
gallons per minute pumping capacity.
Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply
system.
Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater.
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently
do not exist or have inadequate capacity.
Proposed Action would use in excess of 20,000 gallons per day.
Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an
existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual
contrast to natural conditions.
Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical
products greater than 1,100 gallons.
Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or
sewer services.
Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may
require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage
facilities.
Other impacts:_____________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water
runoff?
NO
YES
Proposed Action would change flood water flows.
1
Small to
Moderate
Impact
2
Potential
Large
Impact
3
Can Impact Be
Mitigated By
Project Change
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
1
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion.
Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns.
Proposed Action will allow development in a designated
floodway.
Other impacts: _ .
7.
IMPACT ON AIR
Will proposed action affect air quality?
NO
YES
Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any
given hour.
Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton
of refuse per hour.
Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. Per hour
or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU’s per
hour.
Proposed Action will allow an increase in the amount of land
committed to industrial use.
Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial
development within existing industrial areas.
Other impacts: ______________________________________
__________________________________________________
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered
species?
NO
YES
Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or
Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site.
Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat.
Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year,
other than for agricultural purposes.
Other impacts: ______________________________________
__________________________________________________
9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or nonendangered species?
NO
YES
Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident
or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species.
Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of
mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important
vegetation.
2
Potential
Large
Impact
3
Can Impact Be
Mitigated By
Project Change
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
8.
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources?
NO
YES
Examples that would apply to column 2.
The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to
agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard
orchard, etc.
1
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile
of agricultural land.
The proposed action would irreversible convert more than 10
acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District,
more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land.
The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of
agricultural land management systems (e.g., substance drain
lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such
measures (e.g., cause a farm field to drain poorly due to
increased runoff)
Other impacts: _____________________________________
__________________________________________________
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
NO YES
(If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section
617.20, Appendix B.)
Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different
from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use
patterns, whether man-made or natural.
Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of
aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce
their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource.
Project components that will result in the elimination or significant
screening of scenic views known to be important to the area.
Other impacts: _____________________________________
__________________________________________________
IMPACTS ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance?
NO
YES
Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or
substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State
or National Register of historic places.
Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within
the project site.
Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for
archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory.
Other impacts: ______________________________________
___________________________________________________
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or
future open spaces or recreational opportunities?
NO
YES
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity.
A major reduction of an open space important to the community.
Other impacts: ______________________________________
___________________________________________________
2
Potential
Large
Impact
3
Can Impact Be
Mitigated By
Project Change
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
1
Small to
Moderate
Impact
2
Potential
Large
Impact
3
Can Impact Be
Mitigated By
Project Change
14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique
characteristics or a critical environment area (CEA) established
pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617-(g)?
NO
YES
List the environmental characteristics that caused the
designation of the CEA.
Proposed Action to locate within the CEA?
Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the
resource?
Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the
resource?
Proposed Acton will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the
resource?
Other impacts: _______________________________________
___________________________________________________
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
NO
YES
Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or
goods.
Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems.
Other impacts: ______________________________________
___________________________________________________
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
IMPACT ON ENERGY
16. Will proposed action affect the community’s source of fuel or
energy supply?
NO
YES
Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use
of any form of energy in the municipality.
Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an
energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50
single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or
industrial use.
Other impacts: ______________________________________
NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS
17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of
the Proposed Action?
NO
YES
1
Small to
Moderate
Impact
2
Potential
Large
Impact
3
Can Impact Be
Mitigated by
Project Change
Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive
facility.
YES
NO
Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day)
YES
NO
Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures.
YES
NO
Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a
noise screen.
YES
NO
Other impacts: ______________________________________
YES
NO
Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of
hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.)
in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a
chronic low level discharge or emission.
YES
NO
Proposed Action may result in the burial of “hazardous wastes” in any
form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating,
infectious, etc.)
YES
NO
Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied natural
gas or other flammable liquids.
Proposed Action may result in the excavation or other disturbance
within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous
waste.
YES
NO
YES
NO
The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the
project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%.
YES
NO
The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services
will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project.
YES
NO
Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals.
YES
NO
Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use.
YES
NO
Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures
or areas of historic importance to the community.
YES
NO
Development will create a demand for additional community services
(e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.)
YES
NO
Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects.
YES
NO
Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment.
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
18. Will proposed Action affect public health and safety?
NO
YES
Other impacts: ______________________________________
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR
NEIGHBORHOOD
19. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
NO
YES
Other impacts: __________________________________________
20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?
If any action in Part 2 is identified as a potential large impact or if you cannot determine the magnitude of impact, proceed to Part 3
Part 3 - EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS
Responsibility of Lead Agency
Part 3 must be prepared is one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be
mitigated.
Instructions:
Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2:
1. Briefly describe the impact.
2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project
change(s).
3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important.
To answer the question of importance, consider:
The probability of the impact occurring.
The duration of the impact.
Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value.
Whether the impact can or will be controlled.
The regional consequence of the impact.
Its potential divergence from local needs and goals.
Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact.
617.20
14.14-11 (9/95)
SEQR
Appendix B
State Environmental Quality Review
Visual EAF Addendum
This form may be used to provide additional information relating to Question 11 or Part 2 or the Full EAF.
(To be completed by Lead Agency)
Visibility
1. Would the project be visible from:
A parcel of land which is dedicated to and available to the
public for the use, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or
man-made scenic qualities?
An overlook or parcel of land dedicated to public
observation, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or manmade scenic qualities?
A site or structure listed on the National or State Registers of
Historic Places?
State Parks?
0-¼
Distance Between
Project and Resource (in Miles)
¼-½
½-3
3-5
5+
The State Forest Preserve?
National Wildlife Refuges and state game refuges?
National Natural Landmarks and other outstanding natural
features?
National Park Service lands?
Rivers designated as National or State Wild, Scenic or
Recreational?
Any transportation corridor of high exposure, such as part of
the Interstate System, or Amtrak?
A governmentally established or designated interstate or
inter-county foot trail, or one formally proposed for
establishment or designation?
A site, area, lake, reservoir or highway designated as scenic?
Municipal park, or designated open space?
County road?
State?
Local road?
2. Is the visibility of the project seasonal? (i.e., screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons)
Yes
No
3. Are any of the resources checked in question 1 used by the public during the time of year during which the project will be
visible?
Yes
No
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW (SEQR) SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT for the Ethelbert B. Crawford Public Library Proposed Acquisition, Renovation, and Relocation 479 Broadway, Village of Monticello Sullivan County, New York Prepared on behalf of: Ethelbert B. Crawford Public Library 393 Broadway Monticello, New York 12701 Prepared for Lead Agency: Prepared by: DASNY 515 Broadway Albany, New York 12207‐2964 Chazen Engineering, Land Surveying, & Landscape Architecture Co., DPC 21 Fox Street Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Lead Agency Contact: Matthew A. Stanley, AICP Senior Environmental Manager DASNY Office of Environmental Affairs One Penn Plaza, 52nd Floor New York, New York 10119‐0098 Telephone (212) 273‐5097 February 7, 2013 CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND NEED ...................................................................................... 1 Description of the Proposed Action and Proposed Project .................................................. 1 Location of the Proposed Project ........................................................................................ 1 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Project ....................................................................... 2 2.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .............................................................................. 3 Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy ...................................................................................... 3 Land Use ................................................................................................................ 3 Zoning ................................................................................................................... 3 Public Policy .......................................................................................................... 4 Socioeconomic Conditions .................................................................................................. 6 Community Facilities and Services ...................................................................................... 7 Open Space ......................................................................................................................... 7 Design and Visual Resources ............................................................................................... 8 Infrastructure, Energy and Solid Waste ............................................................................... 8 Sanitary Sewage System ....................................................................................... 8 Stormwater Drainage System. .............................................................................. 9 Water Supply ......................................................................................................... 9 Energy ................................................................................................................. 10 Solid Waste ......................................................................................................... 11 Natural Resources ............................................................................................................. 11 Topography and Geology .................................................................................... 11 Surface and Groundwater ................................................................................... 11 Wetlands ............................................................................................................. 12 Floodplains .......................................................................................................... 12 Threatened and Endangered Species. ................................................................. 12 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 12 Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................................... 13 Transportation .................................................................................................................. 14 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 15 Noise ................................................................................................................................. 15 Community Character ....................................................................................................... 16 Construction Impacts ........................................................................................................ 17 3.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 18 The Chazen Companies February 7, 2013 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location Map Figure 2: Neighborhood Map (1 Mile Radius) Figure 3: Preliminary Site Plan Figure 4: Village of Monticello Zoning Map Figure 5: Tax Parcel Map Figure 6: Natural Resources Map Figure 7: Orthophoto Figure 8: Study Area Map (0.25 Mile Radius) Figure 10: Natural Resources Map APPENDICES Appendix A: DASNY Smart Growth Impact Assessment Form Appendix B: Correspondence The Chazen Companies February 7, 2013 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND NEED Description of the Proposed Action and Proposed Project DASNY (“Dormitory Authority State of New York”) has received a funding request from the Ethelbert B. Crawford Public Library (“Crawford” or, the “Library”) pursuant to DASNY’s Public Libraries program for its Acquisition, Renovation and Relocation Project. For purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review (“SEQR”), the Proposed Action would consist of the Dormitory Authority’s authorization of the issuance of an amount not to exceed $5,340,000 in 30‐year, fixed‐rate, tax‐exempt bonds on behalf of Crawford. The proceeds of the bond issuance would be used to finance the Acquisition, Renovation and Relocation Project (the “Proposed Project”) on a 1.32‐acre site located at 479 Broadway in the Village of Monticello, Sullivan County, New York (the “Project Site”). The Proposed Project would involve the relocation of the existing 3,439‐gross‐square‐
foot (“gsf”) Crawford Library from its current location at 393 Broadway to a 1.32 acre site one third of a mile west at 479 Broadway in the Village of Monticello. The Proposed Project would include acquisition and renovation of the existing 9,400‐gsf building and construction of two small 300 gsf additions to the existing building for an entrance and a stairwell, with 56 associated parking spaces, including 4 handicapped spaces. The Proposed Project would provide needed space for modernization of the library to provide collection and computer space, administrative space, a community meeting room to accommodate 100 people, and an expanded children’s library. The Proposed Project would also include an outdoor park area with a pavilion for outdoor library programs. The Proposed Project would complement the Village’s downtown revitalization efforts. The existing library contains inadequate space and insufficient parking, as well as difficult vehicular access. Please refer to Figure 1 for a project location map. A preliminary site plan for the proposed new Library is included as Figure 3. Location of the Proposed Project The Proposed Project would be located at 479 Broadway (south side of Broadway), east of the intersection of Broadway and Prince Street, in the Village of Monticello, Sullivan County, New York (the “Project Site”). The Project Site consists of five tax parcels, identified on the Village of Monticello official tax map as follows: Page 1 of 25 The Chazen Companies February 7, 2013 Section‐Block‐Lot Parcel Address 111‐6‐2 479 Broadway 111‐6‐3 Broadway 111‐6‐4 Broadway 111‐6‐18 Prince Street 111‐6‐19 Prince Street Tax Parcel Lots 2 and 3 are owned by Kerendian Development, LLC, and Tax Parcel Lots 4, 18, and 19 are owned by Kerendian and Sons, Inc. The five lots total 1.32 acres. The 1.32‐acre Project Site has 118 linear feet of road frontage along Broadway and 255 linear feet of road frontage along Prince Street. The Proposed Project would encompass approximately 1.24 acres of the 1.32 acre Project Site. The remaining 0.08 acre of land consists of meadow and a small wooded area in the southern portion of the Project Site which would remain undisturbed. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Project The Library has been providing continuous service to the Monticello community since it opened in 1936. The Library estimates an annual average of 135 patrons per day. Approximately 220 patrons visit the library daily during the summer months, with winter attendance at approximately 120 patrons per day. In addition to routine daily visitors, the Library hosts special events for both children and adults. The largest event in the children’s area was attended by approximately 150 people. The largest event in the adult area/first floor was attended by approximately 50 people. The existing library is outdated, has inadequate space, and insufficient parking to meet the demands of the community. Vehicular access at the existing library is difficult. Attempts to fit the existing collection of over 30,000 books, 5,000 media items, 900 periodicals and to meet the modern demands of the community into the existing building has resulted in overcrowded conditions. The downturn in the economy and the public demand on the media collection have resulted in increased library use. Additionally, the existing library does not meet handicapped accessible requirements and does not have sufficient space for library programs. Architecture+ of Troy, New York, was retained by the Library in 2005 to explore various options for expansion of the Library. Architecture+ worked with the Library to explore the option of expanding the existing library on its current site. However, the existing site is narrow and steeply sloped, severely limiting the potential for expansion. A search for alternative sites was conducted. In 2011, the 1.32 acre property located at 479 Broadway became available, and Architecture+ prepared a Feasibility Study to assess the possibility of renovating the existing building and parking area for a new library. The Feasibility Study concluded that the 1.32 acre Project Site was appropriate for the relocation of the Library. Page 2 of 25 The Chazen Companies February 7, 2013 The proposed new Library facility is required in order to provide additional space for modernization of the library. The Proposed Project would provide collection and computer space, administrative space, a community meeting room to accommodate 100 people, and an expanded children’s library. The Proposed Project would also include an outdoor park area with a pavilion for outdoor library programs. Additionally, the Proposed Project would complement the Village’s downtown revitalization efforts by providing a community facility that would increase foot traffic, local business patronage, and acting as an anchor for the western edge of the downtown business district. 2.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy The study area for the land use and zoning assessment is delineated by a one‐quarter‐
mile radius around of the Project Site (Figure 8). Land Use Figure 2 shows land uses within a mile of the Project Site, and Figure 8 shows land uses within the 0.25 mile study area. According to Image Mate Online accessed through the Sullivan County Parcel Viewer, the Project Site is classified as a detached row building with retail, office, and storage space plus a parking lot. The 1.32‐acre Project Site is bounded to the north across Broadway by a church, an attached row building with a retail use and a restaurant, to the east by a parking lot and bakery, a municipal parking lot, and vacant residential land, to the south by an office building. The Project Site is bordered to the west by an attached row building with an attorney office and retail business (corner parcel) and across Prince Street by a professional building, retail business, a small office and a two‐family residence. The Proposed Project would result in a negligible increase in the density of development on the Project Site due to the 600 gsf of additions. However, the Proposed Project would not introduce a new land use trend or modify existing patterns, nor would it conflict with existing uses. The Proposed Project would be compatible with the surrounding land uses and consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not result in a significant adverse land use impact. Zoning According to the Village of Monticello zoning regulations, the Project Site is located mostly within the Village’s Core Business (B2) zoning district (A zoning map is included as Figure 4.) A small portion of the site along the southern property line is located within the Residence (RM) zoning district. No disturbance is proposed within the RM zoning district portion of the site. According to Chapter 280 Article IV of the Code of the Village of Monticello, Section 280‐10 (Attachment 10), Schedule of Use, Area, and Bulk Regulations, a “library” is a specially permitted use in the B2 zoning district. Permitted principal uses in the B2 zoning district include retail or wholesale business or service stores, professional business offices, funeral homes, eating and drinking establishments, commercial recreation activities, except drive‐in Page 3 of 25 The Chazen Companies February 7, 2013 establishments, research laboratories, and accessory buildings. Other specially permitted uses in the B2 Zoning District include places of worship, schools, colleges, day nurseries, museums, parks, playgrounds, and golf courses. The Planning Board is the permitting authority with regard to special use permits in the Village of Monticello. The area regulations for a specially permitted use in the B2 zoning district include a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet, minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, minimum side yard setback of 20 feet with minimum total sides of 50 feet, minimum rear yard of 35 feet, maximum coverage of 20%, and a maximum building height of 35 feet. The Proposed Project would be consistent with all of the stated purposes of the zoning regulations listed in Section 280‐3. The Proposed Project also would complement the Village’s proposed downtown revitalization efforts. Properties adjacent to the site to the east and west are zoned as B2. Properties to the rear of the Project Site (including a small portion of the Project Site as previously discussed) are zoned as RM. Properties across Broadway from the Project Site are zoned as General Business B1‐0. Other zoning districts within the one‐quarter‐mile zoning study area include General Business (B1, B1‐0), Light Industrial (BLI), and Residence (RM, R2, R2‐B). Public Policy The following section summarizes public policy initiatives that relate to the Project Site and study area. DASNY’s Green Construction Policy. DASNY promotes and supports sustainable design approaches and construction practices. DASNY’s internal processes facilitate integrated design and recognition of sustainable opportunities in every DASNY construction project regardless of its size or complexity. As of January 1, 2008, all DASNY projects that involve new construction, new additions, or significant renovation shall include submission to the United States Green Building Council (“USGBC”) with the goal of achieving a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (“LEED”®) Silver rating. The LEED® rating system aims to promote the design and construction of environmentally responsible buildings. In accordance with DASNY’s Green Construction Policy, each DASNY project shall register for LEED® at the start of the project, require energy modeling in schematic design, require a commissioning authority to be part of the design process during design development, and track, measure and prepare all LEED® documentation. A building attains LEED® status by amassing sustainability points for various design elements in the following five areas of sustainability: sustainable site development, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources and indoor environmental quality. As a track for documenting a sustainable approach to design and construction, the project sponsor would register the project with the USGBC for the goal of achieving a LEED Silver rating for the Proposed Project. Town of Thompson/Village of Monticello Comprehensive Plan. The Proposed Project would also support policies and objectives identified in the Town of Thompson/Village of Monticello Comprehensive Plan (“Comprehensive Plan”) adopted in May 1999, including Page 4 of 25 The Chazen Companies February 7, 2013 Appendix C, Broadway Design Guidelines. The Comprehensive Plan includes the following objective for Broadway in the Village of Monticello (Comprehensive Plan Section 2.4.5.2): Revitalize Broadway as a center of commerce and tourism by improving and making better use of its physical infrastructure, creating incentives for new investment, encouraging the restoration of the streetscape to its historical character and providing for those activities, uses and surroundings which make the street inviting and shopping comfortable. A combination of attractive shops, eating places, services, residences and civic institutions in a pedestrian friendly environment are demanded along with economical uses for second‐
story space above stores. The Proposed Project would meet this objective in that it would involve the renovation of an existing vacant building and its associated parking area to convert it to a Library use with an outdoor park area, linked to the Broadway streetscape, with a pavilion for outdoor Library programs. This community facility would increase pedestrian traffic and improve patronage of local businesses, as well as acting as an anchor for the western edge of the downtown business district. Section 2.4.5 lists recommendations for the Broadway area. Below are the recommendations that relate to the Proposed Project design. Employ design guidelines: New buildings should be of modest size, consistent with the scale of existing buildings, and directly front on and align with those structures uninterrupted by parking lots. Parking areas should be placed in the rear whenever possible and provide for connections with adjoining lots, rather than in the front as has been the case with some recent new development (e g the new pharmacy). Accessory buildings should also be located in the rear with access from rear alleys. lf placement in the near is not possible, parking lots should be located to the side with screening from the street. Other design guidelines found in Appendices B, C and D should also be employed in reviewing and approving Broadway site plans. Continue Broadway Revitalization Program: Various downtown improvement programs such as those developed by the Thompson‐Monticello Comprehensive Plan Committee and through the County's Main Street Redevelopment Center (as well as the County Industrial Development Agency) should be employed to the maximum extent possible so as to encourage facade and streetscape restoration. However, no public funding should be awarded co any improvement or restoration project which does not substantially comply with the Broadway Design Guidelines found in Appendix C hereof A sub‐committee of the Comprehensive Plan Committee should be established for purposes of reviewing and approving plans prior to authorizing the use of public funds on a project Cooperation agreements between the County, IDA and Village should so specify. Return Broadway to its historical character: Streetscape and facade improvements should all focus on returning Monticello to its historical character ‐ the way it looked just after the last turn of the century. Artificial or trendy themes outside of this character should be avoided. The following suggested streetscape plan prepared by Kenneth Goldfarb, AIA (a Page 5 of 25 The Chazen Companies February 7, 2013 member of the Comprehensive Plan Committee) should be used as a model of application for the Broadway Design Guidelines found in Appendix C hereof and as an example of how to make effective use of the public space along Broadway. Other recommendations will be forthcoming as a result of the Broadway Project, a New York State funded street improvement project engendered by the efforts of the Committee and Sullivan County. The Proposed Project would be consistent with these Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the Broadway area of the Village of Monticello and the Comprehensive Plan’s appendices, including Appendix C, Broadway Design Guidelines. The Proposed Project includes new landscaping and an outdoor park area with a pavilion. A proposed decorative archway along Broadway would lead to a pedestrian pathway that would extend to the Library’s public parking lot and park area, and another pedestrian pathway would enter the Library site from Prince Street. The proposed vestibule on the east side of the building would be contextually compatible with the historical character of the Village and add to the aesthetics of the site as viewed from Broadway. The existing building with the proposed additions would be consistent in size and scale with other buildings in the vicinity, and directly fronts on Broadway. No accessory buildings are proposed. Parking is located to the rear of the building with the exception of four handicapped spaces, which are located on the east side of the building. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the Village’s downtown revitalization efforts in that it provides a community facility that would increase pedestrian traffic and improve patronage of local businesses, as well as acting as an anchor for the western edge of the downtown business district. The improvements associated with the Proposed Project would retain the historical character of the existing building while improving the façade of the building on both the north and east sides. The east elevation of the building would be greatly improved with the addition of brick facing and new windows on both the first and second stories. The existing extensive paved/gravel parking area would be converted to a more aesthetically pleasing parking lot, and new landscaping, pedestrian paths, park area and pavilion would visually improve the project site. Smart Growth. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the State Smart Growth Infrastructure Policy Act (“SSGPIPA”) of 2010 and would generally support the smart growth criteria established by the legislation. The compatibility of the Proposed Project with the ten criteria of the SSGPIPA is detailed in the attached Smart Growth Assessment Form (Appendix A). The implementation of the Proposed Project would be consistent with the relevant public policy initiatives that guide development both within the project study area and throughout the County. The Proposed Project would not result in any significant adverse public policy impacts. Socioeconomic Conditions The Proposed Project would be located in the downtown area of the Village of Monticello, Sullivan County, New York. The Project Site is included in U.S. Census Tract 36105‐
9518. This tract served as the study area for the socioeconomic conditions assessment. According to 2010 U.S. Census Data, the study area has a total population of approximately Page 6 of 25 The Chazen Companies February 7, 2013 6,726 and Sullivan County has a population of 77,546. Relative to the state and the county, the study area is substantially more ethnically diverse. For instance, 30 percent of the study area is of Hispanic origin, compared to 14 percent of the county and 18 percent of the state. Approximately 66 percent of state residents and 82 percent of county residents are White, Non‐Hispanics, compared to 50 percent of persons residing in the study area. Similarly, almost 16 percent of the state’s population and 9 percent of the county population is African American, versus 32 percent of the study area. In addition, 6 percent of the study area population identified themselves as a person of two of races, compared to 3 percent of state and county residents. The Proposed Project would consist of the relocation of an existing facility with a minor addition of space to meet the needs of the Library. The preparation of a socio‐economic profile is not warranted for a project of this scale. Only negligible project‐related impacts are anticipated. The Proposed Project would be designed to serve all local community needs. The Proposed Project would not result in the displacement of any residences or businesses, nor would it divide or alter existing neighborhoods or adversely affect the cohesion of the surrounding community. In fact, the Proposed Project would serve to enhance the community atmosphere by providing a modernized library facility which would draw community members together. Therefore, significant adverse socioeconomic impacts would not occur as a result of the Proposed Project. Community Facilities and Services Police protection for the Project Site is provided by the Village of Monticello Police Department, which has a force that includes 25 full‐time officers and two civilians. The Police Department patrols the area 24‐hours a day, 365 days a year. The Town of Thompson Police Department and the Sullivan County Sheriff’s Department can provide assistance to the Village Police, as needed. Emergency and fire protection services are provided by the Monticello Fire Department, which consists of four professional career firefighters and 65 professional volunteer firefighters. Both the Fire and Police Departments are expected to have the capacity to serve the Proposed Project, since the project represents a relocation of an existing facility into an existing building, with only minor site modifications. The Proposed Project would not displace or physically alter existing community facilities or services, nor would it introduce a new residential population or result in substantial increase in patrons or employees. As such, significant adverse impacts to community facilities or services would not occur as a result of the Proposed Project. While the Proposed Project would not affect police protection, coordination would be necessary during construction to ensure no disruption/interruption of services. Open Space The Project Site does not contain any designated publicly‐accessible open space or recreation resources, nor is it currently utilized by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area. The Proposed Project would not introduce a new open space user Page 7 of 25 The Chazen Companies February 7, 2013 population or adversely affect any existing public open spaces. The 1.32‐acre Project Site currently contains only 0.11 acre of green space, which consists of 0.05 acre of brushland and 0.06 acre of wooded land. The Proposed Project would retain the 0.06 acre of wooded land and 0.02 acre of the brushland, and would convert 0.46 acre of impervious surface to new lawn/landscaped areas. The Proposed Project would also include an outdoor park area with a pavilion for outdoor Library programs. Significant adverse impacts to open space on the Project Site or in the surrounding community would not result from the Proposed Project. Design and Visual Resources A design/visual resources analysis is generally warranted if a proposed action would result in buildings with substantially different bulk or setbacks than the existing buildings in the vicinity of the proposed action; or if a proposed action would result in substantial new, above‐ ground construction in an area that contains important (and publicly‐accessible) views, natural resources or landmark structures. The Proposed Project would include two 300‐gsf additions and modifications to the existing parking area to add landscaping and an outdoor park area with a pavilion for outdoor Library programs. The proposed new construction would be consistent with the surrounding uses and nearby residential uses. The Project Site is within 400 feet of the Rialto Theater, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Proposed Project would not have the potential to block any important views of this historic resource. The design of the proposed Library would be carefully coordinated to enhance the aesthetics of the site. The proposed additions would not be substantially different from existing, surrounding development with respect to height, bulk, form, setback, size, scale, or use. Views, visual corridors, and the context of historic structures and natural features also would not be substantially affected. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse impacts with respect to design or visual resources. Infrastructure, Energy and Solid Waste Sanitary Sewage System The Project Site is served by the Village of Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant which is located at 38 Plant Drive in the Village of Monticello. The Proposed Project would not be expected to result in additional employees or patrons, but rather, it would provide much needed space to alleviate overcrowding. Therefore, it would not be expected to generate additional sanitary sewage. Many of the previous uses of the Project Site were likely to generate more wastewater than the proposed use of the site as a Library. According to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's Design Standards for Wastewater Treatment Works, the Library would generate an estimated 1,000 gallons of sanitary sewage per day on average. It is anticipated that the Village of Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant would have the capacity to treat the wastewater generated by the Page 8 of 25 The Chazen Companies February 7, 2013 proposed facility. The Proposed Project would not result in significant, adverse sanitary sewage‐related impacts. Stormwater Drainage System. The 4,700 gsf footprint of the existing building is proposed to be increased by 300 gsf for construction of a stair tower for a second means of egress. The Proposed Project would result in a net decrease in impervious area by approximately 30% (largely attributed to the replacement of gravel areas with lawn), thus resulting in a decrease in stormwater runoff volume from the Project Site. The total disturbance of the site for construction is anticipated to be less than one acre – therefore not requiring a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“SPDES”) General Permit for stormwater runoff from construction activities. The Project Site generally drains from east to west with overland flow eventually discharging to existing drainage structures located along the edge of road on the western boundary of the site. Stormwater would be managed on site and ultimately discharge to the municipal storm sewer system at an existing catch basin at Prince Street. A hydraulic analysis would be performed to demonstrate a no‐net‐increase in storm water discharge for storm water quantity control compliance. It is anticipated that the Proposed Project design would result in capture and treatment of the water quality volume from impervious areas by the implementation of standard practices and application of green infrastructure techniques. The Proposed Project would comply with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) and LEED water quantity and quality criteria. As the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in storm water volume or rate of discharge, significant adverse impacts are not anticipated. Water Supply The Proposed Project would be served by the Village of Monticello public water system. The design capacity of the Village Water Treatment Plant, located on Kiamesha Lake, is two million gallons per day (gpd). In addition, the Village water system has three production wells with a design capacity of 300,000 gpd per day, for a total capacity of 2.3 million gpd. The Library would generate demand for an estimated 1,000 gallons of water per day on average. The Proposed Project would not be expected to result in any new employees or patrons, but rather, the new facility would provide much needed space to alleviate overcrowding. Many of the previous uses of the Project Site were likely to utilize more water than the proposed use of the site as a Library. It is anticipated that sufficient capacity exists to supply the estimated 1,000 gpd of water that would be necessary for the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse impacts to the public water supply. Page 9 of 25 The Chazen Companies February 7, 2013 Energy Electrical power is provided to the Project Site by the power grid operated by New York State Electric and Gas (“NYSEG”), located at 18 Link Drive, Binghamton, New York. The Proposed Project would utilize a heating, ventilation and air conditioning (“HVAC”) system with packaged rooftop air conditioning units with liquid petroleum (“LP”) gas‐fired furnace section, integrated air conditioning through direct expansion cooling coils, and packaged condensing section. Heating hot water would be made with a high‐efficiency condensing gas‐fired boiler. All terminal units including Variable Air Volume (“VAV”) terminal unit reheat coils, cabinet heaters and fin tube radiation units would be controlled with two‐way modulating valves to allow for reduced pumping energy based on load conditions and operational diversity. The boiler would have sealed combustion and flue would be positive pressure and appropriate for condensing boilers. The boiler manufacturer would be Aerco or similar and nominal size is expected to be approximately 250,000 British Thermal Units per hour (“BTUh”). A new 1,000 gallon LP gas tank would be buried on the site and underground piping would be run to rise to roof equipment and the boiler room. The Library is considering an option to upgrade the HVAC system to a more energy efficient system utilizing a geothermal heat pump system. The Proposed Project would comply with Executive Order 111, “Green and Clean” New York State building guidelines and the Energy Conservation Construction Code of New York State 2010 (“ECCCNYS”). Executive Order 111 and ECCCNYS require that the proposed building’s design demonstrate advanced energy performance. Thus, the Proposed Project would incorporate energy‐saving features. The Library is considering LEED certification as a track for additional documentation of advanced energy performance. The potential energy conservation measures that are currently being considered by the design team include: o Improved envelope insulation; Improved glazing properties; o Improved lighting power density (interior and exterior); Daylighting responsive lighting and controls; o High‐efficiency, gas‐fired condensing boiler; o Supply distribution thru VAV terminal boxes with hydronic heat reheat coils; o Dedicated outdoor air system with energy recovery ventilation; and o Direct digital control (“DDC”) system to control all new equipment. It is anticipated that the existing power grid system currently operated by NYSEG would have the capacity to supply electricity to the proposed building; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse energy impacts. Page 10 of 25 The Chazen Companies February 7, 2013 Solid Waste The Proposed Project would generate approximately 0.20 tons of solid waste per month. Solid waste generated by the Proposed Project would be carted by a licensed waste hauler through the Village of Monticello sanitation department for disposal at the Sullivan County Landfill located on East Broadway in the Village of Monticello. The amount of solid waste that would be generated by the Proposed Project is expected to be similar to that generated by the existing library, and is likely to be less than solid waste generated by some of the previous uses of the Project Site; therefore, significant adverse solid waste impacts would not occur as result of the Proposed Project. Natural Resources A 0.25 mile radius of the Project Site was used to identify the area of interest with respect to natural resources. As depicted in the Natural Resources Map (Figure 6), there are no NYSDEC regulated wetlands or streams, no National Wetland Inventory wetlands, nor 100‐year or 500‐year Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) floodplains within the 0.25 mile study area. Topography and Geology The Proposed Project would be located in the Village center, and the general topography of the Project Site and the surrounding area is level. The Proposed Project would utilize an existing developed site and would involve only minor site disturbance. The existing elevations of the surrounding features would not be altered. Test borings were performed at the Project Site as part of the Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment dated May 31, 2012. Ten borings were drilled for the subsurface investigation that was completed for the Proposed Project. These borings ranged in depth from 8 feet to 14.6 feet. Bedrock was encountered at 11.6 feet in one boring and not encountered in any other boring. Surface and Groundwater The Project Site is not located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer, as designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”). Based on ten borings that were drilled for the Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment dated May 31, 2012, which ranged in depth from 8 feet to 14.6 feet, water was encountered at depths ranging from 5 feet to greater than 12 feet. The Proposed Project would result in a slight decrease in stormwater runoff due to the replacement of approximately 0.46 acre of impervious surface with lawn/landscaped area. The Proposed Project would result in a net decrease in impervious area by approximately 30% (largely attributed to the replacement of gravel areas with lawn), thus resulting in a decrease in stormwater runoff volume from the Project Site. The total disturbance of the site for construction is anticipated to be less than one acre, therefore not requiring a SPDES General Permit for stormwater runoff from construction activities. Stormwater would be managed on site and ultimately discharge to the municipal storm sewer system at an existing catch basin at Prince Street. In the outdoor park area, tree plantings would be utilized as green infrastructure measures to further reduce the effective amount of Page 11 of 25 The Chazen Companies February 7, 2013 impervious surfaces in the drainage subarea. As such, the Proposed Project would not have a substantial contribution to off‐site stormwater flow. As discussed above, to ensure minimal impact to surface waters and groundwater, appropriate control measures would be implemented during construction. As necessary, best management practices and engineering controls would be implemented to mitigate potential erosion and sedimentation impacts during and post construction. If needed, such measures may include the use of silt fencing, sediment berms, hay bales, and other erosion and sediment control structures. Implementation of green infrastructure measures would minimize the potential for impacts. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse impacts to surface waters or groundwater. Wetlands No NYSDEC‐regulated wetlands or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) jurisdictional freshwater wetlands are located on or adjacent to the Project Site (Figure 6), nor within the natural resources study area. As discussed in the “Surface and Groundwater” section, the Proposed Project would result in a slight decrease in stormwater runoff and stormwater contaminants. During construction, erosion and sediment control measures would be implemented as necessary to ensure sediment remains onsite. Thus, significant adverse wetland impacts would not occur as a result of the Proposed Project. Floodplains As shown in Figure 6, no 100‐year and 500‐year Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) floodplains are situated within the natural resources study area. As such, the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse effects to floodplains. Threatened and Endangered Species. The NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper on the NYSDEC website indicates that there are no known occurrences of endangered, threatened, or rare species or significant natural communities on or in the vicinity of the Project Site. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) website provides lists of species of concern that are known or believed to occur in a particular county. The list for Sullivan County includes the Dwarf Wedge Mussel (endangered), Northern Wild Monkshood (threatened), and Bog turtle (threatened). However, the Project Site as it exists is developed and located in an urban area; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse impacts to threatened and endangered species or ecologically‐sensitive areas. Cultural Resources The Proposed Project was reviewed in conformance with the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 (“SHPA”), especially the implementing regulations of section 14.09 of the Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law (“PRHPL”), as well as with the requirements Page 12 of 25 The Chazen Companies February 7, 2013 of the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), dated March 18, 1998, between DASNY and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (“OPRHP”). Cultural resources include both historic architectural and archaeological resources. Architectural resources typically consist of historically‐important buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts, and may also include bridges, canals, piers, wharves, and railroad transfer bridges that may be wholly or partially visible above ground. Archaeological resources generally include subsurface physical remains of the prehistoric, Native American, and historic periods, such as burials, foundations, artifacts, wells, and privies. The study area for archaeology is the area that would be disturbed by construction activities, which is generally delineated by area of disturbance within the Project Area. An online mapping program/tool provided by the State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) of OPRHP identifies the Project Site as being located within an archaeologically‐sensitive area. However, given that the proposed area of disturbance was previously disturbed during construction of the existing structures, it is not expected to be archaeologically‐sensitive. The historic architectural study area includes the area within 400 feet of the Project Site. The only structure or property listed on the State or National Register of Historic Places (“S/NR”) that is within 400 feet of the Project Site is the Rialto Theater, identified as S/NR №. 00NR01697. This structure is located approximately 350 feet northeast of the Project Site on Broadway. In addition, the Church of St. Peter, located across Broadway from the Project Site, was built in 1920 and thus would be considered eligible for the S/NR. DASNY has submitted the Proposed Project to OPRHP for review. In a letter dated January 25, 2013, OPRHP requested plans and elevations of the Proposed Project. These materials were sent to OPRHP on February 5, 2013 and are under review by OPRHP. It is the opinion of DASNY that the potential effect created by the Proposed Project on any historic resource would not be adverse, since it would not alter, directly or indirectly, any of the S/NR‐eligibility characteristics of those resources. Hazardous Materials The hazardous materials assessment is based on the findings of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (“ESA”) Report that was prepared for the Proposed Project.1 The purpose of the Phase I ESA was to identify potential Recognized Environmental Conditions (“RECs”) on the Project Site and the potential implications of those RECs for the development of the Proposed Project. According to the Phase 1 ESA dated March 28, 2012, historical site uses include auto repair work and gasoline storage/fueling which suggest potential impacts to site groundwater, soil and vapor quality. Additionally, evidence exists of reported and potential contamination by 1
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Kerendian Development, LLC, Property, March 28, 2012, The Chazen Companies for the Ethelbert B. Crawford Public Library. Page 13 of 25 The Chazen Companies February 7, 2013 adjacent uses, which include a dry cleaner, undertaker, and gasoline tanks. Based on these findings, the Phase I ESA recommended that a Phase 2 ESA be conducted. A Phase 2 ESA2 was completed on May 31, 2012, which included ground penetrating radar screening, indoor air testing, soil testing, and groundwater testing. The site contains an above‐
ground propane storage tank (1,450± gallons). The ground penetrating radar screening identified two anomalies on the radargrams which are suggestive of filled former tank excavations. The filled areas measured approximately 18 by 12 feet and approximately 3 by 10 feet. Low concentrations of solvent compounds were detected in one groundwater sample, but are not indicative of a significant release. The Phase 2 ESA report concludes that additional investigation and/or remedial action are not recommended at this time. The report recommends that future development plans include health & safety and water management contingencies if groundwater is encountered during redevelopment of the site, and the use of a vapor barrier and/or a venting horizon and mechanism under any new planned structures, particularly near the southern end of the existing structure. Under the assumption that the Phase 2 ESA recommendations would be adhered to, the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the exposure of people or the environment to hazardous materials. No significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials would be anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project. Transportation Traffic generated by the Proposed Project would be expected to be similar to traffic generated at the existing Library, located a third of a mile east of the Project Site on the same roadway (Broadway). The Proposed Project would provide needed additional space to alleviate overcrowding and adequate parking, so the number of employees and patrons are not expected to increase significantly as a result of the Proposed Project. Additionally, many of the library patrons are expected to be pedestrians and bicyclists due to the site’s location in the village center. It should be noted that the Proposed Project would consist of reoccupancy of an existing building, and many of the historic uses of the building would generate more traffic than the proposed use. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008, estimates 1.03 vehicle trip ends (“vte’s”) per employee per weekday a.m. peak hour and 5.40 vte’s per employee per weekday p.m. peak hour for Land Use Code 590, Library. Therefore, the Proposed Project with 8 employees would be expected to generate 8 vte’s per a.m. peak hour and 43 vte’s per p.m. peak hour. Municipal parking is available within 500 feet of the Proposed Project. 2
Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Crawford Library, May 31, 2012, The Chazen Companies for Lomonaco & Pitts, Architects, P.C. Page 14 of 25 The Chazen Companies February 7, 2013 The Proposed Project has been designed to efficiently accommodate pedestrian movements and would not substantially alter existing pedestrian patterns in the vicinity of the Project Site. The design of the Proposed Project allows pedestrian access from the north along Broadway and from the west along Prince Street. The Proposed Project would also provide handicapped accessibility, whereas the existing Library does not. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not result in significant transportation impacts, and the existing infrastructure is expected to be adequate to handle any slight increase in traffic resulting from the Proposed Project. Air Quality Ambient air quality is affected by numerous sources and activities that release pollutants into the atmosphere, including mobile and stationary sources of air emissions. Mobile sources of air emissions include background traffic and traffic resulting from the Proposed Project. The Project Site is not located adjacent to a major highway with a high level of background traffic. As previously discussed, traffic generated by the Proposed Project would be similar to traffic generated by the existing Library. Since the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in vehicular emissions, significant adverse mobile‐source air quality impacts would not occur. Stationary sources of air emissions would include proposed operational sources associated with the Proposed Library, in addition to other nearby sources in the study area that may impact the Proposed Project. The proposed HVAC system would utilize packaged rooftop air conditioning units with LP gas‐fired furnace section, integrated air conditioning through direct expansion cooling coils, and packaged condensing section. Heating hot water would be made with a high‐
efficiency condensing gas‐fired boiler. The Proposed Project would consist of the relocation of an existing facility in an urban section of the Village, with a minor addition of space to meet the needs of the Library. Only negligible project‐related impacts are anticipated. Therefore, a screening analysis for stationary sources is not warranted for this Project, and no significant impacts to air quality would be anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project. Noise Noise sources that may be typically encountered in a built environment such as the Project Site include mobile (i.e., moving) and stationary (i.e., fixed) sources. Potential mobile noise sources include motor vehicles traveling on roadways, airplanes and trains; while potential stationary sources are generally limited to existing facilities’ HVAC systems. The noise assessment for the Proposed Project considers the potential for the Proposed Project to result in mobile source and stationary source noise impacts, as well as the potential for the Proposed Project, as a sensitive receptor, to be affected by mobile and stationary sources of noise. As discussed above, traffic generated by the Proposed Project would be expected to be similar to traffic generated at the existing Library located a third of a mile east of the Project Site on Page 15 of 25 The Chazen Companies February 7, 2013 the same roadway. As such, it would not substantially affect existing traffic levels in the vicinity of the Project Site and does not require a detailed analysis for vehicular traffic noise. Similarly, the Proposed Project would not be located close enough to a rail line or airport to require a detailed analysis of noise. No further analysis of project‐induced mobile source impacts is warranted and significant adverse mobile source noise impacts would not occur. Typically, stationary noise sources associated with building operations (e.g. mechanical or HVAC equipment) are designed and/or placed to minimize noise emission, especially for new and/or renovated buildings. The stationary noise sources that would be introduced by the Proposed Project would be enclosed within the building. It is assumed that other nearby stationary sources of noise associated with mechanical or HVAC operations also are shielded or enclosed. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in noise impacts attributed to stationary sources, nor would it be subject to significant adverse noise impacts from existing proximate sources. Community Character Community character is a term used to describe the various elements that contribute to a community or neighborhood — such as land use, architectural design, visual resources, historic resources, socioeconomics, traffic and noise — from which an area derives its distinct "personality.” A community character assessment considers how a proposed action may affect the context and feeling of a neighborhood by collectively accounting for its effects on the contributing elements. In general, this assessment is warranted for actions with the potential to result in significant adverse impacts in one of the technical areas, or if it may moderately affect several of these areas. A preliminary screening for community character was conducted for the Proposed Project. The study area for this screening analysis matches the land use study area and is delineated by a 0.25 mile radius around the Project Site. Located in downtown area of the Village of Monticello, the study area can generally be described as a developed area with a high level of pedestrian activity. The study area contains primarily a mix of commercial, office, community services, and residential uses. Residential uses occupy the southern and northeast portions of the study area. Based on the results of the screening, the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse impacts in the following areas: land use and zoning; socioeconomic conditions; open space and recreational facilities; design and visual resources; cultural resources; noise; or transportation. Additionally, the Proposed Project would not have the potential to affect the defining features of the community through a combination of moderate effects in relevant technical areas. As such, the Proposed Project does not require a detailed neighborhood character assessment. The Proposed Project would not adversely affect the cohesion of the surrounding residential community, nor would it displace any residences or businesses. In fact, the Proposed Project would serve to enhance the community character by providing a modernized library facility which would draw community members together. The construction and operation of the Page 16 of 25 The Chazen Companies February 7, 2013 Proposed Library would not result in significant adverse effects on the community character of the surrounding area. Construction Impacts Construction of the proposed Library would be expected to occur over a nine month period, starting in the fall of 2013 and ending approximately in the summer of 2014. The following construction activities are expected to occur within the Project Site: o Interior renovations which includes some demolition; o General excavation and earthwork — operations to prepare the Project Site; o Grading, as necessary, to provide positive drainage for surface storm water flow and to achieve the planned improvements; o Foundations — preparation for, and construction of, foundation structures; o Site work ‐ installation of asphalt parking areas, curbing and pedestrian walkways; o Utilities – storm water management facilities, installation of buried LP gas tank and piping; and o Finishing — cleanup and landscaping, including outdoor garden and educational area. Equipment such as bulldozers, scrapers, backhoe, loaders, trucks, and generators are typically used during construction. It is expected that primary construction access to the Project Site would be from Prince Street. A stabilized construction entrance, signage, and temporary chain link fence and gate would likely be required to prevent unauthorized parking, pedestrian interference, and other impediments to construction vehicle access. Equipment staging and material storage would likely be provided from a storage area situated in or near the construction site. The Phase I ESA recommends that future development plans include health & safety and water management contingencies if groundwater is encountered during redevelopment of the site, and the use of a vapor barrier and/or a venting horizon and mechanism under any new planned structures, particularly near the southern end of the existing structure. Accordingly, construction of the Proposed Project and would not result in significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials. As discussed above in the “Natural Resources” section, stormwater would be managed on site and ultimately discharge to the municipal storm sewer system at an existing catch basin at Prince Street. Construction‐related impacts would be temporary in nature and limited to the duration of the construction period. The Proposed Project would generate approximately 15 to 20 jobs during construction, which would have a beneficial effect on the local economy. No significant Page 17 of 25 The Chazen Companies February 7, 2013 adverse impacts related to noise, vibration, utilities, water quality, traffic, air quality, safety and security, hazardous materials or the disruption of businesses would be expected during construction of the proposed new building. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse construction impacts. 3.0 REFERENCES Ethelbert B. Crawford Public Library Feasibility Study for Renovation of 479 Broadway for New Public Library prepared by Architecture+, Friedman Fisher, Zaremba‐Sopko Associates, P.C., and Troy Management Group, Inc. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, March 28, 2012, prepared by The Chazen Companies for the Ethelbert B. Crawford Public Library. Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment May 31, 2012, prepared by The Chazen Companies for Lomonaco & Pitts, Architects, P.C. Development Assessment Impact Handbook, Urban Land Institute, Washington D.C., 1994. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Report, 8th Edition, 2008. Village of Monticello Code, online version, http://www.ecode360.com/MO0528 accessed January 2013. Village of Monticello website, http://www.goodsearch.com/search‐web?utf8=%E2%9C% 93&keywords=village+of+monticello+ny , accessed January 2013. Sullivan County website, http://co.sullivan.ny.us/, accessed January 2013. Sullivan County Parcel Viewer, http://webapps.co.sullivan.ny.us/scimap/main.asp, accessed January 2013. SDG Systems Development Group Image Mate Online website, http://www.sdgnys.com/imo, accessed January 2013. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation website, http://nysparks.com/shpo/online‐tools/, accessed January 2013. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's Design Standards for Wastewater Treatment Works, 2012 draft. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Division of Water Technical and Operational Guidance, Series (2.1.3), Primary and Principle Aquifer Determinations, Table 1, 1990. The Atlas of Eleven Selected Aquifers in New York, U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the NYS Department of Health, 1982. Page 18 of 25 The Chazen Companies February 7, 2013 EPA website (www.epa.gov/region02/water/ aquifer/). US Fish and Wildlife Service website, http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/ countySearch!speciesByCountyReport.action?fips=36105, accessed January 2013. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service website http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/ efotg_locator.aspx?map=US accessed January 2013. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Environmental Resource Mapper, http://www.dec.ny.gov/imsmaps/ERM/viewer.htm, accessed January 2013. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation website, http://www.dec.ny.gov/, accessed January 2013. National Park Service website, http://www.nature.nps.gov/nnl/, accessed January 2013. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Map Service Center, http://www.fema.gov/ national‐flood‐insurance‐program/map‐service‐center, accessed January 2013. Page 19 of 25 The Chazen Companies February 7, 2013 FIGURES The Chazen Companies February 7, 2013 ³
Project Site
Feet
0
Phone: (845) 454-3980
Phone: (518) 273-0055
ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS
PLANNERS
1,000
Drawn:
PWC
Date:
01/09/2012
Project Location Map
Scale:
1 inch=2,000 feet
Project:
Glens Falls Office:
Phone: (518) 812-0513
2/16/2010 -- 1:11:34 PM
2,000
Figure:
31211.00
1
wana R
d
ros s
A na
Ln
Rd
C on
La
an
R
d
Rd
Vlg
h
na
c or
te 1
7
³
d
Rd
17
d
R
d
d A
ve
nt Dr
El k
Rock R
idge Ln
Dr
e
v i ew A
ve
e
Av
ter
Pl
St
pen
ett
N el s ho r
Av e
Fi s
ke
C ar
so
rd
ha
R ic
B e nto n A ve
B elmo
Service Station
_
^
ay
Mil
l R
d
y R
d
ei
adw
Lu t
H arve
On
A lv i n L n
Bro
B en n
e
n A
v
St
n Ave
lin A
ve
l S
t
man
Dr
Pl
A
av
R i pp l e
v
Pl e as a nt
Pl
on
n
Ln
ve
e
V ick ie
ly
Av
C l i n to
Fra n k
e
Th o
ffe
Av
rnt
Gri
Av e
St
rr
er
liff
nd
A ve
mo
iew
s er
H am
St a
Fra
t
S
e
en
Av
Gre
ll
ne
sh
Bu
St
St
k
Jo n
B an
ce
env
Rd
W
mon
Da
Av e
Gre
v i l le
i rg
R ic h
dc
n
es
St
St
t on
A ve
ly S
t
H ei g h
Rd
Ave
ry
Rec. &T e rEntertainment
Ln
P r in
Pe l
oo
id
Commercial
t Ln
Dr
W
il t o
St
M yr t le Av e
t S
t
G ol d s t ei n D r
Th e lm a
Dr
B ur t o n Av e
Sc o t
e le
Pl
Village of
Monticello
Dr
A ve
Vacant
Mich
e rg
hild
Dr
ard
Other Residential
on Rd
rris
ve
k A
H am il t
Em i
Edw
Three Family
e
St
Fe ldb
Dr
Fa i rc
Fl o r
re
w
Av e
e
Av
od
Wo
Ln
Ln
s
Mo
M i lt o n
l
ma
Ln
Av
den
t
S a i nt J oh n S
A twel
Th o
a
H am
ith
p so n
Service Station
_
^
ing
e
nc
hla
La
R it
Pa r
Av e
Ll o yd
Gar
Sm
St
od
nd
t
d
ke y
S
R
ts D r
Two Family
rea
A lv a
on
St
Sp r
o
n
42
Fu l t
ewo
e
Av
ll
lo
H ig
ce
il
·
Æ
e S
t
h
St
ti
D
ak er H
e ig h
St
Li b er t y
on
E
Single FamilyB
e S
t
Project Site
M a p le L n
Sh
orn
tag
H ig
Service Station
al D
r
St
M
Rd
y
Osb
r
St
Yo r k A ve
Ha
D il l o n
D
t Av
e
_
^
ne
en
mmi
Pi
De Hoyos Park
re
Park
La k
Ev er g
^
_
_
^
Su
d
R
H i ll s i d e A ve
St
Th om
C ot
A nn
r
en
iv
N
Rd
D u nb ar
L n D o l la r d Dr
o ny
r gis Rd
ve
t A
xt
t
rm
Stu
es
llcr
E
ad
y
Ha
r
S
n
Hi
n
o n Ma
ro
wa
Mo
B
nt
a
fe
so
W
or
Fo s t er A
ve
as
ef
D
C ry
Service Station
_
^
T y le r R d
d
l R
ng
·
Æ
t
l S
s ta
P le
r
l
ne
Rd
w ay
J
Va
R ac e
un
17B
i
ro
·
Æ
rk
Fa
_
^
ve
l
A
ta
Pa
Ln
b
e
S
Monticello Raceway
K in c h
Rd
Lo
t
B ar d
Rou
so d y
C
O l d L i be r t y R d
D el a no
Old
R ha p
Co
ld
Sp
ri n
Landfill
_
^
g R
d
Community Services
Industrial
Public Services
Feet
0
Parks
Phone: (845) 454-3980
Phone: (518) 273-0055
ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS
PLANNERS
Glens Falls Office:
Phone: (518) 812-0513
2/16/2010 -- 1:11:34 PM
750
1,500
Drawn:
PWC
Date:
Neighborhood Map
01/09/2012
Scale:
1 inch=1,500 feet
Project:
Figure:
31211.00
23
Figure 3
Concept Design
Site Design
The property at 305 Broadway has street frontage on
Broadway and Prince Street and consists of 5 lots on
the village tax map. This 1.32 acre property easily accommodates a public park space, exceeds the local
parking requirements, and allows for a future building
addition. The existing building on the property has a
footprint of approximately 4,700 square feet. There is
an existing building immediately to the west of the existing building on the adjacent property. A 300 square
foot building addition at the south end of the existing building is planned to provide a second means of
egress.
A park space for outdoor library programs such as musical performances, poetry readings, and story hour
has been developed in the northeast corner of the
site. Parking will be accommodated at the south end
of the site.
The Library and park will be accessed by pedestrians
from Broadway. Vehicular access to the site will be
along the west side of the property along Prince Street.
A pedestrian pathway will extend from a decorative
archway at Broadway to the public parking lot. A side
entrance to the Library will be developed on the east
side of the building along the pedestrian pathway.
Pedestrian
Entrance
The parking lot will accommodate fifty-six parking
spaces, exceeding the forty spaces required by the
Village of Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Four of the
spaces will be wheelchair accessible spaces located
on the east side of the building proximate to the side
entrance. Additionally, a wheelchair accessible drop
-off area has been designed for the parking lot at the
south end of the building.
Vehicle
Entrances
The 305 Broadway property will provide the Library and
with a prominent public face on Broadway. The development of the Library and park will breathe new
life into this section of Broadway and compliment the
downtown revitalization efforts.
Site Plan
Scale : 1” = 80’-0”
Feasibility Study for New Public Library - 7
Hi g
rs
on
St
Co t
tag
³
St
e S
t
Co
t ta
ge
Lan
L ot
e
Av
ll
ne
St
o n St
den
Be d
Dr
f ord
Av e
Lin
col
n
Pl
Core Business (B2)
General Business (B1)
General
R i t Business (B1-0)
a
Av e
child
Phone: (518) 273-0055
ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS
PLANNERS
Glens Falls Office:
Phone: (518) 812-0513
2/16/2010 -- 1:11:34 PM
St
An n
Pl
Mad
elin
e A
ve
Feet
My r t l e A v e
200
400
0
Light Industrial (BLI)
Phone: (845) 454-3980
Pl
St
Residence (R2-B)
Fair
elt
ce
St
sev
Ro y
t
C r o s(R2)
Residence
s
Av e
S
e S
t
Ro o
od
o
Residence (RM)
ewo
ll
Lak
ce
l Dr
ti
F lo r a
on
Lak
Yo rk A ve
M
Sa
int
Gar
St
Av e
es
Pri
Fu lt
hn
Sum
mit
S ta n to n
Jo
St
Jon
nc e
St
on
s
Pelt
lme
Av e
Ho
St
k S
t
Ba n
e S
t
St
orn
Pa
Osb
rk
Av
e
Project Site
th
sh
No r
Bu
g
df i
Av e
kin
osa
·
Æ
Ext
Ro
Par
42
St
eld
Av e
ff e
Li b ert y S t
Je
Go vern men t D r
1/4 Mile Buffer
h
Drawn:
GHM
Date:
Zoning Map
01/30/13
Scale:
1 inch=400 feet
Project:
Figure:
31211.00
4
5
111.-6-19
111.-5-1
8
111.5-
111.-6-6.2
Lak
nc e
Pri
9
7-1
.111
ewo
od
St
111.-7-9
115.-6-1
Av e
111.-7-8
111
.-6-6
.1
111
.-6-5
111
.-6-4
Project Site
111
.-6-3
111
.-6-2
111
.-6-1
111.-7-7
³
19
111
.-5-2
0
111
.-521
42
111.-7-6
111.-7-20
111
.-5-2
2
·
Æ
111
.-7-5
111.
-7-4
111.-7-1
111.
-7-3
111.
-7-2
Pel
to n
St
Li b ert y S t
111.-5-1
111
.-523
111.-5-2
111.-3-15.1
111.5- 24
111.-3-16
111.-3-14
111.-7-10
111.-6-18
111.-6-7
115.-6-2
111.-7-18
111.-7-11
115.-6-32
111.-6-17
111.-7-12
111.-6-10
111.-6-16
115.-6-30
111.-6-15
111.-7-14
111.-6-14
Fu lt
115.-4-7
11
5.4-8
6
-4115
.
115.-4-5
111.-7-15
111.-7-13
-4-9
115.
Phone: (845) 454-3980
Phone: (518) 273-0055
ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS
PLANNERS
Glens Falls Office:
Phone: (518) 812-0513
2/16/2010 -- 1:11:34 PM
on
St
111.-6-11
111.-6-12
115.-4-10
115.-6-29
Feet
0
100
200
Drawn:
PWC
Date:
Tax Map
01/09/2012
Scale:
1 inch=100 feet
Project:
Figure:
31211.00
52
Hi g
rs
on
St
Co t
tag
³
St
e S
t
Co
t ta
ge
L ot
Lan
e
Av
ll
ne
St
sh
th
Project Site
to n St
den
Be d
Dr
f ord
Av e
Lin
col
n
Pl
a
Av e
child
St
An n
Pl
Mad
elin
e A
ve
Based on a review of GIS databases, there are no NYSDEC or
USFWI NWI wetlands, streams, or FEMA 100-Year or 500-Year Floodplains
Pl
St
F lo r a
Ri t
Fair
elt
ce
t
s S
t
sev
Ro y
S
Cr os
Av e
o
e S
t
Ro o
od
ll
ewo
ce
Lak
ti
l Dr
on
Lak
Yo rk A ve
M
Sa
int
Gar
St
Av e
es
Pri
Ful
hn
Sum
mit
S ta n to n
Jo
St
Jon
nc e
St
on
s
Pelt
lme
Av e
Ho
St
k S
t
Ba n
e S
t
St
orn
Pa
Osb
rk
Av
e
No r
Bu
g
df i
Av e
kin
osa
·
Æ
Ext
Ro
Par
42
St
eld
Av e
ff e
Li b ert y S t
Je
Go vern men t D r
1/4 Mile Buffer
h
FeetMy r t l e A
ve
200
400
0
Drawn:
PWC
Date:
Phone: (518) 273-0055
ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS
PLANNERS
Glens Falls Office:
Phone: (518) 812-0513
2/16/2010 -- 1:11:34 PM
Natural Resources Map
01/09/2012
Scale:
1 inch=400 feet
Project:
Figure:
31211.00
6
8
Pel
to n
St
Li b ert y S t
³
Pri
Lak
nc e
ewo
od
St
Av e
Project Site
Fu lt
on
St
Feet
0
Phone: (845) 454-3980
Phone: (518) 273-0055
ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS
PLANNERS
Glens Falls Office:
Phone: (518) 812-0513
2/16/2010 -- 1:11:34 PM
100
200
Drawn:
PWC
Date:
Orthophoto Map
01/09/2012
Scale:
1 inch=100 feet
Project:
Figure:
31211.00
76
1/4 Mile Buffer
Je
ff
G ov e r n m e nt
Dr
H ig
er
so
n
Co
tta
ge
h
³
St
St
St
N or
th
tta
ge
St
Ex t
St
e
e ld
df i
e
La n
ne
ll
Service Station
Av
L ot
Av
Ro
g
sh
_
^
kin
St
42
Li b er t y
Pa r
·
Æ
osa
A ve
_
^
Co
Park
A ve
s S
t
Fu l
mit
St
es
St
Av e
den
int
Gar
Dr
Li n
Sa
Pa r k
Jo
hn
Av e
Su m
St a n t on
t on
St
Av e
me
Jo n
ood
ew
Pe l
La k
Pr i
t on
nce
St
St
Wo
H ol
k
St
e S
t
B an
orn
od
Av
e
Osb
Bu
Project Site
B ed
Single Family
ford
co l
n
A ve
Pl
Two Family
Vacant
C ros
Commercial
Rec. & Entertainment
Community Services
s St
Industrial
Fa i r
ch il
elt
Pl
Mad
e l in
e A
ve
Feet
k A
ve
0
200
M yr t le Av e
400
Y or
Parks
s ev
d P
l
R it
a
Public Services
Av
e
St
R oo
St
t
e S
t
yce
S
La k
Ro
lo
Other Residential
Dr
el
l
ic
A nn
Three Family
nt
Fl o ra
o
Yo r k A ve
M
Phone: (845) 454-3980
Phone: (518) 273-0055
ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS
PLANNERS
Glens Falls Office:
Phone: (518) 812-0513
2/16/2010 -- 1:11:34 PM
Drawn:
GHM
Date:
Study Area Map
01/30/13
Scale:
1 inch=400 feet
Project:
Figure:
31211.00
8
APPENDIX A DASNY Smart Growth Impact Statement Assessment Form The Chazen Companies February 7, 2013 DASNY
(Dormitory Authority State of New York)
SMART GROWTH IMPACT STATEMENT ASSESSMENT FORM
Date:
Project Name:
February 11, 2013
Ethelbert B. Crawford Public Library Acquisition, Renovation and Relocation
(2013 Financing Project)
Project Number: N/A
Completed by:
Matthew A. Stanley, AICP
Senior Environmental Manager, Office of Environmental Affairs
This Smart Growth Impact Statement Assessment Form (“SGISAF”) is a tool to assist the
applicant and DASNY (“Dormitory Authority State of New York”) Smart Growth Advisory
Committee in deliberations to determine whether a project is consistent with the New York
State Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (“SSGPIPA”) (Article 6 of the New York
State Environmental Conservation Law). Not all questions/answers may be relevant to all
projects.
Have any other entities issued a Smart Growth Impact Statement with regard to this project? (If so,
attach same).
Yes
No
1. Does the project advance or otherwise involve the use of, maintain, or improve existing
infrastructure? Check one and describe:
Yes
No
Not Relevant
The Project Site is located in the downtown business district of the Village of Monticello,
Sullivan County, and a developed municipal center with existing infrastructure. The
Proposed Project would utilize existing water, sanitary sewer, and storm water and energy
infrastructure. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be supportive of this criterion.
2. Is the project located wholly or partially in a municipal center, characterized by any of
the following: Check all that apply and explain briefly:
A city or a village
Within the interior of the boundaries of a generally recognized college, university,
hospital, or nursing home campus
Area of concentrated and mixed land use that serves as a center for various activities
including, but not limited to:
Central business districts (such as the commercial and often geographic heart of a
city, “downtown”, “city center”)
Page 1 of 6
Main streets (such as the primary retail street of a village, town, or small city. It is
usually a focal point for shops and retailers in the central business district, and is most
often used in reference to retailing and socializing)
Downtown areas (such as a city’s core (or center) or central business district, usually
in a geographical, commercial, and community sense).
Brownfield Opportunity Areas (http://nyswaterfronts.com/BOA_projects.asp)
Downtown areas of Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan areas
(http://nyswaterfronts.com/maps_regions.asp)
Locations of transit-oriented development (such as projects serving areas that have
access to mass or public transit for residents)
Environmental Justice areas (http://www.dec.ny.gov/public/899.html)
Hardship areas
The Project Site is located in the downtown business district of the Village of
Monticello, Sullivan County, and a municipal center; therefore, the Proposed Project
would be supportive of this criterion.
3. Is the project located adjacent to municipal centers (please see characteristics in question
2, above) with clearly defined borders, in an area designated for concentrated
development in the future by a municipal or regional comprehensive plan that exhibits
strong land use, transportation, infrastructure and economic connections to an existing
municipal center? Check one and describe:
Yes
No
Not Relevant
Monticello, Sullivan County, an area covered by the Village of Monticello
Comprehensive Development Plan; therefore, the Proposed Project would be supportive
of this criterion.
4.
Is the project located in an area designated by a municipal or comprehensive plan, and
appropriately zoned, as a future municipal center? Check one and describe:
Yes
No
Not Relevant
5. Is the project located wholly or partially in a developed area or an area designated for
concentrated infill development in accordance with a municipally-approved
comprehensive land use plan, a local waterfront revitalization plan, brownfield
opportunity area plan or other development plan? Check one and describe:
Yes
No
Not Relevant
Monticello, Sullivan County, an area covered by the Village of Monticello
Page 2 of 6
Comprehensive Development Plan; therefore, the Proposed Project would be supportive
of this criterion.
6. Does the project preserve and enhance the state’s resources, including agricultural lands,
forests, surface and groundwater, air quality, recreation and open space, scenic areas,
and/or significant historic and archeological resources? Check one and describe:
Yes
No
Not Relevant
There is no agricultural land on the project site. The potential effects of the Proposed
Project on natural resources, air quality, open space, visual resources, and historic and
archeological resources were analyzed in the SEQR review undertaken by DASNY. The
SEQR review found that the projects would not have any significant adverse impacts on
these technical areas. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be supportive of this
criterion.
7. Does the project foster mixed land uses and compact development, downtown
revitalization, brownfield redevelopment, the enhancement of beauty in public spaces, the
diversity and affordability of housing in proximity to places of employment, recreation
and commercial development and/or the integration of all income and age groups?
Check one and describe:
Yes
No
Not Relevant
The Proposed Project would: foster mixed land uses and compact development by siting
a modern community facility in a downtown business district; complement the Village of
Monticello’s downtown revitalization efforts by providing a community facility that
would increase foot traffic, local business patronage, and act as an anchor for the western
edge of the downtown business district; and, foster the enhancement of beauty in public
spaces by providing an outdoor park area with a pavilion for outdoor library programs.
In addition, the library and its programs would be available to community residents of all
income and age groups. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be supportive of this
criterion.
8. Does the project provide mobility through transportation choices, including improved
public transportation and reduced automobile dependency? Check one and describe:
Yes
No
Not Relevant
The Proposed Project would not involve the construction of transportation facilities;
however, it would be located in a downtown business district, thereby encouraging
pedestrian and bicycle usage. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be supportive of
this criterion.
Page 3 of 6
9. Does the project demonstrate coordination among state, regional, and local planning and
governmental officials? (Demonstration may include SEQR coordination with involved
and interested agencies, district formation, agreements between involved parties, letters
of support, State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“SPDES”) permit
issuance/revision notices, etc.). Check one and describe:
Yes
No
Not Relevant
DASNY, as SEQR lead agency, included as involved or interested agencies several local
and state agencies, including the Sullivan County Executive; Sullivan County Division of
Planning & Environmental Management; Village of Monticello; Town of Thompson;
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; and New York State Office
of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be
supportive of this criterion.
10. Does the project involve community-based planning and collaboration? Check one and
describe:
Yes
No
Not Relevant
The Proposed Project is subject to public review in accordance with SEQR and the
Village of Monticello’s zoning and site plan approval process, including circulation of
the SEQR materials to involved agencies and interested parties, including the public; a
public hearing and comment period prior to the approval of the project. Therefore, the
Proposed Project would be generally supportive of this criterion.
11. Is the project consistent with local building and land use codes? Check one and describe:
Yes
No
Not Relevant
The use and development of land within the Village of Monticello is subject to review
and approval by the Village’s Building Department, therefore, the Proposed Project
would be supportive of this criterion.
12. Does the project promote sustainability by strengthening existing and creating new
communities which reduce greenhouse gas emissions and do not compromise the needs
of future generations?
Yes
No
Not Relevant
Page 4 of 6
All DASNY projects that involve new construction, new additions, or significant
renovation shall include submission to the United States Green Building Council
(“USGBC”) with the goal of achieving a Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (“LEED”®) Silver rating. The LEED® rating system aims to promote the design
and construction of environmentally responsible buildings. In accordance with
DASNY’s Green Construction Policy, each DASNY project shall register for LEED® at
the start of the project, require energy modeling in schematic design, require a
commissioning authority to be part of the design process during design development, and
track, measure and prepare all LEED® documentation. A building attains LEED® status
by amassing sustainability points for various design elements in the following five areas
of sustainability: sustainable site development, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere,
materials and resources and indoor environmental quality. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would be supportive of this criterion.
13. During the development of the project, was there broad-based public involvement?
(Documentation may include SEQR coordination with involved and interested agencies,
SPDES permit issuance/revision notice, approval of Bond Resolution, formation of
district, evidence of public hearings, Environmental Notice Bulletin (“ENB”) or other
published notices, letters of support, etc.). Check one and describe:
Yes
No
Not Relevant
As noted above, the SEQR review was coordinated among several local and state
agencies. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be supportive of this criterion.
14. Does the Recipient have an ongoing governance structure to sustain the
implementation of community planning? Check one and describe:
Yes
No
Not Relevant
As an important community facility, the library maintains an ongoing relationship with
the surrounding community. Development of the Proposed Project would continue and
strengthen this relationship. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be supportive of this
criterion.
Page 5 of 6
DASNY has reviewed the available information regarding this project and finds:
The project was developed in general consistency with the relevant Smart Growth
Criteria.
The project was not developed in general consistency with the relevant Smart Growth
Criteria.
It was impracticable to develop this project in a manner consistent with the relevant Smart
Growth Criteria for the following reasons:
I, President of DASNY/designee of the President of DASNY, hereby attest that the Proposed
Project, to the extent practicable, meets the relevant criteria set forth above and that to the
extent that it is not practical to meet any relevant criterion, for the reasons given above.
Signature
Jack D. Homkow, Director, Office of Environmental Affairs
Print Name and Title
February 11, 2013
Date
Page 6 of 6
APPENDIX B Correspondence The Chazen Companies February 7, 2013 Alfonso L. Carney, Jr., Chair
Paul T. Williams, Jr., President
February 5, 2013
Mr. Kenneth Markunas
Historic Sites Restoration Coordinator
Bureau of Technical Preservation Services
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation
and Historic Preservation
Peebles Island, P. O. Box 189
Waterford, New York 12188-0189
Re:
DASNY State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Ethelbert B. Crawford Public
Library Acquisition, Renovation and Relocation Monticello, Sullivan County, New York
(OPRHP №. 13PR00392)
Dear Mr. Markunas:
DASNY (“Dormitory Authority State of New York”) is in receipt of your letter of January
25, 2013, concerning the Ethelbert B. Crawford Public Library Acquisition, Renovation and
Relocation in Monticello, Sullivan County.
In response, enclosed are the following materials for your review:
Existing “As-Built” Floor Plans (Irace Architecture, 8/15/2008);
Existing “As-Built” Elevations (Irace Architecture, 8/15/2008); and
Scope of Work for Renovation For New Public Library (Architecture +, 1/16/2013)
Should you have any questions or comments, please submit them to me at: Mr.
Matthew A. Stanley, AICP, Senior Environmental Manager, Office of Environmental
Affairs, DASNY, One Penn Plaza, 52nd Floor, New York, New York 10119-0098 or
telephone at (212) 273-5097. If you need to contact DASNY’s Agency Preservation Officer
directly, please contact Mr. Jack D. Homkow, Director, Office of Environmental Affairs,
DASNY, One Penn Plaza, 52nd Floor, New York, New York 10119-0098 or telephone him at
(212) 273-5033.
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
NEW YORK OFFICE
BUFFALO OFFICE
515 Broadway
Albany, New York 12207-2964
One Penn Plaza, 52nd Floor
New York, New York 10119-0098
539 Franklin Street
Buffalo, New York 14202-1109
T 518.257.3000
F 518.257.3100
T 212.273.5000
F 212.273.5121
T 716.884.9780
F 716.884.9787
www.dasny.org
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Stanley, AICP
Senior Environmental Manager
Office of Environmental Affairs
Enclosure
cc:
Alan Barrish (Crawford Library) (via email)
Mary Paige Lang-Clouse (Crawford Library) (via email)
David Gubits, Esq. (Jacobowitz & Gubits, LLP) (via email)
Jack D. Homkow (DASNY) (w/o enc.)
Sara P. Richards, Esq. (DASNY) (w/o enc.)
Sal Renda (DASNY) (via email)
SEQR File
Pedestrian
Entrance
Vehicle
Entrances
Site Plan
Scale : 1” = 60’-0”
Existing First Floor Plan
NTS
Proposed First Floor Plan
NTS
Existing Second Floor Plan
NTS
Proposed Second Floor Plan
NTS
Basement Floor Plan
NTS
Proposed East Building Elevation
NTS
Proposed North Building Elevation (Broadway)
NTS

February 12, 2013

Transcription

Similar documents

event flyer

Offham Parish Council “Our Village” photo competition

VM - Village Market

versione PDF - Appartamenti Casa vacanza Kaporo

Printable PDF Version - The Monticello Classroom!

Belstone - Dartmoor National Park

Dalmatisch stenen huis | U823 (6+2)

Bluffton-Low Country Village Flyer.indd

PLAN COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT

village ii - Henry S. Miller